320 vs 640mb

[Alexinator]

He won't be disappointed with any of them, they're all DX10 cards, they're all very well preforming and very powerful. It all depends on how far you want to take it. The only thing I would shun people for is buying a KO or a factory OC'ed version of the card. (Simply because you can do the same thing to it at home for less the price.) But you can;t add pipelines, simple as that. It would be impossible for a GTS to preform as well as a GTX if settings were maxed. You could not play a game with AA and AF both pumped to 16Q with a GTS, but a GTX would pull that off easily, and is right now at this very moment for me

 

[lancec2c30]

what about the ATi 2900HD

 

[j12]

640 is great. Since i got my 640mb for cheaper than a 320mb.

 

[phucng_10]

what about the ATi 2900HD

I got this review on the HD2900XT.

Both cards seem to perform excellent in XP/Pro 64-bit. The 2900XT currently does better in Vista simply because Nvidia drivers aren't mature yet. I actually like both and I'm torn between them also. The 8800GTS allows you to turn up all the eye candy and still keep good frames. The 2900XT is DX 10.1 compatible due to some of the extra features on it but its performance varies wildly. Sometimes its faster than an 8800GTX, and sometimes slower than an X1950XT. You also want to consider that the 8800 series have very nice media capabilities IF you buy all that Purevideo stuff. 8800's are also going to be obsolete in the Fall as well. The 2900XT is a good card if you plan on using a home theater with an HDMI setup.

There are tons more considerations that sway me both ways. I'm probably going to try out an HD 2900XT just because I've had nothing but Nvidia since the Riva TNT and I want to see if the 2900XT truly has untapped potential. If it ends up sucking I'll just go back to Nvidia in 2008 and say good riddance. Its easily twice as fast as my 7900GT (at stock settings) at higher resolutions so I wont feel too bad if its behind in a few benchmarks.

The 8800GTS is the logical choice though because its downright stable in anything you throw at it and the 640mb of memory allows it to roll with the punches. Also if you have an Nvidia based motherboard you can get the nTune software and tweak the entire system from one suite.

 

[lancec2c30]

hhhmmm, So I guess if you want to take it safe the 8800 is better....

 

[phucng_10]

8800 should be the better way to go.

 

[Ronnie]

He won't be disappointed with any of them, they're all DX10 cards, they're all very well preforming and very powerful. It all depends on how far you want to take it. The only thing I would shun people for is buying a KO or a factory OC'ed version of the card. (Simply because you can do the same thing to it at home for less the price.) But you can;t add pipelines, simple as that. It would be impossible for a GTS to preform as well as a GTX if settings were maxed. You could not play a game with AA and AF both pumped to 16Q with a GTS, but a GTX would pull that off easily, and is right now at this very moment for me

true the GTX is great and has more piplines but can you name one game out there they you can max out and i cant?
by the time there is one the 9 series will be out and they will both be outdated
thats why i dont suggest the GTX

 

[lancec2c30]

but then what about the 10 series... and the 11 series??? Or are they going to start back at 1 like ATi did?

 

[`Sn!pe651]

but then what about the 10 series... and the 11 series???

What about em?

The G9 will be well worth the wait...november. By then games such as crysis, cod4, moh:airborne will be out and the 8800 will be outdated like the rest of em.

 

[Invisible]

8800 will not be outdated in november, maybe next november but not this november because the 9 series will be $400+