Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What Video Card to Get?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 25, 2007 11:42:04 PM

Hi,

A few months ago, I built a $400 budget PC (some components were later gifts). The specs include:
-AMD Anthlon 64 X2 4200+
-MSI (nForce 560 chipset) Motherboard
-400GB WD SATA HDD
-1x1GB (2GB total) A-Data 667MHz DDR2 RAM PC5200
-Nvidia EVGA 7200GS 128MB Video Card
-22" Acer AL2216W Widescreen Monitor
My problem is the video card, it was a cheap $30-$40 video card when I bought it at the store and I needed something at the time for video, and this was the best, decent card at the time for my budget.
Now, I am seriously looking into buying a new video card that will be used for gaming-specifically games like UT3, COD4, and maybe Crysis.
My budget is around $100, and because of the price, I plan to order from newegg.com.
These are links for the cards that I am looking at:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130085
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150229
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102152
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161099
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161098
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150247
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102700
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814150230
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127306
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102034
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127305
What card would you recommend for what I plan to use it for? Additionally, a dual-slot card would be nice because my cheap case has a problem where when I remove the expansion-slot covers, I can't put them back on, and I removed a card right below the video card I didn't really need anymore (RAID card for my old IDE hard drives) and now I have a expansion slot I need covered for airflow.
So, what card would be the best recommendation for my computer?

Additionally, I have been looking at the XFX 8600 XXX for a while, but this card has really got my interest:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814127306
Is that a safe bet?

Thanks!

More about : video card

December 25, 2007 11:59:59 PM

Sorry, for some reason, the links aren't working now. That one last card I mentioned is:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
MSI NX8600GT Twin Turbo GeForce 8600GT 256MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 SLI Supported Video Card
Is that a good card for the price ($109.99-$20.00 Mail-In Rebate)?
Thanks!
Related resources
December 26, 2007 1:15:55 AM

I agree with Noya above....you're going to have to pony up about 60-70 more dollars to get the performance you are going to need in order to play Crysis at half way decent settings. I am sure the GTS card he pointed out to you for twenty more dollars will do it but on really low settings....that would suck for sure.
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2007 2:06:22 AM

Yup, I agree with these guys that if you want to play crysis, the HD3850 is worth the extra cash. Look how lousy the 8600Gt and 8600GTS do at medium quality settings even: http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=2

And look how the HD3850 offers over 100% more performance than the 8600GTS: http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=704&p=2

They just sold out online, but BestBuy stores may still have the HD3850 in stock for $144 if you are lucky. My local store never got them in but I grabbed one online before they sold out. http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8636657&t...

December 26, 2007 2:25:31 AM

Wow, this video card buying thing is really killing me. See, its like I have a set budget of what I want to spend, but if I spend just $30 more, I get something a lot better. Then more and more till its better and better and then I end up buying a top of the line card. I have the money to buy a good card, I'd just rather budget appropriately and not spend more then I have to. I was planning on using a $20 Best Buy gift card plus around $10 of my own to get a mouse and keyboard combo, and then around $100 on newegg.com to buy a great video card. I really don't want to have to spend that much.
Any recommendations on what I should do?
Also, which card is better: the XFX 8600 GT XXX, or the MSI one I mentioned earlier with Twin Turbo?
I also sort of wanted a dual-slot card so that I don't have to worry about finding a replacement expansion bay cover wherever you can find those.
What should I do?
Thanks!
December 26, 2007 2:36:40 AM

The performance/price doesn't get better and better as you go all the way to the top. The "peak" is actually the HD3850. Any other card isn't as valuable, except perhaps the 8800GT 512mb.

Anyways, I believe the MSI Twin Turbo is LOUD. I'd rather go with the XFX 8600GT. But seriously, the HD3850 is much more valuable then either of them.
December 26, 2007 2:43:05 AM

someone800 said:
Wow, this video card buying thing is really killing me. See, its like I have a set budget of what I want to spend, but if I spend just $30 more, I get something a lot better. Then more and more till its better and better and then I end up buying a top of the line card. I have the money to buy a good card, I'd just rather budget appropriately and not spend more then I have to. I was planning on using a $20 Best Buy gift card plus around $10 of my own to get a mouse and keyboard combo, and then around $100 on newegg.com to buy a great video card. I really don't want to have to spend that much.
Any recommendations on what I should do?
Also, which card is better: the XFX 8600 GT XXX, or the MSI one I mentioned earlier with Twin Turbo?
I also sort of wanted a dual-slot card so that I don't have to worry about finding a replacement expansion bay cover wherever you can find those.
What should I do?
Thanks!


Wait a little longer and save up some more money, because for what your wanting to play (COD 4 Unreal T) the card you want isn't going to be enjoyable.
December 26, 2007 3:14:14 AM

Thanks, but honestly, isn't the MSI one good enough? I heard that I could get around 40 fps on UT3 with it. Logically, what would be the best choice for a gamer, but not a true all out hardcore gamer? If I was all out, I'd probably be buying an 8800 GTS.

Thanks!
December 26, 2007 4:13:40 AM

The 8600GTS provides only a marginal performance increase over my previous card: 7900GS.

