Best priced video card?

[Beomagi]

because while the default 7900gt is 450, manufacturers have been overclocking their cores by over 20%. getting a card at 550MHz is a massive jump. These cards run cooler, quieter, and overclock a TON.

Here's some info on extremely simple volt mods (it's a line!) for the 7900gt
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?threadid=176625
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3437

See, it's the SAME core as the 7900gtx - just speed binned. by doing the mod, you push the same voltage through the 7900gt as the 7900gtx - the core can take it. once oc'd, it can meet and even beat the speed of a $500 card. The memory also overclocks a ton.

I've tried overclocking my x1900xt - but there's problems with ati's memory settings on the x1800xt and x1900xt - the memory timings are so tight, they can barely even reach the natural speed of the memory (as defined by the ns) also given the heat of the core, they dont oc as well.


here's some more benches using an x1800xt, and 2 7900gt's at different clocks.
http://gargouri2001.byethost24.com/articles.php?id=28&view=Evga_7900_gt_super_clock_review

[W1nTry]

Well Beo you still can't do FSAA + HDR, if you're buying a 300+ USD card wouldn't you want all the bells and whistles? then take into account the X1800XT cards have 512MB vs. 256MB which is rapidly becoming a standard for all new games (see fear, oblivion, BF2, etc)? plus Avivo? I mean I think the benifits of the X1xxx series cards even if performance is similar would tip it in ATIs favour.

[Spazosaurus]

ATI would definately be the card I'll go with ifi were in the market now, but I think i'll hold up and see what happens with DX10

[Arcmanov]

Personally, I think paying more than $250 US for a video card is a waste of money unless yuh could play game everyday whole day.  Yuh could get VERY good cards for under 250.

I mean, who does REALLY play games at resolutions above 1024x768 ANYWAY?

After ah spend mih money for tha 6800 GS, ah nearly CUSS when ah see 7600 GTs sellin for
$200 US now.

[Czar]

I mean, who does REALLY play games at resolutions above 1024x768 ANYWAY?

* Czar looks around....

I do...hell, I crank it up to 1600x1200 if I can...but I try not to play on anything less than 1280x1024.

[Kaizen]

* Kaizen rollseyes x1900xtx gg

[TriniXaeno]

yeah, 1280x1024 is the sweet spot.

I played RTS games like Warhammer at 1600x1200 on a lowly ATI 9600

Man did it ever look sweet!!

Unfortunately, most 17" CRTs won't do that res, so 1280x1024 is the maxx. That's not too bad though because most intense FPS games would crawl on a modest card with all settings on high at 1280x1024 anyway.

FSAA and AF can do a lot to make 1280x1024 look a picture.

[Arcmanov]

I mean, who does REALLY play games at resolutions above 1024x768 ANYWAY?

* Czar looks around....

I do...hell, I crank it up to 1600x1200 if I can...but I try not to play on anything less than 1280x1024.

Well my man, you are in a very small minority.  Not everybody have that kinda hardware

[W1nTry]

Dude I am telling you the X1800XT is the sweet spot @ a MEASLY 300USD. Though it's reached end of life, its the best bang for buck today

[Arcmanov]

I totally agree with W1ntry's analysis of the X1800XT, but the mitigating factor will always be PRICE.
300 USD might seem measly to some (if money is not a problem), but, there are videocards that are quite competent that can be had for around 200 US or even as low as 150 US.

[Jdcrys_Shinkuu]

true but as a gamer evolves so to does his understanding of his machine...n he would then realise to get the best vid for $$ sacrifices has to be made..... ie he now has to upgrade to a 64bit board with PCIe standard. (unless he can get hold of the conroe chip+board) bottom line we must accomodate for change n for price fluctuation....high - higher - sohighithurtsmyliver   lol

[Beomagi]

Well Beo you still can't do FSAA + HDR, if you're buying a 300+ USD card wouldn't you want all the bells and whistles? then take into account the X1800XT cards have 512MB vs. 256MB which is rapidly becoming a standard for all new games (see fear, oblivion, BF2, etc)? plus Avivo? I mean I think the benifits of the X1xxx series cards even if performance is similar would tip it in ATIs favour.

512 isn't in use much at all. I see how games run on a friend's 7800gtx rig and they're fine - he just can't use the top textures in doom 3. That's the only real place it turns up.

HDR + AA is a big advantage. The only problems is they arn't advertizing that - and i'm using a "chuck patch" driver which appears to be only meant for oblivion.

Avivo is a nice concept - fast transcoding, but they havent improved it over the first iteration(the video transcoding portion), and it's using the cpu instead fo the gpu. Plus there's hacked versions of the avivo transcoder which worked on my other pc, running a 6800gt.
Amazingly fast for a software transcoder.

You're right - even if it's a wee bit slower, I'd get one - but it can't overclock well, and the 7900gt CAN. Bottom line is if you're getting the card to play games, want the fastest AND you like to overclock/tweak, your best choice is the 7900GT.  I'm not talking a few frames faster either. I'm talking very noticable jumps in performance that can rival the speed of the 7900gtx.

[Jdcrys_Shinkuu]

like we having a thread hack / takeover dread.... lol

all detailed specs on cards are very cool ... kudos 2 u all but economically in trini what are the best prices on vids really

we going on priced based first then lookin at performance cause most of us can ONLY LOOK at performance...lol

i am considering getting a 6200 / 6600 AGP i saw them for 600TT

[Spazosaurus]

Well 6600 all the way then. $600 u say? Where?

[TriniXaeno]

6600 for $600?

That has to be a neutered card.

