24" LCD users!

[Matt2]

Trying to decide between the 8800GTS 640mb and the 8800GTX.

I just got this Gateway 24" and I know I need at least the 8800GTS to push games at the native res with full settings.

I like the 8800GTS at the <$400 price point, but I wanted to see if the GTS was really enough for you guys.

Do you regret not getting the GTX?

Thanks.

 

[lavaheadache]

running with a GTX on a dell 2407. I'm pretty sure your not going to get huge improvements from your current X1900XTX to a GTS besides the obvious dx10 support. i did a lot of research before purchasing the GTX, and found many times that the GTS was very close in performance as the X1900 XT 512 I was already gaming on. Needless to say I'm very happy with my decision to not go with a GTS

 

[firewolfsm]

Actually, the evga gts is under $300 now. It is a good deal, but I think you should either get the gtx or wait a little longer for new cards to lower prices.

 

[postmortemIA]

I'm running most games at native with X1950Pro.

 

[CloE]

GTS is sufficient enough for 24in LCD resolutions. but since you got cash for 24in LCD, why not another $500 for the GTX ??

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I'm running most games at native with X1950Pro.

You're braver than I my friend.

My X1900XTX wasnt cutting it for me even at 1680x1050 with my 20.1".

Another $500 might get me stabbed by my girlfriend... hmm...

 

[Painman]

GTX is more $ for sure, but I think it has a better shot of staying inside one's PC for a couple years than the GTS. Of course we still need to see how it performs in an actual DX10 game... Either way, it's got more headroom than GTS (and therefore promise for longevity) and I get the impression a GTS is near its limit driving that kind of res.

 

[gramboh]

If you have a lot of money to spend, just get either from eVGA then use step-up to an 8900 within (hopefully) 90 days. It looks like R600 might make it out within 90 days in which case I'd expect 8900's as well.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
I'm running most games at native with X1950Pro.

You're braver than I my friend.

My X1900XTX wasnt cutting it for me even at 1680x1050 with my 20.1".

Another $500 might get me stabbed by my girlfriend... hmm...

No AA, No AF... at 1920x1200 I really don't care!

 

[chizow]

640MB 8800 GTS is good enough for most games now at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and 16x AF and details/shaders/textures set to high, but I'm not sure about the next generation of D3D10 games. The only games that might make you regret getting the GTS instead of the GTX is Oblivion and R6: Vegas, but both still run well by turning down some IQ features like AA.

Not sure who said the X1900XT was "very close" to the 640MB GTS...but I did a lot of research as well and found a huge difference in performance between the two. The only times they were close were 2560 in something like Oblivion where they were averaging 13-18 FPS or something, which I would hardly consider playable anyways. Factor in OC'ing headroom and the GTS is clearly the better performing part.

The good news is your CPU is more likely to bottleneck your system before the GTS. Lots of reviews are coming out now showing slower CPUs are bottlenecking the G80 more than anything else. Hopefully with the transition to D3D10, the extra eye-candy pushes the G80's shaders instead of taking a huge hit on overall frame rates. Still, the GTX is enough of an improvement over the GTS to make it worthwhile if you don't mind spending the extra cash.

As for options, if there's something you really want better performance in today, you can't go wrong with a 640MB GTS or a GTX. I doubt we'll see much of a price drop until R600 or the 8900 series, whenever that happens. If you go with EVGA, you'll also have the option to step-up to an 8900 if its released within 90 days of your purchase date. At 1920 I'd definitely rule out a 320MB GTS. There's the possibility its a driver issue with the 320MB at higher resolutions and the price has the potential for SLI GTS for the price of a GTX, but both of those options are a bit of a gamble.

If I had to do it over again I would've still gotten a 640MB GTS since I haven't had much time lately to game, but I'd step-up to a 8900GTS for sure if it were released tomorrow. I may even step-up to a GTX but the price delta is pretty extreme since they base the step-up on MSRP (620 vs. 440).

 

[Wik]

Originally posted by: firewolfsm
Actually, the evga gts is under $300 now. It is a good deal, but I think you should either get the gtx or wait a little longer for new cards to lower prices.

That is for the 320 version, not the 640

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: chizow
640MB 8800 GTS is good enough for most games now at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and 16x AF and details/shaders/textures set to high, but I'm not sure about the next generation of D3D10 games. The only games that might make you regret getting the GTS instead of the GTX is Oblivion and R6: Vegas, but both still run well by turning down some IQ features like AA.

Not sure who said the X1900XT was "very close" to the 640MB GTS...but I did a lot of research as well and found a huge difference in performance between the two. The only times they were close were 2560 in something like Oblivion where they were averaging 13-18 FPS or something, which I would hardly consider playable anyways. Factor in OC'ing headroom and the GTS is clearly the better performing part.

The good news is your CPU is more likely to bottleneck your system before the GTS. Lots of reviews are coming out now showing slower CPUs are bottlenecking the G80 more than anything else. Hopefully with the transition to D3D10, the extra eye-candy pushes the G80's shaders instead of taking a huge hit on overall frame rates. Still, the GTX is enough of an improvement over the GTS to make it worthwhile if you don't mind spending the extra cash.

As for options, if there's something you really want better performance in today, you can't go wrong with a 640MB GTS or a GTX. I doubt we'll see much of a price drop until R600 or the 8900 series, whenever that happens. If you go with EVGA, you'll also have the option to step-up to an 8900 if its released within 90 days of your purchase date. At 1920 I'd definitely rule out a 320MB GTS. There's the possibility its a driver issue with the 320MB at higher resolutions and the price has the potential for SLI GTS for the price of a GTX, but both of those options are a bit of a gamble.

If I had to do it over again I would've still gotten a 640MB GTS since I haven't had much time lately to game, but I'd step-up to a 8900GTS for sure if it were released tomorrow. I may even step-up to a GTX but the price delta is pretty extreme since they base the step-up on MSRP (620 vs. 440).

I said they were close in performance. You can look at most benchies and I bet the VAST majority will show @ 10% difference between the X1900's and a GTS.



linky

"As you've seen in the charts, performance is quite good even against the best of class from ATI. You did also see that it's performance in current games doesn't necessarily outgun the current heavyweights. Its worth noting that at the price range that is intended however, its hard to imagine a person choosing an X1950XTX over the 8800 GTS simply based on the performance and future proofing offered by the GTS."



Most other sites that review these cards come to the same conclusion. No doubt that the GTS is Better than the X1900 series but not worthy of an upgrade. The GTX is a much better choice for his resolution.

hope this helps!!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
[I said they were close in performance. You can look at most benchies and I bet the VAST majority will show @ 10% difference between the X1900's and a GTS.



linky

You do realize the majority of those results (and resolutions in general) are CPU limited? Don't you think its a bit odd that every single result for every single card are within 10% of each other?

Anyways, if you were looking for results at 1024 to 1280 you'd see 10% difference, if you were looking for something at a higher target resolution you'd see something completely different.

High Resolutions with no AA

1920 with and without AA

Of course, this isn't factoring in OC overhead where the GTS can begin to eclipse stock GTX performance.

 

[lavaheadache]

hmmmm...... below are exerpts from my previous link

Test system using Core2 duo @2.66

call of duty 2

1600x1200 4X AA


GX2-51
GTS-53
1950XTX-44
1900XTX-43
7900GTX-36

Nice varience... not seeing cpu bottleneck there


Fear

1600X1200 4XAA

GX2- 41
GTS- 38
1950XTX-33
1900XTX-31
7900GTX-29

Nice varience there too.... no sign of cpu bottlenecking

Prey

1600X1200 4xAA

GX2-82
GTS-70
1950XTX-60
7900GTX-58
1900XTX-56

No sign of CPU bottlenecking there as well


Quake 4

1600X1200 4XAA

GX2-58
GTS-46
1950XTX-45
1900XTX-43
7900GTX-41


Splinter cell 3

1600X1200 4XAA

GX2-74
GTS-56
1950XTX-68
1900XTX-64
7900GTX-53

I'll quote more if you like. Not really trying to argue with you but just trying to show the OP that at his calibur of resolution, an 8800 GTS isnt worthy of the upgrade from his X1950XTX.


**** edit---- Ever think that maybe the FPS are so close becuase maybe all of the listed cards in the banch mark are in the same class? Notice how the GX2 is in a league of its own most of the time!!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
I'll quote more if you like. Not really trying to argue with you but just trying to show the OP that at his calibur of resolution, an 8800 GTS isnt worthy of the upgrade from his X1950XTX.


**** edit---- Ever think that maybe the FPS are so close becuase maybe all of the listed cards in the banch mark are in the same class? Notice how the GX2 is in a league of its own most of the time!!

lol....you can run all 5 of those cards on a P4 2.0GHz and you'd get very similar FPS...and its not because they're all in the same class. But feel free to keep quoting more if you like. You can split hairs analyzing the only resolution/AA setting in that review that would actually stress modern GPUs or you could look at relevant reviews comparing cards at the resolution you (and the OP) should be looking at.

