Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis 1280x800 very high- what VGA card?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Performance
  • Crysis
  • VGA
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 8, 2008 2:57:41 PM

hi,
i have a dell 27" widescreen, i want to achieve Crysis playable performance with this res 1280x800 @ very high DX10, maybe aax2.

can i do it with this simple rig OCed?
e2180 @ 3.3Ghz
4 GB 800mhz
8800GT

if not- does a 9800GTX will do the trick or i need a better CPU? e8400/Q66?

thanks
D

More about : crysis 1280x800 high vga card

a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 4:49:02 PM

I run Win XP so can't answer for DX10 very high in Vista. If you search around there are reviews that claim even a single 8800GTX isn't nearly enough for DX10 very high at a modest res like that. Sounds crazy, but SLI would be better for any attempt at DX10 very high.

http://www.pclabs.gen.tr/2007/10/29/crysis-benchmark-wi...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2219930,00.a...

SLI 8800U:
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/NVIDIA_3Way_SLI_Per...
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=495&type=expert&pi...


a c 169 U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 6:06:55 PM

I have to completely disagree with Paul on this one :( 

u have an awesome rig mate :)  it will run crysis maxed out with ease on that resolution, 9800GTX isnt anything special the difference between it and 8800GT isnt noticeable

also u have a solid CPU why change it to E8400 or Q6600? its a waste too

1_there are tons of guides to run Crysis @ very high or even ultra high in XP without any performance loss, i myself have one of this tricks:
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/crysis/tool/21700.ht...


2_i have a single 8800GTX and i can run crysis with ease with everything @ ultra high @ 1680x1050 with 0xaa and i get an average of 25 FPS

Also its the same with VISTA Users too(there are many happy users with 8800GTX +Crysis in DX10 mode with resolutions higher than that)

3_SLI doesnt doulbe the performance always, also for 1280x800 i never recommend SLI its definitely a waste for that resolution, read the FAQ:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/245454-15-crossfire...

Is it really necessary to use SLI or CrossFire ?
Well , it really depends mostly on the resolutions and games you play , resolutions like 1920x1200 and higher benefit more from SLI or CrossFire than resolutions like 1600x1200 or lower (I dont mean SLI or CrossFire wont be good for resolutions like 1600x1200 or lower , i am just saying that SLI or CrossFire shines in higher resolutions.)
Also as i said , it depends on what games (with what settings) you play , for example if you just want to play games at good settings (with not everything at maximum settings) then MultiGPU technology isn't needed , but if you want to play with every option at maximum settings, then SLI would help , but again i repeat , resolution is very important.
Caution: Due to some problems (like Drivers and etc) in some games, a single card (like X1900XT) may beat 2 1900XT in CrossFire mode! so dont always think that 2 cards will beat one card.

Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 9:15:48 PM

z_dori said:
hi,
i have a dell 27" widescreen, i want to achieve Crysis playable performance with this res 1280x800 @ very high DX10, maybe aax2.

can i do it with this simple rig OCed?
e2180 @ 3.3Ghz
4 GB 800mhz
8800GT

if not- does a 9800GTX will do the trick or i need a better CPU? e8400/Q66?

thanks
D


I personally think the lack of cahce on the e2180 will let you down badly and with some thing like crysis you need all the extra horsepower you can muster. but 1280x800 isnt that demanding of a resolution and you would get decent FPS with a GT using something like say a 4500 but i would worry about the CPU. You said playable but that means differant things to differant people, give us a number so we know what we are aiming at ;) 
Mactronix
May 8, 2008 9:32:43 PM

I run crysis at the resolution you are asking for and I use 8800gts in sli to get it to run very high. I average around 30fps but it will drop in the intense scenes. It is still very playable in my opinion dropping to around 20fps. I have an e6600 dual core and 4gigs of ram on vista64. This is all with no AA. Any AA and I stutter and drop to around 10~15fps. Thats all the hard evidence I have for you! Good Luck!
May 8, 2008 9:36:45 PM

agree with maziar.i think u should have Raid 0 plus cpu 1330fsb.
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 9:37:35 PM

Maziar, I need to clarify some things but also disagree back at you. Nothing personal, just for the sake of discussion so we can all reach a clearer understanding.

First, please read what I said. I can only comment on DX9 as I said from the start. I find 1680x1050 all high 2xaa/16xaf easily playable with SLI 8800GT, and nowhere near as playable with a single 8800GT. The difference in Paradise Lost can be 18fps vs 29 fps for SLI. Plus DX9 very high hack and DX10 very high do NOT perform the same, so it wouldn't even help for you or I to post those numbers for him.

Since I don't have Vista installed, I also provided 4 links where single 8800GT, 8800GTX & Ultra reviewers did not find DX10 nearly playable at low res very high DX10. Keep in mind crysis GPU benchmark scores vs real gaming too. sub 30 fps in the benchmark will be far worse in the later half of crysis. So you actually disagee with those 4 reviews and not directly with me. But I can see what you are saying.

And Here is another link showing actual gameplay you must disagree with then. 12x10 at medium/high details, average under 30 fps and minimum of 14 fps. How then can we turn up the details a bunch to MAX, up the res, and get better fps? http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwz...

here is number 6 with fsaa at high shows SLI scaling. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_9800...

Anyway, Please Show me one link where a single GPU adequately performs in DX10 very high at even 10x7 res. I have not seen a single one and would love to look it/them over. And a bragging user on a forum doesn't count as I have seen comments that an 8600GT can play in high details smooth as sink too. Or that an 8800GTS can play very high 19x12 with constant 30 fps. That's plain bologna and worthless info. Especially when every review shows it's not possible.

And Nobody said SLI doubles the performance, but I tell ya I see up to 85 % scaling in the most GPU demanding levels of Crysis. Whether the faq recommends SLI for crysis or not, you simply can't touch SLI performance with a single card. I think crysis deserves it's own rule. Plus a single card can't max the game out at low res , so it is a good option to consider SLI even if not high res gaming. I'll gladly post a fraps run of paradise lost at 12x10 and show you SLI can provide a way better gaming experience at that low res even.

Anyway, I can vouch for 50+ hours of benching crysis and know exactly when and how SLI can shine in that game in Win XP. I can not vouch for DX10 very high at all myself, besides showing link after link of reviews. But I now provided 5 links that back up the advice I gave(6 including FS high 2xaa). Any link that shows DX10 very high playable on a single GPU would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to see it, but as of this date haven't seen anything close.
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2008 9:46:44 PM

aahz said:
I run crysis at the resolution you are asking for and I use 8800gts in sli to get it to run very high. I average around 30fps but it will drop in the intense scenes. It is still very playable in my opinion dropping to around 20fps. I have an e6600 dual core and 4gigs of ram on vista64. This is all with no AA. Any AA and I stutter and drop to around 10~15fps. Thats all the hard evidence I have for you! Good Luck!

Exactly my point. AT his low res, SLI GTS averages 30 fps no fsaa with lows around 20 for you. That falls in line with the other reviews where a Ultra SLI does about the same. Have you tried one card? Now, disable SLI for us and run through paradise lost with framerates visible, and I'm sure you get nowhere near those framerates with a single GTS. I've done this in almost every level of Crysis with one and two 8800GT, and one simple doesn't come close in the second have of the game.

Notice how low these people get with a single G92 GTS at 12x10 very high.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=16...

Quote of one - "using vista 32 bit and dx10 mode

All settings medium 1280 x 1024
Avg fps 59.44

All settings medium apart from textures, object detail and water quality high
Avg fps 41.56

All settings very high
Avg fps 11.09

All setting very high +2Xaa
Avg fps 8.61
__________________
e6850@3.9ghz
P5k dlx
4 gb Gskill ddr2 1000
TT Big Typhoon
8800gts 512
Vista Ultimate X64
"


a c 169 U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 8:07:51 AM

pauldh said:
Maziar, I need to clarify some things but also disagree back at you. Nothing personal, just for the sake of discussion so we can all reach a clearer understanding.

