Can't justify upgrading 8 series card

T3ch said:
So, I am curious what game are you two (Dmitri and cbags101) playing and at what res / FPS with what rigs that you feel no need to upgrade?
Click to expand...

My primary game is ArmA 2, the only game I play MP. Unfortunately it suffers from haphazard programming which stifles performance regardless of how much hardware you throw at it.
Atm I'm playing BC2, Stalker Pripyat and Anno 1404. At medium to high with certain features strategically disabled. AA, shadows on low, post processing often low or off. Performance is easily acceptable. Yes, my card is 2006 tech and I get the occasional slowdown. However, if i was getting continual slow downs and sub 30fps all the time, trust me, I'd be upgrading..
I'm certainly not some far out old guy running around at 15fps thinking it's smooth.
Batman Arkham Asylam runs great on high settings (again, no AA) at 1920..smooth.

WorldExclusive said:
It always comes down to money. If you have the money to spend and play a lot of games, you've probably upgraded already.
Click to expand...
Money isn't a problem. Buy way more games than I actually finish.

demingo said:
I find it hard you can run at 1920x1200 maxed out on an 8800GTS.

Especially in games like BC2, Metro 2033, AVP, etc.
Click to expand...
T3ch said:
Very accurate general asessment here, but I have always been curious about posters that every generation say "My xxxxxx is just dandy! i dont need to upgrade"
Click to expand...
Dan_D said:
No doubt the 8800GTX had long legs. I had mine for two years easily. However, they just aren't up to the challenge of the newest games. Not at max settings and high resolution anyway.
Click to expand...

Those opinions are fine if playing at max settings is really important. BC2 for instance even at max settings looks like a somewhat blurry textured port. Max settings today are crippled.

Buying cards between different generations used to be a necessity. My card that ran Quake 1 great barely ran Quake 2 at all. We're talking 30fps down to 8fps. I realise the exponential nature of hardware performance has slowed over the last few years. The hardware is incredibly capable and impressive, but if PC games are being released with 1024x1024 pixel blurry textures when they could have 2048x2048 textures that our highend cards could easily handle it'd be a different matter.

I don't see much mention of actual games.

If I upgrade to a 30 inch LCD and run at 2560 then I have a very solid reason to upgrade. Of course that's hardware again. Actual gameplay\gametime still doesn't seem to be a factor. Where is that killer game that combines graphics and gameplay?

I'd love a streamlined PC MP FPS with graphics that really took advantage of existing technology. Physx tacked onto a console port without any real gameplay effect isn't "cutting edge", it's a compromise.
 
Last edited:
Dmitri said:
My primary game is ArmA 2, the only game I play MP. Unfortunately it suffers from haphazard programming which stifles performance regardless of how much hardware you throw at it.
Atm I'm playing BC2, Stalker Pripyat and Anno 1404. At medium to high with certain features strategically disabled. AA, shadows on low, post processing often low or off. Performance is easily acceptable. Yes, my card is 2006 tech and I get the occasional slowdown. However, if i was getting continual slow downs and sub 30fps all the time, trust me,
Click to expand...


I am running 8800 512 SLI and noticed choppy performance playing ARMA 2. I noticed while playing my HD was always lit up. Read in their forums on various users upgrading their HD to a SSD. I tried it and it made a world of difference on ARMA 2. Also load times are sooo much faster in games now. :)

Now to say I was running a Velociraptor 10,000 rpm drive before that..
 
I know what you mean. I've got a 2y/o 8800GTS 640MB that I just can't justify retiring. I think my biggest obstacle is the price of entry for a new high-end card though. The 5850s are still about $30-40 more than I'd like.
 
Abula said:
Im thinking on going 30'' but your remark kinda scared me, pls explain how is the 2560x1600 almost 4x 1920x1200, in terms of pixels is close to 1.8x.
Click to expand...

I think he misspoke and you are right. It's 1.77777777777 times as many pixels. 2560x1600 is 4 times as many pixels as 1280x800, though.
 
