Is The nvidea 7900 gt a good card for gaming.

I just want to know if this card is any good for gaming and which ones around it may be better...thanks

The 7900GT has always been priced poorly.  Its not that much faster than the 7900GS to justify the extra cost.  And it is quite a lot slower than the 7950GT which is not that much more.  The 7900GT should really have never been made, or they should have just called the 7950GT the "7900GT" and just had 2 models instead of 3.

So I would say either get the 7900GS or the 7950GT.  Better yet get the X1950XT which blows the 7950GT away for the same price.  Or if you can swing it get the 8800GTS like the other guy said which is by far the best bang for the buck on the market right now.

I guess I was right because it looks like they have discontinued the 7900GT as the only none "Open Box" 7900GT they have on NewEgg is $250!!  The 7900GT should have never been put on the market.

So yes the 7900GS is a good buy if you cant afford the 7950GT or X1950XT.

7900GS for $154 ($134 after rebate) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130056

X1950XT for $174 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102067

7950GT for $199 ($184 after rebate)- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130074

The X1950XT is by far the best card of the 3 but those are your 3 best options for under $200.

Well The only reason I have one is EVGA stepped mine up from a 7800GT.

I can still run any game out there on max. 

I would recommend the 7950gt as well - it's the card I'll be upgrading to in the near future. That said, there's nothing wrong with the 7900gt - it's just the 7950gt probably offers more performance for lot a lot of extra cost.

8)

I would recommend the 7950gt as well - it's the card I'll be upgrading to in the near future. That said, there's nothing wrong with the 7900gt - it's just the 7950gt probably offers more performance for lot a lot of extra cost.

8)

nightharvest

The 7950GT is a good card.  But the X1950XT is significantly faster than it and cost less.  Plus the X1950XT can run HDR+AA in games like Oblivion which none of the NVIDIA 7xxx cards can.  If it were me I would go for the X1950XT all the way.  Not that the 7950GT is bad but it is defiantly 2nd best for more money.

Edit: And again incase you missed my other post, the 7900GT has been discontinued.  Tiger Direct has none and NewEgg only has one that is $250 that no one would buy as that is over $50 more than the 7950GTand only $20 less than the 8800GTS.!  Cross the 7900GT of your list which is the way it should have been from the beginning.  It was a card that should have never existed in the first place.

8500 DX10 cards on newegg for under $100....  Haven't compared throughput or anything to the 7950, but it might be worth looking into...  I currently run the 7950GT and run very well, though SupCom could use some help :PSchismpunk

Dude!  The 8600GTS is slower than the 7900GS!  The 8500 is just a joke and wont run anything DX9 or DX10!  My 4 year old  6800GT is better than an 8500! Don't buy any of the 8600s or 8500s, they are garbage!

Sorry but I just get tired of people not knowing this and having to explain it over and over.  Even game spot recomends faster DX9 cards like the 7950GT and X1950XT over the 8600GTS.

Yes, but thats only because thats how the current drivers and current DX9 games run with them (were they using vista?).  Its also been said by Gamespot and other websites that actual DX10 "next-next gen" games might run on the 8600 ALOT better than compairable DX9 video cards for the same price.  Not to mention once driver improvements come around.KorJax

Man I am so tired of having to post this over and over. 

Review #1 - http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/22/

"I think everybody expected the 8600 series to perform better in games. The GT is merely 15% faster than a 7600 GT in most scenarios; with the GTS performing at roughly 7900 GS or Radeon X1950 Pro performance. A Radeon X1950 Pro or 7900 GS for example will outperform the GTS in many scenarios and is a good amount cheaper. I can pick either one of them up here in the Netherlands for 150 EUR. Sure, these cards are not DX10 compatible but I think you'll see a lot of reviews today with exactly the same sentiment. Yours truly expected more performance. The 32 Shader cores and the choice of 128-bit memory are the responsible key issues here, and NVIDIA knows this. This is why the clock frequencies on the cards are so high." 

"I'm extremely curious how a DX10 title like Crysis will perform on cards like these, and while DX10 performance might be a tad better I do not predict anything good. "

Review #2 - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169151/p-2.html

"The GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT wowed and disappointed us at the same time. Performance in shader intensive games like Oblivion was impressive; however neither of the cards offers performance gains over what you can already purchase in the sub-$200 category. More often than not, the 8600s lag behind the GeForce 7900 GS, the Radeon X1950 Pro, and especially the Radeon X1900 XT. The allure of DirectX 10 support might count for something, but we're not prepared to give Nvidia credit until we see how these cards actually perform with DirectX 10 games. For the moment, we'd pass on the GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT in favor of similarly priced higher-performance DirectX 9 cards. If you're willing to spend a little more, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB provides vastly superior performance."

Yes, but thats only because thats how the current drivers and current DX9 games run with them (were they using vista?).  Its also been said by Gamespot and other websites that actual DX10 "next-next gen" games might run on the 8600 ALOT better than compairable DX9 video cards for the same price.  Not to mention once driver improvements come around.KorJax

Man I am so tired of having to post this over and over. 

Review #1 - http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/22/

"I think everybody expected the 8600 series to perform better in games. The GT is merely 15% faster than a 7600 GT in most scenarios; with the GTS performing at roughly 7900 GS or Radeon X1950 Pro performance. A Radeon X1950 Pro or 7900 GS for example will outperform the GTS in many scenarios and is a good amount cheaper. I can pick either one of them up here in the Netherlands for 150 EUR. Sure, these cards are not DX10 compatible but I think you'll see a lot of reviews today with exactly the same sentiment. Yours truly expected more performance. The 32 Shader cores and the choice of 128-bit memory are the responsible key issues here, and NVIDIA knows this. This is why the clock frequencies on the cards are so high." 

"I'm extremely curious how a DX10 title like Crysis will perform on cards like these, and while DX10 performance might be a tad better I do not predict anything good. "

Review #2 - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169151/p-2.html

"The GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT wowed and disappointed us at the same time. Performance in shader intensive games like Oblivion was impressive; however neither of the cards offers performance gains over what you can already purchase in the sub-$200 category. More often than not, the 8600s lag behind the GeForce 7900 GS, the Radeon X1950 Pro, and especially the Radeon X1900 XT. The allure of DirectX 10 support might count for something, but we're not prepared to give Nvidia credit until we see how these cards actually perform with DirectX 10 games. For the moment, we'd pass on the GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT in favor of similarly priced higher-performance DirectX 9 cards. If you're willing to spend a little more, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB provides vastly superior performance."

[QUOTE="KorJax"]Yes, but thats only because thats how the current drivers and current DX9 games run with them (were they using vista?). Its also been said by Gamespot and other websites that actual DX10 "next-next gen" games might run on the 8600 ALOT better than compairable DX9 video cards for the same price. Not to mention once driver improvements come around.basersx

Man I am so tired of having to post this over and over.

Review #1 - http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/22/

"I think everybody expected the 8600 series to perform better in games. The GT is merely 15% faster than a 7600 GT in most scenarios; with the GTS performing at roughly 7900 GS or Radeon X1950 Pro performance. A Radeon X1950 Pro or 7900 GS for example will outperform the GTS in many scenarios and is a good amount cheaper. I can pick either one of them up here in the Netherlands for 150 EUR. Sure, these cards are not DX10 compatible but I think you'll see a lot of reviews today with exactly the same sentiment. Yours truly expected more performance. The 32 Shader cores and the choice of 128-bit memory are the responsible key issues here, and NVIDIA knows this. This is why the clock frequencies on the cards are so high."

"I'm extremely curious how a DX10 title like Crysis will perform on cards like these, and while DX10 performance might be a tad better I do not predict anything good. "

Review #2 - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169151/p-2.html

"The GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT wowed and disappointed us at the same time. Performance in shader intensive games like Oblivion was impressive; however neither of the cards offers performance gains over what you can already purchase in the sub-$200 category. More often than not, the 8600s lag behind the GeForce 7900 GS, the Radeon X1950 Pro, and especially the Radeon X1900 XT. The allure of DirectX 10 support might count for something, but we're not prepared to give Nvidia credit until we see how these cards actually perform with DirectX 10 games. For the moment, we'd pass on the GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT in favor of similarly priced higher-performance DirectX 9 cards. If you're willing to spend a little more, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB provides vastly superior performance."

I am in awe with you persistence. =) 

[QUOTE="KorJax"]Yes, but thats only because thats how the current drivers and current DX9 games run with them (were they using vista?).  Its also been said by Gamespot and other websites that actual DX10 "next-next gen" games might run on the 8600 ALOT better than compairable DX9 video cards for the same price.  Not to mention once driver improvements come around.basersx

Man I am so tired of having to post this over and over. 

