# 8800GT 256MB or 9600GT or HD 3870 for 1280x1024 gameplay?



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

Title says it all. The max resolution I can play games at is 1280x1024 on my Samsung LCD. 

And I need a midrange VGA with best bang for the buck. I will only be using the card for a year.

8800GT 256MB is a really crippled card I know, but 1280x1024 should be alright eh? That is actually the cheapest card from the three I believe, and the best performer at 1280x1024. I might be wrong, and that's what I wanna confirm.

Just need you guys' thoughts on this....

Thanks in advance to anyone who replies


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (May 18, 2008)

8800gs


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> 8800gs


Dude, I'm looking at either


8800GT *256MB* (256MB is important, because that is what that make the difference, because we all know the 8800GT has a superior core)
9600GT 512MB
HD 3870 512MB

;nothing else.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 18, 2008)

Out of those 3. . . . 

9600GT. If you got the cash for the 3870 though .....


----------



## btarunr (May 18, 2008)

I'd pick 9600 GT simply because it outperforms HD38*7*0. It sells for INR 7,500 where I live so it's a great buy considering what laughable prices for HD3870 we have here in India. So yeah, great value.


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

JrRacinFan said:


> Out of those 3. . . .
> 
> 9600GT. If you got the cash for the 3870 though .....


Are you sure the 8800GT wouldn't perform better than the rest at 1280x1024 res?


----------



## btarunr (May 18, 2008)

Anusha said:


> Are you sure the 8800GT wouldn't perform better than the rest at 1280x1024 res?



Even at 1280x1024, 256MB is insufficient by today's standards.


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 18, 2008)

Anusha said:


> Are you sure the 8800GT wouldn't perform better than the rest at 1280x1024 res?



I guarantee you, due to its 256MB.


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I'd pick 9600 GT simply because it outperforms HD38*7*0. It sells for INR 7,500 where I live so it's a great buy considering what laughable prices for HD3870 we have here in India. So yeah, great value.


I only looked at newegg prices to see get an idea about the pricing.

cheapest 8800GT 256 goes for around $129
cheapest 9600GT goes for around $145
cheapest 3870 goes for around $160


----------



## btarunr (May 18, 2008)

Anusha said:


> I only looked at newegg prices to see get an idea about the pricing.
> 
> cheapest 8800GT 256 goes for around $129
> cheapest 9600GT goes for around $145
> cheapest 3870 goes for around $160



What's your location? I'll tell you the price.


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Even at 1280x1024, 256MB is insufficient by today's standards.


Oh


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> What's your location? I'll tell you the price.


I live in Sri Lanka, and trying to bring one down here from Singapore.


----------



## CrackerJack (May 18, 2008)

Anusha said:


> I only looked at newegg prices to see get an idea about the pricing.
> 
> cheapest 8800GT 256 goes for around $129
> cheapest 9600GT goes for around $145
> cheapest 3870 goes for around $160



I would go for the 3870. It's only $25 more than the 9600GT, but i believe the 3870 will out perform. not really sure, don't have either one to know for sure.


----------



## btarunr (May 18, 2008)

Go for the 9600 GT. It's aptly priced, performs great, 512MB of memory.


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

CrackerJack said:


> I would go for the 3870. It's only $25 more than the 9600GT, but i believe the 3870 will out perform.


Actually the 3870 doesn't outperform 9600GT when AA is enabled.
The only reason why I would choose it over 9600GT is because of its 30W less idle power consumption and I believe ATI drivers are better than nVidia's (I'm on Vista)

But all this, only if they are the same price. If the 3870 is pricier, then I'd choose the 9600GT over it.

However, the most important thing I wanted to know was if 8800GT would do well at 1280x1024 res.


----------



## DOM (May 18, 2008)

I think the 9600GT, is lil slower then the 8800GT and I think it better with the a/aa turn on  then 3870


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

I guess I will place 9600GT at first place and 8800GT 2nd until I get confirmation on the prices.

I only know that the cheapest 9600GT in Singapore is around 17500 in Sri Lankan rupees. I don't know about the pricing of the other two cards.

If the 8800GT goes for less than 15000, then I would be left in a spot of bother... :/


----------



## ghost101 (May 18, 2008)

Paying close attention to the 1280*1024 scores:


----------



## btarunr (May 18, 2008)

Anusha said:


> I live in Sri Lanka, and trying to bring one down here from Singapore.



We get 9600GT here for 7500 Indian rupees. The one company I buy my sound-card stuff from,  Bizgram in Singapore, sells it for ~$290 (SGD). You do the math. All I can say is the best bang for buck is the 9600 GT.


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

So it (8800GT 256M) is not bad at all at 1280x1024 right? Only benchmark it got crippled results is COD4 with AA/AF (*speaking of only 1280x1024 results*)


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> We get 9600GT here for 7500 Indian rupees. The one company I buy my sound-card stuff from,  Bizgram in Singapore, sells it for ~$290 (SGD). You do the math.


Indian Rupee is more than twice as valued than SRL Rupee. So it will get to Rs.17500 anyway, which is the price I got for the Asus 9600GT (reference clocks) from Singapore.