Dmitri said:
My primary game is ArmA 2, the only game I play MP. Unfortunately it suffers from haphazard programming which stifles performance regardless of how much hardware you throw at it.
Atm I'm playing BC2, Stalker Pripyat and Anno 1404. At medium to high with certain features strategically disabled. AA, shadows on low, post processing often low or off. Performance is easily acceptable. Yes, my card is 2006 tech and I get the occasional slowdown. However, if i was getting continual slow downs and sub 30fps all the time, trust me, I'd be upgrading..
I'm certainly not some far out old guy running around at 15fps thinking it's smooth.
Batman Arkham Asylam runs great on high settings (again, no AA) at 1920..smooth.


Money isn't a problem. Buy way more games than I actually finish.





Those opinions are fine if playing at max settings is really important. BC2 for instance even at max settings looks like a somewhat blurry textured port. Max settings today are crippled.

Buying cards between different generations used to be a necessity. My card that ran Quake 1 great barely ran Quake 2 at all. We're talking 30fps down to 8fps. I realise the exponential nature of hardware performance has slowed over the last few years. The hardware is incredibly capable and impressive, but if PC games are being released with 1024x1024 pixel blurry textures when they could have 2048x2048 textures that our highend cards could easily handle it'd be a different matter.

I don't see much mention of actual games.

If I upgrade to a 30 inch LCD and run at 2560 then I have a very solid reason to upgrade. Of course that's hardware again. Actual gameplay\gametime still doesn't seem to be a factor. Where is that killer game that combines graphics and gameplay?

I'd love a streamlined PC MP FPS with graphics that really took advantage of existing technology. Physx tacked onto a console port without any real gameplay effect isn't "cutting edge", it's a compromise.
Click to expand...

BC2 is no way blurry at 5760x1200. Like I said, I doubt you are playing everything maxed out at anything higher than 1280x1024.
 
teenk said:
BC2 is no way blurry at 5760x1200. Like I said, I doubt you are playing everything maxed out at anything higher than 1280x1024.
Click to expand...

X2. BC2 looks amazing even at 1080P maxed out, DX11. I've seen it on the 360 and they just aren't comparable -- the PC version is head-and-shoulders ahead.
 
The only games are play are HoN and SC2 Beta, both run at max at 1920x1080, and BC2 runs at almost max at 1680x1050 with a 9800GT. Im running a q6600 @ 3.0ghz. The next time I upgrade will be in a year. :)
 
well, max setting for BC2 is high with evrything turned on and 16X AA +AF.
I doubt if a 9800GT is anywhere near max..lol
 
Well everyone upgrades on different cycles. Some people don't mind turning down a few options (even if they make a bigger impact on the look of said game) for a playable resolution (yet again another personal choice , some people won't play a game unless its 30 fps and some won't take anything less than 60 fps).

Plus gotta take into effect our economy , 200-400 dollar video card is quite a bit to ask the already dollar stretched gamer these days.
 
demingo said:
I find it hard you can run at 1920x1200 maxed out on an 8800GTS.

Especially in games like BC2, Metro 2033, AVP, etc.
Click to expand...

Dan_D said:
No doubt the 8800GTX had long legs. I had mine for two years easily. However, they just aren't up to the challenge of the newest games. Not at max settings and high resolution anyway.
Click to expand...

thanks I thought I’m on another planet or something.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
Resist "upgrade-itis" as long as humanly possible. ;)
Click to expand...

Be sure also to avoid "accidental" damage to existing parts to create a needed and urgent upgrade!

My 8800GT is still a champ, though MLB 2K10 and GTAIV are pushed to limits on 16x10.
 
dccmadams said:
8800gtx is about the same performance as a hd 5770. My son wasnt too pleased when I removed the 5850, and put in a 5770. He noticed the "lag" during gameplay at times. The new high end cards far exceed the 8800gtx. It was great in it's day for sure, but that day has passed since the 4870 days...
Click to expand...

