Best AGP Card for less < $150

[Peter007]

Help, I"m completely out of loop with the current graphic card as I'm still stuck on my ancient ATI 9500. What are some of the best choices for AGP graphic cards that offer good performance (good longevity) and good value?

Can someone please explain ATI and nVidia's modeling number? I'm finding out that a 7300 isn't always faster than a 6800 etc..; or the ATI 9600 is actually slower than 9500.

Newegg has thXFX 256mb Geforce 7600GS for $125 - anything better?
Or should I buy this XFS 256mb 6800XT for $127 for $2 more
is 6800XT better than 7600GS????

 

[Auric]

You may be better off waiting a bit for higher-performance current and forthcoming cards to come down to your budget as they are already close (7600GT, 1650XT, etc.). Just search the forum for AGP there have been a number of good threads and new product news lately.

 

[happy medium]

Add this card to you options http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814102606

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Basically, for the current generation only, the last three numbers can be treated as a guide. From 100 to 500 is for office type graphics, such as Powerpoint presentations. The higher the number, the prettier the picture, but just too slow for gaming. For an occasional gamer, a 600 performance number is the mark to go for, such as 7600 GT and X1650 XT. For a regular game player, choose a card with "800" in its name. The fastest cards are the 900 and 950 cards.

You are correct that the old Radeon 9600 cards were less speedy than the 9500 Pro had been. Only the 9600 XT overlapped the 9500 plain card. The nVidia FX cards' numbering was also pretty screwy as well, and the nVidia cards in the sixth generation were close to current number schemes, although the 6600 plain was not quite a gamer-level card, and the original PCI-e 128 Bit 6200 was more of a "500 level" part, at almost the same performance as the 6600 (they shared cores, actually).

Now, having cleared up the numbers for you, let's look at the suffix letters used. For nVidia, an "XT" is not good, same as for ATI, a "GT" is not a top card. GTX is the top one for nVidia, then they go GT > GS > plain > LE = XT > VE > TC, with TC the worst. ATI has its XTX on top, followed by XT > Pro > GTO > plain > GT > SE > Hypermemory.

The 6800 XT is probably about the same as a 7600 GS, but both only incrementally better than a 6600 GT. The 7600 GT is better than a 6800 GS. ATI is about to toss its own "flyer" into the not- really descriptive ranks with the X1300 XT card being merely a renamed X1600 Pro.

 

[Peter007]

KIWI - thanks you for taking your time writing this. But the more I read it, the more confused I am about it. I REALLY HATE THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT of either ATI/nVIDIA. Thank you for point out that [XT] do not mean better performance which I naturally assume.

If someone may be BOLD ENOUGH - doesn't need to be perfect - to list the Vidocards
in the order of performance from top to bottom:

I'm looking for something like this

#1 - ATI X1950....
#2 - nVidia 7900
#3 - nVidia 7900GS etc....

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The only relatively complete listings of that nature I've seen are at the Oblivion (Elder Scrolls IV role-playing game) Hardware Forum. A member there named NotTheKing maintains it. Tom's Hardware does fairly rigorous testing regularly, and lists the cards in the order they show up in benchmarking utilities.

Depending on how reliant a given game is on Shader Rendering, ATI cards are much better in Oblivion, for instance, because of how heavily that game uses the SM 2 functions in its graphics. Games using an OpenGL graphics engine (competes with the MS DirectX) run better on nVidia cards. If I can just calm the nVidia Fan-Crowd a little, I'll list my recollection of NotTheKing's list (remember, it's "Oblivion-centric") at the top end:

X1950 XTX
X1950 XT
X1900 XTX
X1900 XT
7950 GX2
7900 GTX
7900 GT
X1900 GT
7900 GS

If you want a link to NotTheKing's list, I'll look that up, but it's on a different computer. The forums themselves are at:

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?&showforum=3

 

[Auric]

Rankings 'n' specs:

chare

techarp

tomshardware

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: Kiwi
The only relatively complete listings of that nature I've seen are at the Oblivion (Elder Scrolls IV role-playing game) Hardware Forum. A member there named NotTheKing maintains it. Tom's Hardware does fairly rigorous testing regularly, and lists the cards in the order they show up in benchmarking utilities.

Depending on how reliant a given game is on Shader Rendering, ATI cards are much better in Oblivion, for instance, because of how heavily that game uses the SM 2 functions in its graphics. Games using an OpenGL graphics engine (competes with the MS DirectX) run better on nVidia cards. If I can just calm the nVidia Fan-Crowd a little, I'll list my recollection of NotTheKing's list (remember, it's Obliuvion-centric) at the top end:

X1950 XTX
X1950 XT
X1900 XTX
X1900 XT
7950 GX2
7900 GTX
7900 GT
X1900 GT
7900 GS

If you want a link to NoTheKing's list, I'll look that up, but it's on a different computer. The forums themselves are

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?&showforum=3

It goes a little more like this....

X1950 XTX
X1950 XT
X1900 XTX
X1900 XT
7950 GX2
7900 GTX
X1900 GT
7900 GT
7900 GS