I'm fine with the 17500 price tag, but the 8800GT is mouth watering


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> We get 9600GT here for 7500 Indian rupees. The one company I buy my sound-card stuff from,  Bizgram in Singapore, sells it for ~$290 (SGD). You do the math. All I can say is the best bang for buck is the 9600 GT.


BTW, I just checked their price list and the 9600GT (Leadtek Winfast PX9600GT 512M DDR3) can be had for SGD172!!!


----------



## btarunr (May 18, 2008)

512MB means quite something in texture-heavy games. I'd still pick 9600GT simply for its 512MB and that it outperforms the HD3870 and gets real close to 8800 GT 512M

Here's a TPU chart of relative performance:







Anusha said:


> BTW, I just checked their price list and the 9600GT (Leadtek Winfast PX9600GT 512M DDR3) can be had for SGD172!!!



Even better.


----------



## Anusha (May 18, 2008)

btarunr said:


> 512MB means quite something in texture-heavy games. I'd still pick 9600GT simply for its 512MB and that it outperforms the HD3870 and gets real close to 8800 GT 512M
> 
> Here's a TPU chart of relative performance:


I think it will finally come down to the price and maybe a toss of a coin


----------



## caldran (Jun 2, 2008)

9600gt is future proof according to some....but i ve heard it blacking out in shader intensive game...i am also stuck in the same dilemma...it all boils down to two...8800gs or 8800gt 256mb....then its all about money....buy the cheapest one.....if the difference is 20% then think of the higher one....


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 2, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> 8800gs





Anusha said:


> Dude, I'm looking at either
> 
> 
> 8800GT *256MB* (256MB is important, because that is what that make the difference, because we all know the 8800GT has a superior core)
> ...


this is a little silly and i'll tell you why. unless you plan on getting a bigger monitor? and you already said you only played 1280X1024. in which case the 8800GS is the perfect card for you and in fact outperforms a 256mb 8800GT. for all intent and purposes it is a G92 8800GT. with a little less of everything, yes. but you don't need that extra everything because you're gaming at 1280X1024. 

it seems weird to ask to pick the BEST card for you, when your choices are the three most  common mainstream cards around. if those are your choices the 9600GT i would say. because its nvidia and i know nothing of ATI.  an OC'd 8800GS beats all those cards stock...and can even match them in many gaming benchmarks at YOUR resolution without the overclock.

so, its $99 after rebate, $105 for the overclocked version. evga...fine card, all you will need now and in the near future for your gaming. the 384mb of memory? believe me, if its ever not enough, nor will 512 be at the time. its more then enough.

you have said you will only have the card for a year. do yourself a favor and do what the second poster in this thread told you to. get an 8800GS. not only will you be saving money, but for your purposes it'll be like having an 8800GT. believe me i know. my 8800GS runs games as well and better at 1440X900 then a friend of mines 8800GT at 1600X1200. it even looks like an 8800GT for chrissakkes lol

no, but "dude" you're only going to have it a year. save some money and put it toward something else for your computer. buy a game, save it, take a girl out....but the BEST card for you is the 8800GS. you will NEVER know the difference between having that or a $200 GT. i know from experience

anyway idk why so many in this hobby insist on throwing away money. i mean some have it to throw away, some don't. then threadstarter here wants the "best bang for the buck" card for HIS monitor which he will use one year...and the best bang for the buck card is an 8800GS at $99 freakin' dollars! wow, i guess thats too much bang for the buck 

why does this card get a bad rap? no, its not a GT...but its close enough to be close enough

guess you'll just have the "second best" bang for the buck card...


oh, and the evga model is a quality piece, too. overclocks easy, runs pretty cool


----------



## ghost101 (Jun 2, 2008)

Erm, the 8800gs with its 384mb ram on a 192 bit interface is not better than a 256mb 8800gt. Not at the 1280*1024 resolution anyway. The 8800gt has more shaders and is clocked a higher as well.

edit:































With the exception of crysis diifferences are minimal. While the 8800gs is a good 20% worse at 1280*1024 than the 8800gt 512mb.






This is a redundant debate anyway since he's probably purchased already.


----------



## Dazzy2008 (Jun 2, 2008)

9600 gt - im bias coz ive got one but i went through exactly what u are now,apart from my last ati card was a bag of s@#t so nvidia - after all the advice i got i went for a xfx factory overclocked 9600 as it puts it on par with a 8800gt anyway for less £££

Good luck


----------



## ghost101 (Jun 2, 2008)

Dazzy2008 said:


> 9600 gt - im bias coz ive got one but i went through exactly what u are now,apart from my last ati card was a bag of s@#t so nvidia - after all the advice i got i went for a xfx factory overclocked 9600 as it puts it on par with a 8800gt anyway for less £££
> 
> Good luck



Well the 8800gt overclocks as well . But yes price/performance wise it was good.


