4650-512 is still around $150. Palit's 2GB 250 is $170. 20 bucks is not much for a recently updated card with an extra 1.5GB video memory. Even though I don't defend NVidia's renaming policy in any way, I don't see the release of gts 250 as the end of the times. We all know 250=9800+ and they will sell it even cheaper so what's the problem? I think it would have been much more confusing if we've had 8800 gts v1, 8800 gts v2 (9800+), 8800 gts v3 (250). Now at least we know which one is which.Originally Posted by perkam
I had a chance to compare 9800+ with a 8800GTX in the same system and saw that 9800+ performs slighly better with less power consumption and smaller footprint. I purchased my 8800gtx for $700 (sold it for $100), paid $180 for a 9800+ 1gb (3 months back). So if they will sell GTS 250 for 150 bucks, I think it's a fair deal. I would definetely pay $170 for Palit's 2gb model and feel good about it. As far as 4850 vs. 250 goes, I think it's a personal choice. Most 4850 owners in this forum paid $180-$200 for their cards (I know it because they've been preaching about their cards since the day it came out) so nobody should be judged if they prefer to purchase a $150-dollar card performing same as 4850 or maybe slightly worse in one of two games. If I need to buy a video card now, I wouldn't try to get a 8800gts because it's basically the same chip. I'd go with 250 because it is a cheap, updated version. I don't care what Nvida calls it.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks