-- Posted by Cumulonimbus at 6:04 pm on June 27, 2008 I have an old Radeon 9250, and it's time to retire it.  Does anyone know any good cards to replace it with?  I don't want the cutting-edge stuff, just something to catch my computer up with some of the games coming out. -- Posted by Syber at 6:05 pm on June 27, 2008 Nvidia 7100 -- Posted by Neilap at 6:11 pm on June 27, 2008 i have a GeForce 5500 overdriven card... i havnt met a game yet that it cant handle but yea im looking to upgrade also id begetting what is it.. the new GeForce VooDoo 4's? like 1 gb of video lol -- Posted by Cumulonimbus at 6:16 pm on June 27, 2008 Ok, thanks you guys.  I'll look them up. -- Posted by Tursi Askari at 2:38 pm on June 28, 2008 LAwL @ Nvidia 7100 and VooDoo? You guys are living in the past. 5500s aren't up to SHIT. Those things can't even handle World of Warcraft ahhahaha. If its an AGP video card, give up and buy a new system, you can get some good stuff for cheap these days. If its PCIE, look at the NVidia 9600GT, or if you have a bit more cash, the ATi 4850. Don't listen to those chumps who have NO idea what they are talking about. -- Posted by drifting at 8:42 pm on June 29, 2008 Quote: from Neilap at 9:11 pm on June 27, 2008 i have a GeForce 5500 overdriven card... i havnt met a game yet that it cant handle but yea im looking to upgrade also id begetting what is it.. the new GeForce VooDoo 4's? like 1 gb of video lol Isnt that a PCI card? LMAO! Ha! Obviously you havent tried to play Crysis yet... Go with at least an 8 series card. They are cheap, and should handle most things. Thats nVidia of course. I havent bought an ATI card in like 5 years, so Im not up to speed on those. -- Posted by what the mong at 11:17 pm on July 6, 2008 Quote: from drifting at 8:42 pm on June 29, 2008 Quote: from Neilap at 9:11 pm on June 27, 2008 i have a GeForce 5500 overdriven card... i havnt met a game yet that it cant handle but yea im looking to upgrade also id begetting what is it.. the new GeForce VooDoo 4's? like 1 gb of video lol Isnt that a PCI card?   LMAO! Ha! Obviously you havent tried to play Crysis yet... Go with at least an 8 series card. They are cheap, and should handle most things. Thats nVidia of course. I havent bought an ATI card in like 5 years, so Im not up to speed on those. i agree i just purchased an nvidia geforce 8600 512mb and it runs everything pretty well considering the cost. -- Posted by Tursi Askari at 2:46 am on July 7, 2008 8600GT 512mb will run the likes of World of Warcraft and Call of Duty4 with relative ease on medium gfx settings. Crysis sucks on it though. -- Posted by drifting at 12:18 pm on July 7, 2008 Quote: from Tursi Askari at 5:46 am on July 7, 2008 8600GT 512mb will run the likes of World of Warcraft and Call of Duty4 with relative ease on medium gfx settings. Crysis sucks on it though. Depends on what resolution you are trying to play it on. If you are just playing 1024x768, you might be able to get Crysis on High. Now, at a good resolution, you will probably need to play it on low, but you can still play it. -- Posted by Macropiper at 2:04 pm on July 7, 2008 As others have said, because your current video card probably uses AGP, and AGP has been obsolete for a few years, it is probably time to buy a new computer. The good side about this is that you get to pick a new CPU and more RAM and such like too. The fastest AGP video card that I can find is a Geforce 7600 GS, which should provide passable performance in things like HalfLife 2 to up to a screen resolution of 1280 by 1024 or so. Getting a new computer is probably a more cost effective option though. -- Posted by Tursi Askari at 11:12 pm on July 7, 2008 Quote: from drifting at 7:18 am on July 8, 2008 Quote: from Tursi Askari at 5:46 am on July 7, 2008 8600GT 512mb will run the likes of World of Warcraft and Call of Duty4 with relative ease on medium gfx settings. Crysis sucks on it