Do I really need to get myself a 8XXX card?

[razorseal]

I don't use vista, I don't need DX10...

do I really need a 8 series?

I mean for the price of a 8600, I can get a 7900GS for just about the same price (like 20 more bux) and I believe the 7900GS would give out better results...

do I really need a 8600?

I mean the only thing I look forward to in a 8800 is the extra ram (i use 1650x1080 so the 640 ram can tremoundsly help) but I'm not going to make my 'real' GPU buy until about august. This will be more of a 'gap filler' because the 8500GT i have right now is just not cutting it (even with overclocking)

[chubchubcullen]

Well if this is a "gap filler" and you are gonna upgrade to an 8800 in august then the 7900gs is perfect. According to this review (http://www.neoseeker.com/resourcelink.html?rid=138149), the 7900gs outperforms the 8600gts and is cheaper.

[Mathersalan]

I don't use vista, I don't need DX10...

do I really need a 8 series?

I mean for the price of a 8600, I can get a 7900GS for just about the same price (like 20 more bux) and I believe the 7900GS would give out better results...

do I really need a 8600?

I mean the only thing I look forward to in a 8800 is the extra ram (i use 1650x1080 so the 640 ram can tremoundsly help) but I'm not going to make my 'real' GPU buy until about august. This will be more of a 'gap filler' because the 8500GT i have right now is just not cutting it (even with overclocking)


Simply, no. Wait for the 8800 it will be faster than a 7900GS.

[razorseal]

Simply, no. Wait for the 8800 it will be faster than a 7900GS.

meh, can't wait... its earliest at august.... the one Ihave is just too dang bad

[Mathersalan]

meh, can't wait... its earliest at august.... the one Ihave is just too dang bad


lol than go for the 7900..8600 is just good for DX10

I have an XFX 7950GT oced at 630 and 1620.. Runs and plays any new game out there great at maxed out settings + 4x AA at average FPSs ranging from 60-100FPS

Its a good card and so as the 7900

[razorseal]

lol than go for the 7900..8600 is just good for DX10

I have an XFX 7950GT oced at 630 and 1620.. Runs and plays any new game out there great at maxed out settings + 4x AA at average FPSs ranging from 60-100FPS

Its a good card and so as the 7900

cool, pretty much the answer I was looking for :D

8800 will come, i got plans for this computer, i need to change my heatsink after the gpu :p

[AzAzEl656]

I don't have any problems with my 8600GT. But, then again, I upgraded from a 6600GT. Anything is better than a 6600GT.

[razorseal]

to run 1650x1080 would 320mb be sufficient, or am I going to need 640 or even 768? :eek:

[Gabber359]

I don't have any problems with my 8600GT. But, then again, I upgraded from a 6600GT. Anything is better than a 6600GT.

I just upgraded (Saturday) from dual 6600GT's to a 8800GTS 640. The difference was like a Biplane to a F16. Expensive, yes. Worth it? Absofrigginlutely.

[||Console||]

Im getting a new card friday . It is eather a 8800gts 320 mb and a new Wb or a 8800gts 640 and have to use stcok for a while =(

[Roisen]

if you run your screen under 1280, then go for the 320, otherwise, the 640. Personally, I would go for the 640 either way ;)

[Burninate]

Im getting a new card friday . It is eather a 8800gts 320 mb and a new Wb or a 8800gts 640 and have to use stcok for a while =(

I'm running a 320 with the sock cooler (same as the 640 IIRC). It's definitely the best stock cooler I've ever had. It cools pretty well and is almost silent. As for performance, I can run Q4, FEAR, CSS and HL2 at 1920x1080 with 2xAA and 4xAF all with excellent framerates (above 60) with the 320 without a hiccup. Only game that I've played that slows down a bit at those settings so far is the Lost Planet: Extreme conditions DX10 demo. There's just too much going on in that game to get a playable framerate, had to go down to 1280x720 to keep it from slowing down. Either way you go with the 8800 GTS, you won't be disappointed.

[razorseal]

if you run your screen under 1280, then go for the 320, otherwise, the 640. Personally, I would go for the 640 either way ;)

I prefer 1650x1080 as much as I can... I'm so used to it, running 1440x900 on most games really hurts me eyes lol. I guess I'm resolution spoiled haha.

So I guess I better start saving eh

[razorseal]

i'm gonna get this until I can get myself a 8800... I need to wait until I upgrade my cooling system though. maybe then they will go down in price too

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16814127277

that should get me going for a while

[Mathersalan]

That card will keep you busy until this fall thats when you should consider upgrading to an 8800 or even 9x series

[ShadowPho]

@OP: I believe that you can get a 7900GS for much less, I remember seeing one in cyber fields for ~$115.

