for three thousand dollars, you could do much better. More video memory is useless if you have a slow gpu, even if doing 2560*1600 because the gpu can't even process those textures fast enough.
For $3000, you could get 2 GTX 295s, an i7 965, and still lots left over for everything else you need for your system.
(07-12-2009, 01:25 PM)Core2uu Wrote: [ -> ]For $3000, you could get 2 GTX 295s, an i7 965, and still lots left over for everything else you need for your system.
yeah i know but im not gonna spent more then 1000 dollars or so maybe in the future i will build the ultimate gaming computer with the latest in the market but not now maybe in 5 or 8 months or so
(07-12-2009, 03:57 PM)manaurys Wrote: [ -> ] (07-12-2009, 01:25 PM)Core2uu Wrote: [ -> ]For $3000, you could get 2 GTX 295s, an i7 965, and still lots left over for everything else you need for your system.
yeah i know but im not gonna spent more then 1000 dollars or so maybe in the future i will build the ultimate gaming computer with the latest in the market but not now maybe in 5 or 8 months or so
$1000 is still a really good budget for a decent gaming rig. If you're not going to go LGA-1366 yet then you can DEFINITELY get a better graphics card than that GTS 250. I'd recommend getting a GTX 275 if you're on a budget of $1K. You can find them for a little over $200 on NewEgg. Definitely the best price/performance you can get at the moment.
They even have almost 1GB of onboard memory.
(But it's 896MB to be exact)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048%20106792634%201067947241&name=GeForce%20GTX%20275
if you're only going to spend 1000, then why did you say 3000?
(07-13-2009, 05:03 AM)boogerlad Wrote: [ -> ]if you're only going to spend 1000, then why did you say 3000?
what i say was that to build the one i really want is over 3000 but i just gonna spent 1000 or so for now
Well I made a lot of search before buying my gfx card, and I concluded that you can divide NVidia cards in two lines:
The less powerfull ones (cheaper) (without GDDR3)
The more powerfull ones (expensive) (With GDDR3)
It's quite obvious, but I`ll analyse them here so you will understand what I am sayng:
I'll convert the values here to dollars, but please notice that I live in Brasil, and the prices here may be different.
I saw that the 8200, 8500, 8400, 9400, 9500 and some others were much cheaper than cards like 8800, 9800, 9600, 8600, and also noticed that it was because the expensive ones had memory type GDDR3, witch is much faster. I saw 9500 gt for $150 and 8800gt for $350, well I bought a 9500gt with 1gb DDR2 and it's very good, because the chipset makes performance diference too, it's up to you to decide, but my opinion is that it's better to buy a card with ddr2, because instead of having fast memory, it has A LOT, you see, 1gb of video memory is more than needed, so my tip is to buy a cheaper one with a good chipset and lots of memory!
DUNNO.
In my hands, there were 2 boxes, HD3650 512-DDR2 and HD3650 256-GDDR3.
In all games, the higher the resolution, the more noticeable was the difference in favor of the HD3650 DDR3, and it was the exact same gpu.
The GDDR3 one was 10 bucks more expensive at that time (104 vs 115).
And I live in Uruguay.
Memory amount makes little to no impact if the gpu core can't handle it.
For 512mb, 8800gt or HD3870.
For 1gb, GTX 280 or HD4890.
1GB or more memory on your graphics solution is realistically only necessary when you're turning up the resolution dastardly high and applying mounds of AA and AF. But then again, your core needs to be able to handle that as well.
Point in case, large memory needs to be accompanied by large processing power.