System Gurus - video card advice?

[shortbutslow 0]

Looking at a new video card, but know just enough to do something stupid, so seeking advice! Current system is a Dell Inspiron Pent core duo E7300, 4GB DDR2 SDRAM with AMD radeon HD 3450 PCIe card ( I have made the recommended ATI adjustments for BHaH), Vista 64 bit. Have the sliders at 2,2,1,2,1, getting frame rates in the 30's but flying in the rain makes it stutter and I'd like to get those sliders up! Anyway, looking this card on newegg (since its $60)

 

XFX PVT96OZDFU GeForce 9600 GSO 1GB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card

 

Is this a good upgrade for me, will it fit in my slot/case, will it improve my BHaH experience, do I need anything else (RAM, dual carbs, headers, etc...)? If not a good idea, any suggestions under $100 (the "sneak it by the wife" threshold )

 

Thanks for any help!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

shortbutslow,

 

The 9800 GeForce series is WAAAY faster than the 9600. You can get into a new 9800GTX 512mb for about $130 and it will definitely allow you to push up those sliders. A whole lot more bang for the buck with the 9800, IMHO. And its more about the speed and less about the memory when it comes to OFF.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

[shortbutslow 0]

Thanks Lou - I've been looking around for speed comparisons and now my head hurts.....so when I'm looking at specs what number should I be looking at? Core Clock, Memory Clock, something else, not that simple?

 

(Also, no fair going over the "sneak it by the wife" threshold!)

 

Thanks again,

 

Clay

[Tamper 9]

I'd have to go with Lou on this one. With humble deference to the "sneak it past the wife" rule (don't we all suffer?) - I think if the sub-100$ price is your constraining factor, you're liable to pay for it in not being pleased with the outcome.

 

For the additional $30, go with the 9800GTX. For slightly less, I think 9800GTs will fit your budget. Still far better than a 9600 GSO, IMHO. Here's a newegg link for reference ($99 after rebate)

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814130435

 

And, in my opinion, the GS/GSO series are really just scaled back versions of the 'real deal' (the GT/GTX series). Here's a pretty good source of info on the differences:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...89xxx.29_series

 

The areas to look at are:

 

- "Config core" (higher numbers are better; 9600 GSO's are 48:24:16, or at best 96:48:12; where the 9800's go 112:56:16 or 128:64:16), (these three numbers basically represent the amount of processing ability in each card - never mind each number, but good for comparing one card to another)

 

- Reference clock rate,

 

- "Bus width" (9800's are 256 bits; 9600 GSO's can be 192-bit, depending on manufacturer/date). Bus width can make a big difference since it determines how fast all the data is moved around in your machine.

 

These three values tell you most everything you'd need to be concerned with as far as Nvidia cards go.

 

HTH

[Cameljockey 3]

Or you could look around for a used 8800GTX. They're relatively inexpensve now, and a lot of bang for the buck. 768Mb of GDDR3 memory. I'm thinking of getting a second one and run two in SLI since the newer cards are way out of my price range.

Edited July 9, 2009 by Cameljockey

[Cameljockey 3]

Al, Al, Al. Here's an article on the subject.

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/8800GTX-Pow...sis-40450.shtml

 

And a quote from the article......

 

"Real tests made by the guys at Anandtech revealed that a high end PC that uses an 8800GTX series card consumes about 320W. And I�m talking about a high priced Core 2 Duo with 2GBs of Ram here."

 

I run an Antec EA650 that provides more than enough power for all of the necessary stuff, though one that high is not required. 430-480w should be enough (for the whole computer, not just the card).

Edited July 9, 2009 by Cameljockey

[sitting_duck 3]

if numbers give you a headache,,,have a bottle of tylenol on hand.....

 

ati cards http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/printpage/131/1

 

nvidia cards http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/printpage/132/1

 

And agree with the majority,,,,,try and save 60 bucks to get something too slow and your just throwing 60 bucks out the door.

 

I know everyone says nvidia for off,,,but the ati4870 is supposedly down to 158.00...whew,,,,

[shortbutslow 0]

Great info everyone - many thanks. Now, how do I find out how big my power supply is? Its not on my acknolwledgement from Dell. If I open the case will it be printed on the PS?

