|
What can match 8800GTS?
|
|
|
sam1233
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. July 2008 @ 22:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
im wondering what can other graphics card can match the 8800GTS or beat it...but at the same or lower price or a little bit higher price?
im newbie btw lol
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
16. July 2008 @ 22:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Which 8800GTS? The 512MB version is MUCH faster than a 640 or 320MB version.
Anyway an ATI HD4850(about 160 after rebates on newegg.com) will easily outperform the 8800GTS.
|
|
sam1233
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. July 2008 @ 22:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
Its the 512mb 8800GTS. Thanks =)
hmm whats the best Graphics card for around 350 bucks?
thanks
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. July 2008 @ 22:52
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
16. July 2008 @ 22:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
No problem. Just a comparison, the 4850 soundly beats out the 9800GTX, so it definitely kills the 8800GTS.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. July 2008 @ 12:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
+1 from me.
The HD4850 bends the 8800GTS over a table and spanks it. Proverbially of course.
:P
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
11. September 2008 @ 22:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Aww, you made my GTS cry :( It doesn't deserve such harsh words v.v
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
11. September 2008 @ 23:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Your GTS is good, but not THAT good lol.
Where did you find this old thread? hahaha
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
11. September 2008 @ 23:53 |
Link to this message
|
It IS that good. That's my point. It can max almost any game, bar Crysis, at 19 x 12 res.
The 4850 beats it, yes. But it doesn't spank it to Mars and back like you guys might believe. We're talking like the jump from an 8800GS to an 8800GTX, not 4850 to 4870. Even at it's price and age, I still consider the 8800GTS G92 quite high end. It certainly performs well in high res.
Quote:
Where did you find this old thread? hahaha
...random clicking, lol.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 05:01 |
Link to this message
|
Not quite. The 9800GTX is a bit faster than the 8800GTS, the 9800GTX+ is faster still, and the HD4850 can even beat that in a fair few tests. :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 12:42 |
Link to this message
|
My point is, the 8800GTS is LAST gen, but it still performs like a current gen card. Yes, the 4850 is faster. But for someone who already owns an 8800GTS, it's not really a worthy upgrade. Thus my need for the 4870.
The 8800s are still extremely popular and for good reason. The average person with an average sized monitor(1280 res/1680 res) will find that an 8800 will last far into the next gen. The only game to challenge it so far has been Crysis.
Even Assassin's Creed was silky smooth for me completely maxed at 1920 4xAA 8xAF. I dare say that puts it very comfortably in the high end...
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
You're quite right, there's no point going from any 8800 to a 4850, the 4870 is the first card I'd consider an upgrade.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 12:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'd consider it if maybe upgrading from an 8800GS or HD3850. But 9600GT/HD3870 and up really need a 4870 to feel the jump in performance.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 14:55 |
Link to this message
|
I'll second that. When I went from a 8800GT to a 4850 I didn't see that big of a difference. The 4850 took less of a hit with full HDR lighting in STALKER though.
That game sucks.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 15:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
Seen how demanding the new Prequel Clear Sky is? GTX280s are seeing as low as 14fps in not particularly amazing scenes, at only 1920x1200...
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 15:58 |
Link to this message
|
STALKER was coded like shit, and apparently so is the prequel.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 16:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
It wasn't THAT bad... :)
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 16:13 |
Link to this message
|
|
No, I'm pretty sure it WAS that bad lol.
What a horrible game.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 16:21 |
Link to this message
|
Depends on if you like it or not. It's either you love it or you hate it. I didn't like it either, though I can certainly see where the appeal is.
The graphics are bland, the shooting sucks, guns are impossible to aim and do piss-poor damage, no voice-over for individual characters... I mean, come on guys, at least give me some generic thing they all say. It was like being back in Morrowind... in a bad way.
The only thing I can say is, nice lighting. That's about it. I had an extremely hard time trying to get into this game, and believe me, I really wanted to like it. It's just too shoddily made.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 16:24 |
Link to this message
|
The graphics are typical of Q1 '07 shooters (can't speak for Clear Sky), the gameplay is different, but many took a liking to it. However, many didn't, myself included, primarily because of the rather sharp difficulty level... It doesn't support AA by any reasonable means, but apart from that I don't really see the problem with the game, I don't remember people commenting on there being very many bugs, and on an HD4870 at least, it runs maxed out at 2560 res, no problem at all.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 16:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
I'm not talking about bugs here.
The GAME sucks. Playing it is a chore.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
PLUS the terrible difficulty. It was like Far Cry all over again. I HATED Far Cry because I couldn't beat it even on easy :( Stalker is the same. I get killed within 10 minutes every time.
I found the graphics extremely unimpressive even compared to older games. It looks like an old Xbox game to me.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
12. September 2008 @ 17:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not to me at all...
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
14. September 2008 @ 15:41 |
Link to this message
|
Purely a matter of opinion. I was disappointed after everyone said the graphics were good. The colors are bland, the textures are blurry, and the geometry is unimpressive. I honestly think even Doom 3 looks way better than Stalker.
Purely IMO, of course :)
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
14. September 2008 @ 15:48 |
Link to this message
|
I was never impressed with the graphics before as I couldnt get it to play well at any respectable resolution on my X1900XT with HDR on, turning that on though seemed to transform it, and the grass textures are good. The others are pretty unremarkable, but it's not a BAD looking game. I'd place it above Doom 3 but below FEAR, above Far Cry and Half Life 2, but below Half Life 2: Episode One (purely because of how sharp the HL games are, very few crappy textures).
Put Doom 3 to 2560x1600 and you'll realise why a game natively supporting high resolutions is important.. haha. Surprisingly though, UT2004 looks absolutely stunning, even at this res, as does Counter-Strike Source and even RollerCoaster Tycoon 3 looks pretty good. Zoom right in so a small section of a ride is in 30 inches of screen and it will unsurprisingly look ass, but higher resolutions are great for any strategy game for seeing more at once without compromising the detail on the models.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. September 2008 @ 15:49
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
15. September 2008 @ 02:57 |
Link to this message
|
Why, what happens with Doom 3 in high res? AFAIK, it just looks better and better... though some of the bump mapping and textures are pretty bad, but passable.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
|