The 5770 is easily a match for the GTX260 192sp, the 8800gtx gets stomped by it.
 
SO after overnighting a XFX 5870 from the Egg on wens for Thursday Fed ex failed to deliver it three different days! on Thursday <It spent the night in Cali>, Friday<It spent the night in Memphis> and again this morning (Sat) < It got here then was mis-routed to Denver 2 hours away, before I got them to send it back.> So I went to the local depot to pick it up tonight.

With JUST putting in a XFX 5870 1GB here are my quick before and after benches in Call of Pirapayt Bench: ~Setting = Ultra ,Enhanced,Full dynamic lighting (DX10) 1920x1200.~

8800GTSg92 min/max

Day 20/63
Night 25/60
Rain 27/52
Sun Shafts 9/27

XFX5870 min/max

Day 29/132
Night 49/129
Rain 51/146
Sun Shafts 33/71

Yeah I feel pretty good about my upgrade. So yea everybody that is holding off may get a better deal but from this moment on I experience better play quality. so $250 for the 5870 next December enjoy.

Caveat: I understand Benches are not games but since peoples play experience seems vastly up to interpretation.(IE people thinking they are able max BC2 on a core 2 and a 8800GTS cause they are ok with 15FPS) I thought I would give a quick apples to apples. That anyone else can replicate exactly.

Now, off to see these load times in BC2 for myself!

Just ran the single player maxxed out @1920 x1200 details high,textures high,shadows high,effects high,AA =8x Ansio =16x (HBOA off) pulled 70 FPS with high 50's when there was a lot of action.

BC2 for instance even at max settings looks like a somewhat blurry textured port. Max settings today are crippled.
Click to expand...

Um... not from what I saw at all, unless you meant some of the foliage at a distance, where did you see this game @ max settings? Youtube?
 
Last edited:
Anyone who is still happy with the performance of the G80 GPU's are most likely either running on a lower resolution like 1280x1024 (probably CPU limited at this res) or are running at optimal performance settings that the game sets for you depending on the capability of the hardware. Cypress and Fermi are BIG, big upgrades and an order of magnitude (exageration, I know ^^) faster than G80.

Jon55 said:
Wouldn't this be a software bug? I mean yes, it's a problem, but not one that couldn't be fixed fairly easily. How is that hardware related?
Click to expand...

It's definitely not a hardware bug, and only occurs when you run the game in DX10/11 mode. Just because of that it's the only reason why I'm using DX9 until they get that issue sorted out. The game still looks great in DX9 anyways.
 
Well guys I have a 8800gtx 768mb, it still pulling strong, I think I can still hold on to it till the end of the year but BF BC2 is punishing this card. I am thinking about alternatives and it's really interesting, never owned an ATI in my life, was tempted to pick up a 5970 a few months ago when I had the capital but the card was nowhere to be found.
I would love to move on to ATI, but the current price inflation on their cards makes it a bit less appealing for me to make the jump atm. 5870 went from $350 some places (micro center) - $400 most places and now it's roughly around $420-450 and $500 2gb ver, cheapest being ones with worse warranty. The 5970 went before for $600 if you could find one, now it's way over $700.

I don't know if I can get used to the ati drivers, if my system is gonna have the same stability or better with ati, with NV it always worked, then you got some games that have been optimized by nvidia so example batman arkam azylum you would need to hack it to use physcs in ati hardware, for the longest time you couldn't turn aa/af on borderlands and they didn't perform too well on it. Feels like NV works closer with a lot more game companies so their either optimized or less issues when a game launches hear stuff about not getting along with crt's, I own a sony fw900 24inch crt. I could be wrong, I don't own any ATI hardware, but its a small worry.

Nvidia is not too promising either with the new GTX480 higher power consumption and noise, I am afraid it might make the internal of my case too hot for the other components.

So far it stacks of for me this way.
5xxx series
eyefinity, low power consumption ( don't need a fusion reactor to power it), good performer
NV
about 11% faster than 5870, Cuda enhancements for dvd playback, encoding and in game physics and some more compatibility, also 32x aa and some feature that fixes jagged shadows.

