Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Single card solution. Best performance overall.

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Performance
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 7, 2008 5:11:57 PM

So i currently own a 8800GTS(g92) and I am in the market for a new card. It needs to be a gaming powerhouse. I have 2 monitors, 1 22' widescreen and one 19'. After browsing the forum for a bit I see alot of mixed results from the current cards. I'm currently looking into either 9800GX2, GTX280 or obviously HD4870/4870x2. I plan to spend 300-500 depending on the deal. I've seen most of the charts and all that really says is everyone gets different results. I don't want CF or SLI or QSLI, just the best single card solution. Thank you in advance. Feel free to reply with links to other threads within the forum as I likely missed some that may have answered my question already.

More about : single card solution performance

a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 5:25:00 PM

If it is single, and 1 GPU solution, then the GTX280 or the 4870 1GB are the cards you should look at... The 9800GX2 is an SLI embedded card into 1 PCIe, kinda like the 4870X2.

Now, having a 22" display doesn't mean that it has 2560x1600 resolution, right?

If you ask me, i'd say that on 1680x1050 a 4870 512MB is enough, even a 4850 is enough (with the nVidia counter parts, off course: GTX260 and 9800GTX) with all eye-candy things on (nVidia goes down on AA, but has better perf on Crysis by far).

And you won't be gaming on both monitors at the same time, so i'll just take the bigger one for a reference.

Esop!
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 5:31:38 PM

The 4870 1GB model offers great bang for your buck while also allowing AA at high resolutions because of the extra memory.

This one even has an aftermarket cooler:

POWERCOLOR AX4870 1GBD5-PPH Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $299.99

The 4870 1GB comes highly recommended by AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415
October 7, 2008 5:34:46 PM

there's only one answer to that question, the 4870x2 but at the res you play at the 4870 or the 260 would do but the 4870x2 certainly leaves room for more demanding games
October 7, 2008 5:37:06 PM

eckosof said:
I don't want CF or SLI or QSLI, just the best single card solution. Thank you in advance.

4870x2 is the fastest single card solution available today.
October 7, 2008 5:42:12 PM

shortstuff_mt said:
The 4870 1GB model offers great bang for your buck while also allowing AA at high resolutions because of the extra memory.

This one even has an aftermarket cooler:

POWERCOLOR AX4870 1GBD5-PPH Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168... $299.99

The 4870 1GB comes highly recommended by AnandTech:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415


yep 4870 is superior in the following things

- High resolutions (usually 1680 x 1050 and up)
- AA, AF, CSAA, MSAA ... at high resolutions
- Good bump in FPS due to CPU OC (until it hits extreme high resolutions [eg: 30" monitors])
- DX10 (Vista)

Now for me I choose ATI in the end because spending around 300 dollars, you probably want to turn up the AA and AF without having to lose much performance and ATI does just that. Nvidia cards however starts dipping hard when those things are turned on.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 6:19:46 PM

I'd go with the 4870X2. Despite being a GX2 owner, if you have the cash, its a better card (not by much). I really love is 2x 1GB memory...
October 7, 2008 6:58:12 PM

Excellent advice from everyone. Also nice that everyone is on the same page unlike other threads. I'm only left with a couple more questions. Looking around I see that A)4870x2 is about 520$ give or take. B)9800GX2 is about half that price. Will that extra money really provide that extra back it costs? or will I only see a difference in crysis and maybe games that have/had DX10.1 like assassins creed. There is only one game right now that i play that will probably see a increase in FPS and thats warhammer online. I play bf2 and 2142 and get great results since i have AA off because it creates black screen shots for admins. But I plan on playing games like Left4dead, Dead Space, and most other next gen shooters. Keeping that in mind I have no problem paying 500$ for a card as long as in the future I will be worth it.

Thanks again for everyone who helped.
October 7, 2008 7:15:15 PM

the gx and the x2, are NOT single card solutions, they are build on the idea of sli and cf.

and they act like it in some games. the performance will be less than you would expect from the card, from lack of support. while that will get better with drivers and patches, it will never be perfect.

if your willing to spend it. i would go gtx 280. it still has room for improvement from new drivers, and overclocking shows good improvement too.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/GeForce-Catalyst-ov...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/GeForce-Catalyst-ov...

both the 4870 and the gtx280 will be great cards for the future. i dont doubt they will run games like l4d, fallout3, dead space, any of the upcoming games.

so 4870 1GB / GTX 280, its up to your prefs
October 7, 2008 7:17:19 PM

I am going to have to say the GTX280.

