Uhh... Which gfx card? [Archive]

RedNax

07-08-2007, 07:45 AM

Well, I'm kinda stuck in a rut. Just wondering what the best card would be to buy with a budget of R1400? (I know its not much but it'll be the most I've ever spent on a graphics card =P).

It's been quite some time since I bought any PC mag so I don't even know whats available these days. I'm thinking of buying a XFX GeForce 8600GT seeing as it's available for R1350 as of lately but I'm not sure. A friend told me that it would be better to go with one of the new ATI cards? I upgraded my system to PCI-X (Because I kinda broke my previous motherboard =P) and I've been running on on-board graphics for about 3 months now =/. I need a graphics card! lol

Chevron

07-08-2007, 08:09 AM

XFX nVidia GeForce 8600GT XXX Edition - 256MB - PCI-E (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2440791) Price: R 1,672

Asus nVidia GeForce 8600GT - 512MB - PCI-E
HDCP compliant (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2644496) Price: R 1,685

Asus nVidia GeForce 8600GT - 256MB - PCI-E (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2440796) Price: R 1,406

I say take the Xfx or the Asus.

RedNax

07-08-2007, 10:39 AM

The XFX looks worth it, and its not really that much more expensive. I'll just save one more month then =P

Thanx for the help there Chevron

EDIT: Just wondering, isn't that XXX Edition just an overclocked version of the normal XFX 8600GT? Or would they tell you if it was overclocked? =P

Vexo

07-08-2007, 11:11 AM

From those that he listed i would choose

Asus nVidia GeForce 8600GT - 512MB - PCI-E
HDCP compliant Price: R 1,685

cuz of 512 MB

Chevron

07-08-2007, 11:27 AM

Well it won't make a difference. Lots of ram on an entry level card never does. Faster ram is more important.

The xfx wins performance wise.

RedNax

07-08-2007, 12:07 PM

I never take my resolution past 1280x1024 anyway and, as far as I know, more RAM just helps for higher resolutions?

Chevron

07-08-2007, 12:21 PM

That's true. That's why I have the 8800gts320mb and not the 640mb. My lcd's native resolution is 1280*1024.

Frozenfireside

07-08-2007, 03:53 PM

Vexo-RAM for a graphics card means very little. It's what you do with it that counts.
I still like the 8800GTS320 but a budget is a budget and mabye a 7900GT is a better idea.

ReinHer

07-08-2007, 04:36 PM

L-Dog

07-08-2007, 04:42 PM

Asus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Darkmag

07-08-2007, 06:47 PM

doesn`t the 8800 320mb have a textures glitch?

Chevron

07-08-2007, 06:53 PM

Supposedly f you play certain games in certain situations something goes awry with the handling of textures in the memory. I've never noticed it.

It's getting fixed in a couple weeks. Anyway there is short term fix if it ever happens to you, supposedly just minimizing the game to desktop then opening it again fixes it.

RedNax

14-08-2007, 09:43 AM

OK, so, I still don't know what the best value for money would be. *sigh*

I'm just wondering, aren't these cards better...
Sapphire ATi Radeon HD2600XT - 256MB (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2645170)
and
Asus ATi Radeon HD2600XT D4 - 256MB (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2660116)

...in comparison to...
XFX nVidia GeForce 8600GT - 256MB (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2440790)
and
XFX nVidia GeForce 8600GT XXX Edition - 256MB (http://www.take2.co.za/product.php?id=2440791)

I mean, both Radeons have a better Core Speed and more Stream Processors (though the processor speeds aren't indicated). I really have no idea what to look for in buying a graphics card. I've never been too serious but I'd just like to buy something OK for once. Simply put, will I get better value for money if I decide to buy a Radeon instead of a GeForce?

EDIT: Is there a website where I can check Benchmarks or something?

Frozenfireside

14-08-2007, 10:03 AM

www.tomshardware.com and find the charts.

ATi seem to have great specs for money but, and this is important, they have some funny way of making a card so it never performes like an Nvidia of simliar specs.

I think its up to you but if you buy ATi you get free games (Half life 2 deathmatch and Halflife 2-lost coast I think).

I would go for nvidia and get a Gainward golden sample 7900GT or a second hand 7900GTX.
I can get a 79GTX for R1500 but it has no warrenty.if you could find a 2nd 79GTX you could have a mean setup that wouldn't cost that much.