Review #1 - http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/22/

"I think everybody expected the 8600 series to perform better in games. The GT is merely 15% faster than a 7600 GT in most scenarios; with the GTS performing at roughly 7900 GS or Radeon X1950 Pro performance. A Radeon X1950 Pro or 7900 GS for example will outperform the GTS in many scenarios and is a good amount cheaper. I can pick either one of them up here in the Netherlands for 150 EUR. Sure, these cards are not DX10 compatible but I think you'll see a lot of reviews today with exactly the same sentiment. Yours truly expected more performance. The 32 Shader cores and the choice of 128-bit memory are the responsible key issues here, and NVIDIA knows this. This is why the clock frequencies on the cards are so high." 

"I'm extremely curious how a DX10 title like Crysis will perform on cards like these, and while DX10 performance might be a tad better I do not predict anything good. "

Review #2 - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169151/p-2.html

"The GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT wowed and disappointed us at the same time. Performance in shader intensive games like Oblivion was impressive; however neither of the cards offers performance gains over what you can already purchase in the sub-$200 category. More often than not, the 8600s lag behind the GeForce 7900 GS, the Radeon X1950 Pro, and especially the Radeon X1900 XT. The allure of DirectX 10 support might count for something, but we're not prepared to give Nvidia credit until we see how these cards actually perform with DirectX 10 games. For the moment, we'd pass on the GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT in favor of similarly priced higher-performance DirectX 9 cards. If you're willing to spend a little more, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB provides vastly superior performance."

I have seen so many stupid ppl point out facts without realizing that the 8600 is a directx 10 card, and what does that means that one of the main advantages of DX10 is it is new architecture that will boos performance

So that means that the next games to get release with DX10 and DX9 will run A LOT better and faster in DX10...

Have seen so many stupid ppl thinking they are right well u are WRONG...

And another thing both of your pcs blow...

To the thread starter buy a 8800gts OCed 320mb or 640mb is almost the same **** just a few games use all that memory and thats in really high resolutions like 1800 and up with really high resolution textures

I got a XFX 8800gts 320mb, e6400, 2gb ddr2 800 and i run everything maxxed with my 19" LCD res 1440x900 not even a hiccup

I got a XFX 8800gts 320mb, e6400, 2gb ddr2 800 and i run everything maxxed with my 19" LCD res 1440x900 not even a hiccup

bl1ndz0r

I run a similar setup (with an Athlon 64 5600+ instead) and I easily max out anything.  For about half the cost of the 8800GTX, the 8800GTS 320 MB is such a beast and a great value since it's half the cost and still has 3/4 the rendering power of it's undisabled cousin.

I have to warn you these cards BREAK.

 My 7900gs worked great for all of a few months.

 Now every game is filled with artifacts, and occassional crashes.

Thousands of people have this problem.  It affects all 7900 series cards.  If you do not believe me simply google 7900 problems.

 I am replacing my card today with an 8800 640mb because it comes with a nice cushy lifetime warranty.

Just stay away from the 7900 series. 

I have to warn you these cards BREAK.

My 7900gs worked great for all of a few months.BrianJamesBlue

I've had a 7900 GT since march 2006 and it works perfectly fine :D

[QUOTE="basersx"]

[QUOTE="KorJax"]Yes, but thats only because thats how the current drivers and current DX9 games run with them (were they using vista?).  Its also been said by Gamespot and other websites that actual DX10 "next-next gen" games might run on the 8600 ALOT better than compairable DX9 video cards for the same price.  Not to mention once driver improvements come around.bl1ndz0r

Man I am so tired of having to post this over and over. 

Review #1 - http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/22/

"I think everybody expected the 8600 series to perform better in games. The GT is merely 15% faster than a 7600 GT in most scenarios; with the GTS performing at roughly 7900 GS or Radeon X1950 Pro performance. A Radeon X1950 Pro or 7900 GS for example will outperform the GTS in many scenarios and is a good amount cheaper. I can pick either one of them up here in the Netherlands for 150 EUR. Sure, these cards are not DX10 compatible but I think you'll see a lot of reviews today with exactly the same sentiment. Yours truly expected more performance. The 32 Shader cores and the choice of 128-bit memory are the responsible key issues here, and NVIDIA knows this. This is why the clock frequencies on the cards are so high." 

"I'm extremely curious how a DX10 title like Crysis will perform on cards like these, and while DX10 performance might be a tad better I do not predict anything good. "

Review #2 - http://www.gamespot.com/features/6169151/p-2.html

"The GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT wowed and disappointed us at the same time. Performance in shader intensive games like Oblivion was impressive; however neither of the cards offers performance gains over what you can already purchase in the sub-$200 category. More often than not, the 8600s lag behind the GeForce 7900 GS, the Radeon X1950 Pro, and especially the Radeon X1900 XT. The allure of DirectX 10 support might count for something, but we're not prepared to give Nvidia credit until we see how these cards actually perform with DirectX 10 games. For the moment, we'd pass on the GeForce 8600 GTS and the GeForce 8600 GT in favor of similarly priced higher-performance DirectX 9 cards. If you're willing to spend a little more, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB provides vastly superior performance."

