8800GT 256MB or 9600GT or HD 3870 for 1280x1024 gameplay?

[ChromeDome]

8800gs

Dude, I'm looking at either

1. 8800GT 256MB (256MB is important, because that is what that make the difference, because we all know the 8800GT has a superior core)
2. 9600GT 512MB
3. HD 3870 512MB

;nothing else.

this is a little silly and i'll tell you why. unless you plan on getting a bigger monitor? and you already said you only played 1280X1024. in which case the 8800GS is the perfect card for you and in fact outperforms a 256mb 8800GT. for all intent and purposes it is a G92 8800GT. with a little less of everything, yes. but you don't need that extra everything because you're gaming at 1280X1024.

it seems weird to ask to pick the BEST card for you, when your choices are the three most common mainstream cards around. if those are your choices the 9600GT i would say. because its nvidia and i know nothing of ATI. an OC'd 8800GS beats all those cards stock...and can even match them in many gaming benchmarks at YOUR resolution without the overclock.

so, its $99 after rebate, $105 for the overclocked version. evga...fine card, all you will need now and in the near future for your gaming. the 384mb of memory? believe me, if its ever not enough, nor will 512 be at the time. its more then enough.

you have said you will only have the card for a year. do yourself a favor and do what the second poster in this thread told you to. get an 8800GS. not only will you be saving money, but for your purposes it'll be like having an 8800GT. believe me i know. my 8800GS runs games as well and better at 1440X900 then a friend of mines 8800GT at 1600X1200. it even looks like an 8800GT for chrissakkes lol

no, but "dude" you're only going to have it a year. save some money and put it toward something else for your computer. buy a game, save it, take a girl out....but the BEST card for you is the 8800GS. you will NEVER know the difference between having that or a $200 GT. i know from experience

anyway idk why so many in this hobby insist on throwing away money. i mean some have it to throw away, some don't. then threadstarter here wants the "best bang for the buck" card for HIS monitor which he will use one year...and the best bang for the buck card is an 8800GS at $99 freakin' dollars! wow, i guess thats too much bang for the buck

why does this card get a bad rap? no, its not a GT...but its close enough to be close enough

guess you'll just have the "second best" bang for the buck card...


oh, and the evga model is a quality piece, too. overclocks easy, runs pretty cool

 

[ghost101]

Erm, the 8800gs with its 384mb ram on a 192 bit interface is not better than a 256mb 8800gt. Not at the 1280*1024 resolution anyway. The 8800gt has more shaders and is clocked a higher as well.

edit:

With the exception of crysis diifferences are minimal. While the 8800gs is a good 20% worse at 1280*1024 than the 8800gt 512mb.

This is a redundant debate anyway since he's probably purchased already.

 

[Dazzy2008]

9600 gt - im bias coz ive got one but i went through exactly what u are now,apart from my last ati card was a bag of s@#t so nvidia - after all the advice i got i went for a xfx factory overclocked 9600 as it puts it on par with a 8800gt anyway for less £££

Good luck

 

[ghost101]

9600 gt - im bias coz ive got one but i went through exactly what u are now,apart from my last ati card was a bag of s@#t so nvidia - after all the advice i got i went for a xfx factory overclocked 9600 as it puts it on par with a 8800gt anyway for less £££

Good luck

Well the 8800gt overclocks as well . But yes price/performance wise it was good.

 

[ChromeDome]

Erm, the 8800gs with its 384mb ram on a 192 bit interface is not better than a 256mb 8800gt. Not at the 1280*1024 resolution anyway. The 8800gt has more shaders and is clocked a higher as well.

its obviously the best "bang for the buck" card at $99. i was more or less talking about its performance when overclocked. it can match or beat a stock 9600GT or an ATI 3870 at his resolution. i like this review because you get an idea of its performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obOgh2Mi2ZM&feature=related

now does the 8800GT beat it? of course. but for the most part its a "not clear to the naked eye" difference. and as you can see, this factory overclocked card can match and beat (if barely beat) stock clocked 9600GT's and ATI 3870's

thats bang for the buck

which is what threadstarter asked for in his first post until he decided $100 for a card that can perform like the one in the review wasn't good enough bang, i guess



obviously the best bang for the buck.....

