7800GTX 512mb worth it ?

[kirbyrj]

I guess I'll settle for "average" and get a 7800GTX 256mb.

Oh well.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I consider average to be more in the 6600GT range . I have a 7800GT and I thought I was above average .

 

[CompMage]

That's most likly your best bet. Once the 8800 cards come out Q2 of next year. The 256 GTX cards will drop in price some. Making them about the same price as a current GT (300-400US range) And yea can grab anther one and really be able to fly.

My yea 1x 256mb GTX is your best bet if yea got the cash for it. 750 is NEVER worth it. Since no games use it YET. And by the time you can't run a game full tilt with a single GTX, you'll most likly be looking at a new card or a second one to match it.

 

[Nate Finch]

I just picked up a GTX 512. Why? Because it'll still be useful when 512 becomes the standard RAM size.... and because it's goddamn badass. And because I'm a little crazy

Worth it? Who knows... that's a personal decision. Is a $5,000 60" TV worth it? Maybe. Maybe not. Is a $500,000 800 horsepower sports car worth it? Maybe. Maybe not.

It all depends on how much it'll stretch your budget. If it'll make it so you can't afford any games to play on it, then obviously, no, it's not worth it. But if in a month or two you've already forgotten about the 750 you could have spent on something else, but you still get a thrill whenever you crank up FEAR at 1600x1200, then maybe it is. And that's the real reason I got it.

-Nate

 

[BBA]

but we all know no one buys hardware just for bragging rights...
now please hammer me....

I don't.

I just like installing a game, crank all the settings and play in native 16x12 without having to lower FSAA or AA settings below where my other games look good at.

That generally takes a pretty healthy vid card.

The reason Ibought this card is it does what I want it to now, and when it doesnt in the future, I'll add a second one from ebay or something.

Has nothing to do with bragging, I'm just not one to play with simpleitems "1" and "picmip 2" settings, I need the power.

 

[Sharkzf6]

I don't.

I just like installing a game, crank all the settings and play in native 16x12 without having to lower FSAA or AA settings below where my other games look good at.

That generally takes a pretty healthy vid card.

The reason Ibought this card is it does what I want it to now, and when it doesnt in the future, I'll add a second one from ebay or something.

Has nothing to do with bragging, I'm just not one to play with simpleitems "1" and "picmip 2" settings, I need the power.

Man I here ya, really. I feel the same way. Truth is, I don't have anybody to brag to anyway, even if I did care about such things. What you said is dead on. Just want to crank it all up and enjoy.

 

[.::MAGE::.]

I guess I'll settle for "average" and get a 7800GTX 256mb.

Oh well.

lol I should have worded it differently

 

[.::MAGE::.]

Oh and having 1 or 2 7800GTX 512mb cards will get you chicks I get hit on all the time. If I had a ATI card or a lowly 7800GT they wouldn't notice me .

 

[Jasonx82]

Oh and having 1 or 2 7800GTX 512mb cards will get you chicks I get hit on all the time. If I had a ATI card or a lowly 7800GT they wouldn't notice me .

Duh.... Thank you Mr. Obvious..

 

[sabrewolf732]

Oh and having 1 or 2 7800GTX 512mb cards will get you chicks I get hit on all the time. If I had a ATI card or a lowly 7800GT they wouldn't notice me .

true story.

 

[shoman24v]

I don't like to hear things like "Let's put it this way if you have the money and want the absolute fastest graphics card on the planet" for some reason I don't think that holds much water. By the time you have your "fastest card on the PLANET" nvidia or ATI already have a card faster then that.

I could never justify why peopel are going from 7800GTX 256M to 7800GTX 512M just so they can get a few more FPS in FEAR at 1600x1200 with AA. My LCD only goes up to 1280x1024 and If I try to run FEAR with AA my FPS get cut in half. Want to know my solution? I don't run AA. Yeah I know it looks like ass and we ALL must play everything maXXXed out but really now is the AA worth the 700 bucks? Na.

Also I don't think it's all about getting a few more FPS, I think some feel good on the inside knowing that they got their 512M versions before everyone else. The real joy comes when you post the pics of your newer SLi rig with $1,500 video cards.

I think the best performance per dollar is the 7800GT. You can get 2 of those suckers for the price of 1 512MB GTX. It's cheap, about $350ish and it can perform on par with a 7800GTX 256M.

