new graphics card?

[merwan]

thinking to upgrade my graphics card hmmmmmmmm. i have ATI RADEON RX1600PRO.

three questions:


1. is it worth upgrading?
2. if so, what is the best graphics card to get for my computer?
3. and finally for interest, which is better GeForce 8800 Ultra or ATI Radeon™ HD 2900 Series?

thank you

my specs

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=208552

 

[jordanwise]

1) what size monitor have you got and what games do you play? if you're one of these WOW nutjobs running at 17'' you should be fine. Running stalker is a completely different matter.

2) what else is in your computer? no point slapping in a 8800gtx if you're running a single core cpu with 512mb of ram

3) ultra by miles. but huge price difference too. but both won't be that good at dx10, they're just dx9 monsters, thats all. If you want future proof, either wait for next line from nvidea or go sli with gtx's/ultras

sorry to answer questions with questions but it's necessary

 

[kpo6969]

PSU specs and upgrading it?

 

[uberman]

I would say get the 8800gts320 but if moneys no object gtx.The ultra is just too expensive for what it is.

 

[merwan]

1)monitor size 17 and lol my main current game is stalker. others current game is fifa 07. i have have many other games but really i dont play them. my bro plays C&C3 (its ok nothing special, prefer C&C zero hour).

2) my specs again as in first message:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc?id=208552

3) cool nvidia rocks

so is it worth upgrading and which card please?

 

[aevm]

1. yes
2. 8800 GTX. 8800 GTS 320 MB if you have a 20" monitor or smaller.
3. Ultra is better but overpriced. 8800 GTX is the best choice.

 

[merwan]

thanks aevm and uberman, now its down to 8800gts320 or GTX hmmm. i say ummmm GTX baby.

waiting for bigboy jordanwise

 

[The_Abyss]

You're wasting your money on the GTX if you only have a 17" monitor.

 

[goldragon_70]

Up to what res can your monitor display?

 

[merwan]

goldragon_70; max resolution: 1600x1200

The_Abyss; um ok then, sticking with a 8800GTS320 so far


cheers guys for your support

 

[merwan]

8800GTS320

can you please tell me more about this product specification as there are many different types and so i dont get the wrong one?

what is 320?? mb or bit (see what i mean)

thank you

 

[betunn]

Pick one. hehe

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=2669&Nav=|c:1558|&Sort=3&Recs=10

 

[merwan]

you guys are great. im all sorted but ill wait for other responses
thank youuuuuuuuuuuu


ignore other dum thread lol.

 

[pauldh]

Would you actually game at 1600x1200 on that monitor? I'd think in game text would be terribly small and you'd be running a 60Hz refresh rate. I assume 1280x1024 or 1024x768 are more what you would use. In that case, the 320MB GTS is a nice card for such a nice rig. The X1600 pro is lame in comparison. If you are thinking of getting a new monitor anytime soon and gaming at higher res, then grab the GTX. I am pleased with the 320MB GTS but I'd like more power at 1680x1050 even.

 

[betunn]

Also check newegg. compare prices.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1068327613&name=320MB

 

[merwan]

thanks Pauldh. you are right about the resolutions and i was only stating the maximum resolution supported by my monitor.

i think that getting a bigger screen is a wicked idea but is really another headache in terms of money i feel, though sounds very tempting.

well i guess that just confirms things more for the 8800GTS320.

 

[merwan]

hang on here. i heard 8800gts320 is not good. the '320' is not good enough and higher amount is needed huh. explain this please?

 

[Yoosty]

I am mainly a Nvidia card user these past 4 yrs, but this card looks wicked.SAPPHIRE 100202SR Dual X1950PRO 1GB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 VIVO HDCP for only $429.99.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102096

This is something to think about, that you can use until you are ready for a complete upgrade. Unless you are running MS Vista, then the choice goes to Nvidia 8800 series cards.

 

[uberman]

8800 will eat the 1950 in DX9.Nothing out for DX10 yet so who knows.But 8800 gts is cheaper than 429$ also.GTS will handle it at a decent price until it doesn't fit your needs anymore.

 

[EXT64]

320 refers to the amount of video ram in MB. At lower res, 320 is plenty of memory. It may be a little short for a high memory game like Oblivion, but for most current games it is plenty. The GTS320 has the same GPU as the GTS640, which is plenty for almost all current games (at 1600 res or lower). The 320 is probably good for you (especially for the price, they were obnoxiously cheap a month ago, don't know if they still are though.) The low ram will only have major negative effects at high resolutions.

 

[motorhead12]

Now this is getting boring, a 320MB card will be shit when the new dx10 games release, they wont cope with decent resolutions.

I see you discounted the 2900xt early on, dont listen to the hype, you will find most the people who slate it do so because they bought the nvidia way before the ATI was released....and most people have fallen for that trap, yes the Nvidia's play todays dx9 games great...they wont keep up tih the ATI in dx10, the 2900 will push a much costlier 8800gtx to the edge.

Choice is yours, if u want bang for buck go for the 2900xt or if you want to follow what these guys are saying go for the 640mb gts

 

[prof_chaos]

You considered paying $550+ for a GTX but never considered a $270 GTS 320MB + a $200 22" LCD?

22" Acer widescreen $200 after $70 mail in rebate
http://www.officedepot.com/ddSKU.do?level=SK&id=288510&Ntt=acer%2022

 

[motorhead12]

the 320 is a waste of time, he will need to upgrade in a year

 

[aevm]

Yeah, but then he's got a GTS with a monitor that's too big for the GTS. Sucks, doesn't it? How about not doing anything and saving some more cash until he can get the GTX and the monitor? Prices will go down for both in time, that also helps him.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

hang on here. i heard 8800gts320 is not good. the '320' is not good enough and higher amount is needed huh. explain this please?

The GTS will be fine for lower resolutions (below the maximum of that monitor), but 1600x1200 is the point of diminishing returns. Paul's talking about the reality that for your current situation it's fine, but try to game above that resolution you're going to have issues. Something to consider also IMO is that aliasing or AA on a 17" 16x12 monitor isn't as noticeable as AA on a 21" 16x12 monitor so the level of benefit diminishes as well.

Should you be looking at a new monitor then the bar of quality is raised and you will see an appreciable difference offer by the GTX.

Now the GTS (and likely GTX) will be weak in DX10 mode compared to their DX9 performance, but you will be able to balance settings for it, and it will do ok for while.

If you think about your spending, for what you save on the GTS, you can roll that into the next products that will liklely handle the games like Crysis, etc better.

So IMO you have two options: the GTS for someting now with an eye on refreshing by the end of the year or early 2008, or the GTX if you plan on holding this card for much more than a year.

Personally I'd recommend buying the GTS-320 for your current situation, and then take the savings and roll them into something better later (at which time buy a new monitor with the money you get from selling the GTS).