Edit: The GX2 is in a league of its own because its 2 cards in 1...

 

[lavaheadache]

You were the one claiming CPU bottleneck. Funny how they are using one of the fastest systems out there. Food for thought..... I had an X1900XT 512 virtually an X1900XT. My buddy brought over his EVGA 8800 GTS after I got my EVGA 800GTX. We tested all 3 of these cards in my rig. Granted I dont have the fastest CPU out there but I do have a very competent one aka FX-60. The results were as I've been preaching in this thread. The GTX @ my native rez of 1920x1200 eclipse the performance of the similar performing GTS and XT. I will agree that the GTS is faster for the most part but not by any amount that I would go out and recommend to the OP to go out and spend his loot on in hopes of a huge performance increase. I would totally recommend a GTX

 

[lavaheadache]

Edit: The GX2 is in a league of its own because its 2 cards in 1...

I realize this, also why there is no evidence of a cpu bottleneck:roll:

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

Edit: The GX2 is in a league of its own because its 2 cards in 1...

I realize this, also why there is no evidence of a cpu bottleneck:roll:

You haven't tested with different CPU. Sorry, but bottleneck doesn't mean that FPS will be constant, it just means that FPS will be lower than they would be with faster CPU.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
You were the one claiming CPU bottleneck. Funny how they are using one of the fastest systems out there. Food for thought..... I had an X1900XT 512 virtually an X1900XT. My buddy brought over his EVGA 8800 GTS after I got my EVGA 800GTX. We tested all 3 of these cards in my rig. Granted I dont have the fastest CPU out there but I do have a very competent one aka FX-60. The results were as I've been preaching in this thread. The GTX @ my native rez of 1920x1200 eclipse the performance of the similar performing GTS and XT. I will agree that the GTS is faster for the most part but not by any amount that I would go out and recommend to the OP to go out and spend his loot on in hopes of a huge performance increase. I would totally recommend a GTX

I'll be honest. Its kind of late, so I didn't even read your post past the first sentence.

My point is that 1024-1280 is going to bottleneck the cards in that review. At low resolutions, you're no longer testing the capabilities of the GPU, you're testing the capability of the CPU. The C2D is the fastest available processor, but 2.66GHz isn't quite reflective of real world performance. Even the "slowest" stock C2Ds are capable of 3GHz+ with little effort. Once again, the G80 needs a fast processor for it to stretch its legs.

Even the fastest processors from a year ago show their limits with a G80 class GPU. There's tons of reviews showing dual-core Athlon 64s bottlenecking a G80 when just a year ago they were the fastest CPUs available. I just found it funny you used a review with 1024-1600 resolutions and only emphasized the 1600 4x AA results when there's myriad relevant reviews at the resolution you should actually be looking at.

 

[lavaheadache]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: lavaheadache
You were the one claiming CPU bottleneck. Funny how they are using one of the fastest systems out there. Food for thought..... I had an X1900XT 512 virtually an X1900XT. My buddy brought over his EVGA 8800 GTS after I got my EVGA 800GTX. We tested all 3 of these cards in my rig. Granted I dont have the fastest CPU out there but I do have a very competent one aka FX-60. The results were as I've been preaching in this thread. The GTX @ my native rez of 1920x1200 eclipse the performance of the similar performing GTS and XT. I will agree that the GTS is faster for the most part but not by any amount that I would go out and recommend to the OP to go out and spend his loot on in hopes of a huge performance increase. I would totally recommend a GTX

I'll be honest. Its kind of late, so I didn't even read your post past the first sentence.

My point is that 1024-1280 is going to bottleneck the cards in that review. At low resolutions, you're no longer testing the capabilities of the GPU, you're testing the capability of the CPU. The C2D is the fastest available processor, but 2.66GHz isn't quite reflective of real world performance. Even the "slowest" stock C2Ds are capable of 3GHz+ with little effort. Once again, the G80 needs a fast processor for it to stretch its legs.

Even the fastest processors from a year ago show their limits with a G80 class GPU. There's tons of reviews showing dual-core Athlon 64s bottlenecking a G80 when just a year ago they were the fastest CPUs available. I just found it funny you used a review with 1024-1600 resolutions and only emphasized the 1600 4x AA results when there's myriad relevant reviews at the resolution you should actually be looking at.

