Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 13, 2007 8:33:16 AM

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.
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 13, 2007 8:35:46 AM

8800GTS 320 > X1950XT 256> X1950PRO 512
September 13, 2007 8:51:38 AM

What about the memory ? on the XT is it enough for the resolution i am running ?
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2007 9:24:41 AM

16 x 10 res will work fine for most games with 256mb mem. on a good card. All three are great cards, and yes, the 8800 is worth it.
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2007 6:28:42 PM

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.
September 13, 2007 7:00:53 PM

320mb in sli gives you 320mb ! NOT 640mb....
September 13, 2007 7:10:07 PM

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...
September 13, 2007 8:03:33 PM

I think if you can afford it, go for the 8800 it will last a while longer
September 13, 2007 8:40:01 PM

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.
September 13, 2007 8:40:55 PM

but, you are an intel one! looking at ur profile
September 13, 2007 9:07:21 PM

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).
September 13, 2007 9:08:27 PM

You have a P35 motherboard - doesn't that mean SLI is out of the question. Go with the ATI mid-tier. Save your money!
September 13, 2007 9:10:44 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 13, 2007 9:32:43 PM

8800GTS
September 13, 2007 9:47:08 PM

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.
September 13, 2007 9:54:22 PM

Live a little, at least get the 640.
September 13, 2007 10:36:28 PM

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.
September 13, 2007 10:48:17 PM

you mean: the fastest dx9 cards are a bit faster but for 2-3 times the price of some dx10 cards is that it?
September 13, 2007 10:49:56 PM

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.
September 13, 2007 10:55:20 PM

Repost
September 13, 2007 11:03:02 PM

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.
September 14, 2007 2:50:22 PM

Thanks for all the answers, this helps allot.

Sickboy32: can't i use a BIOS upgrade to use x-fire ?
kkkk1: I got 4GB of DDR2 SDRAM 667mhz

1 Last question: if i decide on the 8800 GTS or the 1950XT what brand should i take ?

Thanks.
September 14, 2007 6:32:17 PM

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