8800GTS 640MB SLI or wait for a deal on the next-gen?

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
OK, this HTPC is meant for some serious gaming and I would really like it to stress the advantages of the PC next to the Playstation 3 without showing any compromises. The 8800GTS actually predates the PS3, but I'm hoping to brute-force superiority by getting two of the 640MB ones for about $650 total.

Now, it occurred to me that this might not be the best time to be investing in what will soon be last gen, so I am willing to use my current 7800GT SLI with this system until the first deal on the next generation arrives. Which is the better option? 8800GTS 640MB SLI now using this deal or instead just jump on the first deal I see for whatever nVidia makes next with my current 7800GT SLI being used as a hold-over (considering that it may take a while for a similar deal).
 

slugg

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
4,723
80
91
Personally, I'd wait for next gen. That's what I'm doing.... :p
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
1. 8800GTS does not predate PS3 and is 1 full generation ahead of the 550mhz 24 pipeline G70 PS3 gpu, along with its crippled memory and jaggies.

2. Xbox360 looks better than PS3 to begin with (not to mention PS3 has what 2 good games?) If you want to compare PC graphics to console graphics, you should be comparing Gears of War, Graw 2 or the upcoming Ace Combat 6 on Xbox360 to something like Crysis when it comes out. A lot of recent games are available on both platforms like Oblivion, FEAR, Rainbow 6: Vegas, DIRT and don't look any worse on consoles (other than the difference in resolution and ability to max AA on the PC). So really, to show superiority of PCs, you need a next gen game like Unreal Tournament 2007 or Crysis.

3. SLi has its share of problems, esp. in Vista, and doesn't always double the performance so if you are going to be spending $650, I'd wait for GF9 (which is scheduled for Christmas, but you never know with delays).

4. Comparing graphics on a standalone basis without comparing quality of the screen is a waste of time imo. Xbox360 graphics on a 50 inch plasma will blow the doors of any game on PC today on a 19 inch LCD. But once you start comparing PC games on good monitors like 24 inch or 30 inch dells, 37 inch Westinghouse or a projector, it's a totally different ball game. It's all relative. The same can be said for comparing console gaming on a 20 inch CRT TV from 2001 to gaming on a PC on a 30 inch monitor. You can't just say which games look better on what system without comparing the screens.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
1) I mean, it's release actually happened before the PS3 w/ RSX. I don't think that gives it much of an advantage because consoles have always been more efficient with what they have... it's why the XBOX 360 does Supreme Commander in 512MB GDDR3 SHARED system/graphics memory while on the PC it hits the 2GB addressing limit of 32bit Windows and still needs a card with a lot of video memory in addition to that. Just as the GeForce 3 RDRAM systems couldn't compare to the XBOX (see the Halo port and it's new pixel shaders), it always takes some serious PC muscle to overpower the equivalent console.

2) I am aware of the XBOX 360's advantages and disadvantages, but I intend to buy Gears of War, Bioshock, etc on PC. Even Viva Pinata. I got FEAR on PC 2 years ago for $15 and bought the Director's Edition over a year ago too when it went down to $15. PC is much cheaper: It's why I have Supreme Commander, Lost Planet, etc on the PC and why I intend to buy every PS3 or XBOX 360 game with a PC port on the PC. So yeah, you're right: It makes more sense to get games on the PC and that's why I want to make sure that it is a PC that will not have any disadvantages when compared to either console. Spiderman 3 on a 7800GT SLI didn't compare with the PS3, but because I actually got PAID to buy it, that's more than $70 (PS3 CE price + the couple dollars I got from the Spiderman 3 Concession Cash) I can spend on upgrading the PC. ;)

3) I don't expect double the performance, but even a small amount would give me an edge on the PS3 or an 8800GTX for nearly the same price. Also, I gain the advantage of having two 3D accelerated monitor outputs, which is something that it seems Supreme Commander can take advantage of. But seriously, DECEMBER? That's incentive to get something now IMO. Sorry, I don't mean to sound like my mind is made up. Is there at least an anticipated price drop between now and then that could convince me to wait?

4) This is a 52" Sony KDL-52XBR 1080p LCD television that will be home for the PC, PS3, and XBOX 360. They'll be compared at 1080p, 52", 60Hz, and HDMI. It is surrounded with a Dell 2005FPW and 2007WFP and a Samsung 225BW.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
I'd agree to wait for G9X at this point, especially since many of the titles you're anticipating aren't due until later this year. As mentioned, SLI in Vista is still pretty shaky and rarely gives you 2x performance boosts. G9X on the other hand is rumored to be at least 2x faster than the GTX across the board, which would be more than 2x faster than SLI'd 640MB GTS for about the same price. If you can't wait, start with a single 640MB GTS or GTX and pick up a 2nd later for cheaper if you find the need for the extra performance. A 640MB GTS with a powerful rig backing it is still enough to run current games @ 1080p, although you will have to sacrifice AA to get good frame rates in some titles.
 

SinfulWeeper

Diamond Member
Sep 2, 2000
4,567
11
81
Personally I fail to see the relevance. A dated computer will almost certainly out perform a new console plus have a ton more features.
That said there is great advantages to consoles if all your gunna do is game. From boot up to game play, a console will stomp a PC every time no questions asked. Also console games are generally newer getting better visuals just from the game software graphics core. Plus not to mention a console will cost about the same as a video card upgrade by itself leaving out the rest of the computer.

If you want to compare apples to apples, then you have to take into consideration all of the following.
1. Do you want more from your gaming rig then just gaming? If you answered yes, then you can go onto a computer with almost no doubt.
2. Are you comparing equally? Ie. Same console game vs same PC game. The PC will come out ahead. Off of the top of my head, while not the best comparison since it is so old is Starcraft for PC vs Starcraft64 for the N64 console. There is a clear and unquestioned difference in game quality and visuals.
3. Do you intend to play games at your house all the time or over the internet? While both PC's and consoles will handle both, you can not play a game against a friend who is using a console and your using a computer... nuff said on that forefront.
 

Noubourne

Senior member
Dec 15, 2003
751
0
76
Next gen availability is more than 4 months away. Current GPU/PC hardware already spanks the console power.

Get an 8800 and then upgrade again in 6 months. Based on the amount of expensive gear sitting in your living room, you don't care about price that much.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
Personally I fail to see the relevance. A dated computer will almost certainly out perform a new console plus have a ton more features.

If you think A64 3000+ with 1 Gig of ram and GeForce 6800Ultra (a dated computer) will be able to play GRAW 2, Gears of War, Oblivion, Rainbow 6: Vegas as good as Xbox360 or display graphics anywhere near Ace Combat 6 on a PC today with a good framerate, you are daydreaming.

Noubourne, comparing PC hardware to console hardware isn't always accurate. Xbox1 with 733mhz P3 and GeForce 3 performance played Doom 3 at an acceptable level. Try to playing Doom 3 on a P4 3.2ghz and Radeon 8500 (similar in power to GeForce 3) and you won't even get above 20fps average at 640x480. Don't underestimate the power of optimization for consoles.



 

imported_Shazzam

Junior Member
Jul 11, 2007
22
0
0
russiansensation is right... as a developer if you know the exact hardware you are programing for; you can do a much better job optimizing your code to use 100% of the hardware capabilities. IMO don't get the SLI... get a GTS now and wait for the initial price drop on the next gen cards.
 

Ichigo

Platinum Member
Sep 1, 2005
2,158
0
0
You can't visibly outperform anything without the software. Wait for Crysis. Otherwise it'll be "Well I guess it does look better, but I spent $1000 less to get 90% of what you have (in Oblivion for instance)."
 

Noubourne

Senior member
Dec 15, 2003
751
0
76
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
Personally I fail to see the relevance. A dated computer will almost certainly out perform a new console plus have a ton more features.

If you think A64 3000+ with 1 Gig of ram and GeForce 6800Ultra (a dated computer) will be able to play GRAW 2, Gears of War, Oblivion, Rainbow 6: Vegas as good as Xbox360 or display graphics anywhere near Ace Combat 6 on a PC today with a good framerate, you are daydreaming.

Noubourne, comparing PC hardware to console hardware isn't always accurate. Xbox1 with 733mhz P3 and GeForce 3 performance played Doom 3 at an acceptable level. Try to playing Doom 3 on a P4 3.2ghz and Radeon 8500 (similar in power to GeForce 3) and you won't even get above 20fps average at 640x480. Don't underestimate the power of optimization for consoles.

Why select the 6800 Ultra to compare with the Xbox 360, which didn't even exist when the 6800 Ultra product cycle came to an end? To make an honest comparison, you at LEAST have to select a 7900GT - but really 8800 series is the fair comparison for PS3.

***edit - oh I see the comment about the "dated" computer. You are correct. 2 yr old computer hardware is no match for today's new consoles. I would temper your true statement with the fact that in 2 years, an 8800 will be cheap 2 year old hardware, and the PS3 will still be 2-3 years away from releasing an update. Good for not needing a new console. Bad for competing with the high quality of PC graphics.***

As for Doom 3 playing at an "acceptable" level on Xbox 1, that may very well be true (I seem to recall framerate issues on the console), but in August of 04 I was playing Doom 3 on my 6800GT, and doing just fine. In March of 2005 when the Xbox version was finally released, I had long ago moved on to better games.

Don't underestimate the complexity of cramming an elephant into a sippy cup.

Nobody who bought Doom3 on Xbox was able to later jack up every visual setting to the max and run full AA and AF because they can't upgrade their GPU, so don't underestimate the flexibility of the PC.

 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I decided to wait... if not for the next-gen then at least for a better price. Thanks a ton guys.

Originally posted by: Ichigo
You can't visibly outperform anything without the software. Wait for Crysis. Otherwise it'll be "Well I guess it does look better, but I spent $1000 less to get 90% of what you have (in Oblivion for instance)."

Well, I'm saying that the same game better be identical or better on the PC with no drawback for not purchasing the console version other than the company making sloppy cuts in the PC port.

Originally posted by: lyssword
A single 8800gts will easily outperform ps3 while looking better..

Not in the same games due to sloppy PC ports. The example I used earlier, Spiderman 3, is a perfect one.