Mid Range Graphics Cards - Price vs Performance Question

[evangelion6]

im basically trying to decide between the following two cards because my price range is in the sub $250 range, and i prefer Asus and Nvidia:

Asus N6600/TD 256 (GF 6600)
Asus V9480/TVD 128 (Ti 4800 SE)

my question is this... from all the comparisons ive seen, the N6600 seems to outperform the Ti4800... however for whatever reason, although the GF 6600 is totally new adn seems to outperform it, the GF6600 card is $50 cheaper than the older Ti4800.

any comments on whats going on here... is the Ti4800 in some way still better than the GF6600 or is it some fluke. im trying to decide which to purchase.

thanks!

 

[lavaheadache]

Is your max $250? You shouldnt be looking at either of those cards then. there is a slight possiblity of finding at 6800GT at the price, if not you can score a 6800 for under $200, and a 6600GT for about $150. I would check New Egg or zip zoom fly for the best prices. Shame on you for considering a Geforce 4 at $250

 

[imported_Kiwi]

The Ti 4800 was a speed demon three years ago. I think it was about that long ago, and it was expensive when it was still being produced. The gpu clock in it may very well outrun the clock in the currently produced 6600 VGA cards. So, if you are playing three year old games, you will be in great shape with it. Even two year old games, probably.

But the graphics world in computing moves along even faster these days than the rest of a very rapidly changing computer industry. Since the GeForce 4's were the top guns in PC's, nVidia has gone through two following gpu generations and is starting on a third one now. The GF4's were Dx8.0 compliant, and typically run Dx8.1 just as well. They miss a great many of the Dx9 features. Even the FX series (GF5's) missed on part of Dx9, from two years ago.

The Geforce 6xxx's are now getting close to a year old and on their heels we now have the first (7800) of the next generation on the stores' shelves. The moral of the story is that if you want to buy and play the latest games, you don't want a three year old VGA card.

(P.S. Added in Edit Mode: and it's added up here because this is an excellent title for a thread that might be searched out often. At the present point in time, the low performance tier of VGA cards are hard pressed to use more than 64 MB's of onboard RAM. The wider mid-range includes some at the $200 price point that are powerful enough and offer plenty of functionality, such that they and their owners can benefit from 256 MB's of onboard RAM -- but the typical mid-range cards need just 128 MB's, and more than that is a pure waste of silicon (it's an advertising & sales gimmick, pure and simple). Only the very fastest, most expensive, most powerful of cards, would have any reason to have 512 MB's of RAM onboard.)

 

[spiritwalker2223]

Ya, I'd say try the 6600GT or 800XT, depending if you were including taxes or not.

 

[evangelion6]

kiwi - yea thats what i would assume... thats why i was wondering why the Asus v9480 (Ti4800) was holding its value so well, it still costs $200... whereas the N6600 (GF6600) is around $150! im wondering if theres actually any reason someone would still pay that much for a Ti4800 card.

kiwi - you mention DirectX performance specifically as a reason to go with the newer card, although the clock might even be slower... but what about OpenGL performance. do the newer cards add as much value there? i do more 3D Modelling than gaming, and most modelling software runs off OpenGL.

lava - if you can point me to a reliable website that sells an Asus v9999 (GF 6800) for less than $250, please do!!! id really like to stick with asus - ive had good luck with asus cards and want to stick with what works for me. if theres some other great 6800 card thats that cheap and has dual vga support... im open to suggestions though.

 

[Gamingphreek]

That 6600 would walk all over the 4800.

I would look at the X800, or try to find a good deal on an X800XL or 6800GT.

-Kevin

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: evangelion6
kiwi - yea thats what i{I} would assume... thats why i{I} was wondering why the Asus v9480 (Ti4800) was holding its value so well, it still costs $200.

There aren't any Ti 4800's on my area's local computer store shelves, although I think if I did a really thorough check, I might find a Ti-4200 here or there, but I wouldn't say that anything that old will sell for much more than $100 around here, and this really isn't a high-tech sensitive market at all.

.. whereas the N6600 (GF6600) is around $150! i{I}'m wondering if theres actually any reason someone would still pay that much for a Ti4800 card.

kiwi - you mention DirectX performance specifically as a reason to go with the newer card, although the clock might even be slower... but what about OpenGL performance. do the newer cards add as much value there? i{I} do more 3D Modelling than gaming, and most modelling software runs off OpenGL.

