Ok I have 250 max to blow on a new card. I'm looking at getting a Radeon X700 pro 256mb for 185 or a Radeon 9800 XT 256mb for 219. I was under the impression that the X700 series came out after the Radeon 9800 series so I was wondering what gives with the 700 being less? How do they compare spec wise? I'll also take any suggestions on where to get a lower price for either of these cards or a better one as long a it falls into the 200 to 250 price range. Thanks.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Help me choose a new Video Card
- Thread starter ShadowRed
- Start date
- Status
BigGreenMat
Member
The X700 is the next gen card. It is maybe slightly faster than the 9800 XT. Thing is the X700 pro most likely will overclock better than the 9800 XT considering that they have X700 XT which only has 128 mb of memory, but is clocked higher. Plus the X700 will be supported better and longer in the future. I would say go for the X700 Pro if you are dead set on an ATI product. Otherwise you should definately check out the 6600 GT by nVidia. That is a really solid card.
Make sure the X700 Pro's interface will work with your board. I'm not sure if the X700 line has an AGP version out yet, which your board seems to be.
X700 Pro supports Direct X 9.0 c a bit better than the 9800 XT. However those differences are minor, and the next generation of cards (Raden XI800 or Geforce 7800s) will be Direct X 10, and will have a huge difference.
The X700 Pro is faster than the 9800 XT, and that's more important. Again, check the interface.
As for the price difference, the 9800 XT was the $400 card 6 months ago and the X700 has just become the $200 card. Lots of retailers probably are still selling 9800 XTs for more than their value because they probably are still selling the same batch of cards from months ago (and their probably taking a loss at $219).
X700 Pro supports Direct X 9.0 c a bit better than the 9800 XT. However those differences are minor, and the next generation of cards (Raden XI800 or Geforce 7800s) will be Direct X 10, and will have a huge difference.
The X700 Pro is faster than the 9800 XT, and that's more important. Again, check the interface.
As for the price difference, the 9800 XT was the $400 card 6 months ago and the X700 has just become the $200 card. Lots of retailers probably are still selling 9800 XTs for more than their value because they probably are still selling the same batch of cards from months ago (and their probably taking a loss at $219).
pestul said:
I would go with the X700 XT. The prices for the X700 XT, PRO, V are 199, 179, and 149 respectively. Least thats what they are supposed to be as its suppose to be 6600GT versus the X700 XT at 199.99. The 249.99 part is suppose to be a X700 PRO with 256 MB of memory. But since there are no X700 XT's in sight, the pro's are selling for more then what they were suppose to be. The better alternative I guess would be the 6600 GT. The X700 is a very nice low end alternative. Its about as fast if not faster then a 9800PRO/XT and its direct competition is the 6200 line cause of the price (6200 GT is suppose to be around 139-149 and the 6200 vanilla at 129.99.); even if the 6200 GT debuts at 129.99, the X700 Vanilla total throughly it.
Keep in mind though, these cards are faster then the last gen's top of the line. (9800XT/5950U versus X700/6600)
BUT......................
These cards have a 128 bit bus. Therefore, when you crank up the IQ, these cards will choke especially at higher resolutions.
Then again, it depends on how you want to play. Think to yourself, what resolution do you like best? Whats the max resolution your monitor can handle? And do you really see yourself customizing your games with IQ profiles and settings? Keep in mind that 1024x768, the 6600/X700 will serve you quite nicely. Keep in mind the X700 sports a new high quality custom cooler makes the card a great overclocker.
Here is another thought; don't buy into the future proof crap. No card is future proof. SM3.0 or not. We don't have a true SM3.0 game to really see how NVIDIAs line can handle it. Look at 3DMark05, fully and truly SM2.0 only yet the SM2.0 leader from last gen, the 9800XT, chokes at it including the new cards. Not to mention that the product cycle themselves is love or hate. Six months later, you will have newer cards with newer features and the best slap in the face, new and better algorithms or logic for features in the previous card that worked incorrect, inefficient, or were faulty to begin with. (See NVIDIAs video processor, which disappeared from spot light as a main feature on the 6800 product page. NVIDIA just recently admitted the VP to be broken and "fixed" it in their new 6600 line. This affects all VPs on the 6800 line with rumors of some doing something. NV forums claim no WMV either as promised; I dont remember that promise though.)
