which card? price vs performance


Apr 13, 2003
I'm about to buy a new comp... athlon 2500+ abit nf7-s... i plan to do some overclocking ... slk900u... a lot... and theres a gigacube 9800 non-pro selling for $500 AUD (australian dollars) the gigacube 9600 pro which uses 3.3ns not 2.86ns is $312 AUD and the gigabyte 9600 pro is $380 AUD, ive heard nothing but bad things about the gfx line, and im not sure what is best for price vs performance. would the gigacube 9600 pro run just as good as the gigabyte even tho it has slower memory? or is the ns just affect overclocking? or should i consider the gfx line? i plan to play hl2 n doom 3 at decent settings at 1024x768 (17" monitor)... im guessing atleast fx5600 or 9600 pro atleast?

thx in advance

**EDIT** after reading around im thinking of going with the gigacube 9600 pro c3 (400/600) it uses 3.3ns memory... but i think it still performs just as well as other cards (not overclocked).. i think the faster the ns... the faster the memory can operate... am i right? so 2.86 ns can run faster than 3.6?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by mike88 on 08/03/03 05:12 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Yes 2.86ns memory has a higher rating than 3.6 and therefore will uually run up to/over those equted speeds. The 2.86ns memory is rated for 350mhz, whereas the 3.3ns memory is rated for 275mhz (so if it's running at 300[600]mhz then it's actually overclocked above it's rated speed).
I'd recommend the Gigabyte, but if you are not interested in overclocking at all then the Gigacube may do fine. The Gigabyte will likely be a much better quality card IMO.

- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: