8600/8500 reviews?

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?
[/quote]

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

 

[nemesismk2]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: nemesismk2
I expected more from the 8600 GTS because it costs from £140 to £160. In comparison you can get a x1950 Pro for £95 to £134 or a Geforce 7900 GS for £110 to £150.

Hope the price of the 8600 GTS falls quickly in the UK because it's performance just isn't good enough!

I don't think it'll take much for AMD/ATI to beat the midrange from Nvidia on both price and performance,we should know soon.

Yeah if the rumours are true and the price is right then I don't think AMD-ATI can fail to beat the 8600 GTS.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: bwall04
Legit Review article...tons of cards tested against it.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/486/1/

For the hardocp review and people that like the 8600 series...So if there are no DX 10 games out now why would I buy a card with mediocre performance in the games that I play right now when the performance in DX 10 is unknown and we will likely have new hardware between now and then?

It beats the previous mid-range at the same price and competes well in some cases against the previous high end.

I guess you want a $20 video card that beats 2 of the best cards from the last gen. Good luck.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

 

[bwall04]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: bwall04
Legit Review article...tons of cards tested against it.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/486/1/

For the hardocp review and people that like the 8600 series...So if there are no DX 10 games out now why would I buy a card with mediocre performance in the games that I play right now when the performance in DX 10 is unknown and we will likely have new hardware between now and then?

It beats the previous mid-range at the same price and competes well in some cases against the previous high end.

I guess you want a $20 video card that beats 2 of the best cards from the last gen. Good luck.

Show me that it beats, in every single test, the midrange from last gen and more than one or two tests where it competes against the high end from last gen...please, I beg you.

At best it's slightly faster than mid range last generation (nvidia mid range mind you) and is stomped silly by the 8800 GTS 320MB which can be found within $30 (after MIR) of the overclocked 8600 GTS price range.

Want a card that beats it soundly for less money?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102067

Cheers

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

No, using your logic the competition for the 7600GT would be the 8600GT, not 8600GTS. But clearly NVidia has not released cards in the same organizational structure as it did for the 7000 series, so the best thing we can do is compare real world card prices & performance, and in the real world the 8600GTS is 32SP 128-bit weaksauce.

But that's alright: NVidia will just stop producing the 7900GT, 7950GT, etc, and thereby force folks over to the 8600GTS (or for those with a few extra dollars, the right choice: an 8800GTS.)
Of course this would all be much better if ATi also had something comparable to offer but they're too busy wasting time.

 

[Munky]

Features and Performance of GeForce(R) 8 Series Now Available at Lower Price Points

Marketing BS, the performance is nowhere near that of high end 8-series cards. Nv uses the same tricks over and over. I remember they used the same crap to advertise low end 7-series and 6-series, which sucked balls too.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

So then by your measurement, NVidia currently does not offer a card to compete with the 7900GT right now (which is silly because they do). You can't have it both ways.

What are you talking about? I am asking why somebody thinks a mid ranged card should be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations high end card? All you did was go on about the 7900GT not being high end when it debuted, which it clearly was.

Do you expect the next generation's mid range cards to be a worthy upgrade from the 8800GTX and 8800GTS? I wouldnt so why would you?

 

[happy medium]

I would think the 7900gs was the high end mid range.

7950gx2 - ultra high end
7900gtx - high end
7950gt - med high end
7900gt - low high end
7900gs - high mid range
7600gt - true mid range
7600 gs - low mid range
7300 - low end

8800gtx x2 (or whatever they call it) - ultra high end
8800gtx - ------------------------------highend
8800gts 640 mb ----------------------- mid high end
8800gts 320 mb ------------------------- low high end
Insert 8800gs here. 64 shader.256 bit --high mid range
8600gts -----------------------------------true mid range
8600gt -------------------------------------low mid range
8500 ---------------------------------------low end


Sound about right? I wanna see the high mid range nvidia card. 8600 ultra/8800gs?

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

No, using your logic the competition for the 7600GT would be the 8600GT, not 8600GTS. But clearly NVidia has not released cards in the same organizational structure as it did for the 7000 series, so the best thing we can do is compare real world card prices & performance, and in the real world the 8600GTS is 32SP 128-bit weaksauce.

But that's alright: NVidia will just stop producing the 7900GT, 7950GT, etc, and thereby force folks over to the 8600GTS (or for those with a few extra dollars, the right choice: an 8800GTS.)
Of course this would all be much better if ATi also had something comparable to offer but they're too busy wasting time.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: happy medium
I would think the 7900gs was the high end mid range.

