Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

128MB vs 256MB video card?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 17, 2004 9:07:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.

Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
long time, after all.

So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
cards are becoming obsolete already.

Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.

More about : 128mb 256mb video card

September 18, 2004 4:45:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.

I run an ATI 9800 Pro 128Mb on a Barton 3200. Doom 3 is run on high
graphics settings, 1024x768 with 2X FSAA. Never a slowdown or lag anywhere,
anytime. At 4X you get some slowdown in large areas with high demon counts.
The 256Mb cards don't give you any more speed in FPS, and the additional $80
is not worth it IMHO.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2004 5:27:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <9e1f277e.0409171607.6689f865@posting.google.com>, Opticreep
says...
> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2004 5:36:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Opticreep wrote in message <9e1f277e.0409171607.6689f865@posting.google.com>...
>I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
>on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
Excellent system specs, open to many alternatives.
If your budget allows, consider an Nvidia 6800 lineup... Why not ? :) 

>Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
>most bang out of my buck.
>
Nvidia so far.. Even though I do own a really nice 9800Pro myself.
Very happy about the price I got then. Suits my purpose.

And that shoudl be the main question for you since budget is not
a real issue.. What's your purpose ? (not expecting answers, ask yourself)
* Are you an engineer or expecting to run HighTech 3D softwares ?
* Are you mostly a wealthy happy gamer looking for a superDuper upgrade ?
* Maybe you are a gamer, and programmer hobbyist.

> I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
>cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase.
>
Look at benchmarks. In general you see that for MOST current games,
at DECENT resolutions (not talking 1600x1200, or fancying 4xAA)..
Then a Rad9800Pro can do it all nicely... Only Doom3 is an exception
with an incredible demand on just about everything the machine can offer.

You can expect to pay double the price of a Rad9800 for double performance
on Doom3........ BUT that's the exception... If you run decent rez (1024x768 or 1280x1024),
The difference really don't matter anymore.

Then in one or two years; Add a few bucks to that saved (1/2price of 6800), and get
another best bang for the buck... Still plenty for your 'purpose'.

IMHO, a 9800Pro is all that you need. If you are really feeling compelled, the next step
is 6800.

> And I'm not
>willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
>60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
>really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
>want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
>cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
>long time, after all.
>
Welcome to the mainstream.
Unless you had very specific requirements; (insane FPS for Doom3,
or architectural apps demanding 512MB textures), 9800Pro is neat.

>So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro.
>
Quit staring; This is excellent.
I've got one :) ... The extreme bandwidth and RAMDAC speed makes it
rock solid at the highest resolution desktop. runs on Linux fine, and
running 3D games;I'm laughing all the way to the bank. Good savings.

>I'm
>not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
>going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
>card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
>high for 256MB cards.
>
Ultra rez is really not worth it for Doom3.. HQ 1024x768 is really sweet
and you can expect to run above 40fps on your machine.
Who cares about 256MB+ unless you do 3D modeling or expect your card
to last more than 2+ years. 128MB plenty.

> If this is a sign of things to come for all the
>newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
>cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
No no.. It's the good deal my friend. 128MB is plenty for most...

Don't you remember the days with 16MB Nvidia TnT, or 32MB TnT2
or 64MB Geforces... LOL 128MB is plenty for 99% of current games,
and will remain true for a solid year or two.

>Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.
>
It's the right attitude.
Whatever you decide, just decide between 9800Pro and 6800;
X800 still too expensive.. BUT, you might want to consider pre Xmas rebates. ;) 
N³o
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2004 3:17:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:27:29 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <9e1f277e.0409171607.6689f865@posting.google.com>, Opticreep
>says...
>> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
>> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>>
>> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
>> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
>> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
>> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
>> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
>> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
>> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
>> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
>> long time, after all.
>>
>> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
>> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
>> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
>> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
>> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
>> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
>> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>>
>Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.

That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
it.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2004 3:45:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <mu2nk0h11qhvpb5cnhkq3hds7b1r5uj5es@4ax.com>, says...

> >Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.
>
> That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
> 4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
> 4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
> it.
>
THankyou for proving my point. The best bang per buck card back then
was the Geforce 2MX.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2004 7:00:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I'd disagree with that, it was the 9500pro. Bang for buck means good
performance before you begin to pay big money for little more performance
(at least to me). That card was near the bottom end and was a starter
gaming card. Even the gf4200 fit the description better than the gf2mx.
I'm with slob on this one.

