8800 GTX or 1gb 2900 XT :: Anybody got a real decision?

[Dropmachine]

So I am building a new machine, and the vid card is the last thing.

Everything I see says the 8800 is faster, except in certain SLi instances. Pricewise, they are about the same, since I am going to get the OC2 BFG 8800, or a factory overclocked 2900.


I just don't want to regret my decision in 3 months.

SYstem will be as follows:

Intel 6600 Duo
2 2gb Mushkin Ram
Asus MB (depends on which vid card I get)
Thermaltake armor case
Vista Home Premium 64
2x Seagate 500GB drives
1x Seagate 325gb drive (for OS)
X-Fi sound
OCZ 850 watt PS
blah blah blah

 

[Don66]

You might concider getting an 8800Ultra since it's the fastest out right now, and it's not really that much more than a GTX.

Look here

 

[Dropmachine]

That'd definitely be fun, but since I am in Canada, Newegg is off limits to me. The cheapest I can find an ultra in Canuckistan is 759 CAD, but I can get this much cheaper: http://www.directcanada.com/pr...TXOC2E&manufacture=BFG

Strange, but cool.

Right now, its between the OC2 BFG, and this 2900: http://www.extreme-pc.ca/showp...&menu2id=99&menu3id=39

 

[drakore]

hello... i am also from canada... and welcome to the forums...

ok first off please don't buy that card from that site.

check out:
www.canadacomputers.com
www.infonec.ca
www.ncix.ca

Infonec has the Sapphire 2900XT for $445 CAD. Shipping is like 15$

its a good store... i frequent there.

Personally i like the 2900xt despite the poor early performance, and the heat.

With the current drivers it is looking like a great card.

obviously the 8800GTX and Ultra are better... but i think in canada you will have to pay a lot for them

 

[Extelleron]

Personally, I wouldn't buy either of them. IMO it's just too late in this generation to start buying high-end hardware at $500+ prices. nViida should be launching new GPUs in November and they will be almost surely be a lot faster in DX10. Right now, both the HD 2900XT and 8800GTX are not performing well in DX10 games. Drivers will improve but I believe that we are going to need faster hardware before DX10 games are playable.

If I had to choose, I'd go with the non-overclocked HD 2900XT 1GB for $529 and overclock it. I don't think anyone has found an HD 2900XT so far that won't overclock to 825MHz core, and with GDDR4, 2150MHz memory will be a breeze. The HD 2900XT, overclocked, should be very similar in performance to that GTX, it will be a bit slower in general. I think from what we've seen, however, the XT performs better in shader-intensive titles, and these are the future. In future games like Crysis and UT3, I think that the HD 2900XT will at least be competitive with the GTX, and perhaps surpass it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dropmachine
So I am building a new machine, and the vid card is the last thing.

Everything I see says the 8800 is faster, except in certain SLi instances. Pricewise, they are about the same, since I am going to get the OC2 BFG 8800, or a factory overclocked 2900.


I just don't want to regret my decision in 3 months.

SYstem will be as follows:

Intel 6600 Duo
2 2gb Mushkin Ram
Asus MB (depends on which vid card I get)
Thermaltake armor case
Vista Home Premium 64
2x Seagate 500GB drives
1x Seagate 325gb drive (for OS)
X-Fi sound
OCZ 850 watt PS
blah blah blah

you are SO lucky we have the answer for you .... but you need to do some reading

In House HD2900XT vs. 8800GTS 640

and

BFG 8800 GTX OC vs. Diamond HD 2900 XT 1 GB mini-review

 

[solofly]

Originally posted by: Dropmachine
I just don't want to regret my decision in 3 months.

But you will and like someone said, next gen is just around the corner. After all 8800 series is almost 9 months old and of course Ati was late to the game.

 

[deadseasquirrel]

Originally posted by: Dropmachine
So I am building a new machine, and the vid card is the last thing.

Everything I see says the 8800 is faster, except in certain SLi instances. Pricewise, they are about the same, since I am going to get the OC2 BFG 8800, or a factory overclocked 2900.


I just don't want to regret my decision in 3 months.