I was looking at the 3870 because at the time it was cheaper, But I waited, and the 3870 was the same price as the 8800gt. I went with the 8800gt and man, the increase in performance (from my 7900gs) in COD4, crysis, and Oblivion was phenomenal. I can run cod4 at max settings (textures at high, and aa off, trilinear on) at 1280x1024 and get about 45-50fps. If you really want to enjoy cod4 and other visually impressive games, save up some money and get the 8800gt. The other option is to get the evga 8600gts, register it within 30 days, and before 90 days are up from the time you purchased the 8600GTS, use the step-up program to pay the difference in price between the 8800gt and the 8600GTS.

Also, the 8800gt will last you longer. Within 3 months of using the 8600GTS you will be wishing you took my advice (and others) and got the 8800gt. At least with evga, you have the option of realizing that the 8600gts is not good enough and you can upgrade without laying down $250 plus what ever you paid for the 8600gts.

8600gts vs 7900gs
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx...
8600gts gets double the frames. However, 16fps is still not playable. the 8800gt, gets ~40fps at the same settings.

8600gts in UT3
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/geforce_8800_gt/...

keep in mind, your cpu is not nearly as powerful as the system toms used, therefore your performance will be lower.

Also, if you are even considering playing crysis, don't bother with the 8600gts. it gets 12fps at 1600x1200, which is similar to your monitors native res.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/geforce_8800_gt/...

If you intend on playing the games that were just released and newer games, get an 8800gt, 3870 (if cheaper than 8800gt) or 3850. The other option as I mentioned before is to get an evga 8600gts, so that you can step up once you have some more cash.

December 26, 2007 4:40:09 AM

I would go with the HD3850 too. After the 3850, there's a big "gap" to get to the next best price/performance product, which is the 3870/8800 GT. So yeah, I would seriously think about spending the extra for the HD3850. It is worth it.
December 26, 2007 10:01:26 AM

I agree that you should save up and get either the 8800GT or the HD3870, this is my advice and standing opinion.
December 26, 2007 1:34:38 PM

im useing that exact xfx and i love the hell of the little guy run almsot anyhting jsut got a 22in samsung symaster 220wm moniter for x-mas and still rune all of my games and i have to run at the native res. otheriwise my windows looks scaled as all getout.bact to teh point i lose if if i may sugeest bump up to the 512mb version of it same clocks better at higer resolutions.
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2007 3:06:59 PM

Just be warned, with an 8600GT you will be playing Crysis at LOW detail levels. If it's not worth $60 more to be able to raise the detail levels, then go for the 8600GT. In most other games it will do fine, but for crysis it is aweful. Down the road....???

December 26, 2007 6:03:40 PM

Well, thanks everyone for your input and suggestions, but I finally decided and ordered the MSI 8600 GT one with Twin Turbo and factory overclocked.
I decided that I really don't want to spend that much on a video card, but want to be able to play the latest games nicely at the same time-I don't need to run Crysis perfectly, just maybe a few things on medium, a few things on high, and a few things on low.
Additionally, one of my friends says he has an ATI x1350/1550 card and he is able to run games such as Crysis greatly.
December 26, 2007 6:33:17 PM

Your friend is lying to you. I had crysis on low settings with my 7900gs (a card many times superior) at 1024x768 and it max fps was 35-40, it also would dip down into the 20's during heavy action scenes/ explosions. If my card was like that, the 1350/1550 would be worse. Unless he was playing at 800x600 or lower, but then the game looks like total crap.
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2007 9:58:08 PM

That is your decision and glad we could try to help. Hope it works out to your liking. 16x10 is a big res for that card in new games, but apart from crysis I think you will find it playable.

I don't think you will get to mix the settings that much in crysis. AT 16x10 my 320MB 8800GTS was really just a medium details card. I toy'd with lots of settings but found medium was about it for the cutscenes and most demanding parts of the game. If you hope to game at your native 1680x1050, you will be looking at more low settings than medium. Look at legion's results where they say at medium details - " Even at 1440x900 the GeForce 8600 graphics cards were not even close to being capable of delivering playable performance." AT 16x10 they averaged 5 fps on high and 13 fps on medium with the 8600GT.

Anyway, crysis is one game that everyone makes IQ sacrifices to remain playable. Enjoy COD4 and your other games.
December 26, 2007 10:28:37 PM

You can play any game with 8600gt including Crysis. Any other game it can max it out fine long as you stick to medium resolutions. Then there's the whole emulation scene problems with these new 3850 cards. They are more erratic in performance from n64 emulation to ps2.

3850 is pretty fast but for some people it's not worth the price to drop more than they have to.

Get the xxx 8600gt. It is probably the best 8600gt available.
December 26, 2007 10:33:22 PM

pauldh said:
Just be warned, with an 8600GT you will be playing Crysis at LOW detail levels. If it's not worth $60 more to be able to raise the detail levels, then go for the 8600GT. In most other games it will do fine, but for crysis it is aweful. Down the road....???


