Ignorantguy
New Member
Well, maybe I should refresh more often.
Better AND Cheaper than 8800GT?
- Thread starter vonfeldt7
- Start date
Well, maybe I should refresh more often.
All that means is that NVidia has taken the leading edge in gaming while limited in other ways. AMD's ATI directed more of their attention at becoming the leader in image quality and simply offering their high end cards for lower prices. For the average user the full potential of any high end is never realized however.
When it comes to image quality I think that the screenshots speak for themselves and if ATI or NVIDIA want to comment about our findings and thoughts I would be more than happy to post them up for all to see. What started out as a benchmark that was sure to destroy NVIDIA and praise ATI actually showed that NVIDIA had better image quality and performed better at lower (playable) resolutions. Oh Snap! That didn't go as planned I wouldn't think. Have any thoughts, anger or general ramblings on the whole situation?
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/504/1/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/504/1/
For me I simply stick a card and make it work(despite ATI's goofed up 7.9 that is! 
).
Dazzeerr
New Member
I'd love to get an 8800GT, but i think i'll wait for the new nVidia releases first.
I've never used ATI, so can't comment whether they are good or bad but I just understand Geforce's series a lot better. You know where you are with them..
Series 6 > Series 7 > Series 8 etc.
I don't think i'll ever spend more than £200 on a graphics card though, the £160+ range is all you ever need for the latest games imo, as long as you wait a little after the releases. I don't care for having the best benchmarks, just don't like any FPS lag and want to run on high settings, 1024x768 resolution.
I've never used ATI, so can't comment whether they are good or bad but I just understand Geforce's series a lot better. You know where you are with them..
Series 6 > Series 7 > Series 8 etc.
I don't think i'll ever spend more than £200 on a graphics card though, the £160+ range is all you ever need for the latest games imo, as long as you wait a little after the releases. I don't care for having the best benchmarks, just don't like any FPS lag and want to run on high settings, 1024x768 resolution.
On the last build here I ran the lower end MSI Radeon X1300 Pro at 1280x1024 without lags for the most part. The only drawback was the lack of antiliasing and antisotropics seen there. I moved up a notch to a mid range MSI Radeon HD 2600XT still seeing 1280x11024 only now with those options and high detail settings.
The new one ran for twice as much as the $70 paid for the old card but works quite well. Why then would I need to spend almost 3 times as much on a card? I even run 6-7yr. old games on Vista at those settings as well as XP. You have to go by the game manufacturer's recommendations not the card manufacturer's according to what the game designers know.
The old 939 just replaced here wasn't planned out ahead of time but was more of a fast build to replace an old Socket A case where the cpu cooked. That saw 3 different cards where the 3rd was a ffar better ATI Radeon 9550 256mb AGP performer then the two previous GeForce FX5200 models. I didn't pay out any more there then the previous Asus and MSI 128mb models used there.