Mid-Range to High-End Buyer's Guide, January 2006
by Jarred Walton on January 2, 2006 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Graphics Recommendations
All of the motherboards are obviously PCI Express systems, so we have mid-range and high-end recommendations. The problem is that we also get the NVIDIA vs. ATI perspective, and in many areas, there is no right answer. We prefer the SLI configurations to CrossFire configurations, as the pass-through cable just makes for increased cable clutter. Realistically, though, we feel most people are best served by getting a single graphics card within their budget constraints, so unless your budget is more than $700, we see no need to consider multiple GPUs. (Unless, of course, you're planning on running four displays from one system.)
Mid-Range Graphics Recommendation: eVGA GeForce 6800 GS 256MB
Price: $196 shipped (Retail)
Some people will say that even $200 is too much for a "Mid-Range" graphics card. If you really don't care about 3D performance, you can downgrade to just about any PCI Express graphics card and be happy. I look at recommendations within a price range, and $200 is a "Mid-Range" graphics card to me. It just so happens that there is a couple if good recommendations right at this price point, which helps justify the cost. The 6800 GS provides power roughly equal to last year's 6800 GT cards at a price about $100 lower. (Overclocking the cards can often come near 6800 Ultra performance levels, if you're interested in giving that a try.) Two of these cards end up being about equal to a 7800 GTX - faster in some instances and slower in others - so the upgrade potential is there. Honestly, though, we don't know how long the 6800 GS cards will be around, so plan on running one card and if you're looking to spend more than $200, upgrade to a faster single card.
Mid-Range Graphics Alternative: Sapphire Radeon X800GTO2 256MB
Price: $206 shipped (Retail)
And representing the red team, we have a similarly priced card in the form of the Sapphire X800 GTO2. Unlocking the full 16 pixel pipelines and overclocking the cores on these Sapphire cards has resulted in a very high success rate, though even at stock speeds, you get a very fast card. You miss out on SM3.0 support, which might become an issue in the future, but most of the SM3.0 enabled games seem to demand a bit more computational power than what last generation video cards can supply anyway. We don't like CrossFire for the X800 ATI platform for a number of reasons (1600x1200@60Hz is the big one), but as we've already mentioned, SLI/CF for sub-$700 GPU configurations doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. Like the 6800 GS, the X800 GTO/GTO2 cards may not be around much longer anyway. Still, X850 Pro (XT with overclocking) performance for $200 isn't a bad parting gift from ATI's R4xx series.
High-End Graphics Recommendation: eVGA 256-P2-N516 GeForce 7800GT 256MB
Price: $304 shipped (Retail)
The prices of 7800GT cards have dropped over $100 since launch, putting them below even most 6800 GT cards while providing more power than a 6800 Ultra. These cards can run almost any current game at resolutions up to 1920x1200, though you may have to tweak the detail levels a bit for optimal performance. The 6800 GT was an extremely popular card from NVIDIA last year, and the 7800 GT looks to surpass it in just about every area: lower street price, higher performance, better availability, and even slightly lower temperatures. At just over $300, this card strikes a great balance between price, performance, and features. High-end gamers can look towards the 7800 GTX 256MB and 512MB cards if they need even more power, and we would go that route before moving to SLI. Finding a 512MB GTX in stock is still difficult, unfortunately, though if you have $700 to blow it can be done.
High-End Graphics Alternative: Connect3D Radeon X1800XL 256MB
Price: $328 shipped (Retail)
Unlike the Mid-Range GPU recommendation, the ATI X1800XL is definitely an alternative as opposed to an equal recommendation to the 7800 GT. A higher price combined with generally slightly slower performance in our tests makes the NVIDIA card the winner. The SLI vs. CF comparison also favors the NVIDIA card, as you would need to buy a more expensive CF X1800 Master card for the X1800XL. Outside of the dual-GPU configurations, though, it's still relatively close, so those of you who inherently prefer ATI won't be missing out on much other than $25. Performance is very good in all current games with the X1800XL, and like the 7800 GT, prices have dropped over $100 since the cards first launched a couple of months ago. Looking to the higher-end ATI cards, ATI has the advantage. The X1800XT comes with 512MB of 1.5 GHz DDR3 memory, allowing it to surpass the 7800 GTX 256MB in the majority of tests. While the 7800 GTX 512MB does reign supreme as the fastest card, it also is very difficult to find, and the X1800XT is now readily available for about $495. It's definitely not cheap, but it's only $40 more than the cheapest GTX 256MB and usually more than 10% faster.
Graphics Recap
Given the number of choices for graphics, combined with the fact that needs can range from "just make Windows work" to "make FEAR run at 100 FPS!", we felt a quick rundown of the various price categories with a good recommendation for each was in order. That's what the above table represents, though we didn't go below the $100 price point for this level of system. The X1600 Pro from MSI represents an interesting value, which is good news. Although usually faster than the 6600GT and X700Pro, the X1600 appeared doomed for failure with the original MSRP of $200. A 500 MHz core with 12 pixel pipelines combined with 256MB of 800 MHz RAM for $134 is much more palatable, though, and it gets our recommendation for the lower cost mid-range or higher cost low-end graphics cards.
