Video Cards 2007

[time]

To my surprise, it looks like we haven't raised this topic for a few months, and the last thread is looking out of date.

The ATI X1950 Pro appears to have been the benchmark for moderately priced gaming cards, but I see that locally, it still costs nearly US$200! Below $US100, I found the NVIDIA 7600GS fanless cards more attractive than their ATI X1650 competitors.

The new NVIDIA 8500GT appears to be a replacement for the 7600GS.
The new NVIDIA 8600GT appears to be a replacement for the 7600GT (not sure what the difference is apart from DX10 support). The 8600GTS is higher clocked but still not a match for the ATI X1950 Pro.

The only one that I can see that is worth getting is the 8600GT, and only because local pricing is about US$150. That's only buying you about 2/3 of the performance of the X1950 Pro, but you do get a tick in the DX10 box.

What I found more interesting is the discounting on the NVIDIA 7900GS. It's virtually identical to the 7900GT (256-bit RAM, same clock speeds) but about the same price as an 8600GT (128-bit RAM). Does anyone else think that's a bit of a bargain?

 

[Mercutio]

The 7900GS does seem to be a bargain in terms of graphics power, for the money. It's still an nVidia product and therefore not worthy of my money, but seeing one side-by-side with a much more expensive -GT, the smaller one seems like a better deal.

I don't know why you don't have inexpensive x1950s yet. I've seen them as low as $130 here, which makes them a bargain as well, and probably worth the extra cash over and above the cost of an x1600 or 7600.

Reviews haven't been terribly positive about the low-end 8x00-series cards. DX10 support isn't much of a carrot for the foreseeable future so I wouldn't go out of my way to get it.

x1600s with fans seem to have a nicer cooling setup than GF7600s. My experience is that the passively cooled x16x0s get warmer than I would prefer. I suspect they're right on the performance cusp of needing active cooling.

The low-end x1400 is a good choice, too, and I think it's the only ATI hardware at the moment that actually beats what nvidia has at the same price point. Hopefully this will change in the near future but I've been waiting for the new x2k series for at least three months.

I will say that the stock cooler on the 8800s is REALLY nice. Very quiet. I own one (present from my misguided ex) and I believe it's the first nVidia card I've felt any temptation to install in one of my PCs in about six years. Mostly it sits in its box, though.

 

[sechs]

To my surprise, it looks like we haven't raised this topic for a few months, and the last thread is looking out of date.

Maybe this is because I'm still running an AGP x850 (and it's doing just fine).

 

[Bozo]

Maybe this is because I'm still running an AGP x850 (and it's doing just fine).

Or that I am still running a ATI 9600 and computer #2 is using the motherboard video.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Mercutio]

There's not too much wrong with onboard video these days. GMA3000 and nv6100 can both do DX9 well enough to make UT2004 or WoW playable. R200's probably pretty good, too. Via's still shipping basically a Savage4, which was sucky the day it came out in 1999, let alone today, but even that's good enough for 1280x1024 on a business machine.

 

[CougTek]

The 8600GT beats the 7600GT and X1650XT significantly. But one should look at it purely for the raw performances compared to other cards, not for its DX10 compatibility. It won't be powerful enough to play DX10 games with DX10 effects turned on. Neither will be the 8600GTS. Trying to sell the 8600GT/S based on their DX10 capability is like trying to portrait a GeFarce FX5200 as a DX9 capable card. This is mooseshit.

The X1950 Pro costs me 5$CAN less than the cheapest 7900GS I can find while it beats the latter by 10-20% with the latest Catalyst driver. This is a no-contest.

The X1650XT costs me only 9$CAN than the 7600GT and it does beat the nVidia card nicely too in most games (again, using the latest Catalyst).

The 7600GS and the X1650 Pro cost me the same thing and they perform simililarly, but the 7600GS runs cooler and all the cheap X1650 Pro I can buy come with noisy cheapo fans.

40$CAN above the X1950 Pro, the X1950XT 256MB reigns supreme and 50$CAN above the X1950XT, the 7950GT 512MB is alone compared to anything else in its price range.

I've met no one needing more than a 7950GT 512Mb so far so I don't give a shit about the 8800GTS...until Stanford develops a FAH client running on it, that is.

 

[LiamC]

AnandTech aren't convinced that teh 8600 series is that good.

..." NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 GTS and GT simply do not perform any better than similarly priced hardware from AMD. GeForce 7 Series hardware priced at $150 and $200 also performs similarly to G84 based parts, outperforming the newcomer in some games and tying or trailing in others. Certainly NVIDIA can determine the value of their hardware as they see fit, and they have a good argument for pricing the 8600 series. Other hardware at the $150 and $200 price points perform similarly, so their new hardware is mostly worth the price.

