Which should I gamble on?

[nOOky]

I see so many of these threads and... don't you have a Best Buy near you? My 8800GT was $220 on sale with a 12% Rewards Zone coupon. Heck I'd even wait for the Dell deal to save $100 from what you're buying.

 

[Quiksilver]

Bah, I'm just gonna go against the advice and get the 3870 for sheer image quality and better 64 bit drivers and for those two things alone I'll gladly take the 10-15% performance hit. (and yes I do have a BB near me, about a mile away. I also have a microcenter like 6 blocks away, but most things are still cheaper online.)

 

[Hauk]

I wonder when and at what price the dual GPU ATI card will launch at. If it's in a couple weeks as initially thought, and if it's somewhere around a $400 price point...

 

[Puffnstuff]

While I was using ati cards I always had issues with the web released drivers and software upgrades versus those that came on the disk. I got tired of them trashing my system especially mmc updates. Nvidia has only hosed my system once and that was with the nforce drivers.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you say you are looking for image quality? then it is the 3870 as ATI has better image quality

This is an absurd statement. There hasn't been an image quality difference since the x1950/7xxx series competition


For equal $, get the GT. It's a far better performer.

Far better performer? Don't think so, I know that you want to justify and defend your card, but the Radeon HD 2900XT performance is erratic, but it's performance stands between the GTS 640 and the GTX in average, so bearing in mind that the 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640 and that the Radeon HD 3870 is also slighly faster than the HD 2900XT, I don't see nowhere the GT being much faster than a HD 3870 when it's only slighly faster than the old GTS 640.

Here ya go Evolucion. Read up.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you say you are looking for image quality? then it is the 3870 as ATI has better image quality

This is an absurd statement. There hasn't been an image quality difference since the x1950/7xxx series competition


For equal $, get the GT. It's a far better performer.

Far better performer? Don't think so, I know that you want to justify and defend your card, but the Radeon HD 2900XT performance is erratic, but it's performance stands between the GTS 640 and the GTX in average, so bearing in mind that the 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640 and that the Radeon HD 3870 is also slighly faster than the HD 2900XT, I don't see nowhere the GT being much faster than a HD 3870 when it's only slighly faster than the old GTS 640.

Here ya go Evolucion. Read up.

Cool, but we're talking about the GT, not the GTS which is faster.

 

[cputeq]

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3151&p=6

If you're saying they're the same price, then I'm not sure why you'd go for the slower card, unlocked BIOS or not.

ATI isn't known for their driver quality either, so the Vista 64 is a gamble. Personally I'm using Nvidia drivers with Vista 64 and have nary a problem, but I don't play tons of different games.

The "image quality" claim is a total farce -- These cards have been displaying basically indistinquishable image quality for quite a while (barring no driver problems or "optimizations" for games).

Really, you give enough reason why you should get the ATI over the nvidia, it sounds like you're just talking yourself into getting the ATI -- if that's the case, why waste time asking and just buy the card?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you say you are looking for image quality? then it is the 3870 as ATI has better image quality

This is an absurd statement. There hasn't been an image quality difference since the x1950/7xxx series competition


For equal $, get the GT. It's a far better performer.

Far better performer? Don't think so, I know that you want to justify and defend your card, but the Radeon HD 2900XT performance is erratic, but it's performance stands between the GTS 640 and the GTX in average, so bearing in mind that the 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640 and that the Radeon HD 3870 is also slighly faster than the HD 2900XT, I don't see nowhere the GT being much faster than a HD 3870 when it's only slighly faster than the old GTS 640.

Here ya go Evolucion. Read up.

Cool, but we're talking about the GT, not the GTS which is faster.

:::::sigh::::: I didn't think I had to point this out, but the GT is in every bench. You didn't even look.

 

[Belles Toaster]

HIS 3870 ICEQ3 has surfaced @ about a $12 premium over vanilla 3870 MRSP.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you say you are looking for image quality? then it is the 3870 as ATI has better image quality

This is an absurd statement. There hasn't been an image quality difference since the x1950/7xxx series competition


For equal $, get the GT. It's a far better performer.