SYstem will be as follows:

Intel 6600 Duo
2 2gb Mushkin Ram
Asus MB (depends on which vid card I get)
Thermaltake armor case
Vista Home Premium 64
2x Seagate 500GB drives
1x Seagate 325gb drive (for OS)
X-Fi sound
OCZ 850 watt PS
blah blah blah

You left off probably the most important component of your computer when determining which video card to choose-- your monitor. If you're on a 17" CRT playing at 1024x768, the responses you'll get will be quite different from what you've already received.

I agree with Extelleron. I wouldn't pay $500ish for a card right now. I know it sounds odd, but I'd rather pay $500 for a GTX or ultra in September, but only if it was an evga, and hope that the new cards are out within 90 days to step up.

 

[Dropmachine]

Originally posted by: drakore
hello... i am also from canada... and welcome to the forums...

ok first off please don't buy that card from that site.

check out:
www.canadacomputers.com
www.infonec.ca
www.ncix.ca

Infonec has the Sapphire 2900XT for $445 CAD. Shipping is like 15$

its a good store... i frequent there.

Personally i like the 2900xt despite the poor early performance, and the heat.

With the current drivers it is looking like a great card.

obviously the 8800GTX and Ultra are better... but i think in canada you will have to pay a lot for them

Problem with INfonec and Canada computers is that since I am in Toronto, both are local, so I am paying both taxes on everything I get. Direct Canada is cheaper to start with, and since its only the GST, I am again saving a good chunk of cash. I am ordering a bunch of stuff from there too, so shipping for the entire order is only 10 bucks.

So, why wouldn't i buy from Directcanada.com? The guy there seems very good, and I've heard good things so far.

 

[Dropmachine]

I know what you mean about the timing of this, but I am a bit stuck. I have a project which requires a faster machine then what I have, so I have to upgrade. Besides that, I'm due. As such, I have to obviously get a videocard, its just a question of which one at this point. Its a huge pain in the arse trying to sort through all this junk. I know the 8800 gtx is faster, but everybody is going on and on about how the ATI has the POTENTIAL to be better, and so forth. All in all, an incredibly frustrating experience, especially knowing that the 8900 or whatever is just aorund the corner. But buying a temp card at about 150 - 200 bucks is a big waste of money too, so whats a guy to do? ARg.

Monitor is a 24" dell whateveritscalled, eventually moving up to a 30 when funds permit and I can find the right one for what I am doing.

Thanks much for the comparison between the BFG and ATI card, that was so perfect. The BFG i am looking at is overclocked a bit faster too, so there would be a bit of a bigger gap, at least until I did the ATI up a bit to compensate.

My only reasoning for wanting to buy the ATI pre-overclocked is the warranty. I do it myself, warranty goes poop.

Thanks much for the help so far, you guys are a ton of help. :thumbsup.

 

[n7]

You saw my review. (8800 GTX vs. HD 2900 XT 1GB).

8800 GTX is certainly faster overall, no question.
But it seems to be a never ending fight w/ nV drivers.

The latest betas i grabbed appear to fix some issues i'd had, but no drivers seem to work properly with Dirt.

I am close to getting fed up w/ nV's x64 drivers, meaning i may keep the HD 2900 XT purely because they seem to have fewer driver issues.

 

[Dropmachine]

Sure did, it rocked.

But.

Does that mean the GTX, with the drivers corrected, will again jump ahead and crush the ATI card? Or will ATI keep upping thier drivers and eventually beat the 8800?

Its like a sick game isn't it, cept it seems you just can't win....

 

[RussianSensation]

Didn't we see from Appopin's and Key's review that HD 2900XT can't even beat 8800GTS 640 and they are pretty much equal more so or less? 8800GTX is a faster card no question.

I would wait 10 more days to get 2.66ghz E6750 for the same price as E6600. Or you could always consider Quad Core Q6600 as it falls a lot in price.

If price is not a concern, get 8800GTX. Otherwise I'd go with the card that plays the games you play faster (i.e. Company of Heroes excels on ATI and say serious sam II excels on Nvidia)

8800GTS 640 - $425 vs. Sapphire HD2900XT for $445

 

[Dropmachine]

I already have the processor, so I'm stuck with that for now. Thats ok, it shoudl do. Have the ram and a few other bits too. Big purchases come in a few days, hence my questions here. Quad core comes next year.

