It depends on what you'll be playing. If you plan on playing something with higher-rez or that takes a lot of memory, you might want to take a slight initial performance hit with GDDR2 512mb. You will experience the same FPS with the 512mb three hours after starting the game, whereas the performance increase of the GDDR3 256mb will only last until the memory is filled up, then your FPS will drop a lot because of textures being paged to system RAM, which is considerably slower.
I had that issue with my slightly faster 7900GT KO SC 256mb card. Oblivion was great for a few minutes but then slowed way down after a bit because Oblivion uses over 300mb video RAM. I got a slightly slower 7900GT KO 512 card, lost 1 or 2fps, but it was more consistent.
Hope this helps!
---------------
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott
Im guessing its the old budget thing but you wont get far with a 8600 card, really would sugest getting a oc 8600GTS as a minimum if your serious about playing DX10 games. Do you have a budget in mind ?
Mactronix
Im guessing its the old budget thing but you wont get far with a 8600 card, really would sugest getting a oc 8600GTS as a minimum if your serious about playing DX10 games. Do you have a budget in mind ?
Mactronix
Perhaps the minimum performance goal should be equivalent to an 8600gts, but for the price of a GTS he could easily get a hd3850. In any event the 8600gt would be vastly inadequate for a LAN gaming rig in my eyes.
---------------
Q6600 @ 3.2ghz w/ Tuniq Tower 120 | Gigabyte P35-DS3L |
2gb Super Talent PC6400 | BFG 8800GT OC 512mb (740/1854/1980) w/ Accelero S1 Turbo |
Corsair 450VX PSU | Cooler Master Elite 330 Case | Windows XP Pro | 3dMark06 14,716
Thanks for putting me straight on that TurdBurglar, I was thinking just in terms of performance and not Price/Performance. To the op
One very good demonstration of why you should always get a second opinion Mactronix