You do realize that the OP is using an opty right? Whatever though clearly you are more educated than I. Maybe If I posted my oc's in my sig it would increase my IQ. I understand your point about G80's needing to have the fastest possible CPU to shine. But the OP doesn't have a CD2!! And the GTS and GTX are completely different beasts too. The GTS doesn't "require" such a high-end CPU to get the most out of it. Also you don't need to have the fastest processor in the world to get great HIGH resolution performance out of your video card as the GPU is the bottleneck in such cases. I researched the hell out of the GTS and GTX when I was purchasing, and the GTS wasn't a worthwhile upgrade. Sorry the review I used only had 1600x1200 4XAA benchies as their highest. I googled 8800 GTS review and pulled a random review off the first page. I can find many more supporting my claim. Give it a shot and save me some time.



On another note, OP, Sorry for the thread hijacking. Just trying to help you out and possibly save you from a dissapointing upgrade

 

[Matt2]

Interesting arguments guys. I'm gonna go ahead and look for some benchies of my own and see if they match up to what you guys linked too.

 

[Matt2]

Here are my results from Firingsquad.

Oblivion HDR 4x/16x AA/AF w/FX-62

1920x1200

8800GTS 640mb - 48.4 fps
X1950XTX - 33.5 fps

Quake 4 4x/16x AA/AF w/FX-62

1920x1200

8800GTS 640mb - 63.8 fps
X1950XTX - 48.4 fps

HL2: Lost Coast HDR 4x/16x AA/AF w/FX-62

1920x1200

8800GTS 640mb - 70.9 fps
X1950XTX - 53.2 fps

Those are pretty big gains. I consider these to be the most valid benchmarks for my current situation since the test CPU was an FX-62 and my Opty @ 2.8ghz is essentially an FX-62.

 

[aiya24]

i'm in the same boat as you Matt. got a 24" and want to upgrade but don't know which card to pull the trigger on.

but seriously, how long are you thinking of keeping said card? for as long as possible? if yes then get the GTX.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: lavaheadache

You do realize that the OP is using an opty right? Whatever though clearly you are more educated than I. Maybe If I posted my oc's in my sig it would increase my IQ. I understand your point about G80's needing to have the fastest possible CPU to shine. But the OP doesn't have a CD2!! And the GTS and GTX are completely different beasts too. The GTS doesn't "require" such a high-end CPU to get the most out of it. Also you don't need to have the fastest processor in the world to get great HIGH resolution performance out of your video card as the GPU is the bottleneck in such cases. I researched the hell out of the GTS and GTX when I was purchasing, and the GTS wasn't a worthwhile upgrade. Sorry the review I used only had 1600x1200 4XAA benchies as their highest. I googled 8800 GTS review and pulled a random review off the first page. I can find many more supporting my claim. Give it a shot and save me some time.

Yep, the OP has an Opteron running at 2.8GHz which isn't going to perform as well as most OC'd C2Ds, but its no slouch either. If its not fast enough to bottleneck the GTS, its even less likely to fully unleash a full-blown GTX. That's not to say there won't be a significant performance delta anyways, just like there's a significant performance delta between the GTS and the X1900s and 7800/7900s, it just won't be as great as the performance deltas seen with a faster CPU that lessens the likelihood for any CPU bottleneck.

I've already linked 2 separate AT reviews that clearly show the GTS pulls away from the X1900 at non-CPU bottlenecked resolutions (namely, the relevant resolution of 1920) and they're consistent with every single review from every site running benches at those resolutions. Instead of pulling random reviews off Google benching cards at 1024 (wtf?) to 1600, take a look at relevant reviews. I think you'll find the difference in performance between a X1900 and 640MB GTS is much greater than 10%.

On another note, OP, Sorry for the thread hijacking. Just trying to help you out and possibly save you from a dissapointing upgrade

Don't worry, it looks like the OP is on the right track, and that starts with looking at reviews that make sense.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: aiya24
i'm in the same boat as you Matt. got a 24" and want to upgrade but don't know which card to pull the trigger on.

but seriously, how long are you thinking of keeping said card? for as long as possible? if yes then get the GTX.

I'd like to keep the card for as long as possible, but I know better than anyone that nothing lasts forever in this hobby!

I'd like to get an EvGA 8800GTS 640mb and step up to 8900GTX, but I dont want Nvidia to not launch 8900 within 90 days, so I dunno.