The memory was one thing I already mentioned earlier due to having run enough Asus boards here along with seeing the brands Asus mentions as being those tested on their models. You could go with a slight video card change and save some money at the same time. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102051
what do you all think about this card
- Thread starter superfreak
- Start date
- Status
The memory was one thing I already mentioned earlier due to having run enough Asus boards here along with seeing the brands Asus mentions as being those tested on their models. You could go with a slight video card change and save some money at the same time. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102051
superfreak
New Member
yep i made the change decided to go with the x1900xt.. orderd it today
Which make and model did you decide to go with? Like I mean brand, etc?
If you had bothered to read the thread you would known what make and model was advised.
SAPPHIRE 100168L Radeon X1900XT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16 CrossFire
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102051
First I wasn't talking to you.
Second, I hope he wasn't stupid enough to listen to you or he's going to regret it when he maxes out high end games a little down the road just so he can save a couple of bucks now.
Third, just because that was recommended doesn't mean that's the one he chose (although Sapphire does make a good card).
Second, I hope he wasn't stupid enough to listen to you or he's going to regret it when he maxes out high end games a little down the road just so he can save a couple of bucks now.
Third, just because that was recommended doesn't mean that's the one he chose (although Sapphire does make a good card).
If you had read the thread...
you would have already known who made the recommendation on that make and model card.Yeah. He recommended MSI. You recommended the Sapphire (which is definitely superior to MSI in my books) which in fact was what you suggested he went with here.
Sooo... If we go by your statements, Pc EyE, ceewi1's recommendation becomes irrelevant and my comments to you stand.
Your Honor, I move to strike.
Sooo... If we go by your statements, Pc EyE, ceewi1's recommendation becomes irrelevant and my comments to you stand.
Your Honor, I move to strike.
No what he stated was that the MSI model was a better value over the eVGA 7900GT model at newegg. ceewi1 went on to say that these days his preference was for the Sapphire. Since I have worked with MSI AGP model cards I would be the one making the rec on the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127218
Since I have worked with MSI AGP model cards I would be the one making the rec on the http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814127218
Oh Reehhheeehhheeeaaaallyy....?
http://www.computerforum.com/438497-post21.html
SAPPHIRE 100168L Radeon X1900XT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16 CrossFire Video Card - Retail
Which supercedes your previous call for MSI. Then you go on to suggest he took your recommendation of the Sapphire, precipitating my comments in my follow up post.
If you had bothered to read the thread you would known what make and model was advised.
SAPPHIRE 100168L Radeon X1900XT 256MB 256-bit GDDR3 VIVO PCI Express x16 CrossFire
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102051
http://www.computerforum.com/439684-post24.html
Your Honor... Clearly the Defendant is dellusional and making misdirections that are obviously superfluous to the matter before the Court and I move that such comments be stricken from the Record.
ceewi1
VIP Member
I recommended the MSI 7900GT over the eVGA 7900GT since the eVGA model had nothing to justify the extra cost. I recommended the MSI X1900XTX solely because it was $60 cheaper than any other X1900XTX. Again, the more expensive models have no additional features that justify the extra cost.
My opinion was, and is, that the X1900XT 256MB was a better card than the 7900GT. If he had been desperate for SLI support the MSI 7900GT was better value than the eVGA 7900GT.
The 512MB version of the X1900XT is an additional $70, with most X1900XTXs costing over $100 more. I would hardly call that a few extra dollars.
The 256MB X1900XT is a solid card, and the best card at its pricerange. Neither the 512MB X1900XT or X1900XTX is going to last significantly longer than this card. I stand by the recommendation. Does it really matter who recommended it first, so long as he ends up with the right card?
ceewi1:
If you compare the MSI to the eVGA, you're right. No question. I'm not debating that. I also concur that the X1900XT is a better card than the 7900GT. Again, no contest.
$70 is pocket change in the computer world. Did you know that I spent $640 for my VGA? Plus 7% GST on top of that (I'm PST exempt. I didn't buy it through the business because I couldn't find it at any of my suppliers). I paid $500 for the one before that plus tax and $550 for the one before that, also plus tax.
