8800 GT or 9800 GTX?

[archcommus]

Hello, I'm planning a new build, video uses include gaming and movies. I currently have a 19" 1280x1024 monitor, I like to play games at that res if possible and the highest res movies I would watch are 720p. I'm thinking for the new system a Gigabyte P35-DS3L, Q6600, 4 GB memory, and a 500-600 W PSU. For this build, would you recommend an 8800 GT or a 9800 GTX, or some other card? I'm sure most of you would recommend the 8800 due to price and my resolution, however I would like to be able to handle new games at high settings for at least the next 2 years without another upgrade, and I also do not want 1680x1050 gaming to be out of reach if I decide to move to that within the next couple years. So considering that, would it maybe be worth it to spend the extra ~$130 on a 9800 GTX now?

Thanks!

 

[v8envy]

While there is no guarantee you'll be able to go upgrade-less for 2 years (considering the new generation of hardware is imminent with midrange solutions possibly outperforming the current high end *this* year) the 9800GTX is as good as it gets today for a single GPU single slot solution.

By definition it has the highest chance of lasting you the whole 2 years. Whether a better chance of not upgrading for 2 years is worth $130 is a question only you can answer.

If I were in your shoes I'd go with a 9600GT or 8800GS now and just man up to replacing the GPU in 6-12 months with the $200 you saved today.

 

[Denithor]

Right now you are considering either a $180 8800GT or a $300 9800GTX.

You game at 1280x1024.

Question - do you intend to upgrade your monitor anytime soon?

If not, pick up an EVGA 8800GS for $110 or a 9600GT for $130 (both after MIR) and then plan to upgrade just the card in about a year or so. The midrange a year from now will probably be equivalent to today's high end (9800GTX) and should be reasonably priced.

If you do intend to upgrade to a higher resolution monitor within the next year (if more than a year see above) then I would recommend getting an 8800GTS (G92). They can be had for as little as $207 after MIR (MSI version at newegg with free copy of Witcher).

And a final thing - why a quad processor? Those things are space heaters and aren't necessary for most individuals unless you are into crunching (games just really don't need four cores yet). I would suggest a much cooler-running e8400 instead.

 

[zod96]

Short term get a 8800GT for what you have. If you think your going to get a new lcd at 1680x1050 in the near future get the 9800GTX.

 

[archcommus]

I would like to hold off on getting a widescreen for at least another year or so, so I agree it'd probably be best to buy today for my current resolution, and upgrade in the future, because who knows how a 9800 GTX would fare at 1680x1050 on games a year from now compared to what's available and reasonably priced then. So, going down that route, why do you say an 8800GS or 9600 GT over an 8800 GT? I've never been a fan of mid-range cards just because of their reputation of being under-powered, so I've always purchased high-end (not ultra high-end), like the $300 cards typically. I guess the current mid-range offerings are much better than the past. Well whatever will help me get playable frame rates in Crysis and other titles in 2008 and 2009 is what I want.

Why quad core? This has been debatable for me. I guess just because I want to see what I can do with 4 cores now and in the next 2-3 years. I don't like to switch platforms and CPUs more often than every couple years, and I expect titles a year from now, especially Source engined-based ones, to make use of them. How bad are the temps on the Q6600? I tend to expect no more than 40-45 C idle, 50-55 C load. Off topic, but should I invest in a different cooler?

 

[Jax Omen]

Unlike the past, the midrange 8800GS and 9600GT are capable of running most modern games near-max at 1280x1024. Hell, many games the 9600GT can crank the AA up and still run smoothly at that resolution.

Games won't use quadcores until there's enough of a gamer market with quads to justify coding for them. By the time that happens, Nehalem should be an affordable build option. Get a good dual for now, it'll serve you far better now.

 

[v8envy]

If you think back to the days of the ti4200 vs ti4600 you'd remember that midrange didn't always suck -- there used to be days where midrange was only 10% or so slower than the top end.

It's only the dark days of the 8600 and 2600 that the midrange was 1/4 the performance of top end. Even the 9600 was half the card of a 9800.

There is no high end card on the market today -- only different grades of midrange. 8800GS or 9600GT is lower end midrange, 9800GTX is higher mid

 

[archcommus]

Good point about the Ti4200 vs 4600, I owned a Ti4200 actually and it was a great card with an Athlon XP 2100+ and 512 MB memory at the time.

Anyway, I didn't realize that the mid-range segment broadened itself so much. I am still undecided between the three (8800 GT, 8800 GS, 9600 GT). Will have to look at benchmarks and prices.

Jax Omen, regarding quad cores, yeah that's what people have been saying. I've been getting some persuasion to get an E8400, and the arguments are strong. I do understand it would be better for games now, but other than games I also do a lot of multitasking, and since I don't want to upgrade my CPU again for at least another 2 years, I don't want to find myself wishing I had a quad core 1-1.5 years from now.

