8800GTS 320mb reviews and conclusion

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
this is all with current games tho.. what will performance of UT3, Crysis, etc. be between the 320 & 640mb version? maybe nothing; may be alot. it's all speculation. with rebates on the 640mb version, seems if you're gonna spend over $300 anyway, another $40-50 is not such a high price to pay...

In the UK, the difference is more like $120 :thumbsdown:

ouch

sorry to hear

 

[Sniper82]

I am about $100 short . I sold my X1800XT few weeks ago for $200, glad I did because me waiting a couple months will get me a better card for almost nothing .

 

[Smartazz]

If I game at 1280 by 1024, would it make sense for me to get the 320mb instead of the 640mb?

 

[Keysplayr]

I have a question. Actually a few simple questions. I want to buy a 22" widescreen LCD. I currently use a 19"CRT for gaming and work. I generally game at 1280x1024. I really just want the LCD for my work. A nice big wide screen would be real nice. HOWEVER, would I still be able to game at my 1280x1024 res or similar? Because I don't think my 7900GT can handle anything higher at the quality settings I am using.

To break it down:

I currently have a 19" CRT run by a 7900GT.

I currently game happily at 1280x1024 with some nice IQ settings.(mainly CoD2 and not much else).

I want a 22" wide screen primarily for work.

Will I be forced to run CoD2 at the native resolution of the 22" widescreen? Which I think is 1680x1050? Cause I think my 7900GT may choke on that.

Should I even consider a 8800GTS 320 to run at that res? or should I just get the 640MB version?

Sorry for all the questions, but I need to know as my current monitor is getting blurry and I need to replace it soon.

Thanks,
Keys

 

[Kampfire]

Originally posted by: Smartazz
If I game at 1280 by 1024, would it make sense for me to get the 320mb instead of the 640mb?

I'd like to know this too.

 

[Sniper82]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I have a question. Actually a few simple questions. I want to buy a 22" widescreen LCD. I currently use a 19"CRT for gaming and work. I generally game at 1280x1024. I really just want the LCD for my work. A nice big wide screen would be real nice. HOWEVER, would I still be able to game at my 1280x1024 res or similar? Because I don't think my 7900GT can handle anything higher at the quality settings I am using.

Yes you will be able to but the games won't look near as good as they could be when running at the monitors(LCD) native res. With COD2 and a 7900GT you might be able to pull the monitors native res off and it be playable. Probably depends on if you have to have AA or not.

Originally posted by: Kampfire

Originally posted by: Smartazz
If I game at 1280 by 1024, would it make sense for me to get the 320mb instead of the 640mb?

I'd like to know this too.

I don't think it is unless you think you might be upping that res before your next upgrade. If you don't run a LCD at its native res IMO the quality bites. At least the ones I've seen has.

 

[BFG10K]

Some big hits in modern games confirming what I've been saying for a long time that 256 MB can choke in certain games.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Some big hits in modern games confirming what I've been saying for a long time that 256 MB can choke in certain games.

Compared to what? It performs better than a x1950xtx with 512mb of memory. At only $299 that's pretty darn impressive.

 

[BFG10K]

It performs better than a x1950xtx with 512mb of memory.

Yeah, with no AA enabled. In every game except HL2 it's slower than a X1950 XTX when 4xAA is enabled.

Surely you aren't suggesting people buy these sorts of cards to run without AA?

The fact is the RAM cut is really crippling the card, moreso than most expected I'd wager.

 

[josh6079]

Compared to what? It performs better than a x1950xtx with 512mb of memory. At only $299 that's pretty darn impressive.

Depends on the resolution and AA settings - Click

Looks like a decent card, but only if the price is significantly lower than the normal GTS. Otherwise it's pretty much worthless IMO.

 

[secretanchitman]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
We only have like 3 weeks until the 8600 Ultra, right? I think I'll still wait for that.

i agree. 8600 Ultra (rumored to be 512MB with 256bit) against an 8800GTS 320MB/640MB. that should be a good match.

this is reminding me of the 6600GT vs the 6800nu. 6600GT was slightly faster at stock, but if you overclock (unlock possibly) and/or turn on AA, the 6800nu wins hands down.

