Top 5 Power Graphics Cards by PCWorld!

R

RadXge

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,849
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124321/article.html

This is their ranking
1) Asus EN7950GX2
2) XFX GeForce 8800GTX
3) ATI All-In-Wonder X1900
4) Diamond Multimedia Radeon X1950 XTX
5) EVGA e-GeForce 7950 GX2

It is beyond me that they ranked the 7950GX2 above the 8800GTX.
As we all know, the 8800GTX image quality and speed is far more superior than the 7950GX2. And where is the 8800GTS? I know the price is an important factor.
But if you are ready to spend $540 on a previous generation video card why not pay $60 more to get the top dog?

BTW, this is my ranking:
1) eVGA 8800GTX
2) eVGA 8800GTS
3) Sapphire Radeon X1900XT

I suggest that PCWorld sticks with printers review. Leave the graphic cards to HardOCP and Xbitlabs...
 
They don't only look at performance... It's also who payed them more... I would think...
 
I think the Sapphire Radeon x1950XT 256mb for ~$260 is one of the best buys on the market right now with its 625/1800 clockspeeds. The performance you get for the price is a downright steal.

I'd have to agree with you though. The 7950GX2s are excellent cards, but with the G80s out now, there's really not that much point considering the price difference between the two.
 
PC World is paid off.......

They always say Asus stuff is nicer. It's just snob appeal and bribes.
 
If I were getting a X1900XT, I'd definitely shop around until I found the 512mb versions. They aren't that much more expensive (if you can find them).
 
An unnamed magazine called me one time and asked for us to submit a Ratpadz for review. I said sure, where do you want to send it, got the information etc. He then started asking about advertising and the rates in their magazine. I told them I was not interested in advertising in their magazine, he told me to keep my Ratpadz, and he hung up the phone. True story....
 
kirbyrj said:
I fail to see the impressiveness of the Asus version over and above all the others (don't get me wrong...I have an Asus card now and have no problems with it).
Click to expand...

i know, i'm saying that they must have payed a lot to have their 7950 instead take no.1-
ROFL they must have soooooo much inventory left
 
Everyone knows the fastest video card on the market is the Bitchin' fast! 3D 2000. Hell it is the offical video card for Quake XIII: It's Hammer Time. That 7950 holds nothing to this baby and it is from 99. PCI too so it will work on anything......

Anyway kinda weird seeing a Diamond Multimedia video card on that list. I know they are making cards still I just never see anything of theirs anymore.

To Kyle,
Nice.
 
PC World is going to look pretty bad to you when they do a bleeding edge gfx card shootout compared to a real review site like this one. At least they mentioned that the 8800gtx is the fastest, even though it didnt win. I don't like that the scoring appears to favor cards with more memory.

This is just leads to poor bastards like my co-worker telling how sweet his 512mb 6600 (non GT) is running all the latest games. I tried to tell him to get a 7600gt at least, but he just could not get past the big 512 on the box.
 
banned_user said:
he just could not get past the big 512 on the box.
Click to expand...

lol - i have a freind like that tooo,

x1600pro, keeps telling me that its 512!!! FINE :eek:
kudos pat
 
wtf they have a Asus 7950GX2 at the top and at the bottom they have an EVGA 7950GX2. The Asus costs $540 and the EVGA costs $500 and yet they are calling the Asus the better buy for the same exact frickin' card.
 
I'd say the only reason the Asus got in first is that they buy more ad space in PCWorld than the others. Maybe Kyle's comment is a clever way of referring to PCWorld.
 
Wow, $40 more for DX10 support and all the new features of the 8 series and it takes 2nd place? I wonder what was wrong with the "design" since thats what it scored low on... Maybe they don't like the two power connectors that it wants?
 
