Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The Best Gaming Video Cards for the Money: January 2007

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 5, 2007 10:16:24 AM

Complex video card specifications and reviews are great if you have the time to do the necessary research.
January 5, 2007 11:37:53 AM

Error 404
January 5, 2007 12:18:38 PM

No surprises on the list.

I think the $200 X1900XT should have been mentioned somewhere.
Related resources
January 5, 2007 12:31:15 PM

Quote:
No surprises on the list.

I think the $200 X1900XT should have been mentioned somewhere.


I agree, but they will probably disappear soon....

8O
January 5, 2007 1:13:18 PM

Yeah, me too... but I handed the article in before they were available. :( 

Hopefully they'll still be around next month.
January 5, 2007 1:29:06 PM

Quote:
Yeah, me too... but I handed the article in before they were available. :( 

Hopefully they'll still be around next month.


Definitely the card of the moment...

There are 2 annoying things about X1900XT: the power consumption (which is higher than its NVidia counterpart 7950GT) and the fact that it occupies 2 slots! I suppose one reason is to pull of the air outside the case (or at least is what i understood from one ASUS EAX photo i saw).

Two questions:
1) the X1900XT with 512MB costs $200 ?

2) the X1950XT is the new version pretty much like the NVidia 7950GT to the 7900GT?

Thanks.
January 5, 2007 1:34:44 PM

1. The 256mb version costs $200. Even so, it's faster than, say, a 512mb 7900 GT or 7950 GT. The memory isn't all that important over 256mb, but the memory speed is, and the X1900 has pretty quick memory.

2. The new X1950 XT will almost always beat a 7900 GT or 7950 GT, it's memory speed is much faster than those cards.

Basically the X1950 XT is as fast as the X1900 XTX and can stand toe-to-toe with a 512mb 7900 GTX in many cases.
January 5, 2007 1:41:12 PM

Quote:
Error 404


same here :( 
January 5, 2007 2:48:20 PM

Is it just me, or does one of the X1900GT versions you mentioned have insanely high memory speeds?
January 5, 2007 3:40:59 PM

Quote:
Yeah, me too... but I handed the article in before they were available. :( 

Hopefully they'll still be around next month.

Yea, that's a great deal. Came up like couple of days ago.
January 5, 2007 4:26:59 PM

The $200 X1900XT is a great deal, but it doesn't seem like the type of thing that is going to be restocked that often once this batch sells since the card is more than a year old now.

By the way, the X1950XT is at $220 after MIR, at least in the short term.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
January 5, 2007 5:19:24 PM

Where was the link to the hierarchal chart? I missed it somehow.

Also mentioning which cards support SLI or Crossfire would help, since that allows you to consider picking up an appropriate motherboard and having future expandability for cheap.

Otherwise, good article.
January 5, 2007 5:42:51 PM

They screwed up and forgot to put up the chart, it's coming.

Crossfire and SLI rarely make for a good upgrade path, because by the time you need a second card to increase your system's speed, a next gen card is available that will perform better than the two older cards put together, for cheaper than the second card (when you consider that you can sell your old card). POlus the added heat and power requirements, and driver twitchyness...
January 5, 2007 8:34:22 PM

wahey! glad to see that the x1950 got such a good review, as i'm currently waiting for one to come in the post!
January 6, 2007 1:31:34 AM

I liked the read, but two things:

1) The x1900xt is becoming harder and harder to find and one of the things I didn't like about the previous "best for the money" articles was that it had the X850XT in it, the same way the X1900XT is mentioned by you guys, yet I couldn't find the card anywhere. I think it's a good thing they left the X1900XT out, because if it's sold out for the reader, they're only left with one choice in $200 budget as far as the article says when they could have two.

The X1900XT is great, don't get me wrong, but it's a terrible recommendation when every site you check, you'd be lucky to find even one version in stock.

2) Although I'm a proud owner of a 7600GT, the only reason I got it was because the 65$ rebate made it a 90$ card with tax/shipping included. If I had to spend 120-140 before taxes on a card, I wouldn't have even touched the 7600GT. The 1900GT, 1950Pro, X1800GTO and even the X850XT smoked the 7600GT in almost every benchmark. Now I know the 1900GT is about 20$ more and the 1950 Pro is about 30-40$ more, but the X1800GTO is around the same price, if not cheaper with rebates and it clocks better and in my opinion, performs better for the right benchmarks. (AA/AF enabled)

I don't think the 7600GT had a place there, but it might've been just to keep the Nvidia fanboys in check.
January 6, 2007 4:39:34 AM

Quote:
If I had to spend 120-140 before taxes on a card, I wouldn't have even touched the 7600GT. The 1900GT, 1950Pro, X1800GTO and even the X850XT smoked the 7600GT in almost every benchmark.

