Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GTS or 8800GTX for next 2 years future-proof

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 14, 2007 12:24:20 AM

I have this stoned:

Asus P5B Deluxe
2GB Corsair C4 @800MHz

and this is what I have to decide:

E6600 + 8800GTS
E6600 + 8800GTX
E6400 + 8800GTX

The PC must last without upgrades for minimun next 2 years, meaning 2007 and 2008 to 2009...

What do you suggest?
January 14, 2007 12:27:58 AM

I'd go for the 8800GTX just to be safe.
January 14, 2007 12:40:44 AM

I think it would be better to get two medium ranged cards (one now, one later) rather than depend on 1 card for the next two years. Sure you might have the raw numbers but newer cards will probably bring in better features.
Related resources
a c 358 U Graphics card
a b Ĉ ASUS
January 14, 2007 1:52:42 AM

SLI for two "medium" cards is a waste of money. Better to get the GTX and E6400 or E6600 (if you can afford it).

SLI for less than Premium cards doesn't really make much sense.
January 14, 2007 1:55:12 AM

Quote:
I think it would be better to get two medium ranged cards (one now, one later) rather than depend on 1 card for the next two years. Sure you might have the raw numbers but newer cards will probably bring in better features.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Let's say he gets a 8600. It's "newer", but based on the same chip, so the features won't be improved, just a slower card.

@ OP
Go for the GTX, can'y get any better card.
January 14, 2007 2:22:19 AM

Personally, I went with the E6300 and GTS. I have the CPU to 3.15GHz and the GPU/MEM are now at 650/925. I had the GTS cranked even further than that, but backed it down a little.

The E6300 is the least expensive of the ones you are looking at and OCs better. But, then again, there is the 4300 (?), so it will also OC great and run cooler.

If you must get the GTX, spend the extra $$ and get the water-cooled version. The stock fan on the GTS is horribly loud when it cranks.

With my settings, I managed to get the following from 3DMark06:

Score: 10455
SM2.0: 4691
SM3.0: 4611
CPU: 2661

I thought I could get better than that, but overall, it's ranked 10th in comparable systems, even coming ahead of some X6800's and C2 Quads. Overall, the system is ranked at 20708.

Bottom line is that the E6300/GTS give you a lot of performance for little $$. YMMV.
January 14, 2007 2:45:31 AM

I don't think any of the 1st gen DX10 card will do much for future proofing. Yes games will be playable but even 1st gen DX10 games will bring the 8800 GTX to playable. Perhaps DX10 will speed things up but I wouldn't count on it. Flight Sim X brings the 8800 GTX to a crawl at 1600x1200 with all the eye candy turned on.
January 14, 2007 3:01:22 AM

Of what you list, the E6600 cpu with a 8800 GTX would last the longest, but when it comes to video cards, none will last all that long before new cards put them to shame. After two years, a 8800 GTX will probably seem like a turtle.

Want a real comparison? Seven months ago my X1900 XTX Toxic was about the hottest card around. Now it doesn't even get mentioned in new benchmark scoring. Its still a good card, but its outdated. Same thing will happen with a 8800 GTX. In a year or two, it will still be a good card, but it will be no where near the future front runners.
January 14, 2007 3:37:38 AM

i think this thread sucks
January 14, 2007 4:24:53 AM

Quote:
Of what you list, the E6600 cpu with a 8800 GTX would last the longest, but when it comes to video cards, none will last all that long before new cards put them to shame. After two years, a 8800 GTX will probably seem like a turtle.

Want a real comparison? Seven months ago my X1900 XTX Toxic was about the hottest card around. Now it doesn't even get mentioned in new benchmark scoring. Its still a good card, but its outdated. Same thing will happen with a 8800 GTX. In a year or two, it will still be a good card, but it will be no where near the future front runners.

you know it doesn't really matter if you are on the cutting edge, as long as you can play the games you want to play. the x1900 xtx will still play the latest games (with excepting to flight simulator X) at a decent clip. I wouldn't but one now, but if I had one, I would use it for at least another year.
January 14, 2007 5:31:51 AM

Quote:
I don't think any of the 1st gen DX10 card will do much for future proofing. Yes games will be playable but even 1st gen DX10 games will bring the 8800 GTX to playable. Perhaps DX10 will speed things up but I wouldn't count on it. Flight Sim X brings the 8800 GTX to a crawl at 1600x1200 with all the eye candy turned on.