Soooo an x1900 AIW is more powerful than an xtx?(let alone a handful of other cards)

I think i must have read that wrong...
 
kind of related, but i always read Home Theater Magazine, and there is a speaker brand called definitive technology, which make good speakers, but they always have the same person review them and they also always score like 96% and higher. no coincidence that def tech takes out 3 or 4 full page color ads in the mag every issue. also, what's up with maximumpc and the damn 1and1 ads?
 
Its articles like this that creates the people who "know everything" about computers. IIRC in one of the PC World mags I have laying around (few years ago) they were testing all their cards with a baseline system which was a P3-933, and the results were all horribly cpu limited, but the authors stated otherwise :rolleyes:
 
kirbyrj said:
If I were getting a X1900XT, I'd definitely shop around until I found the 512mb versions. They aren't that much more expensive (if you can find them).
Click to expand...

I have to agree. I wouldn't spend over $200 without picking up a 512MB card these days, it's just not a good idea for the long-run.

I mean, sure, my 7900 GT is a 256MB card, but at the time all 512MB cards worth buying were over $400. If I were to buy today, it would be a 512MB card without question.
 
My understanding is that 512MB of video card memory becomes more relevant.when using high resolution and high level of AA and AF.
I have not seen any proof yet that shows that 512MB adds significant performance over 256MB at 1280*1024. and lower.
 
RadXge said:
My understanding is that 512MB of video card memory becomes more relevant.when using high resolution and high level of AA and AF.
I have not seen any proof yet that shows that 512MB adds significant performance over 256MB at 1280*1024. and lower.
Click to expand...

For yesterday's games, the performance is the same. Those games (HL2, Doom 3, etc) have a texture load significantly less than 256MB, even on high. Hell, I could play HL2 on high textures on my 128MB 6600 GT...but that was yesterday.

For TODAY's games the performance difference is %5-15 across the board with AF and AA on. See here:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/atiradeonx1900xt/7.html

From what I've seen, the premium on 512MB cards is typically %10-20, so they're not exactly a bad value.

Tomorrow's games will have a higher texture load, and the performance difference will be even more pronounced. You can either use the lower texture resolution, or take a huge hit in performance...or you can avoid that with an investment in a 512MB card right now. I know some of you upgrade your video card every 6 months, but most people are in this for the long-haul.
 
what sucks is the amount of people who will run out and buy cards based on this BS. and then blab their wanna be 1337 mouths at how they have the BEST video card in the world.


i say we should make a petition and send it to PCworld and all other computer mag's to have PC boycotted :D
 
MrGuvernment said:
what sucks is the amount of people who will run out and buy cards based on this BS. and then blab their wanna be 1337 mouths at how they have the BEST video card in the world.
Click to expand...

that's why they must get paid a lot to show these kind of bs results- if Benjamin says that gx2 is better than 8800gtx then ...little place left for confision :eek:
 
Maybe the PCWorld graphic card reviewer should take a little walk in the Oregon wilderness ..
 
it's the same thing with bose speakers. those who are uneducated about them, think they are the best because of random mag reviews and the sears salesman saying they are the best. then they end up paying $3000 for a bose system, which in a head to head review, wouldn't be able to best most $600 HTIB systems. it's all marketing.
 
defaultluser said:
For yesterday's games, the performance is the same. Those games (HL2, Doom 3, etc) have a texture load significantly less than 256MB, even on high. Hell, I could play HL2 on high textures on my 128MB 6600 GT...but that was yesterday.

For TODAY's games the performance difference is %5-15 across the board with AF and AA on. See here:

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/atiradeonx1900xt/7.html

From what I've seen, the premium on 512MB cards is typically %10-20, so they're not exactly a bad value.

Tomorrow's games will have a higher texture load, and the performance difference will be even more pronounced. You can either use the lower texture resolution, or take a huge hit in performance...or you can avoid that with an investment in a 512MB card right now. I know some of you upgrade your video card every 6 months, but most people are in this for the long-haul.
Click to expand...


This is true, but on low end cards like the X1600 I doubt you'd see any increase, due to the rest of the card being to slow to take advantage of the memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top