[QUOTE="lonewolf_kai"]heres a 8800 gts with 640 mb for $200 (rebate), but the core clock is only 576 mhz. is that too slow? the 512 8800 gt i was looking at was 650 mhzSpybot_9

forgot to put the link in:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130317

lonewolf_kai

Anyways that card is a G80 based one which do have slower clocks then G92 however they have more bandwitch and VRAM which makes up for it.

The card you have linked is a good one and is better than 8800GT but only get it if you cant get an 8800GTS 512MB for the same price.

And when you talk about core clocks you do know that those can be overclocked or are you just too afraid to do it?:P

okay, now im really confused. wouldnt a 8800 gts with 640 mb be a better card than the 8800 gts with 512 mb??

and, i take it that ntun is for geforces?

forgot to put the link in:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130317

im an nvidia fanboy now. didnt used to be. used to go with either ati or geforce. however, with the last two experiences i have had with ati support, i will not be going back to it ever again. they basically screwed me over, first time wasn't too bad, but second time was just crappy on their part, but thats a whole different story.

anyways, i was looking at the reviews for the 8800gt and gts, and theres not that much different other than 112 shaders vs 128. i'm using tom's reviews too btw. however, with the 8800 gt, i can get 650 mhz core clock and with the gts its 678. one is $174, the other is $194.

how do you guys feel about the game market's push for higher and higher graphics output? do you think the games in the near future will start having requirements like crysis and assassin's creed?