The 9800GX2 has micro stuttering issues with games not running with FPS in excess of your refresh rate, causing FPS to dip and then increase as it shares the work load between GPU's.

This gives a significantly less smooth feel to the visual performance of the card overall, even if the peek FPS is higher.

In games that do not support SLI (Even if its still a single GPU) a 9800GX2 will only use one of its GPU's, cutting the video ram and memory interface in half.

As for the whole "nVidia VS ATI" thing, nVidia's "The Way It's Meant To Be Played" is a very dirty business move and is the reasion I continue to stick with nVidia for gaming.

Even if an ATI card outperforms an equal nVidia card in raw power, nVidia will often provide a better experience because most games today are developed and optimized on an nVidia platform.

I remember playing Tomb Raider Legend on my "Superior" X1600 ATI card and the lighting and textures looked like crap, but on my wifes "inferior" 7600GT the game looked stunning. That was when I made the switch to nVidia and never looked back.

While I love ATI's specs and potential performance, nVidia has the Developers in its pocket which can mean the difference between a wonderfully smooth and vibrant experience, or a game breaking driver conflict that you have to suffer through for weeks or months until ATI or the Games Developers get around to fixing it.

If gaming is not the most important thing to you, or if you only have a handful of titles that you are interested in playing that you know will perform excellently on ATI then by all means take advantage of the power behind ATI's card.

But if like me, and most of us here... your Computer is a very expensive Gaming machine that you sometimes use to check your e-mail with, then nVidia's compatibility for gaming is priceless.
October 7, 2008 7:30:21 PM

i wish ppl would stop pointing to toms mixed up benchmarks, i think we can all agree that there just plain wrong

and i beg to differ that the 4870x2 is not a single card solution
October 7, 2008 7:58:21 PM

Go for the 9800 GX2 its an amazing card... im running it! and it is death cheap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or wait for 4850x2 whenever tha coems out!
October 7, 2008 8:00:25 PM

In terms of today's games (save crysis) you will hardly be able to notice a difference between a 4870x2 and a 9800GX2, depending to some degree on AA and resolution. For the most part, though, the difference won't be that clear.

The GX2 does have some cons in that it's a dual board card, and will run hotter.

If I were you, I'd shoot for the 4870x2. It's the most future proof, and a very good card.

Neither the 4870x2 or the 9800GX2 are dual card solutions. Both are single cards in that they take up no more space than any other single card with dual slot cooler. The 4870x2 (which, IMO, has the better design) is, indeed, a true single board and card solution, whereas the GX2 is a single card, but not a single board.

In terms of performance, that is experience. There is no difference between the two. If you want a good game experience, you need to be able to turn up settings and still have a high fps. This, in essence, is performance, which both cards provide amply. Sometimes games act a little funny when you change drivers on them - that's to be expected. In my experience, though, quality increases as performance increases.

People never even ask an important question in buying a GPU, though:
What resolution do you play at?
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 8:14:03 PM

The 4870x2 seems to handle AA at higher resolutions a lot better than the 9800GX2 due to having 2GB of RAM. The GX2 performance really drops in a hurry when you start enabling AA at high resolutions.
October 7, 2008 8:26:45 PM

Being that i have a 22' widescreen im pretty confident I run at 1680 x 1050.
That being said I also run a second monitor, and with my 8800gts I think I'm getting poorer performance than if I were to only run one monitor. And for that reason I have no problem buying a card that performs better at resolutions higher than 1680 x 1050 even tho that's the max my monitor doesn't support higher, please correct me if my logic is flawed. Well I guess I've made a choice between the GTX280 and the 4870x2, and that simply breaks down into the logic I've used between ATI and Nvidia for the past 10 years which is do i want stability or eye candy.(guess which one is which) And I am still unable to decide.

Found this little video, but not to give and credit to the maker, I can't confirm any of the data is true or accurate but it simply shows crysis on very high and the 9800GX2 and the GTX280 with better FPS's and although many factors can explain why they are better the fact is probably overall those two card are the better gaming cards (overall). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYnXxI1UjxE
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 8:44:16 PM

Since it's not my money, go with the HD4870x2. If it was my money i'd go with the 9800 GX2
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 8:50:45 PM

Yuka said:
If it is single, and 1 GPU solution, then the GTX280 or the 4870 1GB are the cards you should look at... The 9800GX2 is an SLI embedded card into 1 PCIe, kinda like the 4870X2.

Now, having a 22" display doesn't mean that it has 2560x1600 resolution, right?

If you ask me, i'd say that on 1680x1050 a 4870 512MB is enough, even a 4850 is enough (with the nVidia counter parts, off course: GTX260 and 9800GTX) with all eye-candy things on (nVidia goes down on AA, but has better perf on Crysis by far).

And you won't be gaming on both monitors at the same time, so i'll just take the bigger one for a reference.

Esop!


This is like the third time in my life i have to quote myself to be noticed, lol.

Dude, if you game @1680x1050 you'll burn money if you get a card beyond the GTX260/4870 512MB, PERIOD. No if's, no but's, PERIOD. The 4870X2 will run the games on the same detail level a 4870 512MB would do right now on your res. I bet you'd have even close FPS on any game, not that going from 150FPS to 90FPS matters too much.

So, if you don't plan on going into any higher res monitor BEFORE you trade cards again, stick to the GTX260/4870 512MB. You'll spend less and will be equally/closely happy.

Esop!
October 7, 2008 9:11:06 PM

If you watch that Video carefully and keep your eyes on the 9800X2, you will notice that while the 9800X2 hits an average high of 29-31, it will dip down to 24 and then shoot back up to 29-31 again, where as the GTX280 maintains an even and steady 27-30 FPS.

That's the so named micro pausing at play.

So with the 9800X2 you will see a higher FPS average, but with the GTX280 you will have a smoother in game experience.

Once upon a time, people wanted a large frame rate so that they could enjoy a smoother game play experience, but now people will take a jerky in game experience for a higher 3dmark score and a deceptive average fps score.

As someone who this month has moved from a 8800GTS (G92) to a 9800GX2 to a GX280, I am infinitely more pleased with the 280 than I ever was with the X2.
October 7, 2008 9:42:56 PM

Well, I just bought the GTX280. :)  It might be a little overkill for the res I use but after reading all the reviews on the card I knew it would not disappoint. I also didn't want to get in another situation like when i got my 8800gts a little over 3 months ago. I know this card will carry me into the next generation of gaming and meet my needs all the way. Thank you to everyone who helped me.
October 7, 2008 9:52:08 PM

eckosof said:
Well, I just bought the GTX280. :)  It might be a little overkill for the res I use but after reading all the reviews on the card I knew it would not disappoint. I also didn't want to get in another situation like when i got my 8800gts a little over 3 months ago. I know this card will carry me into the next generation of gaming and meet my needs all the way. Thank you to everyone who helped me.
I don't know if it will "carry you into the next generation" because it doesn't support tessellation or Direct X10.1, and Direct X11 will be starting to show up in the next year or so. Still, it's currently the fastest true single card solution out, and should not disappoint.
October 7, 2008 10:11:52 PM

By next gen i simply meant games that are not out yet. I hate buying hardware that has features apps/games cannot full take advantage of. I would have got a 4870 if that were the case but this card smokes the 4870 for the games out now and in the near future. By the time games using dx10.1 and dx11 are optimized no cards out atm will likely be on the top of the world. Open to criticism obviously.
October 7, 2008 10:40:39 PM

Ascadia said:
I remember playing Tomb Raider Legend on my "Superior" X1600 ATI card and the lighting and textures looked like crap, but on my wifes "inferior" 7600GT the game looked stunning. That was when I made the switch to nVidia and never looked back.

If gaming is not the most important thing to you, or if you only have a handful of titles that you are interested in playing that you know will perform excellently on ATI then by all means take advantage of the power behind ATI's card.

why are you bringing up the X1xxx series and the Nvidia's 7xxx series? it may be true for you with that experience back then but that doesn't mean your logic holds up till this day to compare Nvidia to ATI. Technology is a constant battle, Nvidia had it good during the G80/G92/G94 gpu eras, but ATI definitely has the lead now with the Rv770/R700.