First, please read what I said. I can only comment on DX9 as I said from the start. I find 1680x1050 all high 2xaa/16xaf easily playable with SLI 8800GT, and nowhere near as playable with a single 8800GT. The difference in Paradise Lost can be 18fps vs 29 fps for SLI. Plus DX9 very high hack and DX10 very high do NOT perform the same, so it wouldn't even help for you or I to post those numbers for him.

Since I don't have Vista installed, I also provided 4 links where single 8800GT, 8800GTX & Ultra reviewers did not find DX10 nearly playable at low res very high DX10. Keep in mind crysis GPU benchmark scores vs real gaming too. sub 30 fps in the benchmark will be far worse in the later half of crysis. So you actually disagee with those 4 reviews and not directly with me. But I can see what you are saying.

And Here is another link showing actual gameplay you must disagree with then. 12x10 at medium/high details, average under 30 fps and minimum of 14 fps. How then can we turn up the details a bunch to MAX, up the res, and get better fps? http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwz...

here is number 6 with fsaa at high shows SLI scaling. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_9800...

Anyway, Please Show me one link where a single GPU adequately performs in DX10 very high at even 10x7 res. I have not seen a single one and would love to look it/them over. And a bragging user on a forum doesn't count as I have seen comments that an 8600GT can play in high details smooth as sink too. Or that an 8800GTS can play very high 19x12 with constant 30 fps. That's plain bologna and worthless info. Especially when every review shows it's not possible.

And Nobody said SLI doubles the performance, but I tell ya I see up to 85 % scaling in the most GPU demanding levels of Crysis. Whether the faq recommends SLI for crysis or not, you simply can't touch SLI performance with a single card. I think crysis deserves it's own rule. Plus a single card can't max the game out at low res , so it is a good option to consider SLI even if not high res gaming. I'll gladly post a fraps run of paradise lost at 12x10 and show you SLI can provide a way better gaming experience at that low res even.

Anyway, I can vouch for 50+ hours of benching crysis and know exactly when and how SLI can shine in that game in Win XP. I can not vouch for DX10 very high at all myself, besides showing link after link of reviews. But I now provided 5 links that back up the advice I gave(6 including FS high 2xaa). Any link that shows DX10 very high playable on a single GPU would be greatly appreciated. I'd love to see it, but as of this date haven't seen anything close.


I have a friend who knows alot about PC and he has a single 8800GT + 2GB OCZ DDR2 800 with AMD X2 3600 @ 2.9 and he plays Crysis maxed put @ 1440x900 with an average of 20 FPS and its playable

About VISTA, well when i had VISTA i tested Crysis with it and if i remember right i got lower FPS than XP but it was playable(although i didnt played alot) however i brough some benches to prove it :

also here is a test :
QX6850
4GB RAM
VISTA ULTIMATE
http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/NVIDIA_GeForce_8800...

Crysis demo 1280x1024:
8800GT:35
8800 GT SLI :43

1600X1200:
8800GT:25
8800GT SLI:33

SLI = Useless because the difference isnt even 10FPS

Unfortunately apart from the review i got here and those u posted i couldnt find more because most test were only with single card

http://techreport.com/articles.x/14686/7

Crysis
1680x1050
8800GT:34
8800GT SLI:21



http://techreport.com/articles.x/14230/3

1024x768
8800GT 512 :42
8800GT SLI:41

1280x1024
8800GT:42
8800GT SLI :30


1600x1200
8800GT:37
8800GT SLI:21

The difference never goes more than 16FPS which isnt very much


Reviews are different from each other and thats because the drivers that they are using, as u see SLI isnt always worth it but in some situations its worth the money



" alt="" class="imgLz frmImg " />
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 8:43:22 AM

I think one thing people tend to forget is, when gaming, its not just the max fps, but the minimum thats the problems. Even if a solution (SLI, CF or better card) offers nothing in max framerates, you have to consider the minimum frames
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 11:49:40 AM

Your friend may well have played part of crysis at 20 fps average in very high and one card. Sure I can I believe that. But early in the game like the demo, would be way higher fps. But now play the later parts of the game like paradise Lost and watch that 20 fps become 10 fps. And even 20 fps average isn't really all too good for most people. I'd rather have 30 fps ave with SLI and not dip below 20. And Unless he showed you paradise Lost, or you played through the whole game, you don't have a good understanding of how it ran at those settings. The demo mission is deceiving as is the benchmark utility.