Regards
ed
P.S.-The free games offer is for any Ati card so theorectically you could just stick a 9200Se in and get the games. Wether putting in a Nvidia card afterwards voids the games is another matter.

Cleric

14-08-2007, 10:04 AM

For R1400? I'd get a X1950 Pro, in that price range it stompes all over the competition. I also have a 320mb 8800gts xxx, I know the extra vram is for high res but will two 8800gts 320mb not be a big performance boost?

Don't know if any1 is running Sli, but I've heard that it sucks, and that it would be better to spend the amount it would cost for any two nvidia cards on a single, higher spec card.
Just what I've heard, use it, dont use it

Chevron

14-08-2007, 10:19 AM

Don't know if any1 is running Sli, but I've heard that it sucks, and that it would be better to spend the amount it would cost for any two nvidia cards on a single, higher spec card.
Just what I've heard, use it, dont use it

You're right. Using sli never gives you the power of two cards anyway. It's usually a 80-90% improvement depending on the game. I hear the Vista sli drivers suck donkey balls.

Frozenfireside

14-08-2007, 02:06 PM

Hehe-Ask reinheir about that!
He knows the joys of Vista.
SLi works too a point but its biggest bonus is being able to buy to value cards over time instead of one giant lumpsum which is harder to pay for.

According to toms-the 1950XT/pro is the only graphics card in its class,due to the price (in the U$) and is better then a 79GT which makes me happy.

Gldm

14-08-2007, 04:32 PM

I'll endorse the 1950 Pro for that price class. You're not going to get reasonable performance AND DX10 for that little cash, so you may as well get reasonable performance.

RedNax

15-08-2007, 06:35 AM

The thing is also, I don't wanna go buy something too powerful. All in all, I have a pretty crappy system. I don't wanna buy a card that runs at half the speed because I have a cheap Motherboard and Memory.

Anyway, thanx for the help there guys. I think I'll take a look at that 1950XT

H1TMAN

15-08-2007, 09:12 AM

RedNax

15-08-2007, 11:02 AM

Dont go for the 1950xt ,dont even look at the 2600 cards ,they such a waste trust me and go for the xfx 8600 gt xxx its worth it. I can tell you where to get it for R1300 . Plus every game i've played so far was on the highest settings. Cnc3 is great with 30 frames constant with everything on ultra high. And it has dx10 so dont waste your money on a dx9 card. New technology is always better

Maybe, but I'm not planing in getting Vista any time soon and, this is still pretty early in the DX10 era. It might not be that great. DX10 could be a complete bugger up and DX11 could come out next year 0_0 (What an extreme scenario =P). Besides that, I've never been that serious about graphics. Anything with 1998-like gfx works fine for me (even earlier too =P). lol.

But I looked at some Benchmarks. It seems that the 1950XT does outperform the 2600 and the 8600 but the card in the list is 1950XT PRO Ultimate (Ultimate meaning R2000+... I think). I have a low budget and I'm not planning on buying a card so I can run everything at top-notch graphics. I just want decent value for money. So far the GeForce 8600GT looks to be worth the money, I guess. Besides that, it will support DX9 completely anyway. If you can tell me where to get the XXX edition for that cheap I'd be extremely thankful.

Anyway, I'm still waiting till the end of this month. Still half a month to make up my mind.

Gldm

15-08-2007, 11:05 AM

Dont go for the 1950xt ,dont even look at the 2600 cards ,they such a waste trust me and go for the xfx 8600 gt xxx its worth it. I can tell you where to get it for R1300 . Plus every game i've played so far was on the highest settings. Cnc3 is great with 30 frames constant with everything on ultra high. And it has dx10 so dont waste your money on a dx9 card. New technology is always better

Except it's about half the speed of the 1950 with its pitiful little 128bit memory interface. In fact, the 8600GT is coming up slower than the 7600GT in many games. Why spend R1300 for an upgrade of NEGATIVE PERFORMANCE?

But hey, don't take my word for it, let's ask Tom's: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html

Overall games FPS: x1950Pro 1243.8, 8600GT 962.0.

Oh, don't like ATI? 7900GS 1172.9

Gee wonder why that is? Probably because x1950's memory bus = 32 bytes * 1390MHz = 44.48GB/sec, and 8600GT is 16 bytes * 1400MHz = 22.4GB/sec. 7900GS = 32 bytes * 1320MHz = 42.24GB/sec. Which one of these is not like the other? And no, overclocking is not going to close a gap that large without cooling that costs more than your average 8800.

