# Buying AMD 64 bit. Advice needed



## rajendra99 (Aug 20, 2004)

I have Intel 865 GBF MOBO with 2.6GHz P4. 512 MB DDR 400 RAM, 21 inch Samsung Syncmaster 1200 NF crt monitor and 64 MB GeForce 3 display card with 64 MB video memory. I work in 2D/3D graphics & also enjoy gaming. I play games at 1600x1200 resolution and my current 64 MB card handles it OK.

I am thinking of buying a new AMD 64 bit 2800+ processor with Asus K8V mobo and 1024 MB DDR 400 RAM with SATA hard disk Samsung 80 GB 10000 rpm. 

My dealer is suggesting a display card Asus  9520 Magic T 128 MB with 5200MX chipset at Rs. 6290/-  OR Asus 9570 TD 256 MB with 5700 chipset at Rs. 13,500/-. Which one should be adequate? Or any other card which is easily available around 10K?


----------



## technomodel (Aug 20, 2004)

go for a radeon 9800 pro. will cost u around 11k. check your local dealer for exact price.


----------



## blade_runner (Aug 21, 2004)

If you are used to playing games at such high resolutions go for a Radeon 9800pro. Best bang for the buck. Get a Club 3d 9800pro, for 14.8k or a Powercolor Radeon 9800pro for 13.9k If its available. The Club 3d has a R360 core so you can soft-mod it to 9800XT.

If you want sumthng below that then go for a 9600pro for 9k frm club or powercolor.


----------



## rajendra99 (Aug 23, 2004)

Thanks blade runner. Dut these cards are not available here. Do u know any reliable dealer in Bombay who will deliver 9600pro?


----------



## blade_runner (Aug 23, 2004)

Goto lamington and u will find a lot of ppl. Get the card from Big Byte  corp, they are the distributors of these cards. Also dude plz plz resize your avatar, it's inconvenient to scroll down .......


----------



## DKant (Aug 26, 2004)

Should I go for a Radeon 9800 Pro (around 13K) or a Gainward 1100XT (souped up FX 5900XT)(around 16K)? I heard that nVidia cards are usually more stable than ATI's and have fewer driver issues. Also the drivers are more compact(?). And of course, GeForce is better for OpenGL Gfx while Radeon is better for Dx9.

And please, this is not a shootout. So no flame wars


----------



## DKant (Aug 26, 2004)

Also:

The Gainward 1100XT has got 256MB with 256 bit architecture. That means textures will be loaded uncompressed in DIII. Also the core clock speed is 1.5 times the 9800's and the memory is twice as fast!! In spite of that the 9800 pro seems to be a hot fav with a lot of ppl. I don't understand.

What is ur recommendation?


----------



## blade_runner (Aug 26, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> Should I go for a Radeon 9800 Pro (around 13K) or a Gainward 1100XT (souped up FX 5900XT)(around 16K)? I heard that nVidia cards are usually more stable than ATI's and have fewer driver issues. Also the drivers are more compact(?). And of course, GeForce is better for OpenGL Gfx while Radeon is better for Dx9.
> 
> And please, this is not a shootout. So no flame wars



Radeon 9800 pro definitely, the fx series just doesnt cut ........however u will get a few FPS's less in D3 with a radeon card but then again D3 isnt the only game you are going to play is it ? Driver issues are there but those arent of that serious nature. 



			
				DKant said:
			
		

> Also:
> 
> The Gainward 1100XT has got 256MB with 256 bit architecture. That means textures will be loaded uncompressed in DIII. Also the core clock speed is 1.5 times the 9800's and the memory is twice as fast!! In spite of that the 9800 pro seems to be a hot fav with a lot of ppl. I don't understand.
> 
> What is ur recommendation?



The 256 Mb of textures will be compressed, only cards that have 512 Mb of Vram will load uncompressed textures for D3. The extra memory isnt useful if u dont play games at ultra high resolutions.The Xt is really souped up, go for Nvidia 5900ultra if possible, dont go for the XT. The memory on the 9800pro is also 256 bit dude. So no probs there. And the 9800pro is a hot favourite for a reason, it beats the hell outta most Nvidia cards (Fx series).


----------



## DKant (Aug 27, 2004)

Well far as I know, 256MB is enough for the textrues to be loaded uncompressed. It's only the specular maps that need 512MB. I _think_.

And BTW I understand that 9800 is reely pop and "beats the crap outta most nVidia cards". But I don't understand why. For one, it's got a much lower clock speed _and_ memory speed.

And BTW how much does the Fx5900 Ultra cost in Mumbai?


----------



## blade_runner (Aug 27, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> Well far as I know, 256MB is enough for the textrues to be loaded uncompressed. It's only the specular maps that need 512MB. I _think_.
> 
> And BTW I understand that 9800 is reely pop and "beats the crap outta most nVidia cards". But I don't understand why. For one, it's got a much lower clock speed _and_ memory speed.
> 
> And BTW how much does the Fx5900 Ultra cost in Mumbai?



