Another 2900 pro vs 8800 thread...

[aikjo2]

I have a BFG 8800 GTS 320 Card in my Pd820 cpu / 945 chipset system right now.

I am building a new system off of my new and shiny DFI P35 Lanparty motherboard.

I am wondering this...

I want good performance in new games, and would prefer more VRAM. I run games at teh 1280x1024 Resolution that is standard on so many 19" monitors.

should I sell the 8800 and get a 2900 pro, knowing that I can get a second card next year for about $100, or wait and get a 8800 ultra / new card when the nexgen systems come out...

I do not want to have to upgrade anything except Video card until teh Nehalem hits teh market...

 

[wrangler]

I would hold tight at 1280x1024 till nexgen.

 

[TomGreen321]

From all the early benchmarks with drivers that don't really suppor the 2900Pro, it's slightly faster then an 8800GTS 320 in DX9, and slower in DX10 games. Most of the testing is being done on Quad cores which makes no sense since people buying this will not have the more expensive components.

I hate when people review mid-range, budget stuff with other high-end hardware, it doesn't help the consumer at all.

I would stick with the 8800 and wait to see what else is released in the next few months, as going to a 2900Pro would make zero sense for you.

 

[Wolf-R1]

From all the early benchmarks with drivers that don't really suppor the 2900Pro, it's slightly faster then an 8800GTS 320 in DX9, and slower in DX10 games. Most of the testing is being done on Quad cores which makes no sense since people buying this will not have the more expensive components.

I hate when people review mid-range, budget stuff with other high-end hardware, it doesn't help the consumer at all.

I would stick with the 8800 and wait to see what else is released in the next few months, as going to a 2900Pro would make zero sense for you.

What they're doing is removing the CPU as a bottleneck so that you get raw performance numbers out of the card itself and nothing else is holding back performance. C'mon man...think outside your small world.

 

[nösferatu]

What they're doing is removing the CPU as a bottleneck so that you get raw performance numbers out of the card itself and nothing else is holding back performance. C'mon man...think outside your small world.

that's what you think, but i prefer the actual game play of a full midrange system, not midrange card with high end system.

but i'm not saying 'it doesn't help the consumer at all', it's just personal preference.

 

[Slade]

if you want an objective comparison of a video card, you don't want the cpu to hinder the results.

What's the point of a comparison when all the cards tested run at the same fps because the cpu can't deliver the info fast enough??? How is that supposed to help you decide on a card?

 

[Miscommunication]

I can see the reasoning, it's to show what the card can do. Although a quad core isn't needed. A high clocked dual core is good enough for the high-end cards until you get them in SLi. So a good dual core would've been sufficient. Where are these "benchmarks" you're using as a comparison at? Oh and tell me if they use more than 4xAA and not the 8800GTS 320MB for higher resolutions lol. Can't wait until the [H] gets their hands on one, although they might be waiting on the 8800GT or the "new" GTS (if true) as to save time.

 

[nösferatu]

if you want an objective comparison of a video card, you don't want the cpu to hinder the results.

What's the point of a comparison when all the cards tested run at the same fps because the cpu can't deliver the info fast enough??? How is that supposed to help you decide on a card?

i don't care if with X games, Y card is 68 fps and Z card is 75 fps, what i need is, what card will give me smooth gameplay, being said, 60 fps is enough on most action games.
also, what can i expect from xxx card? what setting can be maxed out with xxx card? so now, who's in a small world?

that's why i like [H] review, it's kinda suits my personal preference.