If I can find a 5970 cheap enough I would be all over it like white on rice. for now I am debating whether to go 5870 or gtx 480, I would def go ATI if I had more experience with their drivers and such, so now it's down to finding a worthy replacement. Sound is another factor I wanna look at, heard ppl say the 8800gtx is noisy, but mine is actually pretty quiet in my case, can barely tell it's there late at night, and I have semi-sensitive hearing, I can sometimes pick up that weird noise the tv and alarm clock can make.

I am a bit disappointed with this generation of cards and I don't think they really have the qualities that made the 8800gtx a timeless classic.
 
^^ It's really not that bad at all. I say go for it and buy from a shop that has a good return policy in case you're not satisfied with the card/drivers. Or try a few games on a friend's pc who has a ATI card (if you know anyone that owns one, of course) so you can get a feel for the image quality, drivers and stuff.

The current prices are not all that bad from the norm. Anyone still remember 8800GTX/8800GTS 640 and GTX 260/280 launch prices? $500/600 and these were single GPUs. I'm certainly happier shelling out $450 for the top end single gpu card instead of $600. We were all spoiled by the last generation with the cheap 4870 and GTX260 (You can thank the 4870 for the price drop on that. The 4870 gave the 260 a run for it's money with its better price/performance ratio).
 
That's good to know. I do game at 1920x1200 when possible (was starting to drop to 16x10 for newer games) so I feel like the 5850 will give my system enough legs to last another, say 1.5-2 years.

Generally, I upgrade systems on about a 4 year cycle with a video card refresh about 2 years in. It's worked pretty well I think. End up skipping about every other video card generation. Then the major upgrades seem like bigger jumps

P3 + TNT2 ... then a GF3 Ti 200

P4 + 9800pro ... then an X850 pe

Q6600 + 8800gtx ... then 5850
 
I have an 8800 GTX with an Arctic Cooling Accelero Xtreme on it (fairly decent OC). Had it since December 2006 and have been very happy with it. Four weeks ago I bought a factory OC'd GTX 260 (650 Mhz) and the first game I tried was Fallout 3 with all graphics options maxed (1680x1050, Phenom II X4 965, vertical sync on). A FRAPS run from Rivet City to Megaton netted me this:

GTX 260 - Avg: 56.564 - Min: 28 - Max: 62
8800 GTX - Avg: 35.442 - Min: 22 - Max: 48

While I love that 8800 GTX to death I'm really happy I spent the $175 for the GTX 260.
 
I was still running 2 x 8800 GTX's here in SLI until the rest of the PC took a dump on me.

Figured I'd upgrade when I got new parts to whatever NVidia was shipping for new hardware at the time, but after seeing the numbers on Fermi, I'm thinking I may just grab a 280 or something for now.

The 5870 looks promising, but I've had such bad experiences with ATI drivers in the past, it's keeping me from changing sides this time around. NVidia drivers have never, ever given me one day of grief like ATI drivers have.

The 8800 series is/was a kickass piece of hardware, and I've been thrilled with mine. Wish Fermi had turned out a little different.
 
GautLSU said:
That's good to know. I do game at 1920x1200 when possible (was starting to drop to 16x10 for newer games) so I feel like the 5850 will give my system enough legs to last another, say 1.5-2 years.

Generally, I upgrade systems on about a 4 year cycle with a video card refresh about 2 years in. It's worked pretty well I think. End up skipping about every other video card generation. Then the major upgrades seem like bigger jumps

P3 + TNT2 ... then a GF3 Ti 200

P4 + 9800pro ... then an X850 pe

Q6600 + 8800gtx ... then 5850
Click to expand...

hmm much like my path and at the same intervals.