Anways good luck with your choice, sorry for the bitching.

 

[jgdiaz]

No its not worth the $750 price tag. Not that its in stock.

A much better buy would be getting 2x7800GT's for $600, or even less with rebates. You would get better performance than a single 512mb GTX, and have $150 "left over". Which could go towards another gig of ram or a nice SLI board.

fallguy, was contemplating the 512gtx but got 2 7800GT's for $279 each, I can play all my games at 1600x1200 with 4AA and 16 AF or 8AA and 8 AF and the games play fast and smooth (COD2, HLS, BF2, FEAR), the 512 meg card is not woth the price at all!!!.

Update - I still have my 2 7800GT's just they are in storage for now along with a AMD 3800X2 CPU, I spent a few extra $$$ to get the X1800XT and give it a test drive, so far not too bad, I may build another rig since I have the 3800X2 I can use and have a separate ATI and Nvidia rigs to test them side by side just for kicks. LOL!!

 

[pincho]

how can a 2xGTX 512mb be just enough for this years and next years titles? what are u playing on? an apple 30" ? most games run absolutely fine on 6600GT/6800's at normal non- widescreen resolutions, heck, even my brothers radeon 9200SE runs Half life 2 fine at 1280x1024 high settings no aa/af, and im not joking..



maybe im just jealous

 

[Hulk]

(COD2, HLS, BF2, FEAR), the 512 meg card is not woth the price at all!!!

a better question would have been, "is it worth buying a $750 card for F.E.A.R."? Every single post I read it's all about fear, bf2 or hl2. I'm in the process of building a gaming rig but does the PC have any other games to offer besides FPS?

 

[jfish]

i plan on playing games on a 2405fpw...

would it be better to get 2x7800gt or 1x7800gtx(512)

all this talk about high resolutions being better on a 512 makes me wonder...

 

[jgdiaz]

Oh and having 1 or 2 7800GTX 512mb cards will get you chicks I get hit on all the time. If I had a ATI card or a lowly 7800GT they wouldn't notice me .

LOL!!!!!

 

[toddw]

Well... I just cancelled my pre-order for the 512MB version $719 shipped. Was on pre-order too long and gave me to much time to think about it. I have a CRT flatscreen and my desktop is 1280x1024, and that's usually the resolution I game at as it fits the screen perfectly (other resolutions lead to smaller, off-center picture).

I played FEAR at 800x600, all else maxed except shadows and aa/af... then I looked at it in 1280x1024 w/aa & af (not playable there just wanted to see how nice it was). You know what? It wasn't $700 nicer. Matter of fact FEAR looks pretty damn good at 800x600. Noticeable difference? Yes, but nothing that detracts from the full experience.

Again with Quake4, was able to play the whole thing 1280x1024 smooth (no aa no af). Did the same again, shot up the resolution, changed from high to ultra, and added aa&af to check it out... again, nicer, but not blow me away nicer and playing it at my 1280x1024 detracted nothing visually, it's just a matter of slightly more crisp.... Now, *slightly* more crisp for $700? No thanks!

I have a 6800GT and a Socket 478 P4 3.2 (that I o/c to 3.6 when playing games). My avg. framerate was in the 60's when playing Q4, and yes I'm sure I had a few spikes where it dropped in the 20s, maybe six times the whole game I dropped in the 20 fps category for about a second. So, six seconds = $700? Nope.

That's not to say I'm not going to do something st00pid and order a card before I really need too, but deffo I'm waiting to see what the R580 brings to the table. If nothing else how it affects price drops for all the other cards out there.

Now maybe there is a game where my 6800GT can't do it playable, but FEAR wasn't it, so it probably doesn't exist, and if it does.. well, when I install that game and I see it, *then* I'll upgrade. Hopefully by that time the 1800XT or dual 7800GT will be under $400.

Point being, if you own a 6800GT or better, you're just throwing away money... especially with the R580 just around the corner.

 

[.::MAGE::.]

I wouldn't bet on an ATI card for a long time. ATI cards cost more and aren't any better. Look at the 7800 GTX 256mb that literally stays with the X1800XT 512mb that is many months newer clocked higher newer process more memory everything. ATI may have a newer card out in a few months we'll see but it probably won't make sense to buy it.

