7900gto or x1900xt 512mb for 1280x1024?

[poohbear]

hey all, im debating getting a 7900gto or a x1900xt 512mb and i ONLY use the resolution of 1280x1024 or lower cause that's what my monitor supports. I usually keep my vid cards for 16 months before upgrading (based on my last 4 upgrades). Turned down a x1900xtx cause i thought it'd be overkill.

i'm an RTS fanatic, that's what i usually play (COH, the upcoming Medival TW2 and Warhammer: Mark of Chaos), but i still play some fps style games too.

which do u think will handle the Unreal 3 engine better cause there's lotsa games getting released on that engine next year? i'm guessing the x1900 cause it has more pixel shaders?

 

[Ichigo]

I don't understand people who spend more on a video card than their monitor. Buy a real monitor first, video card second. Monitors don't NEARLY depreciate as fast.

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: poohbear
hey all, im debating getting a 7900gto or a x1900xt 512mb and i ONLY use the resolution of 1280x1024 or lower cause that's what my monitor supports. I usually keep my vid cards for 16 months before upgrading (based on my last 4 upgrades). Turned down a x1900xtx cause i thought it'd be overkill.

i'm an RTS fanatic, that's what i usually play (COH, the upcoming Medival TW2 and Warhammer: Mark of Chaos), but i still play some fps style games too.

which do u think will handle the Unreal 3 engine better cause there's lotsa games getting released on that engine next year? i'm guessing the x1900 cause it has more pixel shaders?

What's your budget?

 

[happy medium]

I don't think you need 512 megs for that resolution (1024x1280).
I go for the cheapest, fastest 256 meg card you can find. (1900xt)

 

[tersome]

x1900 definately. It's faster and the image quality is better.

HDR + AA is a nice perk, too.

 

[Munky]

The x1900xt wins in terms of performance and features/image quality. But it's also louder and draws more power if you care about such issues.

Also, dont skimp on the video card even if you only play at 1280 resolution, because even current games like Oblivion will put plenty of stress at that resolution on any single card. Even more so if you plan on keeping the card for a year or longer, get the fastest card within your budget.

 

[lopri]

Contrary to common belief I find RTS to be very demanding on frame rates. I mean, for shooting games you usually move your mouse in a given screen-sized space, no? When playing RTS you gotta scroll all over the map like every second so low FPS tends to be more standing out. (unless you're playing less graphically demanding RTS, such as WarCraft 3) Anyone who plays RTS competively will understand me. For Company of Heroes, the truly smooth gameplay was only achieved @over 100FSB. (Well, at least for me)

 

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: lopri
Contrary to common belief I find RTS to be very demanding on frame rates.

I agree. Black and White 2 is very demanding, which is why it's used in many benchmark reviews. The x1900xt has great bang for the buck, but it's not a cureall. The GTO clocks to 700/800 easily, and IQ with the newest nvidia drivers is pretty damn good. It's a tough card to beat, that's why I bought two...

 

[hmorphone]

Might come down to which one you can find right now, seems like both are in short supply...

 

[poohbear]

thanks all for the replies. I think im gonna skimp on the 512mb version of the x1900xt and just buy the 256mb version for much cheaper, the extra ram doesnt seem to make a diff @ 1280x1024 (4-5 fps, which isnt even noticeable yea?). The question is, will UT2007 do better w/ 512mb @ that resolution?:0

Originally posted by: Ichigo
I don't understand people who spend more on a video card than their monitor. Buy a real monitor first, video card second. Monitors don't NEARLY depreciate as fast.

lol, i have a samsung 172x, the best lcd u could buy 2.5 years ago. It cost me $550 back then. it has better image quality than any crt i've ever owned @ 1280x1024 and i can play @ 1024x780 w/ absoluetly no pixelation. it also runs @ 12ms which was quite awesome back in the day (still have never experienced ghosting). thank u for your advice though.

 

[Midwayman]

nothing wrong with 12x10 on a 17" monitor. I dont really think Id want to try 16x12 on anything less than 19"

 

[Treyu]

If I were you i'd pick up a X1900XT 512MB. There were quite a few times in Oblivion where I noticed my video memory usuage exceded 256mb's at 1176x664 resolution.

 

[Skyguy]

I've owned both the 1900XT 512 and the 7900GTO. Each are capable @ 1280, and each score a bit higher than the other in certain games. I personally like the ease of Nvidia's control panel, and find ATI's cumbersome, but that is just my opinion. However, the biggest fact/difference is that the HSF on each card is like night and day. The GTO is SILENT. The XT is like a frickin leaf blower when it cranks up. Absolutely brutal, can barely hear the TV over it. No joke.

Depends what's more important to you, good luck.

 

[akshayt]

In the days to come a 1900xt can't do any more than a 1280x1024. In games like Crysis you will in fact be playing at 10x7 not maxed out with no AA.
Get a 512MB 1900xt