You don't want anything less than a 6600 GT. Those are about US$125-150

Buying anything less than that today as a gamer is "insulting". lol

[W1nTry]

Whilst I agree with you Beo, the level of performance you get with a X1800XT vs. a 7900GT is comparable, with the X1800XT leading by default at 1280x1024 AND 1600x1200 with bells and whistles. The reason the Radeon doesn't OC well is because it's already close to max. I mean it's already over 600MHz core (a speed achieveable by FEW 7900GT, with SERIOUS aftermarket cooling) and the mem is also > 1500Mhz thus no overhead. I agree the 7900GT is a sweet card and sure once OCed it'll outperform the X1800XT but by how much really? if you're getting >60-80FPS on the X1800XT then >100 on the 7900GT although noticeable isn't going to take away from your gameplay. The human eyes need 30fps MIN, more agree >60fps you don't suffer or gain much from increasing the FPS so sure, you get 5000+ in 3DMark and you get 10-30 more fps but is it really helping? then take into account that when you buy a card in that range you want to play with all the bells and whistles and more and more games will be using HDR + everything else. I am sure Nvidia's next gen cards will do it, but if you want to futureproof urself a bit, the ATI card would be more suitable. That 512MB you say they're not using, is to a large extent what ALL new games are using. FEAR, anything  on the Doom3 engine, OBLIVION, even BF2 stands to benefit from the extra mem, then there's crossfire, whist not as eloquent as SLI I admit has a great platform with the 3200 and ULI SB or soon to be release SB600 SouthBridge. I read recently that the Xfire 3200 rig bust up a Quad SLI platform in no less than an Nvidia TWIMTBP game (COD2 I believe).

[Beomagi]

Whilst I agree with you Beo, the level of performance you get with a X1800XT vs. a 7900GT is comparable, with the X1800XT leading by default at 1280x1024 AND 1600x1200 with bells and whistles. The reason the Radeon doesn't OC well is because it's already close to max. I mean it's already over 600MHz core (a speed achieveable by FEW 7900GT, with SERIOUS aftermarket cooling) and the mem is also > 1500Mhz thus no overhead. I agree the 7900GT is a sweet card and sure once OCed it'll outperform the X1800XT but by how much really? if you're getting >60-80FPS on the X1800XT then >100 on the 7900GT although noticeable isn't going to take away from your gameplay. The human eyes need 30fps MIN, more agree >60fps you don't suffer or gain much from increasing the FPS so sure, you get 5000+ in 3DMark and you get 10-30 more fps but is it really helping? then take into account that when you buy a card in that range you want to play with all the bells and whistles and more and more games will be using HDR + everything else. I am sure Nvidia's next gen cards will do it, but if you want to futureproof urself a bit, the ATI card would be more suitable. That 512MB you say they're not using, is to a large extent what ALL new games are using. FEAR, anything  on the Doom3 engine, OBLIVION, even BF2 stands to benefit from the extra mem, then there's crossfire, whist not as eloquent as SLI I admit has a great platform with the 3200 and ULI SB or soon to be release SB600 SouthBridge. I read recently that the Xfire 3200 rig bust up a Quad SLI platform in no less than an Nvidia TWIMTBP game (COD2 I believe).

ok take another look
the 7900gt is a different core, it does not NEED to run at that speed. It keeps up easily, and surpasses the x1800xt in several benches in a factory overclock speed binned form.

At 550 - a common oc with an natural board, and even sells at that speed at times, it's a faster card.

You don't appear to know about the mods available to the 7900gt
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3437
They overclocked the core to 745 and memory to 915 while pushing only 0.1V more than the 7900gtx.
There's easy volt mods that can be used to push the 7900gt quite far. Please note the criterion i outlined before. This is for a tweaker that wants the faster card at $300.

BTW - Arcman - I was running 1600x1200 on some rts games, and neverwinter nights(with quincunx) on my old ti4200. anyone with crt's and not playing fps in particular can enjoy really high res gaming, because in those games you dont need a high framerate. You'd stilll maintain above say 25fps.

[Spazosaurus]

Yeah the 7900 really is superior in terms of clock headroom and effieiency which makes for a monster overclock with pencil trick volt mod.

[W1nTry]

Nut Beo you haven't justified how having higher framerates is SUCH a selling point ? (you sound like intel during the megahurts madness) I pointed out that once you're over 60fps you're pretty much safe, how is having 20fps more than a X1800XT but being unable to push HDR+FSAA the bottom line for it being the 'superior' card? I am not saying it's not a GOSU card, but if i'm paying that kinda money I want not only frames but features and that's where ATI still beats Nvidia imho. Everyone (on this forum and otherwise) rants about how it performs better, but where are the benchies for anything+HDR? or on newer games like Oblivion? or even HL2 even farcry (and it's OLD) supports all these things, yet Nvidia cannot do that. Now if you want to justify to me that HDR doesn't make an ENORMOUS difference in the gaming experience then by all means go ahead. I for one am opting for getting Oblivion for my 360 instead of the PC as my X800XT can't run HDR. Not to mention the performance hit the Nvidia cards take when HDR is enabled.

[TrinireturnofGamez]

  ATI's x1900GT is available , it should offer comparable performance to the 7900GT , and  push prices of the 7900 and 7600 down a bit...
   Apparantly  GRAW (ghost recon) needs a 7800GT minimum to get good frame rates @ 1280x768 , i find games this generation are much more demanding than they were before... a 9600 could have run HL2 and farcry  on high , but  the  6600gt  reduced to playing games @ 800x600 already !...