8800 GT INFO / Updates in bold / MUST READ OP AND SEE LINKS FOR BENCHMARK PICS

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
what res do you need to run at to see a big diff btwn 320 and 640? 2560x1600? seriously, memory size is GREATLY overrated for gpu's.

I'm talking about games like Oblivion where hundreds of mb's of textures are loaded at a time. With UE3's texture streaming, it might not be necessary. But it would be nice to be able to play at 1680x1050 with 2-4x AA and 4-8x AF.

 

[alcoholbob]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
what res do you need to run at to see a big diff btwn 320 and 640? 2560x1600? seriously, memory size is GREATLY overrated for gpu's.

For DX9, it's usually 2056x1536 4xAA 8xAF (sometimes 1900x1200 with 4AA/8AF) when frame-rate differences really show up. Actually ConstipiatedVigiliante, Oblivion is pretty frame buffer light since the textures aren't really that high quality, it's really a game with fillrate and bandwidth are really important. Oblivion as a game is pretty average in terms of frame buffer needs (basically the 2000x1500 AA+AF range before the differences b/w 640 and 320 show up).

For DX10 benchmarks/games, so far the differences are noticeable between 640 and 320 as low as 1280 res. Even the OCed variants of the 320 will trail the stock 640. I think this may have to do with the much bigger/higher quality textures that developers are pushing with new games. Bioshock is one of the exceptions so far in that it does not lose performance in DX10 mode, but the main reason is that it has rather low quality textures.

For games that have lots of action going on, when you turn the DX10 path on, the framerates just plummet. World in Conflict for example, with DX9 effects runs about 55+ fps on either the 320 or 640. When you turn on the DX10 particle effects, BAM, the 320 is in single digits at times, barely over double figures on average. The 640 still maintains around 20 fps (but it's borderline unplayable).

I was really wavering on the edge for a bit, but thanks to Shaq I'm definitely returning the 8800GTS Fatal1ty, the card is just not gonna cut it for DX10, the frame buffer has become a huge issue.

 

[bryanW1995]

let's be real here. is a new mid-range card going to be significantly better for dx10 performance? how much better than 20fps will 8800 gt get you? You need to hold out for the new high-end cards that are coming out next year.

 

[alcoholbob]

Well I've only got a 7800GT for backup.

That's good for about 10fps in Bioshock with medium settings at 16x10, lol.

Mainly I'm looking for something playable, so 8800GT will be a $50 savings for me, while being better than the Fatal1ty for DX10.

Besides, the main concern for someone on a budget is minimum fps. As long as the minimum is 20+ I'm okay. With a lot of these DX10 games the GTX and Ultra's average can look high, but their minimum rates are often no more than 1-2 fps higher than the 640mb GTS.

I'm gonna ride out my 4400+ 939 setup until Dragon Age or Starcraft 2 comes out, at that point I'll probably drop major cash for a top end system. That'll probably coincide with 9800GTX : )

 

[bryanW1995]

an 8800 gt that bests a fata1ty will have to be 512 mb. those will START at 250, but you'll probably have to wait a while to see them in that range.

 

[alcoholbob]

:>

I figure the 8800 GT will be slower than the Fatal1ty for most games these days, but I think it's still a smart thing to do to get a card that can do a little of everything decently versus a game that will have crazy DX9 performance but then explode trying to run a DX10 app because it ran out of VRAM.

But I get what you are saying, basically I'm just saving about $20 in the process given the Fatal1ty will end up being $315 after rebate, and after eating shipping both ways the GT will come up to being $290-300.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Astrallite

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
what res do you need to run at to see a big diff btwn 320 and 640? 2560x1600? seriously, memory size is GREATLY overrated for gpu's.

For DX9, it's usually 2056x1536 4xAA 8xAF (sometimes 1900x1200 with 4AA/8AF) when frame-rate differences really show up. Actually ConstipiatedVigiliante, Oblivion is pretty frame buffer light since the textures aren't really that high quality, it's really a game with fillrate and bandwidth are really important. Oblivion as a game is pretty average in terms of frame buffer needs (basically the 2000x1500 AA+AF range before the differences b/w 640 and 320 show up).

For DX10 benchmarks/games, so far the differences are noticeable between 640 and 320 as low as 1280 res. Even the OCed variants of the 320 will trail the stock 640. I think this may have to do with the much bigger/higher quality textures that developers are pushing with new games. Bioshock is one of the exceptions so far in that it does not lose performance in DX10 mode, but the main reason is that it has rather low quality textures.

