EVGA 8800GTS 320mb KO ASC3

Margaret · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:30

willhub said:
Maybe he has loads of cash, but you dont make loads of cash by throwing it all away...

Apparently the OP does, 1100Watt PSU.

willhub · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:36

Jihad said:
Apparently the OP does, 1100Watt PSU.

Ok, in this case, you're best bet is to first, buy 2 8800Ultras, then get one of those Apple 30" screens with the uber res they have, then upgrade that slow CPU to something like a Quad Core Extreme and stick 8GB or more ram in there if money is no object.

Did bill get rich by throwing all his money away?

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:37

willhub said:
In which case he should get an 8800GTX, the Ultra is not worth the money over a GTX considering the only differences are clock speeds.

Again for 100x, there is not just a difference in Clockspeed.

1) Rev3 core on every card
2) 0.8ns Memory

Not saying he should get one but peeps please stop saying a Ultra is a faster GTX.

Shep_Cobain · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:44

Will check out my post on the Asus P5N-e Sli board, cheers.

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:44

No its not and many here will tell you, inc J.D above.

How is a card fitted with faster/more expensive Memory the same model ? :confused:

Its a card in its own right, just because its based on same tech, so its GTS 320 and 640, just crippled by laser cuts.

@ Shep_Cobain, CPU's and GPU's are 2 best topics to get Geeks heated.

willhub · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:47

helmutcheese said:
No its not and many here will tell you, inc J.D above.

How is a card fitted with faster/more expensive Memory the same model ?

Its a card in its own right, just because its based on same tech, so its GTS 320 and 640, just crippled by laser cuts

All it is is higher clockes GTX.., so what if it's got different memory, and a reva3 core, it's still got the same amount of strem processors, memory bus etc.., the only difference in terms of increasing performance slightly is the core speed and memory speed.

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:56

Well take that up with Nvidia if you feel so strongly about it m8, I simply dont agree.

The G4 Ti 4200 / 4400 /4600 were basically all the same apart from clocks, but still 3 models in their own right.

Dont really matter as both Pwn your card.

J/K

willhub · 8 Sep 2007 at 21:58

All they've done is, made a new revision of the GTX's core, added some lower ns memory for the simple aim of upping the clocks on it...

The performance of it is only that of an overclocked GTX, yes, it can overclock higher than any 8800GTX and perform higher than any GTX when fully overclocked, but the performance increase does not justify the extra price, sure if you can fine an 8800Ultra for the price of a GTX then, and then only is it worth purchasing.

weescott · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:03

Exactly willhub! For all intent and purpose an Ultra is just a fast GTX.

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:03

Fine by me but I am happier with my card with Crysis drawing near, as I have a (REFRESHED GTX) not a card that came out almost 12months ago.

Is that more suited to you ?

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:04

weescott said:
Exactly willhub! For all intent and purpose an Ultra is just a fast GTX.

I dont agree and many others dont (look through posts), where do you draw the line, many CPU's/GPU's are near same.

willhub · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:04

helmutcheese said:
Fine by me but I am happier with my card with Crysis drawing near, as I have a (REFRESHED GTX) not a card that came out almost 12months ago.

Is that more suited to you ?

Refreshed GTX sounds much better than 8800Ultra

.

helmutcheese said:
I dont agree and many others dont (look through posts), where do you draw the line, many CPU's/GPU's are near same.

Whats that supposed to mean? CPU's and GPU's do different jobs all together.

weescott · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:10

helmutcheese said:
where do you draw the line, many CPU's/GPU's are near same.

When end performance is so similar and it shares the same tech. Sure some CPU's are speed binned versions of higher spec CPU's, have less cache etc...but the end result can be much the same. So that asks the question of where to draw the line in your purchase and overclock what you have, saving money and having some fun in process. Hence my point of why a GTX is better value than an Ultra.

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:11

I mean many CPU's are slower verions of others, laser cut etc.

If you overclock a E6600 to 1333 and 3GHZ, it still aint a E6850.

Same with GPU's.

willhub · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:12

And saving the money and get a GTX you could buy something else with the money you save, such as a new HDD, or even case, maybe a TV tuner or some case accessories to give that case some extra bling

helmutcheese said:
I mean many CPU's are slower verions of others, laser cut etc.

If you overclock a E6600 to 1333 and 3GHZ, it still aint a E6850.

Same with GPU's.

Yes, but an E6600 at 1333, 3Ghz will still perform on par with the E6850, I would choose an E6850 over an E6600 though since they are phasing those E6600's out and the E6850's seem to hit 4Ghz, and CPU Overclocking is more of a priority to me than GPU overclocking.

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:14

weescott, Nobody here I have seen says a GTX is not better value for money, just some things aint about money and some dont care about money.

Its about getting the fastest avail at the time, the GTX is getting on in age as far as GPU's go and wont get any better from now on.

For me, buying a GTX about 10weeks ago was no go as it has being out long time, I got offered the best Ultra you can get @ £70 off price, so I took it, even if only for the better cooling on rear of that card.

I can still rest easier knowing I can stand a better chance of playing some new upcoming games at better frames than I could if I had bought a GTX.

There are some others here, who are about to jump on Ultra bandwagon for Crysis, TOM just missed out and ended up with a GTX, now anyone with a GTX ahould keep it IMO.

Their decision was based on recent rumours about no new Flagship cards for this year.

Can you follow this ?.

@ Will, I dont care about money, I aint rich but have some money and like the best.

willhub · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:18

helmutcheese said:
weescott, Nobody here I have seen says a GTX is not better value for money, just some things aint about money and some dont care about money.

Its about getting the fastest avail at the time, the GTX is getting on in age as far as GPU's go and wont get any better from now on.

Yea the Ultra is getting on in age aswell.

Do people get rich by throwing there money away eh? I dont think so, all these guy's with 8800Ultras and even 8800GTX SLi dont need it, they throw there cash away for a wopping big great E-peen, thats what it's all about.

weescott · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:20

helmutcheese said:
weescott, Nobody here I have seen says a GTX is not better value for money, just some things aint about money and some dont care about money..

True, but you missed my point.

helmutcheese said:
the GTX is getting on in age as far as GPU's go and wont get any better from now on.

what like its going to magically grow pipes and get faster with age?

truebluecfc · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:21

LOL

!

helmutcheese · 8 Sep 2007 at 22:24

@ weescot, No but it will get lesser and lesser in games to come as of clocks, so the faster the card you have the better IMO until there is new cards avail, its all going to be about the fastest GTX/ULTRA getting good FPS in this years upcoming games.

@ Will, The Ultra was not launched last year.