You make it seem like it's a fact you have to play Crysis on low settings. Do you even have this card or just going by legionhardware? :sarcastic:  I'm sure if you clock 8600gt to near 8600gts level it would handle medium just fine long as you run 1280x1024 or lower resolutions.
December 26, 2007 10:49:32 PM

soloman02 said:
Your friend is lying to you. I had crysis on low settings with my 7900gs (a card many times superior) at 1024x768 and it max fps was 35-40, it also would dip down into the 20's during heavy action scenes/ explosions. If my card was like that, the 1350/1550 would be worse. Unless he was playing at 800x600 or lower, but then the game looks like total crap.


http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-5.html

7900gs might superior in older games but in crysis it's weaker than 2600pro
December 26, 2007 11:34:51 PM

marvelous211 said:
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-5.html

7900gs might superior in older games but in crysis it's weaker than 2600pro


If you read his post again you should realise he is comparing the 7900gs to the 1350/1550, In which case everything he states is very true. Have you tried running crysis on a 1350/1550?
December 27, 2007 12:24:40 AM

well.. i do own a x1300 pro not a x1350 and it ran crysis so poorly. it was more of a slideshow of images and details was on low with a resolution of 800x600. it was unplayable. so the person who said he can run crysis with ease with a x1350 is lying.

i then upgraded to a hd 3850 and i have to say crysis is a lot more playable, i play at a resolution of 1280x1024, all medium details with around 20-35fps depending on the scenario. and trust me the 8600gt is a lot slower than a hd 3850 so don't expect lots of medium details and especially no high details.

anyways. you will still be able to play COD4 and other games just fine. i still think that extra $60 is worth to get a hd 3850 instead of the 8600gt. it's the best performance for the money right now. good luck on the videocard.
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2007 2:11:38 AM

marvelous211 said:
You make it seem like it's a fact you have to play Crysis on low settings. Do you even have this card or just going by legionhardware? :sarcastic:  I'm sure if you clock 8600gt to near 8600gts level it would handle medium just fine long as you run 1280x1024 or lower resolutions.

Ah, here we go again. Evil untrustworthy review sites that bash the budget cards and deceive their readers.... Why shouldn't an $80 card kick butt at by far the most GPU intensive game out there? :sarcastic: 

It's not just Legion hardware. [H] paints the even better 8600GTS OC as a 10x7 medium/low card. LINK
quote - The Radeon HD 3850 simpy blows the GeForce 8600 GTS away playing Crysis. With the 8600 GTS Superclock we found that we had to lower the resolution to 1024x768. At 1280x1024 performance was so low that we would have had to set many in-game options, including shader quality, to “Low” which just looks downright ugly in Crysis. At 1027x768 we could set everything to “Medium” except for shadows which still had to be set at “Low.”

But since you are the guru of the 8600's, Kindly show me one review site claiming the 8600GT does well at crysis at medium details and would even remotely recommend it for a 22" monitor in that game. Link please; I would love to see it.

I've played crysis on alot of cards, but admittedly none quite as lame as the 8600GT. But If my 8800GTS is a 16x10 medium card, I know the 8600GT isn't a 16x10 medium card. I'll side with logic, LegionH, and the other review sites on this one, as Crysis is a beast. And while the GF7 series craps out for sure, the 8600's still are surely not cards to recommend for crysis on a 22" LCD. Dang, and to think I wasn't even happy with an X1950XT or 8800GTS on an Acer 22" like the OP mentions. I should have listened to you and bought an 8600GT.

And I am surprised to see you make it sound like the 8600's are even remotely in the same league as the HD3850. Anand, legion, [H], etc. all have clearly stated it's a slaugher. want the links again?

Here are some quotes comparing HD3850 to 8600GTS:

[H]- "We consistently saw it(HD3850) smacking around the 8600 GTS factory overclocked video card. The gameplay advantages weren’t small; they were night and day noticeable in many instances. "
Anand - "We don't need to show you too many numbers for you to understand the magnitude of this massacre"
LegionH - (on crysis) - "I would really be annoyed having purchase a GeForce 8600 GTS only to find that already I am limited to low quality visual settings, and even then the performance is still average".
and "The GeForce 8600 GTS was found to be almost 50% slower on average when compared to the Radeon HD 3850 in the nine games that we tested. Given that the Radeon HD 3850 only costs 20% more at the most, there is no reason to purchase the GeForce 8600 GTS over a Radeon HD 3850 graphics card. While the Radeon HD 3850 did destroy the GeForce 8600 GTS, it also achieved something even more impressive in the process.... The Radeon HD 3850 made it possibly to play Crysis with medium quality settings..."


And BTW, your own gamespot link shows the 8600GTS avereaging 23 fps at 12x10 medium. Yet you state the OC'ed 8600GT to near GTS speeds would handle 12x10 medium just fine? Intersting logic.
December 27, 2007 2:06:11 PM

Let me explain my choice of choosing the 8600 GT a bit more:


I recently built this computer within the last few months. It's total cost so far not including the monitor since I use it for my Xbox 360 also, is probably so far around $500 not including the video card, so that would bring the total to around $600.

Personally, I have never really been much of a PC gamer. I have mostly been a dedicated console gamer instead. The reasoning is that I would pay $200-$400 per four-five years for a consoles hardware (not including accessories), when for a computer, I would assume I would have to pay $1000+ for every one to two years.

After looking into it recently, I realized that was only if I was wanting to build a top-of-the-line computer, which I didn't need to do. So, I went out and built this budget computer, and I must say, I really enjoy the setup. Currently, I can play Unreal Tournament 2004 on max settings with my 7200 GS video card and get a good framerate. I can even play Crysis on all low settings at 800x600 resolution and it still looks great to me. It was a playable, but barely barerable framerate averaging around 12-15 fps. Amazingly, I was able to play through the entire demo with that. I also got a decent framerate that was playable, but still under 30 for Unreal Tournament 3 and Call of Duty 4.

