£165 9800GTX+ or £95 8800GTS

purplemonkey · #1 10-11-08, 05:44 PM

As the title suggests does the 9800GTX+ offer 50% more performance seeing as though it costs 50% more than the 8800GTS?

I'll mainly be playing FSX/FS9 and supreme commander on a 22" monitor

What do you guys suggest?

The rest of the system is as follows:

Vista32

Q6600

Abit IP35 Pro XE

2gb OCZ Reaper DDR2 1066mhz

600W thermaltake toughpower

Rastalovich · #2 10-11-08, 06:25 PM

Personally, I wouldn't touch the 8800GTS cards.

I wouldn't pay £165 for a 9800GTX+ either, a Gigabyte one sells for £139.

In terms of % gain per buck, that kinda went out the window when the first 8800 card came out. Since then we've all been using baby-steps, but paying daddy money.

Simple answer, neither, get a cheaper 9800GTX+, if that's the choice of 2, and order some take-away with the change

(or more seriously, more memory)

purplemonkey · #3 10-11-08, 07:47 PM

humour... i like

What card do u suggest for the system given that I'm using relatively old tech for the rest of it...

i might upgrade to 4gb ram but i WILL be using Vista 32 not 64 for compatibility issues with certain programs so again is it worth it given the 9800gtx+ has 700mb odd of ram...

Talonaer · #4 10-11-08, 08:05 PM

dont touch the 8800 gts? i presume you mean the 640/320mb versions? the 512mb g92 chip is a fantastic card, still excellent bang for buck.

2 SLIed runs fallout 3 on absolute max at 1600x1050

toms hardware has a new listing of graphics cards by price for performance for you though:

at those prices it reccomends the 8800gt/9800 gt at base, there fore the 8800gts 512 jsut above, then the 4850 and then a 4870

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-g...w-31414-7.html theres some heirachy for you

purplemonkey · #5 10-11-08, 08:24 PM

yep it would be the 512mb card... the only reason I was asking was because of the price difference but £30 isn't toooooooo bad if i can find the 9800gtx+ for only that small amount more...

I'm slowly coming around to vista 64 bit but what anti-virus do you use with it????

Rastalovich · #6 10-11-08, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by name='Talonaer'

dont touch the 8800 gts? i presume you mean the 640/320mb versions? the 512mb g92 chip is a fantastic card, still excellent bang for buck.

2 SLIed runs fallout 3 on absolute max at 1600x1050

toms hardware has a new listing of graphics cards by price for performance for you though:

at those prices it reccomends the 8800gt/9800 gt at base, there fore the 8800gts 512 jsut above, then the 4850 and then a 4870

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/best-g...w-31414-7.html theres some heirachy for you

If I'm buying a new card and have upwards of £165 to spend, I'm not going to look at a 8xxx anything.

Talonaer · #7 11-11-08, 09:46 AM

ofc...but he also was budgeting £95 before you jump down any more peoples throats, and given his system it would be more than adequate if he wanted to save money. the bang for buck gain between 8 and 9 series is appauling. double the price for a what.. 10% maximal gain?

Rastalovich · #8 11-11-08, 10:04 AM

The post is certainly not jumping down people`s throats, and definately not preparing to - they can be if we wanted them to be - it merely states that with £165 disposable in your pocket, u aint gonna be looking at the 8 series, with any luck.

There is also the question about the 50%, to which there was also an answer.

Is it me, or is there an increasing amount of b1tchyness over gfxcards at present ? Everywhere I seem to read posts and threads, a simple comon sense reply or discussion about either camps get drug into a to-and-fro over either people`s opinion of whatever camp is better or where the best money is spent. Often where there really isn`t any need for it.

SuB · #9 11-11-08, 01:58 PM

Vista 64 is worthit, mine is 100% stable, and i just use windows defender, be sensible and you won't need a cpu cycle eating Anti-Virus.. it's not difficult...

As for graphics card, at that price range perhaps amd/ati would be somewhere better to look? i'd avoid the 8 series as they're starting to kick up some failure rates, my 640 8800gts was becoming a pita on shaders, but i guess that may have been driver related.

amd seem to be all over the midrange/budget market at the minute.

just look around i'm sure you can find a sweet deal thats better than the 8 or 9 series tbh

Rastalovich · #10 11-11-08, 02:53 PM

It`s a point. £183 for an ASUS 4870 w/512m, which is more, or £148 for a Gigabyte 4850 w/1G @ Scan, don`t know how I feel about the 4850 w/1G tho unless u got plans on extreme resolutions.

If I havent got £183 in hand, I think I`d settle for £139 Gigabyte 9800GTX+.