Far better performer? Don't think so, I know that you want to justify and defend your card, but the Radeon HD 2900XT performance is erratic, but it's performance stands between the GTS 640 and the GTX in average, so bearing in mind that the 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640 and that the Radeon HD 3870 is also slighly faster than the HD 2900XT, I don't see nowhere the GT being much faster than a HD 3870 when it's only slighly faster than the old GTS 640.

Here ya go Evolucion. Read up.

Cool, but we're talking about the GT, not the GTS which is faster.

:::::sigh::::: I didn't think I had to point this out, but the GT is in every bench. You didn't even look.

Yeah, now that I looked, that confirms once more that the Radeon HD 3870 isn't FAR BEHIND the 8800GT like angry hampster stated before.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you say you are looking for image quality? then it is the 3870 as ATI has better image quality

This is an absurd statement. There hasn't been an image quality difference since the x1950/7xxx series competition


For equal $, get the GT. It's a far better performer.

Far better performer? Don't think so, I know that you want to justify and defend your card, but the Radeon HD 2900XT performance is erratic, but it's performance stands between the GTS 640 and the GTX in average, so bearing in mind that the 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640 and that the Radeon HD 3870 is also slighly faster than the HD 2900XT, I don't see nowhere the GT being much faster than a HD 3870 when it's only slighly faster than the old GTS 640.

Here ya go Evolucion. Read up.

Cool, but we're talking about the GT, not the GTS which is faster.

:::::sigh::::: I didn't think I had to point this out, but the GT is in every bench. You didn't even look.

Yeah, now that I looked, that confirms once more that the Radeon HD 3870 isn't FAR BEHIND the 8800GT like angry hampster stated before.

Oh yes it is. I narrowed it down for you. Take a peek. HERE

And if you really care to look, you can see even the 8800GT 256 AND the 8800GTS640 usually outperform the 3870. The 8800GT256 has a memory limitation and of course is supposed to fall behind with hi res AA. Pity they didn't show a 2900XT in those graphs. It would have marks in line with a GTS 640.

So, if I were to continue to cut and paste the rest of the benches (which I don't have time for) , you could see the 8800GT 512 is anywhere from dead even (rare and generous) to 33% faster than a HD 3870 512. If that's not far behind, please tell me what your definition of it is. ???

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: angry hampster

Originally posted by: hclarkjr
you say you are looking for image quality? then it is the 3870 as ATI has better image quality

This is an absurd statement. There hasn't been an image quality difference since the x1950/7xxx series competition


For equal $, get the GT. It's a far better performer.

Far better performer? Don't think so, I know that you want to justify and defend your card, but the Radeon HD 2900XT performance is erratic, but it's performance stands between the GTS 640 and the GTX in average, so bearing in mind that the 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640 and that the Radeon HD 3870 is also slighly faster than the HD 2900XT, I don't see nowhere the GT being much faster than a HD 3870 when it's only slighly faster than the old GTS 640.

Here ya go Evolucion. Read up.

Cool, but we're talking about the GT, not the GTS which is faster.

:::::sigh::::: I didn't think I had to point this out, but the GT is in every bench. You didn't even look.

Yeah, now that I looked, that confirms once more that the Radeon HD 3870 isn't FAR BEHIND the 8800GT like angry hampster stated before.

Oh yes it is. I narrowed it down for you. Take a peek. HERE

And if you really care to look, you can see even the 8800GT 256 AND the 8800GTS640 usually outperform the 3870. The 8800GT256 has a memory limitation and of course is supposed to fall behind with hi res AA. Pity they didn't show a 2900XT in those graphs. It would have marks in line with a GTS 640.

So, if I were to continue to cut and paste the rest of the benches (which I don't have time for) , you could see the 8800GT 512 is anywhere from dead even (rare and generous) to 33% faster than a HD 3870 512. If that's not far behind, please tell me what your definition of it is. ???

