Best Preformance:Cost Ratio

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

M4er1c

Distinguished
Jan 30, 2008
41
0
18,530
from what i read on forums and reviews... it seems like the 8800gt has the best performance to cost ratio, and i right? but then i heard the 8800 gt is better then the 8800 gts or gtx.

btw, would a 600 watt PSU be able to run a q6600 2.4ghz (no overclocking) and a 8800 gt?
 
Has anyone found any benches on the GDD3 version of the 3870? Do they differ much? It has a nice fan so a high OC is plausible. Isn't the 3870 just a 3850 512mb with GDDR4, so wouldn't this be a 3850 512mb with higher clocks?
 

If your refering to this:
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=1
Between the G80 GTX, GTS, and G92 GT yes.
In my opinion the 8800GT is the bang for the buck choice.

For the newer cards here's a better look:
http://xtreview.com/review219.htm

Conclusion

"Let 's evaluate all the new items, Tested today, in turn. AMD Radeon HD 3850 256 ÌB is approaching the most profitable acquisition with 200 dollars. The GeForce 8800 GT with 256 MB memory volume and the recommended price 199 dollars do not have competitors ( the HD 3850 is far in performance ). The Radeon HD 3850 with 512 Mb memory volume still competitive, as well as the 256 MB but for new today games this is not enough.
The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT was the fastest graphics card on the totality of today's tests : Absence of problems with drivers in the tested today game , high overclock capacity but a noisy cooling system"
 
the gt is faster than the old gts but not the new dieshrunk one. Either an 8800 GT or an ATI 3870 or 3850 are all valid options (what rez are you gaming at?). I wouldn't recommend the 2900 personally due to heat issues.
Ryan
 

The conclusion I posted was from the review link I posted (which you read in 8 seconds?)
 
Yes and No 8800 GT better then g80 8800 GTS (320/640 mb), a little slower then the g92 8800 GTS (512). But has a better cost to performance ratio then both because g92 gts does not really give you a performance advantage, way to close. And GTX is a dead card for new buyers.

People will disagree with me on your psu I know it. 600 watt perfectly fine.

New C2D cpu's are power efficient in relation to there older cousins, P4 and Pentium D. The 8800 GT and new ATI products are more power efficient then previous generation cards as well. Power needs are and need to go down. That said their are people on here and out their that insist on really high watt PSU's even though power draws on modern system's are droping and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. People simplify it by adding up wattage of your components and then say you need that much. But if you look at this site's and other's review's you will see that power draws are not what the wattage adds up to under full load. All systems including ones configured in sli with extreme series cpu's pull way lower wattage then what you would get from adding up the wattage of the part's. 265-400 watts for ulta powerful systems with 1000 watt PSU. That said there is a average of 20% inefficiency to be added on as well. What is more important then wattage is 12 and 5 volt circuits. You need two 12 v minimum, three would be fine though, and that 600 watt would do that for you.

I have a 2 year old Dell fully upgraded, Pentium D930 3.0 ghz, 2 gb 6400 ram, 2 hard drive's , 8800 gt. I have 375 watt PSU, under rated really push's 450, 2x12 volt rails. At wall Tower only, in game system maxed (250-285 watts). Your proposed parts would be fine in sli overclocked with 600 watt system. In a few years 550 watts will be fine for all out systems.

High efficiecny PSU'S better, less waste and quailty parts, if it's in your budget.

Crazy, Wasteful PSU's and computer's are one of the millions of symptom's of a wasteful society.

Perfect for your system

http://www.antec.com/us/productDetails.php?ProdID=28550

Look at the system config, then look at power consumption, that is the full system! This will also give you info on cards you want.

http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/page11.html

http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/page2.html
 
ya, quite to eh, this machine is silent, I turn the G-card fan up a little to game but it's barely a muffle. My Pentium D 930 is getting slow but this comp has been great.
 
For the poster saying that he doesn't recommend the 2900Pro because of heat issues. My idle is at 45c and my load is at 65c, a lot better than a lot of people with 8800GTs. This is also heavily OC'd 850/1000. I get 11560k in 3dmark06. I payed $130 plus S&H for it.

I'm also using this PSU: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153023

All of my volts are reading fine according to Everest's sensors.

All in all, I can run Crysis on Very High @1280x720 with 23FPS, with the DX9 Very High hack and Taowolf's config, I get a steady 30FPS. All for only $130 dollars.
 
Nice, a perfect example of a system running great scores with a 430 watt PSU, thanks for proving my point in way fewer words. I just have been to so many forums with people yelling about needing 800, 1000 watt PSU's. 😵. And ya that is better then my 8800 GT I idle at 56-60c fan default 29%, Under load, fan at quite 40% 70-75c. Look at the link it shows power consumption and card temps.

http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/page11.html
 
Yeah I really hate when people say that you need $100 PSU's to handle single card solutions. My 430w Thermaltake is able to power my 2900Pro at my huge OC using just a 6-pin. It also power 3 HDDs, my DVD-Burner, and my 680i SLI with an e6300 @3.2Ghz. I've had no power related issues and my rails are all reading the right voltage.

I will comment on that even though I do think my 2900Pro is the best price/performance ratio, if you are in the market to spend $230+ the 8800GT is an awesome value if you aren't using an HDTV.

The only problem I see with the 2900Pro is the fan is pretty loud @ 50% to keep it nice and cool with my high OC. My temps at idle right now are at 44c, so I bet I could lower it, but if I turn this card up to 100%, I swear you'll think there's a jet in my room.
 
Well a little passive aggresive, you are powering your compoter with that 430 watt, but it has a 65% efficientcy ratring and is most likely loud. You do get what you pay for, so that 35 dollar one you have is wasteful and will not last as long as the one I recommended. Price is not the issue. Also your card is running nice but it is also very inefficient, its a power hog, so for people who care about that stuff it's a bad choice.
 

Depending on price.
Performance wise I'll stick with the 8800GT but either is a good choice.
I found this to be amusing though:

http://www.yougamers.com/hardware/stats/3dmark06/priceandperformance/
 
It really depends on the user. Let's say a $200 HD 3850 gives me 30 fps and a $400 8800GTX gives me 60 fps (just rounded numbers, bear with me). If the entire PC except the video card costs $2000 (because it does other stuff besides games), then the $400 GTX doubles my fps while adding only 10% to the cost of the PC. A 100% increase in performance for a 10% increase in price sounds good, doesn't it? That makes the GTX a better deal, right? Technically, I get the same fps/$ from the HD 3850. Even if the HD 3850 got 40 fps, and therefore more fps/$, it's smarter to get the GTX anyway (50% more fps for 10% more $). At least that's how I thought when I got myself the best card out there last summer. No regrets whatsoever :)
 


To a certian degree I'd agree with that. However, tweak settings just below maximum and there's no game out there a 3850 can't get very smooth framerates on - sure, you'll have to lower settings a bit more on Crysis, but you'd get smooth gameplay at attractive settings + a decent resolution (1600x1200) on a 3850.

In my book, if it can provide nice visuals at high resolution and good framerates for $200, it's a better bang for the buck than a card that costs double but doesn't give you double the utility.
 
Well, see, it depends on the user again. Some people will not sleep well if they have to turn down some of the eye-candy :)

Plus the budget thing: if you only have $200, the HD 3850 is the only card that makes sense.
 
Well that's why I said to a certian degree I'd agree with that. :)

My only point is, when you're looking for the 'best bang for the buck', after a certain tier every dollar you spend results in less and less increased performance, regardless of the user.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom