[Kurn]

I have stayed away from ATI cards for some time (I used to have a Rage fury II that hated me) but I have to say that the Radeon 9700 is by far the better buy.  The nvidia Geforce FX 5800 is only a little bit better performance wise, but is more expensive, takes up an extra PCI slots, and apparently is loud as heck.  Also if you aren't going to be buying one for a while the Radeon 9700 should go down in price when the new ATI cards come out (which will be this summer, I think).

On a side note, the All-in-Wonder Radeon 9700 is pretty good; especially when you consider that it is only a little bit more, but includes all kinds of extras.

-Kurn

[Paco]

My sources tell me that nVidia has already discontinued the FX series chip becuase the performance margin over the *much older* (in terms of video card life) ATI 9700 is very small.

My general rule with computer technology is that when I am upgrading video cards, get the card that is one step down from the fastest.  You will generally save at least $150-200 and the performance loss is miniscule.

As for Counter-Strike, I used to play it in the Beta 2-Beta 6 days...  and if I am not mistaken, CZ was actually originally SUPPOSED to be out over a year and a half ago.  They have pushed it back so many times, it's becoming the new generation's "Diakatana".

[Harley]

The Radeon 9700 is a great card, but you need to check to see which chipset the games you're interested in are designed to work with the best.  I'm using a Gforce4 TI4200 APG8 card myself.

[Cyphen]

I would say hat an ATI 9500 Pro would be the best choice if you don't need the absolute best performer. Actually, I have seen many benchmarks which point to the ATI card (9700 Pro) as the current performance leader (even though the chip is based on a .15 micron process and is way quieter than the 5800FX) based on benchmarks and actual use. Also, if you are going with a mid-range card, the 9500 Pro can't be beat because it is DX9 compatible, as opposed to a Ti4200. Unfortunately, I use a 650 Athlon K7 with a Gefore 2MX-400. Just because I'm interested in hardware doesn't mean I own it []. It's amazing that I can even play UT2003 (no matter if it's running at 320x240 or something).

Screw it. I've edited this enough times. Any typos you see are the result of trying to type on an MS ergo keyboard with one hand.

[Harley]

As with most of us Cyphen, what we'd like to have and what we end up with is dictated by our wallets.  I just moved up from a Geforce2 32mb card to the one I have now.  If I could have afforded to spend another $150, I would have gotten a Radeon 9700.

[Cyphen]

So true... So true. Yellowmonkey, I would say to go with the 9700. Or, at the time you buy, if you can, the 9800. There have been far fewer documented problems with the ATI DX9 cards than the FX cards.

[yellowmonkey]

Ahh, just got back from a weekend in Flagstaff... Yeah, after I wrote the post I went looking around for more options. My computer is starting to show signs of aging, I can't play the newer games without them crashing because of my older hardware, plus I can only play them in like 640*800 or my box gives out and gives me the BSOD or depending on which game, it just crahses the game. I've been thinking about it and my whim that I would actually come up with the money... let alone want to spend that much on computer hardware has passed. All I want now is something that I can use the MAYA trial demo on. I saw at Fry's Electronics or something they have a Radeon 9800... looks kinda consumer grade, I think it works for me... of course if you give a mouse a cookie, he will want a new Epox motherboard with an 8x video bus, and then he needs a new AMD athlon xp porcessor with about 2 gHz of power, and then 512 DDR 2300 RAM... and... and... and... It's insane how much money I could spend making myself a mediocre system that will be obsolete in 1 year. God could have made this easier and made me win the lottery by now... but I guess it just isn't meant to be. []

[Ninja]

Like Paco, I was a dedicated CS player from Beta 1 until 6, at which point the game degenerated into total crap.
5.2 was the best CS there was.  But hey, DOD felt much more polished in it's first versions.
(Remember how crappy the lag was on the early versions of CS? You had to play as a team because you didn't know if what you were seeing was the same as everyone else...)

CS used to be an action game with tactical weapons.  Then it turned into an action game posing as a tactical game. I'm not sure where it is not, but unfortunately we now have all this stuff that's something along the lines of action games thinking they're tactical games (Anyone played Strike Force for UT? The models actually hold their guns sideways...)

[Ninja]

Oh, and one more thing. The Army's game is easily the best new tactical game around, but it's still a little rough...Flashpoint is the best tactical game, ever... (You know, non CQB/HRT stuff...)

Of course, I have been waiting for Team Fortress 2 since...1998. Valve will never make another new game, they'll just keep releasing stuff we already have. I hear they're making DOD a retail game.

[Raven1]

GEEKS!

[Cyphen]

Yellowmonkey, I must say, that hands-down (at least in the systems I've seen and heard about), that you would be better off buying an Asus A7Vn8X basic than an Epox mobo.

[Major Buttnuts]

Beat this, I still have a 3dfx voodoo 3 on a 500 mhz processer. I havent been able to play a new game in at least a year.  At least I have an Xbox and ps2.

[yellowmonkey]

Just incase you all were wondering Counter-Strike: Condition Zero will be released on Oct. 1, 2003... I have been waiting for this game since they first announced they would be making it... I hope I have a new video card by then.

p.s. what do you guys think is better... Radeon 9700, or Nvidia Geforce FX 5800. I really want a new video card but I just can't decide which one to get... that is to say when they get cheap enough for me to buy.