I can't make up my mind, 8800 GTX or GT?

Why anyone would waste their hard earned money on a GTX now that the GT is nearly just as powerful for half the price is beyond me =D
For the price of 1 GTX, you could get 2 GT's and sli them, yet even just 1 GT is almost as powerful as a GTX.


I feel sorry for everyone who recently purchases a GTX lol! =0

lol... I have a GTX and loves how it still performs BETTER then any card out there cept for Ultra. I'm gonna put them in SLI in a few months. SLI GTs is better then 1 8800GTX yes. notice the word SLI. and it's not half the price either a decent brand 8800GTX is $520 the cheapest in stock GT is $270 a decent brand is $290.

I can understand after a year wanting a new killer high end card to replace the 8800GTX; we all do. But the 8800GT would be a great upgrade for you. I agree don't go with the GTX now. I'll upgrade my 8800GTS 320MB to a GT if/when I can get one for near $200. Otherwise, I'll be waiting for the next real high end next spring.

well, I bought a GTX a couple weeks ago. But I bought it from a Dell employee for $400 so I'm not going to second guess myself.

I'm of the mind that generally, it's better to buy a single great card than to try and SLI/Xfire 2 lower cards, but the 8800GT is pretty tempting. You'll need an SLI mobo, generally more power, more cabling and better cooling to run SLI. If you already have all that, and given the fantastic pricing of the 880GTs, I'd say go ahead. It's a good deal and you won't go wrong.

If you are planning only to buy one card it would be foolish to buy the GTX. The GT has such a good value... would you buy a top model stereo from a company that offered one nearly as good for half the price? the difference in FPS is too small to really matter unless you are playing at a super high resolution.

I say wait a few weeks until the dust settles, the 8800GT is bound to shake a bit the prices on the 8800GTS and GTX, if the GTX is re-priced properly then it might not be such a bad buy. If you need it now, the SLI GT or single GT, whichever you prefer.

The FPS difference seems negligible at the lower resolutions for both the 8800GT and 8800GTX. I'm probably going to end up purchasing an 8800GT.

I like the look of the new eVGA e-GeForce 8800GT SSC 512MB: http://www.evga.com/products/morei [...] P3-N806-A1

Looks as though they have released [EDIT: Soon to be released] 4 flavours of the 8800GT:
http://www.evga.com/articles/378.asp

As long as whatever card I get can handle dx10 games at a half-way decent frame rate for resolutions around 1024x768 and a bit above, then I'd be happy to settle for an 8800GT. I'm trying to build a system that will have a fair amount of upgradability. O/C a C2D 6750 to 3ghz, 2gb 800mhz ddr2 and eVGA 680i SLI A1. When the prices of quad cores come down a bit more then I will be able to upgrade and have a go at O/Cing them (live in Australia so hardware is often more expensive than the US).

i was thinking of doing 8800gt sli but im probably be playing at 1600x1200 anyway i only have a mid tower case and cooling is already an issue with my 8500gt so sli 8800 gt would be even worse

You should be quite happy with that card. Others here state that in the highest resolution that the GTX wins.... Sure it wins.... If you call 18FPS winning lol... It is just about as good as a GTX in every other setting, not to mention it has good overclocking potential. The one you are buying is overclocked to a point that it might outperform any GTX running at stock speeds =D

8800GT is the only reasonable choice right now (and will be until the 3800HD's from ATI).

GAME ON!

for your resolution , a 8800GT will perform very close to a 8800GTX, so go for it AND ENJOY

My 7800 GTX is three generations old and it is starting to show signs that.... Oblivion came out a 1.5 years ago and my 7800 GTX was under powered for even that game. It served me for two hole years and thats a long time for a graphics card. Checkout Tom's VGA charts and see how weak it really is.

WHAA, i just have ordered mine 8800GTX i play at 1680x1050!!, here in the UK price differs, the OC 8800GTX costed me £230($450)(including postage) whilst the 8800GT the cheapest one i have seen is around £170($330), the different is only 60 pounds so i thaught i might as well get the GTX, Please tell me if am wrong so i can still cancel the order!!!!

Id go for the GT, the only difference is slight except the price, and drivers will help this card as well, not to mention ocing bringing close or at GTX capability. Improvement from drivers will be somewhat noticable, but mainly itll be stability youll see

I will be back in the U.S in December, not quite soon enough for GT prices to settle down. Also going back in March for a family reunion. By then, eVGA GT SLI? Oh, yes.

I would either go with 2 GT's in sli or just wait for the 8900 cards to come out. It happens every freaking time nvidia comes out with a great product and takes everyones money and just when they think they are getting good performance games get super demanding and nvidia pushes out its x900 series of cards which are loads better than the x800 series. Who knows, with the way things are going they might just skip that step and go right to geforce 9 since ati is already moving to its hd 3000 series

Unless you have a specific reason such as an insanely high resolution, GT... definitely GT.

Actually, it would... but, from rereading how SLI works, it wouldn't remove the bottleneck, you'd just have two bottlenecked cards.

Running two 512MB videocards would still only give you 512MB of usable memory; sure you'd have more memory bandwidth, but when the game is already using around 512MB of memory on high quality textures, there's no room for antialiasing. Very High would only make things worse, and some people are expecting to use 8800GTs in SLI to play at the "maximum" quality. Hardware simply doesn't exist at this point in time to really run Crysis at the maximum.

i play at 1600x1200 because i have a 21" screen. i play at 1600x1200 because it reduces the need for AA. the point of higher resolutions is to make it so that you "don't see pixels" as it were. the pixels are small enough to fool the eye.

back in 1996 when playing Quake 1 at 640x480 was high res, you could still see pixels. easily. now i play at high res, and am ready to move to 2560x1600 [given the money]. i do it because it looks better. because it helps remove the screen from my gaming experience. i get to look at the world created by the video game, and not its pixel representation on screen, if you will. call it hokey, but isn't that why we play?

besides, at 2560x1600, you get to choose exactly which part of someone's skull is going to receive your bullet from 600m away. as opposed to choosing exactly which pixel you're hoping contains the outline of your enemy's head.

Concerning the memory, I know I read in several places where there might be a 1Gig version of the 8800GT
from 3rd party manufacturers, but that it wouldn't be supported by nvidia.

And if its not supported by Nvidia then any bug that pop up they wont fix.

Uh, its called true hi def, I've had 2 GTX's since Dec. last year and their still the way to go with 1920x1080 and higher. The GT just can't cut there regardless. Overclock two GTX's adds a whole new meaning to playing like it should.

ATI is "already" moving to the HD3000 series because its 2000 series cards (although arriving 6 months late to market) are not competitive. Right now, nVidia has no need to move to their 9000 series cards. The 8800's pretty much own the upper end of the market.

I also bought a GTX a few weeks ago, but it was after I was refunded on a mildly artifacting 7900GTO (11 months old ), so I'm not unhappy, but a GT would have saved me most of what I had to shell out.

You are correct warezme. Once one plays games at HD on a large screen they will never go back to anything else.