I don't think the 7600GT had a place there, but it might've been just to keep the Nvidia fanboys in check.


I write the list, and not a single card is there 'to keep fanboys in check'.

The 7600 GT , in my experience, is every bit as good as the X850 XT and X1800 GTO at stock clocks.

At least, those are the results I got in the review I did for Toms...
January 6, 2007 8:12:07 AM

Palit seems to be the cheapest at the moment, no matter what card you are looking for. I hear that they also overclock very well. So you could probably get a card that performs comparably with one in the higher price bracket for a lot less.

Anyone else know anything about Palit? Good reputation?
January 6, 2007 2:52:15 PM

Lol, I'm human and I make mistakes for sure.

But I don't do the UK pricing, just the US pricing. The UK guys modify it for that side of the pond.
January 6, 2007 2:55:55 PM

What about Aussie pricing? :evil: 
January 6, 2007 3:41:24 PM

8O Thanks Dat. Because of your post I can't remember what in the h.ll I was gonna say. Now I'm just trying to reverb the saliva comming from my mouth...
January 6, 2007 4:16:02 PM

I'm starting to doubt some of these recommendations. In the $180 category the 7900 GS ties with the Radeon X1950 Pro. But in the $260 slot, the 7950 GT isn't even mentioned, despite similar performance and stats that have about the same amount of variance as the $180 comaprison cards; in some the ATI is better, in some the GeForce. The ATI is not a clear cut winner, especially considering the difference in power requirements.

After the whole free Acer Ferrari VISTA deal the independence of these reviews and recommadtions is highly suspect.
January 6, 2007 5:41:41 PM

This article need an XY chart with performance vs price, like the GPU charts.

It allow to compare with local prices, and to see if, by example, a 30% of performance extra value the extra price we pay for it.
January 6, 2007 10:32:41 PM

Hi Folks, I am a newbie here. Looking over the systems that you guys have listed as what you own makes me realize my system is a REAL dog!

Anyway, in this article the author states;


"Here are two resources to help you judge if a card is a good buy. The first is the video card hierarchy chart, which groups video cards with similar overall performance into "tiers". The top tier contains the highest performing cards available, and performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there."


on page 7. I am wanting to view these articles, particulary the hierarchy chart but I cannot find them. Are they in fact listed?

I am currently running a 9600 PRO but want to upgrade since this card just chugs playing Company of Heroes.
January 7, 2007 7:51:36 AM

Quote:
Hi Folks, I am a newbie here. Looking over the systems that you guys have listed as what you own makes me realize my system is a REAL dog!

Anyway, in this article the author states;


"Here are two resources to help you judge if a card is a good buy. The first is the video card hierarchy chart, which groups video cards with similar overall performance into "tiers". The top tier contains the highest performing cards available, and performance decreases as you go down the tiers from there."


on page 7. I am wanting to view these articles, particulary the hierarchy chart but I cannot find them. Are they in fact listed?

I am currently running a 9600 PRO but want to upgrade since this card just chugs playing Company of Heroes.


One of the earlier posts in the thread states that the chart isn't up yet. :wink:
January 9, 2007 6:25:48 AM

I am quite interested in the hierarchical chart, any idea when it will be up?

Thanks!
January 9, 2007 9:09:27 AM

Quote:
1. The 256mb version costs $200. Even so, it's faster than, say, a 512mb 7900 GT or 7950 GT. The memory isn't all that important over 256mb, but the memory speed is, and the X1900 has pretty quick memory.

2. The new X1950 XT will almost always beat a 7900 GT or 7950 GT, it's memory speed is much faster than those cards.

Basically the X1950 XT is as fast as the X1900 XTX and can stand toe-to-toe with a 512mb 7900 GTX in many cases.


I've been requesting price quotes here in Portugal, and it seems X1900XT is no longer available (neither in stocks) and it has been replaced by X1950XT 256MB which is here more expensive around $45 (€40) than the NVidia 7950GT 512MB:
ASUS 7950GT 512MB around $335.
ASUS X1950XT 256MB around $380.

