Best GTS and what version?

yes you are, see those 320mb version on newegg for $259.
I was lookin at that evga one but I'm holdin out till post turkey day~xmas time
 
I don't know why you want to nitpick about what is considered 'far away' in price. And for the extra performance the memory gives with higher settings in more demanding games it would be well worth it and not wasted IMO.
But my point was that it is one of the cheaper 640MB cards being @ $344 after rebate. The 640MB cards seem to average ~$400 so $344 is a lot better.
 
Jee umm...now I'm thinking of going with the GTX after all. The performance is dramatically different between the GTS and GTX. I wanted my computer to cost $1,500 and if need be, I would go over a little. https://secure.newegg.com/NewVersion/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.asp?ID=7309927
I'm thinking of going with my heart and going with the GTX. But should I though? Btw I will fork out a little extra money because of EVGA warranty. ;)
 
Up to you. You're the one buying 2 video cards in quick succession.
 
I would buy a 100,- 7900gs, then later a nvidia G92 or ATI R700.
But If I had to buy right now it would be a ATI 2900xt. It costs 250,- and you get the valve blackbox for free.
Furtehrmore it complies better with directx 10, for one it has tesselation. Also in the reviews it even outdo's the GTX in games which make heavy use of shaders, and thats the future.

It did get beat by the GTX in the latest anandtech directx 10 test.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3029
But the wierd thing about this is that it was almost equal in directX9, which is really weird since the 2900xt is geared more towards directx 10 then the nvidia. Meaning it has probably more to do with the drivers and games themselves.
Also one reason why the ATI is so bad when AA is turned on is because it uses shader based AA which is really inefficient with directx9.
That said though, there are much more people with Nvidia cards out there, and gamedevs make games work on the hardware people have, Nvidia also has people working with crytec.
So the ATI may never be exploited fully.

In any case, the best to do is buy a 100,- card, then later this year buy a 9800GTS for 350,- all in all it will cost you as much as a single gtx, but by that time true directx10 games will be on the market and you will be bale to make a better decision.
 
Asus said:
I don't know why you want to nitpick about what is considered 'far away' in price. And for the extra performance the memory gives with higher settings in more demanding games it would be well worth it and not wasted IMO.
But my point was that it is one of the cheaper 640MB cards being @ $344 after rebate. The 640MB cards seem to average ~$400 so $344 is a lot better.
Click to expand...
$85 is a pretty big difference. And some benchmark differences would help that performance you speak of, so far everything has about a 1 frame difference.
 
I posted a couple in a different thread. I'll dig em up for ya.

The memory needed in Dark Messiah of might and magic needs more than 320MB. If you lower the resolution to 1024x768 you can see it jumps back up.
And of course Quake 4 in ultra mode needs 500MB memory.
When you add some AA+AF @1280x1024 in COD2 you can watch the FPS fall.
COH

This guy lists memory usage for a few games old and new. No benchmarks but just VRAM numbers.

I mean, If you want to save some money then get a cheap card and actually save it until this fall/winter when Nvidia's new stuff comes out. But if you are going to get a good card then you might as well spend it on a good one (within your budget).
 
Persistent problem is me buy good card now, it comes on sale when newer stuff comes out; me buying not so good card is just not happening :p. So I'll wait till those G92 put these on sale. Bench's helped. Kinda cruddy now that my max res is 1680x1050 (I guess comparable to the 1600x1200 bench's), makes my outlook pretty grim for both cards now since even just for old COD2 you get 50ish frames on the bigger mem. Oh well, maybe if the G92's are short enough to fit, I'll get one of those instead. Only thing I know is that I'm waiting till then at least.
 
I think I'm going with the GTX after all. I will always be thinking "I should have got it" if I don't get it. I really don't want that feeling either. The GTX will also hold me out for much longer than the GTS and new technology will always come out. Probably take a couple months for the 9800 to come down in price anyways. Who knows, maybe I can overclock the thing to match the speed of a 9800? Or maybe it will perform worse. Btw thanks everbody for the help and thanks Gray Fox. :)
 
Just wondering, are you prepared to spend close to $1000 within 6 months on 2 GPUs? Damn thats a lot of money. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Asus
Low power desktop
Replies
32
Views
2K
Asus
Asus
P
Hows this LCD?
Replies
17
Views
1K
CptStern
CptStern
phantomdesign
New Build: $1336, Quad-core Q6600, 4GB DDR2-800, 8800 GTS 640MB, etc
Replies
28
Views
2K
The Brick
The Brick
bryanf445
getting a new system what do you guys think?
Replies
2
Views
664
Naudian
Naudian
Gray Fox
Gray Fox is getting a new PC
Replies
25
Views
2K
Gray Fox
Gray Fox
Back
Top