i was wondering which graphic card should i install, is the 9 series any better than the 8, i want to upgrade from a 7100GS .. not so kicked about vista using a windows xp os ... how abt the 8800GT .. i game a lot so pl recommend .. im running a 2.33GHZ core 2 quad .. with an intel mother board .. 4 BG RAM ..
You game alot but run a 7100GS? I commend you. It doesn't matter what you upgrade to it will completely wipe the floor with your 7100GS a thousand times over. Having said that Go for the 9 series if you go mainstream, but for higher end either is fine if you can get a good deal on the 8 series. What's your budget?
thanks randomizer ... i know 7100GS .. never really upgraded so .. i wanted the 8800GT but its not in available .. inquied about the 8500GT and 8400GS and 9300GS all in budget ( ard 1800 - 3000 INR ) the latest 9 is really out of budget ..
should i be goin for a amd and ati ?????
8800 is not available .. as for the 9600GT, 9600GSO ill need to check .. but it may be a bit pricey for me rite now .. the 9400GT is available for 3000 (INR) .. any idea hows the review on the quad core .. we have only 2.33GHZ available as of now ..
Like others have said, save up your money for a bit longer so you can afford a real card that will have a bit more longevity. Can you give us a better idea of what all is available to you? I see all nvidia in your choices, what about ati cards?
Joymanavath, if you are in the market to upgrade the video, definitely go with the 9 series if you can help it. The GT subset if possible also. Especially if you are gaming. The 8800GT is a very good card (especially since its chip is based on the 9 series rather than the 8 series). However the 9 series will likely give you a bit more oomph for your money (unless you get the really low end 9 series, in that case it will be less powerful than the 8800GT.
As far as your other question about quad core versus others. If you game, go dual core for the money. You can overclock a dual-core a bit easier, and they are cheaper. Most games don't properly utilize beyond 2 cores anyways. Quad core is nice if you have programs that can use it, but for the money it is not really worthwhile.
Also, if you want to get all 4GB of that RAM used, you will need to switch to a 64bit OS. Under 32bit (old Windows XP) you will get about a max of 3.5GB if you set things up right. If not set just right, you will only get 2GB of it to use. So be careful about that. Also, Windows XP 64bit was not that widely supported, so you may have problems there. If you can't use Vista x64 due to its resource usage, you might be interested in trying out WIndows 7. I find it be much less resource hungry versus Vista. It is pretty fast on older hardware as well. About the same speed as XP (sometimes better). The official release for that is on October 22nd. However they also are giving free evaluation copies of the Release Candidate for WIndows 7. If you want to try it out you can get it over at Microsoft's Technet site: http://tinyurl.com/9agzvs