In a sense, the extra performance probably its worth the extra bucks but then it depends on the money available and usage (as always anyway).
The sad thing is that certainly it's not a bargain IMO.......
January 9, 2007 11:58:39 AM

first off i know im an idiot. secondly im playing mostly world of warcraft and probably vangaurd. thirdly assume my computer is a pos dell specifics of wich i couldnt begin to tell you.

my question is which would you choose the 7600gt or the x850xt

i see that the 7600gt is recommended but "offset that disadvantage and make it competitive with 256-bit cards like the X850 XT" makes it sound like it isnt as good as the 850, i know i can get the 850 for about $30 cheaper. but im more interested in wich one would be better for my application.

any and all help would be apreciated.
January 9, 2007 12:36:36 PM

Quote:
secondly im playing mostly world of warcraft and probably vangaurd.

my question is which would you choose the 7600gt or the x850xt

i see that the 7600gt is recommended but "offset that disadvantage and make it competitive with 256-bit cards like the X850 XT" makes it sound like it isnt as good as the 850, i know i can get the 850 for about $30 cheaper. but im more interested in wich one would be better for my application.


I'd say you need more performance for WoW and probably that leads to the x850xt. On the other hand, i know a guy that plays a lot WoW and have a 7600GT and he's really happy about it (plays at 1280x1024 AFAIK).
I don't know nothing about Dell compatibility issues. You should check just in case.... or negotiate a "try&buy" with your supplier!
January 9, 2007 1:54:18 PM

Quote:
I am quite interested in the hierarchical chart, any idea when it will be up?

Thanks!


I'm working on the web guys to fix the thing. Things are pretty crazy at Tom's right now because of the CES.
January 9, 2007 1:59:46 PM

Quote:

i see that the 7600gt is recommended but "offset that disadvantage and make it competitive with 256-bit cards like the X850 XT" makes it sound like it isnt as good as the 850, i know i can get the 850 for about $30 cheaper. but im more interested in wich one would be better for my application.


By 'competitive' I meant that they are on par, they trade blows in benchmarks.

An X850 XT is a great card at $30 under a 7600 GT. The only thinkg your missing is Shader Model 3.0 capabilities, in real-world terms that means the 7600 GT can perform the OpenEXR method of HDR (like the one used in Oblivion and Far Cry), but the X850 XT cannot.


The X850 XT can still play those games fine, it just can't do it with HDR enabled.
January 9, 2007 8:21:07 PM

I present the VIDEO CARD HEIARCHY CHART!

January 9, 2007 8:27:55 PM

HOORAH. Ok, so as I read it, if my 9600 PRO is listed in spot 18 then a good step up is any card listed 15 or higher. Correct?
January 9, 2007 8:44:01 PM

That's the idea. Although I don't think I'd bother upgrading to anything less than 14 or higher if I were you, just because the difference will really be worthwhile and those cards are still relatively cheap.
January 10, 2007 8:09:10 AM

Quote:
I am quite interested in the hierarchical chart, any idea when it will be up?

Thanks!


I'm working on the web guys to fix the thing. Things are pretty crazy at Tom's right now because of the CES.

Thanks for the chart, and the article for that matter!
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2007 2:12:02 PM

Quote:
I present the VIDEO CARD HEIARCHY CHART!


There's a few things that are off in that chart.

If the GF7800GTX-512 has trouble competing with the X1800XT, then why if the X1800XT with the plain GF7800GTX and the X1900XT is with the GF7900GTX-512, heck the X1950Pro beats the GF7900GTX-512, and the X1900XT beats that.

I'd say there's alot more staggering going on there. The GF7600GS is noticeably slower than an X1650Pro and the X1650XT is ahead of the GF7600GT consistently although granted by a small margin (similar to the GF6600GT over the X700P so since they're equal perhaps that's not as big an issue). I'd also say that for performance the GF8800GTS is about equal to the GX2 in most situations where the GX2 is ahead of the X1900XTX and higher, if we're basing it on performance alone.

Also the FX series no longer deserves to be anywhere near the level it occupies in that list, only if the games were still primarily DX7 with a smattering of DX8 and 9 would that be the case, but in most current situations the FX would be one slot lower at least, where the FX5900 competes with the R9600 series in modern titles when the same settings/codepath are used.

