Advice: DX10 Cards

A

andysheen

n00b
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
21
So this is my setup:

CPU
Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 Conroe 1.86GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16819115015

Motherboard
GIGABYTE GA-965P-DS3 Socket T (LGA 775) Intel P965 Express
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128012

RAM
G.SKILL F2-6400CL5D-2GBNQ 2 x 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 800 RAM
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231098

HDD
Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 320GB 7200RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s x2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148140

PSU
Enhance ENP-5150GH 500W PSU
http://www.ewiz.com/detail.php?name=PS-E5150GH

HSF
Tuniq Tower 120
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835154001
(possibly the Thermalright Ultra120+ depending on release date, price, sound, and performance)

GFX Card


Case
Antec Nine Hundred Black Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16811129021

Basically looking for a DX10 card that will be able to perform at its best while still being in the mid-$100 price range. I think I'm trying to go for a nVidia card, but all suggestions welcome. Thanks!
 
very good setup there and cpu is e6300 not e6320 :p I think

Just go for the geforce 8800 series .Those are the best gpu's with dx10 avaible for now. You choose betweent GTS and GTX versions.GTS is in 640mb and cheaper(but not slower a bit !!!) 320mb version and its only 20/30% slower than GTX and.
But becouse of your cpu ,I would go for the 8800GTS 320/640mb version becouse with that c2d you will not get the full power of the GTX one.

I have single asus 8800gts 320 version and have to oc my e6300 to 2.45 to reach benchs for this card as in benchmarks on the net.
so my benchs are( 2xgbGeil ultra 44412 asus p5n-e sli and e6300 2.45 )
2001 33k :eek:
2003 23000
2005 14000
2006 8100

running all the games maxed out with high resolutions. aka Gothic 3 maxed out 1600x1200 40fps ,nfs Most Wanted 1280x960 aa af maxed 60+ fps
an so long .

You can easyly go for 320mb version I think becouse of your 2gb of ram
 
HiCZoK said:
very good setup there and cpu is e6300 not e6320 :p I think

Just go for the geforce 8800 series .Those are the best gpu's with dx10 avaible for now. You choose betweent GTS and GTX versions.GTS is in 640mb and cheaper(but not slower a bit !!!) 320mb version and its only 20/30% slower than GTX and.
But becouse of your cpu ,I would go for the 8800GTS 320/640mb version becouse with that c2d you will not get the full power of the GTX one.

I have single asus 8800gts 320 version and have to oc my e6300 to 2.45 to reach benchs for this card as in benchmarks on the net.
so my benchs are( 2xgbGeil ultra 44412 asus p5n-e sli and e6300 2.45 )
2001 33k :eek:
2003 23000
2005 14000
2006 8100

running all the games maxed out with high resolutions. aka Gothic 3 maxed out 1600x1200 40fps ,nfs Most Wanted 1280x960 aa af maxed 60+ fps
an so long .

You can easyly go for 320mb version I think becouse of your 2gb of ram
Click to expand...

???:confused:

e6320 is the new version of the 6300, with 4 MB of cache instead of 2 MB.

His price range is mid-$100s. The cards you are recommending start at the mid-$200s and go way up from there. His PSU would not be well-suited to the power draw of those cards either.

There is a noticable performance gap between a GTS 640 and a GTX, although the GTS is still the second-most-powerful card available.

An 8800GTX would not be seriously limited by any Core2 CPU, especially if it's overclocked, which his components would easily do. (Although his PSU is probably not up to a GTX). 3DMark scores don't matter.

Having 2 GB of system RAM really has nothing to do with which graphics card he should choose.
 
My bad with that 6320 . I did not known that.(damn and I just bought e6300 ) :p

And you are wrong with that the C2D not limit the G80. IT DOES A LOT.
On my standatd 1.86 set I score 11500 and after setting it to 2.45 i score 14000.This is 20 fps more in first test and about 15 fps more in gothic3.

Yes. 500W might be not enought for GTX, althought I have 450W chieftec and my 320GTS is not torched yet :D
 
Hmm, I'm a bit torn seeing as how people on other formums are saying the 8800s are the only good DX10 cards out. I'm probably going to upgrade to Vista once the first service pack comes out or something, but who knows when that'll be. I am VERY hesitant to shell out almost $300 on a graphics card seeing as how I'm a college student... and college students generally don't have much money. Anyways, I want to be able to have DX10 available, but it doesn't sound like its possible unless prices drop. Just hypothetically though, if I were to shell out the $300 for the 8800s, any psu suggestions?

