Cheapest dx9 card that will run HL2 ?

P

pblse

Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2003
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
Like the topic says, for us that don't have loads and loads of money to spend, what is the chepest card that will run this game and not look like crap ?

I know the game will scale down to dx7 but that's not what I want.

Is the Radeon 9550 any good ? I can't find that many tests for it but in those I've seen it scores about the same as a 9600 and it's dx9 capable and very cheap.

So will the 9550 run this game in a normal resolution like 1024x768 ? Any thoughts ?
 
I think the 9600SE is probably the cheapest dx9 card. Is it cheaper than the 9550? I don't know. Can you even find the 9550 anymore. I run the 9600SE and while it certainly isn't the greatest card it's handling CS:S just fine. I think I'm going to upgrade a bit to the 9800Pro before HL2 is out just to be safe, but the 9600SE is adequate, and cheap.
 
It's not the fastest card on the block, but at least you can get all the dx9 goodies. I imagine it will satisfy your budget (of course, it would be better to get a 9600 series, blah blah blah).

Yeah, if that's all you wanna pay, go for it.
 
Of course, you can just wait until every technology review site known to man reviews video card performance in half-life 2.

That's the best idea; just wait until people run benchmarks (and they will!)
 
You have two options...one, if you can find a 9500 PRO, and then mod it to a 9700 PRO (only adding a few more texture pipelines), or you could just buy a 9600 PRO.
 
How much better is the 9800 than the 9600, I'm in the same boat as pblse, and I want to know if there is a massive difference, will the game still run at a good framerate? Will I be able to have it on high (not max) settings?
 
DirectX 9 offers very little over Dx8 in HL2, your probably better off you getting a Geforce FX 5200 for 55$ and running it in Dx8 mode and getting 90% of the visual quality that a 150$ Dx9 car will give you.

I dont know aboutyall, but i paly to paly in Dx7, i always turn gfx as low as i can get them so that i get really good framerate. Besides, even Dx7 looks very nice in HL2, ands it VERY well optimized, i get 2-3 times the FPS in Dx7 then i get in Dx8.1.
 
There is quite a significant difference. Definitely worth the greater price. Both will run well and look great... the 9800 will look and run much better :)

edit: Do NOT get the FX5200. It is a god-awful card and at its current price point it is simply a waste - too expensive to be a placeholder while you save up, too slow to hold up your system till next upgrade time rolls around.
 
READ THIS ARTICLE, CURIOUS ONES:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6105370/index.html

It's for counter-strike: source, but half-life 2 is on the same engine. The article shows that the game runs faster in dx7, but it doesn't look nearly as good. There is also a comparison between the 9600 and 9800 series, CatBOne.

Yeah, the cards reviewed are a bit on the higer end.
 
a 9600 xt is the best bang for your buck. The absolute best would be if you could find a origonal 9500, but those are really rare.
 
glamhawk said:
READ THIS ARTICLE, CURIOUS ONES:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6105370/index.html

It's for counter-strike: source, but half-life 2 is on the same engine. The article shows that the game runs faster in dx7, but it doesn't look nearly as good. There is also a comparison between the 9600 and 9800 series, CatBOne.

Yeah, the cards reviewed are a bit on the higer end.
Click to expand...

Thnx mate
 
Having just read the article, how much is the GeForce4 MX440 DX7, I t comes out as best in a lot of those tests.
 
No, it comes out as the worst by far. It's running in Direct X 7 mode - it looks horrible in comparison. You do not want that card. The 9800 Pro both looks and performs the best with everything on high.
 
The GeForce4 MX440 DX7 comes out fastest because it doesn't make the game look very good. Sure it's fast, but you don't want Half-Life 2 looking like Half-Life 1 (look at the screenshots in the review). I suppose that if your computer was really slow, you could just settle for the GeForce4. However, I would advise getting a dx9 card.
 
the GeForce4 MX440 is by far the worst of those cards, but its still better then what i have, and as you can see, it still gets very good FPS, Dx7 is noticibly worse then Dx8 and 9 (which imo are very similar), but at least for me Dx7 is more then good enough
 
Compared to DX7 the difference between DX8 and DX9 is not so easy to spot, but when the two are compared side-by-side the difference is rather clear. Whether or not that's due to Valve designing the game to look best in DX9 or not is up in the air - all I know is CS: Source looks better with DX9. You'll also notice the difference in Far Cry, which lets you choose different rendering options like "paradise" and "cold" with DX9 enabled. It changes the look of the game drastically and looks awesome.
 
I would advise getting a 290 bucks Geforce 6800 and be done with it... And in another 2-3 years get another one for 190% performance...
 
He hasn't told us his current specs yet... that might be a good idea. I have the feeling a 6800 would be overkill and the extra money would be best used towards a new processor ($97 will get you an Athlon XP Mobile 2400+ which is very easily overclocked to a 3200+) or something of the like.

I'm heading off to bed but I'm sure the rest of you guys will sort him out.
 
it just all comes down too how much money your willing to spend, and what you expect to get from your card. If you can drop the big bucks then get the Geforce 6800GT of X800PE, if you have no money then just keep your old gfx card, chances are it will do fine.
 
9600XT 256 mb
or a 9800pro 256mb

i really recommed a 9800pro since you can flash it to XT
but only if its 256 mb because all 256 mb visions got r360 core
and 128 mostly r350 but some times r360 core

and the 9600xt cost here only 100 €

or 9500 pro
wich i have laying around here
because i dont use it

you may have it for 0€
if you come and get it atleast

give me pm if you want it

btw i dont think 9550 is a good choice its a low profile card
ment to be cheap and also in performance.
 
