8 pipelines enough?

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320827

DAMN that is a good deal.... I bet when it comes back in stock it'll be more expensive... if not, everyone should buy one

With an AGP X800 XL at $320, why is the AGP X800 XT at $220? Makes no sense....

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

And the PE is $229, also OOS, no VIVO

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320804

 

[imported_g33k]

Oh Oh, awesome deals on ATi cards, if only they were in stock...

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: BFG10K

doesn't matter, they aren't capable of utilizing the 256 bit,

What the hell are you talking about?

6600gt is still better.

Well yeah but that's because most games are shader bound these days and the 6600 GT's higher clock speed comes into play. In terms of memory bandwidth though even the vanilla 9700 has slightly more (17.3 GB/sec vs 16 GB/sec).

He is confusing Megabytes of memory with bus width. He probably meant that a 9700 pro could not fully utilize 256 Megabytes of memory, not a 256-bit memory bus. He just got it mixed up.

Well he would still be wrong. Granted there is no such thing as a 9700pro with 256mb of ram, but even slower cards like the 9600 will benift from having 256mb in games that can make use of more than 128mb of video ram. Granted, most people would rather have a faster card alowing them to turn other stuff up than a slow one that can run high res textures, but all the same it isn't like the extra memory can't be put to use.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: BFG10K

doesn't matter, they aren't capable of utilizing the 256 bit,

What the hell are you talking about?

6600gt is still better.

Well yeah but that's because most games are shader bound these days and the 6600 GT's higher clock speed comes into play. In terms of memory bandwidth though even the vanilla 9700 has slightly more (17.3 GB/sec vs 16 GB/sec).

He is confusing Megabytes of memory with bus width. He probably meant that a 9700 pro could not fully utilize 256 Megabytes of memory, not a 256-bit memory bus. He just got it mixed up.

Well he would still be wrong. Granted there is no such thing as a 9700pro with 256mb of ram, but even slower cards like the 9600 will benift from having 256mb in games that can make use of more than 128mb of video ram. Granted, most people would rather have a faster card alowing them to turn other stuff up than a slow one that can run high res textures, but all the same it isn't like the extra memory can't be put to use.

You're entitled to your opinion. I myself do not buy into the hype that a 9600 can push 256MB of textures. I don't even think a 9700pro could have with much benefit. But if you say so.

 

[jb20thae]

Hmm, that XT is tempting. I ended up getting a 6600gt with VIVO (to convert my vhs collection) and with the extra money got 2x512 corsair ddr3200 (to match my 800fsb) to replace my generic 1x512, 2x256 ddr2100. If the XT had VIVO I would have waited for it, but then again I also don't want to sink extra money into an AGP (vs pci-e) card.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
You're entitled to your opinion. I myself do not buy into the hype that a 9600 can push 256MB of textures. I don't even think a 9700pro could have with much benefit. But if you say so.

How about facts? A friend of mine ordered a 9600xt a while back and got sent a 9600 with 256mb instead and installed it without knowing any better. At the time CoD was about the only game that could make use of 128mb of video ram so we fired it up and sure enough it ran fine with highist quality textures, albit at only 800x600 and most other stuff turned down. Then he sent back the 9600 for the 9600xt he ordered, and we were able to turn up the resolution and most everything else but had to turn the texture quality down a notch to aviod swapping. Pushing high res textures doesn't take a fast videocard, it is all the other features that require more speed.

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: jb20thae
Hmm, that XT is tempting. I ended up getting a 6600gt with VIVO (to convert my vhs collection) and with the extra money got 2x512 corsair ddr3200 (to match my 800fsb) to replace my generic 1x512, 2x256 ddr2100. If the XT had VIVO I would have waited for it, but then again I also don't want to sink extra money into an AGP (vs pci-e) card.

Good choice.

Not to take the wind out of your sail, but the XT linked to does have VIVO. At least, it lists "video-in," which would seem to include composite and S-video in... I need one of those....

edit: the OEM version is still in stock, same price...

