What to buy in my new rig I build in July?

deerhunter716

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2006
46
0
18,530
I got $3,000 to spend on a PC and after looking at my costs it looks like I got $900 - $1,000 to sink into video cards.

Which of the following would you recommend:

1) Two 8800GTS 640 MB to last me for a few years

2) Two 8500 GT 256MB Dual-SLI to get me by on Crysis, etc. and WAIT for the G90 cards (wold prob have about $900 to spend then)?

3) One 7950GT 512MB (is this better performance than #2 above) and WAIT for the G90 cards (prob have $900 to spend then)
 

deerhunter716

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2006
46
0
18,530
My bad - gonna be a Viewsonic 22" monitor 1680x1050.

So not buy some low-end stuff to get me by until the G90 stuff comes out? I only got this $900 to spend once in the next 2 years.
 
Get an 8800 GTX. You'll be fine for the next two years at that resolution. Mail the rest of the money to me :lol:

I doubt that two 8500 GT 256MB will have decent performance in Crysis. Nobody knows for sure, but rumors are it will be very demanding.

8800 GTS 640 MB SLI does better than one GTX, for example 150 fps instead of 120 fps, but your monitor can only display 60 fps (refresh rate 60 Hz, right?) All you'd get with the SLI is paying $200 more and having two fans blowing instead of one. If you really want SLI do it with two of the best cards, i.e. 8800 GTX. You've actually got the money, but it doesn't make sense IMO at 1680x1050.

BTW, get an eVGA 8800 GTX or a BFG 8800 GTX OC2, these are getting the best reviews.
 
My 2 cents:
SLI is not cost efficient. Get a 8800GTX now, and enjoy it. It should satisfy you for some time. In the future, there will always be something better and cheaper that you want. When that time comes, e-bay the 8800gtx and use the funds to reduce the cost of replacing it.
 

Malatar

Distinguished
May 29, 2007
9
0
18,510
Remember that you'll only get the full 4Gb of RAM if you're running a 64 bit OS (Vista-64, XP-64, or Linux etc.). If you run it in XP-32, you'll see less, due to mapping of video cache and other things, leaving 3-3.5Gb visible.
 

Malatar

Distinguished
May 29, 2007
9
0
18,510
No, that still won't get you the full 4Gb in XP-32 or Vista 32. But you'll still be happier with the 3.5ish Gb since Vista loves having tons of RAM available.
 

Furious5k

Distinguished
Feb 15, 2007
64
0
18,630
Unless you've got nothing else you'd rather spend $1,000 on, anything above $2,000 is over-kill in my opinion.

Take a third of your budget and buy a 30" Monitor. Now that's future-proofing :p
 

deerhunter716

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2006
46
0
18,530
My 2 cents:
SLI is not cost efficient. Get a 8800GTX now, and enjoy it. It should satisfy you for some time. In the future, there will always be something better and cheaper that you want. When that time comes, e-bay the 8800gtx and use the funds to reduce the cost of replacing it.

What about the 8800GTS 640MB EVGA Superclocked -- is it worth it to spend the extra $150 for the GTX? If not that is $150 I can save.
 
Can you feel the difference between 32 fps and 23 fps?
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=707&model2=706&chart=297
My guess is that if you intend to play Oblivion, or Crysis, or something other very demanding, then it's worth getting the GTX.

How about 68 fps and 45fps?
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=707&model2=706&chart=278
Your monitor may not even show more than 60 fps. In Battlefield you'd get 60fps on the GTX and 45 on the GTS. Still an improvement with the GTX but much less important.

These results are with all the eye candy maxed at 1600x1200. If that's not important to you then the GTS will do.

If you're planning to get a bigger monitor soon go for the GTX.