I'd also say the R9200SE is a little high on the list as are the 900 and 9100. I had an R9000 and it's nowhere near the GF3 series for performance, it has the feature win but not the performance. Also begrudgingly I'd say the R9800SE 128 and 256 need a bump up, the 256bit version actually beats a stock R9600P which is still very memory limited, but c'mon it blows away every GF4ti, especially now, but even back then. And the plain GF6800 would actually be lower on the list, it's the rare GDDR3 GF6800 that's worth the boost to the 14 level.
January 10, 2007 2:34:15 PM

Wow... alot of comments there, Grape.

I knew I'd take some slack for this list. :) 

First off I'll say that we need to keep in mind - I'm grouping cards by performance 'tiers'. Small differences in performance like the 7600 GT and X1650 XT are irrelevant - you wouldn't upgrade to an X1650 XT from a 7600 GT. The difference is insignificant.

I think the 7600 GT will win some against the X1650 XT, too...

I thought the 7800 GTX 512 pretty much smoked the X1800 XT all the time. I'll recheck the benches.

As for the FX series... I think a 5900 ULTRA could stand against a 9700 PRO. I reckon newer games might be more CPU than GPU limited when it comes to brand new stuff.

6800 I'll have to research.

The 9800 SE's I'll agree, I might have made a big boo-boo on that one. Not sure what happened there, but once again, I have to do a little research.

I'd like to add also, I can certainly be convinced to change any of these standings, but I need evidence.
If anyone can show me benches to support their position I will certainly be inclined to change it, but it has to be across a few apps and not just one, there are always certtain games which favor one architecture over another but I'm looking at the big picture here.

I think 'big picture' this is still pretty accurate except for maybe the 9800 SE thing. Knew I should have passed this by you and Paul before posting. :) 
a b U Graphics card
January 10, 2007 4:32:21 PM

Quote:
Wow... alot of comments there, Grape.

I knew I'd take some slack for this list. :) 


Yeah but you know it's not slack or flak, just my Op about it based on my experience and travels.

Quote:
First off I'll say that we need to keep in mind - I'm grouping cards by performance 'tiers'. Small differences in performance like the 7600 GT and X1650 XT are irrelevant - you wouldn't upgrade to an X1650 XT from a 7600 GT. The difference is insignificant.


I know and I do make note of that, but just mention the caveat that some fall within that same small range but do get the boost.

Quote:
I think the 7600 GT will win some against the X1650 XT, too...


Some, but very few, mainly games like Quake4, pretty much hands down the performance goes to the X1650XT, and if you look at FiringSquad's latest AGP review the X850XTPE beats the GF7600GT in most situations, although that difference is 5-20%, however the X1650 is more bound (just like the X1900s at low end) when testing at lower settings versus the GF7600GT, but turn on full features or turn up AA and voila huge difference due to the added shader power. I think you'll find the difference is significant when they get out of the low-end tests.

Quote:
I thought the 7800 GTX 512 pretty much smoked the X1800 XT all the time. I'll recheck the benches.


Initially that was true at launch, but as time went on, as is the case with so many new cards (GTX technically not 'new' IMO so much as refresh) the GTX-512 drops off and becomes tied with the XT with the XT only really getting smoked in Q4 or Riddick and the like. The thing to remember about the era as well though is the performance drawbacks at the time in FartCry with HDR enabled (later fixed) and F.E.A.R.

Quote:
As for the FX series... I think a 5900 ULTRA could stand against a 9700 PRO. I reckon newer games might be more CPU than GPU limited when it comes to brand new stuff.


I don't know, Paul posted a link a while back shwoing the FX5900 seires getting smoked by the R9600series when running the same codepath, and I'm sure we both agree the R9700P smokes the R9600XT even.

Quote:
6800 I'll have to research.


There's like 8 different versions since launch, although at launch the GF6800 pain DDR was the main and the GDDR3 was the 'special' version from companies simply disabling the VPU or Putting the new hardwired 12pipe on the GT boards.

Quote:
I'd like to add also, I can certainly be convinced to change any of these standings, but I need evidence.


No problemo, I understand. I'll see what I can find, unfortunately Digit-Life doesn't have a good recent set of Tests (last one was Oct/Nov, tested in Oct), and it'' take time to find good Full-spectrum tests with some of the older cards.

Three pretty comprehensive lists but now relatively outdated for some things;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27g...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2005-17g...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/games-20...

Quote:
If anyone can show me benches to support their position I will certainly be inclined to change it, but it has to be across a few apps and not just one, there are always certtain games which favor one architecture over another but I'm looking at the big picture here.