 

[Remedy]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
this is all with current games tho.. what will performance of UT3, Crysis, etc. be between the 320 & 640mb version? maybe nothing; may be alot. it's all speculation. with rebates on the 640mb version, seems if you're gonna spend over $300 anyway, another $40-50 is not such a high price to pay...

Totally agree.

I wonder how the performance is in comparison to a pair of 7900GTX's in SLI for those people who already slammed their chips on the table last summer. It doesn't seem like a worthy upgrade at all if you already own a X1950XTX single or in Crossfire. And for those with 7900GTX's single or SLI.

I would like to see how the GTS performs in SLI though.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Originally posted by: Remedy
I would like to see how the GTS performs in SLI though.

Read the Guru3D review listed in the OP.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

It performs better than a x1950xtx with 512mb of memory.

Yeah, with no AA enabled. In every game except HL2 it's slower than a X1950 XTX when 4xAA is enabled.

Surely you aren't suggesting people buy these sorts of cards to run without AA?

The fact is the RAM cut is really crippling the card, moreso than most expected I'd wager.

QFT

 

[Munky]

Lame AT review, as usual. The card costs $300, and it's supposedly a good deal because it runs games well without AA? They definitely wouldn't mention how it does with TRAA then... :roll:

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hard..._320mb/11/#abschnitt_company_of_heroes

 

[chizow]

The higher resolution you run, the less need there is for AA. I'd rather run 1920x1200 with no AA and no AF and get 60+ frames instead of 1280x1024 with 10,055X AA and 45,485X AF with < 30fps. Fact of the matter is that anything over 1920 w/ AA is borderline unplayable on anything short of an 8800GTX in most current games, and its only going to get worst in future games. Simply put, gaming at high resolutions and AA/AF cranked up simply don't mix well with newer games. And history repeats itself.

Personally I think there's more at play than simply a lack of memory for the frame buffer at high resolutions w/ AA. Something as simple as a driver optimization that more efficiently caches/clears the frame buffer on the 320MB part would probably improve performance dramatically. There's no other explanation for how the 256MB X1900 parts outperform the 320MB GTS in some of the higher resolution benchmarks with AA enabled other than poor memory allocation/management by the driver.

 

[nitromullet]

A lot of interesting points made here, but this is how I see it...

Right now, I think the X1950XTX is probably the better card for the money. However, once DX10 titles start to make their debut the 8800GTS 320MB may just prove to be the 7900GT of '07, or it may just prove itself to not have enough RAM to handle DX10 games realistically. Still, with the 8800 you actually have the chance of running DX10 games, whereas with the X1950XTX you don't. So, if I was considering the two aforementioned cards for purchase, I'd still go with the 8800GTS 320MB.

There are actually a few interesting (IMO) ironnies with this card:

1) Why, in a world of the FX5200 512MB, do we see the currently most powerful GPU getting paired up with less RAM?

2) This card would be pretty ideal (and would fit that 7900GT niche) for the frequent upgrader, sadly enough the people that buy "budget minded" higher end gear are usually not the most frequent upgraders and usually are looking for a long term bang for the buck. Two years from now there will be some people kicking themselves for not coughing up the extra $50-80.

3) This card is targeted to the somewhat novice high end card purchaser or the O/C speed demon deal hunter, but honestly I think more towards the former. Ironnically, the novice segment is most impressed with RAM size and will most likely opt for the aforementioned FX5200 512MB over the 8800GTS 320MB because, well "it's got more RAM for less money".

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: chizow
The higher resolution you run, the less need there is for AA. I'd rather run 1920x1200 with no AA and no AF and get 60+ frames instead of 1280x1024 with 10,055X AA and 45,485X AF with < 30fps. Fact of the matter is that anything over 1920 w/ AA is borderline unplayable on anything short of an 8800GTX in most current games, and its only going to get worst in future games. Simply put, gaming at high resolutions and AA/AF cranked up simply don't mix well with newer games. And history repeats itself.