7950gx2 - ultra high end
7900gtx - high end
7900gto - med high end
7950gt - low high end

7900gt - high mid range
7900gs - upper of mid range
7600gt - lower of mid range
7600 gs - low mid range
7300 - low end

8800gtx x2 (or whatever they call it) - ultra high end
8800gtx - ------------------------------highend
8800gts ----------------------- mid high end
8??? ------------------------- low high end
64 shader 256-bit --high mid range [which makes sense since it would replace and outperform the high mid range 7900GT]
8600gts -----------------------------------true mid range
8600gt -------------------------------------low mid range
8500 ---------------------------------------low end


Sound about right? I wanna see the high mid range nvidia card. 8600 ultra/8800gs?

you missed the 7900GTO so I added that in its place and then fixed the rest of the 7000 series from there down.
also the 8800GTS is one card. if different memory counts create a different placement you have even more 7000 series cards missing as some of them offered 256MB and 512MB variants.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

No, using your logic the competition for the 7600GT would be the 8600GT, not 8600GTS. But clearly NVidia has not released cards in the same organizational structure as it did for the 7000 series, so the best thing we can do is compare real world card prices & performance, and in the real world the 8600GTS is 32SP 128-bit weaksauce.

But that's alright: NVidia will just stop producing the 7900GT, 7950GT, etc, and thereby force folks over to the 8600GTS (or for those with a few extra dollars, the right choice: an 8800GTS.)
Of course this would all be much better if ATi also had something comparable to offer but they're too busy wasting time.

You do realize the 7600GT was released with an MSRP between 180 and 230 just like the 8600GTS right? They are the same class of card for each generation. Which again begs the question, why do you think a mid range card should be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations high end?

 

[Pugnate]

Originally posted by: yacoub
I also see now why I don't bother reading HardOCP anymore:

"New GeForce 8600 GTS Shines

If you have been waiting for a DX10 video card capable of playing today's games, your wait is over."

No, no it doesn't, and no, no it isn't. lol with that sort of language why even bother calling it a review? That's pure marketing and advertisement.

And the best part is reading through the comments for that review and seeing how people keep linking other reviews that show how mediocre the 8600GTS performance is, and then Kyle or a HardOCP fan will deride the other review site and claim "oh those other reviews just don't know wtf" but HardOCP should start to wonder when it's pretty much the ONLY one who is giving the card a glowing review and pretty much EVERYBODY else is saying it's a meager performer at best. But no, what are we thinking... Anandtech and all those other sites just don't know wtf. Yeah, ok Kyle.

I have to agree with you. They are totally full of ******.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

No, using your logic the competition for the 7600GT would be the 8600GT, not 8600GTS. But clearly NVidia has not released cards in the same organizational structure as it did for the 7000 series, so the best thing we can do is compare real world card prices & performance, and in the real world the 8600GTS is 32SP 128-bit weaksauce.

But that's alright: NVidia will just stop producing the 7900GT, 7950GT, etc, and thereby force folks over to the 8600GTS (or for those with a few extra dollars, the right choice: an 8800GTS.)
Of course this would all be much better if ATi also had something comparable to offer but they're too busy wasting time.

You do realize ....

You do realize that performance is supposed to go up with a new generation of hardware, right? You do realize that pricing goes up every generation as well (as much as I despise that practice).

So the replacement for the 7900GT which is the high end of the mid-range will be the 64SP 256-bit card that will actually outperform it and probably debut around $350 as well.
The problem is NVidia screwed up their pricing by releasing the 8800GTS 320MB variant as that card even though they should have saved that price bracket for the 64SP 256-bit 7900GT competitor. This works out great for buyers because when they do release the 64SP 256-bit card it will have to be priced lower than the 8800GTS in order to compete. Win win for that card's audience!

 

[happy medium]

Thank you....but I thought that the 7900gto was just a screwed up 7900gtx not a launched card?
That was the impression I got.?

edited for 7900gto

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: happy medium
Thank you....but I thought that was just a screwed up 7900gtx not a launched card?
That was the impression I got.?

Either way if you separate the 8800GTS by RAM variants then you will have to do the same with the 7900GT and 7900GTX which both offered 256 and 512 variants, so the end result in card placement is effectively as I am ordering it, with the 7900GT at the high end of the mid-range. And again that makes the most sense as a logical successor to such a card would outperform it by a decent amount even though NVidia has yet to release such a card and there is a clear space there for it as you and I agree at the 64SP 256-bit level.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am trying to figure out why anybody would expect a mid ranged card to be a worthy upgrade from the previous generations highend card?

You have your cards mixed up. The 7900GT was never the high-end card of its series. It was the highest of the mid-range, as is the 8600GTS as of today. The previous gen's high-end cards were the 7900GTX, 7950GTO, etc. Look at the coolers used on them to help clue you in... in the 7900 series the ones with the dual-slot cooling happened to also be the ones that were their highest-end products.

