• 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.

New Build

dmce

dmce

dmce

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
249
Location
Glasgow
Hi folks

Im about to stick this machine together

NSK4400
E4300
Gigabyte G965DS3
2GB CorsairTwinX XMS2 DDR2 PC2-6400 4-4-4-12
Noctua NH-U12F
Samsung HD080HJ (Donr need much space as have server)

I was wondering if anyone could answer this:
I need as quiet as possible gfx card to go with this for about 100-140£ Any suggestions.

There are some passive 8600gt cards due out. Are these worth it over the x1950Pro?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply. I made a little edit that you mat have missed
edit:
There are some passive 8600gt cards due out. Are these worth it over the x1950Pro?
 
No x1950pro is faster, 8600's are lemons, yes they may be Dx10, but theres no way in hell they are gona run Dx10 games, your probably talking 1024x768 or less, low to medium details no AA/AF, so not worth Dx10 at all. :)
 
dmce said:
Thanks for the reply. I made a little edit that you mat have missed
edit:
There are some passive 8600gt cards due out. Are these worth it over the x1950Pro?
Click to expand...


If you read up onthe 8600 on these forums these cards carry some bad bottlenecks and arent worth it.
 
Thanks for the replies. I got that impression from reading around but i really cant be bothered with noise so was foolishly hoping. :)
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Pretty much every other review site disagrees, and that whole article reads like an advert.
Click to expand...

The article so far has been rather painful to read (I mean seriously giving advice about putting stickers onto boxes to make them stand out :confused: ) and the graphs seem designed to be as illegible as possible, they might be right for all I know but it doesn't make me overly inclined to trust the review although I've read others by the same website that seemed fine. One question though, is 16x HQ AF (for ATI) not putting more of a load on the graphics card than 16x AF (for Nvidia)? I don't know all the AA/AF settings for the newer cards so I'm just curious. :)
 
semi-pro waster said:
One question though, is 16x HQ AF (for ATI) not putting more of a load on the graphics card than 16x AF (for Nvidia)?
Click to expand...
16xAF with HQAF enabled on an ATI card would definitely give a bigger performance hit.

Are they using HQAF on the ATI cards in that review? :eek:
 
Maybe have a look at a 7600GT (if you wanted an alternative to ATI). Then when the 8800GTS price drops upgrade to that.

Just a thought
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Are they using HQAF on the ATI cards in that review? :eek:
Click to expand...

Well they do for the graphs of Stalker and Battlefield 2142 and on Flight Simulator X although other settings are lower etc etc which is a very poor review methodology if you aren't comparing like for like. However in a couple of the graphs they appear to have upped the AA for the 8600 cards that they haven't done on the X1950pro but in most it appears they have just bumped up the AF on the X1950pro and then seemed surprised that it suffers a performance hit.

As I've said I don't know too much about what each overall setting does and how they compare for performance losses and they don't explain the graphs very well (for instance if that is the highest settings for each card where it remains vaguely playable or whether that is simply what they did each test with) so I can't say entirely that the review is flawed but it does rather look that way to a casual observer.
 
I agree with what's been said, unless the new load of drivers work some magic on the 8600 GTS, I think the card to get is the x1950 Pro (until the R600 mid range cards come out).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom