Let's say if I buy in a month, would the 8800 still be the best option?
I personally think 320MB is far too little for a video card of that cost nowadays. Texture quality is one of the most important aspects of good graphics and affects more of the image than resolution, so a 512MB card from last gen would save you money, be only slightly slower, and IMO look better once we start seeing larger datasets in games.
On the bright side, the 640MB models are only a bit more than $300. Newegg has one for $340, and I've seen sales for even less recently.
I would go for a Radeon X1950 Pro. It has a better price/performance than an 8800 GTS.
You'd certainly one the 512MB version, and you're talking about $150 for that. Even then, my X1950 Pro is starting to show its age and really running some recent (STALKER and some others) and certainly future games at my monitors native resolution at not so great frame rates. I certainly would not purchase one for a long term upgrade. Which again, is why I think the 8800GTS 640MB is the only reasonable purchase. The 320MB is going to be dead in the water soon with regards to its lacking memory, and older generation cards have their own fallings soon. Pony up the extra $40 for a much better investment.
Going from a $150 x1950 to a GTS is not a minimal cost difference by any means. Moreover, both Skyring and I are saying the 320MB GTS is not worth it.I would definitely agree with this; the x1950 is a great card to be sure, but in comparison to the GTS, it will not have the staying power. The minimal cost difference would make a world of difference on modern heavy-shader games, while also being better at texturing-limited / ROP-limited games too.
Wait a couple weeks to see how pricing plays out wrt the HD 2600 XT. it seems as good or better than an 8600 GTS and should drive prices down considerably. However, if you're willing to spend the full $300, it's true, there seems to be no competition for the (esp 640 MB) 8800 GTS.
Only 768MB. That's rather remarkable that someone would do that trade, jump on it!
skyring said:HD 2600 XT is worse than the 8600GTS and certainly NOT a card for the future, now if say it was exclusively a HTPC then maybe, but if you're going to spend $300 then you're probably looking at gaming, which both the 2600 XT and 8600GTS suck at. The last generation cards mentioned in this thread are faster than both and likely cheaper in some cases, and certainly a much better price/performance ratio.
I agree that some x1950s are looking better at than 2600XTs, but I do think they'll have an impact on pricing across the board (assuming they become available at the advertised price). They're certainly not terrible boards. They may be disappointing to some industry snobs but they'll do just fine when (if) old stocks are depleted. Fact is, some people don't find it worth it to buy $300+ cards, and for those people there are alternatives -- and I can tell you realize this. I'm just pointing out that, for those budget-minded people, there are some alternatives brewing that will likely change the market pricing soon.