Ascadia said:
While I love ATI's specs and potential performance, nVidia has the Developers in its pocket which can mean the difference between a wonderfully smooth and vibrant experience, or a game breaking driver conflict that you have to suffer through for weeks or months until ATI or the Games Developers get around to fixing it.


if Nvidia has it so good now, why did Foxconn/EVGA and other partners jumping off their bandwagon. From what i've read, EVGA is not longer an exclusive partner to Nvidia. and what are the driver conflicts you are talking about? As i recall, it's Nvidia that takes MONTHS to release new drivers while ATI constantly updates their drivers every month to fix bugs/minor performance tweaks. I along with many ATI card owners know this for a fact! Drivers come out every month or so.
a b U Graphics card
October 7, 2008 10:56:15 PM

eckosof said:
By next gen i simply meant games that are not out yet. I hate buying hardware that has features apps/games cannot full take advantage of. I would have got a 4870 if that were the case but this card smokes the 4870 for the games out now and in the near future. By the time games using dx10.1 and dx11 are optimized no cards out atm will likely be on the top of the world. Open to criticism obviously.


I hate to bring this to you mate, but... Once DX10.1 games appear (if they do, actually) your GTX280 is going to run DX10, nothing more; same with DX11. And your GTX280 will keep playing all DX10 effects max'ed out at your resolution, maybe on 60+ FPS, but like i said, on DX10. If you want more eye candy, you'll have to trade your DX10 card wich puts an awsome 60+ FPS on your res, cause it can't display the "next gen" eye-candyness (if there is any actually) of DX10.1/11. That's when you're gonna realize "****, i spend a lot of cash on this thing to swap it out right away?!".

Well, that's looking at what you did right now: trade a DX10 card for another, but too-much-faster-for-what-you-needed, DX10 card.

Sorry to sound way to jerkish, but meh... Maybe it's just envy, lol.

Anyway, i know you're going to love that card all the way. I still feel you should've bought a lesser upgrade, but have a blast with it!

Esop!
October 7, 2008 11:11:19 PM

Heyyou27 said:
I don't know if it will "carry you into the next generation" because it doesn't support tessellation or Direct X10.1, and Direct X11 will be starting to show up in the next year or so. Still, it's currently the fastest true single cardsingle GPU solution out, and should not disappoint.


Cleaned that up a bit...
October 7, 2008 11:50:34 PM

aznguy0028 said:
why are you bringing up the X1xxx series and the Nvidia's 7xxx series? it may be true for you with that experience back then but that doesn't mean your logic holds up till this day to compare Nvidia to ATI. Technology is a constant battle, Nvidia had it good during the G80/G92/G94 gpu eras, but ATI definitely has the lead now with the Rv770/R700.


That is very true, however nVidia still holds onto the gaming title with "The way its meant to be played."

I know that if I see an nVidia logo on the loading screen of a game I want to play, that It is going to perform nicely on my hardware because the game was built, designed and optimized on my GPU.

I was bringing up the X1xxx series and the 7xxx series because that is when I jumped ship from ATI to nVidia and it has worked out pretty well for me so far. When nVidia starts to fall behind and developers move over to supporting ATI rather than nVidia I will switch back to ATI, I really dont care what brand is making my Video card I just want to play my games and not have to worry about it.


Quote:
If Nvidia has it so good now, why did Foxconn/EVGA and other partners jumping off their bandwagon. From what i've read, EVGA is not longer an exclusive partner to Nvidia. and what are the driver conflicts you are talking about? As i recall, it's Nvidia that takes MONTHS to release new drivers while ATI constantly updates their drivers every month to fix bugs/minor performance tweaks. I along with many ATI card owners know this for a fact! Drivers come out every month or so.


We may very well be seeing the see-saw tilter to the other direction, the Rv770/R700 series as you pointed out have been excellent competitors and nVidia was forced to hot glue their lead in tech with the 9800X2, which came back and bit them in the behind when they released the GX280 because it was not a huge performance increase, because the 280 is what the 9800X2 was supposed to be, but without the shortcuts in manufacturing.

However, until game developers jump ship and start optimizing for ATI then I am going to stick with nVidia.

Now that's not to say that ATI will not equal or even surpass nVidia in many titles, but nVidia competes very well in games that have no manufacturer bias... where as games that are biased towards nVidia do not perform so well with ATI cards. Look at the Crysis video that the OP pointed to for an example, and then the Grid video by the same author.

ATI are making some great cards, but that does not mean they have dethroned nVidia just yet and if they do, it will still be a generation or two of cards away... by which, it will be time to buy a new video card anyway.