[Cameljockey 3]

Great info everyone - many thanks. Now, how do I find out how big my power supply is? Its not on my acknolwledgement from Dell. If I open the case will it be printed on the PS?

 

Look on the back of the computer and it should have a Service number. Google that number or go to Dell.com and put it there. It will tell you pretty much everything about it as far as system specs.

[Hellshade 110]

And its more about the speed and less about the memory when it comes to OFF.

Lou

 

I can certainly appreciate that speed is important, but doesn't all of that beautiful high resolution terrain and scenery textures eat up a lot of video memory too? It must. I thought I read somewhere that if you turn your head too fast in TrackIR and see some white squares on the edges of your screen it's because you ran out of video memory to fill it in with the right textures. I bought a 1GB GXT280 with GDDR3 RAM and overclocked the hell out of it just to be sure I never ran out of either speed or ram. Core clock at 676 Mhz and RAM speed set to 1353Mhz. That requires a pretty beefy power supply though. In any case, while 512MB is probably enough, wouldn't more video memory help you display higher res scenery with less "stutter" since it can pack twice as much into memory before needing to pull the next batch of textures off the hard drive?

 

Hellshade

[Tamper 9]

The question of speed v. memory capacity is a tough answer to give, directly. (That's where most start getting the headaches *lol*)

 

More memory is better (than less), but that assumes you can afford a graphics card that isn't too slow *and* still get the extra memory. For example, if it meant choosing a lesser GPU (say, a 9600 instead of a 9800) just to be able to afford 1G of memory, I'd say it's a bad idea - stick with the faster GPU and 512M of memory. Where OFF is concerned, I don't think anything less than 512 is going to allow higher settings without (at least some of) the dreaded white triangles (which, I do believe, is lack of memory).

 

I don't know if I'd agree that speed is more important than memory necessarily, but I also wouldn't necessarily say memory is more important than speed. If the card's GPU can't process the data fast enough (see above about "cores"), then all the memory in the world won't help. At the same time, if there isn't sufficient memory to handle the data needed to display properly (textures on high, for example) then it doesn't matter how fast the GPU can manipulate that data (to a point). Ideally (as if *lol*) the graphics subsystem runs 'in balance', suffering neither from lack of speed nor lack of memory.

 

How do you know where 'balance' is?

 

Here's one approach: Determine which game you have (or plan to own) requires the most graphics card memory. That's a good minimum if you're totally strapped; if your budget allows, double it. More fiscally conservative? Up it 50%. Then, find the fastest GPU your budget allows with that amount of memory. If this process lands you within say $30 of the next fastest GPU (same memory or more), you should *seriously* consider splurging that little bit more (one thing you can expect, games aren't likely to require less as time goes on). If you decide to settle for absolute minimum now (which, believe me, these days we're all settling a lot...) keep in mind that your new card might not take you very far beyond well...minimum, now

Edited July 9, 2009 by Tamper

[RAF_Louvert 101]

I can certainly appreciate the idea of balance, and finding said balance between speed, memory, and wallet is wherein the trick lies. The reason I say speed seems to be more important than memory when playing OFF is based not only on the observations of others but my own expereince as well. Here are my basic system specifications for the budget gaming computer I built in order to really appreciate BHaH, (and others), and not break the bank in the process.

 

CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0ghz Wolfdale 6mb 1333fsb 45nm with Arctic Cooler

Memory: 8gb DDR2 PC2-6400 800mhz

Mobo: ASUS P5QL Pro

Hard Drive: Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 SATA II NCQ 500gb 32mb

Opti Drive: LG 22X DVD+/RW Dual Layer SATA Rewrite

Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512mb

PS: 500w deluxe switching dual fan

Windows XP Pro 64-bit OS

 

After I'd gotten this new set-up running and related drivers updated, and after loading OFF and TrackIR, I began the process of dialing it all in. What I ultimately came to find was that with my CPU overclocked to 3.80 and my memory overclocked to 890 I could push OFF with the sliders at 5-4-4-5-5 and keep a solid 45 to 60 FPS with no white jaggies of any kind, no matter how quickly I looked around or how large the dogfight. The only time I do get the dreaded pale triangles is when I am also running FRAPS to capture a video, and even then it is minimal. Now, I realize that more card memory would be wonderful and if you have the budget by all means go for it. But if the pennies are tight, I would recommend opting for the speed. That being said, I also wouldn't go any smaller than a 512 card.

