What's the Difference Between 5900xt and say... 7600gt or 8800 gts?

[Iceburst]

I have a Gainward 5900XT 256mb. I have been looking to upgrade my card for a long time now. But the specs on the newer cards don't sound that much different. The 7600GT and the 5900XT both do 22gb Memory Bandwidth. If 7600GT is faster though, how much faster would you say it is? Please only Serious answers....

The 5900XT is a great card, it still plays games great. I play games like EQ, EQ2, NFS MW. With no problem. But I'm getting like 17 fps in EQ2, on high. It's hard to believe that at 17 fps that it's smooth and everything looks great. I look at all these benchmarks on how fast the cards are today. I wonder just how much better my gaming would be with a card like the 8800gts. I have never been able to use AA or AF.

I have been waiting for the 2900XT to come out. The hardware specs are great, and I believe that the drivers right now, need alot of tuning, to take advantage of that hardware. I can't see how a card with those specs can be a slower card then the GTS. I feel when ATI gets the drivers fine tuned that is will be a really great card, and that the hardware itself is design to make DX10 games fly.

But I decided to get the 8800 GTS 320 instead for around $250 after rebate, but then Nvidia raised the price to $300 again, which doesn't make much since. But now the price is closer to the 640mb model. I always thought $100 more just for another 320mb was a joke. Now it looks more realistic price wise, but I know that the 320 was around 250 last week. I'm not going to spend $30 to $60 more for a card I could have bought for less last week. I'm going to wait.

Wouldn't it have been better for Nvidia to drop the price, with either a rebate or price wise after the 2900xt came out, to make people think twice. I would have bought the 8800 if they had keep it the same, and I really would have if they dropped the price farther. Now, they make people question what they should get.

I have a 22" Samsung monitor, running at 1680 x 1050. I'm getting conflicted reviews on if you can use a 8800 gts 320 without a problem at that resolution. You know maxxing out game settings.

Does anyone know if they plan on dropping the price again anytime soon. I want the lifetime warranty on the card a get. I don't upgrade my video card very often. So, I'll have it for a long time.

On the ATI though, I think when they switch to the 65 chip, the heat issue shouldn't be a problem, and they will have gotten there driver issues ironed out by then. I'm sure the 2900xt drivers will be corrected quickly though.

I'm not a ATI fan or a Nvidia fan. I think they can both make good cards. I'm like most people, I want to get the best I can get at a great price.

I have been thinking about getting the 7900gs to hold me over till they release a better card, and take the money left over and put it back in my piggy bank and just add money to it for a few months till the new improved card comes out.

But I need to know just what the Difference is between my 5900xt and the 7600gt, 7900gs and the 8800gts. Please, Serious answers.... I'm sure there are alot of people out there running AGP cards like myself, that are interested in just what the difference between these cards are.

Sorry, I have alot of questions, and I'm looking for Real World Experience Answers. Benchmarks vary, and I think they lie or atleast aren't always correct. When I was very suprised that EQ2 was running at 17 fps and everything seemed great. Would love to see it running at 60 fps. I have a hard time imagining it being that much better when it seems so good now. NFS MW runs awesome, and I'm using a old card like 5900xt.


Current System
Gigabyte 965P-DS3 Rev 3.3
C2D 6300 @ 2.6
2gb Patriot Ram
Seagate Barracuda ES 320gb
ATI 7000 because no AGP on my new system
Really want to buy a new card!!!!!

Just build this computer, times it with the release of the 2900xt, was going to buy it, or the 8800 gts 320, but the price is not right. Can't game at all right now. 5900XT is a AGP card, and doesn't work in my new system. Using a ATI 7000 in it's place till I get my new card. Can't play my games with this card. I'm lucky I can watch my videos.

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: Iceburst

Please, Serious answers.... q]



Picture driving an AMC Gremlin as your daily driver and then being handed the keys to an Infinti G35.... All your dreams just came true and you'll look cool at the Wendy's drive thru. I imagine your experience will be similar

 

[chizow]

Didn't read everything in detail...you really posted a lot....