The problem is that there is a huge performance gap between the 8600 GTS and the 8800 GTS 320MB. We also have multiple cases where NVIDIA's new offerings perform lower than similarly priced hardware from their own previous generation hardware. In almost every case, AMD's X1900 XT 256MB beats out the 8600 GTS. While this hardware is certainly being phased out, it is still available and offers much better price/performance.'...

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975

part 1
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970

Tech Report thought so as well. It seems the NVIDIA cards are overpriced for the performance you get. Either that or the X1950 Pro is exceptional value for money.

.."That said, the GeForce 8600 GTS faces much stiffer competition in the form of the GeForce 7900 GS and, especially, the Radeon X1950 Pro. The GeForce 8600 GTS is a very good product, but it's fighting above its natural weight class when it takes on the these competitors, both of which have 256-bit paths to memory. The 8600 GTS variant we tested did largely hold its own against the Radeon X1950 Pro in terms of performance, even scoring clear victories in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and 3DMark06, but the X1950 Pro had an edge overall. That's true even though we used the "overclocked in the box" version of the 8600 GTS from XFX, a card that lists for $239. The Radeon X1950 Pro can be had for around $179 at online vendors if you shop around."...

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/geforce-8600/index.x?pg=1

 

[ddrueding]

I'm running a 7950GT/512MB and am considering upgrading. It can't handle the games I'm playing now @ 1600x1200 with the eye candy turned on. Is the 8800GTS what I should be looking at? I have a passively cooled card now, and would love another without a fan; is there one?

 

[Adcadet]

What I found more interesting is the discounting on the NVIDIA 7900GS. It's virtually identical to the 7900GT (256-bit RAM, same clock speeds) but about the same price as an 8600GT (128-bit RAM). Does anyone else think that's a bit of a bargain?

Bargain, no. But worth my money, yes. When I built my current system back in February, I went with a 7900GS, partly because I was avoiding ATi and their not so great Linux support. So far I've been pleased.

 

[CougTek]

Is the 8800GTS what I should be looking at? I have a passively cooled card now, and would love another without a fan; is there one?

The fan on the 8800GTS is very quiet. You don't want to (well, in fact you simply can't) run a 8800GTS with passive cooling.

 

[Mercutio]

The X1950 Pro costs me 5$CAN less than the cheapest 7900GS I can find while it beats the latter by 10-20% with the latest Catalyst driver. This is a no-contest.

Just to clarify something: I was comparing the GS to the more expensive sorts of GT.

...all the cheap X1650 Pro I can buy come with noisy cheapo fans.

The Sapphire and genuine ATI X1650s I've purchased have quiet fans on them. I'd expect "real" ATI stuff to be common and cheap up in Mooseland. The cooling solution on the X1650s I've used is certainly less noisy than the stock cooling on any GF7900 card I've heard. I'm not sure about the 7600 but given nVidia's long, long, long history of woeful cooling solutions there's no doubt the x1650 is better than that as well.

I've met no one needing more than a 7950GT 512Mb so far so I don't give a shit about the 8800GTS

City of Heroes, as it happens, performs extremely poorly on ATI hardware of any type - they develop everything with nVidia and then kind of blame ATI users for having ATI hardware. This issue has become more pronounced over time, but playing the game at high resolutions with reasonable frame rates literally requires a high-end nVidia card. Nothing ATI has right now is even an option for optimal play. I don't really want to buy a $500 graphics card but since I would like to see 30fps @ 1920x1200 in the only game I actually play, I'm going to be buying a x2800 as soon as they come out.

 

[Mercutio]

ddrueding, the 8800s, if you haven't played with one, are REALLY quiet. The only time you can hear the fan at all is when you're playing a game, and even at that, you might not notice because you've probably got speakers or headphones turned up a bit.

I think a smart man would be waiting to see what ATI's got coming, though.

 

[MaxBurn]

I think a smart man would be waiting to see what ATI's got coming, though.

First half or second half of the year you think?

 

[Mercutio]

Man, I don't know. I've heard that those new ATI cards were going to be released at the end of February, the end of March, the end of April and now "sometime in May."
Who knows?

 

[Pradeep]

I believe it will be a week or two. There was some kind of weekend event where the NDA people got invited.

I'm quite excited about the possibilites of HDMI audio built into the R600, given that Creative is a four letter word for me.

 

[Mercutio]

Auzentech, my good man. Auzentech. Nine letters. Much better than four.

 

[Sol]

I have a Razer Baracuda sound card, I haven't actually tried it out yet (The sound card was of course the first part of my new PC to arrive, the RAM the last) but from all the reviews I've seen it's aparently identical to the Auzentech X-Meridian with a couple of the less used features removed (Can't remember what exactly) and the firmware and drivers optimised for performance in games (Not sure about the actual performance difference but I couldn't get the Auzen cards anyway so it was this or Creative).

