7900gtx or 8800gts 320mb??

[cleeve]

Ask around, it's blalant insanity and short sighted insanity at that to buy AMD chips at this time. Core2 is thrashing the pants off AMD - FACT.

Also, why buy DX9 when you can buy DX10 at almost the same cost?

PS, If you don't think games like Supp Comm and the games coming out over the next year will benefit greatly for Core2, then you should do a little research man.

For a gaming machine, Core2 doesn't offer much more than an Athlon X2 unless you're playing at low resolutions - FACT

Who buys a new rig to play at low resolutions?...

Sure, Core2 is a better bet if you're buying new. I'm not debating that. But Athlon X2's are still good gaming processors because the video card is the limiting factor, not the CPU. 'Insane' is a strong word for someone choosing a cheap X2.

Dx9 the same cost as Dx10? I don't think so lad, find me a Dx10 card under $400 please... I can find you decent Dx9 cards for $120.

*I* should do research? OK, I'll bite... please show me the research I'm missing, because I can't find any benches proving that dual cores make a colossal difference anywhere. There is a slight difference in some games that support dual core, but it's hardly the difference between playable and not playable... the deciding factor for that is still the videocard.

 

[Multiplectic]

...then you should do a little research man.

Oh please...
...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


You're telling Cleeve to do a little research??? Obviously you don't know him...

 

[tamalero]

To be the honest buying AMD now is crazy, it's not just that they are slower - they are old tech. Games like Sup Comm really benefit for dual core.

Hogwash.

1. AMD (Ati) video cards are just fine. DirectX 9 cards will be servicable for two years at the very least, just like DirectX 8 cards were usable years after DirectX 9 was introduced. Hell, you can play Half Life Episode 1 with a DirectX 8 card and it's almost indiscernible from the DirectX 9 codepath.
There is a huger install base of DirectX 9 cards and developers can't ignore them unless they want to go out of business. Pretty much every game in the next 2 years will have a DirectX 9 path.

And for the record, Ati cards are not slower in general, yes the 8800 is the fastest videocard out there but there are price points where Ati cards are still king, like the $250 X1950 XT.

AMD CPUs are fine too, at resolutions above 1024x768 the videocard will be the bottleneck, not the CPU. I'd personally get a Core2 if you're buying new, but an Athlon X2 is still a great gaming cpu.

2. Dual core is far from necessary, the few games that do utilize it so far don't make a 'must have' difference. As far as supreme commander, we'll see.

But to answer the OP's question... I'd wait for the 320mb 8800 GTS. The 7900 GTX is way overpriced, the $250 X1950 XT will beat on it.

before your 2nd statement, the 1st is wrong..
the games are CPU BOUND when in lower resolution, since they cant give the vid cards enought information to do that many fps.. ( thus the huge cap )
as soon you start using super high resolutions, the stuff normalizes and the diference betwen cpus isnt that big.
(read the many benchmarks with diferent cpus around, they will agree on this )

and Id munch on the 8800gts but 640 MB ( since I change vid card every 1-2 years, not every 6 months like most entusiasts here )

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Just an update of the GF8800GTS-320 appearing on Overclockers;