The Thousand Dollar Video Card

[UnseenMenace]

Full Article - Overclockers.Com (http://www.overclockers.com/tips00442/)


From The Article "The Thousand Dollar Video Card" - Ed Stroligo - 8/9/03
Essentially, it's a high-end video card with water cooling.

Well, I suppose it's better to relieve with too much money of their burden than cocaine. :)

Foreveryone else, seems to be you could get a water-cooling system that would cool the other needy parts of the computer, plus the computer itself, for little more than this card.

When Does It Stop Helping?

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, "What would this do for me?" For that matter, this is a question that should start to be asked about video cards, period.

As we've mentioned a number of times before, video card manufacturers seem hellbent on having a very expensive first-class of video cards, and below a certain price point, they no longer sell older first-class cards, but rather cards designed to be second-class from the getgo.

This puts gamers on a budget in a quandary. They ask themselves, "Do I have to get the latest and greatest just to stay competitive, or can I kill just as well without all the possible eye candy?

It's clear that for some gaming situations, improvement in hardware will yield improvement in gaming performance. If you have a GF2, and playing a relatively recent game, you're likely facing some real handicaps.

But what would be good enough to get rid of the handicap? No doubt you'd do better with A Ti4200. But how much higher would your scores be with a Radeon 9700? An FX5900? At what point does spending more money only get you eye candy?

There's nothing wrong with wanting and paying for eye candy. What isn't so good is paying a ton expecting to be able to perform better, and getting just eye candy instead.

NOTE: This Information Is Edited :- Reading The Full Article Is Recomended

1) Would you buy this card ?.. and if so for what reason ?

2) Do we have to get the latest and greatest just to stay competitive ?, or is it possible to play games just as well without all the possible eye candy?

3) In some gaming situations, improvement in hardware will yield improvement in gaming performance. If you have a GF2, and playing a relatively recent game, you're likely facing some real handicaps. But what would be good enough to get rid of the handicap? No doubt you'd do better with A Ti4200. But how much higher would your scores be with a Radeon 9700? An FX5900? At what point does spending more money only get you eye candy?

4) When buying a graphics card, does the producing company matter (Gainward, MSI or other) if so why and what companys products do you purchace

[UnseenMenace]

** Quick Links **
links featured through this thread and others will be presented in a list here for quick future refrence.. feel free to PM UnseenMenace with a usefull link

a) Gainward... http://www.gainward.com

[TheMatrixHasYou]

1. No way. That card costs as much as my system, almost. Well, I might if I won the lottery, or was a rich *******, but otherwise no.

2. Well, I'd say as long as you upgrade every so often, and make a decent upgrade, your performance will be fine. You might not have the best system, but it will still be pretty good.

3. I'd say you'll be a little better even getting a 9800 np over a 9700 Pro, or something similar, after that, it's just eye candy. And besides, the 9800 Pro's and FX5900 Ultras are for those that have to have the absolute best graphics. Realistically, it's the same as buying a 200 speaker system for your computer. Your performance isn't going to be better, but your experience sure will be. Me, I'd never pay more than $250 for a graphics card. For $250 now, you can get a 9800 np that will most likely overclock near 9800 Pro stock speeds. Why pay $200 more for minimal improvement. It's all about bang for your buck, and it makes no sense to pay double the cash and get a 5% improvement, unless you're filthy rich.

4. In some cases, yes. For example, if I buy an ATI card, I want it to be built by ATI or a Sapphire. If I buy an nVidia card, I want it to be built by a company with a good reputation, and one whose cards are good OCers.

[macklin01]

I think one aspect of gaming has been ignored here. Not all gamers are playing multiplayer online games, where frame rate is the most important aspect of video performance, and where there is no time to stop and appreciate the video quality. Some gamers are playing single-player simulators, where visual quality is essential to how immersive the experience is. In that context, frame rate AND quality are both essential to the video performance. In that context, then, the "eye candy" effects are maybe more like "eye vegetables".

Even some first-person shooters have this aspect. I think part of Half-Life's success was the fact that the player felt well-immersed in a quality environment (for its day), and there was just as much time to admire and explore the scenery as there was to run aroun and shoot things.

