Hi All,
I currently have an ATI 7000 card and would like to replace it with an Nvidia card. I can't afford a 5900. Could anyone suggest the next best ? Brand and model? Any help would be appreciated. I have a Soyo KT400 Platnum board with an ADM 2600 CPU.
Thank you in advance.
Video Card Advice Needed
I've found the FX 5200, as manufactured by Asus, to be quite effective, with typical Celestia speeds of 30-75FPS. (It's a lot faster than the 7000 I used to have.) Asus' version includes a fan. eVGA makes models of the 5200 without fans if low noise is a requirement. Prices of FX 5200 cards seem to be about US$75-$100, depending on features.
FWIW, I had to replace an eVGA 5200 with an Asus equivalent because the (fanless) eVGA card's digital output had problems, perhaps related to overheating.
Others have found the older GF4 Ti4200 to be somewhat faster than the 5200. Of course, the performance of the host CPU also has a significant effect, especially when Galaxies and lots of stars are visible.
System:
512MB 2.4MHz P4, WinXP Pro SP1
128MB FX 5200, Detonator 45.23. OpenGL 1.4.0
Celestia 1.3.1pre11
FWIW, I had to replace an eVGA 5200 with an Asus equivalent because the (fanless) eVGA card's digital output had problems, perhaps related to overheating.
Others have found the older GF4 Ti4200 to be somewhat faster than the 5200. Of course, the performance of the host CPU also has a significant effect, especially when Galaxies and lots of stars are visible.
System:
512MB 2.4MHz P4, WinXP Pro SP1
128MB FX 5200, Detonator 45.23. OpenGL 1.4.0
Celestia 1.3.1pre11
Selden
Hello Geetz
I've just upgraded my graphics card to a FX 5200 256mb (with fan), which has cost me ?82 (US$ 136 approx). I'm sure they would be cheaper in the US!?
Although it still takes a while to load up large and numerous textures on my system (which has a fairly low spec CPU), the large memory size of the card and its reasonable performance results in smooth frame rates once it has loaded them.
My old GF4 MX440 performed quite well, but its 64mb of memory coupled with my 256mb of RAM meant that trying to run multiplte textures such as nebulas or Planet surface textures with bump maps put a real strain on my system. This resulted in some painfully slow and jerky viewing!
The large memory size and relatively cheap price is the reason I went for this card. I say, go for at least a 128mb card.
I've just upgraded my graphics card to a FX 5200 256mb (with fan), which has cost me ?82 (US$ 136 approx). I'm sure they would be cheaper in the US!?
Although it still takes a while to load up large and numerous textures on my system (which has a fairly low spec CPU), the large memory size of the card and its reasonable performance results in smooth frame rates once it has loaded them.
My old GF4 MX440 performed quite well, but its 64mb of memory coupled with my 256mb of RAM meant that trying to run multiplte textures such as nebulas or Planet surface textures with bump maps put a real strain on my system. This resulted in some painfully slow and jerky viewing!
The large memory size and relatively cheap price is the reason I went for this card. I say, go for at least a 128mb card.
1.6.0:AMDAth1.2GHz 1GbDDR266:Ge6200 256mbDDR250:WinXP-SP3:1280x1024x32FS:v196.21@AA4x:AF16x:IS=HQ:T.Buff=ON Earth16Kdds@15KkmArctic2000AD:FOV1:SPEC L5dds:NORM L5dxt5:CLOUD L5dds:
NIGHT L5dds:MOON L4dds:GALXY ON:MAG 15.2-SAP:TIME 1000x:RP=OGL2:10.3FPS
NIGHT L5dds:MOON L4dds:GALXY ON:MAG 15.2-SAP:TIME 1000x:RP=OGL2:10.3FPS