The SLI review link is High, not very high. It is likely the crysis GPU benchmark not actual gameplay. Only High details and no fsaa and the SLI 8800GT beat the single card by 8 fps average at just 12x10. That's a 22.86% increase in just the benchmark utility at much lower settings than the OP even asked about. Now play a gpu demanding level, or bench Hot Hardware's Core GPU level at high details. Now enable 2xaa even.

I admit my SLI 8800GT combo doesn't beat the single 8800GT by much in the crysis benchmark without fsaa, but that means little compared to actual gaming or with 2xaa. I posted direct results about this when I first got the system and will link it here if I find it. And if I recall I saw over 55% increase in the GPU benchmark with 2xaa all high. I often see higher gaming.





Last night while continuing my video card shootout, I took the time to bench the same level of Crysis on my gaming rig.
Have a look:

1680x1050 0XAA/16XAF all high Win XP rig in sig. Manual run through With Fraps of Paradise Lost, (escorting Prophet)

SLI 8800GT: (2 runs)

2008-05-08 21:57:30 - Crysis
Frames: 1647 - Time: 44919ms - Avg: 36.666 - Min: 29 - Max: 46

2008-05-08 21:59:23 - Crysis
Frames: 1636 - Time: 44605ms - Avg: 36.678 - Min: 30 - Max: 46



SIngle 8800GT: (2 runs)

2008-05-08 21:51:22 - Crysis
Frames: 1091 - Time: 45736ms - Avg: 23.854 - Min: 18 - Max: 30

2008-05-08 21:52:46 - Crysis
Frames: 1072 - Time: 44974ms - Avg: 23.836 - Min: 18 - Max: 30



I'll make up an excel chart of the actual framerates tonight (like [H] does) if you'd like. But As you can see, SLI had a HUGE impact at 16x10 no fsaa and Win XP high details, while actually playing Crysis in one of the most GPU demanding levels of the game. Over 50% gains in the average and minimum with SLI. Now, if I enable 2xaa, I see even bigger gains. Trust me, this means alot more to crysis gameplay than the gpu bench.


Honestly, while your FAQ provides a wealth of info, I think you should edit it for Crysis sake and change your recommendations a bit. The game deserves it's own rule. You don't need 16x12 or higher in Crysis to make SLI the best way to play it. Tonight I'll test other lower resolutions and post the results. I'll even do three runs at each instead of two so you can further see my benchmarking methods are accurate (should be with the weeks I've spent doing it) ;) 


Anyway, somewhat going OT for the OP here, but it's worth getting all the info out IMO. We still have no benchies anywhere showing he can play at 12x8 DX10 very high with or without 2xaa. I wish I had vista installed and could try it for him. Everything I have read says no single GPU can do well DX10 very high. Even dual card SLI struggles.
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 11:54:42 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I think one thing people tend to forget is, when gaming, its not just the max fps, but the minimum thats the problems. Even if a solution (SLI, CF or better card) offers nothing in max framerates, you have to consider the minimum frames

Good point. And truefully, sometimes SLI's minimum fps aren't as impressive as the average fps. Usually would have to do with the texture load dips you see like running outdoors in Oblivion. So SLI would spend alot less time near it's minimum compared to one card, and dip less often, but still have some dips. Still better than a single card though. Better than posting min/max/ave is seeing the actual histogram of framerates, which shows better how it gamed.

If you look at my Crysis testing above, you'll see the minimum of 18 fps for both runs on the single 8800GT and a minimum of 29&30 fps for the two in SLI. That's a huge improvement if you ask me. And along with the 23 vs 36 average, makes for a better gaming experience for sure.
a c 169 U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 1:49:28 PM

pauldh said:
Good point. And truefully, sometimes SLI's minimum fps aren't as impressive as the average fps. Usually would have to do with the texture load dips you see like running outdoors in Oblivion. So SLI would spend alot less time near it's minimum compared to one card, and dip less often, but still have some dips. Still better than a single card though. Better than posting min/max/ave is seeing the actual histogram of framerates, which shows better how it gamed.

