The right card for SL

OK, I'm brand spanking new here. I should lurk longer, maybe this thread exists, but I did burn up the search - I got some help but not exactly what I was looking for.

I just got a new computer, 2.2 mghz, plenty of storage, 512 k of ram - about what everybody else is running.

The video card in it is one the guy who put the system together literally gave me...probably means I didn't bargin hard enough, but o well, it was 500 clams and he's taking payments...

ANY HOO... i'm going to go out and buy a video card, in the main just to try Second Life.

With Second Life as my primary consideration, what is the best video card I can get, assuming I have about 200 bucks to spend?

It'd help if it was carried at target, because then me and mr. target card could take a walk this afternoon in the name of instant gratification, and I could still play before my free trial ends...otherwise I'm gonna have to budget for a week or so. And Johnny hates waiting.

What I've gleaned so far from the threads I read with the handy search function:
NVIDIA>Then ATI, at least for SL
More video ram is good. I should be able to afford at least 128mg with my two yards.

So... I guess I need advice on the best nvidia chipset.

You can get:
$225 - GeForce 6600GT, 128MB, AGP (make sure you get an AGP card, if you don't have a PCI-express motherboard!)
$190 - GeForce FX5900, 128MB, AGP
$150 - GeForce FX5700, 128MB, AGP (don't get the 5700LE -- those suck.They're half the price for a reason.)

Honestly, the best price/performance ratio is the 6600GT. It's a little pricey, but it's an incredibly good card. However, SL being CPU-bound, it won't give you anywhere near as great a performance boost over the other two. I wouldn't recommend anything slower than a 5700, but honestly, you're not going to notice as great a difference between a 5700 and a 6600 as you would if you upgraded to a faster CPU. (Of course, actually being able to USE SL would be a huge improvement for you.)

In a game like Half-Life 2, yeah, it's like night and day, and every bit worth the money. If the only game (or whatever) you're using is SL, then it's probably not worth it from your perspective.

So I just got Half Life 2 and it's been glitchy -- I would need to buy the most expensive video card?! Eeek! Would buying a less fancy card be worth it?

JC - I think the most bang for buck would be the FX5700. I think I saw one on sale for only $99 about a week ago -- off the shelf in San Francisco.

No, the most expensive video cards are in the $500+ range. HL2 will run on just about anything, though. You don't need a $200 card to play it. For example, a 5700 would run it very well indeed.

If you can find a 5700 (not LE!) for $100, yeah, that would definitely be the better deal.

I'm a longtime nVidia fan (from back in the days of the original TNT)...

But the last couple of generations of ATI Radeon cards have been pretty damn good.

You might go out and shop around for a Radeon 9800 or above.

My nVidia GeForce3 Ti500 is doing OK with SL on an Athlon 1.5Ghz CPU - but I wish it was at least a GeForce4 or a Radeon 9800.

www.pricewatch.com is your friend! I just found some Radeon 9800's and GeForce4 / GeForce FX cards for around $150. BE CAREFUL what you buy though - read the product description carefully! 128MB is the minimum amount of Vid-card RAM I'd get these days... And avoid any "GeForce MX" or "LE" card. Get a "PCI-Express" card only if your system is new enough to take advantage of it!

You can always turn your SL graphics details down and shorten your sight distance until you get that killer video card... But SL certainly has enough sweet detail to make ME pine for a top-of-the-line GPU.

Take care,

--Noel "HB" Wade

Thank god for you guys. I was sitting there with a 5700 in one hand and the LE in the other hand in their quasi-identical packaging trying to figure out just what the deal was.

I do want to play some other games (Dawn of War and Battlefield come to mind), so I might look about for the 6600GT... I don't have a particular interest in HL2 or D3, so something like the 6800 series might be more then I need... on the other hand, room to grow and all that.

I take it the middle card is kind of spending money for a weak compromise? 30 bucks isn't a lot of cash for me, so I'm kind of thinking the middle one isn't a great option for me.

Edit: PCI Express is bad? I thought that was the coming thing...
Edit the second: Are the three cards recommended above Geforce 4, 3, 2, or Uno?

Editted my previous reply. Meant that PCI-Express is only good if your system is new enough to take advantage of it.

Here's a great Article on GFX cards and PCI-E vs. AGP. Was written in November, so its pretty current:

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041110/index.html

...And my Edit in response to your Edit: GeForce 4 at a MINIMUM. GeForce FX or "GeForce ####" series are newer/better. ATI Radeon 9600 at a MINIMUM, but 9800 or newer is better. Read that guide I posted the URL for - good stuff!

--Noel

Well, I like to offer a range of suggestions. The 6600GT is defintely better than the 5900, though, and worth the added expense.

PCI express IS the coming thing. It's just that if you don't have a PCI-express motherboard, you'll have a really difficult time trying to force the PCIe card into the AGP slot. And then you'll have to replace both the motherboard and video card after they break.