though. Depends on what resolution you are trying to play it on. If you are just playing 1024x768, you might be able to get Crysis on High. Now, at a good resolution, you will probably need to play it on low, but you can still play it. Negative batman. At that reso we had Crysis with average fps on low settings (brothers computer). Crysis is quite demanding. Oh, and it looks sooo shit at low gfx settings. -- Posted by drifting at 7:01 am on July 8, 2008 Quote: from Tursi Askari at 2:12 am on July 8, 2008 Quote: from drifting at 7:18 am on July 8, 2008 Quote: from Tursi Askari at 5:46 am on July 7, 2008 8600GT 512mb will run the likes of World of Warcraft and Call of Duty4 with relative ease on medium gfx settings. Crysis sucks on it though.    Depends on what resolution you are trying to play it on.    If you are just playing 1024x768, you might be able to get Crysis on High.    Now, at a good resolution, you will probably need to play it on low, but you can still play it. Negative batman. At that reso we had Crysis with average fps on low settings (brothers computer). Crysis is quite demanding. Oh, and it looks sooo shit at low gfx settings. I barely had to OC my 8600GT to play Crysis on High (XP high) at 1024x768. I had a 256mb edition. Im sure you could squeaze it out on high without the OC if you have the 512mb edition. -- Posted by Tursi Askari at 5:05 pm on July 8, 2008 Dear god you must have had 5fps! Hes bringing it round later on today cos he managed to corrupt some system files so ill have a play with Rivatuner and do some benches. -- Posted by drifting at 5:25 pm on July 8, 2008 Quote: from Tursi Askari at 8:05 pm on July 8, 2008 Dear god you must have had 5fps! Hes bringing it round later on today cos he managed to corrupt some system files so ill have a play with Rivatuner and do some benches. According to FRAPS, I had 26FPS, which is actually playable on Crysis. Granted, I usually turn it down to medium, so I can pull about 35FPS, but you have to remember, with the Crysis blur system, you dont need nearly as many FPS to play. I found it EXTREMELY playable, I just prefer the higher FPS over the slightly (and I mean slightly) prettier graphics. -- Posted by Tursi Askari at 9:31 pm on July 8, 2008 O-rly? Just done a bench with my brothers 8600GT 512mb, all settings on medium, no AA, reso 1440x900 = 14fps average during the plane scene at the beginning of the game, and the first run up the beach averaged 16fps. And you should know that motion blur is even more GPU intensive and when that was turned off, FPS jumped to 19 on the beach. Low settings yeilded 19fps on the plane with 30 on the beach (dropped to 20 when looking at the flare). What OC were you running? -- Posted by Tuski at 10:44 pm on July 8, 2008 8500gt is like 50 bucks on tigerdirect.com right now.  It's not worth buying anything under a 7900gt. -- Posted by whimsy at 3:25 am on July 10, 2008 If you want to do it on the cheap get an 8600GTS bare minimum or get an older generation high end card. My 7800GTX still pulls it's own weight, I can't afford a high end card right now and it does the job, so if you can pick something like that up cheap second hand it should work well, although not as future proof for DX10 but it's a more powerful card. -- Posted by Dickij03 at 8:44 am on July 11, 2008 Quote: from Tursi Askari at 5:31 am on July 9, 2008 O-rly? Just done a bench with my brothers 8600GT 512mb, all settings on medium, no AA, reso 1440x900 = 14fps average during the plane scene at the beginning of the game, and the first run up the beach averaged 16fps. And you should know that motion blur is even more GPU intensive and when that was turned off, FPS jumped to 19 on the beach. Low settings yeilded 19fps on the plane with 30 on the beach (dropped to 20 when looking at the flare). What OC were you running? He was running at a much lower resolution (1024x768) unlike 1440x900 which explains his higher fps.