New Chaintech Geforce2 cards @ compgeeks

[sleefer]

Compgeeks has the following Chaintech Geforce2 cards:

Geforce2 Ti 64mb $59.00

Geforce2 GTS Ultra 64mb $56.00

Geforce2 GTS Pro 64mb $54.00

Geforce2 Pro 64 mb $49.00

Geforce2 GTS Pro 32mb $42.50

All are new and all are non "geek specials" so you can use the -10% off codes that can be found at most coupon sites.

EDIT: Fixed link to the ultra.

 

[ReiAyanami]

geforce5 [nv30] is around the corner, prices should fall for geforce4/3/2

 

[AlwaysWong]

Speaking amongst those who don't know, which is the best one for the money?

 

[Jmman]

Probably the pro for $49....

 

[lzpoof]

Originally posted by: AlwaysWong
Speaking amongst those who don't know, which is the best one for the money?

The ultra is actually the fastest card. The ti is basically between the pro and ultra. Nice GF2 Ti's can prob be overclocked above a Ultra but the ultra will give you best bang for buck. From the pictures it doesn't seem that any of these have dvi or a tv out....

 

[DEFIANT1]

which is the best one for the money?

[RainMan voice] Ultra....Definately the Ultra.[/RainMan voice]

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

If you're going to get any of them get the GF 2 Ultra 64MB card, which is the best of the lot and is pretty OC'able and beats out a GF4MX 460 in most benches. On the other hand, for about $6-$8 more on pricewatch, you can get a Geforce 3 Ti200, which would server you better technology wise, since the GF2 cards are missing several key features that both the GF3 and GF4MX cards have.

Of course none of these cards are in any way "future-proof" as people like to say, but they should all run today's games at 800x600 without a problem.

 

[Mac]

The GF2 are still respectable cards, but for only $30 or so more you can get an ATI 8500 64MB which will run rings around these cards, performance and features. In fact with the recent introduction of the the ATI 9000 series (which are pretty decent low end cards), the ATI 8500 have tumbled in price and are much better cards. The 128MB still command a premium but the 64MB cards can be found around 75-85. Usually have TV out, dual monitor support and DX8 compliant. I think they are the bargains on the lowend, if you can find them.

 

[dman]

Originally posted by: Mac
The GF2 are still respectable cards, but for only $30 or so more you can get an ATI 8500 64MB which will run rings around these cards, performance and features. In fact with the recent introduction of the the ATI 9000 series (which are pretty decent low end cards), the ATI 8500 have tumbled in price and are much better cards. The 128MB still command a premium but the 64MB cards can be found around 75-85. Usually have TV out, dual monitor support and DX8 compliant. I think they are the bargains on the lowend, if you can find them.

But then you get to spend $30 more for ATI's crappy 1 (2 if you are lucky) generation driver support. That's MY experience. I don't want to turn this into a war of ATI vs. Nvidia, competition is good, but, ATI Is cheaper for a reason.

 

[dud]

Got to throw in my 2 cents: I have had a GF2 MX for 2 years now and the newer games just don't play well. I just bought a GF 4 TI 4200 at Allstarshop for $113 shipped. Now even Battlefield 1942 plays flawlwssly at highest quality settings. For the money I cannot recommend it higher.

 

[Pothead]

GF2MX is the low end of the GF2s

 

[Crucial]

Originally posted by: dman6666

Originally posted by: Mac
The GF2 are still respectable cards, but for only $30 or so more you can get an ATI 8500 64MB which will run rings around these cards, performance and features. In fact with the recent introduction of the the ATI 9000 series (which are pretty decent low end cards), the ATI 8500 have tumbled in price and are much better cards. The 128MB still command a premium but the 64MB cards can be found around 75-85. Usually have TV out, dual monitor support and DX8 compliant. I think they are the bargains on the lowend, if you can find them.

But then you get to spend $30 more for ATI's crappy 1 (2 if you are lucky) generation driver support. That's MY experience. I don't want to turn this into a war of ATI vs. Nvidia, competition is good, but, ATI Is cheaper for a reason.

