Not that I can find.. £65 converts to about £35, and I havnt been able to find any of these cheaper than £60 - about $100 and that's second hand. *sigh*
My ti4200p turbo does better then that, a 486 dx2 66mhz with a 5950 might do that, I'm not sure if you have listed the 5950 their if you have its not the top the ULTRA version is. 'doc EDIT: it doesnt look like their is a non-ultra version and the 5950u seems to be only about 10fps slower then the 9800xt
ill eat my hat if it is anything near that (mind you, i dont wear hats, but i still have one or 2 anyway, ill eat one of those) just downloading the unreal2k3 demo now to have a look for myself my aquamark3 is around 50k and 3dmark03 around 6800 so i fail to see how it would compare so poorly to the others /waits 40mins for this bloody download
although they arent new, im tempted to agree with this. MX440's are dirt cheap now, and cam play most things at a pretty decient speed. Not to mention most are passively cooled, and have tvout.
134fps with 6X FSAA is just BS. You don't get that good framerates even without any FSAA. looky here. Accoding to that test, you get a nice 114 fps with a 9800XT @ 1024'768 without any AA or anisotropic filtering. And that's in a really fast 3.2 ghz p4 rig. How good fps do you expect to get with 6XAA? Well certainly not 134. Those numbers appear to have come from some ATI fanboy, because they're severly biased. As for the TVOUT comment, almost all cards have tvout these days. You're going to have a hard time finding one that doesn't. Look at ATIs low end cards; they almost all have DVI, CRT and TVOUT. I haven't seen a card that didn't have tvout for years now. And the passive cooling isn't worth much cause if you're the kind of person that buys a card cause it's "dirt cheap", you've likely not spent that much on cooling, and you won't notice the sound of most graphics cards over stock cooling anyway. And not all Gf4MX's are passively cooled anyway. And Gf4MXs are basically like improved gf2's with much higher clockspeeds. They will run all the new games really lousily. You can't get much fun out of battlefield vietnam with it running at 800'600. You just can't. And you will need a pretty good card to run it well at anything higher than 800'600. Just look at the secret weapons benchmarks, and imagine how much performance hit you'll take with all that extra detail and the extra foliage and consider how crappy your specs are compared to that top end 3.2ghz p4. Most people who have bought gf4mxs have regretted it, at least all the people i play desert combat with.
since everyone is so happy to bash nVidia at any chance they get here's me defending them there will be no hat eating around here for me these are with all game setting on highest and all driver settings on max quality, taken on my system about 20 min ago, with all of the background services running, IE, firewall, antivirus and MSN windows open (-H- can confirm this ) just so no one says it was an stripped XP or anything asbestos flyby: 1024x768 4xAA 8xAF 182.7fps 1024x768 6xAA 8xAF 85.2fps 1024x768 8xAA 8xAF 68.5fps 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF 86.9fps in fact it wasn't even possible to get 36fps in the flyby at all on my system all of the setting maxed out as before in 1600x1200 8xAA 8XAF at 42.2fps possibly if the game allowed a resolution of 2048x1536 i may have been able to get below 36 and then keep in mind these scores are using a 128mb non-ultra 5900 so then who feels silly now? not me
lol, yeah, but in transit, and it is being RMA'd at the mo... You can currently get the 9800 Pro at newegg.com for $224! think it moves up the leaderboard a bit now, I def pay $25 more for it over a 9600xt
Geforce fx 5900 128mb non-ultra non-xt non-xt for $170 they offer awesome preformance. But if your looking for low price and strangly high preformance i hafta reccomend the radeon 9100 (as much as i hate ati). The thing is ASTOUNDING! it even outpreforms my brothers ti4200 in his machine in many games and the visual quality is better. I picked my 9100 up just to have an extra card for $30 from tigerdirect.com.
radeon 9100= 8000ish 3dmarks ti4200= 10500ish 3dmarks I think 9100's are quite pants tbh. They're not even in the same league as ti4200s. They're ok as a spare card though.
Just a wee update, if you are lucky enough to live on the other side of the pond (the USA) you can now get a 9800 Pro for $219!!! And just to really rub it in for all of us here in blighty that is £117.98 currently
someone from the past enabled the other four pipelines in the 9800SE.. i never knew if it worked well after that.... it also said others tried it.. and some failed..
Go with an eVGA 5900SE. They are easily overclockable to 5950U stock clocks, plus they have kickass ram, 2.9ms So: They get roughly 5000-6000+ 3dmark03 marks. check em out at newegg, they're only 190USD. If you want to go radeon, you can do so for about 35 bucks extra and but a sapphire 9800PRO from newegg.com at about 215USD Not much extra performance, but if you're a radeon fan, that's the way to go (Note: I'm remaining neutral on nvidia/radeon, I try not to be biased on either one)
Geforce 3. The purpose of a card is not to brag about your superfast $400 video card, it's to be able to play games and have the graphics look nice. A Ti 200 64MB is like $40. It can play any DirectX 8.1 game at XGA resolution with good quality. It's the definition of bang for your buck.
I would have normally probably said that a gf4ti4200 or 9600Xt was best VFM but with the current price drop in 9800/9800pro i would have to say those!
