Well, the question is in the thread title! Can get both for around the same price, so which one is best to get? From the reviews ive seen the 9600gt is a bit faster, bearing in mind for the next year at least im only going to be able to run 1024x768 resolution, so high res performance isnt a deciding factor, but lower resolution and aa/af will be
The benchmark by TomsHardware showed the 9600GT was quicker with antialiasing enabled, disabled the 3870 was quicker. The author at one point recommended the 9600GT to people who don't use antialiasing.
IMO the 9600GT is awesome, I'm getting one in two weeks. It destroys the 8600GT and even tops out the 256MB version of the 8800!
lots more choice of 9600's in USA, only 3 or four makes here that i can find at the moment. http://guru3d.com/article/Videocards/501/1/ been using this review to read up a few bits, some intresting points of diffrent "makes" of the card
jakg: Ill be getting round to a new monitor in a years time (or maybe i can manage to "borrow" my sisters one she bought) so id rather the card was up to high resolutions when the time comes, rather then buying an hd3850 and a montior then needing a more powerful card as soon as i get the 3850. The card has to last a while.
I suggest the nvidia. Overall, it does seem like a better card, and providing your other bits like PSU, Processor and RAM is upto the job, you should be able to play the latest games out atm.
p.s i think its a good idea to get this instead of a monitor. I dont see the point in people shouting "OMGz!! GeTZ a MONiT0rZ!" when your graphics card wont have the power to make the most of it anyway. So ye, get things like graphics card out the way, then worry about a monitor.
Don’t invest in hardware… This is the wrong thing to do; buy a good video card when you have a proper monitor.
There will not de that much difference over time… in 2 years 3850 - 3870 – 9600GT, all will be the same crap.
Buy the hardware at the time you need it… not one year earlier.
But what is the point in investing in a expensive monitor when he most likely wont be able to enjoy it anyway? Lets say the highest his monitor res can go now is 1280x1024, and thats the most his card can take atm. He goes out, and buys a lovely new monitor. He installs it, and then changes the res in a game like, lets say LFS to something high, for example, 1980x1024. He would not be able to get FULL usability of this anyway, as the hardware he has now would hardly be able to play at that res. I know you will most likely reply to this saying "yes, but 1280x1024 on x monitor, will be better than the monitor he has now". So what? There is no point in buying an expensive monitor, if you dont have the power to use it to its fullest. If i was rob, i would get the hardware out the way, so he knows it can last him for a while, and THEN get the monitor as i think doing the monitor first is silly.
Because you can use a monitor in other activities apart from LFS. (watching movies or just having a bigger desktop for more comfortable use of some applications…)
Because a monitor comparing to any other pc part is an investment… usually you keep it as long as it continues to offer enough size & resolution for your needs.
It takes longer to save for a med-good monitor than saving for a med-good card.
Videocards depreciate way faster.
IMO just keep saving till you have enough cash to buy them both… but if you have to buy something first, that should be the monitor.
but all that is just useless talk if robt is happy with his monitor.
In that way I would choose the cheaper card from both chips
This kind of mentality is.... let's say not the smartest.
-There are 70% Nvidia users in this forum maybe, 20 Ati, 10% rest/onboard/... stuff.
-Everyone seems to be quite happy with his choice.
-nvidia users would like to "help out" their favourite company, same for ati users.
-read 3-10 unbiased reviews and get the one of your choice, since you never have exactly the same system as they use in the tests, there might be slight differences anyway. So don't count every single frame, see how much a card would be worth for you and take the one that gives you the fastest pixel for the least money I'd say.
Thanks for the replies, a few things to help clear peoples minds:
I have a £400 budget which is loaned from my sister as i have no job atm and need to build a new pc as mine has blown up. i have ~£120 left for a graphics card.
My monitor is an old 13"(or 15" cant remember) CRT that runs 1024x768 MAX. But i will be upgrading this some time next year, and may be able to borrow my sisters flat screen (which does higher res) in the meantime. the money i have left is SOLELY for a graphics card. Otherwise id have a cheap-ish new monitor whilst having to run an onboard ati x1200 chip
It seems the Nvidia 9600GT is winning so far. looking at benchmarks they come about the same (though its about 60-40 to the 9600GT) its also a touch cheaper.
seems the 9600gt is the one to go for, but ill wait till next week for you guys n girls to reason otherwise
Do you like to use antialiasing? This seems to be the major difference between the two, although neither card will do very well with AA enabled, they just don't have the muscle, or rather, pixel processors. However I think you could use 2x AA without much trouble in most games. Anyways, if you like AA, you might be better off with the 3870, otherwise the 9600GT is the hands down winner. In my experience with Vista Nvidia has done a better job with drivers, although if you're running another OS this won't be much of an issue.
While they both support DirectX10 (Shader Model 4.0), the 3870 supports DirectX 10.1 (Shader Model 4.1), but I don't think this is a detail worth giving much thought.
In the end, the Nvidia card comes out on top, no matter how you look at it (with the exception of AA). Also, they both support PCI Express 2.0.
will be buying the 9600 soon