Until then, the 280 will be enough card to make it though the next year, perhaps even two before needing to be replaced or settings being turned down.
October 8, 2008 12:13:52 AM

Yuka said:
I hate to bring this to you mate, but... Once DX10.1 games appear (if they do, actually) your GTX280 is going to run DX10, nothing more; same with DX11. And your GTX280 will keep playing all DX10 effects max'ed out at your resolution, maybe on 60+ FPS, but like i said, on DX10. If you want more eye candy, you'll have to trade your DX10 card wich puts an awsome 60+ FPS on your res, cause it can't display the "next gen" eye-candyness (if there is any actually) of DX10.1/11. That's when you're gonna realize "****, i spend a lot of cash on this thing to swap it out right away?!".


And when DX12/13/14/15 comes out, people will upgrade again.

Its a Video Card purchase, not a lifetime agreement.

People look at there video card like this part of there computer that they should never have to replace, that will always do right by them when in truth, if your Video Card lasts you 2 years at the top then your doing well.

Yet instead of upgrading, people will slowly turn down settings until the day comes that they can simply not play the latest and greatest game at all... so that's when they decide they need to upgrade. It's nice that we as PC gamers have that option to turn down settings and tweak our cards but if you want to be a PC Gamer and stay on the bleeding edge, you have to spend a little bit of money to do so.
a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2008 12:21:38 AM

Ascadia said:
And when DX12/13/14/15 comes out, people will upgrade again.

Its a Video Card purchase, not a lifetime agreement.

People look at there video card like this part of there computer that they should never have to replace, that will always do right by them when in truth, if your Video Card lasts you 2 years at the top then your doing well.

Yet instead of upgrading, people will slowly turn down settings until the day comes that they can simply not play the latest and greatest game at all... so that's when they decide they need to upgrade. It's nice that we as PC gamers have that option to turn down settings and tweak our cards but if you want to be a PC Gamer and stay on the bleeding edge, you have to spend a little bit of money to do so.


Let me do this easier...

Yuka said:
I hate to bring this to you mate, but... Once DX10.1 games appear (if they do, actually) your GTX280 is going to run DX10, nothing more; same with DX11. And your GTX280 will keep playing all DX10 effects max'ed out at your resolution, maybe on 60+ FPS, but like i said, on DX10. If you want more eye candy, you'll have to trade your DX10 card wich puts an awsome 60+ FPS on your res, cause it can't display the "next gen" eye-candyness (if there is any actually) of DX10.1/11. That's when you're gonna realize "****, i spend a lot of cash on this thing to swap it out right away?!".

Well, that's looking at what you did right now: trade a DX10 card for another, but too-much-faster-for-what-you-needed, DX10 card.

Sorry to sound way to jerkish, but meh... Maybe it's just envy, lol.

Anyway, i know you're going to love that card all the way. I still feel you should've bought a lesser upgrade, but have a blast with it!

Esop!


It's getting late here, i am tired and i'm being a jerk, right? XD

Esop!
October 8, 2008 12:27:25 AM

If the OP is already looking to move up from a 8800GTS (G92) then they have already made the decision that its ok to spend $300-$400 every 1-2 years, once you have crossed that bridge, its pretty hard to turn back.

Plus, when you trade up your GPU regularly, you find yourself in the position where your graphics card is still worth something on e-bay, which can help take down the price of that nice shiny new card by a significant portion.

Also, DX10.1 is still a long way "In the future" just like all those "True DX10 games" we were promised.

Games for the next year or two will continue to be mostly for DX9, with a handful of DX10 features sprinkled in on occasion, I really wouldn't worry about DX10.1.

And if DX10.1 does come out in the very near future? Big whoop.

There is always going to be a better card around the corner, there is always going to be a new advancement or new feature or latest chipset or new version that people are waiting for, but you have to be willing to say "**** it" and make your purchase when you want it.

I learned this the hard way with the previous Generations of cards, I kept on waiting and kept on waiting and everyone advised me to wait because the "New line of DX10 cards was just around the corner."

Turned out that corner between first gen DX10 cards and the next was almost a year away, and I would have much rather bought a card and had it for a year then bought a new one... than wait a year through the fear that when I purchased something, there was going to be something that much better "just around the corner."

The time to buy a new Video Card is when you want one, no sooner, no later. If your unhappy with your GPU, get a new one. When you become unhappy with that, do the same again.

Its very liberating when you finally admit to yourself "I am a PC gamer, My Computer is a expensive and glorified toy and I am going to continue to spend a lot of money on it... this is my hobby, this is what I enjoy."
a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2008 12:35:26 AM

Ascadia said:
If the OP is already looking to move up from a 8800GTS (G92) then they have already made the decision that its ok to spend $300-$400 every 1-2 years, once you have crossed that bridge, its pretty hard to turn back.

