this threads seems stupid seeing that your least favorite will probably be the oldest gpu you had in my case it would be the ati x300yoyo462001
I agree with you about these threads, IMO, don't know why they people want to know - just as like the 'Which PC graphics card compares to the X360/PS3 ones' threads.
But if I have to say one, nothing, I don't buy graphics cards until I have done extensive research and try to weigh the best price per performance...
GeForce 5700 was a waste. Barely better than my ti4200.
I don't know if anyone remembers the Pyro 2? I forget who made it (or the exact name), but it wasn't a Geforce, or radeon/rage, or VooDoo, and it sucked. I was drawn by the different technology.
Rage128 was a let down, only had OpenGL acceleration.
9800 Pro. First one was the only one that was remotely nice to me. It was even able to accept a modded BIOS to show up as a 9800XT. Then one day, I just start up but it wouldn't. From there, it just led to one long road of agony, and RMA after RMA... probably spent more on RMA's for the thing than I did on the card itself. :cry: Doom 3 crashed after 10 minutes every time. KotOR 1 or 2 never ran correctly, and my performance in HL2 never matched close to what people on Anand, Inq, and Hard|OCP were getting. Imagine my surprise and disbelief that after all that, when ATi sent me this X1600 Pro, that this new card was actually... trouble free :o. It "just work"ed, like how nVidia cards "just work".
[QUOTE="RayvinAzn"]If we're talking about the oldest, I'd say the ATI Rage Orion. If we're talking about the worst, probably the GeForce 2 Ultra.codezer0
What was wrong with the geForce2 Ultra? At least it wasn't an MX.
The problem wasn't with the card, only my timing - I was sort of out of the gaming loop in 2002, when I picked up the GeForce 2 Ultra, and at that point the GeForce 4 was either already released or well on the way - meaning when I did get back into gaming back in 2004 or so I was horriby, horribly behind. I could have phrased my post better, re-reading it - it's not that the GeForce 2 Ultra was a bad card (indeed, it's still running), it's just that it was a poor budget choice on my part. Picking up the best of 2 gens ago is generally worse than picking up the current mid-range, eh?
Those should come with a surgeon general's warning.
WARNING: Attempting to use Intel graphics processors for gaming will result in many significant problems, including but not limited to: incompatibilities, instability, graphical glitches, stuttering, framerates in the single digits, and other computer problems that would adversely affect the physical and psychological health of users. Only persons who are sadists and enjoy inflicting pain upon themselves should proceed to attempt to game on Intel graphics processors.Surgeon General
Whichever one the TC is using. JK, I would say the 7950gx2. It was really expensive and while performance was amazing, it wasn't as good as it should have been.
The 4MB integrated SiS graphics in my old K6-2 machine. That thing was horrible. It dragged overall system performance down like how a snowstorm hinders a fat man.
Whichever one the TC is using. JK, I would say the 7950gx2. It was really expensive and while performance was amazing, it wasn't as good as it should have been.imrlybord7
I don't know about that, the 7950GX2 was an amazing card..
[QUOTE="imrlybord7"]Whichever one the TC is using. JK, I would say the 7950gx2. It was really expensive and while performance was amazing, it wasn't as good as it should have been.Hiryuu_
I know, but it was beaten by the x1950xtx if I remember correctly, which was a single card.
I don't know about that, the 7950GX2 was an amazing card..
Whats that garbage that comes with a lot of stock PC's at best buy and the other retailers? Don't remember the name, but the point is that it sucks like Jack Thompson made it.
trident s3 savage 3 and sis all 4mb intergrated memory
so called next gen card i hate the 8600gt and 2600pro total rip off
IQT786
Uhh.. the 8600GT can be found for around $20 more than the 7600GT, which makes it a pretty good value considering it's usually 10-30% faster. The HD2600Pro is a crappy value though, since it's offered for way too much money.
radeon 9800pro because i have it some years 3-4 and run all games in the world but not new games medal of honor airborne bioshock , but other games i run (im ordered 8800GTS 320MB) to run new games ofc but radeon 9800pro im really happy with this card he is doing a good job for 4 years released at 2003 and run all games in the first quarter 2007
[QUOTE="imrlybord7"]Whichever one the TC is using. JK, I would say the 7950gx2. It was really expensive and while performance was amazing, it wasn't as good as it should have been.Hiryuu_
I don't know about that, the 7950GX2 was an amazing card..
by the time the drivers matured the enthusiasts had moved on
Worst graphics card i ever bought was the GeForce 5800 Ultra! Had been looking forward to it, "nVidias brand new DX9 graphics card".
What a mistake that was when i first got it the performance wasnt that much better then my then current Ti 4200 wasnt to a newer driver release that it showed some of the grunt i had been promised.
Compared to ATI offerings at the time it was crap, cost me £400 when i bought biggest waste of money!
I hate integratedGPU's (well, i hate everything that's integrated in general)...
Worst card i had... hmm, all my graphics card served me well for it's time, though maybe i'm gonna hate the X850XT i'm gonna receive next week, since i'll use it only as a quick and cheap replacement for my burned out X1950 Pro (R.I.P., we had some good times together:cry::P) before i'll build a whole new PCI-E system.
I bought a Radeon VE once at the advice of a salesman. I think it was later named Radeon 7000. What a waste. Even for a budget card at that time it was pretty useless at everything.
Log in to comment