XFX or EVGA?

[mkIIIman089]

1. Wrong, most have a significantly higher number of pixel pipelines, as well as higher clock speeds.

2. DX10 is very important, the first games will be out very soon, and if you think that any game worth playing that is not already near completion will be DX9... uhh... yea.

 

[drunk_medic]

1. Wrong, most have a significantly higher number of pixel pipelines, as well as higher clock speeds.

2. DX10 is very important, the first games will be out very soon, and if you think that any game worth playing that is not already near completion will be DX9... uhh... yea.

To have DX10 support on a card is important if you are running Vista, but forget paying out the nose. Until the powerful DX10 compliant video cards are affordable and the 1st service pack is released, I won't touch Vista. They can try and tempt me all they want - I'm still content playing WoW with all of the settings maxed at max [native 1680x1050] resolution.
Microsoft has a bad habit of fixing things later, and some things are never fixed [Windows ME is an example]. Let's look at the trends:

Win3.11 was good.
Bob was a failure.
NT 3.5~ was meh.
Win95 sucked.
NT4 was decent but lacked DirectX Support [limited to DX 3 when I used it]
Win98 was better.
Win98 2nd edition was great.
WinME sucked BALLS.
Win2k was good, DX support better here.
XP Home/Pro were pretty good.
XP Pro/MC2k5 SP2 are great.
64bit version needed quite a bit of work.

I'm not ready to take a chance on another OS yet. It has nothing to offer me that I am not already happy doing on this box. Vista hogs even more resources; so my computer that screams with XP and 2GB dual channel RAM is going to take a performance hit, and I am not cool with that.

 

[Clueless]

1. Wrong, most have a significantly higher number of pixel pipelines, as well as higher clock speeds.

2. DX10 is very important, the first games will be out very soon, and if you think that any game worth playing that is not already near completion will be DX9... uhh... yea.

...plus more memory.

 

[Clueless]

To have DX10 support on a card is important if you are running Vista, but forget paying out the nose. Until the powerful DX10 compliant video cards are affordable and the 1st service pack is released, I won't touch Vista. They can try and tempt me all they want - I'm still content playing WoW with all of the settings maxed at max [native 1680x1050] resolution.
Microsoft has a bad habit of fixing things later, and some things are never fixed [Windows ME is an example]. Let's look at the trends:

Win3.11 was good.
Bob was a failure.
NT 3.5~ was meh.
Win95 sucked.
NT4 was decent but lacked DirectX Support [limited to DX 3 when I used it]
Win98 was better.
Win98 2nd edition was great.
WinME sucked BALLS.
Win2k was good, DX support better here.
XP Home/Pro were pretty good.
XP Pro/MC2k5 SP2 are great.
64bit version needed quite a bit of work.

I'm not ready to take a chance on another OS yet. It has nothing to offer me that I am not already happy doing on this box. Vista hogs even more resources; so my computer that screams with XP and 2GB dual channel RAM is going to take a performance hit, and I am not cool with that.

Don't bother...up to 400 bucks for visual upgrade from XP and currently having a lot of compatibility issues with driver/devices.

 

[Poodles]

Vista is GARBAGE and M$ sold you out to the government, don't believe me? get a second computer to packet sniff and find out what vista is REALLY doing...

we're talking kernal level stuff here too, not something you can shut off...

Vista will NEVER touch one of my computers, I'm go linux first...

You're not listening, what happens when a chip makers gets a chip that doesn't pass spec? That's right, they neuter it and pop it in a lower priced card. These cards can be hacked to open up all of the features and is done all the time.

The GTX line is simply an overclocked GTS.... same witht he Ultras and has been this way for ever...

DON'T buy the top of the line SOTA hardware, it's usually NOT as reliable, NOT as robust, DOESN'T OC as well,a dn is plain and simple a waste of money.

 

[GrimJack]

I've only owned EVGA, and I've had mixed luck with them. My first one was DOA, and was a serious PITA to get warranty coverage because I live in Canada.

My second one (not the warranty replacement, a new card entirely) has been 100% reliable.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy them again if I lived in the USA.

 

[Poodles]

having to RMA something isn't bad, it happens all the time honestly...

not stress testing the cards is a good way to keep production costs down, keep up with demand, and pass the savings on to you...

 

[Kai]

Poodles - you are WRONG. The 8800GTS has only 96 shader processors compared to the 8800GTX/Ultra's 128 shader processors - the 8800GTS also only has a 320-bit memory bus, whereas the GTX/Ultra has a 384-bit memory bus....

 

[Poodles]

but in benchmarks the return on investment is MINIMUL

dollar per frame goes through the roof after the GTS line...

 

[tlo86]

whatever you do buy the mid range card save your money and buy the next mid range card.. it will work out in the end its been like that for years heh... since they like to release a new cards with the new direct x's damn marketing

 

[drunk_medic]

I really think that high-end, brand new video cards are for people who just must have the label as a hardcore gamer, or someone who has all of the newest gear; they have to run the newest games with the max settings.
To me, it's a waste of money. I'd rather save $200+ on a video card purchase [sometimes up to $500 saved] and either:
A: Run last year's games at full settings
or
B: Run the newest games at high quality, lowered AF/AA and maybe compromise a little on resolution

 

[tlo86]

I really think that high-end, brand new video cards are for people who just must have the label as a hardcore gamer, or someone who has all of the newest gear; they have to run the newest games with the max settings.
To me, it's a waste of money. I'd rather save $200+ on a video card purchase [sometimes up to $500 saved] and either:
A: Run last year's games at full settings
or
B: Run the newest games at high quality, lowered AF/AA and maybe compromise a little on resolution

you could save more than 200$ lol i totally agree though no reason to buy the best when the next best thing is just around the corner... or in a bundle that costs 1/4 the price and is ready for better drivers

 

[SupraMario]

evga

 

[Enraged]

evga sucks. i bought a 7800GT from them, it was broken out of the box, artifacts everywhere. they didnt want me going through the store i bought it from for replacement, so i went to them directly. took 3 weeks to get a replacement card.... and it didnt work out of the box, same problem. evga refused to send another card by faster shipping, so i had the choice of waiting another 3 weeks for possibly another crap car, or buying a different brand. i bought an xfx, plugged it in, havent had a problem in over a year. it was also a battle just to get my money back from evga.... never again will i deal with that crap company. id rather pay an extra $10 and get a different brand...

 

[Kai]

Yeah i always had good experience with XFX - always bought the XXX Extreme cards, both the 6600GT and 7600GT

 

[mkIIIman089]

dollar per frame goes through the roof after the GTS line...

I just want to point out this was not the point of your initial post... merely an attempt to save yourself after clearly being wrong twice in a row on the same subject.

BFG > * as far as brand go.

One more thing, Vista just got a new patch that is supposed to speed up performance in multiple ways.