Cards with staying power...

[donflamenco]

Here's my list of chips that have had extraordinary shelf lives as good cards.

3) AMD 5870
2) ATI 9700 Pro
1) Nvidia 8800 GTX

The criteria being that the video card is so competitive, to have a card that can be useful spanning multiple generations is really special.

To make the list, it would have to be much more powerful that the cards that came before and to have the competitor stumble upon release.

So cards like Voodoo, TNT, don't count because they got eclipsed so fast.

Disagree?

Don

 

[lavaheadache]

HD4870x2 and GTX 295. They are both still right up there in terms of power and have been out for what seems an eternity


** just realized you said that they had to make the competitor stmble upon release. The Hd4870 shook things up a little bit on the green side so much so that nvidia had to re-release the gtx260 as a higher spec part

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I think the 5850 is a better choice than the 5870. MSRP of 259 vs 379
also the 8800gts 640mb version instead of the gtx. MSRP of ~380 vs 500
Both of the above cards were killer in their day, and the 5850 is still a respectable card. The 5850 stands out particularly for having such an insane price difference compared to the 5870 and a comparatively small performance difference. Granted the MSRP was raised to 300, but even then, I think it should still make the list.

I'm with you on the 9700 pro. That was THE card to get when it came out bar none. Except for maybe the unlockable 9500s... hmm

 

[donflamenco]

The Hd4870 shook things up a little bit on the green side so much so that nvidia had to re-release the gtx260 as a higher spec part

I was a fan of the 4870 (I had a 4890), but they were at best on par with the GTX 200 series. They were better values certainly.

 

[donflamenco]

i think the 5850 is a better choice than the 5870.
also the 8800gts 640mb version instead of the gtx.
I'm with you on the 9700 pro

I have to go with the 8800GTX/Ultra. Man that card was top of the heap for so long, especially with the disasters that was ATI's X1900, HD 2900 were.

I put the 5870 because even after Nvidia came out with the 480GTX, it was a much better choice. It's still a damn good card and it also has been out forever.

Don

 

[EliteRetard]

Still using a 9700pro daily...had a 640mb 8800gts that melted, then went with a 320mb thats still used daily (primary gaming rig). Got a 512mb 4850 thats on the fritz, its used crashed and restarted about 15 times daily (wont do heavy gaming).

Had a 7900GTX but I sold it, far as I know its still running daily as well.

Even though cards have gotten cheaper couldnt afford anything after the 4850.

I play at 1920x1440 or 1600x1200 (crysis at 17FPS lol), not enough power to do 2048x1536 (and people wonder if a GTX460 can do 1080P lol).

 

[Borealis7]

I'd say the two cards with the most impact in recent year are the 8800GT and the HD48x0.
the 8800GT rules for years as king of the price/performance and the 48x0 was just a huge step forward for AMD.

 

[Dribble]

8800GTX - nothing even comes close to that card for staying power. It was faster then the next 2 iterations of the competitors product (the first of which came out 6 months after the 8800). On top of that it was the ideal step up on the console gpu's so all the ports ran great on 8800GTX machines for years and years. Finally it had good support for all the very latest formats (DX10, cuda, hw physx).

Behind that you'd have to go for the 9700 Pro which also stayed competitive for years, particularly as the long lived 9800 Pro that followed it was just a slightly o/c version. It also had good support for all the latest features of the time (DX9c).

5870 did ok, but it wasn't top for long - it got soundly beaten the moment the 480 GTX came out (even if it was hot it was still faster). A good value-for-money card but not an all time great.

 

[MangoX]

I agree with the 4870. That was the card that made AMD competitive with NV in terms of performance. Before that we paid an arm and a leg for our cards. That 4870 can still run many games well today, and they're still selling the die shrunk version as a 5770/6770. Those are still really popular cards.

 

[Pantalaimon]

I have to go with the 8800GTX/Ultra. Man that card was top of the heap for so long, especially with the disasters that was ATI's X1900, HD 2900 were.
Don

What was bad about the X1900 series? I thought it was competing quite well against NVIDIA's offering at that time.

 

[Gikaseixas]

1 - 9700 Pro (Ahead of its time)
2 - 8800 GTX (Monster card)
3 - HD 5870 (GTX 480 might be a tad faster but fps/$...)

Others to consider: 8800 GT, 460 GTX, HD 4870, 6600 GT

 

[Axon]

Ati 9800 Pro

Nvidia 8800 GT (the quintessential staying power/people's champ)

AMD 4870/4890 (my 4890 still kills games)

Nvidia GTX 460 1gb Fermi 104. I have two in SLI and I can't imagine replacing them for at least another generation. Paid $360 total for both.