I have seen so many stupid ppl point out facts without realizing that the 8600 is a directx 10 card, and what does that means that one of the main advantages of DX10 is it is new architecture that will boos performance

So that means that the next games to get release with DX10 and DX9 will run A LOT better and faster in DX10...

Have seen so many stupid ppl thinking they are right well u are WRONG...

And you are making a fool of yourself by not understanding DX10.  Both those reviews touch on it with one saying the 8600GTS might run DX10 "a tad" better than it runs DX9 but they do not expect "anything good".  DX10 will require more power to run.  Just like HDR, the early HDR cards were not powerful enough to actually run it.  Looks at the 6600, it "could" run HDR but did not have enough power to actually run any game with it turned on.  The same will be try for the 8600s.  When using for DX10 games it will cripple the performance.  The 8600s are garbage both for DX9 and DX10!

Learn more about DX10 and stop believing the marketing job the industry is spinning.  The 8800GTS will be the slowest card you will want for running ANY games in DX10!  I cant believe there are people like you out there that still think just because a card is DX10 that is is some how going to magicly run DX10 games way faster than it fruns DX9!!  Do you not understand that the 8600s have only 32 shader cores and 128-bit memory???!?!

The first DX9 cards did not run the first games that were DX8/9 "way faster" in DX9 compared to DX8!  A lot of people really do not understand what DirectX is. 

And havnt you learned by now all the hype around hardware and software every single time??   First there was dual channel RAM that was going to make things run "way faster" but it ended up being about 3-5%.  Then it was PCI-E and the early cards that were both saw no increase. Then the buzz was that 64bit CPUs were going to run apps and games "way faster" than 32-bit.  We all now thats not true.  Then dual core was going to run games made for dual "way faster" but in reality it was about 10-15%. 

DX10 is not going to be a big deal. 

apparently the 7950GT'S are good but nothing is wrong with my ati x1600pro, it's a beast

7900GT is very good. But it might be worth splashing out for the 8800GTS.dbowman

I've got a 7900GT and ya it's ok :) but I wish I had a 8800GTS :(

Ade.

I would say get this card...The Geforce 8600

The price is great, It is a DX10 compatible card, and it is pretty powerful.

The review to the sound does sum it up nicely...Clearly runs better then the 7600series..A bit weaker then the 7900. But you scarfice a bit of power for the ability to have both 9/10 compatible. Like lets say you get the 7900...And in two years DX10 is now the standerd. Well congrats...Need to upgrade. With this card you can pull it off either way the ball falls. 

It depends on your definition of a good card for gaming. Some people love their 7300GT and say that is an excellent card. Others say that a 7950 GT is not a very good card.

It depends on your budget and how picky you are on framerates and graphics.

All I can tell you is that I love my much cheaper 7900 GS, and it runs games nicely.

I would say get this card...The Geforce 8600

The price is great, It is a DX10 compatible card, and it is pretty powerful.

The review to the sound does sum it up nicely...Clearly runs better then the 7600series..A bit weaker then the 7900. But you scarfice a bit of power for the ability to have both 9/10 compatible. Like lets say you get the 7900...And in two years DX10 is now the standerd. Well congrats...Need to upgrade. With this card you can pull it off either way the ball falls. 

Acenso

What will it take for you people to learn!!  There is NO WAY the 8600s will be able to run DX10 games 2 years from now!!  It will not even be able to run the first DX10 games!  Just because it supports DX10 does not mean it will be powerful enough to run any of them!! 

The 8600 is the same today as the FX5600 was when DX9 came out, and that FX5600 was not powerful enough to run any of the DX9 games beyong low settings even though it supported them!

Go back and play FarCry on a FX5600 and thats going to be pretty much what you can expect from Crysis on a 8600!

There is certainly some passionate debate occuring here.

Some good points too, mind you, but brand loyalty will always play a part for some gamers.

My upgrade card is six months away and the 8800 series just may be in my price range by that time.

8)

[QUOTE="Acenso"]

I would say get this card...The Geforce 8600

The price is great, It is a DX10 compatible card, and it is pretty powerful.

