• 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.

Current equivalent or better than an X1950Pro...

as far as your x1950 pro goes, if its n early revision then the pwn's are most likely over heating. if its still installed check them to see if they get hot.
 
skunksta said:
In most brench marks it beats the 640mb card at 1280x1024 so i cant see why you say it cant handle it loadsa check the results http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=778&model2=707&chart=277
Click to expand...

It can't, ive used one at 1280x1024, 320mb is just not enough memory, i had to start turning details down, use only 2xAA, or none at all, and even start to drop the res to 1280x960 on top of doing all that in some games, if he gets the 320mb hes gona regret it.

Theres also a mistake there in those charts (which are rubbish btw as no one go's buy Tom's), how can the 320mb GTS be faster than the 640mb GTS when they are both the same cards, they even the same speeds there. :p
 
Last edited:
LoadsaMoney said:
It can't, ive used one at 1280x1024, 320mb is just not enough memory, i had to start turning details down, use only 2xAA, or none at all, and even start to drop the res to 1280x960 on top of doing all that in some games, if he gets the 320mb hes gona regret it.

Theres also a mistake there in those charts (which are rubbish btw as no one go's buy Tom's), how can the 320mb GTS be faster than the 640mb GTS when they are both the same cards, they even the same speeds there. :p
Click to expand...

Just shows how poo the 8800 320/640 was then cause my old 1900 could handle all things about around the same time you had your GTS bar 1 or 2 games with setting on full at that res.And as for tom's you may well dislike it and that chart may well be a mistake but prove me wrong with a site that shows the right bench's. (btw not saying your wrong just dont think your %100 right in all you have said)
 
Last edited:
skunksta said:
Just shows how poo the 8800 320/640 was then cause my old 1900 could handle all things about around the same time you had your GTS bar 1 or 2 games with setting on full at that res.And as for tom's you may well dislike it and that chart may well be a mistake but prove me wrong with a site that shows the right bench's. (btw not saying your wrong just dont think your %100 right in all you have said)
Click to expand...

Of course it did.
 
So, go with the older/hotter G80 based GTS, pay more for the 'lower' model but newer/better core 8800GT or go for the newer model/core 9600GT...

(it's never simple is it... ;) )
 
gurusan said:
a few weeks? Under 100 quid? what?
Click to expand...

Well they are currently selling at the weekend on the bay for just over £100. Now that new cards are available for £165, it ought to drop the price of 2nd hand GTX cards on the bay to under £100 IMO.

That's all.
 
skunksta said:
It did maybe not 60 fps but playable.So if my 1900 did then his 8800 would have at that res.Kinda what i was trying to say as it was a better card but to hear loada talk it sucked at that res.
Click to expand...

It did start to suck at 1280x1024, the 320mb was the limiting factor, not the the speed of the card, only reason i had to start lowering details, turn AA down/off, was because of the 320mb, as it was to little, the exact same card with more memory (like the 640mb), then i wouldn't have had to turn anything down, as it would have had enough memory to cope.

Look at reviews of the 8800 GT 512mb, and the 8800 GT 256mb, now both the exact same cards, exact same speeds, only difference is ones got double the memory, so why in some games is the 512mb GT hammering the 256mb GT at the same res, details etc..., answer = memory, as thats what its in, its all in the memory, you need 512mb minimum these days. :)
 
Last edited:
I don't need to prove Tom's was wrong there, you can see its wrong, the 320mb GTS would not be faster than the 640mb GTS when both cards are the exact same cards, at the exact same speeds, just one has half the memory. :)

Look at this review here, 512mb 8800 GT and 256mb 8800 GT, see how when you start slapping AA/AF on, even at 1280x1024, the 256mb gets left behind by the 512mb, thats because it hasn't got enough memory.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_8800_gt_256mb_xxx_review/
 
Last edited:
LOL 10 -15 fps if left behide.Guess this it why we see things dif .And in most its less than 10 fps at that res.
 
Last edited:
10-15fps less is huge, what if the 512mb was getting 30fps in a game, yeah thats playable, but if the 256mb is only getting about 15fps, thats not gona be playable is it, so to get the frames up to about 30 like the 512mb so it is playable, your gona have to start reducing details, turn down AA, or turn it off.:)
 
Last edited:
M8 read your review at the res we are talking about every game i just looked at its less than 8fps that to me is nothing at all..Unless your playing crapyss and no card plays it well and wont for a while as we all know

BTW the XFX one. Also look at Oblivion bench why does the 256mb beat the 512mb now if we go on what you say thats wrong and the site is wrong no? even if its no AA/AF.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't, first game up is Fear, 1280x1024, 4xAA/16xAF, the difference there is 9fps, 512mb gets 94fps, the 256mb gets 85fps, COH the second game there, again 1280x1024 4xAA/16xAF, 512mb gets 145fps, the 256mb gets 131fps, thats a lot more than 8fps or less diff, its 14fps. :p

Im not sure on the Oblivion one, but that could be because the XFX is clocked higher, so with no AA/AF it woud be faster, but once you start adding the AA/AF it would go slower, as it hasn't got enough memory. :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom