TnL get your facts straight (chart included)

So,

I'm planning to buy an AGP graphic card (I'm sure I'm not the only one), but I'm not exactly sure which cad to get. I was hoping for some experts to give me suggestions/opinions. I'm especially interested in the differences between some different cards and the size of the gaps between the cards (Is it worth it to buy a more expensive in a certain situation?)

Also, does the manufacturer/label have an affect (Sapphire, Club3D, Connect3D, ASUS etc.)?

It should be of a reasonable prize (what's that?), which for me is absolutely under 100eur, preferably nearer to 50eur (or even less).

I have looked for some options, some of them are from internet auctions, so I would really like to know, at what prizes it would be profitable to buy one of those.

Which are good? Which are better? Something totally unexeptable/unrecommendable? Something sticking out in good or bad? I appreciate every advice/opinion.

Thank you guys.
(eur=about $)

Radeon 9550 128MB (about 50 eur)
GF4 Ti 4200 128MB (auction, what would be good price?)
Radeon 9600 pro 128MB (about 80 eur from shop, how much in auction?)
Radeon 9800 pro 128MB (120 eur in the shop, how much in auction?)
GF 6200 128MB (50 eur)
GF 6200 256MB (60 eur)
GF 6600 128MB (100 eur)
GF 6600 GT 128 MB (137 eur) (What's the difference?)
GF FX5500 128/256 MB (50-60 eur)
GF FX5700 LE 128MB (about 100 eur)

I've already kind of ruled these out, but if someone feels to recommend these,

Radeon 9250 128 MB (33 eur)
Radeon 9250 SE 128 MB (22 eur)
GF FX5200 128 MB (about 40 eur)

Thanks for all,
Lance.
 
A fairly good article for you to get a perspective - as in all articles, note but dont treat as a statement of immutable fact - however Tom's Hardware is ok, so lean towards going with it

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/05/squeezing_value_out_of_lower_end_cards/index.html

The choice of card between ATI & NVidia is a very personal thing. I have been ATI for years, but lately I have been impressed with NVidia, so I am going NVidia in a new beastie coming shortly.

Iwouldnt go for the 4200, its 'old' design and too low powered when you consider it has to do you for 2/3 years - in 12 months that design will be circa 4/5 years old...

Going above a 6600 would blow the budget, and in any case start to hit the top end of what the cpu can deliver to the card. Top end cards would be waiting for cpu time when at lower resolutions they are too fast for yours.

As you on a budget as such, dont bother with 256mb ram - use the cash to get a better card with 128 Mb ram. 256 is handy, but far from essential as its not used to its full extent most of the time, 128Mb is fine.

Differences in the cards is in the article above ("read over " terms you dont understand, you'll get the overall drift)

Your exclusions are on the button , dont buy those new - remember it needs to last 2/3 years, the excluded ones are on the edge already re Civ IV.

I always distrust any card with LE suffix - they are 99% of the time a cut down version, and in reality only as powerfull as the next one down. FX ones will run, 6200 probably better than those 2.

So for my money I would say it comes down to

9550 / 9600 / 6200 (128Mb)

If you have the dosh - no contest 6600 or 6600gt - if not the 9600

But - thats a purely personal view, many will have other choices for other reasons - would be good to hear them

Regards
Zy
 
Winged Cat said:
I tried Civ4 on my laptop, and got the black terrain bug as described elsewhere. I think my video card doesn't support T&L - it's a SIS M650, set up for 64 MB of video RAM (and 256 MB of texture buffer). But given as the game plays somewhat, and my computer is otherwise well in excess of the minimum specifications, I suspect the game would play (if slowly) with software T&L. (And it's not like this is a RTS, so the speed isn't as much of an issue.)

Maybe Firaxis could add software T&L as part of the next patch, to be used as a last-ditch option if hardware T&L fails, given how many people are having problems with the hardware T&L?
Click to expand...

I see similar messages here and I happen to be in the same situation. I also have a laptop that allows watching DVDs, plays other games, incliding Civ III without any problems but I am yet to try Civ IV after three days of trying it. My minimum specs are double the capacity required, 2.4 Mhz, 512 RAM... First of all the game just crashes my laptop on the second move. I also have a black terrain, describe by other fellow SiS M650 chip users. I have brought down resoulution and lowerd to medium the graphics, installed patch but nothing seem to work. And it's not like I could replace the videocard. It's hardwired into my motherboard.

Is there anything that can be done about this? I'm ready to EBAY my Civ IV I'm so disappointed...
 
santa, I have the exact same chipset and im afraid I have managed to get everything but the black terrain working. Unless an update of that 3d analyser comes out which supports software emulation on tnl I think we are going to have to throw civ4 to the scrap heap.