Uncompressed textures in ultra mode require *atleast* 512Mb of Vram.  lower clock speed and memory speed arent the only factors that count. The architecture of the card, and lots other features count too. Also Fx series performs abysmally in shader intensive games. 

The Fx5900 ultra costs in the upper echelons of 20k i guess, so rather than that i wud buy a BFG or XFX 6800 GT under 400$ internationally.


----------



## DKant (Aug 28, 2004)

> Radeon 9800 pro definitely, the fx series just doesnt cut ........however u will get a few FPS's less in D3 with a radeon card but then again *D3 isnt the only game you are going to play is it ? *Driver issues are there but those arent of that serious nature



Yes it isn't. But a lot of new games r gonna be based on the DIII engine. And as has been seen in the past, other gd's don't use id's engines as efficiently as id's own games do-probably bcoz only id knows how far they can stress the engine. Dat's why I want my g-card 2 be absolootly comfy with DIII. (well, atleast within a certain price-range) DIII runs on the oldest of oldest cards as well (I'm not talking abt the 9800, OBVIOUSLY NOT). But half the reason for that, is the physics, and the engine's ability to render stuff like water (basically Far Cry like environs) hasn't been tested fully(methinkso). So if the 9800 gives just a _few_ frames less in DIII, that would get amplified in games like, say DIII Jedi wldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, or sounding completely bizarre.


----------



## blade_runner (Aug 28, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> > Radeon 9800 pro definitely, the fx series just doesnt cut ........however u will get a few FPS's less in D3 with a radeon card but then again *D3 isnt the only game you are going to play is it ? *Driver issues are there but those arent of that serious nature
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it isn't. But a lot of new games r gonna be based on the DIII engine. And as has been seen in the past, other gd's don't use id's engines as efficiently as id's own games do-probably bcoz only id knows how far they can stress the engine. Dat's why I want my g-card 2 be absolootly comfy with DIII. (well, atleast within a certain price-range) DIII runs on the oldest of oldest cards as well (I'm not talking abt the 9800, OBVIOUSLY NOT). But half the reason for that, is the physics, and the engine's ability to render stuff like water (basically Far Cry like environs) hasn't been tested fully(methinkso). So if the 9800 gives just a _few_ frames less in DIII, that would get amplified in games like, say DIII Jedi wldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, or sounding completely bizarre.



Hmm....so the topic moves frm technicalilties then, If you are going to be playing games only based on the D3 engine, then your choice might be good. But then theres the Source engine too, thats optimised (for a lack of a proper word) the Radeons. So finally its a decision that u shud take whether u are going for a Radeon card. But for me if i look @ the 9XXX series and the Fx series i'd go for the 9XXX series. However with the current crop of the cards, i'd prefer going for the 6800. If you can wait till October then u can get the 6600Gt for like 15k or less maybe. This is a interesting article that perhaps u'd like to read. 
Article

Hell ! this is my 1001th post and i dint even realise !


----------



## DKant (Aug 28, 2004)

Thx 4 the article. Well yes it may be October by the time I get my new PC. Depending on the cost then, i cld go for a 9800xt or FX 6600/6800(I'm dreaming ofcoz!). If the prices don't go down much - it's the 9800 pro. 

And what about the x600? I heard that it is a _genuine/native_ PCI-E card.


----------



## blade_runner (Aug 28, 2004)

DKant said:
			
		

> Thx 4 the article. Well yes it may be October by the time I get my new PC. Depending on the cost then, i cld go for a 9800xt or FX 6600/6800(I'm dreaming ofcoz!). If the prices don't go down much - it's the 9800 pro.
> 
> And what about the x600? I heard that it is a _genuine/native_ PCI-E card.



Hmm.....If it may be October then wait for Nf4. That wud make a gr8 combo Nvidia nf4 + 6600. With 6600 no need of dreaming mate, its a budget card arnd 200$ which comes to arnd 9.5k sumthng. So u can expect it to retail at arnd 12k or less here. By October u'd able to afford a 9800XT mate. X600 is a PCI-E card but availability is a bit suspect, plus its 16k, thats too much. I'd rather order a 6800 non ultra frm abroad.


----------



## FasTrack (Aug 28, 2004)

quite a interesting discussion

interesting and knowledge based


----------



## DKant (Aug 29, 2004)

Well I wasn't dreaming abt the 6600, it's the 6800. 

And I believe nForce4 will have PCI-E support? I'm not going to buy a PCI-E card now - definitely not. But it provides a nice upgrade option 2-3 years down the line. (even the mobo wld probably be outdated by then - but it gives me a value upgrade option, if it supports PCI-E)


----------