Personally I think there's more at play than simply a lack of memory for the frame buffer at high resolutions w/ AA. Something as simple as a driver optimization that more efficiently caches/clears the frame buffer on the 320MB part would probably improve performance dramatically. There's no other explanation for how the 256MB X1900 parts outperform the 320MB GTS in some of the higher resolution benchmarks with AA enabled other than poor memory allocation/management by the driver.

I agree. I just dont think nVIDIA has got around optimizing for performance (as you can see with the driver problem). There is inconsistency in performance when for example AA is enabled for SS2 etc. So i do believe when these are sorted out in the nearby future (although i have no clue how long that is), i would expect this card to atleast rival the X1950XTX 512mb while the 8800GTS 640mb model becomes quite abit more faster.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: chizow
The higher resolution you run, the less need there is for AA. I'd rather run 1920x1200 with no AA and no AF and get 60+ frames instead of 1280x1024 with 10,055X AA and 45,485X AF with < 30fps. Fact of the matter is that anything over 1920 w/ AA is borderline unplayable on anything short of an 8800GTX in most current games, and its only going to get worst in future games. Simply put, gaming at high resolutions and AA/AF cranked up simply don't mix well with newer games. And history repeats itself.

Personally I think there's more at play than simply a lack of memory for the frame buffer at high resolutions w/ AA. Something as simple as a driver optimization that more efficiently caches/clears the frame buffer on the 320MB part would probably improve performance dramatically. There's no other explanation for how the 256MB X1900 parts outperform the 320MB GTS in some of the higher resolution benchmarks with AA enabled other than poor memory allocation/management by the driver.

agreed.

 

[lopri]

I agree with many opinions in this thread. I'll just re-post a few screenshots that I took in recent past.

Memory Usage 1: Oblivion 1600x1200
Memory Usage 2: Company of Heroes 1600x1200

Both games were run @1600x1200/4AA/16AF/High Quality.

 

[lopri]

I wonder why Derek hasn't tested Oblivion with AA enabled. We know that HDR+AA is one of the selling points of G80. The way he compares can be quite misleading. I think the following chart is closer to the truth.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=7&artpage=2334&articID=543

With just 4AA, 640 MB is 20% faster than 320 MB.

And I'd like to see Company of Heroes benches, too. This game is the most memory hogging game I've ever seen by far. (be it local memory or system memory)

 

[josh6079]

I wonder why Derek hasn't tested Oblivion with AA enabled.

Because Anandtech is inept at providing realistic benches when it comes to Oblivion. When the R5x series emerged with the ability to do HDR+AA, that feature went unsung on Anandtech's benches for the sole reason that nVidia couldn't do it as well. Now that nVidia has finally been able to do it since November, they still have yet to bench Oblivion the way most enthusiasts are playing it.

I made a previous thread concerning this issue. Anandtech just can't be bothered. They need to provide some better GPU benchmarks, such as the ones found at Hard, Rage3D, Xbit, etc.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: lopri
I wonder why Derek hasn't tested Oblivion with AA enabled. We know that HDR+AA is one of the selling points of G80. The way he compares can be quite misleading. I think the following chart is closer to the truth.

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=7&artpage=2334&articID=543

With just 4AA, 640 MB is 20% faster than 320 MB.

And I'd like to see Company of Heroes benches, too. This game is the most memory hogging game I've ever seen by far. (be it local memory or system memory)

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI4MSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Remedy
I would like to see how the GTS performs in SLI though.

It would still only have a 320mb frame buffer correct? So then you would still be bandwidth limited?

 

[munisgtm]

Originally posted by: Kampfire

Originally posted by: Smartazz
If I game at 1280 by 1024, would it make sense for me to get the 320mb instead of the 640mb?

I'd like to know this too.

this card is THE ONE for you