For reviews with comparisons to older cards, especially AGP parts, I'd check out Tom's Hardware. Don't care for THG that much otherwise, but they really do the community a service with their massive round-ups. When comparing older cards to newer ones, don't just look at clock speeds and bandwidth #s. There's more improvements, especially on the architectural side that are going to create a significant performance gap. I'd expect the 7600GT to be at least 1.5-2x faster than your 5900XT.

In the past there hasn't been that much of a difference between variants with more/less memory, but current games, monitors and GPUs have clearly changed that. More people are running high resolution wide-screen panels and the games and G80/R600 enable them to do so at high frame rates. On older parts, performance might have been poor regardless of vram because the GPU was the bottleneck. On newer cards, the GTS 320/640 really showed us vram can have a major impact on gaming at high resolutions w/ AA.

Your target resolution is a tough call. Its less than 1600x1200, which is where the 320MB starts to stumble in reviews, but its still more than 1280x1024 where the 320MB performs nearly identically to the 640MB in most games/settings. If its a $50 difference between the two I'd probably just go with the 640MB or a X2900XT. If its $100 or more, I'd go with the 320MB.

 

[mcurphy]

I didn't read ecerything you posted either...

but a few months ago, I upgraded mt 5900XT to a 7950GT and I game at 1680X1050 as well.

The difference was phenomenal to say the least!

I'd recommend you upgrade to at least a 7900GT, but if you are going to be spending the money, might as well go for the DX10 cards

 

[Iceburst]

I think it's going to be more then a year before they get Vista to run right, and make it worthwhile to move to Vista to play games. So, DX10 is a big deal right now. I would like it, but, I could buy a $150 card now, and maybe 6 months to a year buy my high end card. The have a 7950gt for $159 after rebate on Newegg right now. Could be a good deal. But a 8800GTS for $250 would be great too.

 

[RussianSensation]

I think the BFG overclocked version of 7950GT 256mb is actually $149 after mail in rebate.

You can always pick up Open Box X1950XT 256 for $170 which is even faster.

If you sell your 5900xt for $40 that's $130 upgrade to probably increase your performance 4x since 6800GT is 2x faster than 5900XT and X1950XT is 2x faster than 6800Ultra.

Also, that 6300 can go way above 2.6ghz

 

[Fraggable]

I think I know someone who would pay $30 or so for your old 5900... PM me if you decide to sell it.

There's quite a jump between the 7600GT and 8800GTS 320, they're the only ones you've mentioned. I'd suggest going for a 512MB or 640MB card for that res. I game at 1680 X 1050 with a 8800GTS 320 and it's borderline OK for now, but won't be enough in the near future.

A 7950GT 512MB or X1950anything would be a great card for you if you can't afford the GTS640.

 

[betasub]

A very long OP to ask for a replacement graphics card

The 5900xt was a high-end card, with a 256bit memory interface, giving it high memory bandwidth (despite relatively low mem clock). I replaced my 5900xt with a bargain-priced 6600GT: a mid-range card with 128bit memory interface hence lower memory bandwitdth (despite a high mem clock).

The 6600GT was slightly faster in older pre-dx9 games (faster, more modern GPU) , except at high resolutions where the extra memory bandwidth of the 5900xt came into play. In dx9, the newer 6600GT GPU blew away the old 5900xt.

The 7600GT is an improved 6600T, whereas the 7900GS is even better (being, like the old 5900xt, the cheapest of the high-end cards in its series with 256bit memory). A 7900GS would be a good stand-by card for gaming at 1680x1050 until you want to move onto dx10 gaming with whatever is the best bang-for-buck at that point in the future.

 

[Iceburst]

I know, I sit and read alot of the forums and webpages about the best new thing out. I have had alot of thoughts on the matter for a while know, and I just had to get all that out of my system first. I could have got the 2900xt for $378, but I wasn't sure if that was the best price, and I didn't have enough info yet to make my decision then. I think, maybe I should have gotten it then. Just don't know. I guess we will have to wait till after May 31, for a price change on the Nvidia cards, at least that's when the current rebates end.