The 512mb card is like buying a Mercedes or BMW if you can't afford it then your stuck with the Caddy or Lexus which are nice as well to some.

If you want the fastest and can afford it again it's 2 512mb gtx's nothing touches them. Take two 7800GT's GTX 256mb or 512mb versions and run sli yes you pay for it but you have the fastest solution on the market and Nvidia is the ONLY game in town sadly. ATI hopefully gets crossfire jumpstarted next year so we all win here .

I don't understand what people are thinking honestly you get what you pay for in most cases and if you want the best you pay for it this goes for almost anything.

 

[freddiepm61]

if you can get it then do, however nvidia will be bringing their new card out soonish (q1 06) however this is of course always the problem with pcs at the mo, esp. with nvidias pledge do bring out a new top end card every 4 months....
oh well, we will keep on buying them so...
f

 

[toddw]

I don't understand what people are thinking honestly you get what you pay for in most cases and if you want the best you pay for it this goes for almost anything.

Yes that's true, not denying it. Just saying, for example, if you have a car that can go 0-60 in 4.2 seconds, is it worth it to get the same model sold for alot more that does it in 3.8 seconds, all other things being equal.

This thread started with "is the 512MB worth it", and my answer is no. Maybe the only case is if you were going to get some sort of return on your investment BESIDES the .4 sec increase, as the .4 second increase in and of itself, does nothing for you on its own.

Another way to look at it: If the games you play already get a steady 50-60 fps, you won't notice any difference when they get 110-140 fps. Both frame rates provide the same experience. So the extra 70 fps, in and of itself, gives you nothing extra for the cost. Now you WILL get a benefit in the form of aa&af. So it comes down to is the visual experience with 4AA/16AF vs. without it worth $700?

If you spread out the number of games that you will will play AND see a difference (counting games like FEAR, Oblivion, not WCIII or HL2), it's probably seven games during the life of your card. I'm not counting every game released I'm just using seven as an average that you will actually buy, because you won't like/buy every game that will be able to show a difference.

Assuming the above, you just added about $100 to every game you play, assuming you play seven games during the life of your card (what's that, a year?). So FEAR just cost you $150 instead of $50.

Would you pay $150 for FEAR to play it with aa/af? Or would you pay $50 for the same game without aa&af? I know which version I would buy..

 

[BBA]

I don't like to hear things like "Let's put it this way if you have the money and want the absolute fastest graphics card on the planet" for some reason I don't think that holds much water. By the time you have your "fastest card on the PLANET" nvidia or ATI already have a card faster then that.

You don't have to be bothered by it. In fact, you can just be totally happy in that you have your half priced card and it works for you.

As for the getting chicks comment, I don't think my wife would appreciate it.

As for bragging rights, I don't think I'll post any pic's of my leet rig to make me feel better about having a $700 card.

I can remember the same argument when my best friend bought his $600 X24 card back in 1998. I didn't think he was stupid for it. I envied him because I could only afford to go out and buy one of the $300 models. Later on, as I could afford it, I bought another to go SLi.

Why did I order a 512 MB card? I just wanted the badest single card around. So to me it's worth it.

Just think...for all you bitching geeks, one day you might just have a job that pays you enough to get what you want, then you will understand the mentality. Don't knock it until you try it.

Thats all there is to it.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

I have a 6800GT and I play at 1280x1024 totally smooth with 4x AA for pretty much everything out there.

It is my opinion that some ppl jumping on the 512MB 7800gtx might actually get their money's worth.... IF they are people that are buying it for the long term. People like me... who hold on to their cards for a minimum 3-4 years, probably 5... that might be very worth it, as 512 is way more future proof than 256mb. I held onto a Geforce 2 MX for 4 years.... and I plan on holding my 6800GT at least until the summer after next(3 years... way shorter than my average... but o well).

People that buy the 7800GTX 512 knowing full well that they are going to buy an 8800 or w/e is the fastest in 6 months anyway are just dumb in my opinion. 400 bucks more than a 7800GT for just a few more e-penis marks or 6 fps in FEAR is just a waste.

That all said, why hasn't the X1800XT been mentioned more in this thread? It is much cheaper than the 7800GTX 512, and it is more available (tho still scarce...) It has 512MB of memory, and I'm sure you could OC one of those things to 7800 512 levels, since its not too far behind anyway.

