Yes that is a steal.

does anyone here know anything bad about INNO3d cards? i plan to get two 8800GT's for SLI soon

Is there much of a difference performance wise between the 8800gt and the 8800gts? I see about the GTS is about $60 more than the GT and it is over clocked but does it actually give you any more performance for that dollar?

The GT slaughters the GTS in every situation. Any of the GTs, whether overlocked or not are monstrosities that rival even the GTX. They're worth it at any price range, though the cards closer to $200 give you more bang for your buck.

My next computer doesn't really have a price budget and I was wondering if its possible to run two 8800Gt cards, I know some cards can be run in parallel but I dont exactly know how this works.

Yes it is. You would use an SLI bridge to connect them together. It may take some configuring and I've never did it myself so I don't know how complicated it is. Many games offer SLI support but some games don't...as in you may connect the two videocards together but then the game you play only use 1 of them still.

Expect some new updates due to the Radeon HD 3k series being launched today! They offer excellent performance for the price and will most definitely be on the guide ASAP. NewEgg actually has them in stock!

Big fat caveat emptor on this one; in order to run SLI you need a motherboard that supports it. That means an nForce 4 board with two PCIe slots. Expect to shell out a premium there, as well.

Ok I made some updates, mainly the addition of the brand-new Radeon HD 3850 and 3870. These cards are really powerful and an excellent deal for the price. If you can't get an 8800 GT, buy one of these.

Lots of updates. Added the Radeon HD 2600 Pro in the lower end price segment. Added the Radeon HD 2900 GT. Added Crossfire and SLI options in the high-end segment.

Lots of updates. An oddity in the sub $100 price segment has risen to the surface: the Radeon X1650 XT for $65, performing as well as its $100 competitors.

The Radeon HD 2900 GT being $130 has taken over the $100-$150 price segment.

The new GeForce 8800 GT 256 MB is added at the low $200s price range. The new 8800 GTS G92 512 MB version is added also.

Im thinking about picking up a new videocard, im still using agp. My current card is a 9800xt and i was looking at upgrading to the HD 2600xt. Do you think its worth is or will i only see minimal performance increases.

system specs:

p4 2.6@3.3
1bg ram
9800xt
winxp sp2

Hard to say. The 2600 XT is definitely much more powerful than the 9800 XT, but your CPU may be too slow for the new videocard. I'd say there's a good chance that you will see an increase even if the CPU slows it down though.

Thanks Lasereth, i think im going to hold off until next week see if i can grab one for a decent price on boxing day

Deleted the Radeon HD 2900 GT from the guide (price went up). Added the Radeon X1950 XT for $120 (currently sold out on NewEgg, if it comes back it will be a SUPER deal at that price). Made some other minor adjustments. The Radeon HD 2900 Pro may be added if the price is knocked down a few more $10s.

Why would NVIDIA name the new 512MB GTS card as a "8800 GTS"? Now we have a 512MB 8800GTS that is faster than the older 640MB 8800GTS.

Whilst both cards are being marketed there will be a lot of confused punters buying the 640MB card, thinking it's faster. Nuts!!

In many stores (like NewEgg) the new 8800 GTS 512 MB is called the 8800 GTS G92. It is incredibly confusing for consumers though. But the entire videocard industry is that way...cards like the 8600 GT with 512 MB of ram cost more than the 8800 GT even though the 8800 GT blows them out of the water.

I remember someone mentioning it before, but now I can't find it: why does Mac suck at putting decent video cards in their machines? If the iMac had an 8800 GTX it'd be the perfect computer. Now? Quake 4 at 1024x768 (4x AA, 8x AF) runs around 33.7 fps. Which is really, really slow. I would want at least 80-90 fps to enjoy gaming. Before I figured there was an issue with the processors being non-Intel (they were PowerPC until 2 years ago), but now? The iMac I have my eye on has an Intel 2.8 Core 2 Extreme processor, which is used in all sorts of decent machines with good video cards.

Is it just poor decision making or is there still a compatibility issue?

I'd say cost measures since the Mac Pros have as options:

Cost never struck me as something Apple cared about. Considering I'll be spending $2,600 on a desktop, I'd be willing to fork over an additional $300 for a decent video card.

Could it be space? I mean the inside of an iMac looks like a laptop (though there are plenty of decent cards in Alienware laptops). The only other thing I can think of is that they're just being stubborn.

personally I think that the iMac line has always been their own version of the cost conscious line. I've been hoping that the mini was to be their budget line but it seems to be the "step child" line more than anything.

I think that the iMac users are more cost conscious than the Pro lines.

I'll agree with this, though between the 20" and 24" models of iMac is the line between non-Pro and Pro, I think, but even a non-Pro product from a premium company should have decent performance. I'd expect low Quake 4 results from a Mac Mini, but the iMac? Color me dissapointed.

Do you suppose, since they have decent cards for the Mac Pro, a capable tech person (specializing in hardware) could install a better video card? Or would that require software?

I believe you cannot upgrade your iMac video cards.

Again, looking at the breaks and pricepoints, 30FPS isn't bad for an iMac. The machine is designed to be an all around performer. Looking at comparable PCs you'd find the same kind of stats, just at a cheaper price point. I did read in some places that the new MXM connection may allow for changing your card, but you'd have to find someone selling a nVidia MXM card to upgrade to.