 

[Anusha]

No I have not purchased it yet. But I'm getting the 9600GT. Maybe this week.

 

[ghost101]

its obviously the best "bang for the buck" card at $99. i was more or less talking about its performance when overclocked. it can match or beat a stock 9600GT or an ATI 3870 at his resolution. i like this review because you get an idea of its performance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obOgh2Mi2ZM&feature=related

now does the 8800GT beat it? of course. but for the most part its a "not clear to the naked eye" difference. and as you can see, this factory overclocked card can match and beat (if barely beat) stock clocked 9600GT's and ATI 3870's

thats bang for the buck

which is what threadstarter asked for in his first post until he decided $100 for a card that can perform like the one in the review wasn't good enough bang, i guess



obviously the best bang for the buck.....

*Sigh*

But you can overclock the 9600gt and 8800gt. Its like saying the hd3850 is better than the 8800gt because you can overclock it to 900mhz+.

edit: im talking within price/performance criteria

 

[ChromeDome]

No I have not purchased it yet. But I'm getting the 9600GT. Maybe this week.

i did my best

the 9600GT is a fine card. but for your purposes, if i understand you correctly, you are still wasting money for marketing. if you are really just going to have the card a year and game at 1280X1024. its as if a farmer bought more land for his cattle then he needed just to keep them there for a year, anyway. it doesn't make much sense. i have practical experiences with all these cards and when i chose one for my own computer i took the GS for its overclocking, value, and performance. have never regretted it, its all i need for the next year, thats for sure.

just trying to be practical. you should get what you want. i just have to question a little why you want it if "bang for the buck" is your main priority. all this tech stuff and numbers is just blather at the end of the day. real world performance is all to be concerned with, really.

meh, $40 or $50 more this way or that never killed anyone. and you'll get what you want. i just really don't understand it


/penny pincher


i shall stop trying to be of good service now

 

[ChromeDome]

*Sigh*

But you can overclock the 9600gt and 8800gt. Its like saying the hd3850 is better than the 8800gt because you can overclock it to 900mhz+.

yes i know you can overclock the other cards and get even better performance. but man you see the games being played on that video review. the only game that would benefit him in real terms from having a "faster" card is Crysis, because every little fps counts in that game. otherwise its just gratuitous fps. i mean the 8800GS overclocked plays Game X at 90fps....the 3870, 89fps. overclock the 3870 and get 100fps. big deal. for upwards of $50 or $60 more? if not more, still...

the dude's keeping the card a year, he games at 1280X1024, i have an 8800GS and overclocked (factory or otherwise) its seriously a no brainer. i mean i'm just workin with the whole "best bang for the buck for a year at 1280X1024" thing, is all

i know what the better cards are

 

[Rurouni Strife]

PsychoTronn, I pretty much agree with ya. But what can you do about it? Personally, in his position I'd have grabbed either a 9600GT or a 3850 512, but you make perfect sense. The 8800GS/9600GSO is a good performer and is nearly a match made in heaven for 1 year of 1280x1024.

To OP: Have fun w/ your 9600GT. The 8800GT 256 has issues w/ AA in some reviews. Nvidia's 256 drivers or something for that card arent so hot.

 

[ghost101]

yes i know you can overclock the other cards and get even better performance. but man you see the games being played on that video review. the only game that would benefit him in real terms from having a "faster" card is Crysis, because every little fps counts in that game. otherwise its just gratuitous fps. i mean the 8800GS overclocked plays Game X at 90fps....the 3870, 89fps. overclock the 3870 and get 100fps. big deal. for upwards of $50 or $60 more? if not more, still...

the dude's keeping the card a year, he games at 1280X1024, i have an 8800GS and overclocked (factory or otherwise) its seriously a no brainer. i mean i'm just workin with the whole "best bang for the buck for a year at 1280X1024" thing, is all

i know what the better cards are

Hehe, i get the point you are making now. Still going to stick to my guns though, as even in current games at 1280*1024, once you crank up any IQ enhancements, you need all the power you can get. Over the next year, games arent really going to remain at the current level. If you consider COD4, Assassins Creed, UT3 they do push current midrange cards to the limit even at 1280*1024. I dont think these cards will fair too well over the coming year with the likes of Far Cry 2, Mass Effect amongst others coming out.

