<!--quoteo(post=1647301:date=Sep 4 2007, 03:05 AM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Sep 4 2007, 03:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1647301"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you've got AGP and have to upgrade everything, might as well just go with a whole new PC when you can afford it. AGP is pretty much dead as I understand it - the selection of video cards is small, they're more expensive than the PCI-E counterparts, and the AGP is a bottleneck too I think isn't it? I'm talking outside my field here <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not completely true, I used to have a Socket A motherboard for just that reason (I moved from a 2500+ to a 2000+ to a T-Bird 1.3GHz in the last few years, because I couldn't afford a replacement for my DDRI+9800Pro at the same time as a processor change, and I fried my 2500+ with a bad overclock, lost my 2000+ with a bad power surge, and now I just hate my 1.3Ghz) but there came a time when I had to decide to bury the old Socket A.
So I went with a motherboard that used Socket 775 processors, but kept DDRI and AGP. It's obviously not well balanced, but the motherboard cost me 50 Euros (it was the Asrock 775i65G) and I added in an E4300, for 80 Euros, which I consider better than having a huge chunk taken out of my wallet because I wanted a new graphic card and ram along with a fancy motherboard. I think of it as a "temporary upgrade" to smooth out my purchase over a few months. Note, still check with a vendor for processor/motherboard compatibility, because the brand new Core 2 Duos won't fit on such a board (due to their higher FSB) and don't forget that there are different alternatives: some motherboards have DDR+DDRII and/or AGP+PCi express.
edit: That said, it is still a low-end solution, you won't use your processor to the max on a bad motherboard and with a low-end graphic card, with little memory. But I believe spending 50 bucks more at a given time to have a bit better, and re-purchasing the rest of the upgrade a few months down the road can be better.
<!--quoteo(post=1647537:date=Sep 5 2007, 03:50 AM:name=Nil_IQ)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nil_IQ @ Sep 5 2007, 03:50 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1647537"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Myself, I don't know that I <i>can</i> wait for the shiney new Nvidias. My current PC is making the sort of noises that suggest to me it is going to go kaput any day now, and on top of everything else I <i>really</i> want to play Bioshock. Like, lots.
As I see it, if I go for the 8800, i'll still have something that can run Crysis on ultra-high, which is more than enough for me for the forseeable future. Any good reasons why I shouldn't just do this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One reason would be the price drop on the 8X00s when the 9X00s come out, but if you don't want to wait for the "maybe November, maybe December, maybe next year" release date, then go ahead and buy a GTS any time.
Been playing on my 8800 for a few days, and honestly, I'm not seeing a tremendous increase over my 7900. The reason, my CPU. It's a 3.4 GHZ single core Pentium, but in games that are processor heavy, such as Source, I'm still only getting 80-90 FPs average. Now's that at 1680x1050 with everything maxed, mind you, but you might want ot make sure the rest of your system is up to par.
HellbillyA whole title out of pity...Join Date: 2002-11-02Member: 3931Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
edited September 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1647584:date=Sep 5 2007, 02:43 PM:name=radforChrist)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(radforChrist @ Sep 5 2007, 02:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1647584"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Been playing on my 8800 for a few days, and honestly, I'm not seeing a tremendous increase over my 7900. The reason, my CPU. It's a 3.4 GHZ single core Pentium, but in games that are processor heavy, such as Source, I'm still only getting 80-90 FPs average. Now's that at 1680x1050 with everything maxed, mind you, but you might want ot make sure the rest of your system is up to par.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The most improvement i saw was not insanely high FPS rates, but more stable framerates, as in it never drops so low it feels "laggy" and "low". That can mean only 40 or 50 FPS, but it feels so much better. I can put the card to my max res of 1600x1200 in every game i have with highest settings available and i never feel the "low fps" feeling, it always feels smooth.
So i really dont bother anymore what the FPS count is, just that it works smooth. So with my 7900 it was barely managing at high settings at 1280x1024 while my card sails through High at 1600x1200. Thats how i compare the difference, not what i was getting in FPS before and after.
I ususally play with Vsync, so I see no more than 60 FPS when I play. But for someone to pay that amount of money for an 8800GTS (I didn't pay for mine, mind you), I just want anyone interested in purchasing one to know if they plop that much money down on one, they should know what to expect.
A question, to those in the know; why is the 640mb version of the 8800GTS in <a href="http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics.html" target="_blank">this chart from tom's hardware</a> slower than the 320mb version? Yes the 640 performs faster in a lot of the other tests, but shouldn't it perform identically, if not better, in ALL of them? What could possibly cause a varient of the same card with more memory to run slower?
It has to look through more RAM to find what it wants, which takes extra time? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Somewhat related, how are the new ATI cards doing? I'm out of the video card news loop right now, and I notice that everyone in the thread is only mentioning the nvidia cards.
<!--quoteo(post=1648776:date=Sep 11 2007, 01:57 PM:name=Isamil)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Isamil @ Sep 11 2007, 01:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1648776"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Somewhat related, how are the new ATI cards doing? I'm out of the video card news loop right now, and I notice that everyone in the thread is only mentioning the nvidia cards.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They're AMD cards now, and nVidia's basically your best bet. Because nVidia is doing better.
Comments
Not completely true, I used to have a Socket A motherboard for just that reason (I moved from a 2500+ to a 2000+ to a T-Bird 1.3GHz in the last few years, because I couldn't afford a replacement for my DDRI+9800Pro at the same time as a processor change, and I fried my 2500+ with a bad overclock, lost my 2000+ with a bad power surge, and now I just hate my 1.3Ghz) but there came a time when I had to decide to bury the old Socket A.
So I went with a motherboard that used Socket 775 processors, but kept DDRI and AGP. It's obviously not well balanced, but the motherboard cost me 50 Euros (it was the Asrock 775i65G) and I added in an E4300, for 80 Euros, which I consider better than having a huge chunk taken out of my wallet because I wanted a new graphic card and ram along with a fancy motherboard. I think of it as a "temporary upgrade" to smooth out my purchase over a few months. Note, still check with a vendor for processor/motherboard compatibility, because the brand new Core 2 Duos won't fit on such a board (due to their higher FSB) and don't forget that there are different alternatives: some motherboards have DDR+DDRII and/or AGP+PCi express.
edit: That said, it is still a low-end solution, you won't use your processor to the max on a bad motherboard and with a low-end graphic card, with little memory. But I believe spending 50 bucks more at a given time to have a bit better, and re-purchasing the rest of the upgrade a few months down the road can be better.
As I see it, if I go for the 8800, i'll still have something that can run Crysis on ultra-high, which is more than enough for me for the forseeable future. Any good reasons why I shouldn't just do this?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One reason would be the price drop on the 8X00s when the 9X00s come out, but if you don't want to wait for the "maybe November, maybe December, maybe next year" release date, then go ahead and buy a GTS any time.
The most improvement i saw was not insanely high FPS rates, but more stable framerates, as in it never drops so low it feels "laggy" and "low". That can mean only 40 or 50 FPS, but it feels so much better. I can put the card to my max res of 1600x1200 in every game i have with highest settings available and i never feel the "low fps" feeling, it always feels smooth.
So i really dont bother anymore what the FPS count is, just that it works smooth. So with my 7900 it was barely managing at high settings at 1280x1024 while my card sails through High at 1600x1200. Thats how i compare the difference, not what i was getting in FPS before and after.
They're AMD cards now, and nVidia's basically your best bet. Because nVidia is doing better.