OK, thanks for all the input, the rest of my system is at least the recommended spec with a 2400+ Athlon and 512M memory so that's not a problem, it's just the gfx card, only have a 9200SE right now.

I just saw a 9600Pro pretty cheap so I might go for that one.

By the way, do 128M or 256M really matter if you only want to play in 1024x768 ?
 
Just an update for other people that may be in the same situation, I did buy a Abit R9550-V 128M that was VERY cheap and I can tell you this card is really underrated.

I can run Doom3 on medium settings and 1024x768 just fine and considering the overall bad rep for performance that game has I think that's probably a good indication it will be able to run HL2 just fine.

I would like to try it with CS:S but I haven't decided if I'm going to wait for retail or buy it using steam yet.

I wish there was a demo to download :-(
 
pblse said:
OK, thanks for all the input, the rest of my system is at least the recommended spec with a 2400+ Athlon and 512M memory so that's not a problem, it's just the gfx card, only have a 9200SE right now.

I just saw a 9600Pro pretty cheap so I might go for that one.

By the way, do 128M or 256M really matter if you only want to play in 1024x768 ?
Click to expand...

256 MB video cards are just marketing schemes still. They don't give any sort of noticable improvement in performance.
 
Just remember, you get what you pay for...

Try to find a balance that will fit your budget and performace expectations. That is the only advice I can give on video cards and HL2.
 
zer0kewl said:
9600XT 256 mb
or a 9800pro 256mb

i really recommed a 9800pro since you can flash it to XT
but only if its 256 mb because all 256 mb visions got r360 core
and 128 mostly r350 but some times r360 core

and the 9600xt cost here only 100 €

or 9500 pro
wich i have laying around here
because i dont use it

you may have it for 0€
if you come and get it atleast

give me pm if you want it

btw i dont think 9550 is a good choice its a low profile card
ment to be cheap and also in performance.
Click to expand...
the 9800 pro 256mb is sweet, picked mine up a couple months ago.
 
is the fx5200 better than the mx440? Because the mx440 really sucks in those tests, cant even make the stained glass

and wuld the mx440 be able to make the effects in dx8
 
Madhotch said:
is the fx5200 better than the mx440? Because the mx440 really sucks in those tests, cant even make the stained glass

and wuld the mx440 be able to make the effects in dx8
Click to expand...

a ti4200 is better than either.
 
Just go and get a 9800pro 128. You'll be more than satisfied, the card will last probably 2 years and you'll be able to run HL2 in DX9 and medium high settings no problem
 
is the fx5200 better than the mx440? Because the mx440 really sucks in those tests, cant even make the stained glass

and wuld the mx440 be able to make the effects in dx8


STOP TELLING ME TO BUY MORE SHIT AND JUST ANSWER ME! If i had the money or the agp slot i wouldn't be in this thread..
 
Madhotch said:
is the fx5200 better than the mx440? Because the mx440 really sucks in those tests, cant even make the stained glass

and wuld the mx440 be able to make the effects in dx8


STOP TELLING ME TO BUY MORE SHIT AND JUST ANSWER ME! If i had the money or the agp slot i wouldn't be in this thread..
Click to expand...

Yes, the FX5200 is better than the MX440. The MX440 does not support pixel shaders which means it cannot do stained glass or reflective water.

The MX440 does not have DX 8 or DX 9 capabilities. It is a DX 7 card that happens to be DX 9 compliant.

However, the FX 5200 is not fast enough to run in DX9 mode. You would have to run it in DX 8 mode for any type of playable performance.
 
Madhotch said:
ok.....in dx8, will my 5200 make stainedglass and such?
Click to expand...

It has the capabilities to make stained glass and such. In terms of playable performance, we don't know because HL2 isn't out yet. I would imagine that you would at least have some of the options select to enable stained glass and such.

It would be helpful for somebody with a FX5200 to come in here and provide a screenshot or two and tell what performance and options they have set.
 
indeed it would, a fx5200 owner w/ the stresstest aand cs:s needs to post some pics of both here. btw ty very much, i feel good now.

Also, if my mobo came with a 2.5 celeron, should it be able to support a p4 upgrade?
 
The FX 5200 can run in Dx9 (Not really but theoretically lol). So yes it better than the 440mx....but it's really total shit, horrible card really. You'd be 1000x better off with a geforce4 Ti series. But really I can't reccomend any of those cards.
 
Madhotch said:
indeed it would, a fx5200 owner w/ the stresstest aand cs:s needs to post some pics of both here. btw ty very much, i feel good now.

Also, if my mobo came with a 2.5 celeron, should it be able to support a p4 upgrade?
Click to expand...

Yes, however the upgrade may require a motherboard bios update. You may have to upgrade your powersupply as well. You may also want to buy some faster RAM depending on what P4 you upgrade to as well.
 
Madhotch, you would have to read up on your motherboard. There are a lot of things you have to be aware of before upgrading your cpu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
sjwcolol
Cheats automated
Replies
1
Views
2K
sjwcolol
sjwcolol
Omnomnick
The International 2016 Hub Released
Replies
0
Views
13K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
KyloX
Portal 2, last breaths?
Replies
8
Views
8K
KyloX
KyloX
Back
Top