i have and Intel(R) Pentium(R)4 CPU 2.8ghz
with 1 gb of ram. 300 w power. i need an agp video card that would run all the newest games like oblivion ect..
i was thinking about getting the ati radeon x800 pro 256mb AGP from ebay for 150-200 bucks.

The X800 Pro is a very good card. I have no idea where you live but if you can buy stuff from Newegg get this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

It falls under your budget but you are going to need to get a new PSU to be safe, check the brand and the Amps on the 12V line and let us know.

If its less than 18Amps you are probably going to need a new PSU too.
I like this one alot:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

That should serve you well.

Mattwizz3 : )

Sempron 2600+ @ 2.2GHz
1Gb DDR400
Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe
200GB SATA
2X 80Gb IDE
256Mb MSI 6800 Ultra

This has been discussed recently.

http://www.computing.net/gaming/www...

And yes, you'll need a new PSU.

I'd take this over that Antec. More reliable and more powerful for about the same price.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Oblivion is not a game to be played on wussy machines & even if you get a decent enough card - it remains a wimp for the game.

It's about that time..........

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

You can play oblivion decently on his machine with the right video card. It will not be with the highest image quality, but it will run decently.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

"but it will run decently."

Hero,

You mean decently as in low or medium settings............LOL

And if we are talking about low settings, he isn't going to be playing that game as much as he would have wished.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

No, you can run it on high settings with his computer with the right video card with playable frame rates, provided you don't crank anisotropic filtering.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01...

Note that is with an Athlon XP 2500 CPU, which is not as powerful as his P4 2.8GHz machine, so he should have better results.

If he wants great performance, by all means, upgrade the mobo, CPU, fan, and video card. But if you want decent, playable performance with good image quality with the right video card, it is possible.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Regarding the Elder Scrolls (Oblivion) game, I would agree with that in part, because "playable" can boil down to the individual & what is acceptable to him in terms of FPS.

On the other hand, I'd hate to picture him have his expectations all jacked up, only to be discontent with how things turn out eventually - hence the advise for a much better upgrade investment..........that's all.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

Playable means can you play the game. Unplayable means framerates get so low you can't play the game.

30FPS, as you saw in those benchmarks = playable.

What image quality settings and speed you need to enjoy the game is a very subjective thing.

My point here is people shouldn't confuse these two things. You don't need SLI or even a $300 video card for games to be "playable". You don't need even an Athlon 64/high end Pentium 4 or Core 2 Duo for games to be playable.

There seem to be people who are convinced that 60fps min with all image quality settings turned up are required for a game to be playable and enjoyable. Enjoyable is relative and subjective; playable isn't.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

"30FPS, as you saw in those benchmarks = playable."

Well, the 30FPS which BTW is a widely accepted threshold is achieved with graphic cards that are undeniably out of this OP's consideration, so I have a difference of opinion on using that as an indication of what he is to expect.

"My point here is people shouldn't confuse these two things. You don't need SLI or even a $300 video card for games to be "playable". You don't need even an Athlon 64/high end Pentium 4 or Core 2 Duo for games to be playable."

And there is no denying that assertion, furthermore there are many variables that can tilt that either ways.........like the type game itself & the engine that it uses, the resolution at which it is being played, AA, AF, HDR & other complementary settings & price which I would even bother touching because of depreciation as it affects the true value of the card.

"There seem to be people who are convinced that 60fps min with all image quality settings turned up are required for a game to be playable and enjoyable. Enjoyable is relative and subjective; playable isn't."

I'm sure I'm not one of those folks but by the same token, I only agree with this in using the same minimum vs recommended principle in computing - who the heck loves gaming at just playable levels, especially when they can do something about it & the timing & opportunity is right there..................LOL

While diminishing return does progressively tends to peak as image quality settings gets cranked up (sometimes to excessive levels), an aversion to excessive image detail should not persuade folks to unreasonably lower their acceptable standard simply for that logic.

I want to be able to play the games that I do as much as possible without having to settle for less than enjoyable levels - if I can avoid it. Now if my moderate hardware decides to allow me the luxury of doing that at an excessive levels - tell you what, I ain't gonna look the gift horse in the mouth, in other words - I won't object to cranking that sh!t up..............LOL

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way