• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trying to find a video card that fits my needs and budget.

W

wyrd

Member
I'm having a hard time to trying to decide on a video card. I'd rather spend $200 than $280 (prices based on selections below), but if people really think I'll need the extra power, I'll fork over the extra $80.

Here's what I'm looking for:

I'd like to be able to play Far Cry, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, and World of Warcraft. I'd also like to be able to play games for the next few years without having to upgrade. My Geforce 2 MX has done fine up until this point (I got it when Tribes 2 was released, which means this video card has lasted 3.5 years). Now, I don't need to be able to run games with everything enables, maxed, and at some insane resolution (1024x768 will be my fixed resolution as I'll be getting a 15" LCD). Medium settings with some things enabled is perfectly acceptable.

I'm assuming that if I get a video card that can run the above games fairly well, then it should last for a few more years to come. I'm assuming this, because the next wave of games for about a year or two are typically built off technology from the latest and greatest (which happen to fit the games I've picked out).

So the question is, do I need to fork over the extra $80, or will a $200 video card suit me fine? Here are the video cards I've been looking at, and current system specs (haven't bought yet so they're subject to change) are below.

$200
CONNECT3D ATI RADEON 9800PRO Video Card, 128MB DDR, 256-bit, DVI/TV-Out, 8X AGP -RETAIL
http://www.newegg.com/app/view...amp;manufactory=BROWSE
(Please note that there were other brands, such as Sapphire and MSI for the same price, but they were out of stock).

$282
CHAINTECH nVIDIA GeForce 6800 Video Card, 128MB DDR, 256-bit, DVI/TV-Out, 8X AGP, Model "AA6800B1" -RETAIL
http://www.newegg.com/app/view...amp;manufactory=BROWSE

Current system specs:
- CASE: ANTEC Life Style Series Black Case With 380W Power Supply, Model "SONATA"
- MOBO: CHAINTECH "VNF3-250" nForce3 250 Chipset Motherboard for AMD Socket 754 CPU -RETAIL
- CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache 64-bit Processor - Retail (may go with 2800+ to save a few bucks, undecided).
- RAM: Corsair Value Select 184 Pin 512MB DDR PC-3200 - OEM (x1)

Thanks for your time.
 
If it was me, I'd go with this 9800 Pro card. From what I've read, that's the one you'll be able to flash-mod to a 9800 XT without too much issue. You might want to get better cooling for it, so that it doesn't gak on you, but that can be had for about $15.

I have a 9800 Pro (Sapphire) card and it's holding up pretty well. At this point, I'm waiting for the 939 pin mobo's to have PCI-X video slots (waiting for MSI) and be available. Once that happens, I'll go to a PCI-X video card and not look back.

BTW, it would be a good idea to edit your links so that they work...
 
Sorry about the links, fixed. 🙂

I'm considering waiting for the 6600GT, but 1) I don't know when it'll be released, and 2) Almost always there's some sort of driver issue when new video cards are released, and it takes 1-2 months for solid drivers to come out.
 
Originally posted by: wyrd
I'm having a hard time to trying to decide on a video card. I'd rather spend $200 than $280 (prices based on selections below), but if people really think I'll need the extra power, I'll fork over the extra $80.
Click to expand...

You're not going to get year-spanning performance with ANY video card. Cutting edge gaming just doesn't work that way. I just bought a 6800 GT knowing full well that I'm going to have to replace my entire rig in about six months. How does this make sense? Because I want to fully enjoy the games that are available with as little compromise as possible. Is this way of doing things expensive? Sure it is. But this is an expensive hobby, right? 🙂

My advice is to not cheap-lick on important things like CPU's, RAM and GPU's. High-end, well reviewed parts are the gifts that keep on giving if you want to ride the bleeding edge of gaming. It also helps to keep track of games in development and time your HW purchases accordingly.

 
If you have been satisfied this long with a Geforce 2MX, then I would probably go with the 9800 Pro. It should hold you for awhile with medium resolution and details.
 
Originally posted by: Bateluer
If you can wait, a 6600GT or X700 will be a much better value.
Click to expand...

I disagree Bateleur.
1. You don't know what those cards will cost when launched, but it will be at least $200..
2. You can buy 6800NUs right now for $250- $300.. $266. is the lowest pricewatch price today.
3. The 6600GT has 128bit RAM, albeit faster RAM
4. 50%+ of all 6800NUs are softmodding to 16/6. Mine did and my UT2003 12X9 flyby went from 122>166. My Doom3 12X10 2X8x went from 50>57, then to 62 with a 10% OC. You won't see scores like that with $200 cards.
5. MOST importantly, this guy bought his last card 3.5 years ago. He's not upgrading yearly. If he's willing to pay the little bit extra, the NU will last longer, especially if he can softmod.
 
Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: Bateluer
If you can wait, a 6600GT or X700 will be a much better value.
Click to expand...

I disagree Bateleur.
Click to expand...

I disagree Rollo.

The 6600GT will be at least $80 cheaper than the 6800NU when it is released. Softmodding is not guaranteed whatsoever, and both cards should have comparable overclocking potential (even then it's guesswork). If you look at benchmarks, the two cards are nearly identical in most situations. To me a card that costs $80 more had better perform 40% faster, which the 6800NU clearly does not.

Are you telling me that your card is 40% faster than stock with all of your modding? Your biggest gain appears to be UT2004, but even then it was only 36%. Doom 3 only gained 14%, most of which I'm sure is attributable to overclocking. I haven't even mentionned the fact that you void your warranty by doing that stuff...
 
I'll just get this out of the way right now; I have no intentions of softmodding (don't even know what that is 😛) or overclocking in any way, shape, or form. So please keep that in mind!

HardWarrior,
This is why I described very clearly the type of gamer I am. While I am a hardcore gamer and play games constantly, I don't give a lick about all the bells and whistles of high end graphical goodies. I am completely satisfied with the way games look at medium quality. It's the gameplay IMO that far exceeds graphics. This is why I played Counter-Strike for two years. It wasn't because of the graphics.

If my Geforce2MX was able to run World of Warcraft at 50fps (it was running ~20fps during stress test), then I wouldn't even be upgrading. However, since I need to, I might as well buy a whole new comp to last me for another few years. Your milagle may vary, because you're an extremest and must have every little doodad flipped on running at some crazy resolution. I am not that way. And there's no way in hell I'd buy a comp if I'm going to have to upgrade it in 6 months. I simply don't have the money for that crazyness.

Now that that's out of the way, please continue with comments. I appreciate all opinions and am reading carefully.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: Rollo
Originally posted by: Bateluer
If you can wait, a 6600GT or X700 will be a much better value.
Click to expand...

I disagree Bateleur.
Click to expand...

I disagree Rollo.

The 6600GT will be at least $80 cheaper than the 6800NU when it is released. Softmodding is not guaranteed whatsoever, and both cards should have comparable overclocking potential (even then it's guesswork). If you look at benchmarks, the two cards are nearly identical in most situations. To me a card that costs $80 more had better perform 40% faster, which the 6800NU clearly does not.

Are you telling me that your card is 40% faster than stock with all of your modding? Your biggest gain appears to be UT2004, but even then it was only 36%. Doom 3 only gained 14%, most of which I'm sure is attributable to overclocking. I haven't even mentionned the fact that you void your warranty by doing that stuff...
Click to expand...

I went from 50>57 with no OC, then to 62fps with a 10% OC Sickbeast. That's 25% total. (at least at 12X10 2X8X)

I also disgree about the 6600GT being as fast.
http://www.firingsquad.com/har...eon_x700_xt/page17.asp
59 is "as fast" as 86fps at 10X7 4X Far Cry? 36 "as fast" as 57? No.

Not at Doom3 either
64/78 and 45/61? Not "as fast".

CS Source not as fast
45/63? 33/51? That's no where NEAR as fast.

These are the three modern benchmarks at the 2 resolutions you'd play with these cards and the 66GT is nowhere near as fast. Anand's 16X12 benches are totally irrelevant on these cards because you'd never use these cards that way. (no offense AT)
 
Rollo,

There are definately situations where the 6800NU is faster than the 6600GT, but I really don't think it's 40% faster overall. There are some cases where the 6600GT is in fact the faster card. Look at the AT benches of UT2004 w/ AA/AF enabled. It's strange that in some cases AA/AF makes the 6800NU faster, whereas in others the 6600GT is faster. It seems that so long as AA/AF are not enabled and resolutions of 1280x1024 and below are used, the two cards are within a few percentage points of one another (generally speaking).
 
Curious how the 9800pro outperforms the 6600GT in some situations. However, the 6600GT wins in more benchmarks than the 9800pro, but not too many more. Makes me think that waiting for release with an unknown price and possibly not-so-good drivers (you never know, it's a risk with new cards) isn't really worth it. Why not just get the 9800pro which has solid driver support and shows to be on par with the 6600GT depending on settings?
 
Extremist, huh? 🙂 I love that word, especially when used as an epithet. Being a "hardcore gamer" I'm sure you understand that game play and graphics aren't mutually exclusive. If what you say is true we'd STILL be enjoying games on green phosphor monitors pumped by 8-bit cards and 286's. In fact the best contemporary games use both graphics and game play mechanics equally to create a sense of immersion that didn't exist just a few years ago. Great games like D3 and FC just wouldn't be the same without lush visuals and slick frame rates, at least not for us "extremists."