It isn't the card slowing the game down, it's the programming. DX10 has enormous capacity to make performance enchancements, but it has not been correctly implemented in FS-X - the DX10 patch was designed just to add improved visuals, nothing else.
January 14, 2007 9:41:40 AM

Well, in past I've ben always buying high-end which lasted for a looooong time.

e.g. I had GeForce 2 GTS (best at that time) and it lasted all until DX9 came out. Even Half-Life 2 was playable (concerning speed).

Later, I've bought 9600XT and that showed being a miss as that mediocre card soon was outdated.

I've replaced it with 6800GT and that card serves me even now concerning speed. I've completely skipped 2 generations there.
And that card even runs Unreal 3 engine at reduced details and resolution, but still fine at ~20-40 fps. (which is playable tbh).

Well, then, I've been thinking about taking GTX and beleive it should hold there.


Then, if I go X1950Pro now, I'll be saving $360 for which I can get another 2GB of Corsair C4 @800MHz RAM.. and in about 6 months upgrade to a new DX10 card which would then be second generation or maybe ATi R600.....

?
January 14, 2007 10:32:19 AM

Quote:


I've replaced it with 6800GT and that card serves me even now concerning speed. I've completely skipped 2 generations there.
And that card even runs Unreal 3 engine at reduced details and resolution, but still fine at ~20-40 fps. (which is playable tbh).


If you're using RSV as a judge of the Unreal engine, don't, that game is the definition of a bad port. Fun game, horrible port.
January 14, 2007 12:08:12 PM

Quote:


I've replaced it with 6800GT and that card serves me even now concerning speed. I've completely skipped 2 generations there.
And that card even runs Unreal 3 engine at reduced details and resolution, but still fine at ~20-40 fps. (which is playable tbh).


If you're using RSV as a judge of the Unreal engine, don't, that game is the definition of a bad port. Fun game, horrible port.

Meaning a better game would perform even better than a bad port? :) 
January 14, 2007 12:45:28 PM

Quote:
e.g. I had GeForce 2 GTS (best at that time) and it lasted all until DX9 came out.

Yep, a rock solid card. I still use this card for my 'retro PC' and I will never part with it.

As for the question. No doubt in my mind that you should get the GTX version of the card. It will last you a long time and even longer if you are not too demanding. However, if you have the time I would recommend you wait until there is some competition on the market.
January 14, 2007 1:01:06 PM

I would wait if I don't hgave to buy something right now.
So it's actually buying X1950Pro 256MB now and then some new $500 DX10 at later time...
If I'm happy I will be able to sell X1950Pro for $150... then I loose $100 minimum...
January 14, 2007 1:18:30 PM

What is computer going to be used for? What is a your definition of a necessary upgrade? Depending on your definition, there is not such thing as future proof. Games, if it is being used for gaming, will come out that push the hardware to it's max. And, you will probably be able to run EVERY windows game, you just might have to turn the gfx down a little. So, elaborate a little bit more please.

wes
January 14, 2007 2:00:23 PM

Quote:
What is computer going to be used for? What is a your definition of a necessary upgrade? Depending on your definition, there is not such thing as future proof. Games, if it is being used for gaming, will come out that push the hardware to it's max. And, you will probably be able to run EVERY windows game, you just might have to turn the gfx down a little. So, elaborate a little bit more please.

wes


Programming (heavy load on memory - multiple applications opet, multiple background services...) and gaming.

I like to play FPS games :)  and I have 1680x1050 LCD so...

I was thinking about buying 4GB of RAM and X1950Pro instead of 2GB RAM and 8800GTS and then later buy some DX10 card...

I will probably loose around $150 on that instead of buying 8800 now.. but well.. maybe next gen cards will arrive with DX10 games and have the same price...

?
January 14, 2007 10:18:45 PM

The answers easy mate,

E6400 & a GTX, 2GB 667mhz Ram (will get that E6400 to 3ghz OC'ed) = Good enough for a long time,

And you can always replace the E6400 with a quad core when you got more money (they both use slot 775 eh) and get more RAM later.
January 15, 2007 12:45:51 AM

I've ordered:

P5B Deluxe, E6600, 2GB Corsair 800 C4, 8800GTX

soon I can upgrade cpu, gfx and ram, so now I have a platform that will last for a long time before first upgrade.

also, in this configuration, it will also last hell a lot. :) 


thx to everybody for your advice and help on the matter.;)
!