Need upgrade from GeForce 5600 128 mb for $100

[DarkPrime]

I'm looking to do a nice upgrade to my Geforce 5600 AGP card for about $100 if it's feasible in the first place. Late in the year I plan on upgraded to a PCIExpress board and then playing "hand me down" to the parts in my main machine to the other machines in the house.

What i'm looking for is what should I look to get in the $50 to $100 range in AGP that will give me a nice performance boost (got another machine that can take my 5600 from this one). I don't mind buying used as I have before and have always had sucess. If for that price range I cannot get anything thats much better, I want to know that too.

 

[Mloot]

Look in the FS/FT forum. You can usually find AGP 6600GT's for about $100 or so, and one of those would be a pretty significant upgrade over your FX 5600.

 

[DarkPrime]

I've looked for those, but I seem to never find anyone sellign the GT version for $100 shipped.

 

[Malladine]

Then just get a 9800pro - easily available for under $100.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: DarkPrime
What i'm looking for is what should I look to get in the $50 to $100 range in AGP that will give me a nice performance boost (got another machine that can take my 5600 from this one). I don't mind buying used as I have before and have always had sucess. If for that price range I cannot get anything thats much better, I want to know that too.

I've given up on ever finding anything in the site's for sale forum, as long as AT can't fix its search function. eBay works quite well enough for me.

However, your options are more extensive than here and eBay. The sheer wealth of video options today is practically overwhelming, with three generations of GPU's all in the market at various price points. There is a new nVidia "7300" coming in a month or so, too.

I liked the original "pre-TC" 128 Bit, 128 MB AGP Gefore 6200, before it was mostly pushed aside by the vastly inferior 6200 TC 64 Bit cards. There are still tons of new 9600GT's, but sometimes the pricing on those is less than acceptable. You should be able to find a new 9600 Pro for about $75-80, and that beat any FX card slower than a 5700 Ultra. The X800 family of ATI cards is harder to find in budget AGP, and the X300 isn't a major improvement over your current card anyway; I'm not sure about something named "X550" that I just read about. It might be worth looking into.

 

[DarkPrime]

Thanks for the advice. I'm watching a few cards on ebay to see what they do before I try and grab one.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: DarkPrime
I'm looking to do a nice upgrade to my Geforce 5600 AGP card for about $100 if it's feasible in the first place. Late in the year I plan on upgraded to a PCIExpress board and then playing "hand me down" to the parts in my main machine to the other machines in the house.

What i'm looking for is what should I look to get in the $50 to $100 range in AGP that will give me a nice performance boost (got another machine that can take my 5600 from this one). I don't mind buying used as I have before and have always had sucess. If for that price range I cannot get anything thats much better, I want to know that too.

I would definitely look for a RADEON 9700Pro/9800/9800Pro (avoid the 9800SE, though). If you can find a 6600GT in that price range, it would be a great deal, but most are going for $125-150.

 

[Mloot]

How set are you on the $100 limit. Doing a quick search of the FS forum, I found one 6600gt that was $110, and a couple that were $115. If you absolutely won't spend more than $100, then there is also a 9800xt for $100/shipped in the FS/FT forum, also.

 

[unclebud]

nothing that can be gotten for $100 can beat a 5600
talking about a real world difference, not running q3 timedemo with sound off

what games/resolutions looking to play/improve?

older games gain no benefit from these new cards

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: unclebud
nothing that can be gotten for $100 can beat a 5600
talking about a real world difference, not running q3 timedemo with sound off

what games/resolutions looking to play/improve?

older games gain no benefit from these new cards

Um... you can get a 9800Pro for under $100 (or a 6600GT for a little over $100) that will blow the doors off of a 5600 in just about everything. A 9800Pro is seriously twice as fast as a vanilla 5600, and the 6600GT is about 25% faster than a 9800Pro.

Digit-life benchmarks. I had to go back to a year ago to actually find a review with a 5600 in it. See that card at the very bottom of the charts, right above the FX5200? That's the 5600. It falls over and dies if you try to run anything with pixel shaders or turn on AA/AF, and it's not real fast to begin with. At best it matches a RADEON 9600 in some of the tests without AA/AF.

Yeah, if all you play is the original Unreal Tournament or Half-Life at 1024x768 with no AA/AF, you might not see a huge difference. Run anything more demanding and the 5600 just isn't going to keep up.

 

[unclebud]

i don't care about all that mess
i care about REAL WORLD benchmarks on MY computers

"Yeah, if all you play is the original Unreal Tournament or Half-Life at 1024x768 with no AA/AF, you might not see a huge difference"

well then

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: unclebud
i don't care about all that mess
i care about REAL WORLD benchmarks on MY computers

Well, I did link you to a whole site that does very thorough gaming benchmarks. I can find more examples if you like.

If that's not enough for you, well, I'm not sure what would be.

"Yeah, if all you play is the original Unreal Tournament or Half-Life at 1024x768 with no AA/AF, you might not see a huge difference"

well then

You want to play four-year-old games, four-year-old hardware will suffice. You could still play them at better resolution/quality on newer hardware, but the old card would work.