I realized that since I built this computer, I would want to get a much better video card. I didn't want to spend a lot, but I wanted to spend enough to get great settings on most current games and be able to play Crysis at some sort of decent setting. I would also want this video card to last for a few great years without having to upgrade it to play future games. In my opinion, playing games at max settings is great, but I don't need it like some people. I 'd rather spend only as much as I have to. Additionally, I don't need to play games at 200 fps-its great and all for quality, but my personal gaming standard of great playability is 30 fps. I heard that some games like Doom 3 are even limited to 60 fps. I read somewhere that with this video card I am getting that I would be able to play Doom 3 on Ultra quality at around 58 fps at around the resolution of my 22" screen.

I feel like this MSI 8600 GT was a great choice for myself. I didn't spend much, compared to other video cards, and I should be able to get the performance out of games that I desire to play.
December 27, 2007 3:02:22 PM

pauldh said:
Ah, here we go again. Evil untrustworthy review sites that bash the budget cards and deceive their readers.... Why shouldn't an $80 card kick butt at by far the most GPU intensive game out there? :sarcastic: 

It's not just Legion hardware. [H] paints the even better 8600GTS OC as a 10x7 medium/low card. LINK
quote - The Radeon HD 3850 simpy blows the GeForce 8600 GTS away playing Crysis. With the 8600 GTS Superclock we found that we had to lower the resolution to 1024x768. At 1280x1024 performance was so low that we would have had to set many in-game options, including shader quality, to “Low” which just looks downright ugly in Crysis. At 1027x768 we could set everything to “Medium” except for shadows which still had to be set at “Low.”

But since you are the guru of the 8600's, Kindly show me one review site claiming the 8600GT does well at crysis at medium details and would even remotely recommend it for a 22" monitor in that game. Link please; I would love to see it.

I've played crysis on alot of cards, but admittedly none quite as lame as the 8600GT. But If my 8800GTS is a 16x10 medium card, I know the 8600GT isn't a 16x10 medium card. I'll side with logic, LegionH, and the other review sites on this one, as Crysis is a beast. And while the GF7 series craps out for sure, the 8600's still are surely not cards to recommend for crysis on a 22" LCD. Dang, and to think I wasn't even happy with an X1950XT or 8800GTS on an Acer 22" like the OP mentions. I should have listened to you and bought an 8600GT.

And I am surprised to see you make it sound like the 8600's are even remotely in the same league as the HD3850. Anand, legion, [H], etc. all have clearly stated it's a slaugher. want the links again?

Here are some quotes comparing HD3850 to 8600GTS:

[H]- "We consistently saw it(HD3850) smacking around the 8600 GTS factory overclocked video card. The gameplay advantages weren’t small; they were night and day noticeable in many instances. "
Anand - "We don't need to show you too many numbers for you to understand the magnitude of this massacre"
LegionH - (on crysis) - "I would really be annoyed having purchase a GeForce 8600 GTS only to find that already I am limited to low quality visual settings, and even then the performance is still average".
and "The GeForce 8600 GTS was found to be almost 50% slower on average when compared to the Radeon HD 3850 in the nine games that we tested. Given that the Radeon HD 3850 only costs 20% more at the most, there is no reason to purchase the GeForce 8600 GTS over a Radeon HD 3850 graphics card. While the Radeon HD 3850 did destroy the GeForce 8600 GTS, it also achieved something even more impressive in the process.... The Radeon HD 3850 made it possibly to play Crysis with medium quality settings..."


And BTW, your own gamespot link shows the 8600GTS avereaging 23 fps at 12x10 medium. Yet you state the OC'ed 8600GT to near GTS speeds would handle 12x10 medium just fine? Intersting logic.


I can care less what Hardocp or Legionhardware says. I played Crysis medium settings from start to finish 1440x900 resolution just fine. Only noticeable slow down was on the deck. Which lasts 30 minutes of the game. The whole hardocp setting that is playble is Hardocp opinion only. Not anyone else's.
December 27, 2007 4:28:54 PM

I still think you should have gotten an EVGA 8600gt since you have an upgrade path, even if it is short.
But to each his own I guess.
December 27, 2007 5:08:21 PM

I think everyone understands your reasoning, but has been trying to tell you that your expectations are a little off-kilter. You will NOT be able to play Crysis on any mix of settings that aren't Low. I had an 8800GTS and it would only run playably (30FPS) with all settings on Medium and later in the game I even had to turn a couple of settings down even lower. I even have a lower resolution than you. I couldn't run ANY antialiasing...have an 8800GT now and still really can't. I don't think you understand how difficult it is to run Crysis. If you got the card from Newegg at least they let you return it, so take advantage of that.

