Should I get a VISIONTEK Xtasy 5632 GEFORCE2 GTS-V?

[Gnufsh]

Newegg.com has this listing:

VISIONTEK Xtasy 5632 GEFORCE2 GTS-V 4X/2X 32MB AGP - OEM
This VGA card offers high performance based on the GeForce2 GTS-V chipset and 32mb 256 bit DDR memory. Visiontek is the only Nvidia board partner to offer this card. Part# 72440.0 Model#: XTASY 5632

is this a good deal for $49? Should I get it?

Thanks,

-Dan

[Arkaine23]

Welcome to the forums!

Good price for a GTS... but will it perform well enough for what you intend to do with it? It's a good card, but falling behind the times. I'm betting you can get a GF2 Ti for $70-80 in just a couple of months when GF4's come out. But if you play current and older games, it should be fine. There are also a lot of things that can be done to GF2's to improve them...

[Dissolved]

dont waste your money, wait till the gf4 come out in a month or 2, and get one of those..

[Arkaine23]

Originally posted by Dissolved
dont waste your money, wait till the gf4 come out in a month or 2, and get one of those..

-provided you have the cash for that kind of upgrade! A GF3 Ti 200 will be a good deal when GF4's come out.

[Dissolved]

Originally posted by Arkaine23


-provided you have the cash for that kind of upgrade! A GF3 Ti 200 will be a good deal when GF4's come out.

gf4 wont me that much, there coming out with the mx gf4's, and those are suppose to be 99~200

[slim_lim]

Not a bad price, but I think you can score a regular GTS for about the same $, maybe $5 more if you look around.

[Gnufsh]

I don't play any hugely graphics intensive games (well, some from 3 or four years ago)... I don't think I need a GF 3 or 4, and I don't want to spend alot of money.

Botttom line: is this a good deal?

[Yodums]

I'd definitely safe the cash and stack up to buy a newer technology card that will last you the 12+ months instead of this GTS card which is already wearing out.

Yodums

[freddiedaman]

one must always plan for the future....you might regret yourself when this ultra-cool new game comes along and you desperately want to play it but simply can't...:burn: Otherwise it's an OK price if you know for sure that you will faithfully stick to your old games for years to come!

[Gnufsh]

hmm... I don't do much gaming at all right now. Should I perhaps try a Raedon 7500? I do alot of graphics maniuplution, web scripting, programming and games like SimCity 3000.

[o770]

the best deal now is the geforce3 ti200 but the difference to the us$ 50 r pretty considerable. in my opinion you can look for a geforce2 PRO instead of the GTS, or, if you can spend a few more you could get the 7500.

[rhombus]

hey Gnufsh, what speed system are you going to put this in?
If you have a sub 1000mhz computer getting a GF3 will not have substatial gains over over the GF2.
Your CPU will be a bottleneck, and your video card will be waiting on it.
Sure youll have pixel shader goodness, but theres not alot of games out right now that support it, and you can still run them anyways.

I'm going to get one of these cards for my sons comp, he has a celeron 800.
Even though his Voodoo3 runs all his games fine, this is a hard deal to pass up.
From what i've read the Xtasy 5632 can easily be overclocked.

If the thing is faster than my Radeon 64,i might use it instead.
A shame too because i gave $280 for it just 14 months ago!
That will be the last time i shell out that kind of cash for a video card.

Unless of course Warcraft III supports pixel shading,but by then a GF3 will be $50.
Think i'll do that. :beer:

[o770]

Originally posted by rhombus


rhombus, a g3 wont be a bottleneck in any sub 1GHz system. thats a difficult thing to say, the only way to be sure is testing the video card in. i would say that a g3 would be a bottleneck with a pentium ii 400MHz. even so what the bottleneck ppl use to say means is that the expected video performance wont be achieved due to the system limititation.
bottleneck is real. but only in a few cases a far superior video card will perform equal to the worse one. a pentium iii is good enough not to be a bottleneck with any geforce3 video card.

[rhombus]

OK, did some quick reserch at madonion.com
Search and compared 3Dmark 2000 with all 700 cpu, 1024*768 32bit.
Top for a GF2 gts was a PIII 666 with 5416 points.
Top for a GF3 was a Athlon 650 with 5461 points.
Sure 3D mark if for DirectX 7, but how many games use DirectX 8 pixel shaders?
Would Aquanox on a 700 w\GF3 run faster then a 700 w\GF2, dought it but it might have a couple if cool effects turned on.

Why spend $150 on a GF3 now when you can get a GF2 now for $50 and then a GF3 for $50 in 6 months when there are more games developed for DX8.

[o770]

yes, aquanox will run faster with the g3. that you found is interesting anyway, i also made a research, this below is waht i found, both from the same system.

pentium ii 450, geforce2 ultra / det23.11 / not oced,
3dmark2k1 1024x768 32-bit, w2k pro: 1436;

pentium ii 450, geforce3 ti200 / det23.11 / not oced,
3dmark2k1 1024x768 32-bit, w2k pro: 2895 / 3250 oced.

i chose w2k pro because there is more chance the user will know how to configure drivers and all the computing stuff, agp etc. then i decided to make a search for the 3dmark2k scores from systems like the above and ultras use to perform better than the geforce3. note, this is about pentium ii from the same range and 16-bit color depth. the conclusion is that the directx7 applications wont get any benefits from the more powerful directx8 video cards when running in pentium ii systems.