In other words, the iMac wasn't designed to be upgraded. It was designed to be mildly upgraded with RAM and that's about it. It was meant to be replaced.

To further add, it is the Pro group of people that are performance oriented and care about higher performing stats, something that your average iMac users don't care as much about.

I expect a computer to last 3-4 years before it starts lagging behind. 30 fps will likely be slow in a year or two. Sure it has a decent processor (2.8 Duo Extreme) and enough ram (4GB), but if I'm going to run, say, Final Cut Pro? I might be in trouble.

That's correct, the iMac line wasn't designed around running Final Cut Pro...

30FPS for rendering that video game, playback for video should be 30FPS video, 24FPS for film. Which it should handle just fine.

Your speed will be lost not in playback but in rendering the new file which is CPU intensive not GPU intensive.

If you were interested in Pro line of video editing you shouldn't have gone with an iMac, but with a bottom line Pro.

edit: It wasn't designed around it, but can run it. It will just be slow for rendering, and digitizing. Otherwise, it's fine for playback. I have been looking up the specs lately since Skogafoss will probably want to buy a Mac in the near future, she's going to be taking a Final Cut Pro class at NYC.

30 FPS in Quake 4 is baaaaad. That game was easy to push 100 FPS in when it debuted if you had a decent videocard. 30 FPS in 2008 in that game is unacceptable. There should be an easy way to upgrade the videocard in the system.

That's the problem there isn't an easy way to upgrade video cards in iMacs.

This is precisely my point. I'd want 80-90 fps in Quake 4, which would come from a decent card that's gaming capable. EA can turn out as many Mac titles as they want, but they're going to run like crap on Macs until they get decent cards in them.

As a Mac person, I love the all-in-one feature of an iMac. I'd be frustrated if I had to get a huge tower and either a massively expensive and low ms Apple display or a third party display.

While I do realize that iMacs aren't meant to be modified in any meaningful way, can they by someone who knows what they are doing?

If you google imac video upgrade you'll see a few entries of people asking that very question. the simple answer is yes, there are people who can and will do it, but the real answer is no one ever posted, "Frank's Apple repair did it for me and it works great! A+ 5Star rating!" So I'm reluctant to think that it has been done. I'm thinking that the person finally just upgraded to a newer machine.

I have had mac tech support friends mix and match parts, but it wasn't easy.

Deleted many cards from the ~$120 price segment (gone from NewEgg or the price went up too far).

This is exactly what I have found, and it's a bit frustrating. It leaves me wondering if they're full of crap.
No, it wouldn't be easy at all. Even with the switch over to Intel chips, it would require very specific and difficult work.

I should ask Steve Jobs. He might know.

Major price changes in the $200-300 market. It's crazy how the 3870 and 8800 GT are getting close to $200 now. Also added the badass new Radeon 3870 X2 from ATI for $450. Awesome card, very powerful, even for the price.

The new Radeon HD 3650 will be added as soon as I see reviews from my sources.

I've seen some things about the nvidia 9000s coming shortly. I assume that they are gearing up for that product to hit the market soon and positioning their existing products accordingly.

My theory is that the 8800 GT was released solely for the launch of the 9k series. The 8800 GTS, GTX, and Ultra were too expensive to lower in price, so why not release a newer chip that's less expensive to make, is powerful, and will be the perfect supplement for a new batch of 9k series? Makes perfect sense to me!

Adjusted prices on multiple cards and added the new GeForce 9600 GT.

Las, I'm currently debating 8800GT, 9600GT and the upcoming 9800GT supposedly due in April but with no released specs yet. So, here are a few technical ?'s

112 vs. 64 stream processors... where will this make the most difference? As far as I can tell, the stream processors are more important at higher resolutions. I plan to run at 1920x1080 max (not 2560x1600)... how much difference will I see based on this spec alone?

The GPU is different, obviously, but core, memory and RAMDAC clocks are all roughly the same and all use GDDR3. So, in the end it's just really the GPU and stream procs. If I chose the 9600GT over the 8800GT, will I really be THAT disappointed? I'm a gamer, but I doubt I'd run games at that res, and even if I did, I'm not worried about 4xAA in general.

Have you heard anything about the 9800GT? Will it be priced in the <$300 range? Will it be that big of a step up from the 8800GT?

Thanks!

If you're planning on playing at that high of a resolution I would go for the 8800 GT. The 9600 GT would probably be alright but since the 8800 GT is so cheap I would be safe with it instead.

The 9600 GT is roughly 15% lesser than the 8800 GT. If you don't use AA in games the 9600 GT loses a lot of its performance to price ratio (the HD 3870 is better if you don't use AA).

I haven't heard anything about the 9800 besides sometime in April and probably under $400. I would guess somewhere around 15% better than the 8800 GT.

So basically it's up to what you want to spend. If you're wondering whether it's worth it to go to the 8800 GT, the answer is yes, especially because of your high resolution.

Meh, I suppose I'll go 8800GT then. I refuse to buy AMD/ATI cards. *sigh*

I was just at the Apple SoHo store today getting specs on an Mac Pro dual quad core setup.

so there's a hot card in their newest box...

looks like we're going to be buying a mac soon (the wife is taking Final Cut Pro classes at NYU)