In other words, how high of a graphics high to you want? The high will only last until the new cards come out, and from then on out you just play the games as best you can and the only murmur of your graphics cards name will be on EBAY or whether or not so and so game will run properly.
For the big High: Save for next spring for the Ultra/XT lines, more high time for your investment untill the Fall refreshes arrive in which your high will begin to lower and crash when the spring line ups are introduced. This lets you play anything and everything sky high with everything turned on, run all the newest pretty tech demos and bragging rights on irc/forums. (399 and UP). Plus new features you may or may not be using or see used till 6 to 8 months later. (See ATI's 3DC or 3DFX's T-Buffer.......T-Buffer :lol )
Old School High: Old games soar and new games run on a good balance between visuals and playability as long as you are moderate on resolution. (You like 1024x768 youll be fine.) This is not bad at all. Running the games you already have with everything turned way up. Some games the differences are night and day. Plus you can run some of the tech demos, albeit slowly or toned down versions. (Nvidias had two version of dawn, Ultra and regular.) Sub 200 to 250.
I know that the 9700 PRO was a great card that stood up to 2 years playing games great with stiff competition from ther 9600 and 9800 line. 9700 Pro users really did have a future sound card for an unheard of 2 years close to the top. But don't look forward to this happening with the current new cards. Word on the streets is, that the spring will own the up coming Fall refreshes and previous spring line big time.
ATI's R5XX line is suppose to violate and devour the competition. But, NVIDIA is rumored to be countering with a mega ultra modified NV40 refresh on steriods with an insane amount of vertex processors rumored to be 24 of them while apparently, R5XX has some ahead of its time features (vertex texture look up last time I heard) and 24 rendering pipelines with an ultra high clock....
Love it or hate it, you will be owned sooner or later..
max_cool said:
WHOOPS. Tee hee. Yea that was a typo. Fixed.. The 6600GT is ahead of the vanilla and the PRO as will with no IQ's in general but far from a thrashing. But the X700 XT is another story. Its far from a thrashing and the 6600 Vanilla should be compared with the X700 vanilla.
Ok one more line of questions. I've been think and I might be able to squeeze enough money out to get a X800pro 256mb at $321. Should I still look at the other 2 or should I go with the X800pro. I know it seems obvious but what i need to know is does the X800s performance justify extra 130 bucks over the x700pro or should I just overclock the X700 and pocket the rest of the money.
Also I can get a 6800 ultra 128mb for 305 is that also something I should be looking at even with the lower ram or should I stick with the 256mb cards.
Also I can get a 6800 ultra 128mb for 305 is that also something I should be looking at even with the lower ram or should I stick with the 256mb cards.
ShadowRed said:
6800 Ultra with 128 mb for 305? The 499.99 of the 6800 Ultra with 256 is not justified with the ram alone. Higher clocks, bigger cooling solutions, power hungry.....Are you sure you don't mean a 6800 Vanilla? I'm pretty sure its that. A 6800 Ultra with 128 at 305 .....Link please.
Phoenix
Member
element said:
I took a look at both on Anandtech and outside of Doom3, the X700 seems to be winning out everytime.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2214
WTF I must have glanced over what everone was saying. I decided to go with the x700 and as I was looking around to buy one I realized that there was no AGP version out. That fucking sucks, WTF were ATI thinking. I thought it was standard to release the AGP then release PCI as AGP is faster.
Phoenix
Member
ShadowRed said:
Yeah, the whole PCI thing is going to screw with a lot of people - wish they had chosen something different. PCIe (PCI Express) is the new standard in video cards. Both the 6600GT and x700 (and most new cards) are going to get PCIe versions first. PCI is not the same as PCIe.
Shit that changes everything now. I was going to build a new PC at the beginning of the year. I wanted to get a card now as the one I currently have isn't cutting it anymore. I don't think it would be worthwhile to buy an AGP card now then turn around and score a PCIe card a month and a half later. I guess I'll save the money I have now and start up on buying the parts for my new PC then. Thanks guys for all the help.
- Status