Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
Im About to Buy A Graphic Card but I need advice. Of course I want a graphic card that is going to last me like 3 years. I want to invest in a graphic card that is going to allow me to play games that come out if 3 years without me having to worry about changing cards again. What do you guys suggest? Of course keep the price issue in check.
Crazy For Gaming-
Mo SayfuAllah
0 
The only way to be absolutely sure would be to build a time machine, fast-forward to 2009, buy a compatible gaming card, then return to 2006 & install it in your current rig...LOL
Seriously though, if you look back 3 yrs to spring/summer 2003, the top dog was the Radeon 9800 Pro & it was retailing for close to $500. Would you consider that a good gaming card today?
0
Let me address this very point - three year lifecyle of a graphics card.
Depending on what speed and image quality you want from today's and tomorrow's games, that very well may not be possible, nor desireable.
If you want top notch image quality at high performance levels, even the top of the line graphics subsystems today won't be able to do that in games released three years from now. But let's say for example it could.
Let's say you bought 2x 7900GTX's in SLI. That would run some $900 for graphics cards alone.
The reality is a single 7900GT would run only $275, and right now can play every game out there at the highest image quality settings or close to it with good performance. Next year's $275 card would probably meet the performance of those 2x 7900GTX's in SLI, so you upgrade to that. You're still only spending $550 at this point. The next year, you again buy a $275 graphics card. That will undoutedly beat 2x 7900GTX's in SLI. You've STILL only spent $825.
If you're looking for value, don't try measure value into a matrix that leads to something that doesn't have good value. If you can switch the card out yourself, who cares if you have to do it 3 times in 3 years if that gives you better performance over 3 years time and costs less or the same.
Be more specific about what kind of image quality you want from which games. Do you buy bleeding edge games and will continue to do so? Etc. We can give you better advice on which card to buy.
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
But seriously, the OP can't be that deluded to expect the same type of FPS & detail level from a card today using it say 3 years from now.
He must be aware of the diminishing & depreciation factors from the performance and value of the card over time.
0
Well, many people don't understand that very point. How many threads on this very forum have people who setup SLI rigs expecting it to "futureproof" their systems?
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
Ok, three years ago I think the radeon 9700 had just come out, which will still have a crack at most stuff today, but it was top-o-de-range at about £300. A more interesting approach would be to get a 7600 now for £130 then a "geforce 9600" for £130 in 3 years and invest the £170 you save in nVidia ;-)
0
if you want the graphics to be good 3 years from now your gonna need not one, not two, but 4 7900's in SLI. because 3 years from stuff will be prolly 5 times faster than it is today
0
although that would still be stupid, even if you have those 4 cards running, how about the directx stuff going on? you will have a powerful graphic system but will the quality be as good? i dont think so, the best idea would get a good midrange card like a 7600gt costing around $150, get another one after 2 years that cost another $150. you save money from sli and still benefit from performance
0
"the best idea would get a good midrange card like a 7600gt costing around $150, get another one after 2 years that cost another $150."
A. I hope a 7600GT doesn't cost $150 2 years from now. It better be like $50.
B. The best solution is buy a 7600GT and replace it with a $150 card in a year or two, or a 7900GT and replace it with a $200-300 card in a year or two."you save money from sli and still benefit from performance"
You absolutely do not save money with SLI, unless you completely luck out on a deal for the second card.
First off, the mobo is $25-50 more for SLI. You also need to spend at least $80 on a power supply that can handle it instead of $50. Let's round that to about $70 added cost.
Now, let's look at a recent example I was in. I had a 6600GT I paid $170 I believe for when it came out. Had I bought an SLI board, I could have gone SLI for better graphics in December. THat would have been about $130 for the 6600GT back then.
+$70 the better mobo and PSU I would have had to build my system with originally in order to do SLI.
$170 for the first card
$130 for the second card.Total = $370 I would have spent.
Instead, I didn't spend that much for a PSU nor mobo (-70), bought the original 6600GT ($170), and bought a 7800GT for $300. I sold my 6600GT used for $90.
Total spent = $310.
A single 7800GT destroys 2x 6600GT's in SLI and has better image quality.
I don't know how many times I can say this, but SLI is honestly not cost effective. The only good reason to do it is to get higher performance over the best single card solution out there.
"Milk was a bad choice!"
0
looks like u totally missed the point my man, I did not say another 7600gt, i clearly said "like" a 7600gt, meaning another mid-ranged card that has the same price that performs well in that time 2 years from now. Also, i was saying that you would save money spending in an SLi system, clearly i was not recommending the sli and i was even discouraging it in the first place.
0
i meant not spending in an sli system and just use the extra cash to buy newer technology - is there no edit button around here?
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