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320815

 

[jb20thae]

Ah, crap. I looked at those for awhile and would have sworn it didn't say video in anywhere. Damnit, just when I was feeling good about my decision! Now is it worth it to cancel my order, pay an extra $62 and get a bulk XT?

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: jb20thae
Ah, crap. I looked at those for awhile and would have sworn it didn't say video in anywhere. Damnit, just when I was feeling good about my decision! Now is it worth it to cancel my order, pay an extra $62 and get a bulk XT?

yes, except for the fact that the bulk version JUST sold out...

I hope that was because you just ordered it...

I'm waiting for the price to come down some more, THEN I'll get something like this, which already a good deal on ZZF - $80 cheaper than newegg. (Look at pics on newegg, ZZF has them all wrong)

But still not that killer steal-deal that the XT is/was

I'm on auto-notify for that retail version

 

[Blastman]

A 6600GT is an upgrade over a 9700, but not enough that?s its worthwhile.

A minimum upgrade would be a 12pipe X800 (the 6800 is not really any faster than the 6600GT).

I would save up and get a 16 pipe X800 XL 256MB ? $265 ?

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320843

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Blastman
A 6600GT is an upgrade over a 9700, but not enough that?s its worthwhile.

A minimum upgrade would be a 12pipe X800 (the 6800 is not really any faster than the 6600GT).

I would save up and get a 16 pipe X800 XL 256MB ? $265 ?

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320843

An x800 which uses the old SM2.0 is hardly an upgrade over a 6600 GT which has SM3.0 and therefore is more future proof. I would never buy a video card from a company which is in such poor shape as ATI, will they even be in business by the end of this year?

 

[OvErHeAtInG]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Blastman
A 6600GT is an upgrade over a 9700, but not enough that?s its worthwhile.

A minimum upgrade would be a 12pipe X800 (the 6800 is not really any faster than the 6600GT).

I would save up and get a 16 pipe X800 XL 256MB ? $265 ?

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320843

An x800 which uses the old SM2.0 is hardly an upgrade over a 6600 GT which has SM3.0 and therefore is more future proof. I would never buy a video card from a company which is in such poor shape as ATI, will they even be in business by the end of this year?

:laugh: An X800 XL has twice the rendering muscle, twice the memory bandwidth and twice the memory of a 6600GT at less than twice the price. Neither card is future-proof but one of them does already require you to turn down settings in current games so it will run smoothly... guess which one?

And about ATI going out of business... that's pretty funny. These companies' only income isn't from selling gaming cards to boys so they can play BF2. So what if they did go out of business? Yor card won't magically disappear.

 

[Blastman]

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

An x800 which uses the old SM2.0 is hardly an upgrade over a 6600 GT which has SM3.0 and therefore is more future proof.

Gosh, ? another SM3.0 salesman at Anandtech.

ATI?s SM2.0b vs NV?s SM3.0 is meaningless for the X800 vs the 6600GT. It?s the faster card that is going to be more future proof. The X800 is a faster card so it will be able to run higher settings than the 6600GT in the vast majority of games out there -- whether that is more AF/AA or higher in-game settings, take your pick.

A X700pro can beat a 6600GT in BF2 (at higher res. with AA/AF). An X800 will walk all over the X700pro in that game so it will do the same to the 6600GT.

Edit.

Also, if the texture aliasing is as bad on the 6600?s as it is on the 6800?s in a lot of games (and I assume it is). Then to get even close to the IQ of the X800 in BF2 (which has apparently very bad texture aliasing on NV 6xxx cards) you would have to run the 6600GT in HQ mode - which likely means a 20-25% drop in performance over what the 6600GT is being benched at (only quality mode). This means the X800 would be in another ballpark as far as performance is concerned.

 

[edmundoab]

8 pipeline cards are good enough for many games,
but also depends on

how much u demand on FPS and smoothness of the game

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

Originally posted by: Blastman
A 6600GT is an upgrade over a 9700, but not enough that?s its worthwhile.

A minimum upgrade would be a 12pipe X800 (the 6800 is not really any faster than the 6600GT).

I would save up and get a 16 pipe X800 XL 256MB ? $265 ?

