What is this rubbish?

HI All,
I am considering buying a copy of Prince Of Persia: Sands of Time, but their site (as well as some people I have talked to) say that my video card will not work with it. I have an Nvidia GeForce4 MX440 128MB 4x AGP video card, which is a very capable card.

Is there a patch or workaround I cna use to install/play the game If I buy it? I don't beleive my video card is not capable of playing the gane (as Ubisoft claims).

Can anyone help?

Thanx beforehand

Well actually it makes sense in that this graphics card is not really a GeForce 4 nor even a GeForce 3. It's more like a GeForce 2 Plus.

My guess is that the game makes use of some very intensive hardware capabilities that the NV17 GPU doesn't support, sorry about that

I've noted others having the same misgivings about this as you. I guess the game publisher has the right to make a more robust gaming engine that requires a more robust GPU as well ;(

That's funny.
I bought the Geforce 4 as an UPGRADE from a geforce 2. I thought I was getting a spankin hot card. Oh Well.
Can someone recommend a video card for me to buy. I DON'T have a very hot machine, so I will have to buy something reasonable. Here is my current configuration:

Athlon XP 2000+ (1.66Ghz) (266MHz FSB) Palomino core
1GB DDR 2100 RAM (266MHz FSB)
PLENTY hard disk space
Soyo Dragon Plus (k7V) motherboard

Note that the AGP slot is only 4x.

Can someone recommend a decent card for this configuration.

Note: I prefer nvidia cards over ATI because I run Linux.

If you can get a good price on the older GeForce 4/4200, this could save you some money, however since nVidia is trying to sell the FX series of GPU's now, you most likely can get an FX 5200 for about the same price

Some users seem to think the 5200 is about on par with the GeForce 4/4400~4600 in performance. Not really sure where it ends up being but I've seen new cards with this GPU for less then $100(USD).

If you have more funds then either an FX 5600/5700 would be in order.

Thanx for the input jmmijo,

However, MOST of these cards offer too many bells and whistles for my system (see short description above).
Even If i DO get the latest and greatest vido card, the rest of the system will be a huge bottleneck.

So I prefer to get something more in par with the rest of the system, yet if at all possible, I would like it to be powerful enough to run suich a demanding game as POP:SOT.

Any ideas?

Well actually you're system is not really that slow nor would I consider it sub-par

I have two machines that I use ATM, one is running an Athlon XP 2600 on an Asus A7N8X Deluxe with 1GB of ram and my older GeForce 4 Ti 4600.

The other is my gaming rig running a P4-2.53 on an Aopen AX4C Max II board with 1GB of RAM and an Abit Siluro GeForce FX 5600.

Now I wouldn't consider either to be a speed demon by today's standards but hey, remember that an FX series card will run on an AGP4x mobo without any problems an I'd say get one for when/if you do upgrade to an AGP8x board. Too many bells and whistles is what you're gonna get with todays graphics cards. Asus no longer makes what they called a "PURE" graphics card anymore

I found a nice FX 5200 for $55 shipped.

Should I look foir a slightly mor epowerful card, or is my hardware pretty much maxed out with an FX 5200?



Price Quote from Pricewatch.com

I figure If i can get a slightly more powerful card for around $70 then why not. But I don't want to waste $15 if I won't be able to take advantage of a better card due to my hardware.

Let me know what you think

Just for grins, what's a generic/house brand 5600 going for ?!?

That is a good price and this would fit your system nicely. If however you can get a 5600 for a little more, say another $25~35 then this would be good too.

Also note, I would recommend staying with a card that has a local frame buffer size of 128MB instead of 64MB

What does that mean?

I was intending on buying a 128MB card (64 is too outdated).

Also, what is the difference between the 5200 and 5600? I DON'T want to fall in Nvidia's trap twice (where the Geforce 4 is nothing but a Geforce 2)

Sorry about that, it's just another name for the local video memory on the graphics card

Yes I understand the dilema here, I'd say stick with the 5200 since the price is right, but if you can find a 5600 for a little more then it may indeed be worth it, just because the GPU and memory run faster.

So the 5600 IS a better card?

