Wchich one to choose?

[Nowhere]

ok, so finally I've found cheap graphics cards that will have decent performance (until arrival of the doom III atleast...) and hopefully good 2d quality, comparable to mine g400sh 16mb

And that's the question: do they really have that good 2d?
first choice: ATI Radeon 32MB DDR OEM
second: Videologic Vivid! (eventually Vivid!XS)

[UtwigMU]

What's the chipset of Vivid?

Ati Radeon has supposedly good image quality (Indiana said: G400MAX>Radeon9700>Radeon>Radoeon8500)

I highly recommend either BBA (built by Ati) or Hercules on Ati side.

Right now I'd recommend:
- Radeon9000, Radeon8500 or GeForce (Leadtek, Albatron) 4 Ti 4200

Original Radeon is in GeForce2, Vodoo5, GeForce DDR class and is significantly slower than above cards.

If you need to go cheaper go GeForce 3 Ti 200 or wait till you save up for better card.

[Ribbit]

Vivid is a Kyro. Vivid-XS is a Kyro II. http://www.videologic.com/Products/pcgraphics.asp

[Admiral]

The Kyro II doesn't have a hardware T&L engine on it, so you'll need a 1GHz+ CPU to compensate, that's why I'd recommed a GF3 Ti200/GF4 Ti4200/GF4 MX440,460 (Albatron and Gainward have decent prices) or a Radeon 8500 LE/8500/9000 (Gigabyte or Sapphire).
Not sure if you can play UT2003 on the Kyro II as well as you can do it on the other cards.

Don't know what to tell you about the image quality of the Videologic board, I had the Hercules model and it was blurry over 1280x960 in 2D, compared to my current Leadtek GF3 Ti200 (none of them is on par with my old G400).

You can check, or register and ask on the PowerVR Network forums about performance, quality and other compatibility issues regarding the Videologic Vivid!XS.

edit: I'd probably go for the Radeon instead of KyroII

[rubank]

Nowhere,

for what it´s worth I can but recommend the ATI Radeon 32DDR. I´m currently using one running OmegaPlutonium drivers 1.1.52 in XPsp1 and dx9beta.

I have ZERO problems, something I can´t say for a lot of other cards I´ve tried through the years, including various offerings from Matrox and nVidia, and lately ATI 8500 oem.

This card and it´s drivers are rock stable and give adequate performance. 2D is as close to perfect as I could want, clearly better than the 8500 and G4ti4200 I have tried recently.
This is at 1280x960 though, my monitor won´t run at 1600x1200 so I don´t know about the image quality at that level.

rubank

[Tempest]

If you have a powerful processor, I don't think it is worth upgrading a G400 to a Radeon or Kyro. Just my humble opinion.

I have a Hercules 8500LE, and I was amazed that the image quality @ 1600x1200 is as good as that of my Marvel G400-TV. If you look here, you'll notice that Radeon boards by Hercules are definitely the ones with better signal quality though.

I might have gotten lucky, of course, but this card has opened my eyes. Frankly I don't believe that there is that big a difference between competitors' and Matrox's image quality anymore. Add that to the fact that the Hercules is the cheapest 8500LE there is, and we've got quite a bargain there. End of sales pitch.
But if you have to choose between those two products, I'd leave the Kyro and take the Radeon DDR.

<small>Edit: Okay, I compare a Matrox product from 1999 with a Hercules product from 2002, but you get my point</small>

[rugger]

Originally posted by UtwigMU


In a year Radeon 9500/9700 and GF4600 will be where 9000/4200 are now and 9000/4200 will be where 460MX/2GTS/Radeon are now.

Umm, I don't know what you are getting at here.

At the moment, any card better than a NV TNT2 or a G400 is not obsolete, even for 3d games. By obsolete, I mean that games are simply unplayable, or only playable with the uttermost minimal settings.

A geforce 4 MX will probably not be obsolete for at least 18-24 months. (for games other than Doom3)

My recommendation is to buy a cheap card now, and then in 12 months, when Doom3 is released and everything is settled down a bit, decide on a more powerful video card based on how well they peform in doom3. (since the doom3 engine, along with similar designs, will be used in other games)

And remember, for every expensive card, you can buy at least 2 decent cheaper cards. If a know a more expensive card will last you twice as long as the cheaper card, buy it, otherwise get the cheaper one.

This post assumes you are not a gaming fanatic. If you are, buy a Radeon 9700 now, and then a Geforce FX when it comes out too.

Edit: reworded last paragraph.

[The AngeL]

Imho for good gaming performance and best SQ you should take parhelia. It costs a little bit more than other cards, but on full AA is she at the same line wih a ti4600 and a little bit faster.

[Goc]

I believe that price range is not what Nowhere had in mind... It's >300$ and I think he was more into ~100$ range... My vote is still in for a Radeon 8500... Pretty stable card and a good contender in all fields... And it perfectly fits the bill.

EDIT: Oh, no! I've mixed up threads again...

[The AngeL]

Originally posted by Goc
I believe that price range is not what Kastuvas had in mind... It's >300$ and I think he was more into ~100$ range... My vote is still in for a Radeon 8500... Pretty stable card and a good contender in all fields... And it perfectly fits the bill.

If he wanna spend only about $100 then the best one is a Radeon8500 or Gf4ti4200

[Goc]

Well, if you're looking for something in ~50$ price range I wouldn't bother upgrading from your G400... Perhaps finding a used G400 32Mb is the best solution, but if you feel you MUST upgrade I wouldn't take anything under a KyroII... I've been told Kyro's don't have shabby picture quality at all, and AFAIK KyroII is faster than the original Radeon and costs roughly the same amount of cash... In the end, it's up to you again.

[rubank]

Nowhere,

they are not non-ATI drivers, thery´re just tweaked ATI drivers.

You can find them at www.driverheaven.net
And they are really good, I promise.

rubank

[Greebe]

they are not non-ATI drivers, thery´re just tweaked ATI drivers.

They not be "tweaked", but hacked together

[Nowhere]

Thanks for all replies...I will buy something soon; but in the ~50$ range I've found two new candidates recently:

Elsa Erazor X2 (gf1 ddr)
Elsa Gladiac (gf2 32mb)

What about their image quality? (in comparision to original ati Radeon ddr and Vivid)

[Novdid]

Originally posted by Nowhere
Thanks for all replies...I will buy something soon; but in the ~50$ range I've found two new candidates recently:

Elsa Erazor X2 (gf1 ddr)
Elsa Gladiac (gf2 32mb)

What about their image quality? (in comparision to original ati Radeon ddr and Vivid)

Do not get those two!!! Lousy 2d quality is the reason.