All of the motherboards are obviously PCI Express systems, so we have mid-range and high-end recommendations. The problem is that we also get the NVIDIA vs. ATI perspective, and in many areas, there is no right answer. We prefer the SLI configurations to CrossFire configurations, as the pass-through cable just makes for increased cable clutter. Realistically, though, we feel most people are best served by getting a single graphics card within their budget constraints, so unless your budget is more than $700, we see no need to consider multiple GPUs. (Unless, of course, you're planning on running four displays from one system.)
Mid-Range Graphics Recommendation: eVGA GeForce 6800 GS 256MB
Price: $196 shipped (Retail)
Some people will say that even $200 is too much for a "Mid-Range" graphics card. If you really don't care about 3D performance, you can downgrade to just about any PCI Express graphics card and be happy. I look at recommendations within a price range, and $200 is a "Mid-Range" graphics card to me. It just so happens that there is a couple if good recommendations right at this price point, which helps justify the cost. The 6800 GS provides power roughly equal to last year's 6800 GT cards at a price about $100 lower. (Overclocking the cards can often come near 6800 Ultra performance levels, if you're interested in giving that a try.) Two of these cards end up being about equal to a 7800 GTX - faster in some instances and slower in others - so the upgrade potential is there. Honestly, though, we don't know how long the 6800 GS cards will be around, so plan on running one card and if you're looking to spend more than $200, upgrade to a faster single card.
Mid-Range Graphics Alternative: Sapphire Radeon X800GTO2 256MB
Price: $206 shipped (Retail)
And representing the red team, we have a similarly priced card in the form of the Sapphire X800 GTO2. Unlocking the full 16 pixel pipelines and overclocking the cores on these Sapphire cards has resulted in a very high success rate, though even at stock speeds, you get a very fast card. You miss out on SM3.0 support, which might become an issue in the future, but most of the SM3.0 enabled games seem to demand a bit more computational power than what last generation video cards can supply anyway. We don't like CrossFire for the X800 ATI platform for a number of reasons (1600x1200@60Hz is the big one), but as we've already mentioned, SLI/CF for sub-$700 GPU configurations doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. Like the 6800 GS, the X800 GTO/GTO2 cards may not be around much longer anyway. Still, X850 Pro (XT with overclocking) performance for $200 isn't a bad parting gift from ATI's R4xx series.
High-End Graphics Recommendation: eVGA 256-P2-N516 GeForce 7800GT 256MB
Price: $304 shipped (Retail)
The prices of 7800GT cards have dropped over $100 since launch, putting them below even most 6800 GT cards while providing more power than a 6800 Ultra. These cards can run almost any current game at resolutions up to 1920x1200, though you may have to tweak the detail levels a bit for optimal performance. The 6800 GT was an extremely popular card from NVIDIA last year, and the 7800 GT looks to surpass it in just about every area: lower street price, higher performance, better availability, and even slightly lower temperatures. At just over $300, this card strikes a great balance between price, performance, and features. High-end gamers can look towards the 7800 GTX 256MB and 512MB cards if they need even more power, and we would go that route before moving to SLI. Finding a 512MB GTX in stock is still difficult, unfortunately, though if you have $700 to blow it can be done.
High-End Graphics Alternative: Connect3D Radeon X1800XL 256MB
Price: $328 shipped (Retail)
Unlike the Mid-Range GPU recommendation, the ATI X1800XL is definitely an alternative as opposed to an equal recommendation to the 7800 GT. A higher price combined with generally slightly slower performance in our tests makes the NVIDIA card the winner. The SLI vs. CF comparison also favors the NVIDIA card, as you would need to buy a more expensive CF X1800 Master card for the X1800XL. Outside of the dual-GPU configurations, though, it's still relatively close, so those of you who inherently prefer ATI won't be missing out on much other than $25. Performance is very good in all current games with the X1800XL, and like the 7800 GT, prices have dropped over $100 since the cards first launched a couple of months ago. Looking to the higher-end ATI cards, ATI has the advantage. The X1800XT comes with 512MB of 1.5 GHz DDR3 memory, allowing it to surpass the 7800 GTX 256MB in the majority of tests. While the 7800 GTX 512MB does reign supreme as the fastest card, it also is very difficult to find, and the X1800XT is now readily available for about $495. It's definitely not cheap, but it's only $40 more than the cheapest GTX 256MB and usually more than 10% faster.
