Gamer Card

[flyswatta]

I know this isn't really the right forum for this question, but I respect the opinions on this board. Please delete or move this posting if it's inappropriate.

I recently upgraded my main PC to an ECS NFORCE7050, AMD 6000+, and 2 GB 800 MHz RAM (Fry's Special) w/ XP Pro. I'm currently using onboard video which is fine for HD playback, but was thinking of getting Call of Duty 4 and the recommended graphics card is an ATI x1800 or higher.

I'm looking at the price of an x1800 but noticed the hd2600/hd2800 are considerably more affordable. Is this the next generation of video card (superceeding the x1XXX) series? Or is it really just designed for HD playback as a parallel product line and not for gaming?

I've been looking at the specs on the ATI website between the two and of course, they don't really match up (GPU Specifications). Does anybody have any insight/opinions on these cards?

[thisisnotadrill]

in what i have read i think the HD2600 is eclipsed by the x1900 series, but not the x1800 series. not sure about the 2800.

i think i am going to get the hd2600XT in a month or so because i can get it passively cooled. that and i might as well get the VC-1 decoding as well as h.264

[Torque]

Speed is money, how fast do you want to play?

I'd get the ATi HD 3850. It has all the bells and whistles for HD playback and will play most of todays games with all the eye candy maxed out... for around $165.

[Deusxmachina]

I'm thinking you meant "2900" instead of 2800. I've been in a "time for a new game card" mood lately too and have been reading up on the top cards but not so much the mid cards. I'll throw some random stuff out now:

2900xt is the top ATI card from last generation. The new cards are the 3850 and 3870. 3870 is basically the same speed as the 2900xt, but the 2900xt was incredibly hungry for power, sometimes 75watts more at load over other cards. (Hope you have a good power supply!) 3850 is arguably the best card under $200 right now. Most models only come with 256mb memory, though, and the 512 versions are pretty close to 3870 pricing. It depends what resolution and possible anti-aliasing you use and on what games to know if 256/512 makes much of a difference.

The 8800GT OC is the wonder kid of the moment around $250 depending on price-gouging. There's very little point in paying more for a card right now since that one beats a lot of the higher priced cards. There is a newer 8800GT 256mb version out that is generally not recommended since the 256mb memory really holds it back on what it would otherwise be capable of, plus many of them seem to have cheaper memory on them for some reason and are thus just plain too slow for the pricepoint.

For mid cards, the 2600 and 8600GT are roughly considered the DX10 version of the nvidia 7600/7900 cards. (Not sure where they are considered compared to old mid ATI cards. Pretty sure the x1650xt was the competitor to 7600GT.) These cards can do DX10 (Vista only, remember), but they may not be fast enough to do DX10 well. I was looking at a big Bioshock review yesterday, and a 7600GT was about the same as the 2600xt, and the 8600GT was a little faster. 8600GST was a little faster than that.

A lot depends on your budget and what resolution you want to play at. A lot of the earlier midpoint cards and the newer midpoint cards will play games pretty much around the same settings, give or take, you know, five fps or whatever. Just generalizing here to type quick. Point is, if someone really wants to crank a new game up, they're going to be $150+ at least. If one $100 card can run game x at 30fps while a $125 card can run it at 32fps, you'll still probably be playing at the same settings anyway. You can't even max the settings on Crysis with TWO 8800GT OC cards.

I would read up on what the ATI 3850 can do and go from there. It's a heck of a card, and if you know where that one stands but can do with less, it will help give a baseline for decisions.

There's a video on youtube of someone running COD4 at 1024x768 with a 7600GT, you can also see some Bioshock clips on there with older cards, so midprice cards CAN run newer games, just depends what resolution and texture settings you want.

Here's a good link to get a GENERAL idea of where most cards stand. Don't take it as gospel, but it's good for a ballpark look to group cards together a bit.

[flyswatta]

Ahhh, yes. I'd forgotten about Tom's hardware charts. Thanks!

[flyswatta]

Just an update - after going through Tom's Harware comparisons, reading about driver issues with the ATI hd cards, and reading a LOT of reviews on Newegg, I decided on a Nvidia 7600GT, w/ 512 MB. I ended up getting a Fry's Special for $117, since the card I was eyeing on Newegg had some funky 30 Day NON-REFUNDABLE warranty. I figured I was better off paying a little extra to get the peace of mind of being able to return it.

It plays COD4 at 1024x768 on max settings flawlessly!

Thanks for all of the help!

[Deusxmachina]

The 30-day warranty Newegg cards you need to read the fine-print, but I think it's generally just that anything over 30 days they tell you to go talk to the manufacturer if it needs replacement. One careful thing on that is for used things. I almost bought an open-box motherboard from there, it had a "manufacturer-only" warranty, but then you go to the manufacturer's site and it says they don't warranty open-box items.

I used to recommend open-box stuff from Newegg, but I don't think they even plug the returns in to test anymore. And then if it doesn't work you're out shipping and possibly 15% restocking fee. And the open-box prices aren't that great anymore.

512 on the 7600GT (and similar-speed cards) has usually been considered to be a marketing gimmick since it only has a 128-bit bus and the card just plain isn't all that fast to take advantage of 512. 512 cards are often even a little slower than the 256mb version since the 512mb is often slower memory.

The 7600GT did always do a lot with a little, though. There are many blood-stained "which is better?" internet debates of 128-bit 7600GT vs. 256-bit x850xt with both being about equal. And on that note, I put my 7600GT into my HTPC yesterday (took out the 2400pro for the moment). It doesn't have the fancy UVD chip for h.264, but I haven't noticed.

Who knows, maybe 512 will help with playing high textures on newer games. Having 512 on a card is mainly about keeping the minimum fps good, not the high fps. I see big praise for the 8800GTS 320, and it deserves it, but when benchmarks show its minimum fps in newer games, they often don't look so hot even though its average and high fps numbers are great. Its average numbers compete with the GTS 640 and the like, but the minimums are often much lower.

$117 sounds fair for a local buy. That's about what they sell for on Newegg unless there's a big sale, actually. I'm in a gaming mood lately and could have easily gotten by with my 7600GT at mild resolutions and medium textures on newer games, and it's still plenty fast to crank up "old" games including F.E.A.R.. Should have seen me try Hellgate:London at 1920x1080 on the 2400pro. It looked very pretty. And was pretty smooth, as long as I was the only person on the screen.

I played a little COD4 and Bioshock on my 7600GT 256. As long as I didn't use high textures, they worked pretty well. You said yours is on high, so maybe the 512 is helping. Even at 1024x768 and medium textures, COD4 felt so real for the five minutes I played it that I'm still debating whether it's fun or not. Reminds me of when I saw Mel Gibson's "We Were Soldiers." It was too real to be entertaining.

I couldn't pass up a deal on a 2900pro, though. Note: an ATI 2900 is NOT a good HTPC card! I don't think it's as hot or as loud as its reputation says, but it's certainly not quiet. Started playing Bioshock at 1920x1080 high everything. Very nice, but the 7600GT would have still been plenty of fun.

Anyway, I've been messing with video card reviews and then a purchase and then installs this week, so figured I'd ramble a bit.