I don't understand the reasoning some of you guys have.
Just cause the 320MB (a price/performance card), won't get 75+ fps in res. over 1600x1200 its a bad card?
Please look at this and say that the 320MB isn't playable at 1600x1200 (was thinking of oblivion), the resolutions above that i agree you should probably get the 640MB, the 320MB still gets 30-60 fps in even larger resolutions in some games though.http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI4MSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
And even if the new DX10 will strain the 320MB it will just make me reduce my settings slightly (hopefully atleast , i play in 12x10 btw).
Afaik if your in the 30-60 fps slot it's good enough, why pay $100+ for more fps if you don't need it?
If i was so concerned about losing even 1 fps in games i wouldn't have bought a price/performance card, that as i see it are directed to the low-mid high-end gamer.
Hell, i had a x1600xt before, that could play oblivion well enough for me.
Today i would recommend, with price/perfomance in mind, a 320MB for people with 1600x1200 and less, when DX10 comes out maybe just the 1280x1024 players and so on.
That doesn't mean a 320MB won't play those games really well at 1600x1200 either.
Even DX9 cards will be able to play those games to, again its the eye of the beholder that counts, it's still the same game.
Just because some of you want a minimum fps of 75+ to be sure it never ever lags, doesn't mean the average player that has played with reduced settings and crappy load times for years would mind.
Wasn't it like 70% of all the players still play at 12x10 and 10x7?
Think there was a link here a THG somewhere, sorry that i don't link it and can back up that statement, will try add it later.
Sorry for the really long post and if i went to much OT.
Made som changes to my crappy grammar...