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 3, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> Erm, the 8800gs with its 384mb ram on a 192 bit interface is not better than a 256mb 8800gt. Not at the 1280*1024 resolution anyway. The 8800gt has more shaders and is clocked a higher as well.




its obviously the best "bang for the buck" card at $99. i was more or less talking about its performance when overclocked. it can match or beat a stock 9600GT or an ATI 3870 at his resolution. i like this review because you get an idea of its performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obOgh2Mi2ZM&feature=related

now does the 8800GT beat it?  of course. but for the most part its a "not clear to the naked eye" difference. and as you can see, this factory overclocked card can match and beat (if barely beat) stock clocked 9600GT's and ATI 3870's

thats bang for the buck

which is what threadstarter asked for in his first post until he decided $100 for a card that can perform like the one in the review wasn't good enough bang, i guess 



obviously the best bang for the buck.....


----------



## Anusha (Jun 3, 2008)

No I have not purchased it yet. But I'm getting the 9600GT. Maybe this week.


----------



## ghost101 (Jun 3, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> its obviously the best "bang for the buck" card at $99. i was more or less talking about its performance when overclocked. it can match or beat a stock 9600GT or an ATI 3870 at his resolution. i like this review because you get an idea of its performance:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obOgh2Mi2ZM&feature=related
> 
> ...



*Sigh*

But you can overclock the 9600gt and 8800gt. Its like saying the hd3850 is better than the 8800gt because you can overclock it to 900mhz+.

edit: im talking within price/performance criteria


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 3, 2008)

Anusha said:


> No I have not purchased it yet. But I'm getting the 9600GT. Maybe this week.



i did my best 

the 9600GT is a fine card. but for your purposes, if i understand you correctly, you are still wasting money for marketing. if you are really just going to have the card a year and game at 1280X1024. its  as if a farmer bought more land for his cattle then he needed just to keep them there for a year, anyway. it doesn't make much sense. i have practical experiences with all these cards and when i chose one for my own computer i took the GS for its overclocking, value, and performance. have never regretted it, its all i need for the next year, thats for sure.

just trying to be practical. you should get what you want. i just have to question a little why you want it if "bang for the buck" is your main priority. all this tech stuff and numbers is just blather at the end of the day. real world performance is all to be concerned with, really. 

meh, $40 or $50 more this way or that never killed anyone. and you'll get what you want. i just really don't understand it


/penny pincher 


i shall stop trying to be of good service now


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 3, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> But you can overclock the 9600gt and 8800gt. Its like saying the hd3850 is better than the 8800gt because you can overclock it to 900mhz+.


yes i know you can overclock the other cards and get even better performance. but man you see the games being played on that video review. the only game that would benefit him in real terms from having a "faster" card is Crysis, because every little fps counts in that game. otherwise its just gratuitous fps. i mean the 8800GS overclocked plays Game X at 90fps....the 3870, 89fps. overclock the 3870 and get 100fps. big deal. for upwards of $50 or $60 more? if not more, still...

the dude's keeping the card a year, he games at 1280X1024, i have an 8800GS and overclocked (factory or otherwise) its seriously a no brainer. i mean i'm just workin with the whole "best bang for the buck for a year at 1280X1024" thing, is all

i know what the better cards are


----------



## Rurouni Strife (Jun 3, 2008)

PsychoTronn, I pretty much agree with ya.  But what can you do about it?  Personally, in his position I'd have grabbed either a 9600GT or a 3850 512, but you make perfect sense.  The 8800GS/9600GSO is a good performer and is nearly a match made in heaven for 1 year of 1280x1024.  

To OP: Have fun w/ your 9600GT.  The 8800GT 256 has issues w/ AA in some reviews.  Nvidia's 256 drivers or something for that card arent so hot.


----------



## ghost101 (Jun 3, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> yes i know you can overclock the other cards and get even better performance. but man you see the games being played on that video review. the only game that would benefit him in real terms from having a "faster" card is Crysis, because every little fps counts in that game. otherwise its just gratuitous fps. i mean the 8800GS overclocked plays Game X at 90fps....the 3870, 89fps. overclock the 3870 and get 100fps. big deal. for upwards of $50 or $60 more? if not more, still...
> 
> the dude's keeping the card a year, he games at 1280X1024, i have an 8800GS and overclocked (factory or otherwise) its seriously a no brainer. i mean i'm just workin with the whole "best bang for the buck for a year at 1280X1024" thing, is all
> 
> i know what the better cards are



Hehe, i get the point you are making now. Still going to stick to my guns though, as even in current games at 1280*1024, once you crank up any IQ enhancements, you need all the power you can get. Over the next year, games arent really going to remain at the current level. If you consider COD4, Assassins Creed, UT3 they do push current midrange cards to the limit even at 1280*1024. I dont think these cards will fair too well over the coming year with the likes of Far Cry 2, Mass Effect amongst others coming out.


----------



## Xazax (Jun 3, 2008)

If you want check out my FS thread, im trying to sell my 8800GT 256mb for an HD 4000 series thats coming soon.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=60700

its cheaper then w/e you can get at newegg plus its will still be under warranty if you own it.

Also you can check out my Max OC and 3Dmark06 scores with it.


