The Best Gaming Video Cards for the Money: June 2007

Detailed video card specifications and reviews are great - that is, if you have the time to do the research. But at the end of the day, what a gamer needs is the best video card within a certain budget.

I'd like to hear your reasons for unambiguously preferring the 8800GTS to the 2900XT. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to know what the reasons are.

Talking of the 8800GTS, you say about the 320MB model:

And, about the 640MB version:

This strikes me as dangerously simplistic. The analysis is reasonable if you are not remotely interested in AntiAliasing or Anisotropic Filtering. However (according to initial benchmarks, anyway) as soon as AA and AF are switched on, the 320MB GTS collapses into a gibbering heap even at quite low resolutions. If you care about image quality as well as frame rates, then going from 320MB to 640MB versions does actually make a very large difference. (Unless Nvidia have rectified this in recent driver releases - I've not heard that they have).

Strange, because I see nothing like that at all, I see no discussion of the decision in the £270 tier, and what I see on the opening page is:

Which paints an entirely different story for the UK edition.

Stranger still, the evidence that I see paints an entirely different story again. A quick check on a reasonable online retailer puts their price ranges to be about equal (there's apparently been a recent price cut, the GTS 640 used to be more expensive, closer to £300). The later reviews of the HD2900HD also appear to be edging ahead of the 8800 GTS 640, after the rather horrible start, and given that the GTS has had longer for the drivers to mature, we can expect the HD2900 to pull further into the lead with time.

So I'm equally curious as to the decision that was made, especially given what I saw on the front page of the UK edition.

did you even read it?

I'm in the UK, and, as Rosaline has noted, the corresponding section of the article is completely different here. Given that (in the UK) there is not a clear price advantage of the 8800GTS over the 2900XT (quite the reverse, if anything) I have to question why the recommendation for the 8800GTS is quite so unambivalent in the UK version of the article.

hmmm... I guess the x1950gt don't cut it at 115 for dx9. Stabil and O/C to a pro, w/o dumping time & money into coolers fans artic silver yotta yotta yotta for the PRO. Personally at one one five, I'll take the x1950gt, ring-core, 256bit, and OC. Then upgrade to an equivilent DX10, the HD2800GTO. I think you missed the boat at one one fiver: Cripped DX10 over quality DX9. JMHO's

f61

That'd work for me, I couldn't find any X1950 GTs for $115 though.

If I did, it'd be on the list...

Well in always nicely follow the list with the cards around $100 only thing is i first buy it and then the list shows up.

First the 6600, x800gto en now the 8600gt.

It's always nice that people update this list, it makes it much easier for people who don't understand very much of the graphic cards.

And if the poster had carefully read even the 1st few paragraphs, you clearly stated that the two cards traded blows in performance but one was prices $60 more so you went with the cheaper card until the other dropped in prices.

It is up to the reader to apply the very simple logic that if for whatever reason these equally performing cards reversed pricing conditions, the recommendation would follow since the only thing you stated as a serious differentiator was price.

I thank you a ton for your articles.

I assume that's aimed at me? What you seem to fail to realise is that the paragraph you are talking about is not there if you're accessing Tom's Hardware from within the UK. The only version of the article that I can see at all is one that does not mention any price disparity between 8800GTS and 2900XT. Now that I know that the version of the article visible to US users is different from the one I can see, the conclusion makes sense in a US context; but the UK version of the article frankly doesn't, as it recommends the Nvidia card on the basis of data that, I'm far as I'm concerned, is missing.

Any chance of a geforce 8500 being added to the list on page 6 ?
Given it's the cheapest geforce 8 card on the marked, it'd be nice to see what league it's in

The 8500 GT *IS* there, on the same tier as the 6600 GT.

That's actually being a little generous, the 6600 GT usually beats it...

Good card, but it lacks SM3. I had an x800GTO and i really missed the SM3, hdr is always a nice effect. So it's up to you.

The 7600gt is just as fast (don't know about prices) and has SM3.0 support. But the 850XT is fine

Wich card you have at the moment?

Oh well then go for the x850XT, you'll like the performance increase

Good luck

Of course you will get more fps

Just between you and me: The 6200 isnt a really powerfull card

But For $50 in total you have a nice card 8O (the $80 minus the $30 wich you sold your 6200 for)

the price is in USD...
In Romania a new 7600GT is arround 150$!

AFAIK games don't work with AA and HDR so it's not a big loss if the card doesn't have HDR beacause i'm going to use FSAA and aniso

Hello again, fellow TGers

Well, following on from my posts in last months "Best Of... " thread, I thought I'd share my final thoughts for comments.

Regulars will remember that I currently have an Nvidia 6600GT on my P4 2.8Ghz system with 1GB RAM.

I have narrowed my choice down to (in price order) either the 8600GTS, ATI 1950XT or the 8800GTS.

Obviously I should buy the 8800 and be done with it but I'm just wondering if, given that I won't be using any higher res than my LCD monitor's default of 1280x1024, the performance increase I will get by spending more on the ATI or the NV 8800 over the NV 8600 can justify the extra expense.

If you see what I mean

The X1950XT will wipe the floor with the 8600GTS in current DX9 games.

Yes, the X1950XT isn't DX10 compatible.
Yes, you will (eventually) need Vista to play DX10 games.

Anyway, I think the 8600GTS maybe won't be strong enough to play DX10 games in full glory, so you might have to go back to DX9 to play decently. And, what's the point of having a DX10 card if you have to play in DX9?

If that happens, the X1950XT would end up being a far better choice.

lol, nothing against you at all stranger... just thought I might help the OP with understanding what is going on. Meant no offense, I know you are aware of all of that... perhaps I should have made the replay less specific?

regardless, was not anything aimed at you... just adding more info to the mix. 8)

rock on.

here is a pic of my score!
is it ok?
no overclock on vga...only on cpu!

working now!

DX0 cards are backwards-compatible with DX9 games.
DX9 cards are... well, DX9 cards.

Yes, DX10 requires certain hardware specs, or architectural designs. It IS hardware-limited.

Besides, any 8800 will kill the X1950Pro, no doubt.

I think he is talking a 1950xt here... but you are right, if you can afford it go w/ any 8800 FTW right now.

Prices for AGP cards are getting down as well. For example you can get an XFX 7600GT AGP for $110 after rebate on TigerDirect (was $120 just a week ago). Same card for $120 on newegg. However, the article places it in the $170 range.