Shesh, I saw all the benchmarks of the links and that really prove my point. The 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640, and we all know that the Radeon HD 2900XT even though it's performance is erratic, in average is as fast or slighly faster than the 8800GTS 640, and the Radeon HD 3870 is slighly faster than the Radeon HD 2900XT overall. That persistence of your proves that you are nVidia biased. Saying that a measly 8800GT 256MB is able to outperform the HD 3870 most of the time when it usually falls behind, even at 1280x1024 shows that current games will face the 256MB limitation.

As I say, the 8800GT is faster than the Radeon HD 3870, that's it. But is nowhere much faster, in overall, the 8800GT is between 10% and 20% faster average than the HD 3870, and also will cost you more than that while it doesn't have a better feature set than the HD 3870, which have a better and complete VC-1 hardware acceleration, DX10.1, much better Crossfire Scaling, I wouldn't mind to sacrifice a bit of performance to save money and have more features, were not talking here about the GeForce FX with it's fat feature set and anemic performance of course. I'll simply not reply your message afterwards, people who are biased toward a brand (It doenst matter if it's nVidia or ATi) simply will not understand of reason. 33% faster LMAO, of course, in some cases with a combination of High resolution, FSAA and driver issues. hehehe.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Shesh, I saw all the benchmarks of the links and that really prove my point. The 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640, and we all know that the Radeon HD 2900XT even though it's performance is erratic, in average is as fast or slighly faster than the 8800GTS 640, and the Radeon HD 3870 is slighly faster than the Radeon HD 2900XT overall. That persistence of your proves that you are nVidia biased. Saying that a measly 8800GT 256MB is able to outperform the HD 3870 most of the time when it usually falls behind, even at 1280x1024 shows that current games will face the 256MB limitation.

As I say, the 8800GT is faster than the Radeon HD 3870, that's it. But is nowhere much faster, in overall, the 8800GT is between 10% and 20% faster average than the HD 3870, and also will cost you more than that while it doesn't have a better feature set than the HD 3870, which have a better and complete VC-1 hardware acceleration, DX10.1, much better Crossfire Scaling, I wouldn't mind to sacrifice a bit of performance to save money and have more features, were not talking here about the GeForce FX with it's fat feature set and anemic performance of course. I'll simply not reply your message afterwards, people who are biased toward a brand (It doenst matter if it's nVidia or ATi) simply will not understand of reason. 33% faster LMAO, of course, in some cases with a combination of High resolution, FSAA and driver issues. hehehe.

Bold #1: I'm showing you official benches, and I'm biased? You can accuse me of bias, but call yourself blind as well. That would be appropriate.

Bold #2: with a combination of high res, FSAA? How else would you play? 1024x768 with no AA??? And driver issues? Both sides have their fair share of them. So what does that have to do with ALL of those benchmarks???

Do not call me biased again. I have said not a single thing that isn't true here. Going by benchmarks alone. And none of my opinions. According to that FS review, the 256GT holds it's own against the 3870 and bests it quite often up to 1600x1200. In fact, in 7 out of 10 of those benches from FS, the 8800GT256 is either dead even or ahead of the 3870 at 1600x1200 and out of those 7, was faster up to 1920x1200.

So now what?

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Shesh, I saw all the benchmarks of the links and that really prove my point. The 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640, and we all know that the Radeon HD 2900XT even though it's performance is erratic, in average is as fast or slighly faster than the 8800GTS 640, and the Radeon HD 3870 is slighly faster than the Radeon HD 2900XT overall. That persistence of your proves that you are nVidia biased. Saying that a measly 8800GT 256MB is able to outperform the HD 3870 most of the time when it usually falls behind, even at 1280x1024 shows that current games will face the 256MB limitation.

As I say, the 8800GT is faster than the Radeon HD 3870, that's it. But is nowhere much faster, in overall, the 8800GT is between 10% and 20% faster average than the HD 3870, and also will cost you more than that while it doesn't have a better feature set than the HD 3870, which have a better and complete VC-1 hardware acceleration, DX10.1, much better Crossfire Scaling, I wouldn't mind to sacrifice a bit of performance to save money and have more features, were not talking here about the GeForce FX with it's fat feature set and anemic performance of course. I'll simply not reply your message afterwards, people who are biased toward a brand (It doenst matter if it's nVidia or ATi) simply will not understand of reason. 33% faster LMAO, of course, in some cases with a combination of High resolution, FSAA and driver issues. hehehe.