Frozenfireside

15-08-2007, 11:07 AM

Oh RedNax Ive got you a new siggie!
here it is
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Elements-Toxic/images/cigarette.jpg

H1TMAN

15-08-2007, 11:26 AM

@ Rednax , here is the place where i got my xfx 8600gt XXX , the name of the shop is ZAPS ,shop G15A , Brightwater Commons ,republic road , Randburg. In order to pay R1300 incl vat ,you must visit there website . www.zaps.co.za and order the card on the net . Or phone them and ask them what to do. There no. is 011 789-9747 .

H1TMAN

15-08-2007, 11:38 AM

Chevron

15-08-2007, 12:13 PM

Just by the way h1tman even the 8600gts only slightly beats out the 7600gt.

Gldm

15-08-2007, 02:33 PM

@ gldm . You are looking at the stock ! 8600gt , there is big difference compared to the XXX and is clocked at 620mhz core . With NO EXTRA COOLING ,for R1300 its DAMN cheap . And btw this card does kick the 7600gt cards ass. Dont bring stock scores here. Go look up the xxx and then you will see real performance scores. How can you say overclocking will not close the gap !!!. Gee now I wonder

Yeah, the big difference is you pay MORE MONEY, for ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! You can OC any stock 8600GT to those clocks, it's laughably easy! You think the 1950 isn't going to be able to clock up too? Think again! And if you can find me an 8600GT with enough overclocking potential to match the 1950's memory bandwidth I'll eat it in front of you.

Geez how do people keep falling for this retarded marketing bull****? "OMG IT'S SUPER XXX EXTREME UTLTIMATE SLILENT UBER OVERCLOCKED SIGNATURE EDITION!!!!!" Wow, you just paid too much for a conservatively overclocked board with a fancy sticker on it. Good job there kiddo! Don't bring stock scores? How about don't bring bull****! I've been overclocking hardware since you were probably still in diapers. Do you seriously think XFX or anyone is going to get a mass-produced card anywhere near the average OC that an individual tweaking can get? HA! I THINK NOT!

Plus I'll let you in on a little secret. CORE CLOCK IS ALMOST NEVER THE BOTTLENECK, MEMORY BANDWIDTH IS! So a 20% core clock boost (Which STILL is NEVER going to make up a 30-50% performance gap) is pretty goddamn worthless in 99% of the situations. Oh the 1% where it does matter? 3Dmark, fancy that! Wonder why all the new cards have high clocked cores and absolute **** 128bit memory busses now.

cYn

15-08-2007, 02:57 PM

*chuckle* Some one is trying to argue hardware with Gldm? His understanding of hardware is intimidating. I've been building and fixing my own PCs since I was <censored>(19 years a go) so I'm not uninformed or a technopeasant, but I don't think I'd attempt to out hardware Gldm.

Darkmag

15-08-2007, 03:23 PM

@ Gldm

CUASE IT DX 10 WOOOOT WOOOOOT.

If you know how jargins and gimmicks work then they don`t work on you anymore.

also I believe that OC is a logarithmic function(logicly it makes sense). e.g you OC your card 100mhz and gain 10% performance then for every additional 100mhz you can half of your previous performance.

so if you OC your card with 400Mhz you total gain would be 18.75% and your first 100Mhz gave you 10% <-- this was an example

RedNax

15-08-2007, 04:26 PM

But hey, don't take my word for it, let's ask Tom's: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html

Thanx for that link :) Benchmarks persuade me easily =P

Oh RedNax Ive got you a new siggie!
here it is
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Elements-Toxic/images/cigarette.jpg

lol. Thanx, but that doesn't fit me =P

@H1TMAN
I can't find a XXX Edition on the site.

OK, so, al sukkel ek nou verskriklik om te besluit, in plain and simple English, the new so-called mid-range cards aren't even mid-range and they pretty much suck. So I have to rather buy me a good DX9 card or wait till I have R4000 for a 88GTS. Darn. Well, I could (a)Rob a bank, (b)Ask my mom to lend me the little bit extra or, (c)Wait till I have the money. Personally I would prefer (a) but since jail-time comes to mind I'll hold on that.