 

[Xazax]

If you want check out my FS thread, im trying to sell my 8800GT 256mb for an HD 4000 series thats coming soon.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=60700

its cheaper then w/e you can get at newegg plus its will still be under warranty if you own it.

Also you can check out my Max OC and 3Dmark06 scores with it.

 

[ChromeDome]

PsychoTronn, I pretty much agree with ya. But what can you do about it? Personally, in his position I'd have grabbed either a 9600GT or a 3850 512, but you make perfect sense. The 8800GS/9600GSO is a good performer and is nearly a match made in heaven for 1 year of 1280x1024.

To OP: Have fun w/ your 9600GT. The 8800GT 256 has issues w/ AA in some reviews. Nvidia's 256 drivers or something for that card arent so hot.

Hehe, i get the point you are making now. Still going to stick to my guns though, as even in current games at 1280*1024, once you crank up any IQ enhancements, you need all the power you can get. Over the next year, games arent really going to remain at the current level. If you consider COD4, Assassins Creed, UT3 they do push current midrange cards to the limit even at 1280*1024. I dont think these cards will fair too well over the coming year with the likes of Far Cry 2, Mass Effect amongst others coming out.

yeah guys i was thinking just about the same. its all fun and games, hope i didn't come on too strong. we all get what we want and its fun. most important thing. sometimes i get too....sensible. quite seriously. for a hobby like this. best bang for the buck doesn't have to be cheapest or the best, just the best for YOUR buck. whatever that is to you

good conversation though and i'm learning more about this stuff as i go along

so far as whats coming, i'm hoping for the best from all our cards lol. i'm really looking forward to Far Cry 2, Project Origin, and Stalker: Clear Sky. i only play FPS's, as i mentioned before. so games are slow in coming for me. because i like quality shooters. i've played a couple demos lately (timeshift or some crap like that) that just stink.

so i'm hoping the next round of shooters are kind to the current generation of cards. mine included. if i can get through those three games i'll be happy and ready to upgrade for whats next if need be. but i'd like to be able to shoot my way through those before i have to buy anything to help me

and threadstarter, enjoy that 9600GT. good buy, dude

 

[Bytor]

3870 all the way.. Just bought my 3rd one for tri-fire...

 

[Solaris17]

9600GT


its slightely faster than the 8800GS in some of the tests we did here at tpu. and if you crank AA/AF the extra ram will deff help you out.

 

[ChromeDome]

3870 all the way.. Just bought my 3rd one for tri-fire...

i've read a lot of things about ATI and its drivers, etc. problems and stuff. thats the only thing that has kept me away from them. and the model schemes with all the X's and prefixes and suffixes confused me. i've had nothing but nvidia, prolly always will

hope i'm not missing anything

i like AMD, though. hope for the best from them in the future. and since they have ATI maybe they can do something for the market? i read where they are going to sell AMD GAME! computers...for games....at $600 to $1500. sounds silly to the enthusiast, but to the marketplace it may be right. i made a thread about it in the AMD forum. no replies

lol anyway i think AMD should become its own brand. like Apple / Mac. "Sensible Computers For Sensible People", etc. all marketing but it can work. AMD Game!, AMD Home Office, AMD Home Theater, AMD Multimedia, AMD Student, etc. branch out into software, give lifetime warranty's, upgrade programs, the whole deal. sell AMD boxes at Best Buy and Walmart.

if they can't win the speed war they can still win the marketing war most people don't know or care the difference between a quad core and a pentium 4 lol. just make it sound good and make it work. i hope they survive

 

