I've finnaly aquired the funding to build a new computer . It's going to be my first computer I've built. I was wondering what your opinions are. Think i could get something better for a similar price? ($1242.90).
I thought that originally, but i heard it was only the 64 bit version of vista that was buggy. I thought most of the games out were compatible with vista.
If you use a screen resolution less than 1600x1200 you don't need the 640MB version of the GTS. It's power is really only useful for high-end settings w/1600x1200 and above. Otherwise, it looks like you did your homework.
woutR wrote:Yeah go ahead buy a Dx10 card and not use vista
If you can, wait a bit longer and intel is gonna launch new processors, you'll be able to get a quadcore for $200.
Quad core Q6600 costs only 260€ atm and my pc will arrive soon and I will have it check some reviews about it. It is awesome. People say that if u have 8800GTX and Q6600 u will get 30k+ points on 3D mark 05
Nuklear wrote:If you use a screen resolution less than 1600x1200 you don't need the 640MB version of the GTS.
And if you use screen resolution higher than that, it looks like the 2900 is outperforming the 8800 for the same price.
"The Radeon HD 2900 XT’s performance improves dramatically in comparison to the GeForce 8800 cards in FEAR, which is one of the more shader-intensive games that we test with. As you can see, the 2900 XT still falls behind the factory overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS card at lower screen resolutions, but once the resolution is increased and memory bandwidth becomes more of a factor, the Radeon 2900 XT is able to pull ahead thanks to its 512-bit memory interface. Keep in mind that this doesn’t occur until 2560x1600 though, which is a higher resolution than most users will game at."
non ego man wrote:And if you use screen resolution higher than that, it looks like the 2900 is outperforming the 8800 for the same price.
"The Radeon HD 2900 XT’s performance improves dramatically in comparison to the GeForce 8800 cards in FEAR, which is one of the more shader-intensive games that we test with. As you can see, the 2900 XT still falls behind the factory overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS card at lower screen resolutions, but once the resolution is increased and memory bandwidth becomes more of a factor, the Radeon 2900 XT is able to pull ahead thanks to its 512-bit memory interface. Keep in mind that this doesn’t occur until 2560x1600 though, which is a higher resolution than most users will game at."
You know you just negated yourself w/that quote, right? Look at any comparison of the two on reviews and you'll see only 2 games, max, that the 2900 over preforms on. 2900 XT = Fail
Nuklear wrote:You know you just negated yourself w/that quote, right? Look at any comparison of the two on reviews and you'll see only 2 games, max, that the 2900 over preforms on. 2900 XT = Fail
The quote says the 2900 is weaker at lower resolutions but better at higher resolutions. In a different review, PC Gamer had the 2900 clocking in above the 8800 GTS but below the GTX. PC Gamer generally has pretty solid hardware information and they recommended the 2900 over the 8800 at that price point.
Personally, I strongly prefer GeForce cards to Radeon cards so w/e. I get in plenty of flamewars on this forum but you can trust me on this: I ain't gonna argue with you about graphics cards.
non ego man wrote:The quote says the 2900 is weaker at lower resolutions but better at higher resolutions. In a different review, PC Gamer had the 2900 clocking in above the 8800 GTS but below the GTX. PC Gamer generally has pretty solid hardware information and they recommended the 2900 over the 8800 at that price point.
Personally, I strongly prefer GeForce cards to Radeon cards so w/e. I get in plenty of flamewars on this forum but you can trust me on this: I ain't gonna argue with you about graphics cards.
At least you're conversing civilly unlike most webnubs I come across. Like you quoted the res improvement is at such a ridiculously high res that it won't matter except for that 1% of power users of which none of them reside here.
I've had both ATI and Nvidia. If you get a good deal on a card, it doesn't matter which brand it is; it will outperform anything in it's price range. However, from what i've experienced...driver support and such is much better with Nvidia, as is the ease of tweakability. But, for dual monitors I found it much more stable and easy to configure with an ATI.
. It's going to be my first computer I've built. I was wondering what your opinions are. Think i could get something better for a similar price? ($1242.90).
>>