I don't really have a good reason to buy a gfx card right now, 'cept maybe for BioShock and I'd love to have one before rAge... at least Warcraft and CS1.6 works on my on-board gfx... But I guess I'd rather get me a 1950 then a cheap DX10 card. It's just R400 difference so maybe I'd be able to get one in a bit anyway =P

Thanx for all the help guys.

EDIT: Seems my brother wants to buy him a 8600GT. That means I can keep saving and borrow his card. Yay!

Gldm

15-08-2007, 04:53 PM

@RedNax: Well 8800GTS 320s are popping up for under 3K on sale. If you import one you can get it for closer to 2K.

@Darkmag: Performance gains from overclocking are complex. It depends on where the bottlenecks are in the system, its design, the algorithms the software runs on the hardware, etc. Usually your increase will be sub-linear, maybe logarithmic. In a severe bottleneck case you can get a linear or even superlinear performance increase, but the latter usually only happens due to a design quirk (i.e. overclocking a normally asynchronous memory bus until it's synchronous and benefits from that). In general graphics hardware tends to be fillrate-bound, which means more memory bandwidth = better. In some cases it can be latency-bound (particularly the z-buffer) and in this case a lower absolute memory latency (timings and clockspeed combined) helps. But a wider bus helps the first case and doesn't hinder the second, so it's universally better. It costs more to manufacture though, and apparently Nvidia and ATI think they can go cheap on this generation and skip the 256bit mark entirely. Big mistake if you ask me.

Darkmag

15-08-2007, 05:28 PM

haa thnx Gldm

I`m wondering how a 2600 and 8600 will perform on a 256bit. Im really dissapointed with the first gen dx10 mid range cards from both sides

Machine

15-08-2007, 07:28 PM

Well 8800GTS 320s are popping up for under 3K on sale. If you import one you can get it for closer to 2K.

I need your advice GLDM :)

I'm thinking of importing some RAM and a new CPU. I got my new Asus Nvidia 8800GTS 320M for R2800 including VAT because I have a "source" with some local supplier accounts but I'm thinking I might of made a mistake by going local.

Is importing PC hardware REALLY cheaper than buying locally? What about CPU's and RAM?

H1TMAN

16-08-2007, 10:59 AM

If your mobo supports quad core then go for a quad core cpu then you'll never need to upgrade your cpu again. Plus they going cheap now around R2900 to R3200

Gldm

16-08-2007, 11:22 AM

I need your advice GLDM :)

I'm thinking of importing some RAM and a new CPU. I got my new Asus Nvidia 8800GTS 320M for R2800 including VAT because I have a "source" with some local supplier accounts but I'm thinking I might of made a mistake by going local.

Is importing PC hardware REALLY cheaper than buying locally? What about CPU's and RAM?

It's cheaper on certain items. High end graphics cards, yes. Low end ones, not so much. RAM yes, CPUs yes, HDs no, optical drives no, cases no, power supplies no, Since CPUs and RAM weigh so little it's usually economical to import them with a service that charges by weight.

Frozenfireside

16-08-2007, 01:56 PM

If your mobo supports quad core then go for a quad core cpu then you'll never need to upgrade your cpu again. Plus they going cheap now around R2900 to R3200
...and 2gigs of RAM will last for ever and ever-im getting dejavu.

Quad core is kinda pointless for the moment since most threads are only dual core complient but there are a few apps that are quad core and there will be more to follow.

Rather get the E6850 as its 3.0ghz of core 2 duo and cheaper then the old 2.66C2D with more RAM and better FSB.

Quad core will drop in price to a point where its more affordable ans by that time-8 core will be on the cards so hang in there tiger.

Machine

16-08-2007, 10:28 PM

It's cheaper on certain items. High end graphics cards, yes. Low end ones, not so much. RAM yes, CPUs yes, HDs no, optical drives no, cases no, power supplies no, Since CPUs and RAM weigh so little it's usually economical to import them with a service that charges by weight.

Thanks for the info, GLDM!!!!! :)

I've only got R2500 MAX to play with at the moment.

You see I'm considering replacing my current Intel C2D E6400 because I think it's the reason I can't overclock. Usually E6400's OC to over 3Ghz easily but mine won't. My motherboard is an Asus Commando and I know how to overclock (voltages, FSB speeds, RAM). I've tried many combinations in my BIOS but I still can't OC over 2.5Ghz. I'm currently using a Zalman CNPS9700 for CPU cooling and I've monitored the temp, it's very low even at 2.5Ghz. I just got handed a lemon of a CPU :(