 

[fallguy]

That all said, why hasn't the X1800XT been mentioned more in this thread? It is much cheaper than the 7800GTX 512, and it is more available (tho still scarce...) It has 512MB of memory, and I'm sure you could OC one of those things to 7800 512 levels, since its not too far behind anyway.

Still scarce? Not hardly. Screwegg has 7 in stock, from $539 to $579. Googlegear has 4 in stock, from $515 to $580. They are easily found, and far from scarce. They are even on a retail shelf, such as CompUSA. The 512MB GTX isnt even listed on CompUSA's site, nor for sale in any retail store that I know of.

 

[oqvist]

More ram also means more latency. But other than that there sure as hell is a difference between 7800 GTX 256 and 512. It´s more than just uped clockspeeds. nVidia changed the PCB to accommody it and other stuff. Still not worth the money of course just as the 7800 GTX is way overpriced compared to the 7800 GT. But in very high res which is where you play with these cards there is a bit difference between 256/512.

However it´s cheaper getting two 7800 GT in SLI and then you play in the same ballpark as the 7800 GTX 512 .

But buying the fastest is never good bang for the buck but the 512 is not another 9800 256 if anyone thought that

I choose 2 7800 GT in SLI seem to offer about the best bang for the buck for the high end vappo gamer

 

[Sharkzf6]

Again, I think it’s the monitor you use that dictates what card you drive it with. I’ve had a Sony F520 21-inch CRT for years, I love it, however, I just ordered a Dell UltraSharp 2405 FPW 24-inch wide screen flat panel, the Kick-Ass monitor of the year! I’ve always been a “big monitor” guy and have been fortunate enough to have the resources to purchase them. If you have a big monitor, you need a fast card with as much memory as you can get, that’s why 512 MB cards make sense for some of us. Once I receive the 2405 (Monday according to my tracking number), I’ll put it through its paces with the X850 XT-256 MB card I currently use, then step up to PCIe and one of the two 512 cards available, 7800/1800 or run 2 7800 GT 256s in SLI, but that’s a whole nother thread…

 

[oqvist]

I don´t think it´s the monitor it´s the video cards filters or what it´s. My 6800 ULTRA gets a bit blurry already at 1600x1200 and even more so at 2048x1532... I do hope that 7800 is better in this aspect. nVidia doesn´t have a very good history on this. The old 9700 PRO/9800 I had was much better at high res not causing blur. Matrox is also known to be good at this. nVidia though they where way better with Geforce 4 vs Geforce 3 the 6800 didn´t seem to be better then the Geforce 4 I had.

 

[heatlesssun]

I can't think of a single PC component that doesn't have a premium price at the high end. CPU's, GPU's, sound cards (SPU maybe?), motherboards, they all take a huge jump at the high end. The price never scales linerly vs performance.

As many have already said, the key in deciding to purchase the GTX 512 is resolution and graphics detail. If you don't need or want to drive your resoultion beyond 1280x1024, then the GTX 512 really would be a waste most of the time.

The GTX 512 in SLI, at least for almost all current games, allows you to run those games at maxium detail at 1600x1200 and beyond. That's what this product is for, and nothing available right now does that. That's why people are buying two of them at a time, like myself for $1400+. Yeah, I have no life.

 

[Nidhogg]

i would get if it was $650, any higher then that i would probably get GT SLI

 

[toddw]

The GTX 512 in SLI, at least for almost all current games, allows you to run those games at maxium detail at 1600x1200 and beyond. That's what this product is for, and nothing available right now does that. That's why people are buying two of them at a time, like myself for $1400+. Yeah, I have no life.

That's crazy. I don't think its a matter of whether you can afford it or not. Well, to a certain degree. If money were not an object I would have it I suppose. The point is I could afford two or even four of these, doesn't mean I'm about to do it. There's gotta be a benefit that even remotley justifies the cost. I like new parts and upgrading as much as the next guy, but holy cow you don't see me getting an 8 cpu opteron server with a terrabyte SCSI Raid setup.

To each his own I guess. I suppose there are people out there who would buy them if they were priced at $2,000 each.