If you look at my Crysis testing above, you'll see the minimum of 18 fps for both runs on the single 8800GT and a minimum of 29&30 fps for the two in SLI. That's a huge improvement if you ask me. And along with the 23 vs 36 average, makes for a better gaming experience for sure.



Well i believe gurus like u more than any tech sites because i know u tell the truth but techsites arent always reliable :) 

Let me tell u something i myself with my rig (E6600 @ 3.2,8800GTX@ ULTRA, 4GB DDR2 800, 500GB HDD )
I played crysis @ 1680x1050 with everything maxed out with 0xAA and in actualy all of the missions it ran without a problem and the min FPS was 20 and never dropped more but @ the last 2 missions (where u are in the mountain and the last missions) the FPS dropped even to 15 and 10 and it was playable but it had some little lags and in those situations adding a card will help


Also i dont think i have to edit the FAQ, because i am not a guy who is fanboy of SLI/CF i am just telling SLI isnt ALWAYS needed and as u see i have posted 2 games in there showing that in some games SLI isnt needed and in other games its alot better than single (so i havent defended any just some infos about them):

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/245454-15-crossfire...

Some games like FLIGHT SIMULATOR X are mostly CPU-limited rather than GPU-limited:

8800GTX VS 8800GTX in SLI :

8800GTX:
1920x1200 : 22.6
1600x1200 : 22.4
1280x1024 : 23.0

8800GTX in SLI:
1920x1200 : 22.6
1600x1200 : 22.4
1280x1024 : 23.0

But here is an example of a game which benefits from SLI like OBLIVION:

8800GTX VS 8800GTX in SLI :

8800GTX:
1920x1200 : 28.7
1600x1200 : 32.5
1280x1024 : 43.6

8800GTX in SLI:
1920x1200 : 53.8
1600x1200 : 61.2
1280x1024 : 77.1


Anyways thanx for your help and for taking sometimes to put some benchmarks for me they are reliable than any other tech site :)  btw i myself may get a new laptop which has dual 8800M GTX
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 3:28:16 PM

Thx for the compliment. I enjoy benching and doing gameplay comparisons as much as gaming itself, (kinda an oddball I admit, but it's a love for hardware that brings it on). So yeah I do strive to be 100% accurate where ever that leads. I like to explore when/where various solutions shine, be it different CPU's video cards, or multi GPU solutions. I sometimes wish I could do that for a living.

By edit the FAQ, you don't have to be a fanboy, just keeping up with the times. I am not an SLI fanboi either, but I have come to greatly appreciate it for what it can do, especially the recent picture of it based on price/performance. And it is not just at the highest resolutions anymore as Crysis can show. (and Oblivion like you show to some extent except that one card still can max Oblivion at a lower res with aa/af). I think it's worth mentioning in general it often takes a higher resolution to need SLI, but there are cases/games where it can pay off at modest resolutions. And considering SLI 9600GT for example can offer alot more performance over a single card for less or equal money, SLI is making more sense than the past. I think those points should be in the FAQ to keep it an accurate picture of the current situation, and would gladly test some settings that could show this as valid info. Again, it's excellent info you have there, just doesn't quite show the current options very well IMO based on cheap SLI worthy cards like the 9600GT now being in the spot the not worthy 8600GT was when your wrote it. And SLI 8800GT or even GTS G92 being priced more like the 320MB 8800GTS back then. And considering that we have one game that without dual GPU's(or even with them) can not be maxed out in all it's DX10 glory even at modest resolutions. Anyway, not trying to take anything from your work on it, just making suggestions I think would add to it. I hope you understand where I am coming from.

Yeah, your 8800GTX has proven it's a beast for 1.5 years now. I wouldn't try to take anything away from what a mighty card that is. And one of the beauties of sticking with Win XP like you and I have, is the Crysis WinXP very high hack. I have a new sealed copy of Vista Ultimate, but don't even feel my current SLI system is really worth going to Vista now as I won't be able to play DX10 very high at 1680x1050 (my native resolution). Too much of a performance hit trying to max out crysis in DX10. I had both OS's and decided to install XP for now.

a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 3:30:58 PM

Oh, BTW, yeah I hear what you are saying about the final reckoning battles Of Crysis. Not much we can do there but lower settings and/or put up with some chop. That is the only area I found my system still struggled at the settings that were quite smooth throughout the rest of the game.
a c 169 U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 4:40:03 PM

thanx Paul i will seek in to it and will edit the FAQ
thanx for the help :)  cheers :) 
Also why do u have vista when u can do the very high or even ultra high in XP?
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 5:56:12 PM

I got a very good deal on a sealed Vista Ultimate full retail in a swap for some hardware. And just Like you point out, I have not seen a good reason to install it yet. I also felt at the time I'd get better SLI support with Win XP pro 32-bit than Vista 64-bit. Now things have probably leveled out though and Vista 64-bit drivers are up to speed. I would have thrown Vista in a rig temporarily just for testing, but just don't want M$ to limit my future install options. I'll use it on my next rig.
May 9, 2008 9:06:22 PM

this is a lot of good info...
but i read some reviews of the 9800gtx and it's not worth the money over the 88gt. it's ~ 3-6 FPS on avg... even if it's ten it's not worth it because:

1. when Nehalem will come i'm gonna buy a new PC or Upgrade this rig to Q9450 or Q6700 depends on the $$$.

2. i'm waiting for Nvidia's GT200 cards & 4870. if they can do the trick in crysis maybe i'll buy now q66 & one off them, but still gonna upgrade when Nehalem will come. if i'll have the 4870, i'll add it a friend... but if i get the 88gt i'll buy a new one.

i need a nice pc for now, i got a DELL 27" amazing screen & e2160@2.5 & 7600gs AGP 256MB.
i play some games at 1680x1050 with 40+ FPS- Fear , TR Annaversiry.
crysis at the lowest res! & AC at 1280x800... with nice fps...
COD4 1280x800 AAx2 max out! 36FPS avg.

but i need something better... i hate playing like that!

crysis is my index coz COD4 and the rest is old graphics...
crysis is what it's gonna be till DX11, FarCry 2, Crysis 2 & other games will bring us results like Crysis & not like COD4.

in reviews for month now i take only crysis's results & not the rest...

thanks a lot guys! you are great.

D.

thanks a lot for all the info.
a b U Graphics card
May 9, 2008 11:01:04 PM

Here's a suggestion while you wait for the next gen cards. In Crysis, COD4, UT3, Oblivion, etc. A super cheap 8800GS or 9600GT totally creme a 7900GTX. So imagine what one of these simple $100-130 (our prices) cards could do for you now while you wait compared to your 7600GS. At your res you could crank the details in all but crysis. Crysis 12x8 you could mix medium/high details pretty well. A single G92 GTS is much better, but also probably alot more money. Just a thought IF these are priced well for you and you wanted better than X1950XTX performance on the cheap, it was worth mentioning. The 7600GS must be aweful for that monitor of yours.
May 10, 2008 12:59:32 AM

I actually just got done playing the game with everything set to very high but sound on medium. It play's very smooth but does have a jitter jerk every now and then but really it's pretty playable! Well i was playing it on 1024/768..getting a 19in on the 16th.

May 10, 2008 5:11:45 AM

the price difference from a good Asus/xfx/evga 9600GT to non OC'd 8800GT is not Worth Mentioning & i can OC it myself. my Current VGA card is OC from 400/800 to 512/980 with 10-15% FPS in TR, COD4. the FPS was low- like 20-25 so going up to 30+ is a lot for this cards. it gets pretty hot to- 90C.. i hate this card so i like to cook him... but i neet to save him for my nephew.