The review to the sound does sum it up nicely...Clearly runs better then the 7600series..A bit weaker then the 7900. But you scarfice a bit of power for the ability to have both 9/10 compatible. Like lets say you get the 7900...And in two years DX10 is now the standerd. Well congrats...Need to upgrade. With this card you can pull it off either way the ball falls. 

basersx

What will it take for you people to learn!!  There is NO WAY the 8600s will be able to run DX10 games 2 years from now!!  It will not even be able to run the first DX10 games!  Just because it supports DX10 does not mean it will be powerful enough to run any of them!! 

The 8600 is the same today as the FX5600 was when DX9 came out, and that FX5600 was not powerful enough to run any of the DX9 games beyong low settings even though it supported them!

Go back and play FarCry on a FX5600 and thats going to be pretty much what you can expect from Crysis on a 8600!

OMG!  I'm so tired of people like you that think you know everything! But in fact you're totally wrong I had the FX5200 Graphics card and I was able to run games like The Sims 2 with all settings on high with resolutions up to 1280x1024 at decent frame rates >25. So don't tell me you can't play DX9 games on that card. But of course the 8600 won't perform as good as the 8800 but it will support DX10 and it will be able to play the new DX10 games with standard resolutions and medium settings.
DX10 will be a great step forward, and it will add support for new features.  So I think if you can afford a DX10 card by it, but if you can't, by a 7 series card.

[QUOTE="Acenso"]

I would say get this card...The Geforce 8600

The price is great, It is a DX10 compatible card, and it is pretty powerful.

The review to the sound does sum it up nicely...Clearly runs better then the 7600series..A bit weaker then the 7900. But you scarfice a bit of power for the ability to have both 9/10 compatible. Like lets say you get the 7900...And in two years DX10 is now the standerd. Well congrats...Need to upgrade. With this card you can pull it off either way the ball falls. 

basersx

What will it take for you people to learn!!  There is NO WAY the 8600s will be able to run DX10 games 2 years from now!!  It will not even be able to run the first DX10 games!  Just because it supports DX10 does not mean it will be powerful enough to run any of them!! 

The 8600 is the same today as the FX5600 was when DX9 came out, and that FX5600 was not powerful enough to run any of the DX9 games beyong low settings even though it supported them!

Go back and play FarCry on a FX5600 and thats going to be pretty much what you can expect from Crysis on a 8600!

I like your analogy with the GeforceFX, those cards were pure crap until the release of the 5900's.

I'll stick with the X1950XT for now until the test results come for Crysis AND ATI releases their new line of GPUs, which of course nobody has bothered to mention as an alternative to Nvidia. 

My money's on basersx prediction on the 8600's performance.

[QUOTE="basersx"][QUOTE="Acenso"]

I would say get this card...The Geforce 8600

The price is great, It is a DX10 compatible card, and it is pretty powerful.

The review to the sound does sum it up nicely...Clearly runs better then the 7600series..A bit weaker then the 7900. But you scarfice a bit of power for the ability to have both 9/10 compatible. Like lets say you get the 7900...And in two years DX10 is now the standerd. Well congrats...Need to upgrade. With this card you can pull it off either way the ball falls. 

Arcadius

What will it take for you people to learn!!  There is NO WAY the 8600s will be able to run DX10 games 2 years from now!!  It will not even be able to run the first DX10 games!  Just because it supports DX10 does not mean it will be powerful enough to run any of them!! 

The 8600 is the same today as the FX5600 was when DX9 came out, and that FX5600 was not powerful enough to run any of the DX9 games beyong low settings even though it supported them!

Go back and play FarCry on a FX5600 and thats going to be pretty much what you can expect from Crysis on a 8600!

I like your analogy with the GeforceFX, those cards were pure crap until the release of the 5900's.

I'll stick with the X1950XT for now until the test results come for Crysis AND ATI releases their new line of GPUs, which of course nobody has bothered to mention as an alternative to Nvidia. 

My money's on basersx prediction on the 8600's performance.

Thanks, and I'm not saying that the 8xxx line is going to be as bad as the FX line but I am saying that the 8600s are going to be just as weak as the 6600s and the 5600s.  And there is no way there is going to be some magical performance boost because its DX10.  Like I said there was no magical performance boost from DX9 over DX8 either.  And spending more money for a slower 8600GTS compared to a much faster X1950XT just because the 8600 has DX10 is just stupid.

Crysis will run better in DX9 on an X1950XT than it will in DX10 on an 8600GTS.

Plus here's a nice linky with info about the Radeon X2600: http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/22/ati-radeon-hd-2600-xt-snapped-in-the-wild/2#comments

I think it will be a much better buy than the 8600, if the OP is willing to wait a while...