 

[Fraggable]

Originally posted by: Iceburst
I know, I sit and read alot of the forums and webpages about the best new thing out. I have had alot of thoughts on the matter for a while know, and I just had to get all that out of my system first. I could have got the 2900xt for $378, but I wasn't sure if that was the best price, and I didn't have enough info yet to make my decision then. I think, maybe I should have gotten it then. Just don't know. I guess we will have to wait till after May 31, for a price change on the Nvidia cards, at least that's when the current rebates end.

There is currently no sense at all in paying $379 for the 2900XT when the 8800GTS 640 is less than that and has stable drivers. If you want to wait around for ATI to fix their drivers then go ahead, but remember that it took them 6 months to release the card, no telling how long until it's usable.

 

[IlllI]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Originally posted by: Iceburst

Please, Serious answers.... q]



Picture driving an AMC Gremlin as your daily driver and then being handed the keys to an Infinti G35.... All your dreams just came true and you'll look cool at the Wendy's drive thru. I imagine your experience will be similar

thats quite an accurate description

 

[Iceburst]

I know, I sit and read alot of the forums and webpages about the best new thing out. I have had alot of thoughts on the matter for a while know, and I just had to get all that out of my system first. I could have got the 2900xt for $378, but I wasn't sure if that was the best price, and I didn't have enough info yet to make my decision then. I think, maybe I should have gotten it then. Just don't know. I guess we will have to wait till after May 31, for a price change on the Nvidia cards, at least that's when the current rebates end.

 

[speedslyde]

I actually am kind of in the same boat as the OP.

Instead I'm running on an old X800pro and was hoping that the release of the R600 would drive down prices. Instead I am considering getting the <$150 Sapphire X1950pro from Newegg. But I'm still on the fence, because with my luck the HD2600's will come out at the end of June and blow every mid-range card away.

What do you guys think? Should I just bite the bullet and buy the X1950pro to tide me over for a little over a year? Or should I agonize for another 5-6 weeks and wait to see how the mid-range level shakes out?

 

[Iceburst]

Well, I own 5 computers, so I'm thinking of maybe picking up the 7950gt for $149 after rebate and later in the year just move the 7950gt to another computer and put in my real gaming card. Right now, I'm using this Ati 7000, and I can't play any games. I can watch my DVD's and AVI's. But I'm really pushing it with a 22" monitor. But I might wait till the beginning of June, things maybe drop in price.

To answer the question about selling my 5900xt. I have that in another computer right now. I don't plan on selling it. It's still a good card, and I play more Videos then games anyway. That might change though after I get a Current gaming card though. Who knows.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

Originally posted by: betasub
A very long OP to ask for a replacement graphics card

The 5900xt was a high-end card, with a 256bit memory interface, giving it high memory bandwidth (despite relatively low mem clock). I replaced my 5900xt with a bargain-priced 6600GT: a mid-range card with 128bit memory interface hence lower memory bandwitdth (despite a high mem clock).

Actually, the 5900 XT was just a renamed 5900 "LE", with the same slow speed core and slow VRAM onboard. The FX5700 Ultra outperformed it in games using SM2, and it's been just that (SM2) that showed how badly nVidia screwed up on all of the FXes.

The 6600GT was slightly faster in older pre-dx9 games (faster, more modern GPU) , except at high resolutions where the extra memory bandwidth of the 5900xt came into play. In dx9, the newer 6600GT GPU blew away the old 5900xt.

I replaced an FX 5900 Vanilla card with a Radeon 9800 XT, which in Oblivion was faster than a 6600 GT card. I loved the way it handled the game, but it needed a better heatsink and fan shroud assembly. Rather than spring for a replacement GPU cooling setup, I upgraded again, to a Radeon X800 XT-Platinum.

The 7600GT is an improved 6600T, whereas the 7900GS is even better (being, like the old 5900xt, the cheapest of the high-end cards in its series with 256bit memory). A 7900GS would be a good stand-by card for gaming at 1680x1050 until you want to move onto dx10 gaming with whatever is the best bang-for-buck at that point in the future.

