Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
Like the Duke said, you can get better image quality if you opt for a Radeon x1900 series GPU. I disagree with him on the x1900GT (especially it's being faster than the 7900GT - in most game tests in that Tech Report review I linked in my last post, just the opposite was true).
With new Catalyst 6.8 X1900GT is faster or has similar performances as 7900GT. I posted links to Anandtech. And those tests are fresh. Not to mention that GeForce 7 series can’t HDR+AA.

Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
I'm waiting for the price to drop a little bit more to jump on an x1950GT, but if I couldn't find that extra money, I'd choose a quality x1900XT with a non-reference cooling solution (like the HIS Hightech H190XTQ512DVN Radeon X1900XT) instead.
There is no card X1950GT. Only X1950XTX. Best buy now is Radeon X1900XT with 256 MB.

Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
If you want to stick with NVidia, you're better served picking a 7900GS (256Mb) at the lower price point, or a 7950GT (512Mb) if more funds are available. The 7900GS just about matches the 7900GT, for a good bit less money - the 7950GT definitely outperforms the 7900GT, for little or no extra cash.
Those cards are not worth for that money. Radeon X1900GT has price as GeForce 7900GS and is a far away faster.

Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
Switching subjects now - let's look at motherboards. Your MSI choice has one dominating factor - low price. Other than that, it doesn't offer much else. It's not a particularly good overclocker, and will never support any form of dual-slot GPU capability (SLI or CrossFire).
I agree 100% about MSI motherboards.

Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
If you want to stick with budget boards, but want a good overclocer, I'd strongly recommend the GIGABYTE GA-965P-S3. It's got a better layout than the MSI, and reports are that it screams happily at very high frequencies.
DS3 cost little more and is better.

Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
In my next board purchase, I'm insisting on the ability to support SLI or CrossFire, even if I don't start out with two graphics cards. That way, I can start out with one GPU when new, then upgrade later to a 2nd GPU (after prices have dropped) for a mid-life refresh.
SLi and CrossFire based systems are waste of money. Why?

1. You need powerful processor.
2. Need very good motherboard with support and they have high price.
3. It only worth for playing games above 1600x1200 resolutions.
4. For playing in those resolutions you need large (over 20”) and quality monitor which cost pretty.
5. SLi and CrossFire are marketing of nVidia and ATI.
6. Need more arguments?

Conclusion: waste of money.

Quote Originally Posted by Geezer57
In my next board purchase, I'm insisting on the ability to support SLI or CrossFire, even if I don't start out with two graphics cards. That way, I can start out with one GPU when new, then upgrade later to a 2nd GPU (after prices have dropped) for a mid-life refresh.
Ah, typical marketing of nVidia (ATI lesser use that in promotion) – next year I will sell my old graphics card and buy the new DX10 which will wipe out your SLi or CrossFire based system and your solution will cost you more than mine.
Arguments:
1. SLi/CrossFire motherboards cost more than non SLi/CrossFire models.
2. You need high quality power supply (SLi/CrossFire certified).
3. You need very good case for cooling because of high heat.
4. Plus 5 previous arguments…

Conclusion: it’s not worth except if you can find two GeForce 7900GS cards for $200 and put in SLi. This combination is faster than single Radeon X1950XTX or GeForce 7900GTX and cost less than those two cards but GeForce 7xxx can’t HDR+AA.