Do I wait?

SpaghettiOs · 28 Apr 2007 at 15:32

Hi all,

Just had a read through the thread about the 2900XT. My plan had been to wait for it. However after reading this, and several benchmarks for this and the 8800GTS 320mb I'm wondering whether it's still worth waiting or not.

I will be running a 19" Monitor at 1280*1024. Is the 8800GTS 320mb sufficient to run at this res with most eye candy turned on? Im thinking specifically of ET:QW and Oblivion here.

Many thanks,
gamer

easyrider · 28 Apr 2007 at 15:35

8800 GTS 320MB perfect for that res will cut through it nicely on max settings

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 15:36

As Easy said the GTS 320 is perfect, the XT would be overkilll and you wouldnt need that much memory.

LoadsaMoney · 28 Apr 2007 at 15:46

Running that res fine with mine here, 320mb GTS's are fine right upto 16x12, runs everything superb at 1280x1024 even Oblivion, i play it maxed out with 2xAA/16xAF HDR on, and SuperSampling.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 15:54

LoadsaMoney said:
320mb GTS's are fine right upto 16x12

Wrong.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 15:58

Tom|Nbk said:
Wrong.

Unless all you play is Quake 4 (with antialiasing off) then it's stupidly close even at 1600x1200. Linka.

So it looks like the X1900XT will have to compete with a £170 8800GTS on launch day, and that's only OcUK prices.

SpaghettiOs · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:01

Thanks for the quick response guys. Would the BFG OC2 8800GTS 320MB do what I need then?

Many thanks again

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:02

Ulfhedjinn said:
Unless all you play is Quake 4 (with antialiasing off) then it's stupidly close even at 1600x1200. Linka.

Wrong again, I know this first hand, I had to lower AA to 2x in some games and lower the texture sizes on others. It was either/or. Hence why I sold.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:03

gamer_boy said:
Thanks for the quick response guys. Would the BFG OC2 8800GTS 320MB do what I need then?

That card would be fine right up to 1600x1200, and above in certain games.

It'll rip most things to absolute shreds, go for it.

Tom|Nbk said:
Wrong again, I know this first hand, I had to lower AA to 2x in some games and lower the texture sizes on others. It was either/or. Hence why I sold.

AnandTech and LoadsaMoney say otherwise, that's two against one and I'm taking their side. Sorry.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:07

Ulfhedjinn said:
That card would be fine right up to 1600x1200, and above in certain games.

It'll rip most things to absolute shreds, go for it.

AnandTech and LoadsaMoney say otherwise, that's two against one and I'm taking their side. Sorry.

So you'll take Loadsa side who hasn't even gamed at that res or above 1280x1024, right oh, :rolleyes:

specially for you.

And AnandTech don't do enough real world gaming with the card to realise. I couldn't care what some review said I know otherwise speaking from first hand experience.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:11

Tom|Nbk said:
So you'll take Loadsa side who hasn't even gamed at that res or above 1280x1024, right oh, specially for you.

I'll take Loadsa's side because a lot of other people say the same thing about their GTS 320MB, and because benchmarks back them up.

They're also not getting obsessive about 2900XT, the direct competitor to the GTS, if you get me.

Tom|Nbk said:
And AnandTech don't do enough real world gaming with the card to realise. I couldn't care what some review said I know otherwise speaking from first hand experience.

AnandTech's reviews (the official ones) are always very accurate. They're my #1 source for hardware news and I trust them, besides I'm sure other sites reported the same results too.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:18

Ulfhedjinn said:
AnandTech's reviews (the official ones) are always very accurate. They're my #1 source for hardware news and I trust them, besides I'm sure other sites reported the same results too.

And the point just goes straight over Ulf's head. Review sites dont do enough real world gaming with the cards they put a benchmark on or a game on for 10 minutes and do a write up on it. :rolleyes:

. I spent a month with the thing. I would NOT lie.

Ulfhedjinn said:
obsessive about 2900XT, the direct competitor to the GTS, if you get me.

The fact Im getting the XT has no bearing on my advice I have just given, I stated cold hard fact from first hand experience yet your to arrogant to even aknowlegde information from first hand sources who have actually spent real time with the card, as for loads of other people saying it runs fine well yes I said it does but don't expect to have every game maxed out with uber AA settings purely for the fact it has lesser memory, 320mb simply is not enough for that res with uber AA. You really starting to bore me with your "know it all" persona

.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:24

Tom|Nbk said:
And the point just goes straight over Ulf's head. Review sites dont do enough real world gaming with the cards they put a benchmark on or a game on for 10 minutes and do a write up on it. . I spent a month with the thing. I would NOT lie.

Are you calling LoadsaMoney a liar then? What about easyrider, I think he has the 320MB model and likes it. What about all the other people who say that their 320MB model plays games fine up to 1600x1200?

I'm sorry, but you're just well outnumbered here so you might as well rolleyes.

Tom|Nbk said:
The fact Im getting the XT has no bearing on my advice I have just given

I didn't say you were getting it, I said you were obsessed with it. Frankly you find any excuse to argue 2900XT vs. 8800GTS these days, it's even non-stop on MSN and it's getting old.

Tom|Nbk said:
I stated cold hard fact from first hand experience yet your to arrogant to even aknowlegde information from first hand sources who have actually spent real time with the card,

I just named two people who have had the same experience. :confused:

Tom|Nbk said:
as for loads of other people saying it runs fine well yes I said it does but don't expect to have every game maxed out with uber AA settings purely for the fact it has lesser memory, 320mb simply is not enough for that res with uber AA.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about maxed out with uber AA. Even Loadsa only mentioned 2xAA with supersampling just now, so where is this coming from?

