- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Heyyo,
LMAO! that is the biggest pile of money crap lie I've ever heard. Dude, I have a ATI Radeon 9600 PRO (even worse, it's sapphire, cheaper, and less stable :p) and it works fine with halo.
You won't get the best graphics n' what-not, but it'll run halo fine. My full computer stats are in my signature. For drivers? I find the Catalys 4.9 drivers work great, I've been trying the Catalyst 4.10, but my frames feel lower, I'm gonna run a benchmark to test this theory...
Check out this benchmark, it shows that the ATI Radeon 9600 PRO at full quality can still do a great job, especially compared to Nvidia's vidcard around the same pricerange (the 5600) btw, I had a 5600, NOT WORTH THE CASH. the 9600 PRO cost an extra $20, but for an extra 7F/S at least? that's easily worth the extra cash. The 5600 ran Halo like CRAP. If another player would turn on his flashlight? you'd lose 15F/S, enough to lag down halo on your comp, and give them the easy kill. It also sucks ass on newer games like Far Cry. I sold my 5600 to my old landlord (the fool, bwuahahaha!!!) and he had a stonger computer overall, but damn, my comp and my ATI radeon 9600 PRO would kick its ass, hand down, in all situations. So once again, this benchmark:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031229/vga-charts-0 9.html
Halo Results:
ATI Radeon 9600 PRO: 28.71 F/S (Average)
Nvdidia 5600: 19.84 F/S (Average)
And want proof of how much the ATI Radeon 9600 PRO will kick much more ass on newer games than a Nvidia 5600? check out this benchmark on Far Cry:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-0 8.html
Far Cry results:
ATI Radeon 9600 PRO: 22.4 F/S (Average)
Nvdidia 5600: 5.2 F/S (Average)
I bet your bud said that caue he's Pro-Nvidia. Tell you bud that ATI has better budget cards, cause they do, big time.
[Edited on 10/22/2004 10:31:02 AM]