December 27, 2007 5:10:51 PM

i respect your decision on getting the 8600gt, but all of us were trying to tell you that the extra $60 bucks is worth the extra performance because the hd 3850 would last you a lot longer. because the hd 3850 is near 8800gts performance. and since i do own a hd 3850 and i only get 20-35fps with all medium settings in crysis with a native resolution of 1280x1024. i experienced this first hand. however, seeing that you do have a 22 inch widescreen LCD. i believe your native resolution is a lot higher than mine so it would make a big impact on your fps especially with a slower videocard than my hd 3850. and since you consider 30fps the standard of great playability. i think you would get less fps than you were hoping for with the 8600gt. anyways. if you are satisfied with the 8600gt performance then so be it. we are only trying to help you by giving you advice.

in crysis type "r_displayinfo=1" in the console to see your fps
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2007 5:50:26 PM

marvelous211 said:
I can care less what Hardocp or Legionhardware says. I played Crysis medium settings from start to finish 1440x900 resolution just fine. Only noticeable slow down was on the deck. Which lasts 30 minutes of the game. The whole hardocp setting that is playble is Hardocp opinion only. Not anyone else's.

Ah, yes back to the "all reviews sites are untrustworthy" arguement. We have been down this road before. And you forgot Anandtech and any other review site that has paired the two together. Have any links that show otherwise? Or should I just trust one card owners opinion and weigh it above all review sites findings? Sorry, but I have seen too many "I play Oblivion at max details on my 7600GT and it's smooth as silk" arguements to trust peoples perceived performance over actual measured benchmarks. Shoot, I spent a couple hours at someones house today helping them tweak some games after trying TF2 and feeling how aweful it was playing. Sure enough fraps showed fps in the teens quite often, and that's how he was playing it!

If it were one site I could see your arguement, but it's every site. Shoot, [H] is actual gameplay, and they post the performance throughout it. How do you argue against framerates that hang in the mid to low 20's and drop even lower at 10x7 med/low? At 14x9 medium yours were obviously alot worse unless all along you have owned an 8800GTS without knowing it. :pt1cable:  I guess I could have played through crysis at 16x10 all high on the 8800GTS too, but yuck why would I want to ruin the game like that? I put in a few hours at those settings, just to see the IQ.

But Glad you were happy with playing at what all the review sites say is unplayable. Of course, your card is OC'ed higher than a GT will go, so to suggest this guy go with an 8600GT for crysis on a 22" LCD is still a careless recomendation IMO even if you were happy with your OC'ed 8600GTS in the game. Fact is he will be playing out of native resolution and/or reducing some details to low, or suffer with framerates in the teens. And at medium details the HD3850 would have provided over 100% more performance and been playable.

BTW, I have a buddy with an X2 4800+ / 8600GTS / 19" LCD, so I'll have to DL the crysis demo over there and see this amazing playability you speak about. The maybe in your eyes I will finally be worthy of commenting on the card.
December 27, 2007 7:03:45 PM

pauldh said:
Ah, yes back to the "all reviews sites are untrustworthy" arguement. We have been down this road before. And you forgot Anandtech and any other review site that has paired the two together. Have any links that show otherwise? Or should I just trust one card owners opinion and weigh it above all review sites findings? Sorry, but I have seen too many "I play Oblivion at max details on my 7600GT and it's smooth as silk" arguements to trust peoples perceived performance over actual measured benchmarks. Shoot, I spent a couple hours at someones house today helping them tweak some games after trying TF2 and feeling how aweful it was playing. Sure enough fraps showed fps in the teens quite often, and that's how he was playing it!

If it were one site I could see your arguement, but it's every site. Shoot, [H] is actual gameplay, and they post the performance throughout it. How do you argue against framerates that hang in the mid to low 20's and drop even lower at 10x7 med/low? At 14x9 medium yours were obviously alot worse unless all along you have owned an 8800GTS without knowing it. :pt1cable:  I guess I could have played through crysis at 16x10 all high on the 8800GTS too, but yuck why would I want to ruin the game like that? I put in a few hours at those settings, just to see the IQ.

But Glad you were happy with playing at what all the review sites say is unplayable. Of course, your card is OC'ed higher than a GT will go, so to suggest this guy go with an 8600GT for crysis on a 22" LCD is still a careless recomendation IMO even if you were happy with your OC'ed 8600GTS in the game. Fact is he will be playing out of native resolution and/or reducing some details to low, or suffer with framerates in the teens. And at medium details the HD3850 would have provided over 100% more performance and been playable.

BTW, I have a buddy with an X2 4800+ / 8600GTS / 19" LCD, so I'll have to DL the crysis demo over there and see this amazing playability you speak about. The maybe in your eyes I will finally be worthy of commenting on the card.


Your whole argument about 8600gt can't play crysis is laughable. :lol: 

Who cares about 22" or 30" monitors. You can turn down resolutions and settings if its too slow to your liking. You make it seem like you have to play native resolution and the highest settings like it's gamer god given birth right. :pt1cable: 

The whole Crysis argument is that you don't really need 60fps to play crysis. I don't know what is with this engine but even 25fps seems smooth compared to many other shooters that feel sluggish with 30fps. Clearly this is not a fast shooter. It is actually very slow paced and with Post Processing effects 15fps feels more like 30fps and so on.
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2007 9:21:42 PM

marvelous211 said:
Your whole argument about 8600gt can't play crysis is laughable. :lol: 

Who cares about 22" or 30" monitors. You can turn down resolutions and settings if its too slow to your liking. You make it seem like you have to play native resolution and the highest settings like it's gamer god given birth right. :pt1cable: 

The whole Crysis argument is that you don't really need 60fps to play crysis. I don't know what is with this engine but even 25fps seems smooth compared to many other shooters that feel sluggish with 30fps. Clearly this is not a fast shooter. It is actually very slow paced and with Post Processing effects 15fps feels more like 30fps and so on.

