8800GTS VS 8800GTX

At that resolution, the 8800GTS will be the best bang for the buck.

From what I can remember the 8800GTS compares very well with the 8800GTX. The GTX only out paces the GTS at higher resolution, and I don't believe it was by too much.

8800 GTS (G92 version) 512. The 320 and 640 GTS are no good. The G92 GTS is almost comparable to a 8800 GTX.

Unless you can find a 8800GTX for around the same price as the 8800GTS 512MB, stick with the 8800GTS 512MB.

If I were to find a 8800GTX at a comparable price, though?

I can get XFX GeForce 8800GTX 600M 768MB XT GDDR3 ,PCI-Express,2xDVI/HDTV/HDCP,600/1900Mhz if I spit $40 more in. Go for it?

I would say go for it, it is slightly better @ higher resolutions, although i think the 512 beats it in really low resolutions when OCd.

If it were me, I would take the 8800gtx in that case.

I won't OC -- is 1680x1050 a GTS-excelling resolution?

Here are some quick benchmarks from Toms:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/12/geforce_8800_gts_512_mb/page14.html#performance_roundup
And Xbit labs benchmarks start here:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/leadtek-px8800gt-512mb_8.html#sect0
From my quick glance at those numbers @1600x1200 (similar to your 1680x1050) it looks like the (G92) GTS is the superior card in some cases and will cost you less.

No, and at that resolution, it's not worth the extra $40. If it was $20 more, perhaps.

Not to mention the (G92) GTS is manufactured using a 65nm process instead of a 90nm process and should use less power/ generate less heat. I wouldn't got for a GTX for an extra $40.

Looks like I will keep my GTS-order, the graphs were very convincing as to the lack of significant difference between the cards.  

As stated, both cards are nearly equal in performance. They trade blows in different games - 8800 GTS 512 gets the with the edge at the lower resolutions, and the GTX is better a higher resolutions/high IQ levels. As you can see in the game averages below, both cards are nearly identical in performance with a tiny advantage to the GTX.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/12/geforce_8800_gts...

At 1680x1050, they are probably about even. However, if you are going to use AA or AF, the GTX pulls slightly ahead.

All things equal with price, I would go with the GTS however: lower temps/power, and better OC headroom than the GTX.

I've never actually used AA on anything. I'll follow you guys' advice and go with the GTS. Not like I will notice 3-4-5 frames difference anyhow.

Sorry for bumping this.
Say I go 24" (1900x1200), would a GTX -then- be significantly better?

8800GTX for £230 at www.overclockers.co.uk

Not much more than an 8800GTS G92

Although, for £230 a MSI NX8800GTS 512MB can be had, with 730mhz Core & 1944mhz DDR3... which will definitely give the GTX a run for its money whilst remaining cooler & using less power.

I'm so indecisive, WAAAAAAAAAAAA...  
*slams head*

Accourding to this website:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/leadtek-px88...

"Our today’s tests show that this new graphics card from the $299-349 price category is indeed as fast as the Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX, which comes from the $549-649 sector, in most of games despite having less memory and lower memory bandwidth. The only exception is the resolution of 1920x1200 where the influence of the memory subsystem parameters on performance is substantial especially with enabled FSAA"

A 24" monitor runs @ 1920x1200... well mine does anyhow