2001 = AMD 3000+(skt A) & PNY GF4 TI4600 ...then 2005 = AMD3200(939) BFG 6800 OC

2007 = FX60 + EVGA7950 KO /8800GTS g92 512 now 2009&2010 = I-7 and 8800GTS g92 512 / 5870

Oddly enough I looked up old invoices and my I-7 rig was the same price as my 939 rig... the CPU,Mobo ,GPU and RAM all cost the same. I-7 was about $50 cheaper.

There are some overlaps there as the cards went between systems from 05 forward but that is it generally. I did not count the Commodore 64 and Amiga days. :p
 
T3ch said:
I did not count the Commodore 64 and Amiga days. :p
Click to expand...

God I miss those days, a LOT.

My upgrade path was very similar as well. I loved my FX60 machine back when it was brandy new. Can't wait to get this i7 up and running and see where I end up on video card(s) at that point.

May just stick my 8800's back in there for now and wait it out a bit longer.
 
Dmitri said:
Having a hard time justifying upgrading my 8800GTX. It's years old, but still runs most games fine at 1920x1200. There just don't seem be that many games on the horizon that really push visuals. The Id Software engine release train that used to mean a large jump in gaming visuals is dead. Years old console hardware dictates the quality of high budget mainstream games. Stagnation. The 5870 looks like a great card. But where are the games worth playing?

Perhaps I shouldn't complain, my 2007 card certainly was value for money, more than I can say for the highend cards of previous generations I was purchasing every year or so.
Click to expand...

Try playing Metro 2033 at Very High settings. You might change your mind then. :)
 
I'm in the same boat. I have an 8800GT SC and I was thinking about upgrading, but then I got a 2nd card from my Secret Santa for SLI.

I was planning on upgrading if Fermi was worth it... but I'm not too impressed so far. Guess I'll just have to see what the future holds.
 
Still using my GTX that i got in 2006.

Runs BC2 on Medium settings like a champ. Really see no reason to upgrade CPU or GPU.
 
Megalomaniac said:
www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

8800 series, THE most popular card still.
Click to expand...

The survey says ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series is the most popular. Sorry. :p

populargpus.jpg


ATI is also the top card for every DX level aside from DX9 2b/3.0 models.
 
Dan_D said:
No doubt the 8800GTX had long legs. I had mine for two years easily. However, they just aren't up to the challenge of the newest games. Not at max settings and high resolution anyway.
Click to expand...

I still have an 8800GTX (oc'ed to Ultra speed) but it still runs most games maxed out @1920x1200 with 4xAA and 16xAF on my 24" CRT monitor.

Games for example:
COD4, COD: WaW, COD: MW2
Bioshock 1, 2
Mass Effect 1, 2
Fallout 3
Left 4 Dead 1, 2
Dead Space
Devil May Cry 4 (DX10)
Supreme Commander
Company of Heroes DX10
UT3
GRID and DiRT
Mirror's Edge w/ PhysX
Batman: AA w/ PhysX
Resident Evil 5
Warhammer DOW 2
The Witcher
Lost Planet Extreme Condition DX10 maxed out
and much more..

Well, you get the idea.. a lot of new games are still playable @ max settings. In ME2 or RE5 for example, the frame rates would occasionally dip to 30 or 25, but it is still "playable" in the same way [H] reviews would put it.

This card has been around since November 2006, and it's still practically as fast as a GTS 250, and HD 4770/4850/5750.

I also have a 4870 1GB, and sometimes it's faster, but sometimes the difference is not noticeable on my side-by-side computers that are often used for LAN gaming.
 
Last edited:
Spare-Flair said:
The survey says ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series is the most popular. Sorry. :p

ATI is also the top card for every DX level aside from DX9 2b/3.0 models.
Click to expand...

You folks always carp on about Nvidia rebadging and the 8000, 9000, GTS 200 series and how they're still the same card, except in this case. :p
 
I just decided to make the upgrade from my 8800GT. I think it might have had something to do with my new 28" Monitor and the inability of the 8800GT to give me decent fps on high at 1920x1200 in BF:BC2, had to turn it down to medium.

I now have an ATI 5870 enroute, picked it up for $315 shipped to my door (used) and I couldn't pass it up. If not for this deal I would be waiting for the prices to drop to the 300 mark which could take a while.

I don't know what people are running to get the 8800GT playing at max settings at 1920x1200 on BF:BC2 but I had to turn it down to medium to be playable and I think there is still more slowdown than I like in heavy fighting, that's even with no AA. My PC's not exactly a slouch either.

I hope to be able to run on max settings with 4xaa with the new 5870 at 1920x1200.
 
ELox said:
I don't know what people are running to get the 8800GT playing at max settings at 1920x1200 on BF:BC2 but I had to turn it down to medium to be playable and I think there is still more slowdown than I like in heavy fighting, that's even with no AA. My PC's not exactly a slouch either..
Click to expand...

i7.

BC2 is a very CPU-bound game and one of the few you can tell the difference between an i7 clocked at 2.8 GHz versus 4.0 GHz.

Also, I don't think too many people use 8800GTs. Most here have at least a GTX I'd imagine.
 
the difference from my 8800GTS 640 in DX9, to my 5850 in DX11, was nothing short of stunning.
 
Spare-Flair said:
The survey says ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series is the most popular. Sorry. :p


ATI is also the top card for every DX level aside from DX9 2b/3.0 models.
Click to expand...

Helloooo, the 9800 and 8800 are the same card ;)
so when you add the two up, you get the biggest percentage.

that said, the 8800 is seeing the biggest declines, while the 5700/5800 have the biggest gains.

what really surprises me is that the 220 is seeing a decent rise also.
 
I'm in the same boat with my 4870. There are games that definitely push it but for the most part I am able to max out or at least come close in most games. Never have I had a video card last me this long. I kinda like it.
 
eddieck said:
i7.

BC2 is a very CPU-bound game and one of the few you can tell the difference between an i7 clocked at 2.8 GHz versus 4.0 GHz.

Also, I don't think too many people use 8800GTs. Most here have at least a GTX I'd imagine.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that BF:BC2 is quite CPU bound game but I just can't imagine that an 8800GT or GTX could run the game at 1920x1200 with everything maxed. Maybe people's idea of maxed is running the game on high with no AA, hbao off, and still getting dropoffs to 15fps in big firefights?
 
Bona Fide said:
I know what you mean. I've got a 2y/o 8800GTS 640MB that I just can't justify retiring. I think my biggest obstacle is the price of entry for a new high-end card though. The 5850s are still about $30-40 more than I'd like.
Click to expand...

Heck, even my 8800GTS 320MB is still running great.

My newest game, Bad Company 2 plays at a respectable 40-60FPS on it at 1650x1050 on Medium. With that game, I got the most bang for my buck by overclocking my E8400 to 3.75Ghz.. almost doubled my framerate vs when it was running stock 3Ghz.
 
ELox said:
I'm aware that BF:BC2 is quite CPU bound game but I just can't imagine that an 8800GT or GTX could run the game at 1920x1200 with everything maxed. Maybe people's idea of maxed is running the game on high with no AA, hbao off, and still getting dropoffs to 15fps in big firefights?
Click to expand...
BC 2 is both cpu and gpu heavy. yeah it doesnt take a fast quad to be playable though a strong gpu is certainly needed at 1920 for high settings.
 
Met-AL said:
Heck, even my 8800GTS 320MB is still running great.

My newest game, Bad Company 2 plays at a respectable 40-60FPS on it at 1650x1050 on Medium. With that game, I got the most bang for my buck by overclocking my E8400 to 3.75Ghz.. almost doubled my framerate vs when it was running stock 3Ghz.
Click to expand...
nearly doubled your framerates? that is beyond an exaggeration and you know it. you dont get a nearly 100% increase from a 25% oc on your cpu. the most you would have gotten was a 25% increase and thats only if your cpu was the absolute limitation at those settings.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that the 8800 series has now surpassed the 9800pro in terms of longevity? (aka legendary card status :D)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top