Umm.....wrong, who said it can't play crysis. Read my post to him again. Sorry, but what is truely laughable is your arguement is that your opinion means more than all the review sites testing combined. But nice attempts to save some face when I have provided link after link that proves you are wrong. Your own gamespot link shows an average of 23 fps at 12x10 medium for the 8600GTS, yet you respond to the guy buying here that he will be fine at 12x10 medium if he can overclock to near 8600GTS speeds? Yeah, great logic there. Hey, bud buy the 8600GT, overclock it and you will be fine at crysis at 12x10 medium...maybe even average 23 fps with a good OC. :lol:  Then you ignore other people who post their results, dismiss all review sites and their findings, and proceed to spread lousy advice onto others about it. I sure never mentioned 60 fps (nice try), but Sorry to inform you an AVERAGE of 23 fps isn't a very good goal to shoot for. Do you realize average means lots of the time it's lower? So he could have crappy framerates at medium low details, and interpolating from non-native res, and you advice him that he will be fine? And he is making a buying decision here! Honestly, You should refrain from giving purchasing advice. Besides, he has a 22" LCD, and nobody has talked about 30". Again, nice try to twist the facts here.

One word of advice, if you are going to jump all over people who offer good advice, be prepared to have some links to back your opinion up. I told him what to expect and showed numerous links to back it up. What have you provided?
December 27, 2007 10:23:24 PM

I feel like we are having the same conversation as the one about a dude who was talking about how his 8600GT plays crysis on high.
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2007 10:53:31 PM

Save up a little more and get a 8800GT. (goes for about $230-300).
December 27, 2007 11:11:10 PM

marvelous211,
I direct you to the following link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/12/geforce_8800_gts...

This is from toms hardware, if you do not trust this you are truly lost.
The 8600GTS at stock clocks get 18fps with everything set to high and no aa at 1024x768.
That is a pretty low resolution for a 22inch screen.

Keep in mind he does not have the top of the line cpu that toms has, so his performance will be seriously reduced from this number. Even on medium, average will not break 30fps, an will often dip into the teens. especially when you blow up stuff.
December 29, 2007 12:25:03 AM

Well, I got the video card I ordered in the mail today, and I am very glad that I choose the 8600 GT and saved money rather then buying a more expensive card. I can run Unreal Tournament 3 and Call of Duty 4 demos on max settings that they allow under Direct X 9.0c. Additionally, I was able to run Portal and Team Fortress 2 at max I believe. Also, I was able to get the performance for the money I spent out of the Crysis demo. I was able to play it nicely at all Medium settings apparently. Also, I ran these games with the Twin Turbo turned off.
Overall, I am very happy with this card. Thank you for everyone's help in expanding my video card knowledge and helping me make a good choice.
Thanks!
December 29, 2007 12:28:05 AM

pauldh said:
Umm.....wrong, who said it can't play crysis. Read my post to him again. Sorry, but what is truely laughable is your arguement is that your opinion means more than all the review sites testing combined. But nice attempts to save some face when I have provided link after link that proves you are wrong. Your own gamespot link shows an average of 23 fps at 12x10 medium for the 8600GTS, yet you respond to the guy buying here that he will be fine at 12x10 medium if he can overclock to near 8600GTS speeds? Yeah, great logic there. Hey, bud buy the 8600GT, overclock it and you will be fine at crysis at 12x10 medium...maybe even average 23 fps with a good OC. :lol:  Then you ignore other people who post their results, dismiss all review sites and their findings, and proceed to spread lousy advice onto others about it. I sure never mentioned 60 fps (nice try), but Sorry to inform you an AVERAGE of 23 fps isn't a very good goal to shoot for. Do you realize average means lots of the time it's lower? So he could have crappy framerates at medium low details, and interpolating from non-native res, and you advice him that he will be fine? And he is making a buying decision here! Honestly, You should refrain from giving purchasing advice. Besides, he has a 22" LCD, and nobody has talked about 30". Again, nice try to twist the facts here.

One word of advice, if you are going to jump all over people who offer good advice, be prepared to have some links to back your opinion up. I told him what to expect and showed numerous links to back it up. What have you provided?


Who made you forum master? laughable. Go back to the troll section. :lol: 

Didn't you have a biased signature about g84 and how you hate it?
December 29, 2007 12:31:01 AM

soloman02 said:
marvelous211,
I direct you to the following link:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/12/geforce_8800_gts...

This is from toms hardware, if you do not trust this you are truly lost.
The 8600GTS at stock clocks get 18fps with everything set to high and no aa at 1024x768.
That is a pretty low resolution for a 22inch screen.

Keep in mind he does not have the top of the line cpu that toms has, so his performance will be seriously reduced from this number. Even on medium, average will not break 30fps, an will often dip into the teens. especially when you blow up stuff.


When did I say anything about playing high with Crysis? Tom's hardware articles has been a joke ever since it has been bought out. I just wonder what kind of computer illiterate people are even writing these articles... :sarcastic: 
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2007 5:05:22 AM

marvelous211 said:
Who made you forum master? laughable. Go back to the troll section. :lol: 

Didn't you have a biased signature about g84 and how you hate it?