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 3, 2008)

Rurouni Strife said:


> PsychoTronn, I pretty much agree with ya.  But what can you do about it?  Personally, in his position I'd have grabbed either a 9600GT or a 3850 512, but you make perfect sense.  The 8800GS/9600GSO is a good performer and is nearly a match made in heaven for 1 year of 1280x1024.
> 
> To OP: Have fun w/ your 9600GT.  The 8800GT 256 has issues w/ AA in some reviews.  Nvidia's 256 drivers or something for that card arent so hot.





ghost101 said:


> Hehe, i get the point you are making now. Still going to stick to my guns though, as even in current games at 1280*1024, once you crank up any IQ enhancements, you need all the power you can get. Over the next year, games arent really going to remain at the current level. If you consider COD4, Assassins Creed, UT3 they do push current midrange cards to the limit even at 1280*1024. I dont think these cards will fair too well over the coming year with the likes of Far Cry 2, Mass Effect amongst others coming out.


yeah guys i was thinking just about the same. its all fun and games, hope i didn't come on too strong. we all get what we want and its fun. most important thing. sometimes i get too....sensible. quite seriously. for a hobby like this. best bang for the buck doesn't have to be cheapest or the best, just the best for YOUR buck. whatever that is to you 

good conversation though and i'm learning more about this stuff as i go along

so far as whats coming, i'm hoping for the best from all our cards lol. i'm really looking forward to Far Cry 2, Project Origin, and Stalker: Clear Sky. i only play FPS's, as i mentioned before. so games are slow in coming for me. because i like quality shooters. i've played a couple demos lately (timeshift or some crap like that) that just stink. 

so i'm hoping the next round of shooters are kind to the current generation of cards. mine included. if i can get through those three games i'll be happy and ready to upgrade for whats next if need be. but i'd like to be able to shoot my way through those before i have to buy anything to help me 

and threadstarter, enjoy that 9600GT. good buy, dude


----------



## Bytor (Jun 3, 2008)

3870 all the way..  Just bought my 3rd one for tri-fire...


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 3, 2008)

9600GT


its slightely faster than the 8800GS in some of the tests we did here at tpu. and if you crank AA/AF the extra ram will deff help you out.


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 3, 2008)

Bytor said:


> 3870 all the way..  Just bought my 3rd one for tri-fire...


i've read a lot of things about ATI and its drivers, etc. problems and stuff. thats the only thing that has kept me away from them. and the model schemes with all the X's and prefixes and suffixes confused me. i've had nothing but nvidia, prolly always will

hope i'm not missing anything

i like AMD, though. hope for the best from them in the future. and since they have ATI maybe they can do something for the market? i read where they are going to sell AMD GAME! computers...for games....at $600 to $1500. sounds silly to the enthusiast, but to the marketplace it may be right. i made a thread about it in the AMD forum. no replies 

lol anyway i think AMD should become its own brand. like Apple / Mac. "Sensible Computers For Sensible People", etc.  all marketing but it can work. AMD Game!, AMD Home Office, AMD Home Theater, AMD Multimedia, AMD Student, etc. branch out into software, give lifetime warranty's, upgrade programs, the whole deal. sell AMD boxes at Best Buy and Walmart.

if they can't win the speed war they can still win the marketing war most people don't know or care the difference between a quad core and a pentium 4 lol. just make it sound good and make it work. i hope they survive


----------



## Anusha (Jun 3, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> i did my best
> 
> the 9600GT is a fine card. but for your purposes, if i understand you correctly, you are still wasting money for marketing. if you are really just going to have the card a year and game at 1280X1024. its  as if a farmer bought more land for his cattle then he needed just to keep them there for a year, anyway. it doesn't make much sense. i have practical experiences with all these cards and when i chose one for my own computer i took the GS for its overclocking, value, and performance. have never regretted it, its all i need for the next year, thats for sure.
> 
> ...


I'm fine with the performance of all the games except one. Crysis performance sucks on the 256MB one even at 1280x1024. I want to play Crysis! :/


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (Jun 3, 2008)

my advice is oposite of what i read here, 3870, check the assassins creede review, in dx10.1(vista sp1) aa has less of a perf inpact then it has on the 8800gt/9600gt cards, because the chip on the card was spicificly designed to be a TRUE dx10.x chip not dx9 with some extra shader fx.

a 3850 or 3870 512mb will give you plenty of performance, at 1280x1024 with 2xAA hell use temporal aa and set it to 2xT3 aa and the quility will be that of 2xAA with quility of 6xAA 

i have tested this, and honestly, unless ur planing to max out the aa you wont see any game other then crysis give any of the cards problems, crysis is a joke, horribly programed, its like oblivion x10 for how bad it runns on current hardware of its day.

ao yeah, my advice, get a 512mb 38*0 card, if u can get it the powercolor card or visiontek card with the zerotherm coolers a bitchin buy


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 3, 2008)

Anusha said:


> I'm fine with the performance of all the games except one. Crysis performance sucks on the 256MB one even at 1280x1024. I want to play Crysis! :/


yeah Crysis is a beastly joke like the poster above says. it sure does look nice, though. i'm not sure running it should take so much, though. it doesn't scale well. i mean anyone can run medium, runs like a dream....but turn a few settings to High and its like 'wtf happened to my fps!' 

its a fun game, though. idk if you've played yet. and yeah i kind of agree with some that without the eye candy on at least high settings, the experience isn't quite the same. when i had the 8600GT i would have to turn some settings to medium. just didn't work out on the Shaders / Shadows side of things, however. i find the game looks best (well balanced) when the main visual graphics settings are all set to the same....setting, i guess

anyway your 9600GT should play Crysis fine. i like tweaking the game and trying different mods and stuff. some are ok, some are worse then ok lol. and the game itself, for me, is just a really fun shoot 'em up. for all its fancy graphics i like the simple "blast your way through" vibe of the game. 

right now i'm using a "natural mod" someone posted yesterday in a Crysis thread or another. supposed to make the game look more "natural" so far as lighting and shadows, etc....i don't know about this one, though. performance is out of the park....but something seems....off. but the gameplay. i love doing stuff in the game like below (tossing the flammable barrel). and notice the tall shack right next to the guys getting pwnd. KABOOM all gone lol. i love the physics engine or w/e its called in this game


----------



## Disruptor4 (Jun 3, 2008)

What you never asked is what games he was going to play. Now that you know he wants to play Crysis, the 9600GT is probably his best bet out of those 3 choices.
The 3870 512mb would have been a good choice too though.


----------



## Anusha (Jun 3, 2008)

Too bad that is the only game which would not like the 256MB 8800GT


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 3, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> my advice is oposite of what i read here, 3870, check the assassins creede review, in dx10.1(vista sp1) aa has less of a perf inpact then it has on the 8800gt/9600gt cards, because the chip on the card was spicificly designed to be a TRUE dx10.x chip not dx9 with some extra shader fx.
> 
> a 3850 or 3870 512mb will give you plenty of performance, at 1280x1024 with 2xAA hell use temporal aa and set it to 2xT3 aa and the quility will be that of 2xAA with quility of 6xAA
> 
> ...



um you want to show me were DX10 is 100% supported in nvidia cards? kthnxbye.


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (Jun 3, 2008)

dx10 is supported in nvidia cards, BUT its more of an after thought, if you look at the one true dx10.1 game thats hit assassins creede the 3870 cards beet the 8800/9600 cards with aa enabled.

unlike nvidia's design thats really more of a dx9 part with dx10 fetures added to it, the r600/670 was acctualy designed to meet orignal dx10 specs(whats now called dx10.1) including shader based AA and such.






thats from a site thats VERY nvidia bias, hardocp....if they are showing an ati card being close to an nvidia card you can bet that the reasion, other then being fair.....




> Further Anti-Aliasing Investigations
> 
> When it comes to anti-aliasing in AC, the heart of the matter is the differences in graphics architectures. ATI's current GPUs do not have dedicated anti-aliasing hardware. Instead, they rely on the pixel shaders to achieve the same result. Depending on the type of graphics work being done, this approach can have a negative impact on performance. ATI seems to have gotten around this via some of the extensions to DirectX 10.1. NVIDIA graphics chips do include anti-aliasing hardware, but that hardware cannot be properly utilized in some situations. Specifically, there are post-rendering effects that interfere with the use of anti-aliasing hardware -- that's why some games don't support anti-aliasing at all.
> 
> ...


http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3320&p=7

this is a pretty good sign that true dx10.1 games will run BETTER on ati hardware,hence MORE FUTURE PROOF!!!!


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2008)

well you see thats the rub your misunderstanding something

DX10 is DX10 it wasnt an after thought DX10.1 is DX10 with some added code line though it does infact add performance on games that can use the extra coding their isnt muc difference at all..that and im not sure it was an after thought as if i remember correctly when DX10.1 started being put in ATI cards the 9 series was already planned out thus why pull 8 million units and junk them? though i do agree with the fact that 10.1 is better and more future proof it isnt as much of a "botch" as you may thing...like some of nvidias older cards or ATI's older cards that kinda sorta supported DX9 but with only SM 2.0 etc.


----------



## Scrizz (Jun 4, 2008)

3870 all the way!


----------



## niko084 (Jun 4, 2008)

I would honestly get a 9600GT 512mb or a HD3850 512mb, save the money over the hd3870, I could play Crysis @ 1280x1024 in Dx10 on all very high settings smooth through the entire game on my 256mb HD3850, the 512mb would make it all the better and save you a good amount of money.

Or go to bestbuy before they are gone and get a HD3870 for $129


----------



## Scrizz (Jun 4, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Or go to bestbuy before they are gone and get a HD3870 for $129



that's how i got mine


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jun 4, 2008)

I thought the 3850 was just an underclocked 3870?


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (Jun 4, 2008)

Franklinwallbrown said:


> I thought the 3850 was just an underclocked 3870?



yup they are, if they have 512mb ram that is, the ddr3 vs ddr4 dosnt make a diffrance in perf, so if u overclock ur 3850 u can get same perf as a 3870 in most cases


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jun 4, 2008)

That's why I'm getting the 3850!