 

[Jax Omen]

Fair enough, the Q6600 is still a hell of a "bang-for-the-buck" CPU.

 

[rsasp]

8800GT definitely have better price and performance ratio than 9800gtx.

 

[themisfit610]

Oh man you won't be sorry you got the quad if you encode video! Literally 2x faster than a dual. Yep. x264 FTW.

DivX or Xvid not so much - but who cares?

~MiSfit

 

[Dream Operator]

My single 9600GT plays COD4, Bioshock, and Assassins Creed at 1600x900, all settings maxed, very playable. I play Audiosurf, Flat Out 2 and Half Life 2 at 1920x1080. Lost Planet DX10, all settings maxed excepted for lighting, med, shadows, med. 1440x900, great frame rate.

That card would do you just fine. Want to spend a little more, get the 8800GT. It's thought to be more future proof with increased shading power and slightly more overall performance.

I would have purchased that, but the stupid name game even got me! The day after I ordered the 9600GT, I read more reviews and was disappointed to find that I bought a lesser card than the 8800GT. For those gaming in the higher res., it's important. I ordered another 9600GT (arrives tomorrow!!) and that should do the trick for awhile! Enough about me though!

Sounds like a nice rig. Enjoy!

 

[archcommus]

Thanks everyone. Yeah, probably would like to go with the 8800 GT for current and future games at this res. However, on second (third? fourth?) thought, I might like to supplement my current monitor with an Acer AL2216Wbd 22" widescreen or something similar. I used to do duals but gave it up long ago when I bought my first LCD and went to college. I multitask a lot more now than I did then, so I'm thinking a widescreen for movies and games coupled with my current 19" for music/chatting/etc. might be nice. That Acer is only $229. If I do something like that and want to game at 1680x1050, would you then recommend the 9800 GTX?

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: archcommus
Thanks everyone. Yeah, probably would like to go with the 8800 GT for current and future games at this res. However, on second (third? fourth?) thought, I might like to supplement my current monitor with an Acer AL2216Wbd 22" widescreen or something similar. I used to do duals but gave it up long ago when I bought my first LCD and went to college. I multitask a lot more now than I did then, so I'm thinking a widescreen for movies and games coupled with my current 19" for music/chatting/etc. might be nice. That Acer is only $229. If I do something like that and want to game at 1680x1050, would you then recommend the 9800 GTX?

Not really. The 8800 GT runs perfect at that resolution.

 

[archcommus]

On current games I would imagine yes, but a year from now? Maybe that res would be pushing that card with new games then?

 

[Tempered81]

you can buy two 8800GT's for less than the cost of 1 9800GTX AR. After overclocking both cards the 9800gtx's performance margin averages 5-10% over the 8800GT. I would recommend the 8800GT or GT(s)

IF the price doesn't matter so much, grab 3 9800gtx's and a Nforce 790i SLI

 

[archcommus]

Thanks, I'm definitely not interested in SLI. I agree 8800 GT would be a better pick over a 9800 GTX, that's probably a bit overkill right now. So currently the choice is between the MSI OC 8800 GT 512 MB ($180 after MIR) or an 8800 GTS 512 MB ($200 after MIR). Opinion?

 

[Urtho]

For that $20 difference you get a slightly faster card with the GTS that has better cooling as well as a free copy of Witcher assuming you're talking about that MSI deal over at Newegg. Kinda a no-brainer to me for that small of a price delta, but it's up to you really.

 

[RollingKeg]

i just recently bought myself a new system also. i'd go with the MSI 8800gt on egg. its 209 i believe and MIR for $30.00. Not only that but it comes with a dual slot cooler instead of the single slot found most on the 8800gt. Plus it's already oc'ed. I'll provide a link for you if ya decide to get it. http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814127329. get it while it lasts hope ya decide on your choice.

 

[archcommus]

They both have dual slot coolers, the 8800 GTS in fact just went down another $5, narrowing the price difference to $15 now, practically negligible. So I really just want the one with the best performance and that appears to be the GTS.

 

[archcommus]

Hmm, MSI cards only have a one year warranty though. That's not cool. I like at least 3 on a video card.

 

[SandInMyShoes]

I've been asking myself this, and decided I want a 9600GT. Why? I'm a casual gamer, and I probably won't notice the difference between an 8800GT and a 9600GT. Also, the 9600GT has somewhat lower power consumption both at idle and load, I believe, which matters to me.

About the Q6600: I don't think you'll be sorry. I recently built a system for a friend with one, and overclocked it to 3ghz with a Thermalright Ultra 120 cooler. It is cooler both at idle and at full load than my dog-slow old Tbred 1700+ OC'd to 2ghz is, and each core is ~3x as fast!! The Q6600 is a killer CPU, it's blown me away. I hear the Q9300 is cooler and overclocks a bit more, but it's also pricier right now.