Umm, no sorry that wasn't me; Wrong again. What's that 0 for 10 in this thread? Gonna have to change that name there Marv. May I make some suggestions?

I have recommended the 8600's numerous times and even purchased a GTS. They are good cards for most games and at times offered excellent bang for the buck. But like any card their price, they kinda suck at crysis. The HD3850 offers twice the performance in that game and many others. It's the better card by far for medium details in Crysis. Had he gone with the 3850, he could have been playing crysis at his native res and medium details and still had better fps than the 8600GT at lower res and med details.

And don't try to paint me the bad guy. It is you who first came after me, challenging my links and comments on the 8600GT in Crysis. I just proved you wrong (over and over), and since you still have not one link to back yourself up it's not surprising you resort to this kind of post. :lol:  Either provide some links or give it up and go away already. In contrast I have provided my opinion and links to back it up. Me the troll... get a clue Marv. A troll for providing info for someone looking to buy a card? A troll for providing links to expected performance and major review sites conclusions about the card. A troll for recommending an HD3850 over an 8600GT for crysis, especially when a mix of med and high details was mentioned as a goal? A troll for pointing out the errors in your logic when you jumped on me for giving advice and links to review sites testing? A troll for asking you for just one link that backs up your claims and attacks? Which one is it Marv?
December 29, 2007 4:01:11 PM

Like I said you belong with the trolls. I challenged your links? When? You keep mentioning you can't play Crysis with a 8600gt except low settings but I'm the obvious proof that I played the entire game on medium settings. But then again I get more than 23fps in Legionhardware benches. I get nearly 30fps in the benchmark with vistax86.

I don't need links. I did the benchmark on my own and I get 30fps with my setup on medium settings 1440x900. I don't need Legionhardware or Hardocp to tell me how I can play Crysis. That includes you of course. :sarcastic: 

Who cares about 3850 and your wet dreams. The OP obviously don't want to spend more than $100.

Everyone gets it. 3850 is faster but you don't have to go into every thread advertising about 3850. Do the forum masters get money for advertising? Kind of like how Tom got sold out. I wonder... :pt1cable: 
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2007 6:36:40 PM

marvelous211 said:
Like I said you belong with the trolls. I challenged your links? When? You keep mentioning you can't play Crysis with a 8600gt except low settings but I'm the obvious proof that I played the entire game on medium settings. But then again I get more than 23fps in Legionhardware benches. I get nearly 30fps in the benchmark with vistax86.

I don't need links. I did the benchmark on my own and I get 30fps with my setup on medium settings 1440x900. I don't need Legionhardware or Hardocp to tell me how I can play Crysis. That includes you of
course. :sarcastic: 

Who cares about 3850 and your wet dreams. The OP obviously don't want to spend more than $100.

Everyone gets it. 3850 is faster but you don't have to go into every thread advertising about 3850. Do the forum masters get money for advertising? Kind of like how Tom got sold out. I wonder... :pt1cable: 


Um with your first comment to me in this thread, duh.
Quote:
You make it seem like it's a fact you have to play Crysis on low settings. Do you even have this card or just going by legionhardware? :sarcastic:  I'm sure if you clock 8600gt to near 8600gts level it would handle medium just fine long as you run 1280x1024 or lower resolutions.


You flamed me for legion, so I gave your [H], and Anand, and even pointed out your Gamespot link getting 23 fps ave. Every one of them goes against your claims. And You still have not one link of proof to back yourself up, just your word against all the review sites and the other people who admit their actual performance has caused them to lower settings.

Look at [H]'s actual framerates while playing at 10x7 medium/low. Whether you agree with their max playable settings or not, you still have not explained their low actual fps during gameplay. So you average 30 fps at 14x9 all medium? What, did you get the special Crysis edition 8600GTS that magically adds 50% fps to what everyone elses does? Anyway, if you average 30 fps, why did you tell us that 15 fps is playable and is like 30 in crysis? Oh, wait, I may understand now. ;) 

The OP also said he wanted to mix low, medium, and high settings and considers 30 fps as playable. Why not mention a card that would double his performance and even play at his native res? Why not point out review sites results and give him a realist expectation should he decide to still go with the cheaper card? You are the only one who doesn't get this Marv. And do you expect his 8600GT to hit your speeds and be as playable as yours?

Oh and yeah, your are right. The only explanation for recommedning a card with such incredible bang for buck is.... As a forum master, if I recommend the HD3850 to 100 people, I get a free HD3850. If I now recommend the 8600GT for crysis can I have a free crysis edition GTS like yours? :kaola: 



But seriously, I am glad you like your card and that the OP is happy with his card. That's what's important and all of us just try to point out what is best for their use and prevent people from being disappointed after the purchase. Do we argue amongst ourselves in the mean time; unfortunately yes. But at least the information gets out there during it. And even if he didn't buy the HD3850 that everyone but you recommended, at least he has many review links for him to only blame himself had he been dissapointed. BTW, I just got my HD3850 yesterday but haven't tried it yet. And no, it was $144 from BB, not free. ;) 
December 29, 2007 11:38:20 PM

pauldh said:
Um with your first comment to me in this thread, duh.
Quote:
You make it seem like it's a fact you have to play Crysis on low settings. Do you even have this card or just going by legionhardware? :sarcastic:  I'm sure if you clock 8600gt to near 8600gts level it would handle medium just fine long as you run 1280x1024 or lower resolutions.


