which of these is "better"?

out of these - radeon 1650 pro vs geforce 7600gs, both agp, in case the link doesn't work for you

I have no idea what is more important in a video card - fill rates or operations? As I have said before, I'm merely after something that will perform close to my old gf 6800, and a 6200 definately wasn't up to the task. I need no better performance than a 6800 - just replacing a faulty part. Hopefully this doesn't become an ATI vs nvidia war, but I've heard you can have great performance in a game with an ATI, but awful in another (and the reverse is meant to be true). Not sure how to find out if the games I'm running are opengl or d3d - one I'm pretty sure is d3d, the other 2 that need a performance boost (remember, they all ran fine with a 6800) are cs: source and san andreas.

Basicly;

1) That link claims the ATI is better with shader/vertex operations than the nvidia, but the nvidia is better with fill rates. Which matters the most for performance?
2) What's this business with one brand outperforming the other on some games - is it true? I never had any game run slowly on the 6800...

7600gs = 6800, 7600GT = 6800GT, well thats how i recall it.. for the ati side i really dont know what would = a 6800. as far as performance for one game vs another. its how each card is setup internally, like you stated.

why not sell your computer or parts of it to upgrade to a PCIE motherboard...

*side note
inside of listing that in your sig, why not update your location in your profile?

Evilsizer said:

7600gs = 6800, 7600GT = 6800GT, well thats how i recall it.. for the ati side i really dont know what would = a 6800. as far as performance for one game vs another. its how each card is setup internally, like you stated.

why not sell your computer or parts of it to upgrade to a PCIE motherboard...

*side note
inside of listing that in your sig, why not update your location in your profile?

Click to expand...

I briefly had a GS and remember it being not all that great compared to the 6800, definately a performance drop. As for getting a PCIE mobo, I doubt there are any around that would support a socket 478+ddr1 ram...

in AUD, either of these cards would be $100. A PCIE mobo would be about $100, then at least $50 for a card, then if its needed, $100 more for ddr2 ram. It's like a house, if you have a hole in the wall, you patch it up, not the foundation...

as for my sig, I'll try it, but whether doing so will make a difference, that we will see.

if thats the way you want to look at it... im sure you could net enough from your current setup so your not spending much for the new one.. as im willing to bet the agp cards cost more vs pcie cards. as far as your pm, after checking out tom's vga chart, the x1650XT is a good choice and its much faster then the 6800, faster then a 6800Ultra.

Evilsizer said:

if thats the way you want to look at it... im sure you could net enough from your current setup so your not spending much for the new one.. as im willing to bet the agp cards cost more vs pcie cards. as far as your pm, after checking out tom's vga chart, the x1650XT is a good choice and its much faster then the 6800, faster then a 6800Ultra.

Click to expand...

Oh, man, have I screwed up then...

this review basicly stated that the gs was better than the radeon in all respects. Based on that, I thought "ok, I'll get a GS". They were both the same price, but the GS is 2nd hand. Can you shed any light on that?

Now, I read that the GT was significantly better than the GS - however, one of these would cost me almost double. Not worth it for the following system:

p4 3ghz prescott
4x 512mb ddr400 ram
abit ic7-g mobo

The latest games I've touched:

Dreamfall
San Andreas
The Ship
Counterstrike Source

Dreamfall, San Andreas, and the ship run awfully on this 6200. CS source runs just fine with everything on high. As you can see, especially from my setup, I do not play recent games. Put it this way - since 2005, I have played just 2 games for longer than 5 minutes!

Final thing to consider: If I find a game worthy enough, I either put it on a CRT, or a 800x600 projector. No need for high resolutions there. If I'm running in such low resolutions, maybe this performance business won't matter at all? (6200 is still useless in this res)

EDIT: Can you please link to that toms hardware chart? Googling hasn't resulted in me being able to compare a 6800 with a 1650.

NOTE: I had my eye on a 1650 pro, not an XT... obviously, going by this, obviously the XT would be better - but it's the 1650pro that I mentioned as being the same price as the 7600

since you said CSS i pulled up the HL2 EP2 bech
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Half-Life-2-Episode-2,765.html

as you can see by the chart while at a res higher then what you game at. the X1650 pro is only 2 fps behind the 6800U. the 7600GS is a bit more behind the x1650 pro by a small 3fps... i would go with which ever is cheaper at the res you will playing at either 8x6 or 1024x768 your fps will be higher then those listed..

the link you have listed, does it have genuine info ? I mean it says X1650 is GDDR3 and and 7600GS is GDDR ?

read thru his reviews about system specs... he has only put his data into a database for easy reference. if you dought it then do your own testing, thats the only way to be 100% for sure..

I had 2 old Dells one with the 1650 and one with the 7600 GS, both AGP. The the 1650 is slightly faster.