8800GT vs 9600GT @1280x1024 and..

[penguin1]

i know there's already a similar thread on this but that was before the 9600GT was released.

I am having a hard time choosing between these two cards. The price difference is abt $50 or there about. I'm using a 19" lcd (1280x1024) and my requirement is at least 4x AA and 16x AF in most newer games (cept for crysis etc.. but i still hope to play it with 2x AA and all med settings perhaps?)

i dun intend to change my lcd anytime soon. and reviews i find online these days only show/uses 1600res and above for their benchmarks so i have little clue on how a 9600GT will perform against it's elder brother at 1280x1024...

anyone have any 1st hand exp here at gpureview?

thanks in advance

[Radiator]

Well , the 8800 GT is always a bit faster , but both of them will run (almost) any game at 1280x1024 and 4xAA/16xAF . But why bother with AA anyway , if you're running at your monitor's native resolution ?

[aVaLaNcHe]

I find that the 8800GT is more than enough at 1280x1024 when I turn the SLI off. Runs all that you've asked for, plus Crysis on all high with 2xAA.

[Headfoot]

If you want AA use the 8800 GT.

Radiator -- Never question the AA!! :eek:

[Radiator]

I just don't see the point in it to be honest , it just slows the game down ( a bit on some cards , a lot on others ) . If you run games at your monitor's native resolution , and sit about 60 CM away , then you'll hardly notice the pixels .

[penguin1]

I just don't see the point in it to be honest , it just slows the game down ( a bit on some cards , a lot on others ) . If you run games at your monitor's native resolution , and sit about 60 CM away , then you'll hardly notice the pixels .

60cm is damn far.. i only sit abt 25-35cm away.. and yea i get ur point but native resolution + 4x AA will make it look perfect dun u agree?!

[Headfoot]

Actually AA is extremely noticable on 2x, 4x and 8x settings. Occasionally you can tell at 16x but its really not worth it. So if you do that and run it at native resolution you get a dramatic increase in image quality.

Here's a site thats got a pretty clear delineation of AA with pictures!!
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6168650/p-2.html

[maleficarus™]

Actually AA is extremely noticable on 2x, 4x and 8x settings. Occasionally you can tell at 16x but its really not worth it. So if you do that and run it at native resolution you get a dramatic increase in image quality.

Here's a site thats got a pretty clear delineation of AA with pictures!!
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6168650/p-2.html

That was a good link showing the differences. Me personally I use 2X FSAA with 2X AF in 1024x768@100Hz

[Radiator]

60cm is damn far.. i only sit abt 25-35cm away.. and yea i get ur point but native resolution + 4x AA will make it look perfect dun u agree?!

Yeah... well , when I'm in front of my PC , I'm half lieing down ( I have a stool under the table on which I rest my feet on :P ) .
But yeah... well 4xAA undoubtably looks better , but I just don't think it's worth it .