Best bang for buck -- which of these 3 GeForce cards?

[MikeSp]

In a computer build, I am looking at the following nVidia cards and have not built a computer for several years nor ever used anything other than ATI cards. Therefore, I am wondering which of the following choices would provide the best bang for the buck when combined with an nVidia 790 Ultra SLI mobo and Intel Q9450 CPU:

1) dual GeForce 9800 GT 512MB SLI
2) GeForce 9800GX2 (1024 MB)
3) GeForce GTX 280 (1024 MB)

Thanks for your opinions

Mike

 

[angry hampster]

Is there any specific reason you're going to be using a 790i board? Regardless, a GTX280 will outperform the other options you listed, but it's more expensive. I always prefer a single-card solution to SLI or GX2/X2 cards just for the sake of simplicity.

 

[Sylvanas]

Well, the 'bang for buck award' at the moment goes to the 4850/4870, but if you were to choose from those three I'd go the Single GTX280.

 

[Cheex]

Personally, I think that the best Nvidia bang-for-buck right now resides with either the 9800GX2 or the GTX 260. In which I think the GTX 260 wins slightly due to it being a single GPU solution (less issues), producing less heat, newer technology, option to SLI in the future and performs admirably.

 

[BlueAcolyte]

Is there a particular reason for this? I would actually recommend a GTX 260, HD 4870 or HD 4870 x2. Anyway, I think the 9800GT is a rebranded 8800GT like the 9800GTX is really just a bigger 8800GTS.

 

[Pyrokinetic]

I am also considering the best Nvidia "bang for the buck" GPU, and I agree with Cheex that the GTX 260 is that card right now. With discounts and rebates you can pick one up for under $250. The GTX 280 does not perform that much better than the 260 to justify the price premium in my opinion. However, if you have a large monitor (bigger than 1680x1050 resolution) then the GTX 280 may be worth considering.

Dual 9800 GTX+ cards are an option, but like the 9800 GX2 they are last generation tech derived from the 8800GT. I am also a bit wary of them given the claim that all G84/G86 chips are defective by The Inquirer's Charlie Demerjian. Whether true or not, it is something to consider.

 

[RussianSensation]

The most obvious choice would probably be the $235 Palit or $245 MSI GTX 260 card on Newegg. With OC taken into consideration, it's pretty hard to beat.

 

[Cheex]

The GTX 260 was almost my first choice with no other option considered.

However, I should be getting my X48 tomorrow and it beckons CrossFire to me. So...I was thinking of just getting an HD 4870 1GB as soon as they come out. Then I'd CrossFire that later, once they get really cheap.

Naturally, right now I'm confused...LOL.

 

[MikeSp]

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Is there a particular reason for this? I would actually recommend a GTX 260, HD 4870 or HD 4870 x2. Anyway, I think the 9800GT is a rebranded 8800GT like the 9800GTX is really just a bigger 8800GTS.

Guess I will be honest and come clean -- the reason for the limited choices (I prefer the 4870 and have always been an ATI fan) is because for the first time in many years, I am being too lazy to build my own computer and the three choices that I gave were the best of the choices given to me in the online build guide and no, I will not divulge which brand -- cannot bend that low;-)

Thanks for all of your suggestions to all that helped

Mike

 

[Zap]

My vote also would be a GTX 260. IMO it gives better bang/buck than the 280, and I'm also wary of dual GPU cards.

Originally posted by: Pyrokinetic
I am also a bit wary of them given the claim that all G84/G86 chips are defective by The Inquirer's Charlie Demerjian. Whether true or not, it is something to consider.

TheInq is known to not like NVIDIA. So, there may be issues with notebook chips (combination of design and heat?). Somehow TheInq draws the conclusion that it means ALL chips including desktop variants are just downright faulty. That is absolutely not true, as evidenced by how many people are happily using their desktop NVIDIA cards with those chips without problems. Sure, TheInq can say "eventually the chips will fail" and they're probably right, but will anyone even be using them by then? That's like saying "eventually the Earth will get swallowed by the Sun." OMG the sky is falling!

Who knows what the real truth is? I suspect it is somewhere BETWEEN the extremes of NVIDIA saying there is no problem and TheInq saying there is 100% problem. I'd be willing to wager that I'm right.

In the meantime, buy what you want. If you're concerned, buy a brand that has a long warranty and good service to back it up. In this regard, NVIDIA partners are ahead, and that's a fact that you can bank on!

Originally posted by: BlueAcolyte
Anyway, I think the 9800GT is a rebranded 8800GT like the 9800GTX is really just a bigger 8800GTS.

IMO there were some bad marketing decisions on model numbers. Traditionally a big change resulted in a new model, while a little change resulted in a minor model bump. For instance, the differences between a 6800 and 7800 was pretty significant. 7800 to 7900 was more minor (process shrink, clock speeds, pipes). So, from 8xxx to 9xxx series we have... what? Were the differences enough to jump a whole series? Maybe borderline. However, there WERE enough differences that IMO the 8800 GTS 512MB should have been called something else. Maybe a 9800 GTS, or at least 8900 GTS, but certainly not another 8800 GTS. Anyways, that's just my opinion and not a reflection of my employer, God or the computer I'm typing this on.

With the 8800 GT => 9800 GT there is some confusion. The "real" 9800 GT will have Hybrid Power and be built on 55nm, and are not nor ever have been an 8800 GT. Of course there are cards which are "also" marketed as a 9800 GT. Is that wrong?

IMO (key words being MY and OPINION) the 8800 GT shouldn't have been an 8800 GT. See what I wrote above. Why release a card lower down on the model chain, but which outperforms a higher card (8800 GTS 320/640)? IMO it should have been called an 8900 GT, or just right away to a 9800 GT.

Ah well, this is just the more visible rebranding we see in the forums. Few people are interested in talking about how lower end products from both green and red just get re-hashed from generation to generation. How about Intel chipsets for that matter? Shouldn't the P31 really have been a P965+?

 

[Engineer]

This!