From the look of the prices, looks like I might go for a 5200

The 5200 is the low budget card for people who want to watch videos on their desktops and maybe play small game. If you play any graphic intensive games this is not the card to buy. The 5600 is an excellent buy, usually running around 119-145. For an equal card you could buy an ATI 9600 or the new 9600 xt for about 170. Of course the ATI has a free license of HL2 when it comes out, so price comparison is about the same if you plan on buying that game.

5200FX is not recommended since it's performance is quite questionable. Although it's capable of directx 9 but when it run these kind of games the frame rate is so slow that it's almost unplayable. In directx8 games it's no better, since even geforce 4 4200ti can beats 5200, sometimes 5600 too.

So my recommedation is to get ATI 9600 pro/XT, since it's performance is above 5200 - 5700 in almost every application/benchmark, plus it's video/2d/3d quality is better too. And besides 9600pro's price has dropped considably since XT's introduction, so it'll be best buy for now.

I c. Thanx dor all the valuable input everyone. Here are the requirements I look for in a video card. I would really appreciate it if someone can point me towards a video card that's optimum for them:

1.) Intensive Game play: I intend to play heavy graphics games (Command And Conquer Generals Zero Hour, Prince Of Persia Sands OF Time, Medal OF honor series, etc...)

However I do NOT have a nice fast gaming machine. My machines is OK but not superb or anything. So I don't want to spend too much $ on a card that will be bottlenecked by the rest of my sysem. Here is yet again, a reminder of what my system is:

Soyo Dragon Plus k7V motherboard (266MHZ FSB) For complete information on my mtoherboard's specs and capabilities, click here
512 to 1 GB DDR 2100 (266MHZ) RAM
[video card needs to fit here]
PLENTY of hard drive space
Athlon XP 2000+ (1.66GHz) PALOMINO CORE
4x AGP. My motherboard only has 4X AGP. I am sure it will accept 8x too.


2.) Windows 2000 SP4 Compatibility is a MUST. I do NOT intend on running WIndows XP in the future simply because I personally beleive its not a good OS (but Pleeeeease lets not get into this discussion right now)

3.) Linux compatibility is a MUST. I run Linux frequently enough to justify a card that is somewhat Linux-compatible. I am no authority on this, but I heard Nvidia is more compatible with linux than Ati

4.) Buying just a small "upgrade" card is out of the question. I had bought a GeForce 4 MX 440 thinking I am UPGRADING from a Geforce 2 MX 400. This is obviously not true. I need a good solid reliable and powerful card (see number 1 above).


If someone has his/her 2 cents, kindly do not hesitate to let me know. All input is appreciated. Thanx

I think the nVidia GPU's are needed due to better(?) compatibility with *nix so this is why none of the ATi GPU cards were mentioned

Also pricing seems to be an issue too...

Yes. That's What I heard too. I also like the ability to go to Nvidia.com and download drivers form there. No hassle of writing, compiling, or hunting down drivers.

I still need some recommendations for good video cards. It looks like the FX5200 is not the one.

I need a card that will satisfy all of the 4 requirements above.

9600PRO or XT.
Or 9500 PRo or non pro.

Or 9600 non pro.

these will all be excellent, wil last a long time, and will be a good price.

They are all full DX 9 parts, so you won't get the MX 400 deal where it doesnt have the needed features.

Are these Ati or Nvidia? Also, I need to make sure the fulfill requirements 1 through 4 (above)

They are ATi GPU's

I have two bones to pick with Ati

1.) They have HORRIBLE support (if any at all) under *nix

2.) They put LOTS of garbage and trash on widnwos like Ati Control Center etc..

LOL

Also, Atis have nice bells and whistles which my system probably can't take advantage of!

But you have to remember that the lion's share of ATi's market is Windows based machines, either OEM's/System Builders and Retail

A GeForce4 MX is a decent upgrade from a GeForce2 MX 400. The gf4 MX is like a Gf2 Ultra with higher clock speed.

That aside, out of the nVidia cards a FX5600 would be a good buy for your system. The FX5200 would max out before the XP2000 would. Also the new FX5700 out which deserves consideration. I think this post should satisfy all your 4 requirements: game play, Win 2k support, Linux support and Gf4 mx to FX5600 or FX5700 is a significant upgrade.

