9600gt

**samjohnson** · #31 28th Feb 2008, 22:16

link560o, you can get some 22" Asus moniter from newegg for $230.

I would definitely go for the 9600GT, couple of reasons, if it is getting near performance to the 8800GT then why not go for it. And its cheaper. I think Nvidia put it out for people that can't afford a high end card like the 8800GT and others, but still want something that can play todays games at very good levels. Like me.
I will probably set my sites on that card, it will save me around $100, and it still will play crysis pretty dang good. Anything is better than my 7600GT anyway.

**chrismorris730** · #32 4th Mar 2008, 14:45

After some more research i decided to save myself 300 bucks and go with a single 9600GT instead of 2 8800GTs because of the SLI option. IF i need an upgrade...i've got another PCI 2.0 slot on my motherboard and i just put another 9600GT in there.

SLI isn't a necesity when you've got the high-end card already. i think it's more of a "because i can" thing at that level.

and plus...if you go with eVGA you get their step-up program (which i don't fully understand...would someone please explain it?)...i'll leave that open since whatever follows it from me will probably be wrong...

**Carbon** · #33 4th Mar 2008, 15:46

Step-up program is basically: if there's a new card within 90 days (I think), you can get the cash you spent on the card you have now counted toward that card and pay the difference.

**link590o** · #34 4th Mar 2008, 15:52

personally i'd be going with a decently priced MSI one because they've got some models with some tempting pipe-cooling, and the core and memory are clocked higher than normal models. 700mhz core, and 1900mhz memory for 185 bucks. most are clocked at 650mhz core, and 1800mhz memory.

**redden137** · #35 5th Mar 2008, 16:53

so i can take it some of you are for sli for the 9800s but most prefer sli for the 8800s as it cheaper option for now and will give top performance,
so what you guys think of the sli x 3 now theres decent ps units available for it?

**Carbon** · #36 5th Mar 2008, 17:35

SLI is dumb at this point, not very many things use it, it's expensive, and better single cards will trounce anything you put in SLI pretty soon anyway.

**link590o** · #37 5th Mar 2008, 17:49

agreed. sli is one of the more impractical ideas they ever came up with. it's really only worth your time when two of them will cost about the same as 1 good one, and both of them working together at those high resolution markers will bring better performance.

and we all know that is NOT how performance levels, sli and prices work. ditch that bulls***.

**redden137** · #38 7th Mar 2008, 15:28

so i guess 3 x SLI for you guys is a waste of time

**link590o** · #39 7th Mar 2008, 19:51

just to elaborate some and take a more in depth look at why sli isn't worth it, here's my reasoning behind it all. just so we're not leaving out a large chunk of the logic behind it.

above a certain frame rate, i cannot tell the difference between the number of frames i have....let's call it between say....60 and 75 frames per second. it's already so high that raising it any further isn't necessary. and that's essentially what sli is doing. it's giving you an excess of frames that you don't need. you already get all the frames you need from your single card. that is, first and foremost, the most compelling argument against sli for me.

the second argument is that the benefits, a.k.a. more frames that you get out of sli, are seen at resolutions higher than 1440x900. and in order to see those benefits, you need a good monitor. which means upgrading your old flat panel that can only reach 1280x1024 to an even bigger one that supports all the way up to and beyond 1900x1200. that's easily 250 dollars there.

thirdly...tons of money is spent on having 2 or 3 of the same graphics card, and having so many can put the price tag at or well about $1000 dollars. best case scenario is you do a two-way 9600gt setup for about $350. and for 3-way, let's pin that at about $550.

fourthly, it takes a massive power supply. and therefore, even more money. you need something at or in excess of 650 watts or 700 watts to run a two way or 3 way sli configuration. and a quality supply of that wattage will run you over the 130-150 price marker.

250 for a decent monitor, 350 for 2 9600s, another 150 for a good power supply....you're looking at spending at the very least 750 dollars for sli.

why anyone would spend that much on graphics when they could use a single card setup and see similar performance is beyond me. it's not practical in the least. even with a new and inexpensive card such as the 9600. sli like that will bring you what.....39 frames at 1440x900 res in crysis? a single card gets you 26 at the same res?....F that in the A....especially when i could spend a measly 235 dollars and stick with my current flat panel and power supply and see similar results.

**redden137** · #40 9th Mar 2008, 14:24

LINK690o i do agree with you having the latest cards in sli is a total waste of money. you cant see any difference in frame rates over 60 say and most new cards deliver that anyway so having two new cards in sli is a waste of money and time, but where sli might benefit is with other older cards,
say you built a system a year 18 mths ago had a o/c 7600gs with it, you have trouble playing fear with it put in another 7600gs set up sli for another £30 and bingo now your playing fear no drop in frame rates. a nice smooth game for just £30 and not for a £100 or more