The 9800 GTX or the GTX 260 (55nm).

Look at the specs they are slightly different... and I am not sure what effect the differences will have... One has a faster core/ram/gpu frequency but the other has more RAM at a wider BW.. and there are other differences as well..

It depends on your budget Bearcat, when I bought my new system, I was going to get the 9800GTX but decided to get the GTS250, which is basically an updated 9800GTX with better performance for 10% more $ vs 50% more for a GTX260. I'm still tweaking my setup for best performance. For IL2 and my other current gaming it's enough card.

Until the specs for SoW come out...

If youre just (or mostly )into IL2 it may not be worth upgrading .I have a GTX295 and tried an old X1950 Pro 256Mb recently .I can say honestly that I preferred the older cards image quality ....(but I play some other games also)You could upgrade CPU but unless you run mega missions with dozens of planes in the air whats the point?For sure not a resolution increase as that will make the enemy dots invisible.

In Il2 there won't be too much difference but in other games it will be a good increase, though the GTX 260 is kinda hard to come by, they've been mostly replaced with the GTX 275, which is good bit faster than the 260

If I were buying a new card right now I would not look anywhere other than the new ATI 5 series, either the 5870/5850 or if forced to go budget the 5770/5750. ATI has made a really nice card this time around, super fast and has DX11 support. Also they will run three monitors from the one card for those interested in use3renders=1.

Depends on your budget and what games you want to play. If you are only playing Il-2, then I'd stick with an 8800/9800 and wait for prices to drop more. If you're playing brand new games, then I'd go for the best card that fits your budget.

I've had a GTX 260 Core 216 since I got my new computer in March and for what it's worth it's been really great for newer games, though it can be a little shaky on some games like the new Batman game. For Il-2 it lets me play at 1650 x 1050 with everything maxed, though I get jaggies on far-off coastlines that I don't remember getting on my old 8600GT.


Urufu how do the 5770 cards compare with the 260? Better for new games? About the same?

quote:

Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
In Il2 there won't be too much difference but in other games it will be a good increase, though the GTX 260 is kinda hard to come by, they've been mostly replaced with the GTX 275, which is good bit faster than the 260

If I were buying a new card right now I would not look anywhere other than the new ATI 5 series, either the 5870/5850 or if forced to go budget the 5770/5750. ATI has made a really nice card this time around, super fast and has DX11 support. Also they will run three monitors from the one card for those interested in use3renders=1.

I agree Urufu, but do these new cards still produce the psycedelic visuals in IL-2 as do the 48XX cards? That fact alone has me still leaning towards this deal for my upcoming i7 860 build.

If in a vacuum existing solely of the 9800gtx and the gtx260, I'd choose the gtx260 since it's rated overall reasonably faster than the 9800gtx in tests, though for IL-2 the difference may not really matter that much at resolutions less than or equal 1900x1200 (darned sim is SO cpu bound).

From what I've read on the web, the performance of the gtx260 surpass the 5770 by a reasonable margin. Nvidia is in awkward position in the market now and all sorts of rumors are flying around about how they are hurting.

I've had a GTX 260 a few months now without any problems. It's certainly faster than the 9800, which I also had.

Aviar

If you want to buy now, and want to stay Nvidia, the GTX260 is the clear choice. The 9800's are really nothing more than warmed over 8800 cards. Still a good card, but old tech. If you can wait, first quarter of next year promises a very serious series of cards from Nvidia. I'm waiting til next year.

Seems the 5770 gets on average about 5-12 FPS less than the GTX260 core 216, and it seems to run about $35-$50 less.

The GTX 260 is a clear choice winner over the 9800 by far in memory bandwith (111.9GB/sec - my 9800GTX OCX gets 73.6 GB/sec)

This is a great site to compare vid cards.

Video Card Comparison
http://www.gpureview.com/show_...?card1=370&card2=25#

AnandTech reports that the Nvidia 200b series cards production is ramping down, in response to AMD/ATi's present performance/feature advantage and unwillingness to compete (at a loss) on price, and in anticipation of the new Fermi line of cards due out late 09/ early 10. Fermi is shaping up to be a major step up.

Surely the 260 ?

isnt the 9800GTX just a rebadged 8800GTX? (or at least very close to one)

I seem to remember that memory bus width is where most cards are limited these days. Could be wrong tho. It all depends on where the current bottleneck is, as Bearcat has already stated.

The Geforce 9800GTX+ is nothing more than a rebadged 8800GTS 512MB with 128 shader cores and a 256bit memory bus, that is, circa 2007 technology.

It´s fast, though, and cheap. I´d only get one if I was really cash strapped.

Else, get an ATI HD4850 or the newer HD5700 series, 2009/10 tech at an affordable price point and pretty fast as well.