P.S. AGP 8x is virtually useless. All operations are done from the video cards local memory not AGP memory. Also benchmarks back up what I say about AGP 8x. No performance gain if you have it and no loss if you don't.

Thanx for the input. So What you are saying Is I should be looking for either an Nvidia Geforce 4 FX 5600 or Nvidia geForce 4 FX 5700 128MB AGP 4/8x ?
(note the workding: GeForce 4...)

Well technically the GeForce FX is not a GeForce 4 GPU it would have been called the GeForce 5 but I think nVidia decided on a name change for this series of GPU's

Yep. I reckon thats the way to go if you wanna stay with nVidia.

P.S. It's just GeForce FX not GeForce 4 FX

yeeeouch! Geforce FX 5600 runs at $93, FX 5800 at $193!

I might have to live with my MX 440 a little longer

The brands are all generic. There is one called AGPTEK, one called Inno3d, and one called eVGA. I have tried evGA before for my GeForce 2.

Does it matter which brand I pick?

Sometimes the cooling mechanisms are different. I would go to a site (such as newegg) where they have pictures of the cards to make sure it fits any cooling requirements you might have.

Pricewatch does have pictures of them. Here is the picture of the eVGA one.



Does it really matter which brand I get?

1. Check out ATI driver page, they do have linux drivers.
URL: http://www.ati.com/support/drivers/linux...&submit.y=8

2. - You mean ATI control panel is trash? then how bout nvidia?
their newest "forceware" 50 series driver have lots of "useless" options as well.......so they're both the same deal

- actually i never find any video driver's control panel as "trash and garbage", as they provides lots of useful options to tweak video card performance

- besides you can install ati drivers by itself if you think control panel is not useful...ATI have give option to uninstall smartgart as well, as some ppl dun like it much

Those drivers look generic. THey do not look like they provide any 3D functionality. Also, they do not say WHICH cards these drivers are for.

As for the stuff that Ati/Nvidia installs, Ati (as you said) gives you the option to un install. Which means it INSTALLS it (whther u like it or not) then you have to manually remove it

I am still not convinced that radeon cards are supported under Linux. General opinion states they seem to lack good reliable support for linux. The way I look at it is if I pay hard earned cash for a video card, then I don't want a company that says we're too lazy to support Linux.


As for the tools and control panel items that you do not find to be garbage, they ug the heck out of me. I want my desktop nice and clean, with nothing running in the background or in my system tray, consuming resources, while providing functionality I rarely ever need. The way I see it is, WHEN i do need the functionality of these annoying programs, I can install them and use them form the Windows control panel manually.



That's just my 2 cents

Well if you check out ATI drivers download section, you'll see that you can download the windows drivers as on package, or individual components (driver, control panel). And MMC and dvd driver is seprate component as well.
URL: http://www.ati.com/support/drivers/winxp...amp;submit.y=10

ATI have given user to intall driver and control panel seprately, nvidia don't even give you that option. The nvidia's control panel is bundled with the driver so u can't install it seprately. So if you think that the control panel is taking resource (which doesn't take that much, maybe a few mb)
you can install drivers only.

The linux drivers are for all radeon series, (8500/9000/9100/9200/9500/9600/9800), and they're fully optimized for 2D/3D functionality like nvidia does
URL: http://www.ati.com/support/faq/linux.html

But they don't have drivers for IA64 and AMD64 available yet, which you will not likely to use these ones. ATI will have support for these CPUs available later.

Same as Nvidia, ATI provided one driver for Radeon family, and Nvidia for Geforce family. So ATI's inferior driver support (windows, linux) is a thing in the past. Starting from the catalyst drivers, they provided full range support for full windows and linux family.

My first and second video card is nvidia (TNT, Geforce2) and i like them more then ATI by then. But I switch to ATI because of Geforce FX's disappointing performance, and their attitude (they deliberately cheat in benchmark/games, which i know ppl would say ATI cheats as well, but the problem is that they say that even by cutting corners it's still "fine". And the margin is too excessive too (when Madonion released 3dmark 01/03 patch for example, nvidia's performance dropped drastically (more then 20%) but ATI's is only like 1 or 2 percent or sth, which is very minor in comparison). And even worse is that their responded by releasing new driver versions to "re-enable the optimizations" which say that they're really just ignore what the customer really wanted (true performance). And ATI's response is that they'll turn off the optimization with the next driver release(even though is nth compare to nvidia). So this kinda of attitude it causes me to loose confidence with Nvidia.