Mike

"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bb62229f167ae329897f8@news.giganews.com...
> In article <mu2nk0h11qhvpb5cnhkq3hds7b1r5uj5es@4ax.com>, says...
>
>> >Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.
>>
>> That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
>> 4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
>> 4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
>> it.
>>
> THankyou for proving my point. The best bang per buck card back then
> was the Geforce 2MX.
>
>
> --
> Conor
>
> Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 18, 2004 9:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <W3Y2d.134042$Np3.5584029@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Mike P
says...
> I'd disagree with that, it was the 9500pro. Bang for buck means good
> performance before you begin to pay big money for little more performance
> (at least to me). That card was near the bottom end and was a starter
> gaming card. Even the gf4200 fit the description better than the gf2mx.
> I'm with slob on this one.
>
I don't mind. I make more money in the long run out of people who buy a
couple of tiers down then end up upgrading every couple of years.


--
Conor

Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2004 12:39:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Opticreep wrote:

> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something.

So that leaves out the current crop of top-of-the-line gaming cards like
GF6800 or x800...

> I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards.

Well, the low/mid/high/ultra settings in Doom3 are mainly just about texture
size. Low is for 64MB, medium for 128MB, high for 256MB and ultra for (in
the gaming area non-existent) 512MB cards. If You choose high on a 64MB card
textures have to be swapped to main memory which is slow. I played some
parts of Doom on an ATI FireGL X1-256p which has 256MB memory. I didn't
notice much advancement when going from mid to high setting.

> If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.

I played most part of Doom3 on a notebook with Radeon Mobility 9200 with
32MB at 1024x768 (sadly Doom3 didn't offer some widescreen modes, IMHO very
poor for such a hyped game). Of course at "low" settings since the increased
texture size at higher settings would slow down the system. 32MB should be
obsolete, but still can run FarCry and Doom3. Until recently I played most
games on a laptop with Radeon Mobility 7500 with 16MB.

128MB are more than enough today, and when the time comes that Your 128MB
card has too small memory to run current games it also will be too slow even
if it would have 256MB. So IMHO I wouldn't pay the additional price for
256MB...

Benjamin
September 19, 2004 7:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e1f277e.0409171607.6689f865@posting.google.com...
> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
> Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.

The best thing to do is look at the benchmarks out there on Toms Hardware,
Anandtech, and Sharkys web sites. And any other sites that you can find.
Usually these sites will list pros and cons of each video (like power
requirements for the latest Nvidia 6800 video card). Next find the price of
the cards that interest you. Then do a cost vs benefit. For example, at
one point I was seriously thinking of getting the ATI9600XT card, until I
discovered that I could get the ATI9800 Pro 128meg for $40 more and almost
double my frame rates.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2195 (has a nice chart with
most video cards along with their specs)
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/index....
www.pricewatch.com (here you can quickly scan for lowest prices of video
cards)

IMHO, the ATI 9800 Pro 128meg or the Nvidia 5900 128 meg are very decent
cards for their cost. Around $200. But they might be showing their age
with the recent crop of games coming out: Doom 3 and Half Life 2. If you
got the cash and want to double your performance, then there's the new
generation of video cards that should keep you going for at least the next 2
years. ATI X800 and Nvidia 6800. But expect to pay twice the cost too.

note: you might also want to look into the new "PCI Express" video cards
like the Nvidia 6600 which supports SLI. but you'll need a PCI Express mb.
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20040907/index...
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2196
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2004 2:41:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"J" <JLC@mars.com> wrote in message news:<Kf73d.3298$Qb.141@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>
> IMHO, the ATI 9800 Pro 128meg or the Nvidia 5900 128 meg are very decent
> cards for their cost. Around $200. But they might be showing their age
> with the recent crop of games coming out: Doom 3 and Half Life 2. If you

I am indeed worried about upgrading to an ATI 9800 Pro at this point.
I'm sure it's a great card for now, but I think it'll start showing
its age real soon. Most likely before the end of the year. And by
then, NVidia's 6600 card will probably take over as the "best buy"
graphics card for most gamers.


> got the cash and want to double your performance, then there's the new
> generation of video cards that should keep you going for at least the next 2
> years. ATI X800 and Nvidia 6800. But expect to pay twice the cost too.
>

The low end version of Nvidia's 6800 is clocked slower, and features
only 128MB of memory. But it's also a next-generation card that I
think costs about $80 more than the 9800 Pro. Maybe that card is
another option, but I haven't really seen any benchmarks directly
comparing those two cards yet. I wonder if the low end 6800 will give
enough of a performance boost to justify the extra $80 over a 9800
Pro?

My choices right now are down to three options: the "ATI 9800 Pro
128MB", or the "NVidia 6800 128MB", or waiting for Nvidia's 6600
series. The 6600 will likely cost only $200, but I'm not sure when
the AGP version will be released. If I were to wait for that AGP
version, both the 9800 pro and the 6800 cards will have probably
experienced significant price drops already... making this decision
even more complicated.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2004 7:57:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:45:31 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <mu2nk0h11qhvpb5cnhkq3hds7b1r5uj5es@4ax.com>, says...
>
>> >Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.
>>
>> That's debatable. Look how many years people got from their GeForce
>> 4200s. You can't tell me that if they'd spent twice the money on a
>> 4600 that they would have been able to gain any extra mileage out of
>> it.
>>
>THankyou for proving my point. The best bang per buck card back then
>was the Geforce 2MX.

