This topic contains 198 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Irishbandit 7 years, 2 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #48414

    Viking62
    Participant

    I’ve checked the reviews from owners and the numbers have been crunched & I have updated my build list for my graphics card. Review for yourself & thanks guys for the help yet again
    😉


    Da Card!


    Updated 2/7/08…Nut will be proud
    EVGA 320-P2-N811-AR GeForce 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3 PCI Express x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card – Retail $219.99 US


    Will be happy when I get this build all sorted/Keep the pinions coming…
    😉

    #48415

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    Fair play, I would have actually gone with the 3850 down that line, but hey, nice card.

    I Worry that you will struggle with Linux though. I have no experience of Linux on ATI, but I have rarely heard anything good, when it has been good, its just been….. “It works fine, no problems”

    Still think the 256MB 8800 GT would be better though.

    #48416

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @peanutsrevenge wrote:

    Still think the 256MB 8800 GT would be better though.

    : ) hate to backtrack, but i think i agree with peanuts. an hd3800 may be a contender, but i think id still go with an 8800.

    so, im not helping. i had a look through newegg, bargain hunting:

    MSI 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3, $199.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127328
    EVGA 8800GTS 320MB 320-bit GDDR3 $219.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130082
    EVGA 8800GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 $239.99 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130318

    i still think ‘cheap and often’ is the best policy for pc stuff, especially when youre capable of upgrading yourself.

    *i noticed there are still quite a few dx9 cards on their list. i saw a 7900gs and an x1950pro for about $130.

    (no personal experience with newegg – foreign website)

    #48417

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    The 3870 looks to be a very good card, but cant quite keep up with the 8800 GT.
    If you are looking for more imagine quality and are prepared to lose some fps to get it, then the 3870 would be better (ATI have always been better at image quality, hence they suffer less with anti-aliaising).

    On the Motherboard front, I read about a foxconn M/B that has really good performance and has both DDRII AND DDR III slots for future expansion.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813186134

    Don’t think that is the same board (closest I could find on newegg), the one tested was a Foxconn Digital Life P35AP-S, which comes with a dual audio chip, so you have headphones plugged in for VOIP and speakers for games etc, means, if you life that, you dont need two soundcards (like I have).

    I have only used a foxconn once I think, but cant remember if it was good or bad, but they been around a while.

    Also, for my machine I am now considering the Q9450 that is due to be out mid-end March. a 1333 FSB, 12MB cache, 45nm tech, for £215 here.
    Pricey, but, for a chip like that, very reasonable I think.
    Although I did read that Intel are postponing their 45 quads as theres no rival to force their hand, so, not sure if that is the pushed back date or not.

    #48418

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    <<<< Finally sees Ltds point about power consumption, I didnt realise things had gone so far.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/page18.html

    Im talking about the power requirement (middle third) and annual cost of a system (final third).

    –EDIT–

    I think this is very applicable to this thread.

    http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/page41.html

    Mostly their conclusion on motherboard and of Quad/Dual core CPUs.

    and yes, I have just read all 41 pages 😯

    #48419

    Rommel
    Participant

    Upgrading myself! What a novel idea.@laptops Daddy wrote:


    i still think ‘cheap and often’ is the best policy for pc stuff, especially when youre capable of upgrading yourself.

    Hello Dr. Brainbender:

    Yes, it’s me. Tell your nurse I don’t need anymore sticky notes, and I won’t be coming in next week. A friend of mine is going to hep me upgrade myself.

    Oh yeah?! Well, the same to you too, buddy!

    click

    Hello? HELLO ???

    #48420

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    I see you were putting the posts in while I was away there Rommel.

    Only 18 behind.
    To think, it was only my gaming rank that I was afraid to lose 😀

    #48421

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    @rommel wrote:

    Upgrading myself! What a novel idea.

    : ) i’ve never really felt the need.

    @Peanuts wrote:

    Finally sees Ltds point about power consumption…

    yeap, its worth keeping an eye on, ‘specially when you have more than one. and it’s best to be green i spose.

    what’s a basic pc cost to run in the uk? about £5 a month? that could easily double with power hungry bits and lots of peak cpu g card stuff.

    i think what’s interesting though, is measured pc power consumption compared to psu ratings. lot of people these days would insist on a 700w psu for high end.

    #48422

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    @laptops Daddy wrote:

    @Peanuts wrote:

    Finally sees Ltds point about power consumption…

    yeap, its worth keeping an eye on, ‘specially when you have more than one. and it’s best to be green i spose.

    what’s a basic pc cost to run in the uk? about £5 a month? that could easily double with power hungry bits and lots of peak cpu g card stuff.

    i think what’s interesting though, is measured pc power consumption compared to psu ratings. lot of people these days would insist on a 700w psu for high end.

    You’d be suprised with the power requirement of a high end PC (they are the ones that need high end PSUs).
    I was recently looking at how many amps components use (I’d rather not go into why) and they do pull alot and mostly at 12v rather than 5.

    The reason I went for almost 600w (constant) was that I didn’t want to have to buy another for a while and wanted it to stay within range. If theres one thing you do NOT want letting you down, its the PSU, as it ‘could’ take everything else with it but could also stop another fault component taking others with it.

    #48423

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    the day pc’s start to use 250w or more, will be the day the manufacturers wake up to the electricity/environmental cost and start to change thing…

    wait, : ) happened about a year ago…

    pays to listen to laptop sometimes.

    no, i wouldn’t be surprised.

    i agree that psu quality is essential, but within a budget this is an argument for a lower rated wattage, not higher.

    i’ve used 500/600w psu’s myself. but not outside of sli with lots of raid and cpu.

    edit: good point: @peanuts wrote:

    If theres one thing you do NOT want letting you down, its the PSU, as it ‘could’ take everything else with it but could also stop another fault component taking others with it.