My point is that the final recommendation was made by PC eye. It was that recommendation that he suggested was followed. Whether you made a recommendation or not is immaterial to the matter before us. It was his bad advice that was followed apparently. I hope not, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
256MB cards might perform adequately now, but in certain games on ultra settings in high resolutions they will start to take a hit. Then he will wish he had a 512MB card. I'm telling you.. Trust me. $70 barely buys a carton of cigarettes or a tank of gas nowadays, but it will go a long way to future-proofing his purchase.
Whatever. Not my cake. Not my computer.
If you compare the MSI to the eVGA, you're right. No question. I'm not debating that. I also concur that the X1900XT is a better card than the 7900GT. Again, no contest.
$70 is pocket change in the computer world. Did you know that I spent $640 for my VGA? Plus 7% GST on top of that (I'm PST exempt. I didn't buy it through the business because I couldn't find it at any of my suppliers). I paid $500 for the one before that plus tax and $550 for the one before that, also plus tax.
My point is that the final recommendation was made by PC eye. It was that recommendation that he suggested was followed. Whether you made a recommendation or not is immaterial to the matter before us. It was his bad advice that was followed apparently. I hope not, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
256MB cards might perform adequately now, but in certain games on ultra settings in high resolutions they will start to take a hit. Then he will wish he had a 512MB card. I'm telling you.. Trust me. $70 barely buys a carton of cigarettes or a tank of gas nowadays, but it will go a long way to future-proofing his purchase.
Whatever. Not my cake. Not my computer.
So you're not a tech afterall but a what? an attorney or would be attorney?
What you obviously missed on that one was the advice on system memory as well as overall cost. TADA!
I'm full of surprises.... Trust me.
I didn't miss anything. I'm concerned about future-proofing a purchase. I am of the mindset that I will always spend the extra loot if it means that I will get extended life and it will save me some coinage later. I could have bought a cheaper VGA for my computer, but I bought the best VGA money could buy. Three generations in a row. And I'm still using all of them to this day.
See, you might save two bits now using your logic, but it will cost you a fin later. Think about that.
Hai, what are you doing up so late? I thought I was going to be sitting around here twiddling my thumbs. This is great. I have someone to talk to.
Last edited:
SirKenin said:256MB cards might perform adequately now, but in certain games on ultra settings in high resolutions they will start to take a hit.I run HL2 and other games here at the highest settings for the X1300 Pro used without any hassles seen at 1280x1024. Keeping drivers fresh and updated with sound as well as insures better performance on any model card. Half of the problems seen with cards has more to with this rather then make or model. On the last build I ran both NVidia and ATI cards to see that be the case. (Gee? I still miss that NVidia desktop profile manager.but ATI won!)
ceewi1
VIP Member
Good for you. Do realise that not everyone wants to spend that sort of money on a video card. Indeed, many of my clients want to spend less than this on their entire PC! 'Bang for the buck' is still important in the computer world.
The performance difference between the 256MB version and 512MB version is around 10%, whereas the 512MB version is around 30% more expensive than the 256MB version. That extra 10% is unlikely to be an important consideration in the longevity of the card, particularly with technological advances like DX10 looming on the horizon.:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2821&p=9
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/atiradeonx1900xt/
That's almost 1/3 of the way towards purchasing a new card when this one becomes outdated.
Before most users will pay out $500 or more for a video card they will be looking a complete build for the price range of $800 to $1,200 tops. Most would rather spend $200+ on the latest version of Windows before that. Why? Because the OS will last longer then the hardwares will be current.
When the hardwares move faster then the softwares in development you always have to wait for the patches when the problems come up. By the time any special fix is available for the hardware you run is already outdated.
When the hardwares move faster then the softwares in development you always have to wait for the patches when the problems come up. By the time any special fix is available for the hardware you run is already outdated.
No, they don't all want to spend that kind of loot. I understand that. The point I was making is spend the money now, save more in the long run. Like I told PC eye... You save him two bits now, only to cost him a fin later. That logic doesn't make any sense. Who cares if it's only 10% faster on today's engines? We don't know what tomorrow will bring, except we know one thing for sure. 512MB will pretty much be a must.
If he did it my way he won't have to buy a card as soon. That's my point. That one video card I'm running I think I've had for five years. Maybe more. That's a little more than $100 a year and it's still going strong. When it's finished in that computer, it's being moved to the file server where it will run another five years.
