Video Cards/ graphics

Hi i just joined and was wondering what kind of video card should I buy. When I play arcanum the screen is real crummy and there are triangles all over the ground.
Please reply.
Thanks!

 

I have a gef2 vid card i had to tweak a bit to clean up

the Arcanum screen. I had a lot of screen freezes. You want to know what i did? Prolly
won't help you if you dont have a gef-2
card. Email me for details.

 

I have a gef2 also

What did you do to fix it?

 

Well, try geting the latest DirectX + graphic card drivers.
If that doesn't help, try running the game in safe mode.

 

video

I've got a VooDoo 5, works great. Just to reiterate, make sure you have the latest drivers.

 

no offence ratster, but I can't believe anyone would have such a piece of crap of a graphic card it's more a joke than a card
it's not really cheap too. better off with nvidia products

 

Voodoo 5 was a decent enough card when it came out, IMO, despite the lack of T&L. Still a pity that 3dfx bought the bullet.

 

If I'm not mistaken it came out after geforce ddr witch was much better and even cheaper at that time

 

The Voodoo5 came out just after the GeForce 2 but before the ATI Radeon. It was about as fast as a GeForce or ATI Rage Fury MAXX.

Personally, I'd get a Radeon based card since the Radeon has better 2D quality, more features than the GeForce 2, and costs less. If you're wanting something cheap, get the Radeon VE.

 

I would really disagree. Whats the core speed and the memory speed? what about the drivers? Only nvidia makes good ones. After all the detonators many improvements have been done.
the only radeon witch I think is good is the all in wonder but it isn't the most cheap thing around?
when geforce came out it blew everything away.

 

What's your point? Clock speed doesn't correlate to how fast the card is in use unless they're identical chips. You can make chips faster by design, clock for clock.

For example, the AMD Athlon runs rings around every Intel chip that has the same clock speed. A 1.4GHz Pentium 4 is dog slow compared to the 1.4GHz Athlon under most conditions. The same thing applies to graphics cards.

The Radeon performs just as well, if not faster than the GeForce 2 on most 32bit color, high resolution settings. If you're playing in 800x600 with 16bit color on a GeForce 2 or Radeon, you're missing the point.

That's funny, and incredibly incorrect. Even http://geforcefaq.com/ refutes this. Sometimes, meaning often, those new detonators just don't work with everything, so you get to unload those new drivers in favor of older ones. That's fun!

Roughly $150 after rebates, and it has a full blown TV tuner, complete with video capturing, TV On Demand, video editing software, and so on.

And when the Radeon came out, it spanked everything out at the time as well.

And again, the Radeon has a much better graphics quality than the GeForce 2 does. Matrox makes the best cards in terms of quality, but they're slow. ATI makes the second best in terms of quality, and they're just as fast, and faster, than the GeForce 2.


Better quality, and cheaper. Hmmm.. Tough choice.

 

I'm sticking to my Geforce 2 MX. The best thing about NVidia chips is that they are the closest thing to a standard for gaming graphics. I don't need any fancy TV in or out stuff. I just want my games to run properly (and preferably fast). The GF2 MX is dirt-cheap and runs my games the way I want it to, so I'm happy with that.

 

Calis: yes that's right. About the radeon all in wonder, over here the price is a whoping 300 bucks. Tell you this, the Gefrorce2 ultra, is good but expensive, compared to a gforce3 withc is better. I have a 6750 points in 3dmark2001 on 1024*768*32. I know that no radeon will beat that. And the new detonators xp? They rule. Only good for gforce3 though.
For me a geforce is more reliable since I'm very well aware of it's abilities. And don't compare nvidia products do intel witch is a laughing stock. The clock does matter.if you are planning to overclock it.
Geforce always worked very fast. And whenever I heared of radeon, it was expensive and compared to the best gforce on the market lacking in speed. So what that is does have better quality. if I have to play games in 10fps?

 

I really hate it

I want to change my grphics card and I was almost sure that GF2 MX would be the best AND cheap choice but what do I see here? A few good points on Radeon. Doubts, they're a real pain esp when it comes to buying comp stuff.

I think I'll still buy GF2 mostly due to what Calis wrote that it's closest to a PC card standard nowadays. Or perhaps I'll wait a bit and buy GF2 with DDR after the price will drop to some 100-125$. Anyone knows what's the speed real speed improvement in games between MX and DDRS - basically is it worth waiting/spending more money?

 

Four years ago, 3Dfx cards were the standard for 3D gaming. :smile:

 

4 years ago 3dfx was the only thing.
I know where yer coming from Saint, Let me give you an example, I habe a maxisound gillemont soundcard. Why not soundblaster live? hhm yes. I have a dolby digital sound system that can optic inputs. What cards have than one? Soundblaster platinium The price? 200 greens. My maxi? 50. What I think? soundblaster sucks. It's a little better and has eax but that is shit compared to a five speaker system.
the same with radeon. If yer eyes don/t have anytings against 800*600 it's ok.
But I can't play in any resolution other than 1280. It's a case of upgrading yourself to better equipment. and I'm not a rich guy. Everything I have is from my money that I earned. I know that the ati radeon is slower than the geforce2 ultra. These are facts.

 

Even then I had problems buying graphic card. I knew which I want but didn't have money for it :smile:

 

Thanks!

The only problem is that I dont have that much money so what can I get that is in the $50-$100 range and is in PCI form.

By the way thank you all for replying I thought that I would only have one or two people replying.

 

If you're buying any model GeForce 2 to play games at 800x600, you're wasting your money. Chances are, that monitor refresh rate is way lower than the number of frames per second.

 

noone is planning to play 800 and a geforce2 in the first place! What an odd thing to say
also as you know who cares about 100 frames per sec? the human eye can only see about 28. But he fact is it runs smooth as heaven in 60 frames. the ati will not give you these frames today on any other resolution other than 800 since the requirements of todays games are ridicules