You flamed me for legion, so I gave your [H], and Anand, and even pointed out your Gamespot link getting 23 fps ave. Every one of them goes against your claims. And You still have not one link of proof to back yourself up, just your word against all the review sites and the other people who admit their actual performance has caused them to lower settings.

Look at [H]'s actual framerates while playing at 10x7 medium/low. Whether you agree with their max playable settings or not, you still have not explained their low actual fps during gameplay. So you average 30 fps at 14x9 all medium? What, did you get the special Crysis edition 8600GTS that magically adds 50% fps to what everyone elses does? Anyway, if you average 30 fps, why did you tell us that 15 fps is playable and is like 30 in crysis? Oh, wait, I may understand now. ;) 

The OP also said he wanted to mix low, medium, and high settings and considers 30 fps as playable. Why not mention a card that would double his performance and even play at his native res? Why not point out review sites results and give him a realist expectation should he decide to still go with the cheaper card? You are the only one who doesn't get this Marv. And do you expect his 8600GT to hit your speeds and be as playable as yours?

Oh and yeah, your are right. The only explanation for recommedning a card with such incredible bang for buck is.... As a forum master, if I recommend the HD3850 to 100 people, I get a free HD3850. If I now recommend the 8600GT for crysis can I have a free crysis edition GTS like yours? :kaola: 



But seriously, I am glad you like your card and that the OP is happy with his card. That's what's important and all of us just try to point out what is best for their use and prevent people from being disappointed after the purchase. Do we argue amongst ourselves in the mean time; unfortunately yes. But at least the information gets out there during it. And even if he didn't buy the HD3850 that everyone but you recommended, at least he has many review links for him to only blame himself had he been dissapointed. BTW, I just got my HD3850 yesterday but haven't tried it yet. And no, it was $144 from BB, not free. ;) 


I knew it you get a free 3850... :bounce: 

Your whole whining about this and that. It shows your insecurities.
December 30, 2007 12:44:04 AM

It was me with the G84 signature... and I can't believe you're still preaching this 8600 nonsense. I'll give you that the card is not a complete POS, but it's nowhere near worth purchasing, especially with the HD 3850 on the competition.

I am not an Ati fanboy (Preemptive strike before you tried hitting me with that, I own a GTS 320), and under my eyes both the HD2600 and 8600 were a failure of midrange cards, however we're having a whole new breed around the corner to make up for this (I am talking about the HD3850 and the rumored 8800GS).

If you're playing on a 15-17" Screen with a res of 1280x800 it might not be such a bad idea, but if you're using a 19" with 1440x900 or especially a 22" with 1680x1050 there is no way you can keep a mixture of low/medium settings on Crysis. However, I do agree with you that the engine runs smooth even on lower FPS (Was able to run it all on high on my GTS OC'ed), it's not an honest thing to do to give such biased advice like yours to someone who is not knowledgeable on the subject.
December 30, 2007 1:17:10 AM

marvelous211 said:
Who made you forum master? laughable. Go back to the troll section. :lol: 

Didn't you have a biased signature about g84 and how you hate it?

Dude im sorry to say but you've lost face.

Don't change the subject after getting owned by logic, proof, and yourself.


TO the op,
Its great that you like your card and It will play you games fine but if you still don't understand why everyone keeps saying to buy the 3850 I'll reiterate it.

You wanted a cheap card that would last you a few years while playing games well and we told you.
But if your satisfied with the 8600GT, then you'll be fine
December 30, 2007 1:19:24 AM

the 8600/2600 and other old cards just aren't worth it unless there is a very serious limit. pick any 8600 GT you like if theres a limit or save up and try to find a cheap $150 3850, as it will provide the best performance.
a b U Graphics card
December 30, 2007 3:38:46 AM

marvelous211 said:
I knew it you get a free 3850... :bounce: 

Your whole whining about this and that. It shows your insecurities.

LOL, same ole Marv. Yup, now i just need my 8600GTS Crysis Edition. (Too bad it's vaporware though)

Hmm, Still no links huh? Can't you find just one review site that according to you got things right and shows the 8600GTS acing crysis? And you know, if you do find one(that disagrees with all the others), then there's a review site you should not trust. :lol: 
April 15, 2009 4:54:24 AM

aylafan said:
well.. i do own a x1300 pro not a x1350 and it ran crysis so poorly. it was more of a slideshow of images and details was on low with a resolution of 800x600. it was unplayable. so the person who said he can run crysis with ease with a x1350 is lying.

i then upgraded to a hd 3850 and i have to say crysis is a lot more playable, i play at a resolution of 1280x1024, all medium details with around 20-35fps depending on the scenario. and trust me the 8600gt is a lot slower than a hd 3850 so don't expect lots of medium details and especially no high details.

anyways. you will still be able to play COD4 and other games just fine. i still think that extra $60 is worth to get a hd 3850 instead of the 8600gt. it's the best performance for the money right now. good luck on the videocard.



wow what an old post. just for the sake of it though, i run crysis on an x1350 pro with all low settings except medium on the texture detail and at 1024x768 resolution and i get around 25 - 30fps or so.. kinda crappy but it works :p 
a b U Graphics card
April 15, 2009 5:20:51 AM

14 month old topic bump...lawls

!