For games that have lots of action going on, when you turn the DX10 path on, the framerates just plummet. World in Conflict for example, with DX9 effects runs about 55+ fps on either the 320 or 640. When you turn on the DX10 particle effects, BAM, the 320 is in single digits at times, barely over double figures on average. The 640 still maintains around 20 fps (but it's borderline unplayable).

I was really wavering on the edge for a bit, but thanks to Shaq I'm definitely returning the 8800GTS Fatal1ty, the card is just not gonna cut it for DX10, the frame buffer has become a huge issue.

I agree with Astrallite here to some extent, but I wouldn't say it's a DX9 vs DX10 thing. Some games are just more memory hogging than others. Buggy drivers also will help leak local memory.

Said that, I have enjoyed many games @2560x1600 with a GTS 320. You will need to turn some details/AA down, but the difference was minimal compared to a GTX. The trick here is to leave the RivaTuner open and keep an eye on local memory usage, and tweak the settings accordingly. Up to ~350MB of framebuffer won't affect the performance (therefore equal to GTS 640) but once you go past the threshold, it's very likely the game will become unplayable. For me, the hardest title for GTS 320 was Company of Heroes.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Astrallite

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
what res do you need to run at to see a big diff btwn 320 and 640? 2560x1600? seriously, memory size is GREATLY overrated for gpu's.

For DX9, it's usually 2056x1536 4xAA 8xAF (sometimes 1900x1200 with 4AA/8AF) when frame-rate differences really show up. Actually ConstipiatedVigiliante, Oblivion is pretty frame buffer light since the textures aren't really that high quality, it's really a game with fillrate and bandwidth are really important. Oblivion as a game is pretty average in terms of frame buffer needs (basically the 2000x1500 AA+AF range before the differences b/w 640 and 320 show up).

For DX10 benchmarks/games, so far the differences are noticeable between 640 and 320 as low as 1280 res. Even the OCed variants of the 320 will trail the stock 640. I think this may have to do with the much bigger/higher quality textures that developers are pushing with new games. Bioshock is one of the exceptions so far in that it does not lose performance in DX10 mode, but the main reason is that it has rather low quality textures.

For games that have lots of action going on, when you turn the DX10 path on, the framerates just plummet. World in Conflict for example, with DX9 effects runs about 55+ fps on either the 320 or 640. When you turn on the DX10 particle effects, BAM, the 320 is in single digits at times, barely over double figures on average. The 640 still maintains around 20 fps (but it's borderline unplayable).

I was really wavering on the edge for a bit, but thanks to Shaq I'm definitely returning the 8800GTS Fatal1ty, the card is just not gonna cut it for DX10, the frame buffer has become a huge issue.

I agree with Astrallite here to some extent, but I wouldn't say it's a DX9 vs DX10 thing. Some games are just more memory hogging than others. Buggy drivers also will help leak local memory.

Said that, I have enjoyed many games @2560x1600 with a GTS 320. You will need to turn some details/AA down, but the difference was minimal compared to a GTX. The trick here is to leave the RivaTuner open and keep an eye on local memory usage, and tweak the settings accordingly. Up to ~350MB of framebuffer won't affect the performance (therefore equal to GTS 640) but once you go past the threshold, it's very likely the game will become unplayable. For me, the hardest title for GTS 320 was Company of Heroes.

Also it seems that many DX10 codepaths uses larger textures than in DX9, even though the same textures could easily be used in DX9

 

[Rusin]

mczak from Beyond3D:

At the rumoured configuration of 112SP/1500Mhz, 600Mhz core (16 ROP/28 TMU), and 256bit/900Mhz memory it has (all to reference GTX/GTS clocks):

97% of the ALU performance of a GTX (145% of a GTS)
91% of the texturing performance (140%)
70% of the "ROP power" (pixel fill, z test etc.) (96%)
67% of the memory bandwidth (90%)

According to that it won't be as good as GTX anywhere, but should be better than old GTS, atleast in new DX9-10 games

 

[MichaelD]

For those of us still running 79xx series cards AND at resolutions higher than 1600x1200, the 8800GT 512MB will be the best thing since sliced bread. I'll be ordering one as soon as I can...as long as it's from a known upper-tier manufacturer (EVGA/BFG/XTX/etc).

