Best vid card for 300-400 range.

Sorry, we can't answer that until we know your system spec's, and how long you are planning to, or are likely too, keep your current PC. That is, will this card be the last you buy for this system, or will you replace it a year from now with a DX10 card?

Yeah, ditto what Cleeve said.

Ahh screw Cleeve. The guy who wrote this sticky obviously knows more than him. It's all there in plain English.

Here's a suggestion. Read the friggin' articles on this site. This one was posted only three days ago.

I'm here for ya man. There nothing like positive derogatory reinforcement to keep the spirit up.

yes, that is a good deal. But I can't trust someone who can't type.

Yes, you should also know that the 256mb version is exact same as the 512mb version, besides the memory. So performance is basically same, unless you keep increasing resolution.

Also, you don't need to wave that e-penis at everyone here.

I have to agree with the rest of the bunch. X1900XT for that price range.

BTW what is up with the e-penis line ???

i disprove that theory

i don't know if my comp still gives me a big e-penis or not, does it?

The 512mb version offers severaly benifits including the obvious 1 of being able to use 512mb textures(you can also use this on the 256mb version but puts atlot more strain on the mem)also differnt memory is used in 512mb versions which can usually hit 900mhz!.The 512mb version is worth it,especially if theres only like 100 dollars in the differnce!

Games that run on the doom3 engine(eg doom3 quake4 and prey)use over 500mb of vram on ultra quality.Oblivion also use over 500mb along with GRAW,F.E.A.R. and plenty of other games!also its the fact that they use over 256mb of vram is whats important not that they dont use over 500

Ya sure no prob give me 5 mins

From the benches im looking at its bout 5-10 frames slower than the 512mb 1900xt in games(that use 512mb textures).the gap between the 256 1900xt and 512 1900xt become more apparent as the AA and resolutions increase.

it clearly does since the only varaible between the two card is the memory size

That bench mark clearly shows that games running on the doom3 engine use over 500mbs(well atleast over 256) of vram.since the vram is the only variable between the two cards nd the 512 mb card scores higher.i will also screenshot something for you in 2mins

so you do know how to post links. now what about the rest of the games and also it didn't use more than 400 let alone 500 MB's.

i think another game is graw perhaps but im not sure.

still please provide more links for the many other games you mentioned.

Edit: it would appear you are right at least in the games in that review and provided you use a 30" monitor or 16 x 12 and up res but even then not sure.

yes you are right about that but the fact that it uses over 256 gives the 512 card the advantage

ye, good to know really that cards do use it although sorry but although they "use" it i am not sure exactly what boost to image quality it does or if you need to use that much to get the same effects.

also looking at the source engine, it increased ram usage with resolution but quake seemed to be more constant which leads me to belive most of that ram usage is unnecessary.

i suppose it is useful for someone like myself with the high res i use but for average people with 12 x 10 monitors i am not sure what difference it would make.

yes but theres only 70 dollars in the differnce and in my openion the 512 cards worth it

[quote="prozac26"]

Yes it did!!! it showed that the 512 7800gt got like 10 fps more than the 256 version!!!!

And since the whole point of the argument was "which is a better card" The 512mb card wins not only because of the extra texture memory, but also the tighter mem. timings

Btw, I also have an X1900XT, 2 x X1950XTX, a 7800GTX 512, 2x 7900GTX and a GX2 (looking for a second) and And after getting a (then) WR for a watercooled 1900XT(X) I think I know just a little about these cards.

Also, how old do you have to be before you grow out of the retarded phase that you seem to be in now? 12? 12 nd a quarter?

Ya, Pauldh, go get Lepresy

Then at least u can sell ur body for research and afford a PROPER computer.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/0 [...] age11.html
At the settings tested, 512MB of texture memory made absolutely no difference in Oblivion.

Whoa, ease up Jr. You aren't mature enough to handle someone correcting you? Seems we have a couple of rich 15 year old brats who have daddy's money but not his time or love. I feel sorry for you. Too bad that doesn't mean you know jack about cards. I've built hundreds of machines and been doing it since you were in diapers (what was that, last year?). But y'all just come right in brag about daddy's cards and try to impress others. Fact is I bet you already have lost the respect of just about every regular here....... Daddy's money won't buy that here, you have to earn it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the card in your sig, some of the most respected people here are using pretty crappy cards. anyway, It's bedtime kiddies, go home.

According to the aricle, both of those tests were done on two nVidia GeForce 7800GTXs in SLI. Apparently, they sacrificed AA to use HDR lighting, since nVidia's cards cannot do both at the same time (ATi's can).

It's an entirely reasonable question that I cannot answer (I don't play Oblivion). It's a good thing you pointed that out, because I didn't notice it.