Good bang-for-buck video card?

[Mr. Adventure]

I have a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo and I want to get a good video card but I haven't bought one in a long time. I want a card that would be good for gaming. I'm curious what card gives the best performance for the price. Also, if you were to pay more at what point would performance gains bottom out on such a modest system?

 

[Daedalus12]

In before the move to S&T forum.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Too bad you didn't actually have any info I could use. I guess I see this as related to media (video games) and historically I always thought S&T was for more esoteric stuff but maybe that's changed.

 

[firehawk12]

People seem to be impressed with those 8800 GT cards. They are almost comparable to the GTXs and better than the GTSs.

 

[Arrqh]

The 8800GT is a good choice, the 512mb's are in the $200-$250 range. But there isn't one card that's the "best" for price/performance, it still depends on what price range you want to be in.

 

[Canadave]

People seem to be impressed with those 8800 GT cards. They are almost comparable to the GTXs and better than the GTSs.

Yeah, I'd second that, myself, it seems like a good card all-around. Just avoid ATI, right now, as I've been having far too many compatibility problems lately with mine.

 

[rType]

512MB 8800GT or 512MB 9600GT. The 9600GT offers slightly inferior performance at a slightly lower price. The superior option will depend on your local market conditions. My 640MB 8800GTS recently exploded (not really) and I replaced it with a 9600GT as they're currently priced around 25% under the 8800GT here.

Generally the best value is to be found in the upper mid-range cards. At the top-end there are various premiums attached, (and the performance offered is usually unnecessary) and at the low-end the fixed production costs become a significant factor in the total cost of the card.

 

[firehawk12]

I never understand this numbering that Nvidia uses.
The first digit represents a new generation of card?
But the second digit represents the performance?
So, a 8600 < 7800... and the 9600 < 8800... even though they're newer cards or whatever?

 

[Alaedhros]

More or less, yes, I think that is correct. I believe that the second number is only intended for comparison purposes between that series (i.e. compare 8400 to 8600 to 8800), but since the differences between generations lately have been so slight, it's often the case that 9600 is rougly equivalent to 8600 and so forth. (That's my understand of the system, but I'm not a gamer, so I could be wrong.)

 

[rType]

I never understand this numbering that Nvidia uses.

Compared to Intel, AMD, and ATI, I think Nvidia have been remarkably consistent in labelling their product lines. Try tracing Intel's desktop CPU lines back to 2000.

The first digit represents a new generation of card?

Yeah, although some generations are more worthy of that label than others. The 9-series doesn't really deserve its name, the only reason to upgrade from an 88xx card is if you want to run a gaggle of 9800GX2s in 3-way SLI or something, and nobody needs to do that. The 9-series is priced appropriately enough though, Nvidia aren't gouging their consumers. Any more than usual that is.

But the second digit represents the performance?

Yeah, usually there are three basic divisions representing the low/mid/high-end and the letter suffixes represent a smaller degree of differentiation within those basic divisions. Also they can be used to indicate a minor "refresh" of the product line. That's what the 9800 series should've been really, the 8900 line.

So, a 8600 < 7800... and the 9600 < 8800... even though they're newer cards or whatever?

The high-end "last generation" part is generally faster than the mid-range "current generation" part, yes. How large that difference is usually determines how well that mid-range part is received. The 8600 couldn't begin to approach the 7800, so it's not rated terribly highly, whereas the 9600GT is right up there with 8800GT performance and is considered to be a good card. There are other advantages to going with a card from the latest generation, usually lower power consumption/heat output for a given level of performance, also better driver support and possible architectural improvements.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

512MB 8800GT or 512MB 9600GT. The 9600GT offers slightly inferior performance at a slightly lower price. The superior option will depend on your local market conditions. My 640MB 8800GTS recently exploded (not really) and I replaced it with a 9600GT as they're currently priced around 25% under the 8800GT here.

Generally the best value is to be found in the upper mid-range cards. At the top-end there are various premiums attached, (and the performance offered is usually unnecessary) and at the low-end the fixed production costs become a significant factor in the total cost of the card.

I never understand this numbering that Nvidia uses.
The first digit represents a new generation of card?
But the second digit represents the performance?
So, a 8600 < 7800... and the 9600 < 8800... even though they're newer cards or whatever?

Looking online and never owning an nVidia card the pricing/model numbers was confusing to me, thanks for clearing this up.