In short, I think there's too much of a tendency here to write off visual quality as mere fluff, when there are indeed situtations (in gaming itself) where its much more of substance. Perhaps this is indeed because some mistakenly equate gaming with multiplayer gaming.

I do, however, agree wth the overall topic: Is spending a huge amount for a video card worth the while? Is the video card market steering towards a "affordable low end or budget-breaker high end' segmentation, and if so, why, and is it right?

As for answering the questions, I'd certainly never spend $1,000 on a video card, as I simply cannot justify that kind of expenditure. (Computers are for research, then work, then fun here.) I'd never spend half or quarter that, either. (In inflation-adjusted dollars.) I would, however, wait until the market value of those cards was below those values and buy then. I lived on an GF2 MX-400 for quite some time until I upgraded to a used Ti4200 (128MB) at the end of the product cycle.

Interesting discussion here, though. I'm glad Ed writes articles like these. -- Paul

[Giblet Plus!]

1. No. The included watercooling block would kill the flowrate in my system, and I don't have enough disposable cash anyways.

2. To some extent, yes. I like eye candy, even in mulitplayer fps games. :)

3. I could still play all my games on a gf2. I'd just have to turn off the visual extras. I do just fine with my ti4200. I don't think a 9700 would help me game better, it would just make everything look a bit better.

4. Yes. I like my MSI ti4200. It overclocks quite well. Budget branded cards tend to not OC quite as well.

[donny_paycheck]

1. No.

2. No. In fact, many shooters are easier with eye candy turned down. You don't get dithering through fog effects, or your view obstructed by grass and other massless garnishes. I don't play SoF2 or Planetside with the details up very high because it's easier to fight without them.

3. Personal preference. For me, it's what keeps the framerates smooth at the detail level I prefer. An overclocked 9700 Pro is more than enough.

4. Yeah, it does. Some companies are known for poor QC or substandard components.[/list]

[XWRed1]

3 == Law of diminishing returns. Holds in most all cases.

[Malpine Walis]

1. No. I don’t think I have ever paid over $200 for a video card. Perhaps I am selecting games that do not strain my gaming all that much. But I think that what Donny said about not having the eye candy is probably a better explanation.

2. See what I said for 1.

3. I am gaming on a GF2 Ti right now and I alt least hold my own in any game. Perhaps someone could recommend a game that I simply cannot play well with my current card and we shall see.

4. It is an Asus card. Every thing else they make is solid. I would probably buy one of their cards again if someone actually convinces me based on my answer to question 3.

Then of course, I cannot help but notice that they want about $230 extra for the water-cooled version. Granted that is almost certainly for a complete water-cooling system. However, that still seems a little steep form the limited research I have done on water cooling my main rig.

[JKeefe]

I just don't see how this would be a justifiable purchase. If you truly care about your performance that much, you should know all about DIY watercooling. I'm sure you can get your own waterblock for any video card that fits your watercooling system better overall (flowrate, tubing diameter, etc.). And if you care this much about performance, you should know what type of performance $1000 will get you in other areas (aka the rest of your system).

I just built an Intel system for $750 and used my "old" Ti 4200. Even if I had bought every part new I still wouldn't have exceeded $1000...

[Stedeman]

[looks in system] Hmm...TNT2 seems fine to me. I do have a 440se 128mb in my briefcase rig, but that was because it was a half high card. I know on the newest games your stuck with the old cliché "need more to get more" but there is a cut of point. On the other hand if someone wants to spend $1000 on a card let them, as long as there is a decent $50 one out there for me.

[trulyred]

thats pricey for sure, but then they are not the only high priced card around. oceanic (?) makes high end graphics cards for architectural/cad/design type applications, and is probably justafiable in price vs performance. Now as for gaming, just how do you justify 1000 dollars for a vid card to play splinter cell or the yet to be released HL2?? Maybe I'll up grade to that when the price comes down alot.Probably in 18 months or so..........

[BaldHeadedDork]

1) Would you buy this card ?.. and if so for what reason ?

There are few absolutes in life. but hell will freeze before I spend a grand on a gaming video card.


2) Do we have to get the latest and greatest just to stay competitive ?, or is it possible to play games just as well without all the possible eye candy?

You're presuming the primary market for this card are gamers looking for better game performance. I think you're wrong.

The difference between this card and a reference 5900 Ultra in game performance is something you'll never see on your screen. I think the person most likely to buy this card (or even consider it) is someone who really, really wants to post a top score in 3DMark. If that seems stupid you'll get no arguement from me. But before you dismiss it, look at the guys we have here who move from a Ti4600 to a Radeon 9700 Pro to pick up a couple thousand benchmark points. I guarantee a lot of them want this card. A lot more will want it the first time someone claims 8K in 3DMark03.


3) In some gaming situations, improvement in hardware will yield improvement in gaming performance. If you have a GF2, and playing a relatively recent game, you're likely facing some real handicaps. But what would be good enough to get rid of the handicap? No doubt you'd do better with A Ti4200. But how much higher would your scores be with a Radeon 9700? An FX5900? At what point does spending more money only get you eye candy?

That depends on the game, of course, and the rest of the equipment in the system.

The flight and racing sims I most often play place a much greater emphasis on CPU performance. If you play online FPS' you'll use more video card power. For the sake of conversation let's assume your proc isn't a limiting factor no matter what kind of games you play.

But what about your monitor? What resolutions can you run? This is the one no one ever talks about. If your system with the GF2 has a fifteen inch monitor and the best you can run is 800x600, anything over a 64MB Ti4200 is going to be a waste. In my experience you don't see the real advantage of a top end card until you get to 16x12.

Unless you're running a program where resolution doesn't matter. Like 3DMark.


4) When buying a graphics card, does the producing company matter (Gainward, MSI or other) if so why and what companys products do you purchace

Used to be a big Hercules guy back in the day. But since everyone (aside from Tyan) is cranking out reference versions with stock drivers, the only reasons to choose one company over another is price and the reputation of their customer service.



BHD

[funnyperson1]

I will personally smack anyone who spends a grand on a Video Card.


1) Would you buy this card ?.. and if so for what reason ?
Hell no.

2) Do we have to get the latest and greatest just to stay competitive ?, or is it possible to play games just as well without all the possible eye candy?
In my opinion most mid range card will play most games fine without compromising any competitiveness. In my opinion a Geforce3/Radeon 8500 or higher solution is good enough to be competitive in any game. If you want AA and Anisotropic filtering, well I just may frag you while you're admiring the pretty graphics :p.



3) In some gaming situations, improvement in hardware will yield improvement in gaming performance. If you have a GF2, and playing a relatively recent game, you're likely facing some real handicaps. But what would be good enough to get rid of the handicap? No doubt you'd do better with A Ti4200. But how much higher would your scores be with a Radeon 9700? An FX5900? At what point does spending more money only get you eye candy?
A 9700 would be significantly faster with eye candy turned up, however I don't have 200$ and I dont need the eye candy to game.




4) When buying a graphics card, does the producing company matter (Gainward, MSI or other) if so why and what companys products do you purchace


I always try to purchase from reputable companies but most of the time name doesnt matter to me.

[stompah]

1. Yes, if I had the money and no if I dont have the money. My next video card will likely be a 9800pro/256mb within a month. I planned on this purchase because when I bought my 8500 I was a slight step behind. This time around I want to keep the card for a year and then pass it on.

2. No, but to be competitive over a year from now you need to purchase a top of the line card now. Buying a 4200 will not keep you competitive at the end of 2004. It does vary on your game tho. I play Starcraft and any video will work.

3. I had to turn down eyecandy to run UT2003 during LAN games I was not happy.

4. Yes I have bought ATI so far and in the future if I spend more than $50 for anything I want name brand quality.

[Subaru]

I think if you just wait a while like a month of two after it comes out, Inovatik will have that water cool piece to upgrade on a gainward videocard. So, you would just have to buy a gainward card barebone and buy teh extra piece for like $20-30 and put it on. Now you have a card that's worth $1000, but you get them for $700.