It was a tier 2 card in the high end. It was priced at 349 out of the gate. The 7600GT was the high end mid range card from the G7.x series.

No, using your logic the competition for the 7600GT would be the 8600GT, not 8600GTS. But clearly NVidia has not released cards in the same organizational structure as it did for the 7000 series, so the best thing we can do is compare real world card prices & performance, and in the real world the 8600GTS is 32SP 128-bit weaksauce.

But that's alright: NVidia will just stop producing the 7900GT, 7950GT, etc, and thereby force folks over to the 8600GTS (or for those with a few extra dollars, the right choice: an 8800GTS.)
Of course this would all be much better if ATi also had something comparable to offer but they're too busy wasting time.

You do realize ....

You do realize that performance is supposed to go up with a new generation of hardware, right?

So the replacement for the 7900GT which is the high end of the mid-range will be the 64SP 256-bit card that will actually outperform it.

A. Is the 8800GTS and GTX faster than the 7900GTX? It appears the 8600GTS is faster than the 7600GT. So that holds true.
B. The replacement for the 7900GT was the 8800 GTS 320 or 640. Both of which blow that cards doors off.

You arent quite getting my point which is that expecting the mid range from the current generation to be a worthy upgrade path from the previous gens high end is silly.

 

[tvdang7]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Quote from Hardocp front page:

The GeForce 8600 GTS series GPU destroys ATI's current X1950 series for right around $220.

Heh, well if they can bring the price to $200 it looks like a good mid-range card. Whoops ZZF has the GTS for $189 that's actually damn good.


i think thats a dumb statement since u can find alot of them for around 170 if not def below 200.

heres a 512mb one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102075
256mb one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102061

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: happy medium
Thank you....but I thought that was just a screwed up 7900gtx not a launched card?
That was the impression I got.?

Either way if you separate the 8800GTS by RAM variants then you will have to do the same with the 7900GT and 7900GTX which both offered 256 and 512 variants, so the end result in card placement is effectively as I am ordering it, with the 7900GT at the high end of the mid-range. And again that makes the most sense as a logical successor to such a card would outperform it by a decent amount even though NVidia has yet to release such a card and there is a clear space there for it as you and I agree at the 64SP 256-bit level.

Huh, you understand the 7900GT had the same number pixel and vertex shaders as the 7900GTX right? The only difference were the clocks and memory sizes. There is more differentiation in the 8800 series cards at the high end than there was in the 7900 series.

 

[yacoub]

The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: happy medium
Thank you....but I thought that was just a screwed up 7900gtx not a launched card?
That was the impression I got.?

Either way if you separate the 8800GTS by RAM variants then you will have to do the same with the 7900GT and 7900GTX which both offered 256 and 512 variants, so the end result in card placement is effectively as I am ordering it, with the 7900GT at the high end of the mid-range. And again that makes the most sense as a logical successor to such a card would outperform it by a decent amount even though NVidia has yet to release such a card and there is a clear space there for it as you and I agree at the 64SP 256-bit level.

If we go by ram variants then the 7900gt and 7950gt are better examples. The 7900gtx was in a different class all together.:thumbsup:

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
The 7600GT was more than a replacement for your 6800GT and these new cards handily outperform that.

nonsense. 7600gt was barely faster than a 6800gt. these will be about twice as fast as a 6800gt.

The 7600 GT outperformed the 6800 GT by about 20% on average, or the 6800 GT has 4/5 of the performance.

The 8600 GTS on the other hand varies, sometimes it barely on par with the 7900 GS, while sometimes it is at 7950 GT levels, 3D Mark 2005, 3D Mark 2006 and Oblivion for that. Quake 4 is about 7900 GT level, Splinter Cell no AA is about 7900 GT level, while with AA it drops behind the 7900 GS

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.

Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?

The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

I just can 't see Nvidia leaving this much of a performance gap 8600gts to 8800gts with nothing to fill the void. I agree there must some kind of card in the middle here that will be released. Hopefully soon.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.

Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?

Agreed.

The 7600 GT was a price replacement for the initial introduction of the 6600 GT, as the 8600 GTS is a price replacement for the initial introduction of 7600 GT.

However the 7600 GT came in when the 6600 GT MSRP had dropped down to 149US, with the 6800 GS at 249US.

Same thing here the MSRP of the 7600 GT is now 149US, with the 7900 GS holding the 199US MSRP point.

If your talking about performance successors then yes, the 8600 GT is the replacement for the 7600 GT, same performance greater feature set, just how the 7600 GS was the performance replacement for the 6600 GT, same performance roughly cheaper, cooler and less costly to fabricate.