[Anusha]

i did my best

the 9600GT is a fine card. but for your purposes, if i understand you correctly, you are still wasting money for marketing. if you are really just going to have the card a year and game at 1280X1024. its as if a farmer bought more land for his cattle then he needed just to keep them there for a year, anyway. it doesn't make much sense. i have practical experiences with all these cards and when i chose one for my own computer i took the GS for its overclocking, value, and performance. have never regretted it, its all i need for the next year, thats for sure.

just trying to be practical. you should get what you want. i just have to question a little why you want it if "bang for the buck" is your main priority. all this tech stuff and numbers is just blather at the end of the day. real world performance is all to be concerned with, really.

meh, $40 or $50 more this way or that never killed anyone. and you'll get what you want. i just really don't understand it


/penny pincher


i shall stop trying to be of good service now

I'm fine with the performance of all the games except one. Crysis performance sucks on the 256MB one even at 1280x1024. I want to play Crysis! :/

 

[Rebo&Zooty]

my advice is oposite of what i read here, 3870, check the assassins creede review, in dx10.1(vista sp1) aa has less of a perf inpact then it has on the 8800gt/9600gt cards, because the chip on the card was spicificly designed to be a TRUE dx10.x chip not dx9 with some extra shader fx.

a 3850 or 3870 512mb will give you plenty of performance, at 1280x1024 with 2xAA hell use temporal aa and set it to 2xT3 aa and the quility will be that of 2xAA with quility of 6xAA

i have tested this, and honestly, unless ur planing to max out the aa you wont see any game other then crysis give any of the cards problems, crysis is a joke, horribly programed, its like oblivion x10 for how bad it runns on current hardware of its day.

ao yeah, my advice, get a 512mb 38*0 card, if u can get it the powercolor card or visiontek card with the zerotherm coolers a bitchin buy

 

[ChromeDome]

I'm fine with the performance of all the games except one. Crysis performance sucks on the 256MB one even at 1280x1024. I want to play Crysis! :/

yeah Crysis is a beastly joke like the poster above says. it sure does look nice, though. i'm not sure running it should take so much, though. it doesn't scale well. i mean anyone can run medium, runs like a dream....but turn a few settings to High and its like 'wtf happened to my fps!'

its a fun game, though. idk if you've played yet. and yeah i kind of agree with some that without the eye candy on at least high settings, the experience isn't quite the same. when i had the 8600GT i would have to turn some settings to medium. just didn't work out on the Shaders / Shadows side of things, however. i find the game looks best (well balanced) when the main visual graphics settings are all set to the same....setting, i guess

anyway your 9600GT should play Crysis fine. i like tweaking the game and trying different mods and stuff. some are ok, some are worse then ok lol. and the game itself, for me, is just a really fun shoot 'em up. for all its fancy graphics i like the simple "blast your way through" vibe of the game.

right now i'm using a "natural mod" someone posted yesterday in a Crysis thread or another. supposed to make the game look more "natural" so far as lighting and shadows, etc....i don't know about this one, though. performance is out of the park....but something seems....off. but the gameplay. i love doing stuff in the game like below (tossing the flammable barrel). and notice the tall shack right next to the guys getting pwnd. KABOOM all gone lol. i love the physics engine or w/e its called in this game

 

[Disruptor4]

What you never asked is what games he was going to play. Now that you know he wants to play Crysis, the 9600GT is probably his best bet out of those 3 choices.
The 3870 512mb would have been a good choice too though.

 

[Anusha]

Too bad that is the only game which would not like the 256MB 8800GT

 

[Solaris17]

my advice is oposite of what i read here, 3870, check the assassins creede review, in dx10.1(vista sp1) aa has less of a perf inpact then it has on the 8800gt/9600gt cards, because the chip on the card was spicificly designed to be a TRUE dx10.x chip not dx9 with some extra shader fx.

a 3850 or 3870 512mb will give you plenty of performance, at 1280x1024 with 2xAA hell use temporal aa and set it to 2xT3 aa and the quility will be that of 2xAA with quility of 6xAA

i have tested this, and honestly, unless ur planing to max out the aa you wont see any game other then crysis give any of the cards problems, crysis is a joke, horribly programed, its like oblivion x10 for how bad it runns on current hardware of its day.

ao yeah, my advice, get a 512mb 38*0 card, if u can get it the powercolor card or visiontek card with the zerotherm coolers a bitchin buy

um you want to show me were DX10 is 100% supported in nvidia cards? kthnxbye.