 

[Arkaign]

Get an X1950XT for now, then sell it for $100ish when the DX10 refresh comes through, that way you're only out $50, but can get a 2nd-gen DX10 part. I'm thinking 8900GS/GT that will be 8800Ultra speeds, but cost $250ish.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Get an X1950XT for now, then sell it for $100ish when the DX10 refresh comes through, that way you're only out $50, but can get a 2nd-gen DX10 part. I'm thinking 8900GS/GT that will be 8800Ultra speeds, but cost $250ish.

This sounds like good advice to me! :thumbsup:

 

[Dropmachine]

But then, I'd have to imagine the pricing on the 8900 is going to be priced similar to what the 8800 was when it first came out, which is about 700+ in canada, making it too much for me.

Are the Direct X 10 issues right now not just driver related? Surely the hardware isn't lacking...

 

[Biomorphic]

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
You left off probably the most important component of your computer when determining which video card to choose-- your monitor. If you're on a 17" CRT playing at 1024x768, the responses you'll get will be quite different from what you've already received.

Very true! Take my case for instance. The native resolution of my LCD is 1280 x 1024 but still, I view everything only at 1024 x 768 (because it pleases my eyes). Even if I use 1280 x 1024 the GTX/Ultra will be an over kill. The GTS is already more than satisfying for me and I having nothing to complain about.

So frankly, you need to determine at which resolution you are going to view your monitor and then decide on the VGA. In my opinion, you should opt for the GTX/Ultra only if you are planning to use 1600 x 1200 or above. Else, the GTS shoud be the best buy.

Some 2 years ago, I used to boast around a lot with my so called AMD based gaming machine but these days I guess it is better to forget AMD.

One more thing... DirectX 10 "should" be available for Windows XP sooner or later as Windows Vista is being nicknamed Windows Me II. Moreover, I do not think it is necessary to debate on that because Windows XP still seems to be the most loved platform for all the reasons. :laugh:

 

[Dropmachine]

24" Dell LCD running 1920x1600

 

[Biomorphic]

In this case I would bring the debate between the GTX and the Ultra only. Having said that, in my opinion, the GTX will be better because of its lower price as the Ultra is simply a factory overclocked GTX.

Get the GTX and (if you want) make it an Ultra by yourself.

 

[shortylickens]

Anandtech already answered your question (sort of).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=20

Even if you dont like Oblivion it should be obvious which is the faster card. The difference is especially noticable with AA and AF turned on.

 

[Nathelion]

Word

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Anandtech already answered your question (sort of).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=20

Even if you dont like Oblivion it should be obvious which is the faster card. The difference is especially noticable with AA and AF turned on.

I don't even know what to say. You're showing benchmark results from almost two months ago, when two new drivers have been released offering performance improvements?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Anandtech already answered your question (sort of).
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2988&p=20

Even if you dont like Oblivion it should be obvious which is the faster card. The difference is especially noticable with AA and AF turned on.

I don't even know what to say. You're showing benchmark results from almost two months ago, when two new drivers have been released offering performance improvements?

Meh, GTX/Ultra still win at most games/AA/AF etc. ATI should be tuning a better version of R600 for us soon, so they stand to leapfrom the GTX hopefully.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dropmachine
Sure did, it rocked.

But.

Does that mean the GTX, with the drivers corrected, will again jump ahead and crush the ATI card? Or will ATI keep upping thier drivers and eventually beat the 8800?

Its like a sick game isn't it, cept it seems you just can't win....

the 'feeling' is that nvidia has gone about as far as it will go with the performance and 8800 with established DX9 games ... they just need to "fine-tune" them for Win64 [i found no problem with Win32 and the GTS during the days i benchmarked and played games with it]

on the other hand it is POSSIBLE ... ["maybe"] that the AMD guys will squeeze some more performance out of r600 as Cat 7.6 is only the third set of certified drivers

if you have a couple of weeks, wait until Cat 7.7 is released ... if there is a *solid* performance increase, there is probably still further untapped potential ... if not, stick fork in it - they're done ... and both companies will probably concentrate on writing their best drivers for Vista32 and DX10 games [my 'guess' based on their history]
FWiW