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (Jun 4, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> well you see thats the rub your misunderstanding something
> 
> DX10 is DX10 it wasnt an after thought DX10.1 is DX10 with some added code line though it does infact add performance on games that can use the extra coding their isnt muc difference at all..that and im not sure it was an after thought as if i remember correctly when DX10.1 started being put in ATI cards the 9 series was already planned out thus why pull 8 million units and junk them? though i do agree with the fact that 10.1 is better and more future proof it isnt as much of a "botch" as you may thing...like some of nvidias older cards or ATI's older cards that kinda sorta supported DX9 but with only SM 2.0 etc.



didnt say it was botched, what i said was that if you want future proofed, go 3870 if you want fast for todays games with no support for dx10.1 go for nvidias current cards.

And yes nvidia's current cards are primarly for dx9 gaming, hence they didnt add 10.1 support when they went from g80 to g92, they could have, they fixed purevideo support so its FAR better then it was.

Im not attacking nvidia, I am just very sure about what nvidia has done in the past and what they have done today, they dont jump to support new tech unless somehow it can be done by simply modifying something they already have around.

this is what i have found with the 8800gt i had(being rma'd should have replacement sometime this week, i hate ups...slow bastages) the card is effectivly a massivly boosted 7 seirse card, effectivly they put the card on roids, sure they added so called unified shaders, and shader 4.0, but it is not a native dx10 design, because i think nvidia desided that if they went with the current 8800 design, till dx10/10.1 games where dominant that they would beable to force people to buy yet another card to get fetures that dx10.x offers vs basic 10.0 support.

its a smart buisness move in a way, but it also pisses off costmers who payed alot for their cards and expected them to last a couple/few years.

from what i have seen over the years i have seen nvidia beat dead horses till they are glue, the fx line, they kept selling them and putting out new versions even after it was shown that they SUCKED for dx9 gaming, same was true for the 6 and 7 seirse, they just tweaked the design and added more bruit force, where as the r300 and up where not bruit force, the x1900xt for example, was kicking the 7950 around till the gx2 came out, and even then it wasnt that far behind, yet by nvidiot specs it should have been loosing, because the 7950 had more pipes/rops and such.....but games where moving to being shader based, so 16rops with 3 shaders per was better then more rops with less shader units each.

blah, basickly the 2 companys work diffrently, ati tends to think along diffrent lines, they dont try and purely bruit force everything, where nvidia is all about the bruit force, hell look at how they presured ubi into patched dx10.1 out of assassins creed after it showed ati cards doing better because they could do the AA in 1 pass vs doing a 2nd rendering pass to apply the AA, again bruit force bullys....... i know alot of ppl who bought that game who didnt/wont patch it because THERE IS NO NEED, the patch dosnt fix buggs, it just makes it so that nvidia stoped bitching because their cards CANT do 10.1 where as ati's can.

also take not of Tessellation, the cat 8.5's enable it on ati cards, allowing the same thing on pc's as is avalable on the xbox360, higher res without a much if any performance impact, more detail without the perf impact at least i see that as total winnage.

just look it up, or darknova and others can explain it better then i can at the moment.


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jun 4, 2008)

Gg


----------



## Solaris17 (Jun 4, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> didnt say it was botched, what i said was that if you want future proofed, go 3870 if you want fast for todays games with no support for dx10.1 go for nvidias current cards.
> 
> And yes nvidia's current cards are primarly for dx9 gaming, hence they didnt add 10.1 support when they went from g80 to g92, they could have, they fixed purevideo support so its FAR better then it was.
> 
> ...



thnx very informative i dodnt mean to imply that you were bashing nvidia i just wanted to imply that though they dont support DX 10.1 it isnt as big of a deal as most people think like assassins creed and some of the other DX10.1 games though it does make them look better like you said with the brute force nvidia uses and the smooth way ATI does it including the relatively low requirments of those games imo opinion it doesnt matter much as wih todays cards from both sides those games dont bog down much at all. and im not necissarily backing up nvidia when i got my 9600GT early i was like ooooooo then i saw that it didnt support DX 10.1 or 4.1 i wa a little put down but in the end as i said above with how powerfull the cards are these days and the system requirments it didnt matter much to me as they play smoothly any way i was just trying to stress that though they dont support DX 10.1 or shader 4.1 it isnt as bad as the early FX cards that were half ass and kinda sorta supported DX9.0 and kinda sorta supported 2.0 these cards support DX 10 and 4.0 fully and though that isnt technically the newest it does it just fine.


----------



## Joe Public (Jun 4, 2008)

Yeah, get the 8800GT 256MB and it works well -today-   What about half a year from now? I wouldn't take the chance.  You may find yourself looking for a new card pretty soon.  So I'll chip in and say +1 for a 512MB card.

edit:  whoops... missed the two last pages, lol.


----------



## niko084 (Jun 4, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> yup they are, if they have 512mb ram that is, the ddr3 vs ddr4 dosnt make a diffrance in perf, so if u overclock ur 3850 u can get same perf as a 3870 in most cases



Wrong they are Not... They use different cores all together..
But the performance is pretty close.


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

niko084 said:


> Wrong they are Not... They use different cores all together..
> But the performance is pretty close.