Tom|Nbk said:
You really starting to bore me with your "know it all" persona .

I'm just listening to the experiences of more people than you who have owned this card, correlating those experiences with what I am seeing in benchmarks. If anyone is acting "know it all" here, I'm afraid that it's you.

I get it. You've been waiting months and months for 2900XT now and it's beginning to look like a bit of a wet fish, but I don't see what that has to do at all with how the 320MB GTS scales with the 640MB one.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:36

Ulfhedjinn said:
Are you calling LoadsaMoney a liar then? What about easyrider, I think he has the 320MB model and likes it.

Nope didn't say anywhere about Loads being a liar. :confused:

Ulfhedjinn said:
What about all the other people who say that their 320MB model plays games fine up to 1600x1200?

Show me these people?. I have only ever seen Easy say this?

Ulfhedjinn said:
I'm sorry, but you're just well outnumbered here so you might as well rolleyes.

LOL the old numbers game, Grow up.

Ulfhedjinn said:
I don't recall anyone saying anything about maxed out with uber AA. Even Loadsa only mentioned 2xAA with supersampling just now, so where is this coming from?

You buy a GTS you expect to be maxing out that particular game with AA, common ******* sense Ulf, get some.

Ulfhedjinn said:
I'm just listening to the experiences of more people than you who have owned this card, correlating those experiences with what I am seeing in benchmarks. If anyone is acting "know it all" here, I'm afraid that it's you.

Like I said show me these people, I can’t understand why you wouldn’t take my word for it I have nothing to gain just giving some friendly advice :confused:

Ulfhedjinn said:
I get it. You've been waiting months and months for 2900XT now and it's beginning to look like a bit of a wet fish, but I don't see what that has to do at all with how the 320MB GTS scales with the 640MB one.

You’re the one that didn’t stop blabbing for days the 2900XT card was a write off frankly I couldn’t care ill get one regardless.

CREATIVE!11 · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:38

Tom play nice now!

No fighting!

easyrider · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:41

Tom|Nbk said:
Show me these people?. I have only ever seen Easy say this?

At 1650 x 1080 I have no problem with the card.

However I don't have a monitor that will do 1600x1200 so I can't comment.

All I can say is that the downgrade from a GTX was certainly no biggy.

I get the same 06 score when Its clocked and the IQ and speed are the same at my res.Oh and it cost me £175

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:44

easyrider said:
At 1650 x 1080 I have no problem with the card.

However I don't have a monitor that will do 1600x1200 so I can't comment.

All I can say is that the downgrade from a GTX was certainly no biggy.

I get the same 06 score when Its clocked and the IQ and speed are the same at my res.Oh and it cost me £175

Yea, 06 is ran at a res where the memory size is not an issue even @ 1680x1050, 1600x1200. Im not saying the card it self isn't up to the job. Bloody hell its more than up to it, Im saying the lack of memory holds the card down in SOME games not all. At that particular res.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:45

Tom|Nbk said:
You buy a GTS you expect to be maxing out that particular game with AA, common ******* sense Ulf, get some.

Loadsa said 2xAA, the OP didn't say anything about maxing out, it's just something you pulled out of thin-air.

I'll get some common sense when you start reading the thread. :confused:

Tom said:
You’re the one that didn’t stop blabbing for days the 2900XT card was a write off frankly I couldn’t care ill get one regardless.

I said it's disappointing, not a write-off, and that I hope next week's benches show it to be a dark horse.

Again it comes back to me "bad-mouthing" your new pet product. Get a grip, brand is not the end all and be all.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:53

Ulfhedjinn said:
Loadsa said 2xAA, the OP didn't say anything about maxing out, it's just something you pulled out of thin-air.

No but im sure the OP has the best intentions to be maxing out as much as possible since he is actually considering the GTS. But he isnt even using 1600x1200 so what does the OP have to do with it :confused:

Ulfhedjinn said:
I said it's disappointing, not a write-off, and that I hope next week's benches show it to be a dark horse.

Your post's in other threads say otherwise

Ulfhedjinn said:
Again it comes back to me "bad-mouthing" your new pet product. Get a grip, brand is not the end all and be all.

True, but I'd like a brand who seem to offer more support to their products, but that's another argument I CBA going into.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 16:55

Tom|Nbk said:
No but im sure the OP has the best intentions to be maxing out as much as possible since he is actually considering the GTS. But he isnt even using 1600x1200 so what does the OP have to do with it

Well you started banging on about how the GTS won't run games "maxed out with uber AA" and nobody at all in this thread said it would, the OP didn't even say he wanted it to, he just said: -

"I will be running a 19" Monitor at 1280*1024. Is the 8800GTS 320mb sufficient to run at this res with most eye candy turned on?"

All LoadsaMoney said too was 2xAA with supersampling, not "maxed out with uber AA."

Tom|Nbk said:
Your post's in other threads say otherwise

As I just said to you on MSN: -

"I didn't say it was a failure at all? I said I don't see any reason to upgrade my 8800GTS, which is a shame because I might actually want to?

If you'd take off the red glasses before reading those posts you might reduce your risk of future heart disease."

Tom|Nbk said:
True, but I'd like a brand who seem to offer more support to their products, but that's another argument I CBA going into.

The question here is "what products?" But, you're right, that's a whole different kettle of fish and would get ugly fast.