Video Card for a New Computer

SecondToDie · Post by **SecondToDie** » 2008-02-14 11:32pm

A few weeks ago I bought a new computer with an Intel Quad Core Q6600 (each processor operates at 2.4 GHz), 250 GB hard drive, and 3 GB RAM. The only problem is that the integrated video card sucks horribly so I'm going to buy a new video card. Unfortunately, I haven't kept up with video cards in the past couple years and am not sure of a good one to buy.

Basically, I'm looking for a video card that can run anti-aliasing, shadows, and HDR lighting with good frame rates, but does not cost much more than $200 (if such a card exists). I'm not looking to run brand new games like Crysis and Bioshock at the highest settings (although I want to be able to play Bioshock), but I want to at least be able to run Oblivion and Neverwinter Nights 2 at very high settings with a good frame rate.

Does anyone here have any suggestions as to what would be a good video card to buy?

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-02-14 11:39pm

You could try for a AMD HD3850. There might be HD3870 under $200 but HD3850 is decent.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-02-14 11:48pm

GF8800GT 512MB would be your best bet.

Joviwan · Post by **Joviwan** » 2008-02-15 01:39am

Do some Newegg hunting, you can probably find an nVidia 8800 GT or GTS for not too much over 200 bucks

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2008-02-15 01:57am

Or Under $200, if you're okay rebates.

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-02-15 04:13am

$260, but I guarantee you it's worth every penny.

DesertFly · Post by **DesertFly** » 2008-02-15 08:11am

Going to have to second and third here. A couple of months ago I got a new computer with the same stats as yours (RAM, Processor), save for the video card, which was a GeForce 8500 GT. I recently upgraded it to an 8800 GT, and I've never been happier.

KlavoHunter · Post by **KlavoHunter** » 2008-02-15 09:19am

I ALSO have the exact same stats as you - Q6600, and ~3 gigs of RAM. (I have 4 installed, but my PC only reads it as 3.5 gigs.)

I'm running an 8800 GT, and I tell you, it's a beauty.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-02-15 02:56pm

KlavoHunter wrote:I ALSO have the exact same stats as you - Q6600, and ~3 gigs of RAM. (I have 4 installed, but my PC only reads it as 3.5 gigs.)

Go 64-bit and you will see all your RAM

I'm running an 8800 GT, and I tell you, it's a beauty.

You don't really need a superclocked version, though.

SecondToDie · Post by **SecondToDie** » 2008-02-16 07:45pm

I've decided to go with an 8800GT/GTS. I managed to find a relatively low-priced GTS on Newegg (here), but it it only has 320MB, rather than 512MB (as most of the GT cards I've been looking at do). Since I have 3GB of RAM, will having 192MB less of video RAM make that much of a difference? Or would the benefits of having a GTS rather than a GT outweigh the drawbacks of having less video RAM?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-02-16 07:47pm

The GT is *better* than a GTS, all else equal. It's newer, it's not the 'budget' version. GTS is the weakest 8800.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2008-02-16 08:05pm

There are two different GTS. One is 320/640MB. That one sucks. The other has 512MB. That one's awesome.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2008-02-16 08:32pm

Oh yeah, I forgot the new GTSs. They are indeed awesome - the original 320/640 ones suck (and I think they still go for around the cost of a GT).

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2008-02-16 09:14pm

The marketing director's brain must have been in the process of being eaten by zombie kittens when they decided to make a new, faster card and name it like it was slower, and then proceed to come out with a brand new card and call it the exact same name as an existing card. The 8800 series are the best cards nVidia has ever made, but boy did they fuck up the naming scheme.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2008-02-16 09:49pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:The marketing director's brain must have been in the process of being eaten by zombie kittens when they decided to make a new, faster card and name it like it was slower, and then proceed to come out with a brand new card and call it the exact same name as an existing card. The 8800 series are the best cards nVidia has ever made, but boy did they fuck up the naming scheme.

It's unusual that they just didn't name them 8900 (esp. as they use the G92 GPU) but one explanation had it was that nVidia doesn't like to release a major line with a part that isn't top-performance. I suppose that in the absence of a G92GTX part, they did that idiotic move.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2008-02-16 11:39pm

Personally, I think it's because there were a shitload of GTS 320 and 640's in inventories and yet to be manufactured and they wanted to dupe unwary consumers into continuing to pay top dollar for obsolete parts.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-02-17 02:15am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Personally, I think it's because there were a shitload of GTS 320 and 640's in inventories and yet to be manufactured and they wanted to dupe unwary consumers into continuing to pay top dollar for obsolete parts.

Considering the sheer shortage of 8800GT parts, and the fact that they no doubt waited until after Christmas to release the 8800GTS (G92) parts, quite likely.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2008-02-17 02:48pm

They released the G92 (GTS) parts right before Christmas. My Bro-in-law snagged one for his machine.