I am building a new rig and my video card choice is holding me up. I have the HP w2408 monitor and I want to game at its native resolution. Soulf I get 1 8800gts 320mb or 1 8800gts 640mb or 1 8800 gtx. then theres sli, should I sli 2 of the gts's or just get 1 gtx. I am hesistant about getting an 8800gtx because I am nervous that a newer, better, acrd will be out soon? What should I do?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Gaming @ 1920x1200
- Thread starter Quality
- Start date
You obviuosly think another high-end card will be out in the next 90-days?
If you have the money for the GTX/Ultra, get it, If not, the GTS 640 is your only next bet.
A new card, better than the GTX/Ultra will come out sooner or later (rumors point to a release this year), but that should not stop you from buying a card now. Never play the waiting game. If rumors turn out to be false, you've waited for nothing.
Good point....hmmmmm
I game exclusively at 1920X1200 and I would definitely recommend getting the GTX, especially if you like to enable all the typical eye candy features like AF, AA, soft shadows etc. I bought an ultra recently and I don't have a single regret. It plays everything beautifully. Honestly, I really doubt Nvidia is going to release a new flagship card in November, just mid-range cards, but even if they do, if you buy EVGA (great products) you can always just use the step up progam.
Kind of the rut I'm in. Good advice.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
The [H] showed that an Ultra provides no real benefit over a GTX (i.e., a few more FPS but no extra settings) with current games. Until games like Crysis goes final beta or public release...we don't know even then if the Ultra gives something extra besides a few FPS.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,098
At that resolution, get one of the factory overclocked GTX cards. You won't have any frames to spare in Crysis at that resolution.
Well, in some games it was a bit faster than that, and besides - the price has come down now and it can be overclocked...
what extra could it possibly give besides extra fps?
Higher settings / AA.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,047
ROFL, no, it can do higher FPS at higher settings due to its extra power, not the other way around
.silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
At 1920x1200 yes, SLI is worthwhile -- ideal, in fact. Below that, no. Above that it's pretty much a requirement.
If you have the cash for the GTXs or Ultras go SLI. Again, go EVGA for the Step-Up program just in case something considerably better shows up in the next 90 days. Get a standard clocked card -- no reason to pay extra for the OC when EVGA warranties OCing via software and you can easily do it yourself.
Well, in a perfect world if you had an inexhaustible supply of money, then of course go with 2 Ultra's in SLI, but obviously for a lot of people that isn't exactly very practical.
To answer your question, I guess I would say "it depends." There are going to be differing philosophies depending on who you ask.
As for my stance, I'm always of the opinion to get the fastest single card solution available. That currently is an 8800 Ultra. Is it architecturally different than a GTX? No. However the Ultras have an A3 revised core wheras all GTX's use the older A2 core. The A3 revised core produces less heat. What this means is that you're always going to have much better luck overclocking an Ultra as opposed to a GTX. My card for example has no problem running at at 701 mhz for the core, 1671 shader clock, and 2352 memory speed. I really don't know anyone running a GTX at those speeds. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's much more difficult and it would probably require water cooling.
As far as the SLI question, for me, I just don't like dealing with the headache of SLI. You're always having to deal with the heat issue from these already very heat intensive cards, a lot of apps only see a 25-35% improvement from adding a second card, and thirdly, there are sometimes a ton of driver issues particularly in Vista. I just don't want to deal with it. I'd rather just drop in a single card and game. Not to mention SLI is always very cost prohibitive.
If you buy a single Ultra now, you're probably going to be just fine for the next 6 months to a year playing the latest titles. My feeling is that whenever Nvidia does release their new flagship card (whether it be in November or sometime next year) that single card will almost assuredly be faster than 2 GTX's in SLI. At that point you can just upgrade to that if you want.
Anyway, I hope that helps.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,098
If I were in your position I wouldn't buy anything until the Crysis demo is released and you can get some feedback from the enthusiast community on how well the 8800 holds up. Obviously the ultra will perform the best, but will it be enough? Nobody really knows.
I don't think I would make such a significant investment in 8800 series hardware so late in its life cycle especially with the Crysis demo only weeks away.
Also, even if the new high end cards aren't released until Q1 of 08 or even Q2, there is bound to be an announcement about them soon, and when that you are liable to have a painful case of buyer's remorse if you just bought TWO ultras.
I don't think I would make such a significant investment in 8800 series hardware so late in its life cycle especially with the Crysis demo only weeks away.
Also, even if the new high end cards aren't released until Q1 of 08 or even Q2, there is bound to be an announcement about them soon, and when that you are liable to have a painful case of buyer's remorse if you just bought TWO ultras.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
You could also look at it this way: If you buy 2 Ultras or GTXs now you could use Step Up on both of them and sell the second new high-end card for a considerable premium while they're still rare and difficult for most to come by... or keep both and have an even more badass setup.
Also, I'm sick of seeing Crysis lauded as the end-all-be-all game. If my machine doesn't run Crysis I will have to put forth massive effort just to care. I know I'm the minority in these forums, but I seriously doubt I'm in the minority among PC owners, or even PC gamers. I wasn't all that impressed by FarCry. I'm no more impressed by Crysis.
You apparently don't understand how settings affect fps do you?
Let me make it simple for you:
Medium Settings:
GTX run at 80fps, Ultra 100fps
High Settings:
GTX runs at 60fps, Ultra 80fps
Max Settings:
GTX runs at 40fps (not playable for FPS games), Ultra runs at 60fps
So, because the Ultra allows for higher fps, it allows the user to use higher settings while keeping their fps up.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,098
That isn't the point. Even if you don't care about the game itself, it is without question a benchmark title. It is also a game engine that is likely to be used for other games. It may very well be the engine used for the next entry in the Battlefield series, since EA and Crytek are now in cahoots. Also, even if the engine itself isn't used, there is a good chance that the next Battlefield game, and a lot of first person games that take place outdoors will put similar or greater demands on the hardware. The games that are based on the engine may be even more demanding than Crysis itself, at launch.
I didn't like Oblivion myself, but I can't deny its use a benchmark. It is not the game itself that is the concern--it is all the features included in the engine that other developers will adopt/copy/license. That said, I can't wait to play the demo.
Also, don't rely on the step up program. There won't be a new card within 90 days, and you have to read the fine print.
I've been struggling with gaming at 1920x1200 but it is mostly due to the fact my X1950 XT has only 256 megs of video ram rather than its performance, which is actually pretty good DX9-wise. You'd have no shortage of video ram with a 640 but I wouldn't get anything less.
I'm personally eyeballing a HD 2900 Pro with 1 gig of DDR4 in stock at infonec.com and it's only 349 available right now. It's pretty competitive with the GTS but if you want hardcore pixel pumping power, the GTX is on top. But those Pros sure do look good.
I'm personally eyeballing a HD 2900 Pro with 1 gig of DDR4 in stock at infonec.com and it's only 349 available right now. It's pretty competitive with the GTS but if you want hardcore pixel pumping power, the GTX is on top. But those Pros sure do look good.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
What the hell is this?
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,098
Ignore him. My uncle Bilbo used to tell me stories about these types of posters...what were they called again?
He calls me a stalker in a lot of threads (even siged!) because I constantly point out his mistakes in posts, even if I've been posting in the thread before he started.
Manbearpig
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 84
Why get a card now? At the moment, there are no demanding games out that make you need an 8800GTX to run it. This will change when Crysis comes out in less than two months so why not wait till November to even consider getting the card you want. By then there's a chance new cards will come out bringing these cards down PLUS black Friday sales will make prices go even lower. Theres nothing to lose while waiting, be patient I say.
Thats not true. Bioshock and WiC are both pretty demanding games when you want to run them with all the eyecandy and AA.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,098
I thought he was referring to me. Well as long as he is picking on you and not me I have no quarrel with the man.
I thought he was referring to me. Well as long as he is picking on you and not me I have no quarrel with the man.
Well just guessing its me, since he has called me that a few times (think he likes me or something
) as I'm back in his sig.bubomatic5
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2007
- Messages
- 408
40 fps is playable in fps games..
Yes - but < 60 is much better, and is much more enjoyable in most FPS's.
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,132
Fixed.
To enjoy a FPS game on PC, it is better to have frame rate > 60/sec. Preferably, 80/sec. Your movements and aims will be more responsive and therefore score more kills. This is why I am still using NEC 19" CRT monitor @ 85Hz for FPS games even though I got a 8800 Ultra.
Thank you all for your posts thus far, they've been great. I am currently using my Dell Inspiron 1520 notebook to game with the 24" HP monitor. The laptap has the 8600m gt video card so i'm gaming at 1600x????(i think its 1200?)....and on CoH with vista business and DirX 9, I can play with a lot odf "medium" settings on. So all in all, I'm holding up ok. I am a diabled Marine combat vet from Iraq and the government (VA) paid for the laptop for my schooling (it originally came with the 8400m gs video card, I swapped it out, which was a HUGE pain in the ass might I add....). The problem with the laptop, is the video drivers SUCK. I can't get the Battlefield 2 complete collection to work and most of the time I get the "driver failed" error when I exit games. SO....all that said....I want to build a top end gaming machine so I can game VERY comfortably at 1920x1200. I think i will wait, game at "medium-low" settings @1600x1200 on the 24" HP until I here something about a new high-end video card ......or at least benchmarks on crysis with 8800's.................................................................Does that sound like a good plan?...Would the majority of you guys do the same if you were me?
Manbearpig
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 84
I guess you can do that. I'm betting the quad cores are gonna drop real low in the coming months tho. If money isn't a problem just get a nice rig now which will cost you about a grand or less without a video card. Then you can wait it out till you find a nice video card. My friend is in your situation kinda, he has a 5 year old computer so he's waiting till December for all the sales to go down but hes doing fine; his computer was top at the time and is very stable. I don't know about your laptop though, if its really a pain just buy a new computer.