I don't have any problems with my 8600GT. But, then again, I upgraded from a 6600GT. Anything is better than a 6600GT.
Hey, 6600GT is a GREAT card! Survived Fear, oblivion, Q4, and even the original doom! The only reason I upgraded to a 6800U is because I got the same cash for 6600GT as the 6800U cost. :)

[||Console||]

Well Res doesnt mean much to me right now . im on a 17 inch crt and only plan on moving to a 19 inch lcd @ 1280x1024 . no plans any time soon going higher than that .

[Nebulous]

I just did a small upgrade from a 7800GTX to an ATI X1900XTX just becasue I wanted the 512mb. Still on a 19" LCD @ 1280x1024 @ 75Hz, with all the eye candy maxed. I don't see spending all that xtra $$ for an 8800 series card was going to be any different for what I do. The 1900 handles evrything I throw at it with ease, and i'm not going to be seeing anything that requires DX10 anytime soon. Besides there's really nothing out there that requires DX10 right now either.


Once DX10 matures and is a definate requirement then i'll make the jump, until then I'll sit back and watch the madess that is " oooohh, i want that video card cuz it costs more than my mortgage payment" :rolleyes:


Look at what you use and need the video card for and then make your decision.

[Mathersalan]

Hey, 6600GT is a GREAT card! Survived Fear, oblivion, Q4, and even the original doom! The only reason I upgraded to a 6800U is because I got the same cash for 6600GT as the 6800U cost. :)



6600GT was a great card back in its day sadly graphic card technology shot it to pieces.

You forgot COD2 :attn:

[xilix]

I still run a 6800XT and so far there isn't one game I can't run on it. I'm sitting back untill right before winter. Then I'll probably build something if my wallet will allow it.

[freeagent]

but getting it to run, and haveing fun with it are a different thing. even cod2 can whip some good hardware. im glad i didnt wait.. and even tho i just have a *lowly* 320mb card, it chews thru most games with ease, and looks great at the same time :)

[LeAd_Poisoning]

the 8800 320mb is the ideal DX9 gpu really, great for DX9 but probably crap for DX10; good DX9 IQ, great value, good power for DX9 games (allowing high res and high detail gaming). I should imagine it would struggle with Dx10, but its cheap enough as a stop gap for 6 months to a year.

[freeagent]

well, i only tried one or two dx10 demos, and your pretty much right, for dx9 it rocks pretty good, but dx10.. maybe it was the driver but... lol ;)

[razorseal]

well, i only tried one or two dx10 demos, and your pretty much right, for dx9 it rocks pretty good, but dx10.. maybe it was the driver but... lol ;)

meh, DX10 is just so new.... it really wasn't anything spectacular. Hopefully they will improve it with better drivers and stuff. its not DX10's fault. its vista, lack of good drivers, some dx10 all bunched in

and I got a 320mb 8800GTS btw :D

[Dak9767]

Hey, 6600GT is a GREAT card! Survived Fear, oblivion, Q4, and even the original doom!

The 6600GT served me well I still have both of mine in my closet. In case I may need a backup or a test card.

[razorseal]

The 6600GT served me well I still have both of mine in my closet. In case I may need a backup or a test card.


you know what I had?

I had a 'video accelerator' it was 3dfx card that you plug in into your slot (there was something else back then actually lol, not AGP, doesn't exist today, pre PCI stuff, maybe AGPx1 or something) and it would 'accelerate' your stock gfx card's ability. I don't remember the specs but I think it was either a 12 or a 16 meg card. you'd connect your 2d card output to this thing, and then plug ur monitor into the accelerator. I was so happy when my parents bought that :D

then later I had the voodoo models. the purple, green red boxes :D I had a voodoo 2 or 1. I couldn't afford the 3 lol

man, its been so long!

[MadMan007]

Do you mean VESA local bus?

[Mathersalan]

Don't forgot back in 98 or so you could SLI your two voodoo video cards lmfao

2x voodoo 2 hells yeah

[crossed_wires]

you know what I had?