+
the 88GT in high res like my monitor- 1920x1200 will kick 96GTs ass in COD4, moreover with AA & will preform better on incoming games this year.
Probably Nahelam will not Come on time, like Quad Pynren took sometime to appear...

but still i'll think about it.
May 10, 2008 5:20:01 AM

i also have a thought the 88GTS512. it's less than 50$ more & it's got a better quaiter cooler...
but- it this money i can get thermalright or TT duaorb for the 88GT and OC better than the 88GTS...

but after the price drop when the new cards will comeout i think the 88gts512 will cost like the 88gt now.
the 88gt dropt in the last month more than 100$ in my current PC store.
a b U Graphics card
May 10, 2008 7:08:52 AM

edited for spelling. 1 more month and they come out
May 10, 2008 10:15:38 AM

it's not just the radeon 4000, i'll wait for the GT200 ones too,
i don't want to experience what people did with the 3870 vs the 88gt...
i'm willing to pay 350$ max on a VGA card, but one that is worth the money=
real difference from the 250$ model, like 88gt vs 9800gtx, the 9800gtx is worth the money only if i'll SLI in the future, but Nehalem chipset will not support SLI... & for the OC ability more than the 88GT coz of the more power he takes... 2x6pin vs 1x6pin.
it's like compating xxx 980gtx black edition (or OC their regular one to the same specs)
to an OCd 88GT. in that comparison we'll have a good difference...

G92 112sps @ 650-660mhz vs G92 128SPs with 750-760mhz
this will get a good difference that the standart ver of 9800gtx worth the 100$ & OC it & kick it's a$$ with some good cooler too.
a c 169 U Graphics card
May 10, 2008 11:54:36 AM

Consider 8800GTX too, it performs better than 9800GTX and has the same price
May 10, 2008 12:39:18 PM

but i see a lot of movies in my PC with my 27" LCD, & i need the PureVideo HD that the 8800gtx don't have... this is y he's excluded.
with this simple CPU, action movies in 1080p not run smoothly.
so i must have the PureVideo HD to render the HD with the GPU...
May 10, 2008 2:39:27 PM

nice one man!
but the 98gtx can get to 750mhz, the 88gts can't...
but i think it not much of a difference... this review is a good info!
thanks!
May 10, 2008 2:46:23 PM

z_dori said:
nice one man!
but the 98gtx can get to 750mhz, the 88gts can't...
but i think it not much of a difference... this review is a good info!
thanks!

8800gts easily go up to 750mhz. It's basically guaranteed. I ran mine at 780mhz, no artifacting, instability, or heat problems.
a c 169 U Graphics card
May 10, 2008 3:16:18 PM

yes agreed , 8800GTS is a solid OCer, well actually 8800GT/GTS 512/GTX are all good OCers :) 
May 10, 2008 3:49:07 PM

I know this is off topic but sinse you guy's were talking about Vista and how you where not that satisfied with it..I recently installed Vista home premium 64 bit and ive been playing crysis with it lately on very high. One thing i noticed for sure is that i can go from playing crysis to opening a web page or task manager or AMD Overdrive with absolutely no stutter or jerk in gameplay...Just last week when i had XP installled that was a big no no!

6000+@3.2,AC Freezer Pro 64,Vista Home Premium 64 bit,4gig's of A-Data ddr2-800 stock timing's,Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+/ 780G,MSI NX8800GT 700/990 with a Zalman VF900 GPU cooler,160g WD SATA 3.0 8MB HD,120g Maxtor HD
May 10, 2008 3:51:58 PM

xx12amanxx said:
I know this is off topic but sinse you guy's were talking about Vista and how you where not that satisfied with it..I recently installed Vista home premium 64 bit and ive been playing crysis with it lately on very high. One thing i noticed for sure is that i can go from playing crysis to opening a web page or task manager or AMD Overdrive with absolutely no stutter or jerk in gameplay...Just last week when i had XP installled that was a big no no!

