- Joined
- 26 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3,322
- Location
- Blackpool
So.... im now torn.... a top of the range pre OC'ed GTX for approx £375 or a standard Ultra for approx £375??????
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
EVGA 8800GTS 320mb KO ASC3
- Thread starter Shep_Cobain
- Start date
If the GTX lags in a certain game at certain settings, the Ultra will, if the Ultra plays a game at Ultra high, the GTX will.
The Ultra's core is getting old now, it's not got anything better than a GTX in that core, you cant say the Ultra will last longer than a GTX.
Get a standard GTX, they will overclock as high and probs higher than the pre overclocked ones, and Overclocking aint rocket science.
Different core revision, runs cooler, different memory and overclocks faster. It can achieve speeds that the GTX can't. So please explain how it's just a faster 8800GTX?.
How can the performance of the Ultra be that of an overclocked GTX but then you say straight after that it beats an overclocked GTX?. It's like you're half admitting it then changing the subject midway to say it's now about price.
Shep Cobain. You asked a question and the reality of it is that from us arguing about it will help you. It's a friendly debate more than anything and it's something that happens on forums. Some people take great offence whilst others just laugh it off. Dependant on the mood.
Also you posted 2 Ultra's - how many people have came in here and told you to get the lesser card when it has nothing to do with your question?. Obviously you can't be that thick if you know if you've got the money to spare then the Ultra is the best buy and it's what me and HelmutCheese have been trying to point out to you.
What I said above stands. If money isn't an object the Ultra is the BETTER card. If you could do with saving you wouldn't be losing a lot over the Ultra with the GTX but it wouldn't be able to match it although very close.
How can the performance of the Ultra be that of an overclocked GTX but then you say straight after that it beats an overclocked GTX?. It's like you're half admitting it then changing the subject midway to say it's now about price.
Shep Cobain. You asked a question and the reality of it is that from us arguing about it will help you. It's a friendly debate more than anything and it's something that happens on forums. Some people take great offence whilst others just laugh it off. Dependant on the mood.
Also you posted 2 Ultra's - how many people have came in here and told you to get the lesser card when it has nothing to do with your question?. Obviously you can't be that thick if you know if you've got the money to spare then the Ultra is the best buy and it's what me and HelmutCheese have been trying to point out to you.
What I said above stands. If money isn't an object the Ultra is the BETTER card. If you could do with saving you wouldn't be losing a lot over the Ultra with the GTX but it wouldn't be able to match it although very close.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Thats total nonsence, a GTX could lag at X settings getting 30FPS and a Ultra could get 5FPS more (at least) and not lag.
Have you even looked at benches I put up ?
Skip to page 10 if you only care for benches, 1 or 2 game even low res, massive gaps, all other games massive gaps at high/uber res as you play on cards like these.
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/428/1/
Last edited:
30fps not lag...
If they are the same price then an Ultra seems the best option. The pre overclocked GTX's are still a little slower than the Ultra...but not by any real noticable margin. But...cards like the GTX XXX come with a transferable double lifetime warranty. Is it worth the extra cash? Personal choice. It is has been said that the pre-overclocked cards are hand picked faster versions of the GTX and are more likely to clock well. That seems to be the case with mine.
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 3,322
- Location
- Blackpool
price isnt an issue. But at the end of the day if i an Ultra is good but an OC'ed GTX is just as good or v.close i would be better say buying a GTX and maybe going SLI in the future???
Saying that though how would an OC'ed GTX compare to an OC'ed Ultra <--- Human OCing or manufactured
The debate is great and i love it
Saying that though how would an OC'ed GTX compare to an OC'ed Ultra <--- Human OCing or manufactured
The debate is great and i love it
The Ultra uses more power according to some benchmarks, no one will but an Ultra just because it runs cooler, as it's not a massive difference.
GTX's can overclock higher than Ultra stock speeds, obviously it beats an overclocked GTX since it can overclock higher, but it's still not worth the extra money, unless you can find it for the SAME price as a GTX.
I dont think anyone is taking great offence, maybe that helmutcheese is, I'm quite enjoying this.
You think I was serious?
And why throw money away? The GTX is close to an Ultra, if you can find a Ultra for GTX speeds, then the Ultra is fine, but it costs more than a GTX, more, it's not worth the damnd money.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
30FPS is just about laggy, ok since you try to move goalposts every time.
A GTX could get say 25FPS (not Oblivion) and be laggy, a Ultra could get even 30FPS and be non laggy.
You decide whats laggy and then decide how many FPS need added to that to make it non laggy, and please go read the review on last page and then try post something concrete.
To say a GTX will play a game as fluidly at any settings than a Ultra is false and to say any game the GTX cant play Fluidly nor will a Ultra is gain false (lets use bog standard 612mhz/2160 version as review to be fair), again look at review.
Last edited:
Still, I could not get an Ultra, I would rather live with the 5fps loss..., It's oblivion anyway, crappy game.
Basically, the Ultra only shines at low frame rates, if you want 30FPS Vs 25fps get an Ultra, I'd be ****** with any of those frame rates and a GTX or Ultra tbh.
If you want to play a game with Fluidly, if the GTX aint, then the Ultra aint...
price isnt an issue. But at the end of the day if i an Ultra is good but an OC'ed GTX is just as good or v.close i would be better say buying a GTX and maybe going SLI in the future???