 

[BBA]

I can agree with that, and it was also my original plan but I opted to order at the $699 point because none were offered at $650. So I feel like I took a $50 hit, and as long as the card actually arrives on my door step in the next week or so, I'll be happy with my purchase.

 

[Sharkzf6]

I don´t think it´s the monitor it´s the video cards filters or what it´s. My 6800 ULTRA gets a bit blurry already at 1600x1200 and even more so at 2048x1532... I do hope that 7800 is better in this aspect. nVidia doesn´t have a very good history on this. The old 9700 PRO/9800 I had was much better at high res not causing blur. Matrox is also known to be good at this. nVidia though they where way better with Geforce 4 vs Geforce 3 the 6800 didn´t seem to be better then the Geforce 4 I had.

You are correct as far as the blurriness is concerned. As I pointed out in another thread, ATI has always had better 2D (read desktop) images than nVidia. Maybe their RAMDAC isn't as clean, I don't know. I do know it's very obvious on a high-end monitor...

 

[heatlesssun]

The point is I could afford two or even four of these, doesn't mean I'm about to do it. There's gotta be a benefit that even remotley justifies the cost.

That's absoultely right. The benefit is that GTX 512 SLI can do something that no other current GPU solution can. It can run just about any current game at 16200x1200 maximum deail with 4xAA and high anisotropy.

It then becomes up to the individual to do the cost benefit analysis. Is this capability worth it? And as I said before, high end stuff never scales linearly in the cost vs performace graph. So yes, you could go down to GTX 256 SLI and get almost all the performance of GTX 512 SLI at only 2/3's the cost.

 

[jahcs]

...as long as the card actually arrives on my door step in the next week or so, I'll be happy with my purchase.

And that's what counts, IMHO.

I have an NEC MultiSync FP1350X (It was a refurb deal from a friend that used to work at Fry's). The minimum card I'm looking at to buy with my new build is a 7800GT. I'll probably go for a 7800GTX 256mb though. Later, if the next gen of games doesn't need different shaders or something to run SLi is an option. The 512mb card is very tempting but hard for me to justify, even though my monitor could use it.

(BTW my current box has a MX440 128mb and I'm tired of 800x600 res using older games. )

 

[Russ]

a better question would have been, "is it worth buying a $750 card for F.E.A.R."? Every single post I read it's all about fear, bf2 or hl2. I'm in the process of building a gaming rig but does the PC have any other games to offer besides FPS?

COD2, Serious Sam 2, Q4 are all FPSs. The older ones (besides FEAR) are BF2 (not so old), and the old triumvirate: HL2, Doom 3, and FarCry.

I can think of two other new games that are demanding graphically. AOE3 and NFS:MW. Course, I don't look for new fangled games too much, so there might be one or two others that I missed that require 512mb GTXs to max out (including maxing AA that is).

edit: O yea, there's Splinter Cell 3 (whatever it's called, Chaos Theory or something), and Chrinicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (or something liek that). They both came out around BF2.

So we have 3 different levels of games. Doom 3, HL2, and FarCry level; BF2, SC:CT, and Riddick level (I'd put NFS:MW at this level too); and at the top: FEAR, Q4, COD2, SS2, AOE3.

Hopefully they'll all be put to shame by Unreal 2k7 when the PPU and Unreal 3.0 engine come out.

I want a good RPG with f*cking awesome graphics to come out really. One that needs the PPU for all it's goodness to be appreciated. And maybe 65nm AM2 procs, DDR2, and 8800 GTXs w/ a nforce5 mobo to boot. Cause it'll justify my purchase of all that next year. :-D

O yea, and there's stuff like POP 3: T2T, Guild Wars and WoW (I heard Guild Wars doesn't really get up there though).

 

[Cliff Couser]

Here's what I'm going to do.

SLi + GTX 256mb. Play every FPS game except FEAR. Wait 6 more months, add another GTX 256mb. Play FEAR and whatever else is out there at that time.

I can't play FPS games with the settings numbed down and specially without AA. It just feels like you're cheating yourself out of the visual goodness the developers have made available.

Agreed with points on resolution. Though I won't have any problems with a 2005FPW.

Interesting someone brought up the nVidia 2D thingy...I thought that was resolved a few cards back already.

EDIT: the X1800XT is only 50$ more than the eVGA GTX 256mb @newegg...hhmmm