GPU Buying Guide - (Read first post)

..I finally installed that HD texture pack for Skyrim, and honestly? It’s absolute garbage.
We're talking three gigs of data just so you can see slightly more detail on a single tree bark or some tiny ridges on a mug or a sword. It’s ridiculous.
Anyway, I can see most of you guys here are pretty sharp when it comes to graphics, so I figured I’d ask for a reality check. I’m running this old GT 9800 512 ?? of mine, and frankly, it eats through every game I throw at it, so I fail to see the point of those $2,000 monsters out there. I know
some "experts" among you will jump in to claim the visual difference is totally worth the massive price tag, but I’ll tell you right now:
I play a mountain of games, and this setup with its 512 MB is still crushing everything on max settings. To be honest, who cares? I bought this rig back in 2008
and the damn thing still runs hot and fast. I remember back then, every time a new game dropped, it felt like a whole new world of graphics...

Look, there’s no such thing as a two-thousand-dollar gaming card—professional workstation cards are a completely different beast altogether.

Grab a 27" monitor and you can actually run those new games on your GT 9800 512 ??

Benjamin King2 said:There’s no such thing as a two-thousand-dollar gaming card; professional workstation cards are in a completely different league altogether.

My mistake, Benjamin King2—I was actually referring to those two thousand extremists of yours.

Alexander Moore67 said:Just grab a 27" monitor and try running modern titles on that 9800 of yours.

Good grief, honestly... who in their right mind is actually playing games on those prehistoric relics?

Oh, please, who gives a damn about 800x600? If you're running at 1280x1024, just play at that. I’m not blind, and frankly, everything fits perfectly within my field of vision on this seventeen-inch monitor. Let's not get carried away here; just yesterday, everyone was thrilled if they could even manage 800x600 as long as the game actually launched.

Jesse Brown90 said:Honestly, who cares about 800x600? I’m playing at 1280x1024—I'm not blind, you know? It fits perfectly within my field of vision on these seventeen inches anyway. Let's not get carried away... just yesterday everyone was thrilled if they could even hit 800x600 just to get the game running..

Man, just grab a 22-inch 1080p monitor and then you'll actually see what a real difference in image quality looks like.

Hey everyone, once again! 🙂
A buddy of mine is looking to pick up a new graphics card because his current one is just way too old, and he’s really hoping to play the new Hitman

http://www.game-debate.com/games/ind...ame=Hitman%205

Motherboard: ASUS ROG Maximus (2 PCI, 3 PCI-E x1, 2 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Gigabit LAN, IEEE-1394)

RAM: 2GB DDR2, though he'll probably grab another 2GB to add to it

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad

Running Windows 7 Ultimate

Basically, he just needs a GPU that can actually handle the game requirements

Budget is around $800$283

Thanks! 🙂

HD7770

or if it can't quite reach that level, maybe just an HD7750 with GDDR5

Something like this should probably do the trick:

Benjamin King2 said:For $200, you might only find something like a 6670 that’s roughly on par with your current card.

This one is a decent step up: http://www.craigslist.org/listing/graphics-cards-ad-6400254

Based on the testing, the 260 is about two steps stronger.
http://www.hwcompare.com/1733/geforc...0-216sp-55-nm/
But even this 9800 isn't actually that pathetic at HD resolution.
I suppose it’s not entirely clear why, but if you look at the pixel rate, texel rate, and memory bandwidth, the difference becomes apparent.
Just looking at the number of CUDA cores—listed there as unified shaders—and the bus width, the gap seems obvious enough.
I also notice that the 5670 doesn't differ much in FPS from the 9800 GT, despite the common assumption that these cards are weak or the jokes people make when they see them.
http://www.hwcompare.com/156/geforce...adeon-hd-5670/

I am looking for a PCI-E card. My power supply is rated at 400W, and I am running at a resolution of 1366x768, aiming for roughly 200-$83.

What are your thoughts on this particular option? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Radeon-X1950...item3a7b5f4eef

shadowjackal16 said:I need a PCI-E slot, my power supply is sitting at 400W, I'm running a resolution of 1366x768, and looking for about 200-$83.

What are your thoughts on this one? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Radeon-X1950...item3a7b5f4eef

They won't ship to the States...

shadowjackal16 said:I need PCI-E support. Power supply is 400W, resolution is 1366x768, aiming for 200-$83.

What are your thoughts on this one? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Radeon-X1950...item3a7b5f4eef

I don't see why you're looking at eBay when there's stuff on Craigslist
http://www.craigslist.org/search/image?query=X1950

I searched on Newegg, but I couldn't find anything... 🙏
What do you all think? Is it possible to find something slightly better for this amount of money?
I am currently torn between the Nvidia 8800 gts and that Radeon card...

shadowjackal16 said:I checked on eBay, but didn't find anything. 🙏
Do you think it's possible to find something slightly better for that kind of money?
I'm torn between the Nvidia 8800 gts and that Radeon card.

The 8800 gts seems like a much stronger card to me, though I suppose there's the issue of your power supply. Since you didn't mention the brand, it's hard to say for sure, but from what I can see, that card pulls quite a bit of power, which might cause some problems.

The Radeon X1950 is way too old at this point.

Maybe look for a 9600 GT or a 9800... just be careful, because I've heard some of those have died and people tried to fix them in an oven.

brightviper13 said:Looking strictly at the benchmarks, this card is outperforming its predecessor by about two double-edged swords.
http://www.hwcompare.com/1733/geforc...0-216sp-55-nm/
That being said, even this 9800 isn't quite as pathetic when you're running things at HD resolution.
It’s almost baffling if you don't look at the raw numbers—specifically the pixel rate, texel rate, and memory bandwidth.
If you just glance at the sheer number of CUDA cores (listed there as unified shaders) and the bus width, the performance gap becomes glaringly obvious.
Furthermore, I noticed that the 5670 doesn't actually trail the 9800 GT by much in terms of FPSi, despite all the chatter labeling these cards as "weak" and the snide remarks people make whenever they spot them.
http://www.hwcompare.com/156/geforce...adeon-hd-5670/

Look, I’m telling you, this 9800 isn't something to just toss in the trash. Why on earth would I waste my hard-earned cash when I can just play every single new release with this thing? Let them laugh.

brightviper13 said:Based on the testing, the 260 is stronger by about two double spears
http://www.hwcompare.com/1733/geforc...0-216sp-55-nm/
But even this 9800 isn't that weak at HD resolution.
The guy doesn't seem to get why, because if you actually look at the pixel rate, texel rate, and memory bandwidth.
One glance at the cuda cores (listed there as Unified Shaders) and the bus width shows the difference clearly.
Plus, I see this 5670 isn't much behind the 9800 in terms of FPS, despite people acting like they're junk when they see them.
http://www.hwcompare.com/156/geforce...adeon-hd-5670/

Neither of these cards can handle Full HD on high settings. Maybe low, maybe medium if you're lucky, but high? No chance. These are several generations old; nobody serious compares them to today's standards.

The card is nearly five years old. It's just stupid to compare it to what's on the market right now.

You clearly don't get it. My rig devours everything I throw at it, whether I'm running settings on medium or high; it hasn't even broken a sweat yet. So, I honestly have no clue what you're rambling about. At the end of the day, it's all about functionality, and frankly, I couldn't care less if it doesn't satisfy some arbitrary standard.