The X2600 (price not revealed) and X2800GTO (around $300) are cards made for that range.wolfram said:BTW does anyone know something about ATI's R600 based mid-range cards?
LOL my thoughts exactly. After all, how much space is truly enough?cfitzarl said:I think in time, with the use of new technology games, and operating systems (*cough*Vista*cough*), we can find a way to fill in all of that space.
If I were you I'd (in fact this IS what I'll truly do) wait for the X1950XT(X) to come down to sub 200$. It RIVALS the 8800GTS, NOT the 8600GT. That is, it is FASTER than a 8600GT (pretty much same thing with the X850XT and 7600GT, except the gap seems to be bigger between the X1950XT and 8600GT)... The X2800GTO won't come down from 300$ anytime soon, so forget that. And if the X2600 is anything like the X1600, I would NOT get it.wolfram said:BTW does anyone know something about ATI's R600 based mid-range cards?
I might change my X850XT soon, but I don't know if I should get a high-end DX9 card (a X1950XT or a X1950XTX), or a mid-end DX10 card (a possible X2600 or a 8600GT/Ultra)
Yes. The X1650XT is faster than my X850XT. If the X2600XT is faster than the X1950XT, I'm definitely getting it instead. But that's very unlikely, as the X1950XT rivals the 8800GTS, which is supposed to be rivaling the X2800GTO and not the X2600XT. Not to even talk about the XTX version.F1N3ST said:But on the oter hand if the X2600 is ANYTHING like the X1650XT it will be a great midrange card.
Like I said, Crysis WILL run on DX9 with ALL the eyecandy it will have on DX10. The DX10 mode will simply be FASTER for owners of DX10 hardware, not more [content/eyecandy/etc.]-rich.cfitzarl said:I, personally, would go and get a mid-range DX10 card over a high-range DX9 card, imagine the possibilities of having DirectX10 *looks at Crysis and drools* :unch:...
How about 640x480? I use that to play most FPS's. Not because I can't crank up the res., but because I find it easier to play at that res. More focusing on objectives rather than good-looks (though Crysis will definitely not be run at 640x480 by me, it's WAY too pretty....)I just find that 1280x1024 is too small for me.
It isn't one card. Currently it's only the X2800, which should be rivaling the 8800. If you wanna rival the "8900GX2" you should wait for a "X2950XTX" =).Exonimus said:wow, that's sick! amd will probably whoop nvidia's behind.. if it indeed comes in the same price range. Would be nice to see this card versus the geforce 8900gx2 if it comes out.
But still, I think I'll wait with purchasing anything new until directx 10 and vista are well settled, and the graphics cards aren't coming out this fast. I mean, the 7 series are anything but old, and now the 8 series are out already. Oh well, my dear 7600GT will serve fine until then =)
Originally Posted by cfitzarl
I, personally, would go and get a mid-range DX10 card over a high-range DX9 card, imagine the possibilities of having DirectX10 *looks at Crysis and drools* ...
Yes it is. Multiply 1920x1080 and you get 2.1 megapixels. Multiply 2560x1600 and you get 4.1 megapixels.F1N3ST said:What about XFX, how does this sound
XFX 8800GTX XXX
That is an actual card too lol.
And its not twice as big as 1080P, 1080P is 1920x1080
You will probably have to run it at 640x480 :stickout: With your video card if you put everything on max you'd probably need 640x480 to get 50FPS. Hell even my card would probably need 1024x768 to get decent FPS...agi_shi said:(though Crysis will definitely not be run at 640x480 by me, it's WAY too pretty....)