I too am hanging out for the r600 based cards. I'll be running a 7300GT (fastest thing I could get for < £40) until they come out and then decide if I want one or if I'd rather get an 8800. The R600 would need to be pretty disappointing for that though.

 

[Buck]

I've been happy with the 7600GS and the X1300 from Gigabyte.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm really bad at waiting, but I'll see what I can do.

 

[CougTek]

No one knows for sure how the X290XT and X2900XTX will perform compared to their Nvidia siblings.

[/NDA]
The X2900XT will beat the 8800GTS slightly, but the X2900XTX will barely be faster and will be trounced by the 8800GTX.
[NDA]

We'll have to wait before we know.

 

[Sol]

The various "leaked" benchmarks I've seen tend to indicate that the HD 2900XT will be noticeably faster than the 8800GTS for much the same price. I've not seen anything for the HD 2900XTX but it would have to much faster than the 8800GTX or a fair bit cheaper for me to consider it (especially since my max resolution is 720P so I'll probably have acceptable frame rates with the 2900XT and AA AF maxed out).

Assuming that the "leaks" are accurate I'm guessing I'll be ordering a HD 2900XT some time around the 14th.

 

[Stereodude]

The boys at HardOCP like the 8600 cards.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMyNCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

 

[Mercutio]

ATI is being stupid and retarded about launch dates some more.

 

[ddrueding]

So now that they have the added capabilities of AMD, they can be both stupid and retarded. Instead of having to choose.

So what is it? If I can't wait more than a month, should I still be waiting to see what R600 can do?

Then again, I am playing SimGolf at the moment...

 

[MaxBurn]

I don't know, it looks like it could be the next Matrox Parhelia according to the early benchmarks but we will see more definitely after some sort of paper launch this week so you should probably wait out the week to see. Sure to be some reviews posted after the launch and NDA lifts.

 

[time]

The 8600GT beats the 7600GT and X1650XT significantly.

I'm intrigued - where can I find a review of this?

The X1950 Pro costs me 5$CAN less than the cheapest 7900GS I can find while it beats the latter by 10-20% with the latest Catalyst driver. This is a no-contest.

What's so special about the latest Catalyst driver, apart from fixing Vista performance problems?

Now that I've spent 20+ hours looking into it (!), I agree, the X1950 Pro is clearly a faster albeit more expensive solution, but now I've discovered the Sapphire X1950GT - that seems to be equivalent to a 7900GS only cheaper. Comments?

The X1650XT costs me only 9$CAN than the 7600GT and it does beat the nVidia card nicely too in most games (again, using the latest Catalyst).

I'm not keeping up with you here. Where's the evidence that an X1650XT is more powerful than a 7600GT?

The 7600GS and the X1650 Pro cost me the same thing and they perform simililarly ...

They're not even close down under. The X1650 is about 40% more!

 

[Sol]

The HD 2900XT still looks like a good card, not top of the line... But solid, and somewhat reasonably priced... And available in 2 weeks...

 

[CougTek]

Reviews of the 8600GT spanking the X1650XT and 7600GT :

• 
  http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/geforce-8600/index.x?pg=5
  http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970&p=5
  http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=2

And one with the 8600GTS : http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8600gts.html

Résumé :

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. performs better on Nvidia hardware because of bogus coding. 8600GT beats the 7600GT.
Oblivion : 8600GT - X1650XT - 7600GT
Prey : favors Nvidia hardware : 8600GT - 7600GT - X1650XT
Supreme Commander : 8600GT - X1650XT - 7600GT
Battlefield 2 : X1650XT - 8600GT - 7600GT
Half-Life 2 : 8600GT - X1650XT - 7600GT
Rainbow Six : 8600GT - X1650XT - 7600GT
Company of Heroes : 8600GT - X1650XT - 7600GT
F.E.A.R. : 8600GT - 7600GT=X1650XT (1 fps difference)

8600GT almost always beat the other two. 7600GT warms the rear seat most of the time. X1650XT wins once, loses twice, is second the rest of the time. Of those two last places, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. can be explained by a bug and Prey has been designed solely on Nvidia hardware according to what I read.

The fan on the X1950GT is a lot noisier than the one on the X1950 Pro. Avoid if noise is an issue.

 

[Stereodude]

The HardOCP review shows both 8600 cards "beating" (as in offering a better gaming experience with higher resolution and more features enabled) the ATI / AMD X1950 Pro. You guys are talking about it like it can't beat a 7600GT and a X1650.

 

[Mercutio]

The HardOCP guys are only offering subjective opinions. I respect what they're trying to do, but there's something to be said for verifiable information.

Anyway, the Sapphire x1950GT is down to $105 after a rebate today. Which I think puts it into the "why buy anything else?"-category.