 

Cheers!

 

Lou

 

[rabu 9]

I'm about ready to update by 8800gts 320mg card and am considering a Gforce 9800 GT 1024mb DDR3 for about $130 (click here)

or, for about $149 a Geforce GTS 250 1GB DDR3 card (click here)

 

Or, should I spend more for a GTX 260 core 216 898MB for About $180? (click here) This has received a lot of good reviews and would keep me updated for a few more years, I guess? It has much wider buss width at 448 over the others above at 256 but am not sure of the other advantages or if the difference is worth $30-$50 difference?

 

Any advice appreciated..

 

Windows XP Pro SP3

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4ghz

2gb DDR2 800 SDRAM

GeForce 8800GTS 320mb w/22" LCD 1680x1050 32x dpi96

SB Audigy 2 ZS

Edited July 10, 2009 by rabu

[Test Pilot 0]

I'm about ready to update by 8800gts 320mg card and am considering a Gforce 9800 GT 1024mb DDR3 for about $130 (click here)

or, for about $149 a Geforce GTS 250 1GB DDR3 card (click here)

 

Or, should I spend more for a GTX 260 core 216 898MB for About $180? (click here) This has received a lot of good reviews and would keep me updated for a few more years, I guess? It has much wider buss width at 448 over the others above at 256 but am not sure of the other advantages or if the difference is worth $30-$50 difference?

 

Any advice appreciated..

 

Windows XP Pro SP3

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4ghz

2gb DDR2 800 SDRAM

GeForce 8800GTS 320mb w/22" LCD 1680x1050 32x dpi96

SB Audigy 2 ZS

 

 

If I were you I'd go for the GTX 260 over the 9800GT.... The 260 makes the upgrade over the 9800 more worth the bang for the buck. The memory bandwidth in the 260 alone is nearly twice as much as the 9800. It's certainly a bit more future proof than the 9800 and the 250.

 

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?ca...8&card2=575

 

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?ca...8&card2=606

Edited July 10, 2009 by Test Pilot

[Tamper 9]

I'm about ready to update by 8800gts 320mg card and am considering a Gforce 9800 GT 1024mb DDR3 for about $130 (click here)

or, for about $149 a Geforce GTS 250 1GB DDR3 card (click here)

 

Or, should I spend more for a GTX 260 core 216 898MB for About $180? (click here) This has received a lot of good reviews and would keep me updated for a few more years, I guess? It has much wider buss width at 448 over the others above at 256 but am not sure of the other advantages or if the difference is worth $30-$50 difference?

 

Any advice appreciated..

 

Windows XP Pro SP3

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4ghz

2gb DDR2 800 SDRAM

GeForce 8800GTS 320mb w/22" LCD 1680x1050 32x dpi96

SB Audigy 2 ZS

 

 

Yup, assuming you can manage the cost, the 260 is the way to go - having the wider memory bus has proven a significant advantage in most cases (the 8800GTX was a good example compared to cards of the day, and still holds well against newer cards with lesser bus widths and core configs).

 

If you look at the Wikipedia link I posted above, you'll see that the 9800GT isn't substantially different in the cores than your 8800GTS - even with almost 3 times the memory, I suspect you wouldn't see a huge improvement (this is probably a good example of where having more memory by itself won't be worth the cost of an upgrade). More important still, the 8800GTS you have is one of the earlier (G80 GPU) models - it has a 320-bit bus; for you, the 9800GT would be going down to a 256-bit bus.

 

Specs on the 250 card aren't a whole lot different from the 9800GT - in fact, save the different model number, in looks almost identical to the 9800GTX. And again, in both the GT and the GTX, the bus width is 256 bits - less than your current card.

 

So it looks like the 9800 series or the 250 wouldn't be much of an actual upgrade for the money, given your current card.

 

In the 260/216 you mentioned, you're getting more than 2x the memory of your current card, a substantial gain in GPU core config, and the 448-bit bus width. Definitely worth the upgrade cost if your budget allows.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Tamper

[rabu 9]

OK, thanks all, really appreciate your input.

 

Looks like the 260 is the way to go, not more mid week lunches at work for awhile.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

I just built a comp for my Brother...got the 260 in it...(I have an 8800)...both really good cards