Now, since you seem to have taken offense where none was offered let?s clear the air, shall we? I didn't once cast aspersions on YOUR way of gaming, pretended to have intimate knowledge of your settings preferences OR referred to your upgrade strategy as "craziness." That you decided to respond in this way says a lot about your perspective. You asked for advice and I offered some as a person who hasn't just gamed on computers for 20+ years, but who also spends on great deal of time learning about ALL facets of the hobby.

Now that that's out of the way, please continue to root for information that's freely available MANY places on the net. 😀
 
I never took offense, simply pointing out what is acceptable to me (which may not be acceptable to you), and the fact that I am under budget constraints. If there was no question about money, I'd more than happily fork over $80 for the better video card and not bother asking for input. Unfortunately that's not the case.

Air is cleared, on with topic.
 
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Rollo,

There are definately situations where the 6800NU is faster than the 6600GT, but I really don't think it's 40% faster overall. There are some cases where the 6600GT is in fact the faster card. Look at the AT benches of UT2004 w/ AA/AF enabled. It's strange that in some cases AA/AF makes the 6800NU faster, whereas in others the 6600GT is faster. It seems that so long as AA/AF are not enabled and resolutions of 1280x1024 and below are used, the two cards are within a few percentage points of one another (generally speaking).
Click to expand...

I think there's a mistake in ATs benches that you link to Sickbeast.
http://www.firingsquad.com/har...orce_6600_gt/page6.asp

Even if it's not, nobody would ever play UT2004 at 27/34fps average, or 19/22fps average? It's an online shooter, you looking for more like 80fps average?

The AT settings are unplayable slide shows, all they prove is which card can handle worse case scenario "better".
 
I was just pointing out that there were occasions when the 6600GT is faster.

Not only that, but 1280x1024 is a very common resolution that many users (myself included) are forced to use (LCD native resolution).

51FPS is very playable for a FPS. I agree that the 1600x1200 4XAA/8XAF benchmarks are silly, but the others are commonly used by many people.

In any event, I think that either the 6800NU or the 6600GT would be a good solution. Right now there is only one option, and it's likely going to stay that way for awhile (until AGP 6600's are released).

IMO it would be somewhat silly to go with the 9800PRO in this situation. Doom 3 and Far Cry really don't run optimally on a 9800PRO, but the 6800NU would run them at very playable rates. I'm pretty sure Doom 3 runs almost twice as fast on the 6800NU compared with the 9800PRO. With Far Cry you get SM3 support on the 6800NU (with the "beta" patch at least...they'll hopefully come out with an official one soon enough).
 
Wyrd, I just came from an ATI 9700 non pro card that would play Doom 3 @ 800x600 on High Quality, Far Cry @ 1024x768 set on high quality. Since you do not care about max eye candy then I do not see the need to shell out an additional $80 for a 6800nu. The 9800 Pro should be quite powerful at reduced settings. Just my $.02
 
wyrd, I think that the 9800 Pro I linked to before will do well with you for at least a year or two. Beyond that, who can tell. It might hold up towards 3 years, but that all depends on what games are demanding and what you make the settings for those games.

Personally, I run all my games at 1280x1024 (or the closest to it) since that's the native resolution of my LCD. I'll probably be upgrading sometime in the next 6-12 months, when the PCI-X (for video) mobo's are out for the Athlon64 chip and the cards are more affordable (can't swallow paying more than $300 for a video card). That means I won't have the top of the line video card, BUT I should be able to go 1-2 years with it before I feel the need to upgrade again.

It all comes down to how much you have to spend to get the hardware. If I had $5,000 a year to spend on my pc then of course I'd have a cutting edge system every 6 months. Alas, I don't have that budget (lucky if I can set aside $500+ every year) so I have to do the best I can with the money. You should be able to softmod the ATI 9800 Pro to 9800 XT spec's and get even more use out of it. If my card supported doing that, I would. Even if to just make the time until my next upgrade more enjoyable.
 
Akira, I appreciate the suggestion, but it doesn't seem logical to go with the 9800 pro you linked me to when it's only $10 cheaper than the 6800NU. Unless there's something I'm missing? 🙂
 
That's a tough call.

I think the 6800 would last a bit better, so over the next three years that $80 could be money well spent. On the other hand, $80 will buy a couple games which makes the 9800pro a pretty nice deal.

I currently have a 9700pro, but I will probably get a 6600GT when I build a new computer as soon as those A64/PCIe MB's are available.

But, if you have used a GF2 MX this whole time, the 9800pro is probably going to be just fine for your needs. Maybe best to get that and save the money.

-D'oh!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top