Graphics Recap
Graphics Cards | ||
Class | Model | Price |
Budget | Sapphire Radeon X700 Pro 128MB | 120 |
Budget | MSI Radeon X1600 Pro 256MB | 134 |
Budget | eVGA GeForce 6600GT 128MB | 140 |
Mid-Range | eVGA GeForce 6800 GS 256MB | 196 |
Mid-Range | Sapphire Radeon X800GTO2 256MB | 206 |
High-End | eVGA 256-P2-N516 Geforce 7800GT 256MB | 304 |
High-End | Connect3D Radeon X1800XL 256MB | 328 |
Ultra-High | eVGA GeForce 7800GTX 256MB | 448 |
Ultra-High | Sapphire Radeon X1800XT 512MB | 487 |
Ultra-High | GeForce 7800GTX 512MB (Pre-Order) | 699 |
Given the number of choices for graphics, combined with the fact that needs can range from "just make Windows work" to "make FEAR run at 100 FPS!", we felt a quick rundown of the various price categories with a good recommendation for each was in order. That's what the above table represents, though we didn't go below the $100 price point for this level of system. The X1600 Pro from MSI represents an interesting value, which is good news. Although usually faster than the 6600GT and X700Pro, the X1600 appeared doomed for failure with the original MSRP of $200. A 500 MHz core with 12 pixel pipelines combined with 256MB of 800 MHz RAM for $134 is much more palatable, though, and it gets our recommendation for the lower cost mid-range or higher cost low-end graphics cards.
67 Comments
View All Comments
archcommus - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
Not just music, but DVDs and games, as well.JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
The Klipsch are also very good speakers - some would say better, others would just say they're different. When you start getting into high-end speakers, a lot of stuff becomes more subjective. I don't know if this still holds, but in the past, Klipsch was regarded as having great customer support. I can't say the same for Logitech, but then I've never personally used customer support for either one. I think the Klipsch Ultra 5.1 speakers go for about $350 new, so they're more expensive and they lack the digital decoder. They probably sound a bit better, though.yacoub - Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - link
Well Klipsch had quality issues for a while with dead and fried amps. Then again Logitech's lower end models were pretty poor quality as well.Either way both systems are likely close enough in quality that you won't notice the difference hooked up to the same soundcard. You would find a much greater difference by improving the soundcard over switching from one of those two speaker systems to the other.
Also, if you're so anal as to be able to detect a huge difference between the two you probably aren't going to be happy with either one and should instead get a real home theatre system and hook your soundcard to the receiver. Then you have no more limitations of a computer speaker system and can swap in and out your separates as you wish and really configure it all finely and use much better quality components.
yacoub - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
There's no reason for the high-end case recommendation to be anything other than the Antec P-150, which is essentially the perfect case. If more room is needed (which would be the rare instance) the P-180 would be the alternative recommendation.jiulemoigt - Monday, January 2, 2006 - link
one were the crt left out due to shipping costs? I got my 75lbs 22" Philips shipped free simply by buying from a local (ground shipping was free, fedex 2 day was several hundred dollars so I can see why shipping costs on a decent size crt could be an issue) based estore. I just wondered as I have yet to see a lcd that comes close to a professional crt in color or crispness, and if your willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a videocard to play games why not three to five on the monitor?the other question is I keep hearing about corsairs 3500 ll xms is it vaporware or did you guys simply miss this one or does it not live up to the hype? I did not see it on the price link or really any mention of it which leads me to wonder?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
On the CRTs, there are no new CRTs being made with good specs. I've been over that ground in previous Guides. Basically, you can get a new 22" CRT that is worse than 4 year old models, or you can try to find a 4 year old model, or you can give in and upgrade to LCD. It's unfortunate, but profit margins are better on LCDs, consumers like them more ("oooo - it's THIN!"), and so all R&D is now focused on improving LCDs rather than on CRTs. I fought the CRT battle for a few years, and now that I've upgraded to LCD I just don't miss the CRT anymore. 24" WS and plenty of desk space - what's not to love? :)Turin39789 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I'm sticking with my dual 22'inch crt's, a few years old made them available for ~150 each shipped and I like the colors/refresh rate/resolutions better than any crt's I've seen around for twice that money.And an 8 foot desk means never having to worry about space.
Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
The performance of the CRT displays is decreasing even in the 17" world - monitors from three years ago had better refresh rates and resolution than what you can buy now. CRT world is dying :(tjpark1111 - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I was wondering about LCD size you guys.(that rhymes hehe) I currently have a 15" LCD on a laptop that has a 1024x768 resolution. Sometimes I find it that things are a bit too big especially in videos. I was going to buy a 17" LCD, but then a 19" was recommended here, and I was wondering if you 19" owners are bothered by, or you think that there is a lack of resolution for the huge size. I've seen a 17" and 19" side by side and the size improvement was so big, but I didn't get a chance to look closely, especially when playing video, so I don't know if 1280x1024 is all that bad on a 19". Thank you.Calin - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link
I would very much prefer a lower resolution on the 17" LCDs - that 1152 by something would be great. I somewhat find the 1280 by 1024 too small, and just perfect on the 19" displays.