If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 04:38:33 GMT, "Larry L."
wrote: If you allow me to say so, I think the difference between 400fsb and 533 is noticable, but not to a very disturbing amount. Given that your 2.5/400 is indeed a bit a setback why not go for a regular 6800, would match good these 2, and save you quite some $$. The GT seems to be the sweet spot -- $100 difference, but with a few fairly substantial improvements like DDR3, twice the memory, etc. I figure that this will give me a little more longevity overall -- i.e. the card could be put in a MUCH faster system without becoming a bottleneck. The only "gotcha" in this is if PCI-E gets popular REALLY fast, in which case the new motherboard couldn't take an AGP card. I don't think this will happen as fast as others think, however, given that the AGP slot is nowhere near being a bottleneck yet -- i.e. how much "push" will there be for PCI-E graphics cards given that the performance won't be effected by the current generations of cards? Assuming my next system is still an AGP system, the GT will be plenty powerful for a while still. Your assessment is spot-on. I considered the vanilla 6800 as well, but the extra $100 gets you twice the card, and for me that made it a no-brainer. And in answer to your other question, I doubt there's much difference at all between your 2.4 and my 2.53. It would be so close that only a benchmark would be able to point out any differences. PCI-E is Intel's vision of the future. It will probably be a while before AMD/VIA jump off that bridge, and given the stellar performance of the newer AMD chips, I might make that my next upgrade anyway. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|