The 7600 GT is everything that the 6600 GT should've been, but was not. nVidia still didn't have their 6xxx mid-level cards running SM2/ SM3 efficiently, and the slower, less complex ATI X1600 Pro beat it in Oblivion. The 7600 GT stomped all over the X1600 Pro, however, and that prompted ATI to make a great many X800 GPUs available at low cost to answer that, while trying to get a competitive X1650 card into the marketplace.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Kiwi

Originally posted by: betasub
A very long OP to ask for a replacement graphics card

The 5900xt was a high-end card, with a 256bit memory interface, giving it high memory bandwidth (despite relatively low mem clock). I replaced my 5900xt with a bargain-priced 6600GT: a mid-range card with 128bit memory interface hence lower memory bandwitdth (despite a high mem clock).

Actually, the 5900 XT was just a renamed 5900 "LE", with the same slow speed core and slow VRAM onboard. The FX5700 Ultra outperformed it in games using SM2, and it's been just that (SM2) that showed how badly nVidia screwed up on all of the FXes.

The 6600GT was slightly faster in older pre-dx9 games (faster, more modern GPU) , except at high resolutions where the extra memory bandwidth of the 5900xt came into play. In dx9, the newer 6600GT GPU blew away the old 5900xt.

I replaced an FX 5900 Vanilla card with a Radeon 9800 XT, which in Oblivion was faster than a 6600 GT card. I loved the way it handled the game, but it needed a better heatsink and fan shroud assembly. Rather than spring for a replacement GPU cooling setup, I upgraded again, to a Radeon X800 XT-Platinum.

The 7600GT is an improved 6600T, whereas the 7900GS is even better (being, like the old 5900xt, the cheapest of the high-end cards in its series with 256bit memory). A 7900GS would be a good stand-by card for gaming at 1680x1050 until you want to move onto dx10 gaming with whatever is the best bang-for-buck at that point in the future.

The 7600 GT is everything that the 6600 GT should've been, but was not. nVidia still didn't have their 6xxx mid-level cards running SM2/ SM3 efficiently, and the slower, less complex ATI X1600 Pro beat it in Oblivion. The 7600 GT stomped all over the X1600 Pro, however, and that prompted ATI to make a great many X800 GPUs available at low cost to answer that, while trying to get a competitive X1650 card into the marketplace.

The X1600PRO card is technically more advanced card than any GeForce 6 series of card, but it's crippled performance sucks badly, and all the GeForce 6 series are based on the same architecture, actually because the 6600GT is simpler (less pipelines etc) than the GeForce 6800 Ultra, I heard somewhere that executing SM3.0 stuff like Dynamic Branching, performed a bit better cause it works with smaller pixel batches. The main reason that the GeForce 6/7 series of cards cannot gain performance using Dynamic Branching is because they decided to use longer and deeper pipelines to hide pixel shader texture latency access, with such approach is required to work with large pixel threads, which will null the performance gains of the dynamic branching.

 

[Sniper82]

Originally posted by: Iceburst
Well, I own 5 computers, so I'm thinking of maybe picking up the 7950gt for $149 after rebate and later in the year just move the 7950gt to another computer and put in my real gaming card. Right now, I'm using this Ati 7000, and I can't play any games. I can watch my DVD's and AVI's. But I'm really pushing it with a 22" monitor. But I might wait till the beginning of June, things maybe drop in price.

To answer the question about selling my 5900xt. I have that in another computer right now. I don't plan on selling it. It's still a good card, and I play more Videos then games anyway. That might change though after I get a Current gaming card though. Who knows.

Thats the best plan at this time I think. Ppl upgrading to newer DX10 cards I hope are doing it mostly for the boost in DX9 performance because otherwise its almost a waste. Aside from a high end Sli setup current cards likely won't play Crysis/UT3 with most everything maxed at a decent res.

I just purchased a used eVGA 7900GT KO for $120 shipped and plan on using it for about the next 6-8 months when a refresh of DX10 cards come and then upgrading from there.