The other forum I posted on is here: http://hardware.gotfrag.com/portal/forums/thread/280663/?cpage=1#comment_6711689
I don't really wanna copy paste the entire thread here. People are suggesting I get the higher end DX9 cards instead of the DX10 cards.

Any DX9 alternatives? Preferably around the same price or cheaper would be wonderful. And if I go with a DX9, the enhance 500w should suffice, right?
 
Just buy the most expensive card you can afford now from EVGA and then save for 2 and a half months then step up to an 8800.

Or just stick with DX 9 for a while and get yourself an X1950Pro its not like any DX10 exclusive games will be coming out for a while so you wont miss much.
 
Get the x1950 Pro. Guaranteed better DirectX 9 performance than the 8600 GT, and costs less too!

Consider it this way: in a year, you can upgrade to Vista and ditch your x1950 Pro for a real, inexpensive DX10 card. Don't even think about the 8500 or 8600 series - they are overpriced and underperforming,

Honestly, the 8600-series only has 32 stream processors - only 1/3 as many as an 8800 GTS and only 1/4 as many as the 8800 GTX, so you can see why the performance is so horrid. Previous 600-series cards (6600 and 7600) have featured specs roughly HALF as powerful as the highest-end cards, so the 8600 is a dud by-comparison.
 
The 1950pro seems like the best bang for the buck at the moment. Nvidias midrange is over priced at the moment, definetly not your best bang for the buck cards, and they are the first generation of DX10 so DX10 support is more like an PR stunt witht these cards. I would not expect them to perform very well under DX10 games, they just dont got the horsepower. Also ATIs midrange is coming out in less than 3 weeks so waiting game is a good choice too.
 
sam0t said:
I would not expect them to perform very well under DX10 games, they just dont got the horsepower.
Click to expand...

See i dont get this logic it seems to be a popular rumor based on nothing that people keep saying this... Everything official that has ever been said about DX10 is how its more efficient and easier to work with and how it needs less hardware to render more yet heres everyone with thier DX10 will require too much power for XX and XX cards.

PR or not what the folks at redmond are telling us is all we have to go on at the moment as far as DX10 is concerned anyone claiming they know different either is making shit up or puts too much stock in the rumor mill.
 
pfunkman said:
See i dont get this logic it seems to be a popular rumor based on nothing that people keep saying this... Everything official that has ever been said about DX10 is how its more efficient and easier to work with and how it needs less hardware to render more yet heres everyone with thier DX10 will require too much power for XX and XX cards.

PR or not what the folks at redmond are telling us is all we have to go on at the moment as far as DX10 is concerned anyone claiming they know different either is making shit up or puts too much stock in the rumor mill.
Click to expand...

Well mostly people rely on history. If my memory serves me correctly, first gen (middle range) cards for a brand new DX version have never been great performers when the actual games hitted the street. Ok there might have been the ATI R300 architechture thing, but I consider that to be an exception. So just by looking at those facts I did come to my conclusion that these new Nvidia middle range cards do seem bit weak, but ofcourse its not bullet proof and I did not claim it to be either.

Also the people at redmont have such a talent for BS talk I would not consider anything they say the utmost truth. Look at the DX10 Vista only situation. Alrdy a 19y nerd is programming a Wine kinda emulation program (if I understanded correctly) which enables DX10 games to be played with Windows XP. If a 19y kid can do that alone, why cant M$ and its legions of coders :rolleyes:

DX10 in XP

But I got carried away from the topic, sorry for that.
 
defaultluser said:
Get the x1950 Pro. Guaranteed better DirectX 9 performance than the 8600 GT, and costs less too!

Consider it this way: in a year, you can upgrade to Vista and ditch your x1950 Pro for a real, inexpensive DX10 card. Don't even think about the 8500 or 8600 series - they are overpriced and underperforming,

Honestly, the 8600-series only has 32 stream processors - only 1/3 as many as an 8800 GTS and only 1/4 as many as the 8800 GTX, so you can see why the performance is so horrid. Previous 600-series cards (6600 and 7600) have featured specs roughly HALF as powerful as the highest-end cards, so the 8600 is a dud by-comparison.
Click to expand...

I dont think I would recommend getting a current card that isn't DX10 now. I'd say pick up a 8600GT for $150, unless you need the best DX9 performance for a current game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top