Saying that though how would an OC'ed GTX compare to an OC'ed Ultra <--- Human OCing or manufactured
The debate is great and i love it
I was in a similar quandry. Budget wasn't an issue but I like a bargain like anyone else. Is the extra cash for an Ultra worth it over a GTX for so little gain? Not in my book. I could have bought 2 Ultra's. I could get bigger 3d mark scores and have a bigger e-peen. But I would cheat and use the performance setting so I would be a fake.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Who said in real use your going to lose only 5FPS (read the review and learn) it was a total made up example from a number what is considered very lowest for a normal 1st/3rd Person type game to lag apart from Oblivion which looks ok at 25FPS.
Card A lags at X settings and manages 25FPS
card B manages at same settings 30FPS
The 5FPS could make the world of difference between lag/sore head and eyes and non lag.
BUT, the difference will be more than 5FPS esp on the faster cards.
None of your input makes any sence, apart from that 1 or 2 games, the GTX and Ultra are very close at low res, who buys either of these cards to game at 1024x768 ?.
At high/uber res, 1600x1200 and above the gap becomes more and sometime massive, so dont tell me there is a game that a GTX cant reach a certain FPS to make it non laggy that a faster card can also not reach reach.
I know you still have not bothered to go and at least look at that URL.
Movie time for me.
Card A lags at X settings and manages 25FPS
card B manages at same settings 30FPS
The 5FPS could make the world of difference between lag/sore head and eyes and non lag.
BUT, the difference will be more than 5FPS esp on the faster cards.
None of your input makes any sence, apart from that 1 or 2 games, the GTX and Ultra are very close at low res, who buys either of these cards to game at 1024x768 ?.
At high/uber res, 1600x1200 and above the gap becomes more and sometime massive, so dont tell me there is a game that a GTX cant reach a certain FPS to make it non laggy that a faster card can also not reach reach.
I know you still have not bothered to go and at least look at that URL.
Movie time for me.
Last edited:
Runs cooler and overclocks more. As HelmutCheese is trying to say - that extra boost could be the saving grace at a higher resolution than an overclocked GTX (could).
It's maybe not worth the extra money to you and to a lot of people but it's worth more money than a stock GTX as it's got better parts and goes faster for overclockers which the majority of us do in here.
Not aimed at you Will
. I was just explaining that some take offence whilst others just shrug it off and don't care as he seemed surprised at it all. Just reassuring that we all still feel the <3 
.Lol again that was for Shep
.Well it depends. I'd more than happily pay £30 - £50 maybe even £60 extra for an Ultra over a GTX as it's a better card in heat and in overclocking the core and RAM. I wouldn't even bat an eyelid at that but if it starts to hit £80 - £100 dearer then it's better to go with the GTX if you're not made of money and the extra could go to something more worthwhile whatever may that be
.The differences aren't that phenomenal, I agree but it's still enough be the fastest card out available and that you can't that take away from the Ultra. The extra money is worth it if it's not that much dearer than a GTX but it's dependant on the person and the budget to see if this is a better card and not our own financial positions that would limit us from spending the extra's.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
The extra cash can be wasted on drink and fags by most.
Later.
Later.
The extra cash can be wasted on drink and fags by most.
Later.
That extra cash would go for a new hdd for me.
The extra cash can be wasted on drink and fags by most.
Later.
I'm not that way enclined. How very dare you!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Fags = smokes here BTW, and are you classed as Most?
Will. Would you pay £30 - £50 extra for a faster card and better overclocking potential?. If you say no then I have to ask you about your losses in jumping from your last few graphic cards?. There is hardly any difference between the X2900 and 8800GTS but that didn't stop you. You wanted to try the both out and did with some loss. It's what comes with it. The bad thing with your loss is that you've not gained much in performance but at least you have experienced the both cards which is a good thing for these boards. Now for the people who want the GTX but can afford the extra money for the Ultra then it will beat a GTX overclocked and they will have the fastest card out and will be happy. Also Will, you are an overclocker and if you had the GTX or Ultra then the Ultra would be your fastest card. You'd love it, I honestly think you would. Also this new found liking of the card would make it worthwhile spending the extra as we all know what it's like to buy something for something to come out faster/better and cheaper than your new toy so soon. The feeling of being Ultra would be worth the extra to those who can afford it IMHO.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
HMM, this thread has went WAY WAY off topic.
To answer PART of the OP's question, the faster of the 2 has a massive black passive sink on rear of card, they other is not supposed to have but may have (someone here bought one last week so he WILL know for sure).
Offically the site says only the GTX ACS3 and Ultra Superclock have it.
You need use search here to find last part, some guy to do with Crysis named the cards to get decent settings on (think it was 8800 GTS's), he DID state you will need faster cards to go 1600x1200 and higher. (obv with very high settings, you could play 1600x1200 with low settings
)Roight I really need catch that movie not argue crap here, I have gave the OP a on topic partual answer, others here jsut are Ultra Haters, regardless of any facts inc money etc etc so will tell you something other than your choice of the 2 cards in your post, your card aint going to play it very high going by that guys comments.
Last edited:
Thank you for pointing out the obvious.
classed as most? Are you calling me a monkey again?