[Richard]

In a country which some people spend $90k on SUVs, you guys are surprised at $1k video cards?

Is $1k video card expensive? Yes, for me and the majority of people. This card isn't marketed toward the majority of people. It's for those people that have the money and don't care what it costs.

Is a $600 computer case with a built in refrigerator compressor a wise expenditure? To me - no. To those that want it - yes.

[gamer004]

i ould not buy a graphics cad for 1,000 even if its that good

[madcow235]

If the card had an evaporator head and a prommie on it then I might consider paying $1k but it is now a cheap waterblock on a highend card. I hear maze4's fit GfFX's so thats $50+500=$550 plus 40 or so for some nice ram sinks and you have a better performing card for $400 less. I believe this card is really there for, excuse my rudeness, newbies who's parents buy them everything. I know alot of people who shop by pricetag and say Well thats more expensive it MUST own. Well im sorry to say but i sure as hell dont shop like that, I shop by price/perfomance and sometimes, yes just sometimes :), i splurge on some expensive things that i dont really need, Like a refurbbed Fx5900 or 9800pro both of which i am looking for, just because i want to. Then again I can say, and prove, that i need any computer part because it will allow me to play Bf1942 or any other game at a higher resolution but can i justify that with $1k. NOPE!

[Audioaficionado]

If I hit the lotto, maybe.

I'd also get state-of-art components for the rest of the rig.

I'd also be able to use LN2 to cool the whole shebang while I was at it.

In reality... NO!

I choked on even the 9700 PRO, never mind the 9800 PRO.

$150 is my limit for the forseeable future.

[Ugmore Baggage]

My 3D card budget is about $100-150 More than this and I can almost always do more good by upgrading something else.

Then again, for Professional 3D artists, $1000 is cheap for a video card.

I'll buy from any major company (except bargain brands) and try to research specific details before buying. If given two equal choices I'll go with a brand I already have in my computer.

[Nasdaq]

Maybe if I hit the lotto is right. Happy with my vid card at the moment.

[deez]

1- NO-too expensive

2- Don't need the absolute latest to stay competitive but certainly helps need something fairly new. Eye candy is not necessary but it helps and in many games it will improve your gaming experience

3- Better hardware will make you better at a game to an extent. Maybe 20% max. difference by upgrading graphics card skipping 1 generation.

4- Yes brand is generally important to judge quality and pre-purchase overclockability. Brands I prefer

ATi: Ati, Sapphire, Connect3d
Nvidia: Leadtek, Gainward, MSI, Chaintech, Abit, Asus (also had good luck with an aopen GF3)

[G-PHoRCe]

well if i win the card by aby chance yes i would be happy to have the "1K" video card but i don't think i'll ever spend a thousand on any parts... maybe if this card was gold plated with diamond instead of the transistors, i would buy it. i have a PNY verto ti4400 that i bought last year and the card still rocks on games, this is strange thou because this card overclock more than the competiton and was cheaper when realesed...therefore i don't think a brand name is really important but the fianal quality of the product should be what's really matter. so if you consider buying a expensive video card, you should first make some research to see if that expensive card is really faster than a cheaper oneand we all know here that everything can be overclocked. (look at the $50 athlon xp 1700+ tbred that overclock so high that you don't need to use the mouse anymore since the machine is so fast that it can read your mind...)

[steele1743]

1) Would you buy this card ?.. and if so for what reason ?
1) No way, are you kidding me!! A grand for a video card? Maybe if I worked for Industrial Light and Magic and needed to bring my work home, but for everyday gaming/computing I couldnt justify the price and quite frankly youd have to prove to me its performance justified the price, and even that is subjective...I mean, can your eye really follow Unreal 2003 at say (fictional number) 1000 fps?!? I mean come on..I would expect 1 fps for every dollar spent....
2)I have always played games without the eye candy cause I'm a poor parent LOL!! I mean, if I didn't have kids, the thousands of bucks I spent on them for school, clothes BLAH BLAH BLAH would have been put into a Falcon-NW system...Ive been computing for almost 20 years, of course I remember old school Apple 2E games (think black/green text games) so I dont NEED the eye candy but it doesnt mean I dont WANT eye candy...you have to be realistic....only now can I actually have eye candy and Im so wrapped up in looking at the blades of grass sway (cause its SO cool in Unreal 2) that I'm dead before I know it....but yeah, I played Unreal Tournament on a Pentium 2 400 with 128mb ram and a TNT card in software mode (read NO DIRECT 3D) for YEARS and had just as much fun as the guy who saw every shell fly out of their gun....was I competitive online?? NO WAY but that's casue I have dial-up, not because the game was unplayable.