 

[toyota]

sure the 8800gtx had staying power but most people paid out the ass for that card. I skipped that gen altogether and waited for the gtx260 price drop after the 4870 launch. I paid 1/3 the price for a gtx260.

to me the best cards for people with more sense than money were the 4870 and gtx260. its been nearly 3 damn years just to get almost twice the performance of those cards for the same price.

 

[dguy6789]

If you go by launch price vs how long the card could run anything very well, the top cards that come to mind are the 9700/9800 and the 4870. The Geforce 8800 was able to run things maxed out for a very long time but it was extremely expensive even compared to the launch 9700 price.

 

[Bill Brasky]

I think the 5850 is a better choice than the 5870.

I would have to agree with this. The 5870 was $100 more for only 10-15% on average (plz don't kill me for pulling that # out of my ass). The 5870 is an amazing card, but the price/performance of the 5850 was not matched for a *long* time.

Also, the 8800 gtx has to be near the top of any list. I would consider it the Conroe of the gpu world.

 

[Firestorm007]

My vote goes to the 4870X2 & 5870. Both great cards and can still pack a punch.

 

[SlowSpyder]

3) AMD 5870
2) ATI 9700 Pro
1) Nvidia 8800 GTX

I think what makes these three cards stand out so much is, with each of them, the competition was late and didn't really impress with the hardware that was launched. That's something they all have in common.

 

[donflamenco]

What was bad about the X1900 series? I thought it was competing quite well against NVIDIA's offering at that time.

The X1900XTX was $650 when it came out early 2006. By the time the 8800GTX came out later that year (at $600), it was about 2x faster than the X1950XTX (though ATI did price that one at $450.)

Don

 

[DaveSimmons]

The Geforce ti 4200 held its own against newer cards for a long time, just like the Radeon 9700 / 9800 Pro.

 

[crisium]

The 8800GTX. When that card first launched I told my brother "If someone buys that now they can get 5 years out of it".

I still think that is true. We will be at the 5 year mark of the 8800GTX in just 5 months. I think if you still game with one you are still in decent shape. My Radeon 4850 is only 15% faster than the 8800GTX, yet it performs admirably for me. If you forgo AA and occasionally a setting or so, then I'm sure the 8800GTX still performs well.

As good as the 9700 Pro was, it could not get you near max settings 5 years later. Even ignoring Crysis, look at the other games of 2007 like the Witcher, Call of Duty 4, and Bioshock. I would wager that the 9700 Pro would struggle with these games far more than the 8800GTX will struggle with 2011 games including BF3.

 

[Pantalaimon]

The X1900XTX was $650 when it came out early 2006. By the time the 8800GTX came out later that year (at $600), it was about 2x faster than the X1950XTX (though ATI did price that one at $450.)

Don

That's a strange comparison you're making. Following that logic, you would consider NVDIA's 7900 GTX also a disaster? I mean it launched later than ATI's X1900, performance was about equal, and was superseded by the 8800 GTX later that year as well.

 

[ElFenix]

The X1900XTX was $650 when it came out early 2006. By the time the 8800GTX came out later that year (at $600), it was about 2x faster than the X1950XTX (though ATI did price that one at $450.)

Don

"later that year" is a bit misleading, it was 10 months. which is basically an eternity for fast moving computer hardware. and the range looks like 50% to 100% faster. so, in some cases 2x faster and some cases not. good card but really just a continuation of the performance increases we'd been seeing since nvidia's bumbling of the FX.


now if you'd have said the 2900xt was a stumble that's a pretty good description of it.

it was the 38x0 series that DAMiT refocused and got back on track.

 

[MangoX]

As good as the 9700 Pro was, it could not get you near max settings 5 years later. Even ignoring Crysis, look at the other games of 2007 like the Witcher, Call of Duty 4, and Bioshock. I would wager that the 9700 Pro would struggle with these games far more than the 8800GTX will struggle with 2011 games including BF3.

We can forget about the 9700 Pro running more recent games. That card doesn't even support DX9c.

 

[WMD]

sure the 8800gtx had staying power but most people paid out the ass for that card. I skipped that gen altogether and waited for the gtx260 price drop after the 4870 launch. I paid 1/3 the price for a gtx260.

to me the best cards for people with more sense than money were the 4870 and gtx260. its been nearly 3 damn years just to get almost twice the performance of those cards for the same price.

Have to agree with 4870. More than double the predecessors speed for the same price in just 6 month. Now 3 years on the card with the closest launch price, the 6950 still cannot double its performance. Plus most current games still runs fine on the 4870 1gb

 

[Spikesoldier]

6800gt