I did not relize FX had such bad ratings. Also I did not check the driver thingy, so i stand corrected.,

Ok, so lets say I want to get a Radeon, which card should I get that meetts ALL of requirements 1, 2 ,3 and 4 (mentioned earlier)?

Hey Guys, Check this link out

256MB 9600

This is a REALLY good price for a 256 MB card. What do u guys think?

[img]http://store1.yimg.com/I/livewarehouse_1769_3203033[/img]

Sapphire appears to be the biggest ATi partner ATM. We sell a lot of Powered by ATi cards in the shop, most are Sapphire branded. Then we get the occasional client wanting the retail boxed Built by ATi with all the goodies. Well that depends on which model you get. The desktop retail boxed versions Built by ATi do have extra's like games and such, however their Workstation cards, the Fire GL cards, only come with the DVI2VGA adapters and the drivers disk. This insanely huge box full of nothing basically

Here's where things in the states get ludicrus, I'd rather have less fluff and a plain white/brown box, or even just the anti-static bad, along with the drivers disk and the item then these fancy retail boxes ;(

Yes but what do u think of the card above (there is a link to it) ?

Sorry, I neglected to comment on your question there

Well on this model I can't say but if it's like any of there other Radeon models then I'd say it's a good buy. I've installed 100's of these cards now in various machine builds and have had little problems with them. They work well with the supplied drivers disk and the OEM Radeon drivers from ATi's site

Hmmm I C. I have heard it has an older GPU. iI still can't figure out which is the best card my system can take advantage of

Yeah, thats right. TI4200 give decent speeds in pre-DX9, and even some DX9 games; save those heavily optmised for DX9 titles.

As for a GF4 card on this game, try avoid running the game in bilinear filtering mode, cos it shows some instability in doing so, stay with the trilinear filtering.

HI All,

Can anyone help me with this. I found a decent deal on a 9600 SE. Here is the link

Radeon 9600 SE 128 MB

Is this card any good?

Thanx

The GeForce FX5600 or 5700.

For ATi's side of things, the Radeon 9200 would be a steup up in the right direction.

Originally posted by shassouneh:

For the price, no. The memory bus is cut from 128 bits to 64-bits.
If it were, say $30, it'd be alright, but for the price it runs, it's not worth the money paid. It's on the same recommendation as the GeForce FX 5200. Sappire is a good brand tho.

first dont buy from a store that says geforce4 fx they dont know what they're talking about, it doesnt exist

second, any GeForce FX card above 5600 will do
third make sure you get one with 128mb of memory

so pick whichever yuo got enough money for

*EDIT*
with that said i strongly suggest you get 5700 128mb over 5600 i think it has much more bang for your buck
[Edited by BabyBoy-- on 2004-05-02 03:37:34]

Its not a geforece 4 fx 5600, iots geforce FX 5600

(or 5700)

I used to ride the GeForce wagon, used to bash ATI and their support. But when I actually got one of their cards, 9600PRO 256MB 8X AGP, I was very happy and excited! My GeForce 4 Ti 128MB 4400 couldn't even compare. As for support, what support do you need, it's a friggin video card not an OS! The drivers work great, they release new ones all the time, and i have yet to have any issues at all...

Originally posted by shassouneh:


Ignore the GeForce 4 as these cards are technically a GeForce 5, nVidia gave them the brand name of GeForce FX instead of the numeral 5 Looks like the NV4x series may go back to the numeral system and be branded the GeForce 6 series.

As for you question, the FX 5700 has basically replaced the FX 5600 model. However there may not be too much of a performance difference on your machine but of course if price is the major concern here you most likely will be able to get an FX 5600 for a pretty good price now.

Take it from personal experience....DO NOT BUY an AGPTEK card you'll be lucky if they have the correct specs and last a year. Imagestore, Fookstore, & 99 cent store sell them through eBay. I've played CIVIII with a geforceMX2 with hardly any problems.

Good Luck,
gj

Hmmm, I read all two pages thinking this was all new. Then I noticed the last post number was about 22,000 posts after the one before it. Why do people revive old posts?