You can't just look at it as 30% more expensive for 10% more performance. If you're going to do the job, you do it right. You don't do it half-assed. You consider what will give you the longest half-life. The 512MB card is the clear choice. Say you have the card for two years. That's being conservative. That card will last a ton longer than that. That's $35 a year. $2.92 a month. A down payment on a Starbucks coffee. But spending that money will extend the half-life of the product at least a year hypothetically. Of course there are some unknown variables there. Ok. So we have $23.33 a year. $1.94 a month. A bottle of pop. It goes on from there. If he manages to keep it for five years which isn't exactly unrealistic (I've done it), he'll probably spend more giving change to peddlers.
As you can see, $70 is nothing as opposed to buying another $300 VGA in two or three years, if not sooner.
DX10 is nothing to worry about. They'll add a few more features onto the current feature set, ensuring backwards compatibility as they always do. Two of my VGAs are DX8 if I recall correctly (no sense quoting me on that), but they are running DX9.0C without any difficulties. They just can't execute certain instructions. No big deal. You don't notice it.
I realize bang for the buck is important. They want something for nothing. I know this. I've been in retail since 1997. But the reality of the world is that's not the way it works. You want the best, you have to pay for it. You want the card to last 5 years, you have to pay a premium. If you want the best tools, you have to pay a premium. If you want the best beer you have to pay a premium. That's life. People have to get used to it.
When you break things down into dollars and cents (and time=money of course), people usually start to get it.
If he did it my way he won't have to buy a card as soon. That's my point. That one video card I'm running I think I've had for five years. Maybe more. That's a little more than $100 a year and it's still going strong. When it's finished in that computer, it's being moved to the file server where it will run another five years.
You can't just look at it as 30% more expensive for 10% more performance. If you're going to do the job, you do it right. You don't do it half-assed. You consider what will give you the longest half-life. The 512MB card is the clear choice. Say you have the card for two years. That's being conservative. That card will last a ton longer than that. That's $35 a year. $2.92 a month. A down payment on a Starbucks coffee. But spending that money will extend the half-life of the product at least a year hypothetically. Of course there are some unknown variables there. Ok. So we have $23.33 a year. $1.94 a month. A bottle of pop. It goes on from there. If he manages to keep it for five years which isn't exactly unrealistic (I've done it), he'll probably spend more giving change to peddlers.
As you can see, $70 is nothing as opposed to buying another $300 VGA in two or three years, if not sooner.
DX10 is nothing to worry about. They'll add a few more features onto the current feature set, ensuring backwards compatibility as they always do. Two of my VGAs are DX8 if I recall correctly (no sense quoting me on that), but they are running DX9.0C without any difficulties. They just can't execute certain instructions. No big deal. You don't notice it.
I realize bang for the buck is important. They want something for nothing. I know this. I've been in retail since 1997. But the reality of the world is that's not the way it works. You want the best, you have to pay for it. You want the card to last 5 years, you have to pay a premium. If you want the best tools, you have to pay a premium. If you want the best beer you have to pay a premium. That's life. People have to get used to it.
When you break things down into dollars and cents (and time=money of course), people usually start to get it.
Well, then you have the age old argument. Quality or quantity. You know you're a good salesman when you can pitch quality over quantity. I can sell refrigerators to eskimos, so it's not an issue. You just have to know your shit and tell it to them like it is. I'll take my reputation over $100.00 any day.
Why is Alienware still in business? Why did Dell buy them? Because they make E-machines? No, because they build the best damn computers going, charge you a fortune for them and they last. They established a reputation for quality. Not quantity. When you think of E-machines, what do you think of? Precisely.
What happens when you go to Princess Auto and buy a toolkit? They last a year if you're lucky. What happens when you buy a Snap-on toolkit off the truck? They last a lifetime... And your kids' lifetime... And so on.
Whatever. I don't care. Like I said it's not my computer. I stated my piece. The product has been ordered, so what I think doesn't really matter a damn now does it? I'm just carrying on here because I am too wired to sleep and I'm rocking out to some bitchin' tracks. heh.
Last edited:
There's a world apart from business/server case to home user/stand alone pc. When a business upgrades they take the latest and write it down as a what? "Cost of Doing Business" or "Business Expense" They can then wait so many years while they pay some one to maintain everything for them. On the stand alone home user side "Every Dollar has to Count" is the average rule for getting the most from the least. What superfreak is after is a working list for a build that can be used for some time to come without going bankrupt!
- Status