I had a 'video accelerator' it was 3dfx card that you plug in into your slot (there was something else back then actually lol, not AGP, doesn't exist today, pre PCI stuff, maybe AGPx1 or something) and it would 'accelerate' your stock gfx card's ability. I don't remember the specs but I think it was either a 12 or a 16 meg card. you'd connect your 2d card output to this thing, and then plug ur monitor into the accelerator. I was so happy when my parents bought that :D

then later I had the voodoo models. the purple, green red boxes :D I had a voodoo 2 or 1. I couldn't afford the 3 lol

man, its been so long!

LOL, I remember that video accelerator I think. Wasn't it a Diamond Stealth or something like that? Voodoo cards were also good for their day. I had a Voodoo 2 and 3. I think the Voodoo 3 was like 12 or 16 meg. If you had one of those and your 32MB system RAM, you had a pretty pimpin' comp.

[GTengineer]

Voodoo 2 FTW, I nearly shat myself when I first played Quake 2 with that Voodoo 2 man that was awesome! :eek:

[razorseal]

Do you mean VESA local bus?

nah, after that... I think it was AGPx1

[ps2cho]

I just did a small upgrade from a 7800GTX to an ATI X1900XTX just becasue I wanted the 512mb. Still on a 19" LCD @ 1280x1024 @ 75Hz, with all the eye candy maxed. I don't see spending all that xtra $$ for an 8800 series card was going to be any different for what I do. The 1900 handles evrything I throw at it with ease, and i'm not going to be seeing anything that requires DX10 anytime soon. Besides there's really nothing out there that requires DX10 right now either.


Once DX10 matures and is a definate requirement then i'll make the jump, until then I'll sit back and watch the madess that is " oooohh, i want that video card cuz it costs more than my mortgage payment" :rolleyes:


Look at what you use and need the video card for and then make your decision.

My new laptop will have a 8600M GT so I can play with all the eye candy. It will be interesting playing both at the same time compared to my 7900GS to see how it differs!!!

Oh my god I can't wait for my laptop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[crossed_wires]

I thought the 8500 and 8600 cards weren't that great b/c of the lack of memory bandwidth. I believe you're taking a step down as far as performance from your 7900GS.

[Morvak]

8800 GTS 640 definitely worth it.

For a month I had an AMD 3800+, geforce 7600GT and 1gb of ram. I couldnt play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or any other game at max settings @ 1440x900 on my 19" Samsung LCD.

With this vid card and my new rig below, I can honestly say I play Stalker, Oblivion, COD 2, FarCry, Penumbra and Call of Juarez at MAX settings (HDR or AA + Bloom) at around 50-55 FPS.

The GPU give me 5.9 on that Windows experience, if that means anything.

[Tserrof]

I like the idea of the OP's purchase decision of the 7900 series card. Although according to his sig he now has an 8800. :/ IMHO if you have a card like a 7900 series card for typical resolutions the 8800 series cards aren't really worth the cash. They're overkill for most ppl running DX9 content and according to the initial benchmarks I've seen they're brought to their knees by some DX10 content. To me that puts them in a difficult position as they may be compatible with DX10 but are unable to run the content at silky smooth frame rates... particularly not the ones that are within most of our budgets. This is just my 2 cents though. Hell I came within a hair of picking up an 8800 card just a couple weeks ago heh.

[rainless]

I like the idea of the OP's purchase decision of the 7900 series card. Although according to his sig he now has an 8800. :/ IMHO if you have a card like a 7900 series card for typical resolutions the 8800 series cards aren't really worth the cash. They're overkill for most ppl running DX9 content and according to the initial benchmarks I've seen they're brought to their knees by some DX10 content. To me that puts them in a difficult position as they may be compatible with DX10 but are unable to run the content at silky smooth frame rates... particularly not the ones that are within most of our budgets. This is just my 2 cents though. Hell I came within a hair of picking up an 8800 card just a couple weeks ago heh.

The ONLY dx10 game currently available is a bad console port of Lost Planet.

Splinter Cell Double Agent runs just as bad on a 7900 as on any other card. It has nothing to do with the power of the graphics card, just the pathetic nature of the port.

We shall know more, of course, when bioshock and Crysis are released. And they are coming very, VERY soon.

I doubt if the 8800 series will be "brought to its knees" by REAL native PC, DX10 content. Not if the current performance increase over the DX9 cards is any indications. You would need to quad SLI quite a few 7600GTs to reach my 8800 GTS scores.

[Tserrof]

The ONLY dx10 game currently available is a bad console port of Lost Planet.

Splinter Cell Double Agent runs just as bad on a 7900 as on any other card. It has nothing to do with the power of the graphics card, just the pathetic nature of the port.