Plus, when you trade up your GPU regularly, you find yourself in the position where your graphics card is still worth something on e-bay, which can help take down the price of that nice shiney new card by a significant portion.


Now there is a good point you make out... BUT!

It's a 8800GT we're talking about here... Those things are $110 new, the re-sale value should be... What... $75? And the GTX280 is like $340? The 4870 512MB is like $240? I know i'm wrong with the exact prices, but close non the less.

Anyway, it is true that people used to (yes, thanks to ATI it's past tense) pay $300-$400 for a capable card. I even payed around $250 for my X1800XL if i recall correctly. Now you only have to spend half. And some people don't notice that.

Ascadia said:
Also, DX10.1 is still a long way "In the future" just like all those "True DX10 games" we were promised.

Games for the next year or two will continue to be mostly for DX9, with a handful of DX10 features sprinkled in on occasion, I really wouldnt worry about DX10.1.


I agree on that one, and i'd just add that when they actually come out, the GTX280 will still be a very capable card, running everything you throw at it silk smooth, but on DX10.

Esop!

EDIT: Added modification.
October 8, 2008 1:30:56 AM

if you have the money go for the hd4870x2.It should serve you well for a long time and you won't have to upgrade.I think that at this moment it's the only true card that's ready for the games in the future
October 8, 2008 2:37:47 AM

Yuka said:
Now there is a good point you make out... BUT!

It's a 8800GT we're talking about here... Those things are $110 new, the re-sale value should be... What... $75? And the GTX280 is like $340? The 4870 512MB is like $240? I know i'm wrong with the exact prices, but close non the less.


No... we are not.

8800 GTS (G92) 512meg, is not a 8800GT.

Here, I will make it easy for you.

eckosof said:
So i currently own a 8800GTS(g92) and I am in the market for a new card. It needs to be a gaming powerhouse. I have 2 monitors, 1 22' widescreen and one 19'. After browsing the forum for a bit I see alot of mixed results from the current cards. I'm currently looking into either 9800GX2, GTX280 or obviously HD4870/4870x2. I plan to spend 300-500 depending on the deal. I've seen most of the charts and all that really says is everyone gets different results. I don't want CF or SLI or QSLI, just the best single card solution. Thank you in advance. Feel free to reply with links to other threads within the forum as I likely missed some that may have answered my question already.


Now the OP bought the GTS (G92) only 3 months ago, which isn't so good for timing and certainly they have not gotten there value in the card, but that 280 will keep them on top for a good long while if all they want to do is game at 1680x1050. That extra FPS that is "Wasted" right now at that resolution, makes for a wonderful buffer for future titles.
a b U Graphics card
October 8, 2008 5:47:47 AM

Ascadia said:
No... we are not.

8800 GTS (G92) 512meg, is not a 8800GT.


Ah, you got me, lol.

So that 4870 would have been so darn cheap for him... Pitty.

Esop! XD
October 8, 2008 4:47:15 PM

I probably would have been more conservative if the money I used for both card were not coming out of my quarterly bonuses hence the 3 month time periods that I upgrade in. And its not like the 8800gts is going to go to waste, I'm giving it to a family member so he could sli his cards, he has a child so he cant spend as much money on his toys because he's buying the other kind of toys, So that being said I'm just trying to help the gaming market and when I upgrade again he will get my GTX280. Yuka wrote "So that 4870 would have been so darn cheap for him... Pitty. " I'm sick of buying cheap hardware, I bought the 8800gts for 200$ and I can already notice it slowing down in recent releases. I think ascadia said it best "Its very liberating when you finally admit to yourself "I am a PC gamer, My Computer is a expensive and glorified toy and I am going to continue to spend a lot of money on it... this is my hobby, this is what I enjoy." I hold that statement true to my heart, I spend all my spare time gaming, If I'm unhappy with my hardware then I'm going to do something about it.
October 8, 2008 6:54:11 PM

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/gaming-graphics-ch...[2062]=on&prod[2114]=on

you'd notice here that there isnt a big difference between the gtx 260 and the 4870 , but for that resolution you should consider the gtx 260 216 cores superclocked edition , it's worth the money and is relatively cheap

am upgrading from my 8800 gt superclocked edition to the one mentioned above
!