8800gts 320mb or x1950xt 256mb

[nCred]

I can get a x1950xt 256mb for about $100 less than a 8800 320mb. I´m not going to use Vista, and I will be playing at 1680x1050. So what would you choose: save $100 and upgrade again in 9-12 months or go with the 8800 and use it for 15-18 months?

 

[videopho]

As you've stated...No Vista to me means no dx-10 games then the x1950xt is a no brainer.
Save that $100 later for the newer and perhaps cheaper (by then) dx-10 readied video card.

 

[JustaGeek]

I would try to aim at 512MB of your card. Quake 4 requires 512 for the Ultra Quality settings, and the newer games might require more VRAM, too.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: nCred
I can get a x1950xt 256mb for about $100 less than a 8800 320mb. I´m not going to use Vista, and I will be playing at 1680x1050. So what would you choose: save $100 and upgrade again in 9-12 months or go with the 8800 and use it for 15-18 months?

What games will you be playing at 1680x1050 and what settings do you plan on using?

Some games will chug on a X1950XT with all settings maxxed so you will have to reduce some settings. The 8800GTS seems to fare much better (what you would pay the extra 100 bux for) at that resolution without sacrificing quality settings.

So, it all depends on the games you are playing. Check benchmarks for the X1950 against a 8800GTS in the games you play (will be playing) and see if it's worth the extra 100 bucks.

Check Here for bench comparisons. Just choose a game at the resolutions you play at. FYI: 1600x1200 is more demanding than 1680x1050, so choose 1600x1200 if 1680x1050 isn't an option.

Keys

 

[MarcVenice]

A 8800gts simply offers more performance, even if you don't play dx10 games. It's not a no brainer if you ask me. The extra performance could be well worth the extra 100$, if you need it of course. And you do need some serious power for that kind of resolution. Besides, don't you love just putting everything on high and play the game without a hitch. I do, like World In Conflict for example, looks amazing, and runs great, a 1950xt isn't gonna cut it at the same settings.

 

[Golgatha]

Neither. How about a used X1900XT 512MB?

 

[nCred]

http://www.hardwarezone.com/ar...php?id=2122&cid=3&pg=5

Seems like x1950xt 256mb and x1900xt 512mb has almost identical performance, I don´t think the x19xx series gain that much from 512mb memory.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
I would try to aim at 512MB of your card. Quake 4 requires 512 for the Ultra Quality settings, and the newer games might require more VRAM, too.

Just to be clear, the ultra setting just disables texture compression, raising image quality by a negligable amount for a rather large performance hit. (this statement is exclusive to doom 3 engine titles only)

In other words, Ultra looks the same and is a lot slower.

 

[bigsnyder]

I bought a used X1900XT 512MB instead of the X1950XT 256MB, check the FS/FT forum . So far, I am very pleased
and saved a little money. If you are sticking with XP and DX9 for a while longer, then the X1900XT and X1950XTs are
great choices. Yes, the 8800 GTS is all around faster, but the performance increase was not worth the price difference
to me. 512MB might not make a huge difference now, but it might make just enough difference once the DX9/DX10
crossover titles come out. If I was running exclusively at 1920x1200 or higher, then the 8800 might be worth the
investment, but the X1900XTs can manage fine with the right balance of PQ settings.