x1950xt or 8800gts

[lamagra1913]

I have looked at a couple of the vga charts in comparison for the x1950xt and the 8800gts. I am looking between the x1950xt 256, 512 or the 8800gts 320.

The price difference per performance is what I am questioning.

The 8800gts is 270 an the x1950xt is 209 for the 512 and 170.99

Anyone have any good suggestions, ideas, thoughts?


also I am not switching to vista anytime soon so the dx10 is not that big of an issue for me.


Thanks,
Lammy

 

[mrmez]

Just made the jump from a 1950xt 256 to the gts320.

Running 14x10, and im sooo happy i did. The gtx would have been nice for the extra buffer when things get real krazy and it would be more future proof, but u couldnt justify the extra $$$ for the extra 5%

Go the gts320 imho.

 

[nvalhalla]

Depends on how often you upgrade cards I guess. If only every 2 years, go with the 8800GTS. While you may not plan on moving to Vista for a while, you will move to it, and you will want DX10. If this card is only for the rest of the year, then the 1950XT is about 2/3 the price, and 2/3 the performance. If you aren't willing to spend $270 on a video card, then the X1950XT is a good option.

 

[pauldh]

It depends on your games, system specs, and gaming resolution. At those prices all three could be a best buy. What are your specs, what games do you play or want to play, and at what resolution?

I have a X1950XT 256MB and a 320MB GTS, and while the GTS is usually quicker, it surprised me how little boost it gave me in Oblivion, which I thought it would smoke the 1950.

Systems specs for me are in sig. I play at 1680x1050 everything max except no self shadows, no shadows on grass, and shadow filtering low. Also forcing 4xaa and 16xaf on both. I also run some texture mods. Anyway, I got about a 5 fps boost in both the minimum framerate and the average. Not at all what I expected, but it could be with the texture mods I am asking too much of both these cards. Without overclocking these settings still were too much for the 320GTS. Here is a fraps benchmark run of a demanding outdoor area.

The GTS wins, but not by $100 worth. It's a nice card, but I wish I had a GTX.

 

[lamagra1913]

I usually play mmos and strategy type games.

I am getting p65p ds3
2 gigs ram
e6420
550w ps
hsf


My last build was in 2002 and it has lasted me this long. Back then the vid card was the 9700pro (which I am still using) and cost me about 240 dollars.

I will not upgrade probably for about 3-4 years (if/when I make the switch to vista).

The only problem is that the x1950xt 256 is like 169.99 or 179.99 and the 512 is 209.99 which leads me to only 60 dollars more is the gts but in three years I will probably be upgrading to a dx10 cards and setup.

So I guess the question is coming down to is it worth it to get the 256 or the 512 for the x1950xt. AND if the 512 then it worth $60 to get the gts.

Thanks,
Lammy

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

If youre gaming at 12x10 resolution, the 256 should be ok

 

[elbert]

If you have the money there is no question the 8800GTS 320 will beat any DX9 GPU. Its the best bang for the mid to high GPU performance buck.
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_nvidia_geforce_8600_gts_sli_8600_gt/10/
This is the best benchmark review I have found and will give you a good ideal of the differance in performance in DX9.

To make matters worst in games the GPU rules both the CPU and RAM. Check out tomshardware benchmarks of a low end X2 3800 with 1GB of RAM beating a E6600 with 2GB's of RAM at and above 1280X1024. Im not putting down Intel here just stating in games the GPU rules. This is due to X2 3800 system having a 8800GTX and the E6600 system have the lower powered 8800GTS. I bring this up because the same would happen with the 8800GTS v/s the x1950xt.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/11/system_builder_marathon/page11.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/05/11/system_builder_marathon/page12.html
On the Fear benchmarks the low end system beat the mid range at a resolution of 1280X960 due to the GPU.