The 7900GTX might be faster than say an 8600 but I would get an 8 series...
Go to this page..
Ignore everything except for the Texture MT/s. That tells you how many million textiles per second the card can push through. Knotice the 7900GTX can process 15,600, while all the lower 8XXX series including the 8600 is less than 10,000
However as soon as you enter the 8800 range you get 24k -39k
Thats a huge jump. Plus its Direct X 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of...rocessing_Units
The only plus with the ATI HD 3XXX range is it supports Direct X 10.1
The Radeon HD 3870 which comes out on the 19th does only 12K textiles.
Granted there are other variables (Memory Bandwidth being a big one to look at) but I use raw textile power as a gague for me to compare them.
I am not an ATI fan, I never have been, the only thing ATI i own is a Wii
. But I have to admit they did beat nVidia to the DX10.1
Personaly I am waiting for GeForce 9 series. Shouldent bee too much longer. And should blow everything away, and support DX10.1
One thing to note is DX10 doesnt mean crap if you arnt running vista.
So if you are an XP guy I would but the 8800GT its cheaper and more power ful than the 8800GTS.
XFX GeForce 8800GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - 269 at newegg.com