But to suggest that there is no "real world difference" between a 5600 and a 9800Pro is simply preposterous. I upgraded from a Ti4600 (which is about as fast as a 5600) to a 9800Pro, and it was a VERY noticeable upgrade across the board. Anyone who has made a similar upgrade will tell you the same thing.

 

[unclebud]

"You could still play them at better resolution/quality on newer hardware"

not neccessarily

"Anyone who has made a similar upgrade will tell you the same thing."

i have and i don't

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: unclebud
"You could still play them at better resolution/quality on newer hardware"

not neccessarily

You have a copy of UT or HL (or Quake3, or any game of similar age)? And a 5600 and a 9800Pro (or something of similar performance, like a 5900XT)?

Run either game at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF and tell me if you can see a difference in the performance.

"Anyone who has made a similar upgrade will tell you the same thing."

i have and i don't

Sorry, but:

1) The specs of the cards
2) Every review I've ever seen
3) What I've seen many other people post, and
4) My personal experience

all say otherwise. You'll have to do better than "I disagree" if you want some credibility for your opinion.

 

[Pete]

Assuming you don't have a boat anchor of a CPU, upgrading from a 5600 to a 9800P can show big gains.

But, yeah, UT2k3/4 will generally be hugely CPU-bound. HL2 as well. But HL2 has enough graphics settings to show a 9700 as twice as fast as a 4600, even in DX8 mode. So you won't necessarily gain double the minimum or average framerates, but you can sure improve IQ via better effects, higher resolution, or AA+AF with minimal affect on the framerate. Some links:

HL2 DX8/9 Performance: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2281
HL2 CPU Scaling: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330
5600 vs. 9800P on P4NW 2.53GHz with DX7 games: http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/r9500+9...gffx5200+5600+5800/zi_testumgebung.php

But use both cards in newer, DX8/9 games, and you should see the 9800 outpace the 5600.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Now, if I can sidetrack this speediness thing just slightly into the past without having an excess of brickbats dropped on me, back before 3D, probably before AGP, the timing for Windows' solitaire game to do its waterfall type routine was supposed to show a lot of difference in 2D speed between various video cards of that era. I tend to use other more modern time- killing entertainments in brief snatches, but sometime will load a solitaire game.

This old PC is about to be retired, actually, but works pretty well as an Internet Surfing Box. It only has a GF3 Ti-500 in it, but that cascade of cards takes less than a half second with it, I think. The last time I could see much difference in 2D was with a TNT2 Riva 64, I think. All of my currently in-use GPU's seem damn close to the same in 2D, and for that matter, when running ordinary Dx8 / Dx9 graphics in ordinary situations, I haven't really seen KOTOR running a lot faster on my own "fastest" GPU, a Radeon 9700 Pro, compared to a Geforce 6200 that I had in a PC that now has a vanilla FX 5900 in it (my other two PC's that are operative here are sub-Dx9 still, like that Ti-500, and a Ti-4200).

The only thing I ever do here for entertainment that starts showing me much difference is when I occasionally run a flight simulator (or "arcade style" flying game - Crimson Skies), and fly at lower altitudes. I never liked ordinary arcade "reflex tests", and still consider shooter games a modern version of the twitch & jump stuff from back then, kept on consoles for a long time, then brought into PC play.

Does anyone even remember what timing marks we were supposed to use with that deck of cards cascading from top to bottom?

 

[unclebud]

"You have a copy of UT or HL (or Quake3, or any game of similar age)? And a 5600 and a 9800Pro (or something of similar performance, like a 5900XT)?

ut2003
hl2
doom 3
gta san andreas
far cry
wolfenstein
nolf
serious sam
both nfsu 1 and 2
xIII
pop
etc etc etc

2 9700 pro
9500 pro
5200
5500
2 8500 le
2 ti 4200
9200se
7000
3 riva 128
2 v 3 2000
v 3 3000
2 kyro 4000xt
fx 5900

"Run either game at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF and tell me if you can see a difference in the performance."

what difference? both of them won't be playable

"But HL2 has enough graphics settings to show a 9700 as twice as fast as a 4600, even in DX8 mode."

play doom 3 and what happens to 9700 vs 4600

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: unclebud
"You have a copy of UT or HL (or Quake3, or any game of similar age)? And a 5600 and a 9800Pro (or something of similar performance, like a 5900XT)?

ut2003
hl2
doom 3
gta san andreas
far cry
wolfenstein
nolf
serious sam
both nfsu 1 and 2
xIII
pop
etc etc etc

2 9700 pro
9500 pro
5200
5500
2 8500 le
2 ti 4200
9200se
7000
3 riva 128
2 v 3 2000
v 3 3000
2 kyro 4000xt
fx 5900

"Run either game at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF and tell me if you can see a difference in the performance."

what difference? both of them won't be playable

In Q3 or the original HL? Your 9700Pro or FX5900 will be usable, but your 5500 or Ti4200 will grind to a halt. Fire up UT2K3 or HL2 at any but the lowest detail/resolution settings and you'll see ENORMOUS performance differences between those cards.

Edit: Actually, here are the numbers for Quake3 with 4xAA/8xAF between a 9700Pro and Ti4600 (from THG's 9700Pro launch article): link. It's pretty embarassing; the 9700Pro with 4xAA/8xAF is twice as fast as the GF4Ti4600 at the same settings. The 9700Pro is pushing 80+FPS at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF. In some of the other tests, the 9700Pro with 4xAA/8xAF is almost as fast as the Ti4600 with noAA/noAF, which is downright pathetic. If you don't think this is going to translate into a real-world difference, I have a bridge I think you might be interested in.

Like I said, if you want to run these games at 1024x768 with no quality options on, you won't see a difference, but you can run MUCH better settings on newer hardware.

"But HL2 has enough graphics settings to show a 9700 as twice as fast as a 4600, even in DX8 mode."

play doom 3 and what happens to 9700 vs 4600

link

Um... the 9800Pro runs 2-3X faster than the 5600.

link

And the 9800Pro runs twice as fast as the 4600 as well.

And Doom3 is generally a best-case scenario for these cards.

 

[Pete]

Originally posted by: unclebud
play doom 3 and what happens to 9700 vs 4600

O k a y...?

Again, all of these tests are run with pretty good CPUs. If the OP is dragging along a Celeron or something, he won't see the full improvement, but he'll at least gain nicer IQ in older games as well as faster performance in newer ones. I'm pretty sure a 9800P will be playable at 16x12 4x8 in some of those games.

Nice game selection, BTW. :thumbsup:

 

[unclebud]

"If the OP is dragging along a Celeron or something, he won't see the full improvement,"

see there. was that so hard?

"If you don't think this is going to translate into a real-world difference, I have a bridge I think you might be interested in."

can i use it to make difficult shots in billiards with? cause i sho don't believe it

4 years ago some bonehead in this forum told me that if i upgraded my voodoo 3 2000 to kyro 4000xt i would see a difference in my k6-2 350 box
not even five extra frames gained at any resolution
i am not forgetting it
i was an even bigger bonehead for listening

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Malladine
Then just get a 9800pro - easily available for under $100.

If you can't find a used 6600GT for this price, you should be able to get a new 9800 Pro or XT for the same money & either will be a significant bump up from an FX5600.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: unclebud
"If the OP is dragging along a Celeron or something, he won't see the full improvement,"

see there. was that so hard?

Um... Pete said that they "won't see the full improvement" (which I would agree with), not that there will be no difference (as you seem to be insisting).

You would need a fairly ancient processor at this point to not see any difference between these cards, and I'm pretty sure the OP isn't using something like a P3 at 800Mhz. There are actually some CPU scaling numbers in that last review I linked to, and that's about how far down you have to get (without AA/AF) before the 9800Pro stops being noticeably faster. With AA/AF enabled, I think you'd see differences even at that CPU speed.

"If you don't think this is going to translate into a real-world difference, I have a bridge I think you might be interested in."

can i use it to make difficult shots in billiards with? cause i sho don't believe it

If you "don't believe it", explain to me how multiple sets of benchmarks from multiple review sites show a 100-200% performance improvement in game benchmarks from such an upgrade in any reasonable configuration. Or are we to assume that Anandtech, THG, Digit-Life, and my personal experience (as well as Pete's, I'm sure) are *all* wrong?

4 years ago some bonehead in this forum told me that if i upgraded my voodoo 3 2000 to kyro 4000xt i would see a difference in my k6-2 350 box
not even five extra frames gained at any resolution
i am not forgetting it
i was an even bigger bonehead for listening

Um... does this have something to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: unclebud
"If the OP is dragging along a Celeron or something, he won't see the full improvement,"

see there. was that so hard?

"If you don't think this is going to translate into a real-world difference, I have a bridge I think you might be interested in."

can i use it to make difficult shots in billiards with? cause i sho don't believe it

4 years ago some bonehead in this forum told me that if i upgraded my voodoo 3 2000 to kyro 4000xt i would see a difference in my k6-2 350 box
not even five extra frames gained at any resolution
i am not forgetting it
i was an even bigger bonehead for listening

So you ignore logic because you hold a 4 year old grudge against an entire forum based on 1 person's advice?

I say this for all who are arguing with this guy: /thread

 

[DarkPrime]

Thanks to some of the bickering, i have gotten part of what I needed to know, and that's if I can get a nice improvement over what I have now.

The reason for my price limit right now is because by the end of the year I intend on doing a massive upgrade to my machine and want to save money for that when the time comes. As of right now, the video card in my wife's computer is acting up (strange colors, lines across the screen, etc) and I need to replace it quick. So i could go out and buy her a decent replacement card for like $50 on newegg which would be more than sufficient, or I can hand me down my 5600fx which would be great for her, and then just tack on an extra $50 to get a nice bump right now. I will consider the extra few bucks to go to a 6600GT, but if I can get something like a 9800xt or 9800 pro for say $80 used, I would rather go that route.

 

[DarkPrime]

Oh, and for gaming right now, probably the most intensive thing I would run is Half Life 2 and World of Warcraft.