We shall know more, of course, when bioshock and Crysis are released. And they are coming very, VERY soon.

I doubt if the 8800 series will be "brought to its knees" by REAL native PC, DX10 content. Not if the current performance increase over the DX9 cards is any indications. You would need to quad SLI quite a few 7600GTs to reach my 8800 GTS scores.

Whether or not the 8800 series will struggle with future DX10 is merely conjecture... I guess we can leave that alone for now. Yes you're also right that there is only 1 DX10 title out right now. However there is also DX10 benchmark content for other games.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2147119,00.asp

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/3/

Draw whatever conclusions from the benches you may... final product content may run more smoothly than this as you suggested. However I think this is likely a strong indication of future DX10 performance... but again that is conjecture. if I'm gonna spend this kind of money on an 8800 GTS card I don't want to play call of juarez at a mere average 23fps at a tame resoltion of 1280 x 720. To me that is considered "bringing a card to its knees" but that's just me.

*EDIT: The whole point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion for the OP or any gamer to buy an 8800 series board for the purpose of "DX10 future proofing" is somewhat of a bunk investment since benchmarks indicate that they will not be able run the content that well.

[rainless]

Whether or not the 8800 series will struggle with future DX10 is merely conjecture... I guess we can leave that alone for now. Yes you're also right that there is only 1 DX10 title out right now. However there is also DX10 benchmark content for other games.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2147119,00.asp

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/507/3/

Draw whatever conclusions from the benches you may... final product content may run more smoothly than this as you suggested. However I think this is likely a strong indication of future DX10 performance... but again that is conjecture. if I'm gonna spend this kind of money on an 8800 GTS card I don't want to play call of juarez at a mere average 23fps at a tame resoltion of 1280 x 720. To me that is considered "bringing a card to its knees" but that's just me.

*EDIT: The whole point I'm trying to make is that in my opinion for the OP or any gamer to buy an 8800 series board for the purpose of "DX10 future proofing" is somewhat of a bunk investment since benchmarks indicate that they will not be able run the content that well.

Again, no benchmarks indicate that because none of those games are released yet. They were saying you'd need a video card with 1 gig of ram and a 9ghz computer to run F.E.A.R. before the final code was done and the game was released. So what you're saying is about five steps beyond "conjecture."

Who's going to make that kind of an investment to play Call of Juarez? You might as well get it for Xbox 360... used... if you like westerns that much.

My point: Real, VALID, factual DX10 benchmarking evidence does not exist yet because only one, actual, real, DX10 game has been released so far, and that game was a badly ported console title.

As far as DX9 performance goes, there's absolutely no contest between an 8800 series card and anything under it. Under that criteria, and since Bioshock and Crysis will both run under DX9 as well... I'd say an 8800 would be more than a sound investment.

There's absolutely no word on performance of the theorhetical 8900, or hypothetical 9000 series. ATI has pretty much cashed their check as they've gone as far as they're going to go in DX10 for the forseeable future. So I doubt if game designers are going to start pumping out games, anytime in the next year, that absolutely no one will be able to play.

Now THAT's conjecture. But it's conjecture businesses will actually be following. Look at how many people have 8800 series cards on this site alone. I dare say REAL dx games, once released, will work and work well for 8800 cards.

[razorseal]

Again, no benchmarks indicate that because none of those games are released yet. They were saying you'd need a video card with 1 gig of ram and a 9ghz computer to run F.E.A.R. before the final code was done and the game was released. So what you're saying is about five steps beyond "conjecture."

Who's going to make that kind of an investment to play Call of Juarez? You might as well get it for Xbox 360... used... if you like westerns that much.

My point: Real, VALID, factual DX10 benchmarking evidence does not exist yet because only one, actual, real, DX10 game has been released so far, and that game was a badly ported console title.

As far as DX9 performance goes, there's absolutely no contest between an 8800 series card and anything under it. Under that criteria, and since Bioshock and Crysis will both run under DX9 as well... I'd say an 8800 would be more than a sound investment.

There's absolutely no word on performance of the theorhetical 8900, or hypothetical 9000 series. ATI has pretty much cashed their check as they've gone as far as they're going to go in DX10 for the forseeable future. So I doubt if game designers are going to start pumping out games, anytime in the next year, that absolutely no one will be able to play.

Now THAT's conjecture. But it's conjecture businesses will actually be following. Look at how many people have 8800 series cards on this site alone. I dare say REAL dx games, once released, will work and work well for 8800 cards.


ya'll need to also remember not many people run vista, so even IF we had 8x cards, most of us won't benefit from its DX10 feature.

