• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Help picking best video card

N

Nightvision

n00b
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
19
I've really been out of the loop the last while when it comes to video cards. Now that I'm getting a new PC I started researching and I think I'm more uncertain then before.

Originally I was going get 2 of the HD2900xt card (825Mhz Core | 1GB 2150Mhz DDR4) for crossfire. When I was researching I was noticing a preference to Nvidia's 8800 series cards.

Looking at Nvidia there's quite a few cards all at various levels and prices. It seems Nvidia is the better of the two and I'm sure it'll be recommended over getting the hd2900xt but is it truly worth it?

I'm going with SLI or Crossfire regardless so I am ofcourse in the market for 2 cards. I'd like to hear opinions on these cards and see if I should stay wit the 2900xt or if I should pay extra and go with one of the 8800 cards

HD2900XT 825Mhz Core | 1GB 2150Mhz DDR4
eVGA GeForce 8800GTX 575MHZ 768MB 1.8GHZ
BFG GeForce 8800GTX OC2 626MHZ 768MB 2.0GHZ
MSI GeForce 8800GTX Ultra T2D768E-HD-OC 660MHZ 768MB 2300MHz

Ofcourse I'm pricing these in Canadian funds. I might be completly wrong but the MSI card is the best one but it is also the most expensive (Almost $800 Canadian difference for 2 of them over the 2900xt)

Can anyone tell me if I'm wrong or if i should be looking at a different card or what?

If it makes a difference the cpu is an Intel Q6600 (quadcore) and I'm going be having 4 GB of ram. Naturally I'll be running Vista 64-bit. The PC will be used for gaming and video production. (EDIT: Resolution is 1920x1200 as that's my monitor's native resolution so I need something that can run things smoothly at the res)

Thank you for any advice that can be given
 
Sounds like you're putting together quite a powerful system.

If I were building a system now, I'd get the MSI GeForce 8800GTX Ultra (660Mhz/2300Mhz). If I didn't care about noise and heat, I'd get two of those and put it all on a 680i board.

Avoid the expensive crossfire HD2900XT solution as even one 8800 will beat it with AA on (and you will use AA).
 
Can't say enough about the 8800gtx. ATI's 2900xt's are probably nice but looking at recent reviews, they just aren't quite up to par with the 8800gtx or ultra.
 
2x 8800GTX is your best bet...The Ultras are just to show how little your penis is.
 
an 8800GTX A3 version will easily oc past an Ultra at reg clocks. it is the fastest gpu on the planet and one is all you need unless you have a screen that does 1920x1200 or higher.
 
i wouldn't even get one of those pre over clocked versions. I'd just get a stock one from a good vendor. I just got one last week, i was able to OC it pretty high with stock cooling, and the card can take pretty much anything i throw at it.
 
2 EVGA, BFG, or XFX branded 8800GTX's on an EVGA 122-CK-NF68-A1 motherboard. You'll be getting what is arguably the best warranty and customer service in the industry, and the single most popular 680i board, as well as the only one with a BIOS update out to support 45nm 1333Mhz FSB CPUs. That setup will handle anything you care to throw at it.

If you want it even faster the EVGA ACS3 KO cards are insanely fast. Ultras have also come down somewhat (to around $600 USD each) so if you can get them for less than the ACS3's, go that route.
 
zamardii said:
Just get the MSI P6N SLI Platinum. No reason to buy a $220 motherboard.
Click to expand...

....I listed several very valid reasons to go EVGA. This already sounds like a "Price is no object" type setup, or nearly so, and the confirmed newer CPU support is reason enough alone.
 
Sigh.. Guys... try to accept that the 2900XT is too little, too late (or too much heat, power consumption, whatever). Horray for new drivers, still behind the 640 GTS when AA is enabled. And who the heck does NOT enable AA?

As it is, in 3-4 months, the G92 is sched. for "release". So the XT wins 3 months (with AA off mind you), after the hardware by nVidia was released 9? 10 months ago?. I say no. I waited, and waited, I kick myself for not jumping on the 640GTS 6 months ago.

IMO, Go with the 640GTS. Overclock it to a very near performance for the GTX. With a new generation in the very near future, unloading that much money seems to be a bit "robust" :) When the new cards are released, sell your GTS / or step up if thats an option, and put that to a new generation card.

With the current gaggle of games currently, the 640 will hold you over nicely until DX10 goes mainstream / patching improves DX10 performance.

I personally take anything from Tom's with grain of used salt. Hell, the Inq. has a better posibility of getting it right vs. them. " The Radeon HD 2900 XT debuted with mediocre performance compared to the GeForce 8800 GTS 640, especially when price was factored in. But ATI has stepped up to bat and introduced fresh drivers that really bring out the 2900's potential, even allowing it to challenge the 8800 GTX in some arenas." Time to continue to cherry pick your results. Yes, new drivers have improved performance (whats the use if they don't), but I refer to my original paragraph... Both sites say the 2900XT beats the 640GTS, can comptetes with the GTX... however AA is NOT enabled. Turn that on (both varients), and see how the performance ensues..

Personally (start rant) I'm flippin tired of sites cherry picking performance numbers to skew the data / presentation to the consumer. I know it's a time honoured tradition, but .... AGH!!!!! (end rant)

Obviously, the final decision is yours. Good luck, sounds like a nice build!
 
i noticed that you did not chose to comment on the tweaktown review. At the end of the day the 2900xt AA results are weak compared to the Ultra and the GTX but they are only just a tiny fraction behind the GTS 640. As for the other results in this review with the new drivers the 2900xt (which was after all aimed at the same market as the 640mb GTS) beats it hands down. And it is cheaper here in the UK.

Im not saying buy the 2900xt because i could'nt really care less, but just remember that value for money is what counts and the 2900xt wins in my opinion. Plus nvidia have had 6 months extra to optimise thier drivers, so when the 2900xt came out it was compared in all early reviews to the GTS (with latest drivers) with ATI rushed crappy drivers.

Now the playing field is leveled a bit more the 2900xt is shown to be a better card than the 640mb gts

and as for the g92 it sound very very good, but its not out yet so what was the point in talking about it?
 
I'm including the review at tweaktown. I can't find anything there to support AA enabled reviews.

With the lack of those, I count that review to have minimal impact. I'll reiterate what I've said here, and in multiple posts. Yes, the 2900XT has alot of potential, and with further driver / BIOS releases, I'm sure that it will improve.. ... ... ...

On the downside... Sig. performance drops as AA is enabled and scales upward. Heat / power consumption (debated ad nauseum). Delay of 8 months for driver / hardware optimization / release, all for naught (I bought into it as well).

Yes, the G92 has not been released yet. However given the performance of the 640GTS (esp. with overclocking), and the lack of "bang for the buck" on the Ultra, with the possible release of new gen/ refresh on the very near horizon, it's something that should (IMO) be considered.

Again, it's his money, as well as the final choice. At this point though, the XT just doen't have the ability to compete with nVidia on this round. Maybe / Hopefully with the release of the R700 that will change, time will tell.

Back on topic, I suggest getting an 640GTS and overclock. That will put you near / at / possible exceeding a stock GTS, for approx. 150 bucks less.

Again, good luck!
 
j1979 said:
2900xt for perfomance (providing you have new drivers), features and cost.

8800GTS for lower power consumption

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/03/the_best_gaming_video_cards_for_the_money/page4.html


http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1122/1/page_1_introduction/index.html
Click to expand...

lol are you serious he said best.

THe 8800 GTX is the best, the ultra is a overclocked version of the gtx exactly the same in every other way. Nvidia shat there pants near the release of the 2900xt then loled after it got released the the ultra is a factory overclock so you can have higher speeds and not worry about warrenty viod. personaly id get the 8800 gtx 2 of them and use the extra money on a q6600 quad core. Good choice as more and more stuff is becoming multithreaded and it will give you that extra performance in the future. Its like buying a dual core when single cores gave better perf in games, its almost like my cpu has gotten better with age.
 
Thats rationale for going the way I suggested. DX10 is still in it's infancy. Yes, the 29/8800 series will do DX10, but the performance is weak at this point.
 
Thank you all for your opinions.

The HD2900xt is out of the running so it just leaves the Nvidia cards. The problem is my current pc is gone and this is why I'm building a new one so sadly waiting till Fall is out of the question for me.

The other solution of buying the 8800GTS or a cheaper card(s) is out of the question to as I know I won't have the money come Fall to replace it. So it's now or never. Under normal circumstances I would have probably waited but this is one of those times I can't.

Really money isnt too much of an issue, but if I can save some I'm all for it. I think I'm deciding between these two now

BFG GeForce 8800GTX OC2 626MHZ 768MB 2.0GHZ
MSI GeForce 8800GTX Ultra T2D768E-HD-OC 660MHZ 768MB 2300MHz

There's a $200 difference between the 2 cards, but is that $200 justified between the GTX or the Ultra?
 
no, its not. Ultra performance can be had by simply overclocking the GTX.
Do not get the ultra.

IF I was you, I would get the BFG 8800 GTX OC or OC2 edition. Stock is fine, but factory overclocked for little or no extra cost is better.
Either that or get an EVGA card and hope that the G92 will come out during your step-up time.
 
People have been finding the eVGA 8800 Ultra for around $600, so it seems you're looking in the wrong places, OP. There should not be a $200 price gap -- more like a $50-70 price gap.

Again, buying /any/ brand but eVGA, XFX, BFG, or OCZ is a bad plan, as these 4 brands have far superior warranty policies to the others.
 
He is in Canada, as am I, and I'm still seeing some pretty severe price differences between the GTX and Ultra at most of the common retailers here.
 
silent-circuit said:
Point taken, Dan, but wouldn't buying an ultra from BFG or another vendor and replacing the stock HSF with a watercooling block make more sense -- lower price, exactly the same performance?
Click to expand...

It's not much if any cheaper. The blocks cost around $130 and the card around $600. I'd be willing to bet you could find that card cheaper from some website than BFG has it listed for. In my case I bought the cards new at $600 when they first came out, then I paid $134 for each water block, and then $7.00 for each single slot I/O bracket. So in total my cards were well more expensive than most.
 
Naturally I'll be running Vista 64-bit.
Click to expand...

If this is a gaming machine this may not be the best idea. I tried it a few months ago and it was HORRIBLE for gaming while I had fewer problems on 32-bit.

And as for the 2xGTX... if you resolution is only 1920x1200 you would be fine w/one GTX now and then sell it and upgrade to 2x of the next gen? If money is no object then just get the 2xGTX.
 
anonuser said:
If this is a gaming machine this may not be the best idea. I tried it a few months ago and it was HORRIBLE for gaming while I had fewer problems on 32-bit.

And as for the 2xGTX... if you resolution is only 1920x1200 you would be fine w/one GTX now and then sell it and upgrade to 2x of the next gen? If money is no object then just get the 2xGTX.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend that the original poster grab a single 8800GTS and wait for the next generation cards. G92 isn't that far off in all reality. The 640MB GTS should provide decent enough performance at that resolution for now. Or if cost isn't an issue then by all means go with dual 8800GTX's, and then switch them out for dual G92 cards. (Whatever they'll be called.)

As for Vista x64 and gaming, I've had a pretty good experience with it over the last few months. With each driver release it gets a little better. Stability wise I haven't had any reason to complain.
 
Well right now money is not an issue (3-4 months from now it would be) but for the time being its not an issue though I'd be more then happy to save a few dollars here and there.

The reason I am going to be running 64-bit vista is because I have 4GB of ram and 32-bit OS's only see 3.2 GB IIRC So that extra stick is basically going to waste.

I'd like to get SLI or Crossfire setup as I had a SLI in the old setup so I really dont want to keep it at one card only. Still it's difficult I see BFG/EVGA is recommended alot and the BFG card in Canada is a lot cheaper then the MSI Ultra. From what I gather I can just OC the BFG , I never OC'd a vidcard before so I don't know the details. I'm sure I can learn them by reading these forums but still a bit worried overall.

I'm still torn between the 2 cards really. I've had MSI before and liked them (no problems) BFG comes highly recommended though but there really doesnt seem to be too much of a difference between the 2 other then the Ultra being OC'd higher and ofcourse the price.
 
spaceman said:
an 8800GTX A3 version will easily oc past an Ultra at reg clocks. it is the fastest gpu on the planet and one is all you need unless you have a screen that does 1920x1200 or higher.
Click to expand...

Show me how easy! How do you get a gtx up to 2300 memory? The MSI 8800 ultra comes out of the box at 660/2300. It will do even more. And you can get it for $580 now.
 
j1979 said:
i noticed that you did not chose to comment on the tweaktown review. At the end of the day the 2900xt AA results are weak compared to the Ultra and the GTX but they are only just a tiny fraction behind the GTS 640. As for the other results in this review with the new drivers the 2900xt (which was after all aimed at the same market as the 640mb GTS) beats it hands down. And it is cheaper here in the UK.

Im not saying buy the 2900xt because i could'nt really care less, but just remember that value for money is what counts and the 2900xt wins in my opinion. Plus nvidia have had 6 months extra to optimise thier drivers, so when the 2900xt came out it was compared in all early reviews to the GTS (with latest drivers) with ATI rushed crappy drivers.

Now the playing field is leveled a bit more the 2900xt is shown to be a better card than the 640mb gts

and as for the g92 it sound very very good, but its not out yet so what was the point in talking about it?
Click to expand...

er... i loved ati for about 9 years solid. thats it. reason? 2900xt puts up a fight against a 640meg gts, yes, but umm... check out the stupid max temps and wattage. garbage in my book. the July edition of 65nm and a new process for r600 series never showed, it might not ever show it seems. complete waste of time I feel as silently cooling the 2900xt is not really worth the effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top