6000+@3.2,AC Freezer Pro 64,Vista Home Premium 64 bit,4gig's of A-Data ddr2-800 stock timing's,Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H AM2+/ 780G,MSI NX8800GT 700/990 with a Zalman VF900 GPU cooler,160g WD SATA 3.0 8MB HD,120g Maxtor HD

Same for me. Old people like their old things. People said the exact same things about XP years ago, when it came out. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. :na: 
May 10, 2008 5:19:38 PM

about the complaints on Vista, i know.
i am a beta tester for microsoft, i work with vista for almost 2.5 years now...
with my jock rig! & it runs perfect.
i like it a lot. it's better than xp for my opinion...
maybe this is y i'm a beta tester & got Ultimate 64 bit as a reward fro MS... :) 
currently i'm working with 32bit, but when i'll get my 4GB or ram next month with the new rig, i think i'm gonna install the 64bit...
maybe... i want to save this license for the Nehalem rig at Q1 09.... or Q2.
May 17, 2008 2:00:43 PM

guys i have a question!
i can get a BFG 9800GTX OCE for 290$ (new) via a store in amazon, in that price i can only buy here in israel the 8800GT, not OC'ed.

what do you say?
worth it?????????
i really want the new GPU- GT200, but it will be very expensive at first... so what do you say???

i'm also buying the Swiftech Ultra Plus Kit. this is y the guy is willing to give me the BFG for 290- down from 340$ as he said...

what do you say?!?!

thanks!
May 17, 2008 2:07:15 PM

z_dori said:
guys i have a question!
i can get a BFG 9800GTX OCE for 290$ (new) via a store in amazon, in that price i can only buy here in israel the 8800GT, not OC'ed.

what do you say?
worth it?????????
i really want the new GPU- GT200, but it will be very expensive at first... so what do you say???

i'm also buying the Swiftech Ultra Plus Kit. this is y the guy is willing to give me the BFG for 290- down from 340$ as he said...

what do you say?!?!

thanks!

Compared to 8800gt, the 9800gtx at similar price is certainly a lot better. You should still shop around some more though. If you can get a 9800gtx from Amazon, why wouldn't it carry the gts too? :p 

9900 comes out in July/August. And it's only a rumor it comes with g200. It's not certain yet.
May 17, 2008 2:46:05 PM

the name is not 9900, the name is GTX 260/280. & it will come with the GT200 & 512bit of 1G memory GDDR3.
& the better one, 280, will cost more than the 9800gx2 coz it preforms better.
check for the article in the Tom's.

if these details are right- 2 thinks:
1. i really want the GT200 but i want buy it for 500$+...
this is y the 9800gtx in that price is a good deal....

2. we'll have a fight between 1GB GDDR5 in the 4870 & 1GB 512bit GDDR3 in the GTX 260/280. this is a good fight.....
a c 169 U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 2:46:31 PM

Certainly alot better??????????

9800GTX is a good card but it performs near to 8800GT/8800GTS 512 (it performs better but the difference isnt even noticeable) 9800GTX isnt anything special, its just a refresh to 8800 series

May 17, 2008 3:03:42 PM

Maziar you are totaly right!
but!
it's in the same price of a regular-Not Oc'ed 8800GT here in israel....
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2008 3:09:30 PM

Yes, agreed. When it's priced the same, a 9800GTX is the much better buy. priced $150 vs $280 like we often see, the 8800GT is alot better buy.


May 18, 2008 10:52:21 AM

pauldh, thanks for the numbers...
so it's not a special price that i get.,,but it is an OC ver of the BFG 9800GTX.
but!
though it's not a special price, a 8800GT without oc would cost me here in israel round 280$-300$. but if i get it from USA via Amazon this is the price i'll pay for a 9800GTX...

nice...
but still... i want the new CARDS!!!!!
just one more month to hold...
a c 169 U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 11:11:14 AM

And the bad thing is that the new cards turn out to be the 9800 series before the release remember ? 9800 was supposed to be a revolutionbut its only a refresh
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2008 11:33:08 AM

Yeah, if you are waiting a month you may get the GTX 280/260 and HD4870 to choose from. I'm hoping both 260 and 4870 do a clean sweep win over the 9800GTX.
!