GPU: $300 or less

Slides

Regular
recommendations welcome. I will be upgrading from a R9800 pro. I am biased towards ATI/AMD, but I'm more than willing to go to Nvidia if they are better at this price point.
 
Seconded the suggestion for an 8800 GTS 320meg. It's the best bang in that price-realm.
 
The 8800 GTS sounds good, but remember the standard boilerplate of having a good enough CPU. I'm guessing that if you've got an A64 system, though, that's probably good enough to upgrade the GPU.

If you want to spend less, NewEgg had a X1950GT for $100-130 after rebate, at least when I checked a week or two ago. I was debating it after my 9800P bit the dust, but I have to check if my PSU's up to it (if not, a full move to PCIe would probably be smarter).
 
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 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.

This is why I strongly push people to the 640MB 8800GTS. 320MB is just simply not enough for that card to really flex its muscles for a person with a relatively large monitor (20" or above widescreen, or those using CRTs at 1600x1200). It also just makes more sense in the long run, $40~ more will likely allow you higher texture settings down the not so decent line, especially in the OPs case if he plans on having this card as long as his previous.

I personally would not go with a last generation card just because it has 512MB though. I'd really try to push going to the 640MB.
 
I think more memory is good even at lower resolutions. 1600x1200 over 1280x1024 is only going to use a few percent more memory.

I also agree that 640MB is the best option. I sprung for that myself, actually. I'm just saying that 320MB GTS is not as good as 512MB high end card last gen for $50-100 less. It may be a bit faster, but very soon (and even today in some cases) it won't look as good.
 
I would go for a Radeon X1950 Pro. It has a better price/performance than an 8800 GTS.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.

Whether a game is shader heavy, ROP limited, or texturing limited, all of them will look worse on a 320MB card than a 512MB card if you have to use lower texture quality, and that is not only sometimes the case now but it'll become the norm in the future. I wouldn't take higher resolution step (assuming the GTS has a 60% perf. advantage) at the expense of texture quality.

Either go for a fast 512MB card from last gen and save a bunch of money, or go for the 640MB GTS which is only a few bucks over the $300 target of this thread.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Do GTX's come in any other RAM configuration other than 768Megs?

A guy at work has a new GTX that he couldn't install in his case...and he's too lazy to buy another case and move everything into it.

So he's willing to trade the GTX for a GTS but I just want to make sure that it has enough RAM on it but he doesn't really know.
 
Only 768MB. That's rather remarkable that someone would do that trade, jump on it!

Yeah you might wanna buy that guy a beer or something, to reduce your indebtedness to him later! ;)

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.
 
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.

I'm sorry, but HD2600 are terrible cards from a gaming perspective at least. They offer basically no improvement over last generation in this area and in fact compared to cards that came out later (such as the X1950 Pro) they are worse! From a consumer stand point that is horrible. Unless you're doing some heavy media work then it offers nothing on top. There is no reason you should buy a HD 2600XT over a last generation card unless you put its video playback abilities VERY high up there. For those who don't find it worth spending $300 then they should go for price/performance which belongs to the laster generation by a mile at this point.
 
Back
Top