Actually if that were true (and it really only was for people who
didn't/don't play demand 3D games) it completely disproves your point.
The GF2MX cost next to nothing at that point.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 19, 2004 11:25:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

There wil always be a better buy on the horizon. If you don't need to
upgrade don't, if you do, the 9800pro is the best deal right now. It will
be fine for this generation of games coming out and will probably struggle
with next years generation, same old same old. I never buy cutting edge
myself as the extra cost doesn't give the performance worth. Put the
savings from this upgrade toward the next. You really can't go wrong with
the 9800pro at this time, it still has good life in it and is going for a
decent price, imho.

Mike

"Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e1f277e.0409190941.33a75bbb@posting.google.com...
> "J" <JLC@mars.com> wrote in message
> news:<Kf73d.3298$Qb.141@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>>
>> IMHO, the ATI 9800 Pro 128meg or the Nvidia 5900 128 meg are very decent
>> cards for their cost. Around $200. But they might be showing their age
>> with the recent crop of games coming out: Doom 3 and Half Life 2. If
>> you
>
> I am indeed worried about upgrading to an ATI 9800 Pro at this point.
> I'm sure it's a great card for now, but I think it'll start showing
> its age real soon. Most likely before the end of the year. And by
> then, NVidia's 6600 card will probably take over as the "best buy"
> graphics card for most gamers.
>
>
>> got the cash and want to double your performance, then there's the new
>> generation of video cards that should keep you going for at least the
>> next 2
>> years. ATI X800 and Nvidia 6800. But expect to pay twice the cost
>> too.
>>
>
> The low end version of Nvidia's 6800 is clocked slower, and features
> only 128MB of memory. But it's also a next-generation card that I
> think costs about $80 more than the 9800 Pro. Maybe that card is
> another option, but I haven't really seen any benchmarks directly
> comparing those two cards yet. I wonder if the low end 6800 will give
> enough of a performance boost to justify the extra $80 over a 9800
> Pro?
>
> My choices right now are down to three options: the "ATI 9800 Pro
> 128MB", or the "NVidia 6800 128MB", or waiting for Nvidia's 6600
> series. The 6600 will likely cost only $200, but I'm not sure when
> the AGP version will be released. If I were to wait for that AGP
> version, both the 9800 pro and the 6800 cards will have probably
> experienced significant price drops already... making this decision
> even more complicated.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 20, 2004 6:01:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e1f277e.0409171607.6689f865@posting.google.com...
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.

If you are talking about current top-end cards like X800 and 6800, then yes,
it might be wise to get 256mb in order to ensure that it doesn't bottleneck
the card later.

But for previous-gen cards like R9800 it's not really an issue since, in the
future, the GPU architecture is more likely to kill the card than memory
size.

And the real kicker is this: cards that ship with 256mb typically have
slower, lower-quality ram as a cost-savings measure. So you actually end up
with slightly *slower* performance in a 256mb model because of ram quality.
This has actually been seen in benchmarks. Of course, if the game somehow
pushes 128+ video memory then it could be a tradeoff. I don't think it is
justified for Doom 3 anyway -- the screen is mostly just black. Why does
that need extra 128 memory? :p 
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 20, 2004 6:56:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> My choices right now are down to three options: the "ATI 9800 Pro
> 128MB", or the "NVidia 6800 128MB", or waiting for Nvidia's 6600
> series. The 6600 will likely cost only $200, but I'm not sure when
> the AGP version will be released. If I were to wait for that AGP
> version, both the 9800 pro and the 6800 cards will have probably
> experienced significant price drops already... making this decision
> even more complicated.

I can't comment on the other options, but I got the Geforce 6800
(128MB).
It required a 300W PSU and an extra power connector.

The good:
I upgraded from a Geforce Ti 4400. The 6800 got twice the aquamark3
score the of the old one. Subjectively it also feels about twice as
fast.
Doom 3's timedemo reports 52 fps at 1280x1024, high quality with no
AA.
On the 4400 I had to disable shadows, no more. I am really having a
great time and for me it was money well spent.
I think it dropped about 2 fps when I went from medium to high
quality. Don't know what that high quality = 256MB thing is about.
Maybe if we get a better demo to time we'll know.

The bad:
I tried a lower res with 4xAA but it looked worse and was slower.
Performance at 8xAA was disgusting.
The card runs at 85 C with a GPU core slowdown temperature of 135 C!
I'm going to have to do something about my case. I estimate the
outside case temperature at near 60 C. I'd like to know what the guys
are on who think you'll be able to SLI two of these (The temperature
went down in the sixties when I opened my case though).

Maybe your problem would be easier if you don't try to get the _best_
bang but only a _good_ bang. All the choices on your plate are good
ones, you really can't go wrong.
September 20, 2004 8:18:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:27:29 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Best bang for buck doesn't work out cheapest in the long run.

It's not supposed to, it's supposed to be a compromise. That's what
the expression "best bang for the buck" means, you know. He didn't ask
what was cheapest, he asked what was had the best price/performance
ratio.
September 20, 2004 8:21:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:58:11 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't mind. I make more money in the long run out of people who buy a
>couple of tiers down then end up upgrading every couple of years.

No, you don't. You make the most money off people who buy the best
available card and end up upgrading every couple years ANYWAY. And
make the same exact mistake again. And again.

That's where the money is in computer hardware. It always has been and
it always will be.
September 20, 2004 10:15:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Piet Pompie" <luilekkerland@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49e6d848.0409200156.ed70db7@posting.google.com...
> > My choices right now are down to three options: the "ATI 9800 Pro
> > 128MB", or the "NVidia 6800 128MB", or waiting for Nvidia's 6600
> > series. The 6600 will likely cost only $200, but I'm not sure when
> > the AGP version will be released. If I were to wait for that AGP
> > version, both the 9800 pro and the 6800 cards will have probably
> > experienced significant price drops already... making this decision
> > even more complicated.
>
> I can't comment on the other options, but I got the Geforce 6800
> (128MB).
> It required a 300W PSU and an extra power connector.
>
> The good:
> I upgraded from a Geforce Ti 4400. The 6800 got twice the aquamark3
> score the of the old one. Subjectively it also feels about twice as
> fast.
> Doom 3's timedemo reports 52 fps at 1280x1024, high quality with no
> AA.
> On the 4400 I had to disable shadows, no more. I am really having a
> great time and for me it was money well spent.
> I think it dropped about 2 fps when I went from medium to high
> quality. Don't know what that high quality = 256MB thing is about.
> Maybe if we get a better demo to time we'll know.
>
> The bad:
> I tried a lower res with 4xAA but it looked worse and was slower.
> Performance at 8xAA was disgusting.
> The card runs at 85 C with a GPU core slowdown temperature of 135 C!
> I'm going to have to do something about my case. I estimate the
> outside case temperature at near 60 C. I'd like to know what the guys
> are on who think you'll be able to SLI two of these (The temperature
> went down in the sixties when I opened my case though).
>
> Maybe your problem would be easier if you don't try to get the _best_
> bang but only a _good_ bang. All the choices on your plate are good
> ones, you really can't go wrong.

I didn't know that you could "SLI" the 6800. But the new PCI Express 6600
supports this. Not sure what the temp of the 6600 is though.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
September 21, 2004 12:15:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

I'd trust Conor's opinion on where he makes money more than yours. After
all, he's there...

"Thrasher" <spectre911@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0imsk0tso7h9imnvmni0dc79mch47946po@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:58:11 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I don't mind. I make more money in the long run out of people who buy a
>>couple of tiers down then end up upgrading every couple of years.
>
> No, you don't. You make the most money off people who buy the best
> available card and end up upgrading every couple years ANYWAY. And
> make the same exact mistake again. And again.
>
> That's where the money is in computer hardware. It always has been and
> it always will be.
>
>
September 27, 2004 2:38:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

FarCry/Doom3 are now the base level so in future more RAM
is going to be even more important - roll on 512Mb or 1Gb cards :-)

"Opticreep" <opticreep@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9e1f277e.0409171607.6689f865@posting.google.com...
> I'm planning on upgrading my video card to go with a gaming rig based
> on a Athlon 64 3200+ system.
>
> Basically, budget is not an issue. However, I *would* like to get the
> most bang out of my buck. I'm not willing to spend an extra 40% in
> cost if it'll only yield a 10% performance increase. And I'm not
> willing to buy a fancy new card that'll depreciate all the way down to
> 60% of its original value within six months or something. I'm not
> really looking to buy the biggest and baddest card available; I just
> want an ideal graphics card to straddle the delicate balance between
> cost, performance, and longevity. I *did* own a Geforce4 Ti4200 for a
> long time, after all.
>
> So... which is it? Right now, I'm looking at a Radeon 9800 Pro. I'm
> not even sure if I ought to get the 128MB or the 256MB version. I was
> going to get the 128MB version... but then on Doom 3, a 128MB video
> card yields a "suggested" setup of only medium (!) setting, instead of
> high for 256MB cards. If this is a sign of things to come for all the
> newest games to be released in the next year, then maybe the 128MB
> cards are becoming obsolete already.
>
> Anyway, I'm open to suggestions.
!