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=320843

An x800 which uses the old SM2.0 is hardly an upgrade over a 6600 GT which has SM3.0 and therefore is more future proof. I would never buy a video card from a company which is in such poor shape as ATI, will they even be in business by the end of this year?

:laugh: An X800 XL has twice the rendering muscle, twice the memory bandwidth and twice the memory of a 6600GT at less than twice the price. Neither card is future-proof but one of them does already require you to turn down settings in current games so it will run smoothly... guess which one?

And about ATI going out of business... that's pretty funny. These companies' only income isn't from selling gaming cards to boys so they can play BF2. So what if they did go out of business? Yor card won't magically disappear.

I would hope that the X800 XL is much more powerful than a 6600 GT considering it's also much more expensive. :roll:

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Blastman

Originally posted by: nemesismk2

An x800 which uses the old SM2.0 is hardly an upgrade over a 6600 GT which has SM3.0 and therefore is more future proof.

Gosh, ? another SM3.0 salesman at Anandtech.

ATI?s SM2.0b vs NV?s SM3.0 is meaningless for the X800 vs the 6600GT. It?s the faster card that is going to be more future proof. The X800 is a faster card so it will be able to run higher settings than the 6600GT in the vast majority of games out there -- whether that is more AF/AA or higher in-game settings, take your pick.

A X700pro can beat a 6600GT in BF2 (at higher res. with AA/AF). An X800 will walk all over the X700pro in that game so it will do the same to the 6600GT.

Edit.

Also, if the texture aliasing is as bad on the 6600?s as it is on the 6800?s in a lot of games (and I assume it is). Then to get even close to the IQ of the X800 in BF2 (which has apparently very bad texture aliasing on NV 6xxx cards) you would have to run the 6600GT in HQ mode - which likely means a 20-25% drop in performance over what the 6600GT is being benched at (only quality mode). This means the X800 would be in another ballpark as far as performance is concerned.

woohooo a x700 beats the 6600 gt in one game, wow what a victory for ATI!

 

[tbradsha]

The 6600GT is a reasonable upgrade in performance over a 9700 pro, but it's only a great deal these days if you can find it for $130 or less (there's plenty on ebay). Otherwise, it is much better to spend $10 or $20 more to get an X800 with more pipes, like this 12-pipe X800 128MB for $149 after rebate (sorry, it's PCI-Express):
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127176

IMO the X800 has the best price/performance in the <$200 price range at the moment. I suspect that ATI is trying to undercut nvidia at the low end since they currently offer no competition at the high end. At this price range you should ignore things like smart shader 3.0 and focus on FPS.

I'm guessing the X800XL will be ~$200 within the next few weeks (especially if you're willing to buy used), and the XL would be a huge improvement over the 9700 pro. I'm already having trouble selling my PCI-Express X800XL for $215, and ATI's AGP models seem to be even cheaper overall.

Check the hot deals forum regularly and you should find a great deal. All these next-gen releases are causing prices to drop, so this is a great time to buy. You can probably save another $10 or so by waiting until after the R520 is released -- when many people will upgrade and flood the market with their old cards.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
You're entitled to your opinion. I myself do not buy into the hype that a 9600 can push 256MB of textures. I don't even think a 9700pro could have with much benefit. But if you say so.

How about facts? A friend of mine ordered a 9600xt a while back and got sent a 9600 with 256mb instead and installed it without knowing any better. At the time CoD was about the only game that could make use of 128mb of video ram so we fired it up and sure enough it ran fine with highist quality textures, albit at only 800x600 and most other stuff turned down. Then he sent back the 9600 for the 9600xt he ordered, and we were able to turn up the resolution and most everything else but had to turn the texture quality down a notch to aviod swapping. Pushing high res textures doesn't take a fast videocard, it is all the other features that require more speed.

I think it was because you and your friend "turned up the resolution and most everything else". Unless of course you tried it at the same setting you were playing using the 9600/256. And even so, this is just one example and it could've even been your imagination going from a 256MB card to a 128MB card. You know, psychologically.