1950XT 256mb vs 1950PRO 512mb vs 8800GTS 320mb

hi,

I am trying to decide on a graphics card, I'v been reading all this messages on this board and other places, can't seem to be able to make a decision.

my computer spec is pretty high it's a brand new system (the spec is in the signature).

I have a 22" LCD monitor Samsung 226BW witch runs at 1680x1050 - I understand that for this kind of resolution you need more memory than 256mb. So I ruled out the 1950XT witch comes with 256mb (I am not sure that i am right about this) now i am looking at the PRO's 512mb vs the GTS with its 320mb. 320mb enough for me ? the 8800 worth the extra money ?
what should i do ?

thank you.

What about the memory ? on the XT is it enough for the resolution i am running ?

I'd go for the 8800 as you can always SLi it later giving you 640Mb. How much main RAM have you got? If you've only got 1 gig go for X1950pro + 1 gig main RAM. If you've got 2 gig go for 8800.

256MB is still quite fine.

Some folks are hung up on more memory, but at this time the only real advantage is the ability to use ultra-high res texture sets available in a very small selection of titles.

Yes, the number of these titles will increase in the next year or so, but 256 MB will be sufficient for a while.

In the case of the X1950 XT and X1950 PRO, the XT's much-higher clock speed coupled with a much-more capable architecture trumps the relatively small advantage of an extra 256mb of texture memory.

At high resolutions, a 256mb X1950 XT will surge past an X1950 PRO with 512MB. I wouldn't be surprised if it showed double the framerates in some instances.


Aside from all that though: the 8800 GTS is quite a bit better than either...

I agree the 8800 is worth the money. I have one and I'm quite sure I won't have to worry for quite some time. Hey, I may even be able to play Crysis. At a high resolution, the 8800 is going to be a good choice. Personally I'm not really an ATI fan anymore.

I think that the x1950 Pro 512 is the way to go right now!
Best mid-tier cards on the market. For the price/performance - this card will last you for the next little while until better equipped DX10 cards make their way onto center stage (oh course at that time DX10.1 or DX11? will likely be the new standard).

when playing bioshock at 1280x768 i have my rivatuner memory usage graph running in the background. With max settings mind you, i am using about 100MB of video ram.

we can go on and on with speculations on the amount of memory needed but from the reviews i read the only game that makes the 8800 320mb suffer is graw, and this is from 12*16 and up resolutions. damm even the x1950xt rarely suffers until past 19*12 most of the time. only aa seems to kill the cards(which is not that an important feature) i think one can have a pretty god gaming experience with less than 512mb for years to come IMO. dont know something tells me that when you ll finally need the whole 512 or 640 mb then it s the card itself that wont be powerful enough.

no reason to get a directx10 card! now or even for about a year. it just isnt wise spending.

ya right dx10 cards are a bit faster but at about 2 to 3 times the price of the fastest dx9 cards. and will dx10 come out? dx10.1? or will gaming companies change back to dx9?

i believe microsoft will be scaping dx10, for a backward compatible api.

Good points, all of them Naw-yi, but most people only use the 8800 series for DX9. DX10 ain't the problem, Vista is.

The 8800 series may suck for DX10, but it smokes as a DX9 card, and DX9 is here to stay for quite a while. I think they tried DX10 as an exclusive for a few games, but I wouldn't bet they sold many.

My X1950XT is plenty fast for any current game.
Early next year will bring a next-gen DX10 cards. By then Vista, Drivers, 64bit, Multi-core, etc will be a little more mature. So I will just get some cheap card now and get a high-end card in spring/summer 2008.
If you need a good card NOW, the 8800 GTS will last longer.

the brand does not metter...its the price that metters