Really? I thought they were the same core, just different clocks :/


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2008)

i play crysis @ 1280x1024 on a pair of 3850 256mbs and it never drops under 30FPS @ 1280x1024 all high settings

from what i could tell at best with xfire i'm getting an extra 5FPS and its quite playable i have yet to find a game i can't max out on my monitor


----------



## Franklinwallbrown (Jun 4, 2008)

Sounds like a good idea to me.


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i play crysis @ 1280x1024 on a pair of 3850 256mbs and it never drops under 30FPS @ 1280x1024 all high settings
> 
> from what i could tell at best with xfire i'm getting an extra 5FPS and its quite playable i have yet to find a game i can't max out on my monitor


Crossfire is out of the question...


----------



## niko084 (Jun 4, 2008)

Anusha said:


> Crossfire is out of the question...



You should be just fine with a hd3850 especially if its a 512mb... Like I said I'm a solid 30fps with my 3850 256mb 1280x1024 all very high in vista for dx10. I get about 32fps solid in high dx9 xp pro.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2008)

Anusha said:


> Crossfire is out of the question...



i wasn't suggesting it i was suggesting one HD3850 256mb or 512mb


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i wasn't suggesting it i was suggesting one HD3850 256mb or 512mb


Anyway it is too late now. My 9600GT is already enroute. Cost me around USD157 which is alright. Make is Glaaxy (I didn't really care about that) and I'm not sure which model yet because a friend of a friend is sending it over. I couldn't get the full model number. (I'm fine with any model because all of them are either at reference specs or better, thought I hope it is a the OC version, which runs at 675/1325(?)/2000)


----------



## niko084 (Jun 4, 2008)

The 9600GT will treat you well. Any which way you went there you will be happy thats for sure.


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

niko084 said:


> The 9600GT will treat you well. Any which way you went there you will be happy thats for sure.


I hope so.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2008)

niko084 said:


> The 9600GT will treat you well. Any which way you went there you will be happy thats for sure.



thats a great card you will be happy with it


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

cdawall said:


> thats a great card you will be happy with it


I wonder how lucky I would be with overclocking 
You can get it close to the 8800GT performance with some good overclocking right? That'll give very good bang for the buck 

I still don't understand how it is possible. 112 SP x 600MHz vs. 64SP x 650MHz which is like 35-40% less performance, but in reality it is only about 15-20% slow. Is that because the memory is same?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2008)

Anusha said:


> I wonder how lucky I would be with overclocking
> You can get it close to the 8800GT performance with some good overclocking right? That'll give very good bang for the buck
> 
> I still don't understand how it is possible. 112 SP x 600MHz vs. 64SP x 650MHz which is like 35-40% less performance, but in reality it is only about 15-20% slow. Is that because the memory is same?



its because of the tweaked core design


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

cdawall said:


> its because of the tweaked core design


you mean, G94 @ 112SP x 600MHz is faster than G92 @ 112SP x 600MHz?


----------



## cdawall (Jun 4, 2008)

Anusha said:


> you mean, G94 @ 112SP x 600MHz is faster than G92 @ 112SP x 600MHz?



kind of but its the reason the 9800GTX clocks higher and has better performance than the 8800GT/GTS


----------



## Anusha (Jun 4, 2008)

cdawall said:


> kind of but its the reason the 9800GTX clocks higher and has better performance than the 8800GT/GTS


Don't they both have the same G92 core? Maybe a newer revision on the 9800GTX which might give more overclocks, but other than that they are basically identical, right?


----------



## flyin15sec (Jun 4, 2008)

niko084 said:


> I would honestly get a 9600GT 512mb or a HD3850 512mb, save the money over the hd3870, I could play Crysis @ 1280x1024 in Dx10 on all very high settings smooth through the entire game on my 256mb HD3850, the 512mb would make it all the better and save you a good amount of money.
> 
> Or go to bestbuy before they are gone and get a HD3870 for $129



Damn!! Heading to my local store tonight!


----------



## Xazax (Jun 4, 2008)

Rebo&Zooty said:


> didnt say it was botched, what i said was that if you want future proofed, go 3870 if you want fast for todays games with no support for dx10.1 go for nvidias current cards.
> 
> And yes nvidia's current cards are primarly for dx9 gaming, hence they didnt add 10.1 support when they went from g80 to g92, they could have, they fixed purevideo support so its FAR better then it was.
> 
> ...



I dont know if i can agree completely with that statement. From my understanding the 7900GT and X1900XT( both 256/512mb edition) were close in performance with the ATI edging out a little more because of of the so called "48" Shader pixesl(really only had 16 PP) Nvidia 7900 series had 24 PP with no "shader pipelines" so reality is each company had it own  tactic of how to handle each.

Now to say 8800 series is nothing but the upped 7900 is really stretching it. 8800's were brand new architecture.

"Nvidia’s GeForce 8800 sticks even closer to the unification ideology than the ATI Xenos. The heart of the new chip is a universal execution core that consists of 128 separate processors. This core works at a considerably higher clock rate than the rest of the G80’s subunits. The stream processors are grouped into 8 blocks by 16 processors, each block being equipped with 4 texture modules and a shared L1 cache. A block consists of two shader processors (each of which consists of 8 stream processors), and all the eight blocks have access to any of the six L2 caches and to any of the six arrays of general-purpose registers. Thus, data processed by one shader processor can be used by another shader processor."