Gaming is what drives the graphics market. Games typically don't fall back on OpenGL much. But if you don't game, you don't need a current mid-range card, I wouldn't think, nor would you need a three year old top end VGA. An older mid-range card, like a Ti-200, if any were available new, or an FX 5500, would probably suffice.

I certainly would avoid whatever source you looked at that is pricing the Ti-4800 so very steeply; they have no idea what it's really worth.

P.S. I've added a clarification of something to my initial message. Any time you see a low performance card with 256 MB's of RAM onboard, at least half of that is being wasted, and the increase is being used as a sales ploy only. Even at the mid-range, 128 MB's is generally going to be all that the card can actually put to use. There are some few mid-range cards, and I think the 6600GT is among those, that will benefit from 256 MB's.


:frown:

 

[evangelion6]

thanks kiwi for the clarification.

i think im gonna take everyones advice and go for a

6800GT (which i found for $270 with 128MB)
-or-
X800 ($240 but not the xl, xl is too expensive, this ones 256MB ram though).

anyone have any comments between the two... i always hear that nvidia has a better rep for high end cards, but it has half the memory. is it worth getting the nvidia with less memory or is memory really important in these applications?

thanks!

 

[travisj]

You can get a 256MB x800 for much less than $240.

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=321946

EDIT:
If you don't have PCI-E or want a different brand, look at this:
http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=radeon+x800+-xl+-pro+-xt

 

[evangelion6]

travis ~ thanks, but i shouldve resaid that those were asus cards... ive had good luck with those and want to stick with what works.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: evangelion6

thanks kiwi for the clarification.

-or-
X800 ($240 but not the xl, xl is too expensive, this ones 256MB ram though).

is memory really important in these applications?

As I pointed out, it's the synergy between game developers and the graphics card designers that drives the evolution of the VGA cards. As you'll now see edited into my messages in this thread, RAM is often used as a sales gimmick. I really don't yet know enough about ATI's various X800's to know whether or not the difference between 128 and 256 is a good investment, particularly as you've pointed out that the gaming isn't a major aspect of your search for an upgrade. Personally, I doubt you will "need" 256, but that is personal opinion only.

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: Kiwi

Originally posted by: evangelion6

thanks kiwi for the clarification.

-or-
X800 ($240 but not the xl, xl is too expensive, this ones 256MB ram though).

is memory really important in these applications?

As I pointed out, it's the synergy between game developers and the graphics card designers that drives the evolution of the VGA cards. As you'll now see edited into my messages in this thread, RAM is often used as a sales gimmick. I really don't yet know enough about ATI's various X800's to know whether or not the difference between 128 and 256 is a good investment, particularly as you've pointed out that the gaming isn't a major aspect of your search for an upgrade. Personally, I doubt you will "need" 256, but that is personal opinion only.

It is a good investment in the upper-tier of their cards (x800 on up) but generally the lesser cards fail to keep up in the games that require 256mb of ram before the extra ram is even utalized. This is why a 9800p saw little benefit from the additional ram that was offered on some of their cards, while an x800 series card has shown to be able to benefit more from this additonal ram. This plays true in nv's offerings as well as ati's offerings of that generation of cards.

 

[Matt2]

Does a 128MB 6800GT even exist???

 

[Hacp]

I think some company made one.................... I forgot which, probably a 2nd tier company.

 

[evangelion6]

yes, asus makes one: Asus V9999 GT/TD/128

i found one for $270 and went with that.

thanks for the input everyone! im pshcyed to be getting decent rendering on the fly in the my modeling software

 

[mthomas988]

I kinda chuckled when I saw this thread, I figured the 6600 would blow out the 4800se...but go figure...it's actually pretty close:

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=139&card2=191

 

[imported_Kiwi]

That's a VERY interesting site! Was there any particular reason to choose the "SE" version? Was it an SE that the OM was asking about? (OK, I saw that is was, thanks anyway!) In the case of the "full" 4800, it appears to have been a hair faster that the 6600, as I guessed its clock might be.

 

[mthomas988]

Well the 6600 is probably quite a bit faster in several situations, but on paper they look about the same...also the 6600 is way more overclockable...