Video Card Comparison

Hi everyone,

Just wondered if anyone has any views on which video card is better, I have 3 available to me at the moment but am not sure which would be better!

1/. ATI 9600 Pro 256 MB AGP
2/. Nvidia 4200 AGP
3/. Nvidia 6200 PCI Express

I am running a ECS RS400A M/board with ATI on board graphics, 1 GB DDR@ 667 Ram, P4 3.0 Ghz, 1 x SATA 200Gb, 1 x 120 IDE HDD's. The mobo will support AGP or PCI Express, any thoughts on what would be better, I use the comp for general purpose any occassionally watch HDTV and a bit of gaming (Unreal Tournament, Doom 3, V8 Supercars and various others.

Any thoughts would be appreciated

Regards les_n

 

9600pro by far

 

Omegamerc,
Thank you for your reply, I will now go about installing it
Thanks again

 

Definitely agree. Although the 6200 is newer, it is still the equivalent of a 9200/9250. Am I right?

 

Hmm, I have to disagree. I'm a bit of a graphics card freak so heres my advice. By the way I've owned all 3.

Ti 4200 - Powerful DX8 card, better OpenGL performance than the 9600pro by far, but dismal DirectX 9 performance (ie. Doom 3). Don't use this one.

Radeon 9600pro 256 - Average performer, not clever in Doom 3 (poorer OpenGL performance than the other 2 cards). Decent in Direct3D games but getting old now.

GF6200 PCIx - If this is one with onboard memory (not Turbocache which borrows memory from the computer) it is by far the best card here. Even the TC version would be better than the other 2. Pixel shader 3 support, far cleaner and more vivid colours as it uses the latest graphics tech from nVidia, the best Doom3 performance here by miles (I got 22 fps in ULTRA quality with my slow P4 1.8gig machine). For openGL it is also the fastest.

Hope this helped.

 

Read his post, he plays games that use dx9 extensions, although the ti4200 was a powerfull card, it cant deal with todays games, I still think the 6200 sucks compared to the other two, 6200 comes from the same generation as x200/5200/gf4 mx400 etc... those were made for spreadsheet . The 9600pro has the same pipes/architechture as an x600. Not sure what games still use OpenGL other then as a last resort.

 

I did read his post, I know he plays DX9 extension games, which is why I advised to get the GF6200. For the reasons I said... did you read my post properly? I said that the 4200 couldn't deal with todays games.
The 9600pro is almost as old as the 4200... it was made to replace the 9500, which although released before the 9600 was a more powerful card almost on a level with the 9700, which was a lot better than the 9600. It may have impressive specs on paper, but it isn't impressive in the real world. Doom3 and Chronicles of Riddick (relatively new games) are almost unplayable on the 9600. Like I said, I've owned ALL 3 cards and benchmarked them excessively in many, many games.
OpenGL games are more rare than DirectX games true, but some games offer a choice of the 2 API's, and in these cases choosing OpenGL can with the 6200 have very benficial results over D3D. The 6200 is faster than the 9600 at D3D anyways, proven in benchmarks such as 3Dmark 2001-2005. Check the online results browser for proof of this.
Lastly, you are wrong in your comparison of the 6200 to the 5200 and (lol) GF4 mx series (the x200 is an ati card). True the 6200 is the budget card of nvidias new range, but it still outperforms the other 2, especially in DX9 games using pixel shaders (almost ALL new games). Like I already said, but maybe you didn't read, the 6200 is based on the new tech from the enitre Geforce 6 range, hence why the graphics produced are brighter and more vivid than the other 2 "old" cards. So there

 

about 200% wrong

A 9250 is an 8500le repackaged. I had an 8500le almost 5 years ago.

 

I agree.......

 

When in doubt, check the wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_9700_core

"Alongside the 9800, the 9600 series was rolled out in early 2003, and while the 9600 Pro didn't outperform the 9500 that it was suppose to replace, it was much more economical for ATI to produce by way of a 0.13 micrometer process (all ATI's cards since the 7500/8500 had been 0.15 micrometer) and a simplified design. Using 0.13 micrometer process was also good for pushing up the Core Clock. The 9600 series, all with high default clocking, still can overclock a lot. The 9600 Pro did, however, largely manage to beat nVidia's GeForce FX 5600 Ultra (both version) by its high clocking. From their experience of the 9500, this time ATI made sure that the 9600 could not be modded into a 9800. The 9600 was also ATI's effective answer to the GeForce4 Ti4200."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_6

"With just 4 pixel pipelines, the 6200 series forms NVidia's value/budget (low-end) product. The 6200 omits memory compression and SLI support, but otherwise offers similar rendering features as the 6600s. The currently shipping 6200 boards are based on the NV44 core (s), which is the final production silicon for the 6200 series.