 

[Rebo&Zooty]

dx10 is supported in nvidia cards, BUT its more of an after thought, if you look at the one true dx10.1 game thats hit assassins creede the 3870 cards beet the 8800/9600 cards with aa enabled.

unlike nvidia's design thats really more of a dx9 part with dx10 fetures added to it, the r600/670 was acctualy designed to meet orignal dx10 specs(whats now called dx10.1) including shader based AA and such.

thats from a site thats VERY nvidia bias, hardocp....if they are showing an ati card being close to an nvidia card you can bet that the reasion, other then being fair.....

Further Anti-Aliasing Investigations

When it comes to anti-aliasing in AC, the heart of the matter is the differences in graphics architectures. ATI's current GPUs do not have dedicated anti-aliasing hardware. Instead, they rely on the pixel shaders to achieve the same result. Depending on the type of graphics work being done, this approach can have a negative impact on performance. ATI seems to have gotten around this via some of the extensions to DirectX 10.1. NVIDIA graphics chips do include anti-aliasing hardware, but that hardware cannot be properly utilized in some situations. Specifically, there are post-rendering effects that interfere with the use of anti-aliasing hardware -- that's why some games don't support anti-aliasing at all.

If you haven't figured it out already, there is a universal "solution" for applying anti-aliasing effects that doesn't depend on the use (or non-use) of other shader effects. The solution is to use pixel shaders. ATI has apparently decided that's the most practical solution as we move forward and SM 3.0/SM4.0 usage increases, but it does require work on the part of software developers. Another downside to this approach is that it requires more work from the pixel shader hardware, which can result in lower performance. However, it seems the only other option is to omit anti-aliasing in certain types of graphics rendering.

With all that out of the way, let's look at the performance of AC with and without anti-aliasing at several different resolutions. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned we are unable to test anti-aliasing at higher resolutions because the option is disabled inside the game.

images

We can see the result of using pixel shaders to do anti-aliasing in the resulting performance drop. What's noteworthy is that the drop isn't nearly as bad on ATI hardware running AC version 1.00. In other words, the 1.02 patch levels the playing field and forces ATI and NVIDIA to both use an extra rendering pass in order to do anti-aliasing. That probably sounds fair if you're NVIDIA -- or you own NVIDIA hardware -- but ATI users should be rightly upset.

Something else that's interesting to see is how performance is definitely CPU limited even with a quad-core 3.0GHz Intel chip. We will look at that next, but right now we are more interested in the steady drop caused by anti-aliasing. If the CPU is the bottleneck, putting more of a load on the GPU should not impact performance much. For whatever reason, it seems that the extra rendering pass required for anti-aliasing causes a steady drop in performance even when we're CPU limited. Have we mentioned yet that you really need some beefy hardware in order to play AC at higher detail settings?

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3320&p=7

this is a pretty good sign that true dx10.1 games will run BETTER on ati hardware,hence MORE FUTURE PROOF!!!!

 

[Solaris17]

well you see thats the rub your misunderstanding something

DX10 is DX10 it wasnt an after thought DX10.1 is DX10 with some added code line though it does infact add performance on games that can use the extra coding their isnt muc difference at all..that and im not sure it was an after thought as if i remember correctly when DX10.1 started being put in ATI cards the 9 series was already planned out thus why pull 8 million units and junk them? though i do agree with the fact that 10.1 is better and more future proof it isnt as much of a "botch" as you may thing...like some of nvidias older cards or ATI's older cards that kinda sorta supported DX9 but with only SM 2.0 etc.

 

[Scrizz]

3870 all the way!