2900 vs 9600 vs 8800

revorocks

ive been looking around for a while trying to decide what graphics card to buy and at first i was think the 2900 pro looked awsome, but after a topic i made i was told the 9600GT would be the best way to go.

now i found this

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1189/1/page_1_introduction/index.html

it has lots of benchmarks and things to go by. and the 2900XT seemed better than the 8800GTS and the 2900 pro is only a few fps off of the 2900XT, which is nothing some overclocking can't change...

Now im told that the 9600GT is just under the 8800GT but isnt the 8800GTS better than the 8800GT? and there for the 2900 pro is better than the 9600GT?

also if i got the 2900 Pro id be able to get 2 and run them in crossfire.

Which is best to get?

stoopid

Good question, I'm looking at the mid-range market as well (for my htpc). I almost bit on a HD2600 in the for sale area, but in hindsight that may not have been enough power for UT3 and newer games at 1920x1080 (resolution of our HD TV in the livingroom).

I'm looking at another (currently have one in my main PC) HD3870 because they're around $150 on newegg.com right now. The 8800GT is more money although it does perform a little better. I can't see going any further down the scale than these, at least not for the $150-200 pricing. They both have HDCP (required future proofing for HD DVD/BluRay/DVD playback on the computer starting very soon). There's even a 3870 with passive cooling that takes up only 1 slot.

My $0.02

Harudath

I know for sure that the 8800 is better than any 9600 but that of course depends on how much money you're willing to spend. I don't know much about ATi cards though so I can't help you on that one. But if you go for an nVidia card I reccomed the 8800GTS 512.

mas0n

revorocks wrote:

it has lots of benchmarks and things to go by. and the 2900XT seemed better than the 8800GTS and the 2900 pro is only a few fps off of the 2900XT, which is nothing some overclocking can't change...

Now im told that the 9600GT is just under the 8800GT but isnt the 8800GTS better than the 8800GT? and there for the 2900 pro is better than the 9600GT?

That review is comparing the 2900 Pro to the 8800GTS 320MB which is based on the G80 core. The 8800GT and 8800GTS 512MB are based on the G92 core which is much faster.

Do you have a price range you are trying to fall within? You are looking at mid-range cards, but then mention running 2 in crossfire. What exactly are you trying to accomplish and what resolution do you want to run?

revorocks

Well, i don't have a very big monitor so im at 1024 by 768 (yes i know its poor) but its all i need and i defiantly don't have the money for a bigger monitor any time soon.

im looking for around up to the £80-£100 mark.

i just thought that if i bought the 2900Pro then i would have enough money too buy another and run them in crossfire in a few months which is surly better than just one 8800GT...

GnomeWizardd

I had a 8800gts 620 G80 core and my 9600KT OC KO by EVGA rocks it

Harudath

That's cuz 8800GTSs aren't meant to have a G80... That must have been really wrong or alot cheaper than the G92 version.

mas0n

revorocks wrote:

i just thought that if i bought the 2900Pro then i would have enough money too buy another and run them in crossfire in a few months which is surly better than just one 8800GT...

Probably not actually, especially at that resolution. Dual-GPU setups often perform WORSE than a single card at low resolutions due to so much CPU overhead. Best case scenario at 1024x768 is two 2900 Pro give you 10-15% over a single card, and even that's probably a generous estimate.

Harudath wrote:

That's cuz 8800GTSs aren't meant to have a G80... That must have been really wrong or alot cheaper than the G92 version.

The original 8800GTS, released November 2006, were either 320MB with 96 stream processors or 640MB with 112 steam processors, both based on the 90nm G80 with a 320-bit memory bus. The new 8800GTS, released December 2007, is the 512MB version featuring the 65nm G92 with 128 stream processors and a 256-bit memory bus.

One would have thought that with performance increases of almost 30% it was time to move on to the 9800 series, but no. Nvidia instead decided to name their new cards the same damn thing in order to confuse the hell out of most people, and frustrate the rest.

BOTTOM LINE, revorocks: 8800GT or HD3870.

stoopid

Harudath wrote:

That's cuz 8800GTSs aren't meant to have a G80... That must have been really wrong or alot cheaper than the G92 version.

I believe the 'early' GTS were all G80 because G92 hadn't been released yet. The 320 and 640MB GTS cards were released Summer/Fall last year.

The main benefit from the G92 core is higher overclocking, other than that I don't believe the G92 9XXX series cards have any additional functionality or enhancements that would make them a better choice over a similarly clocked 8800 series card. It's simply another number game by the video card manufacturers (ATi and Nvidia both are guilty of this practice). I'm not 100% sure about this, but there's plenty of places to check to verify whether this is true.

Let's put it this way, I have not read anywhere that the G92 core does anything special (other than allow for higher clock speeds). It's just a refabrication of the G80 core.

Here's a guru3d thread that kinda confirms things. No new bennies other than overall performance increase.

http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?threadid=242174

Also be sure to check onboard RAM. Although at 1024x768 you won't need more than 256MB of RAM, if you do happen to get a larger monitor then 512MB+ will be needed. Also note that in benchmarking, many cards with 512MB+ RAM benchmark higher at the higher resolutions, but at lower resolutions the playing field is more level. At 1024x768 you can get away with a cheaper, "slower" card.

Harudath

Ah yes, I forgot there were 2 versions of it

For your price range I'd say the 8800GTS/G/T/Whatever is out of the question, the cheapest I could find was for about £160 wheres as the 9600GT was about £106, although you do only get about a 650Mhz core clock and 64 stream processors.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/141669

Crossfire/SLi, unless you have alot of money isn't worth it. You don't get as much performance boost as you'd think you'd get. Perhaps 10-15%, although you do get smoother, more stable gameplay.

revorocks

Ok, i think ill go for the 8800GT scince that is best and is in my price range.

Thanks

revorocks

actually ive just had a look at the 2870Xt and the specs are great, i think i may go with one of those instead.

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/138656

Thrax

And it's slower than all the cards talked about.

Harudath

It actually looks pretty good, 2.2GHz 512 GDDR4 and an 800MHz core clock... Overclocking that thing would be great but it doesn't list the amount of stream processors or the shader clock, although I doubt that will be anything to laugh at with that card. he made a typo in the name, Thrax did you mean the 2870Xt is slower than all the others (If that even exists ) or the 3870Xt?

Thrax

I didn't even click the link. I just assumed he meant 2870.

3870 is solid, but slower than a GT IIRC.

Harudath

It's got better specs than my GTS yet the price is about $90

mas0n

Harudath wrote:

It's got better specs than my GTS yet the price is about $90

Don't be fooled by the higher clock speeds. G92 is a superior architecture to RV670 and offers better performance per clock cycle. The HD3870XT he linked to would be comparable to a vanilla 8800GT and slower than the 8800GTS G92.