The GeForce FX 5xxx and 6xxx are the GeForce 5 and 6, respectively. They're better than the previous generations by successive degrees of improvement. Note that there is, of course, overlap between each generation... a GeForce 5200 is worse than a 4800, and a GeForce 4 MX is worse than any of the GeForce 3 cards (and a couple of the GeForce 2 cards). When talking about cards that are actually still being sold, though, the model numbering scheme goes ABBBCC, where A is the series number, B the approximate performance within that series. Higher numbers are always better here, unless C indicates a variant of that model, as with the LE, GT and Ultra cards. (Ultra is better, GT is midrange, but more geared towards the enthusiast market, while LE is low-end.)

So for example, 5700LE means that it's a GeForce 5, (or, in Nvidia's marketing-speak, a GeForce FX) that it's (theoretically) better than the 5200, 5500 and 5600, and the LE means it sucks. Simple, no?

Yes, but watch out -- make sure you get a GeForce 4 Ti as a minimum, not GeForce 4 MX. My "boo, LE" attitude can probably be dismissed as simple elitism, but the MX genuinely sucks. The GeForce 4 MX isn't a GeForce 4, it's a variant of the GeForce 2 MX. Get a GeForce 4 Ti4600+ over a GeForce FX5200, and a GeForce FX5700LE over a GeForce FX5200. But I'd still recommend a GeForce5700 above any of those.

---QUOTE FROM URL ABOVE---
Another factor further complicating any attempt to categorize the cards by price alone are the graphics cards from older generations, which keep getting cheaper due to the introduction of newer models. There are especially pronounced differences between NVIDIA and ATI here. ATI's second to last generation of chips (Radeon 9500, 9700, 9800) is still very much up-to-date from a technological perspective, with DirectX 9 support and multisampling FSAA. Only the Radeon 9000 and 9200 cards are the exception here, as they are still based on the DirectX 8 design of the Radeon 8500 along with its slower super sampling FSAA implementation. Shader Model 3.0 is not supported by any ATI card at this point. The only cards that actually can take advantage of it are those of NVIDIA's GeForce 6xxx line.

In contrast, NVIDIA's second to last generation of cards are, by today's standards, technologically outdated (DirectX 8 and multi sampling FSAA on the GeForce 4 Ti, DirectX 7 on the GeForce 4 MX). The last iteration of the GeForce FX 5xxx series performed very well in DirectX 8 titles, but drops to mediocre levels in current DirectX 9 games. As mentioned before, this weakness has been corrected in the new GeForce 6xxx line (note the absence of the "FX" designation).
---END QUOTE---

Pages 12 and 13 of the Tom's Hardware Guide Article I posted are exceptionally useful.

...And Catherine - I already talked about the "don't Buy MX"! Rule. The GeForce4MX was a dirty sham that nVidia marketting perpetrated - you correctly point out that its just a hyped GeForce2MX. Once more: AVOID ANY AND ALL "MX" cards from nVidia. Similarly, be wary of some of the "SE" cards from ATI. The 9800 SE, for example, is basically a special 9600. But in general, the "SE" ATI cards have less of a performance gap than the "MX" cards do, compared to their higher-end models.

BTW, I would rate SecondLife as a "DirectX 8+" game... Not a ton of shaders in use that I can see - but certainly bump-mapping, Anisotropic Filtering capability, and other good stuff.

Take care,
--Noel "HB" Wade

So look for a GT or Ultra card in an Nvidia standard?

I think I can do that.

the video card market is a lot to digest. Now that I have some approx. ideas about a chipset, there's still the little matter of picking a brand and a vender. Sheesh.

I'm looking hard at getting an AGP Nvidia 6600gt, right now. That's be around 220, play second life and most the other stuff I like, and it cracks the 6 line. . . without being bottom of the barrel.

As I price online, I am seing PCI Express verisions of cards at extreme discounts...I'm almost wondering if that is a ploy of some sort. If not, it'd almost be cheaper for me to get a new MB, put the one I just bought in my 800 mghz pc, and get a PCIE video card. . .

Edit: And I found the Tom's guide in my travels and was reading it while you posted that ...great minds, I guess.

Graphics cards have long confused me. In addition to all the model numbers, you ALSO have special designations like "LE" and "Ultra" and "SE" and "GT" (what does that stand for anyway? Time to Google) that'll be attached as ya go along. I'm like "heya heya hmmm".

Well, Cat o' Nine Tails sure sorted that out for me. So if I need an new graphics card at this time, I'll know what to go for. *smiles*

I want to take a second to say thanks for putting up with what might seem like very primitive questions - I understood the state of graphics about 5 years ago, but I've been a little out of the loop.

Most places a question like that would have got me a thourgh "LOL STOOPIDNEWB"ing

Or just standard. The "Ultra" or "GT" cards are variants of the base model.

Here, look at some benchmarks:
TNT2 - GeForce 4 Ti 4600 These are the very slowest cards you can run SL with. You'd want to go about midway up that list before it was really playable.

GeForce 4 Ti 4200 - GeForce 6800 Ultra - If you have an AGP motherboard, these are the cards you want to look at. (Pay close attention to where the 5200 is on this list. Oops!)

GeForce 5750 - GeForce 6800 Ultra SLI These are the newest cards on the market, all PCI Express cards.

Note that there's a different version of 3DMark used to benchmark all of these, as well as the fact that ATI and Nvidia cards vary here and there, depending on driver versions and the specific app being run. Basically, this is a rough estimate of performance differences between the different cards. These three lists conveniently have some overlap as well, so you can compare cards on different lists, which, after all, is the point of the exercise.

Also, there's not as big a performance difference between AGP cards and PCIe cards as the hype might make one believe. In practical terms, whether you have an AGP4x bus or a PCIe 16x bus, most people are honestly not going to notice the difference. However, PCIe really shines when it comes to SLI cards, which are actually TWO graphics cards wired together. AGP motherboards can't do that. For all intents and purposes, we can say that a GeForce 6800 will perform approximately the same, regardless of bus.

(And yes, I realize that on the second link, the ATI Radeon X800 XT PE is in the lead, not the GeForce 6800 Ultra. I only listed the high and low-end Nvidia cards to illustrate the span for ease of estimating the upper and lower numbered products, not the actual performance.)

Edit: clarified sentence.
Edit2: posted wrong link.

Cat is sooo informative.

Wow, okay that brought me up to speed on current-day video cards.

Thanks, Cathy!

Er... OOOPS

Be VERY careful here, though. Most of the "too good to be true" deals on Pricewatch really are too good -- visit www.resellerratings.com to find out what sort of company you're buying from.

Also new to the game, and knowing I need a new graphics card...even with other games, computer will freeze up, crash to desktop, and sometimes completely restart itself. (has been going on about a month or two anyway)

What I am able to figure out I have now:
Processor AMD Athlon XP 1900+
Memory 512
DirectX9.0
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX400--memory 64--location PCI Bus 1
Creative Sound Blaster PCI

So it sounds like a GeForce 5700-5900 is good bet? I don't understand the PCI Express...no idea if I have that or not.

Planning on buying one within the next couple weeks so suggestions appreciated

You don't have PCI express. You'll want to make sure you buy an AGP video card. That is, unless your system has somehow been sold to you without an AGP slot, though that's much rarer, in the case of Athlon-based systems. Now, if you DON'T have an AGP slot, you may want to consider purchasing a new motherboard and video card. If you can find a GeForce FX5700 (not LE!) for around $100 US, you can get a better motherboard for as low as $50. That'd give you far greater performance than what you have now. (Assuming you don't actually have an AGP slot, that is.)

Also, while a GeForce FX5700 definitely IS worth the money, 5900 is probably not, particularly when you can get a GeForce 6600GT with a much better price/performance ratio for only $30 more. If you're willing to pay that much, I'd go for the 6600GT over the 5900 any day.

What brand of motherboard do you have? Where did you get your computer? Is it a prefab brand like Dell or HP? If you can find out what make and model of motherboard you have, it would help figure out what the best use of your money would be.

Download WCPUID:
http://hp.vector.co.jp/authors/VA002374/src/download.html

Install it, and run it, then select:
View > System Info > TYPE 1 (Via Table Access), click "OK".
Then come back here and post the information in "Manufacturer", "Product String" and "Version String" under "Motherboard Information.

Edit:
Also, if you're crashing, that may not necessarily be due to your video card being a slower model. In fact, it could be any number of things, though faulty hardware (whether it's actually broken, or just overheating) is very near the top of the list. What version of Windows are you running? Do you have the latest Nvidia drivers installed?

I am running Windows XP and do have the latest updates, at least that I'm aware of...system checks don't show any faulty hardware, of course this may prove nothing. I don't know how to check into the possible overheating?
This is the info I got from the website you mentioned:

Processor #1 : AMD Athlon XP (Model 6) / 34DC88CB
Platform : Socket A (Socket 462)
Vendor String : AuthenticAMD
CPU Type : Original OEM Processor (0)
Family : 6 (7)
Model : 6 (6)
Stepping ID : 2 (2)
Brand ID : - (-)
APIC : ----
HT Log.CPU Cnt : ----
Name String : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1900+

Internal Clock : 1592.89 MHz
System Bus : 265.48 MHz DDR
System Clock : 132.74 MHz
Multiplier : 12.0

L1 I-Cache : 64K Byte
L1 D-Cache : 64K Byte
L1 T-Cache : ----
L1 Cache : ----
L2 Cache : 256K Byte
L2 Speed : 1592.89 MHz (Full)

MMX Unit : Supported
SSE Unit : Supported
SSE2 Unit : Not Supported
SSE3 Unit : Not Supported
MMX2 Unit : Supported
3DNow! Unit : Supported
3DNow!+ Unit : Supported
VGA Device : 10DE:0110.B2 [NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX 400]
Memory Size : 512M Byte
Memory Clock : ----

OS Version : Windows XP Version 5.1.2600 Service Pack 2