I realize that, just stating my collected info. For the FX thing if Pauldh could add that that'd help because that'd be indicative of current games (heck even in HL2 it had to use the DX8 codepath not DX9 and still the FX5900U just keeps with the R9500P). For DX8 games the FX series is dan good, for anything shader 2.0 I think you'll find the performance pathetic, and if we're talking about the context of now, be it upgrading from or to, that's important. Just look at what happened to the FXs with Oblivion, unplayable (and I mean truely unplayable, not just bad) without the addition of the "Very Low Quality" mode/patch by Bethesda. Think about it, the X300 is playable/useable (although at low), but the FX5900 is not even playable without a patch? It's because of those items that I mention it.
January 11, 2007 1:13:40 PM

Cleve, thanks for posting the chart.
Confirms my decision to upgrade from a 9800Pro to a 7800GS (yes, 7600 has the price point, but it wasn't out when I was looking! :(  ).
And also my buddy's decision to accept my 9800Pro in lieu of his fx5700.

Perhaps the points about some cards performing better under load (AA & FSA) can be represented by an asterisk denoting HiRes/Quality performer. But that would then start defeating the object of a general guide then wouldn't it...

Well, I'm waiting on more DX10 cards hitting market before I plunge into PCIExpressland.

Oriental Hero
January 11, 2007 3:06:35 PM

Quote:

Three pretty comprehensive lists but now relatively outdated for some things;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27g...


That first link pretty much confirms the position of the 5900... COD, Halo, Doom3, HL2... the 5900 beats the X600 in pretty much all of them, in most cases by alot. I'd still consider those 3d engines pretty contemporary. The 6800 looks strong, too.

I'm sure the HL2 codepath thing is still happening but that's going to be transparent to most uninformed users, and they're the ones who'll use this chart...

I've been looking at old 9800 SE benches as well, I think it deserves a 1 tier bump to parity with the 9600 PRO. From what I've seen the 256-bit 9800 SEs had a lower clockspeed to they all perform about the same, 128 or 256 bit.
a b U Graphics card
January 11, 2007 4:29:23 PM

Quote:

Three pretty comprehensive lists but now relatively outdated for some things;

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/2004-27g...


That first link pretty much confirms the position of the 5900... COD, Halo, Doom3, HL2... the 5900 beats the X600 in pretty much all of them, in most cases by alot.

I think you missed what I meant. Current style games outside the FX's DX8 comfort zone (Halo doesn't count as PS2.0).
First COD and D3 are OGL (COD2 was DX), they don't use GL2.0++ so therefore no stress in an area the FX dominates because it was designed for that (D3 was made for the FX). Also re-read the HL2 segment, Xbit specifically mentions that the the surprise of the good FX performance is because the FX is running the DX8 codepath. Running the DX9 codepath it gets slaughtered. I wish Pauldh would contribute that article, I think it was from Anand *shudder* and I will look for it if I must.

Quote:
I'm sure the HL2 codepath thing is still happening but that's going to be transparent to most uninformed users, and they're the ones who'll use this chart...


Transparent to uninformed users, well it is relevant if we're talking about comparing A to B, the lower setting of a the FX may be transparent but it's not equal. The R9500Pro running the forced DX8 codepath would likely outperform the FX5900U again. Accepting that as 'ok' would be like me saying the VolariDUO is an awesome card because with all their driver cheats and dumbing down the performance is better than the competition and without knowing what they are missing the buyer will be hapy enough compared to their old Rage or TNT. I'm surprised you would support running lesser codepath comparisons. I doubt anyone would accept the SplinterCell Chaos Theory results if the GF6800 were tested only using PS3.0 for nV and the X700 or X800 were tested using the PS1.1 path. I wouldn't be surprised if an X700P would outperform a GF6800GS then.

Quote:
I'd still consider those 3d engines pretty contemporary. The 6800 looks strong, too.


I'd say the engines are old, and only D3 and HL2 apply to their offspring (Quake4 & PREY / HL2-E1), they are hardly representative of FartCry (final version), BF2, F.E.A.R. , Oblivion, etc.

Anyways, I'll see if I can find the benchies Paul was refering to, but if we're talking about apples to aranges tests, then there might be no comparison, because I have no idea what kind of floptimizations are in the current forceware drivers to achieve parity nowadays.
January 11, 2007 5:25:43 PM

You're right, not alot of benches of these older cards on new DX 9 stuff. If you or Paul find something, I'll be happy to look at it.