Bold #1: I'm showing you official benches, and I'm biased? You can accuse me of bias, but call yourself blind as well. That would be appropriate.

Bold #2: with a combination of high res, FSAA? How else would you play? 1024x768 with no AA??? And driver issues? Both sides have their fair share of them. So what does that have to do with ALL of those benchmarks???

Do not call me biased again. I have said not a single thing that isn't true here. Going by benchmarks alone. And none of my opinions. According to that FS review, the 256GT holds it's own against the 3870 and bests it quite often up to 1600x1200. In fact, in 7 out of 10 of those benches from FS, the 8800GT256 is either dead even or ahead of the 3870 at 1600x1200 and out of those 7, was faster up to 1920x1200.

So now what?

Whatever.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Shesh, I saw all the benchmarks of the links and that really prove my point. The 8800GT is slighly faster than the GTS 640, and we all know that the Radeon HD 2900XT even though it's performance is erratic, in average is as fast or slighly faster than the 8800GTS 640, and the Radeon HD 3870 is slighly faster than the Radeon HD 2900XT overall. That persistence of your proves that you are nVidia biased. Saying that a measly 8800GT 256MB is able to outperform the HD 3870 most of the time when it usually falls behind, even at 1280x1024 shows that current games will face the 256MB limitation.

As I say, the 8800GT is faster than the Radeon HD 3870, that's it. But is nowhere much faster, in overall, the 8800GT is between 10% and 20% faster average than the HD 3870, and also will cost you more than that while it doesn't have a better feature set than the HD 3870, which have a better and complete VC-1 hardware acceleration, DX10.1, much better Crossfire Scaling, I wouldn't mind to sacrifice a bit of performance to save money and have more features, were not talking here about the GeForce FX with it's fat feature set and anemic performance of course. I'll simply not reply your message afterwards, people who are biased toward a brand (It doenst matter if it's nVidia or ATi) simply will not understand of reason. 33% faster LMAO, of course, in some cases with a combination of High resolution, FSAA and driver issues. hehehe.

Bold #1: I'm showing you official benches, and I'm biased? You can accuse me of bias, but call yourself blind as well. That would be appropriate.

Bold #2: with a combination of high res, FSAA? How else would you play? 1024x768 with no AA??? And driver issues? Both sides have their fair share of them. So what does that have to do with ALL of those benchmarks???

Do not call me biased again. I have said not a single thing that isn't true here. Going by benchmarks alone. And none of my opinions. According to that FS review, the 256GT holds it's own against the 3870 and bests it quite often up to 1600x1200. In fact, in 7 out of 10 of those benches from FS, the 8800GT256 is either dead even or ahead of the 3870 at 1600x1200 and out of those 7, was faster up to 1920x1200.

So now what?

Whatever.

That's what I thought.

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: nOOky
I see so many of these threads and... don't you have a Best Buy near you? My 8800GT was $220 on sale with a 12% Rewards Zone coupon. Heck I'd even wait for the Dell deal to save $100 from what you're buying.

werd... I got the 8800GT for $205 at Best Buy (with 512MB)

you can't go wrong with nVidia right now...

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Toadster

Originally posted by: nOOky
I see so many of these threads and... don't you have a Best Buy near you? My 8800GT was $220 on sale with a 12% Rewards Zone coupon. Heck I'd even wait for the Dell deal to save $100 from what you're buying.

werd... I got the 8800GT for $205 at Best Buy (with 512MB)

you can't go wrong with nVidia right now...

Wow, that's a very nice price.

 

[kmmatney]

Originally posted by: nOOky
I see so many of these threads and... don't you have a Best Buy near you? My 8800GT was $220 on sale with a 12% Rewards Zone coupon. Heck I'd even wait for the Dell deal to save $100 from what you're buying.

BestBuy hasn't had any 8800GTs in stocks for several weeks. The employees bought all of them in the Denver area. Forget about BestBuy.