Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Worth Upgrading 8800GTS 640MB ??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 1, 2008 11:55:28 AM

Hi there,

I currently have a nVidia 8800GTS 640MB but feel it is time to upgrade my graphics card.
My budget is approximately £200 and i was looking around and I found GeForce GTX 260 896MB for £170 and it seemed a good buy.

Am I wrong in thinking this, would it be a good buy, and how long would it last as far as keeping up with demanding games?

Should I be looking for a different card, such as the 4850 or is it even worth spending the £200 to upgrade as I have heard that my card is fairly good itself?

I presume you need my Motherboard details but I am unsure on those. How do I go about getting those? I have EVEREST Home Edition, do I use that?

Any help/advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks again,

tangoxyz
September 1, 2008 12:10:08 PM

Tom's just did an article comparing many GPUs. It's true that the new graphic cards are held back by the chosen CPU at the lower resolutions, but if you happen to have an equal or weaker CPU then this article may be useful.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-comp...
September 1, 2008 12:12:53 PM

What games do you play that don't run well on your GTS 640MB?

The HD4850 isn't a whole lot faster in most games, but the GTX260 would give you a nice boost. It might also be worth considering the HD4870; it is generally a bit faster (depending on the game and level of AA) than the GTX260 and sells for about the same price.

In all honesty though you might be better off waiting for the next round of cards; I'm still completely satisfied with my 512MB 8800GT.
Related resources
September 1, 2008 12:16:49 PM

Horhe said:
Tom's just did an article comparing many GPUs. It's true that the new graphic cards are held back by the chosen CPU at the lower resolutions, but if you happen to have an equal or weaker CPU then this article may be useful.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-geforce-comp...


That Article is the biggest BS since the moon Landing:D  I wouldn't reference it:) 
September 1, 2008 12:22:40 PM

Well my current specification is a Q660 CPU, so that should be fine, a 650W PSU, would that be suitable for the new graphics cards suggested? And I am currently running on Windows XP with 4GB RAM, at 1920x1200 resolution.

The HD4870 is definitely an option and I have heard it does perform very well. Most my games do run fairly well but for example when playing Crysis, whilst having settings on Maximum, I do have to keep AntiStropic Filtering (I think that's the one) as turned off. Another reason is I have very recently upgraded to Dual Screen, with my SM245B (120x1200) as my primary monitor and a standard 17" (1280x1024). If I am playing a game on my primary monitor, whilst still using my secondary monitor, my GPU does seem to struggle.
a b U Graphics card
September 1, 2008 11:35:42 PM

L1qu1d said:
That Article is the biggest BS since the moon Landing:D  I wouldn't reference it:) 

I hope you're joking about the moon landing part (that article is definitely BS though).
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 12:07:31 AM

cjl said:
I hope you're joking about the moon landing part (that article is definitely BS though).


Yeah, the article was big time BS. Good thing is: Tom's Hardware still has it's forum clean, lol.

And the moon landing... Who really knows... Those theories sound funny though, lol.

Sabre_X said:
Well my current specification is a Q660 CPU, so that should be fine, a 650W PSU, would that be suitable for the new graphics cards suggested? And I am currently running on Windows XP with 4GB RAM, at 1920x1200 resolution.

The HD4870 is definitely an option and I have heard it does perform very well. Most my games do run fairly well but for example when playing Crysis, whilst having settings on Maximum, I do have to keep AntiStropic Filtering (I think that's the one) as turned off. Another reason is I have very recently upgraded to Dual Screen, with my SM245B (120x1200) as my primary monitor and a standard 17" (1280x1024). If I am playing a game on my primary monitor, whilst still using my secondary monitor, my GPU does seem to struggle.


Well, with either upgrade, if u care about "graphics", u should move on to Vista64. Like it or not, Vista has DX10 and up.

And me thinks the 4870 is a fine contender, and in some cases, it wins by a juicy margin (AA anyone?). Also, if u like Video editing and playing videos, ATi has the upper hand.

Esop!
a b U Graphics card
September 2, 2008 12:37:26 AM

You need a dose of mythbusters. Theyve proven weve landed on the moon exactly where we said we did. Flashed "a" l a s e r at it and got reflective signal back, no doctor evil bs either heheh
September 2, 2008 12:56:03 AM

cjl said:
I hope you're joking about the moon landing part (that article is definitely BS though).


yes I am don't worry hahaha:) 
February 10, 2009 1:13:22 PM

Going from a 8800GTS to a HD4870 is just not worth the money, I know i did just this over the Christmas from an Evga 8800GTS 640MB's. My CPU is a QC9450 with 6MB's of ballistiX(800MHz) running Vista Ultimate X64. I have hardly noticed any difference in real time. Maybe in Crysis and COD 5 there is a slight improvment but it's hard to notice it as the 8800 performed just fine. In relation to Fallout 3 there is no discernible improvment. Maybe if you have a big 24" monitor the upgrade may be more significant but I am sorry I did not hold on untill the next generation.
February 18, 2009 7:18:04 AM

If i were you i'd wait it out, there be new cards out very soon (April for new ATi cards i believe).
Your talking about running crysis on max settings >.<, if you want to run that horrible game on max then your pockets need to be very deep.
!