8800GTX too fast...

Jumblemo · 22 Feb 2007 at 13:50

So I was about to stump up the cash for an 8800GTX when I read in a review that it is a pointless buy unless you have at least 1900x1200 resolution.

As I plan to run at not much more than 1280x1024 (limited by both plasma and monitor I intend to use), I'd like to buy the fastest PCI-e card that I can get that lets me use HDMI cables at max colour settings.

My old Nvidia 6800GT 128mb sitting in my old AMD3500 based PC is definitely starting to reach its limits in stuff like GTR2 and Far Cry, so the new card is to go in an E6600 Core Duo system.

What should I buy?

fornowagain · 22 Feb 2007 at 13:52

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-039-BG

Booner! · 22 Feb 2007 at 13:53

Well it's not pointless, because when new games come out and you have a less powerful card , you will be like "It's not powerful enough, i'm getting low framerates!"

I agree that it could be "too powerful" but that is a good thing!

Ever heard of "future proofed"?

OC_A64 · 22 Feb 2007 at 13:53

8800GTS 320 is probably the best bet. GTS 640 might give you a bit more futureproofing as game texture sizes increase etc but the 320 should be plenty tbh.

Jumblemo · 22 Feb 2007 at 14:43

Thanks for the input. 8800GTS it will be ;-)

stickroad · 22 Feb 2007 at 14:47

just about to order the GTS and its out of stock, typical.

would have came tomorrow

Cyber-Mav · 22 Feb 2007 at 14:47

try playing rainbow six vegas on it. even at a rez on 1280x1024 you will be wishing you had a more powerful card.

geff_r · 22 Feb 2007 at 15:28

Hmm you could also say that very few games will need
an 8800 gtx to max out off the top of my head i can think of about 5 games that need it but as all my fav games i seem to play do not i don't need that power yet, seeing as most of my times spent playing pro evo 6 online.
If a core 2 duo 8800 gtx and 2 gig of ram has slowdown issues with supcomm
then i'm gutted.Even a huge upgrade isn't enough for certain games and upcoming games bar getting a quad core.

Silver21uk · 22 Feb 2007 at 15:32

Id get the best while i could i only game at 1600*1200 when i can but do fall back to 1280*1024 which i hate doing. Got the 1900xt and love it would lke a new card and am interested in what it can do but right now i think its too soon with the refresh on the horizon

Kamakazie! · 22 Feb 2007 at 15:53

Cyber-Mav said:
try playing rainbow six vegas on it. even at a rez on 1280x1024 you will be wishing you had a more powerful card.

Yeah but that is a poor indication of games performance.... R6 Veags is yet another example of a **** ubisoft console port.
I wish people would stop buying these games until they doa proper job on them.
They are worse than EA for this!

Dark_Angel · 22 Feb 2007 at 17:21

Cyber-Mav said:
try playing rainbow six vegas on it. even at a rez on 1280x1024 you will be wishing you had a more powerful card.

Mav, you said this in another thread.

DO NOT take this personally, but you are wrong.

R6 is badly programmed. It is that simple, it was more worked on for the 360 than the PC port. No game should require SLI 8800 GTX's to run at a great frame rate at 1600x1200. (a bit of an exageration but still). The game was just made badly, and as I said, it is hardly the fault of a GPU that Ubisoft made a weak port.

stinka · 22 Feb 2007 at 18:45

8800gtx struggles horribly with arma armed assault

11 fps with everything turned up, but again this is due to doggy programing etc and will prolly be sorted with a patch or 2

mattpj · 22 Feb 2007 at 20:09

i had the same problem with ARMA, 10 fps if i am lucky. It is of course unplayable

Andri · 22 Feb 2007 at 21:10

You can never have too much power !

i decided to go for a 8800GTX.

i can run every game at 1680x1050 max everything. it was an expensive card but i think it was worth it for all the eye candy i get in games now.

::: CooliceT :: · 22 Feb 2007 at 21:43

im running my 1900xtx saphire at 1920x1200 on max settings for all my games, yea it still plays nice, no stuttering, or lagg

but i wouldnt mind the 8800, im waiting till next year though before i upgrade again.

Neil79 · 22 Feb 2007 at 22:06

Booner! said:
Well it's not pointless, because when new games come out and you have a less powerful card , you will be like "It's not powerful enough, i'm getting low framerates!"

I agree that it could be "too powerful" but that is a good thing!

Ever heard of "future proofed"?

Yeh , then watch people have to turn down the res cause its running a little to slow.. akka what happened with before high end cards and fear

So no its NOT pointless

Luffy · 22 Feb 2007 at 22:11

Andri said:
You can never have too much power !

i decided to go for a 8800GTX.

i can run every game at 1680x1050 max everything. it was an expensive card but i think it was worth it for all the eye candy i get in games now.

I agree, if you are happy to pay out for the GTX you won't regret it. But the GTS will also do a great job if you'd rather put the money to something else.

mikka84 · 22 Feb 2007 at 22:22

Kamakazie! said:
Yeah but that is a poor indication of games performance.... R6 Veags is yet another example of a **** ubisoft console port.
I wish people would stop buying these games until they doa proper job on them.
They are worse than EA for this!

yup Splinter cell double agent was pretty much unplayable on my mates x1800

Jumblemo · 23 Feb 2007 at 22:21

uh, I really want to run arma (was a big OP Flashpoint fan and I remember how slow that was...)

So perhaps I should go for a GTX and Quadcore after all...?

Sean_UK · 23 Feb 2007 at 22:31

8800GTS 640 is the better option in my opinion, seen some reviews vs 320mb at 1600x1200 res where the 320 starts to sufffer. GTX is overkill esp price wise.