I am so sick of comments like this, I have both of these cards and they both work fine. There is nothing wrong with ATI's RECENT driver support. It was lackluster a year ago but they have really turned around. I even use my 8500 in a *GASP* AMD+VIA based system with no problems. Imagine that.

That said, These are great cards for the money and should last for a good while.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: csaddict
I am so sick of comments like this, I have both of these cards and they both work fine. There is nothing wrong with ATI's RECENT driver support. It was lackluster a year ago but they have really turned around. I even use my 8500 in a *GASP* AMD+VIA based system with no problems. Imagine that.

It was lackluster more than a year ago. ATi's driver support is nowhere as good as nVidia's. I've owned cards based on Rage II+, Rage Pro, Rage 128, and 1st gen Radeon.

If a company burns you on drivers for a decade, they deserve the dirty looks.

 

[BAMAVOO]

Radeon 8500 running strong thru several AMD and Intel CPU upgrades...Had all the Nvidia cards along the way too.. both companies have there good and bad.. For me the Radeon 8500 has proven itself to be a very fast card and a card that is easy on the eyes. Never even looked at another Nvidia after the Radeon 8500 landed..Now onto the 9700 pro

 

[dman]

They are still crappy compared to Nvidia. Look at the readme's of many recent games. ATI (and other non-nvidia) Cards have issues with flickering, corruption, etc. NVIDIA - worst case the readme says download latest drivers and problems are fixed. (SEE readme's for: NOLF2, BOND, NFSHP2). I'm sure we can come up with other examples.

Maybe NVIDIA has it in with the game companies, but, if that's a problem for you then you must have ATI (or S3 or whatever).

I hope ATI does continue with good driver support. When I Stop reading readme.txt's w/ issues with ATI Cards and not NVIDIA I'll consider purchasing one and may even recommend them to others. Until then, let the buyer beware, you may be waiting for a driver update to play that game you bought and you may be waiting a long time.


No One Lives forever 2:

ATI RADEON SERIES:
Mouse cursor flickers on screen during game after changing in-game
resolution. Make sure that the latest Radeon Catalyst drivers are installed.
Also going back into the menus and then back into the game will also correct
this issue.

Detail textures currently appear washed out and dull on all Radeon cards. A
future update from ATI should correct this. In the meantime, it is
recommended that you turn Detail Textures OFF in the Display options menu
under Performance.

ATI RADEON 7200:
Textures on very thin polys (such as power lines) may appear to be broken
into small pieces.

ATI RADEON 8500:
When the hardware cursor option is enabled, the mouse cursor
may appear black and white or appear corrupted. Also, the position of the
cursor may be slightly off after changing performance options. Try disabling
the hardware cursor from the "Options" Launcher to correct this issue.

Some detail brushes such as intelligence items may disappear when
viewed from a distance.

Lockups may occur in some cut scenes and during certain gameplay situations.
We are working with ATI to resolve this issue, the fix for which will
likely be updated drivers.

For NVIDIA:

NVIDIA GEFORCE CHIPSETS:
Running the game with outdated drivers may result in crashes during gameplay.
It is highly recommended that you first update to the latest detonator
drivers available before playing. Refer to Section V. for more information
on the latest drivers available.

Running the latest drivers, and no problems for me.

 

[Crucial]

And that has nothing to do with "Nvidia, The way it's meant to be played" being plastered all over new games. I for one don't bother reading the readme's and have never needed to, I have all the games you mentioned and have none of the problems you described.

Nvidia doesn't have perfect drivers either. The latest drivers don't work with Counterstrike in Direct3d mode. I haven't pinned it down but I believe the dxtc support is broken. And this was verified on 3 different systems with a geforce2 and geforce4 ti 4400. Sky textures are non existent and the rest of the textures are corrupted and disappear at times. Both mfg's have their share of problems. I am just tired of people complaining about ATI when they haven't owned one since the rage 128 or 1st gen radeon. They have come along way since then and are only getting better.

This is soon going to turn into a flame war over what is a hot deal. Pick your poison and go with it.