I have been trying since release with no success on the black terrain issue.
 
How about this?

I cannot find it on the chart... The Creative FX5200 64mb card?

I cannot even find it on creative.com?
The only FX 5200 on the chart is Nvidia or is that the same?

You guessed it I am no buff on the subject.... Can anyone help me?
 
OK so it is the Nvidia FX5200 and that is DX 9 and supports about the world...

But is it good enough to run Civ IV? What with only 64mb on board....
That offcourse is the 1.000.000 dollar question, it should I guess as 64mb is recommended....
 
you can run it, but card seriously lacks processing power, so it is going to lag badly. and that card is like $30, 3D gaming is expensive business.
 
im looking to buy a new laptop with this chipset.

ATI Mobility Radeon Xpress 200M graphics with from 64MB to 128MB of shared memory (dynamically allocated)

i know this will work but will it work fine? how well will it run the game?
 
Got my PC with Intel 845 G/GL 64 MB integrated video running Civ4 (patch 1.52). Runs a little bumpy somtimes, but otherwise completely playable. Here were my steps:

- Installed Civ from CD

- Updated Intel driver from http://support.intel.com/support/graphics/intel845g/sb/cs-009072.htm?iid=graphics+845main&

- Installed patch 1.52

Other PC specs:
Dell dimension 4500S, 1.8 GHz, 512 MB

Once the patch was installed, I started the game, and it reset graphics options on low settings...

Resolution: 1024 x 768
Graphics quality: low
Render Quality: low
globe quality: low
X single unit graphics
X frozen animations
X effects disabled
X low resolution textures
 
i also got civ 4 working with Intel 845. it crashes all the time, though, and its pretty choppy.
 
Hi

Recently changed my pc (needed one for work). The card that came as standard is an X800 GT..which i dont see in the list.

Performance is awful ..as bad as on the old pc. I dont think its the cpu (x2 3800) and i have a gig of ram..does anyone know of issues with this card??

I know its not a 'great card' but thought it could handle civ iv?

Cheers
 
Ahh sorry, saw x800..didnt see 'all variants' bit.

So it is supported. Not sure what to do now..i can play Battle for middle earth II on high details, had assumed civ iv would need less juice.

Ahh well thanks anyway
 
I've decided to upgrade my intel chipset so I can play Civ IV but I am having trouble finding a card that is not AGP or PCI Express. Those will not work with my machine. I can only use a PCI card. Anybody have any ideas?
 
Dave22 said:
Is it really possible that they could be wrong about the minimum requirements for the game they themselves made?
Click to expand...

There are always inconsistencies in the supported hardware for any game. No testing is, completely, perfect. However, that stated....If you are using hardware that isn't supposed to work...Consider yourself lucky. :D

Excellent research and thread. I highly recommend this one for anyone who isn't sure what cards are supported. :)

One thing I do know, this is a HIGHLY graphics intensive game, and the more up to date the hardware you have, the better you will run.
 
frankophile said:
I've decided to upgrade my intel chipset so I can play Civ IV but I am having trouble finding a card that is not AGP or PCI Express. Those will not work with my machine. I can only use a PCI card. Anybody have any ideas?
Click to expand...

Hey frankophile,
I also had an Intel chipset...64MB on board. Obviously not enough for Civ IV. I bought a 256MB ATI Radeon 9250 PCI card from Buy.com. I, after alot of testing and head scratching, installed the Omega Radeon drivers instead of the awful ATI drivers. That has worked for me so far.

I also upgraded my RAM to 1GB.
 
PhillyPhanatic said:
Hey frankophile,
I also had an Intel chipset...64MB on board. Obviously not enough for Civ IV. I bought a 256MB ATI Radeon 9250 PCI card from Buy.com. I, after alot of testing and head scratching, installed the Omega Radeon drivers instead of the awful ATI drivers. That has worked for me so far.

I also upgraded my RAM to 1GB.
Click to expand...

I have been looking at the Radeon 9250 and now that you have advised me that it will work with Civ IV I will probably buy it. Can you tell me a little more about the driver problems you had?

Also, an upgrade to 1 GB RAM is in the cards but not immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Azurian
C2C System Requirements Guide: Laptops
Replies
1
Views
4K
dexter_inside
dexter_inside
M
Hello - questions about a possible new computer
Replies
2
Views
913
The_J
The_J
Patroklos
Upgrading Some of My PC Hardware, Need Some Help!
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
GoodGame
GoodGame
S
Civ V Release Livestream
2 3
Replies
57
Views
8K
Masher8559
M
Methos
Aspyr Releases Civ V for Mac!
2
Replies
36
Views
10K
terrycrist3
T
Top Bottom