3) Read above answer...its not the hardware, its the player..Ive learned to adapt to my "old" system and would bring my pc to local LAN parties and SPANK some of the guys with the latest and greatest cause I understood how to play the game, not worry about my hardware limitations..I could mentally calculate the lag after playing for a little while and account for it..now I suck because my hardware is so darn fast I literally have to relearn how to play ALL my games cause my brain is still compensating for what I have been accustomed to...

4) I don't claim to really know, I read the reviews from many different sites, comparison shop, and go from there. My first 3d card was a Riva TNT by Diamond, not bad, not great but the most I could afford. Now Im using PNY cards because they havent given me any problems..Im not an overclocker (YET!!!!) so I cant answer that area, I just have had good fortune with PNY's cards and will continue to buy them unless they give me a reason not to...why spend 100 bucks more for features Ill never use? I have a 14 inch monitor!!!! Why do I need DVI and S-Video?!?!? Im not gonna spend money just to spend money..DUH
The card maker doesnt really matter I guess, Im hooked on Nvidia, period. Ill never use ATI. I have an Nforce 2 board and I bought it BECAUSE its an Nvidia chipset. And, as Nvidia users know, PNY is a SPECIFIC partner of Nvidia, you go to their site and there only a few manufacturers mentioned, PNY being one of them. This gives me confidence in the PNY brand.

[Cuda]

Originally posted by steele1743
but yeah, I played Unreal Tournament on a Pentium 2 400 with 128mb ram and a TNT card in software mode (read NO DIRECT 3D) for YEARS and had just as much fun as the guy who saw every shell fly out of their gun

Don't laugh but I'm using a PIII450 w/VooDoo3 3000 AGP RIGHT NOW!

[method().man]

A recent experience I had with a car is very applicable here. About two years ago, I was in the market for a high end car - even though I live in NY and a car here is absoultely pointless, this fact did not dissuade me from making the purchase. I ended up getting the then brand new BMW M3 (a sports car no less - if a car in NY is pointless, then a sports car in NY is just sheer stupidity). Anyhow, I got suckered in to buying this car for what now I blame on whatever remaining post pubescent testosterone I had running through my mid-twenties veins. I was in the mindset that faster is better; flashier is better; and bling-bling == good.

After a while, I started questioning my motives: what the hell good was this damn thing doing me? The novelty of the thing quickly wore off after a few brief months when I realized that I could get the same utility out of a vehicle that would have cost me far less. A similar thing has happened to me with computer hardware, and video cards in particular. I used to always buy the absolute high end vid card as soon as it was released. Maybe I'm getting older and wiser or maybe I just got sick of it, but there came a point when I said, "why am I doing this?" "Why do I drain my account by $250-$500 everytime a new card comes out when I know the improvements to my actual gaming experience will be nominal at best?"

I think the allure of high end cards is clear: in fact, it is probably the same thing that causes people like me to buy a completely superfluous sports car. After a while, you start realizing that you're acting like a hamster in a wheel: constantly running to keep up, but not actually going anywhere. Either that, or you continue deluding yourself believing that this stuff really makes a difference. To me, this is similar to deciding between 2 and 3 GHz for a machine that will be used only for browsing the intarweb: pointless and irrelevant.

So to summarize my statements: no I would not pay $1000 for a video card nor will I ever buy ultra high end again. In fact, given today's prices, I wouldn't more than $150 for a video card. I would rather get 95% performance for a 1/4 of the price than get 100% performance for 4 times the price tricking myself into thinking I'm getting 200%.