I'll keep my eyes open, too...
January 11, 2007 11:37:20 PM

Hey, sorry if these are noob questions. I'm looking at 2 cards. One is a Geforce 7950gt with 512mb of memory, that is factory overclocked to a core clock of 600MHz and a memory clock of 1450MHz (effective). The other is a Radeon X1950XT with 256mb of memory, with a core clock of 625MHz and a memory clock of 1800MHz. I'll be running Vista and the computer will definitely be used more for gaming than anything else. The ATI card is about $30 cheaper where I'm looking, but this doesn't matter much to me as both cards fall within my price range. So my question is how big a difference does the extra 256mb of video RAM make? Am I better off going for the lower RAM and the higher clock speeds? Also, I'm thinking of getting a widescreen monitor, so if anyone knows if either of these cards handle aspect scaling better than the other (I play a few old games too) that would be great. Thanks in advance for the help!
January 12, 2007 4:22:45 AM

The difference between 256 and 512mb of RAM is pretty small. In 90% of stuff it doesn't make any difference, but there are a handful of titles where it'll make a small but measurable difference. More memory will also help at high res/AA settings.

Personally, I'd get the X1950 XT.
January 12, 2007 4:37:33 AM

Thanks for the input. I'm leaning toward the x1950xt, but as for resolution, just in case it makes a difference I'm mainly looking at 22" widescreen monitors that run at 1680x1050. Would that be a problem?
January 12, 2007 8:01:18 AM

I can found bargain on display card, but can not find a good deal on Core Dual or DDR2 800 memory.

Just purchase Nvidia 7900GT for $164.00 (total include CA sale tax and 15.00 S/H). Now that an excellent price vs. performance.

I will just have to wait for E4300 to comes out and price drop on DDR2 800.
January 12, 2007 10:10:11 AM

Zabathan,

As Cleeve said, 256 and 512MB on board won't make difference to many current games.

That said, one game that checks how much memory your card has is Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter (GRAW). It will limit your choices in the game settings for texture quality (ie not allow High if you don't have enuff graphic card memory).
I saw a review that showed screen dumps of the differences between Low/Medium/High texture settings. Don't forget there are also differences on how other game engines handle/use video memory.

Also whilst the latest DX10 cards seem to be heading for the 1GB onboard, there are trends in gaming development that are heading the other way, such as Megatexturing (a la Carmack) or Procedural generation. Both of these technologies would reduce the texture size, but it will probably just drive the detail of games up rather than allowing smaller gamefile sizes.

So you need to think about the games you play and how you play them too, cos personally, I'm not too bothered about anti aliased grass. But then, I grew up with the atari 2600 (and Pong b4 that) :)  And the last time I saw a Quake tournament, the pros had turned everything off to get the highest response/performance! So gone were the fluourescent skeletons and candy clowns. Just untextured humanoid figures jumping about! However, playing RPGs might be different for you for visual aesthetics...

Oh and regarding wide screen displays. It depends on the game's support for it in terms of resolution... For those games that don't support it fully, you'll notice that round object become elipses. Most noticeable is the HUD Aim Point if it's round. Again, it's all about if you are bothered by this. A few fire fights into any game and things like that aren't high on your visual cortex priority!
January 12, 2007 10:28:17 AM

hi, sorry in advance for asking daft questions, but i'm stuck and a little lost. currently i have a 7800gt but i have 2 pc's (long story the history of which i don't think is relevant!) I want a new card for the second system but i don't know weather to get something a little cheaper (a 7600gt for exapmle) as i won't be using that machine most of the time or weather to get something like the x1950xt (as recommended) and move the over card over.

I'm at a total loss, any help would be much appriatiated.

thank you
dave
January 16, 2007 7:49:52 PM

Hello everybody.
Man its great that you guys in the US can get the best deals on computer hardware, the rest of the world aren't that lucky.
My father will be in Tucson Arizona next week and I want him to buy me a video card in the $200 range. But, he is really clueless about what and where to buy and never mind the online shopping. Is there a retail store where one can get a decent deal on a video card? I don't mind ATI or Nvidia.

Thank you.
Konstantin.
January 17, 2007 5:22:09 PM

Sadly, most retail stores charge 1.5x to 3x the value of the card online.

If you can't order from Newegg or some other online vendor then I have only one suggestion for you... ebay is your friend. If you are lucky you might find the card you are looking for being sold by someone who is willing to ship overseas.
!