Here you can see the Difference between the 7 series and the 8 series






Comparing to ATI Solution from the 19xx series

"Each stream processor can perform two simultaneously issued scalar operations like MAD+MUL per cycle and the overall computing power of the core is, according to Nvidia, about 520 gigaflops. This is over two times that of the ATI R580 whose performance, according to ATI, is about 250 megaflops. We can make one interesting and perhaps arguable observation here. Each pixel processor in the R580 is known to have 2 scalar and 2 vector ALUs and a branch execution unit. So, it can execute up to 4 arithmetic instructions per cycle plus one branch instruction. It seems that the efficiency of one stream processor in the G80 is lower than the efficiency of one pixel processor in the R580, but the overall performance of the G80 is higher because it has more execution units (128 against 48) and clocks them at a higher frequency. Unfortunately, we don’t have any data about the design of an individual stream processor in the G80. We only know that it is fully scalar as opposed to the pixel processor of the last-generation architectures which contains both scalar and vector ALUs. The GPU efficiency at processing shaders with dynamic branching has been improved in comparison with the ATI Radeon X1900. The latter can process 48-pixel large branches whereas the GeForce 8800, from 16 to 32 pixels large. We can check out how efficient the execution of branching pixel shaders has become and will do this in the theoretical tests section."

It seems ATI solution was very good indeed, but if they added more and maybe clocked them faster even the X1900's could of Beat the 8800's in some cases.

Finally ill end up with Pixel Performance






the 8800GTX comes out WAY on top, the X1900 has a sizable lead ahead of the 7900GTX which come in dead last until interestingly enough we hit PS 2.0 Longer+

All information Credited to:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf8800.html

Basically.. I dont think you can say a 8800 was a buffed up 7000's series


----------



## ste2425 (Jun 5, 2008)

I dont no if this has already been said coz ive skipped the last few paged  But id get a Nvidia 8800gt but 512mb. Ill be gettin one to play on my widescreen tv too. And a perfect way to sum up the 256mb version is like having a ferari but with a 1 one leter fuel tank.
Ope this helps


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 5, 2008)

evga 8800GS is $89 after rebate at newegg. it will last a year, play Crysis on high, etc.


/beats dead horse


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 5, 2008)

although i leave shadows on Medium 'cause i think teh game looks best like that. except at night. i just like a "brighter" game. or a darker one like with the ToD mod. 

frame rates get a nice increase as a fringe benefit, too 


EDIT: accidental double post sry

can't we delete our own posts around here?


oh and TS let us know how that 9600GT works out. should be sweet


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> although i leave shadows on Medium 'cause i think teh game looks best like that. except at night. i just like a "brighter" game. or a darker one like with the ToD mod.
> 
> frame rates get a nice increase as a fringe benefit, too
> 
> ...



yes select edit then delete this post the delete on the bottom left


----------



## Anusha (Jun 5, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> although i leave shadows on Medium 'cause i think teh game looks best like that. except at night. i just like a "brighter" game. or a darker one like with the ToD mod.
> 
> frame rates get a nice increase as a fringe benefit, too
> 
> ...


i will let you know when i get the card


----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 5, 2008)

cdawall said:


> yes select edit then delete this post the delete on the bottom left


well that is interesting. i haven't that option anywhere on the page. even when i go "Advanced." i hesitate to take screenshots for proof i ain't blind lol

no but really if it were there i would see it. i used to mod a large forum....i've deleted many a post 

its a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma...where is my delete button!! 

i'm using firefox so i'm pretty sure its not a browser related problem


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2008)




----------



## ChromeDome (Jun 5, 2008)

it looks like you're using a different skin then i. that may be the problem on my end. although i can't find a skin chooser atm. meh, if there is one i'm sure i'll come across it. until then i just don't delete


----------



## cdawall (Jun 5, 2008)

PsychoTronn said:


> it looks like you're using a different skin then i. that may be the problem on my end. although i can't find a skin chooser atm. meh, if there is one i'm sure i'll come across it. until then i just don't delete



lol well i guess its hard to delete without the delete button


----------



## Rebo&Zooty (Jun 5, 2008)

Xazax said:


> stuff



edited down the quote so it would take less space.

as to the 16 pipe vs 24 pipes and shader pipes, acctualy the x1900 has 16 pipes with 3 shader units per pipe, not 48 pixel pipes, and you need to remmber that xbit tho a decent sorce is at times....well u gotta watch their reviews, i have seen some reviews from them that rocked, then others that where very.......well they make me sad because i knew they where WAY off, like a review they did of a motherboard i had, they reviewed it without updating its bios, the stock first revision bios had some buggs that by the time they reviews the board where all worked out with bios updates, i pointed this out and they informed me they didnt have the time to fix their fuckups, their review effectivly said a tseries board was not a good clockers board because the bios sucked, had they updated the bios it would have fixed EVERYTHING they bitched about......EVERY SINGLE THING WAS ALREADY FIXED.

i have also seen their overclocking results be a bit pathetic at times........when on the same item i have had no problems getting far better clocks(on more then 1 of said items mind you)


----------