[Tserrof]

Again, no benchmarks indicate that because none of those games are released yet. They were saying you'd need a video card with 1 gig of ram and a 9ghz computer to run F.E.A.R. before the final code was done and the game was released. So what you're saying is about five steps beyond "conjecture."

No benchmarks indicate that? Did you not see the links? I think they do plenty to indicate. As for people SAYING fear needed a 9Ghz proc and a 1GB Vcard well that's just ppl SAYING. links I gave are not just ppl saying. those are hard numbers.

Who's going to make that kind of an investment to play Call of Juarez?

Probably quite a few ppl actually. But besides that there are other benchies out right now that also suggest less than stellar performance of the 8800 series. Such as the second link I gave. Just google and you'll find plenty.


My point: Real, VALID, factual DX10 benchmarking evidence does not exist yet because only one, actual, real, DX10 game has been released so far, and that game was a badly ported console title.

I'll heartily disagree. regardless of whether or not lost planet is a bad port or a good port is not that relevant because other DX10 benches of completely different titles show similarly disappointing performance. I realize what you're trying to communicate, and that is that there are no final product DX10 games out yet with bench numbers that shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt. However, even if the benchies I gave aren't as valid as you suggest they are still hard numbers that back up my claims more than yours. Indeed we are both just speculating. However you're simply giving talk. I'm presenting real numbers.


As far as DX9 performance goes, there's absolutely no contest between an 8800 series card and anything under it.

you are saying this as if I don't know. look at post #35. I clearly acknowledge this.

Crysis will both run under DX9 as well...

you mentioned that crysis and bioshock will/can fallback to dx9. Well, I was not referring to dx9. My last post clearly states "DX10 future proofing".

There's absolutely no word on performance of the theorhetical 8900, or hypothetical 9000 series.

little word maybe. but definitely not no word on it. nvidia's next volley of cards is due in Q4. Google.

So I doubt if game designers are going to start pumping out games, anytime in the next year, that absolutely no one will be able to play.

Definitely not no one. Especially when you turn down quality settings. But my posts were clearly referring to titles running at reasonable resolutions and quality setting in which the 8800 series struggles with. Actually, games are released with that very performance hungry nature quite often. When oblivion was released for instance... even high end cards (beyond most ppl's budgets too btw) struggled with its graphical splendor.

Now THAT's conjecture.

please don't try to make your conjecture seem more valid than mine. They are both merely best estimates and opinions. You can't just say yours is more valid than mine when they are both simply speculation.

Look at how many people have 8800 series cards on this site alone.

I don't have a beef with other ppl's purchasing decisions. From the start I have simply said I'm giving my 2 cents on what I would consider wiser purchasing

[||Console||]

My 8600gt is perfect so far for my monitor . no complaints

[rainless]

No benchmarks indicate that? Did you not see the links? I think they do plenty to indicate. As for people SAYING fear needed a 9Ghz proc and a 1GB Vcard well that's just ppl SAYING. links I gave are not just ppl saying. those are hard numbers.


Well I'm sorry. I just don't consider "Call of Juarez" and a patch for a DX9 game to be "Hard Numbers." They're basically just experimenting with DX10 at this point.



I'll heartily disagree. regardless of whether or not lost planet is a bad port or a good port is not that relevant because other DX10 benches of completely different titles show similarly disappointing performance. I realize what you're trying to communicate, and that is that there are no final product DX10 games out yet with bench numbers that shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt. However, even if the benchies I gave aren't as valid as you suggest they are still hard numbers that back up my claims more than yours. Indeed we are both just speculating. However you're simply giving talk. I'm presenting real numbers.

See above. If there was maybe a demo for Bioshock... or Crysis... or Alan Wake... not a bench of the Alpha... but an actual, PLAYABLE demo... then we could start talking about "real world" DX10 benches. But two console ports and a patch for a DX9 game are not a "real world" indication. I mean, for goodness sake, the 2900 XT manage to beat the COMBINED score for the GTS and GTX in Call of Juarez at 1280x1024, yet it was at the BOTTOM OF THE LIST in Company of Heroes. How can that be considered "similar performance?"


you mentioned that crysis and bioshock will/can fallback to dx9. Well, I was not referring to dx9. My last post clearly states "DX10 future proofing".