    #48424

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    I bought an 8800GT a couple of weeks ago. It’s got a factory overclocked core/shader/memory and I paid $269 for it (the core is 700Mhz compared to 600 standard). It’s by Zotac which isn’t a well known company but it’s the fastest 8800GT out there. It has given me no problems and had absolutely no problem at all installing it. Not only that but it has it’s own custom fan to keep it from getting too hot -a problem that happened with this card with the nvidia stock fan.

    It performs rather well. I can play Crysis with Very High settings. Not at perfect framerate (avg 22 FPS) but certainly playable. It also runs COD4 smoothly with no noticeable framerate slowdown.

    I bought this card not because of DX10 but because it has really good performance for the price.

    Stay away from Vista at all costs because there’s not a single game out there (yet) that proves that DX10 is much better than DX9. Also if you get a chance, install XP SP3 as there are reports of a performance increase. I’m running RC Refresh 2 and have had no problems with it.

    I’ve also got an MSI motherboard that I use and have had no issues with it either. I can’t tell you how it compares to an ASUS one because I’ve never owned an ASUS but I can tell you that I’ve been happy with my MSI.

    #48425

    PeanutsRevenge
    Participant

    Yea, I have yet to see what all the fuss is about Crysis, I can run it at those fps on high detail @ 1680×1050 4AA.

    My card runs @ 700/1730/1000 when I want it to (havn’t tried pushing any further yet) and its rare that the fan kicks into its 60& speed zone.
    I have set it to max @ 75C, which given that sparkle are selling stable passive cooled ones (not very GOOD passive cooler granted) running inexcess of 100C, 75 seems good.

    Only game I struggle to play is Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, but thats mostly my CPU, but also will run two screens. its the only game I’d like more oopmph.

    #48426

    Rommel
    Participant

    Hi Again:

    There’s something I wanted to mention earlier in this thread but didn’t have time.@peanutsrevenge wrote:

    Yea, I have yet to see what all the fuss is about Crysis, I can run it at those fps on high detail @ 1680×1050 4AA.

    My card runs @ 700/1730/1000 when I want it to (havn’t tried pushing any further yet) and its rare that the fan kicks into its 60& speed zone.
    I have set it to max @ 75C, which given that sparkle are selling stable passive cooled ones (not very GOOD passive cooler granted) running inexcess of 100C, 75 seems good.

    Only game I struggle to play is Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, but thats mostly my CPU, but also will run two screens. its the only game I’d like more oopmph.

    You were discussing power consumption and the cost to operate (not a conncern for me) but something got left out of the discussion. Matching the efficiency band to the equipment requirements may be a good idea unless like PeanutsRevenge (he must be rich) you expect to need the extra power for an upgrade in the near future.

    Most things have an efficiency rating that should be taken into consideration if power cost and/or excessive heat is a concern. A 600 watt power supply may be a problem if it operates very ineffieciently at 200 watts and you never exceed a requirement of 250.

    It’s doubtful that anyone will find an instance where a power supply generated more heat running in the low end or below the band than it did in the upper range of the band and that’s not what I’m suggesting. Less effcient generally means unused energy is being converted to waste heat. Thus, a 600 watt power supply may be not only a waste of electricity, but also a sorce of excessive and totally unproductive heat.

    If this concept is difficult to understand, consider the difference between warming a slice of pizza in a micro wave oven versus a regular oven. The regular oven is very inefficient and produces much more heat than is required to accomplish the task but it’s great for cooking a turkey.

    That being the case, one could reasonably expect that a 250 watt PS that reaches maximum effiency at 200 watts would be much better suited to the example above than a 600 watt PS that reaches MAX efficiency at 500 watts.

    Since I’m neither concerned with my power bill nor (seldom get the opportunity to use nor) an overheating machine, I’ll leave the investigation to those that are interested.

    Party on dudes,

    Rommel

    #48427

    Laptops Daddy
    Participant

    Very interesting, Rommel. (‘least I think so). This came up in the game a while ago. Ohms law, temperature coefficients. Just the sort of thing we love on the scorched servers.

    July 2007, the Energy Star people made it a requirement that PSU’s had to be 80% efficient or better at 20, 50, and 100% load. Any that don’t conform are old technology. http://www.80plus.org/

    So, above in mind, what’s gonna run hotter? A 400W PSU, or an 800W one? I think it probably comes down to airflow. 20% is lost to heat regardless, but if there’s room for a low speed 120mm fan…

    All depends on the design I suppose.

    Things have certainly changed this last year. Green technology is big business.

    #48428

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    My card requires a 425-450 Watt PSU (depending on the brand).

    Just for reference, I bought a 600 Watt power supply which is enough for reassurance but not overly excessive. It should be sufficient for if I want to upgrade my vid card again in the future and since my motherboard does not support crossfire/SLI I’m not going to need to worry about a second card. It is an 80% efficient PSU with 120mm ball-bearing fan.

    I’m not sure if you’re still having thoughts about buying a PSU Viking, but I’ve heard that you don’t want buy one with modular cabling because you will lose efficiency through the extra plugs.

    EDIT:

    I also forgot to mention something that I don’t think has been explained on here yet. The amperage of the PSU is just as important when it comes to your video card. Video cards now will usually give an amperage requirement as well as wattage. So make sure that whatever PSU you are buying has a high enough amperage generated from all 12v rails to meet your video card’s needs.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 200 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.