However, at introduction, production silicon was not yet ready. NVidia fulfilled 6200 orders by shipping binned/rejected 6600 series cores (NV43V). The rejects were factory modified to disable four-pixel pipelines, thereby converting the native 6600 product into a 6200 product. Some users were able to "unlock" early 6200 boards through a software utility (effectively converting the 6200 back into a 6600.) Not all NV43-based 6200 boards could successfully be unlocked, and as soon as NV44 production silicon became available, NVidia discontinued shipments of downgraded NV43V cores."

and...

"GeForce 6200
Core Clock: 350 MHz
Memory Clock: 700 MHz
Pixel Pipelines: 4
Vertex Processors: 3
Memory: 128 MB/256 MB/512 MB [1] GDDR1 on a 64-bit/128-bit interface"

 

Yeah, I'd have to say that the 6200 (if it has the onboard dedicated graphics memory) is the best card of the three.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/02/vga_charts_viii/

If you'll notice, the 6200 performs on par with a Geforce FX 5900 in DX9 games. And that's the turbo cache version. The one with the dedicated memory almost certainly performs better.

 

Faster isent always better IMO ( yes i said that ) you need to facter image quality into it to.. the 9600 will most likly have far better FSAA and will need less power to run at the same FSAA level as the 6200......and its a bit hard to compare all 3 cards if only one of them is on the charts you linked too ....illl try to find a site that compares all 3 with image quality as a facter......but the 4200 is def. not an option i think we can all agree on that.....

 

Well, the 9600 does not perform as well as a Geforce FX 5900, which is included in those benchmarks.

As far as image quality, there are only minor differences in colors and image quality between Radeon and nVidia. Not to mention that your eyes will get used to what ever video card you use.

The only real quantifiable way to compare them is FPS when running same game at the same resolution, AA, and AF.

 

I didn't know that the 6200 is comparable to the 5900 in DX9 games, that's impressive considering the cost of a 5900 is still around £100.
Ati has always since time began had great 2D Windows graphics, where the GF was always a gamer's choice because of stability (much better drivers and support). However I think this has changed now, though I've yet to see one of the new Ati range in windows the 6200 is crystal clear compared to the older GF5 range.
Like it says in the Wiki, the 6200 cores were just rejected 6600 cores for the first months of production. If your 6200 is A1,A2 or A3 core you can use rivatuner to turn the card back into a 6600 by unlocking the 4 extra pixel pipelines, bringing the count to 8 pipes, 3 vertex pipes. The 9600 had just 4 pipes and 3 vertex with a 128bit Memory Bus. A modded 6200 like this outperforms the vanilla x700 range in some cases

Lastly, I was amazed at how well the 6200 I owned could do AntiAliasing and not lose framerates. Morrowind in 1024x786 with 4xAA ran like a dream. These new generation cards are designed so that pixel shader scenes and antialiasing are not big performance hit, while the 9600 was only a little more effecient than the GF 4Ti range, turning AA on still crippled the framerates unless it was an older game like Medal Of Honor Allied Assault.
I think for a budget card well under £50 they are monsters.

 

I had a 5900 XT and it played Battlefield 2 no probs.

 

Thank you to everyone that replied to my thread, all your opinions have been taken on board, however it appears that I now have another proble. I tried the 9600 AGP card and couldn't get a display, thinking the card maybe dead, I put in a brand new 9550 AGP no display, then I tried the 4200 and got a display ???? The 6200 PCI X card works as well, so can ahyone think what might be going on?

 

You have a mobo with AGP and PCIx ??........To my knowledge thare was only one line of mobos that had AGP and PCIx and that was made buy ECS .... its PCIx was realy a AGP bus.....so if thats the case maybe thats your problem..... i dont think the settup is known for its compatabliity ( not to mintion ECS making crap mobos IMO ).....

 

Hmmm so both nVidia cards work and both Ati don't.... the manufacturer of the cards has nothing to do with your problem - just thought I'd point it out. Sorry I can't help you further.


hehe nVidia>ati

 

blasphemy !!!!!!!!!!!! ..........

 

Personally, I'm inclined to agree with putting in the 9600, since that's what I have. Thankfully, ATI stuck with a rather considerate numbering system instead of GT's rather difficult to decipher one. If your board supports PCI Express, I'd say go with the 9600, until you can afford to upgrade to a higher class PCI card.

 

I always thought the company was called nVidia... not GT. And as thats the card you have, then I take it back and must agree that the 9600 HAS to be the best.
Why choose a card that is poorer in every way just because it has a well thought out name? True over time since the first radeon ATI have pretty much stuck to a new card ... higher number rule, but this is not always the case. Is a radeon 9000 or 9200 better than a 8500? Is a radeon 9600 better than a 9500? No and no.
With each consecutive range of Geforce cards, the gf2, gf3, gf4 ,gf5 etc. the numbering system of the cards does represent the speed in that particular range.
Geforce > radeon