 

[dman]

Originally posted by: csaddict
And that has nothing to do with "Nvidia, The way it's meant to be played" being plastered all over new games. I for one don't bother reading the readme's and have never needed to, I have all the games you mentioned and have none of the problems you described.

Glad to hear that. That's one more reason to buy ATI next round.

I am just tired of people complaining about ATI when they haven't owned one since the rage 128 or 1st gen radeon. They have come along way since then and are only getting better.

That's my case. And I am indeed reluctant to go with ATI again because of that. I don't know who wouldn't. Your experience is definitely a good thing to hear.

<-- Still deciding which poison.

 

[duuuma]

just wondering..but wouldn't the GF4mx440 DDR for $55 (@compgeeks) be a faster card?


Also, I've got a ATI 64mb R8500LE and absolutely love it. Got it for around $95 over half a year ago, and it's been running jedi outcast for me beautifully. crystal clear 2D display too! Recent deals have seen this card for as low as $69.99 or so.

 

[sleefer]

Ok correct me if I'm wrong on any of these guys, this should be the core/memory for what I know:

GF2 Ultra------> 250/460
GF2 Ti----------->250/400
GF2 GTS Pro--->200/400
GF2 GTS-------->200/333

I don't know the GF2 Pro (non GTS) specs.

 

[yodayoda]

trust me, there are more people working on nVidia LINUX drivers then there are ATi people working on windows drivers. nVidia is so far ahead of ATi in terms of driver support it is not even funny. if you have brain one in your head, you will buy nVidia and stay the hell away from ATi.

 

[lzpoof]

Originally posted by: sleefer
Ok correct me if I'm wrong on any of these guys, this should be the core/memory for what I know:

GF2 Ultra------> 250/460
GF2 Ti----------->250/400
GF2 GTS Pro--->200/400
GF2 GTS-------->200/333

I don't know the GF2 Pro (non GTS) specs.

Youcould be wrong on the gts pro. Generally anything with 400 mhz memory is advertised simply as Pro. I have a 32mb leadtek Pro card with 400 mhz memory. The GTS Pro was a hybrid using a Pro core with GTS rated memory chips (333)... basically a marketing ploy that didn't deliver any real performance gains. They did it because nvidia was having great yields on gf2 cores and didn't really have any of the old cores that couldn't be overclocked much. Have to check with chaintech on what they clock their gts pro as. A true pro would be 200-400 I think.

 

[Tab]

Heh, ATI has improved by a long shot IMHO. I just got a Radeon 8500 64MB and I have no problems what so ever with UT2k3,America's Army, HL, CS, BF1942... Works great. ATI has really improved.

 

[lzpoof]

Originally posted by: duuuma
just wondering..but wouldn't the GF4mx440 DDR for $55 (@compgeeks) be a faster card?


Also, I've got a ATI 64mb R8500LE and absolutely love it. Got it for around $95 over half a year ago, and it's been running jedi outcast for me beautifully. crystal clear 2D display too! Recent deals have seen this card for as low as $69.99 or so.

The 440 would be faster and also has tv output (note I am saying 440 and not the 440-SE which is slower). Most of the specs are the same as a GF2 (basically what it is). IT does have some basic core improvements and memory controller improvements, but don't be taken by another one of nvidia's marketing ploys. The GF4 mx440 doesn't support any of the same directx features that GF4 and even GF3 cards do. It's basically the same features as a GF2 with some feature enhancements. By nvidia's site also, the memory speed would be the same as a GF2 Pro (400 mhz). So it's possible an Ultra could be faster... although I doubt it.

 

[HQH51]

Here is the link to the clockspeed of each video cards: here

Here is the link to benchmarks of each video cards: here

The benchmarks go on for a few pages, so it's not limited to one program used to test the video cards out. With these links in mind, it should help in making a decision to buy which video card.

 

[deviantchristoff]

My brother-in-law is a big time sales rep for Nvidia. He's given me a prototype of the soon to be released G5 card. I'm telling you, this card gives a whole new definition to the term "BAD ASS".