There's really no such thing as future-proofing. There will ALWAYS be a better product a couple of months down the line. You can wait for the 8900 series to come out, but then the 9000 series will be out, and then maybe the 9200 series... My point with the DX9 statement would be that it wouldn't be a wasted investment and it would make more sense to have an 8800 than a 7900 because it would still beat the daylights out of it. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you were saying that it would make more sense to get a 7900 and hold onto that. What I'm saying is that it would make no sense at all. Not even if the 8800 series WASN'T going to be a good DX10 performer (and there's absolutely no indication that it won't be). But even if it wasn't... there's a difference between being able to play a game at 40 or 50 fps and not being able to play a game at all.

A while back, there was this big thing about buying a card in the 7600 series or getting an X800/850XT. I made the argument that the 7600 series made more sense because of the newer tech. Shader model 3.0 as opposed to 2.0. And the person(s) who made the thread said, and I quote, "I don't care about Shader Model 3.0. Well TWO MONTHS LATER Splinter Cell: Double Agent, and Rainbow Six: Vegas were out... and suddenly they DID care about Shader Model 3.0. And somebody made a thread about "How could they do this to us! They could've made it work with Shader Model 2.0!"

My point? If there are decently performing DX10 cards out, and you have the money to buy them, why on earth would you buy a DX9 card now? It would be like picking up a Socket 939 motherboard now. It just doesn't add-up.




little word maybe. but definitely not no word on it. nvidia's next volley of cards is due in Q4. Google.


Yeah I heard about "Q4" but they won't beat Bioshock and Crysis out the door.

[Tserrof]

Hey rainless, this is getting out of hand and going nowhere. You wanna just drop this? I REALLY don't wanna get into some kinda flame fest. It's really not worth either of our time. We're basically just saying the same thing over and over again. Wanna just agree to disagree about it? I'm willing to drop the fists if you are.

[White_Pawn]

i say screw it and wait for the 9800GTX which will come out in decenmber.

[Mathersalan]

I would too wait until the new line comes out because they will be much improved than the 8800..

Anyone here would know if my setup will bottleneck the new line of Geforce cards by dec?

[Tserrof]

Thanks for the supportive posts. Clearly though me and rainless have very different opinions and I say we both let ourselves go our own hardware paths to avoid damaging relations. I've got nothing personal against rainless anyway.

[rainless]

Thanks for the supportive posts. Clearly though me and rainless have very different opinions and I say we both let ourselves go our own hardware paths to avoid damaging relations. I've got nothing personal against rainless anyway.

And I've got nothing against you. :beer:

I definately see the point you're making: A cheaper 7900x card is a better tide-me-over than a more expensive 8800 card.

I even agree with you if you already have said card. My point is it never makes since to go backwards in technology. (But you probably already know that's my point by now. :) )

Like when I bought by last Socket A AMD motherboard and the 754s and 939s came out a couple of weeks later. I was stuck. For about TWO YEARS I was stuck. And that's not a good place to be.

Come October it won't really matter because you can get an EVGA 8800 card and then do the step-up if the 8900 series comes out in december.

Of course I'll have been playing Crysis and Bioshock for three months at that point... :D

[Tserrof]

Of course I'll have been playing Crysis and Bioshock for three months at that point...

hahahaaa :)

[razorseal]

you guys mention the stepup alot...

you do realize that step up is for MSRP price, which is usually much higher then what they go for at newegg and such sites?

[rainless]

you guys mention the stepup alot...

you do realize that step up is for MSRP price, which is usually much higher then what they go for at newegg and such sites?

True. But I also believe they give you MSRP for the card you're trading in. So it should balance out.

[crossed_wires]

Like when I bought by last Socket A AMD motherboard and the 754s and 939s came out a couple of weeks later. I was stuck. For about TWO YEARS I was stuck. And that's not a good place to be.


Ain't that the truth? I bought my comp last year around July or so and shortly after, the AM2 cpus and mbs came out. Oh well, I'm stuck with my DDR400 RAM until I decide to upgrade again :P
That's the thing with computers and technology. You have to decide how much is enough for your needs. No matter how bitchin' your computer is, it'll be a dinosaur in a year, if not less.

[rainless]

Ain't that the truth? I bought my comp last year around July or so and shortly after, the AM2 cpus and mbs came out. Oh well, I'm stuck with my DDR400 RAM until I decide to upgrade again :P
That's the thing with computers and technology. You have to decide how much is enough for your needs. No matter how bitchin' your computer is, it'll be a dinosaur in a year, if not less.

I don't know... we're coming up on the one year mark for me in a couple of weeks and my computer's still pretty bitchin... :D

[Mito]

Crysis