Side note: When running anything higher than 16x12, 512MB graphics memory is a must with newer games. It makes a noticable difference.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
For those of us still running 79xx series cards AND at resolutions higher than 1600x1200, the 8800GT 512MB will be the best thing since sliced bread. I'll be ordering one as soon as I can...as long as it's from a known upper-tier manufacturer (EVGA/BFG/XTX/etc).

Side note: When running anything higher than 16x12, 512MB graphics memory is a must with newer games. It makes a noticable difference.

You seem so certain base on rumor and high-expectations alone.
:Q

What if the Radeon comes along 2 weeks later and destroys the 8800GT?


http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/119,news-119.html

You will have stale bread

 

[bryanW1995]

I don't think that there's much chance the radeon will "destroy" 8800gt, but it will probably be better. I think that the rv670 512mb will be comparable to the "new and improved" 8800gts 640.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I don't think that there's much chance the radeon will "destroy" 8800gt, but it will probably be better. I think that the rv670 512mb will be comparable to the "new and improved" 8800gts 640.

the point is ... we just don't know yet ...

... and for me ... expectations usually breed disappointment
-the higher the expectation the bigger the disappointment
[at least it scales well]

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
I don't think that there's much chance the radeon will "destroy" 8800gt, but it will probably be better. I think that the rv670 512mb will be comparable to the "new and improved" 8800gts 640.

the point is ... we just don't know yet ...

... and for me ... expectations usually breed disappointment
-the higher the expectation the bigger the disappointment
[at least it scales well]

I find this is true in many things. For example movies. All the high expectations of the sequels to Star Wars and Matrix totally blew a$$ when I finally saw them. /off topic post

 

[bryanW1995]

that's kind of on topic, though, because many of us have been freaking out lately at the availability (finally!) of decent mid-range cards from BOTH camps. It really doesn't even matter if 8800gt is better than rv670 or vice versa, it just matters that we have great cards coming out and we'll have legitimate choices when we decide to buy.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MichaelD
For those of us still running 79xx series cards AND at resolutions higher than 1600x1200, the 8800GT 512MB will be the best thing since sliced bread. I'll be ordering one as soon as I can...as long as it's from a known upper-tier manufacturer (EVGA/BFG/XTX/etc).

Side note: When running anything higher than 16x12, 512MB graphics memory is a must with newer games. It makes a noticable difference.

You seem so certain base on rumor and high-expectations alone.
:Q

What if the Radeon comes along 2 weeks later and destroys the 8800GT?


http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/119,news-119.html

You will have stale bread

Speaking as someone who proudly had a 9800 Pro and loved it's performance and competitiveness for a long time...ATI hasn't had a decent card in a LONG time.

I play at 1900x1200 with AA/AF, all the time. I didn't spend my hard-earned pennies on a big monitor to play with jaggies at a lower resolution. 3DMark is one thing, real world gaming is another can of beans completely.

But, you are right; the possibility of AMD's new top-midrange card being better than NVidias is a possiblity, but IMO, not a probability. Hey, I might turn out to be wrong, but based on AMDs one-disappointment-after-another track record of the past almost a year with GPUs and CPUs...I don't think I'll be wrong.

IF the pre-release benchmarks we're seeing of the 8800GT 512MB turn out to be completely true, I'll order one period and be happy with it no matter if AMDs direct competitor turns out to be better.

Fact of the matter is that my current card cannot give me what I want ATM. Fact of the matter is also that IF the current 8800GT 512MB benchmarks ARE TRUE, that it beats the crap out of 7900GTO.

Me :heart:s the 8800GT 512MB

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Speaking as someone who proudly had a 9800 Pro and loved it's performance and competitiveness for a long time...ATI hasn't had a decent card in a LONG time.

the x1900 series were good cards.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Speaking as someone who proudly had a 9800 Pro and loved it's performance and competitiveness for a long time...ATI hasn't had a decent card in a LONG time.

the x1900 series were good cards.

You're right...that was an oversight on my part. I haven't owned at ATI card since my 9800. My bad.

But still; look at the 8800GTS 512 and 8800GTX. Essentially, ATI had no answer to them.

I'm not bashing ATI. I love ATI and AMD. Without competition, we're all screwed...in the wallet.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MichaelD
For those of us still running 79xx series cards AND at resolutions higher than 1600x1200, the 8800GT 512MB will be the best thing since sliced bread. I'll be ordering one as soon as I can...as long as it's from a known upper-tier manufacturer (EVGA/BFG/XTX/etc).

Side note: When running anything higher than 16x12, 512MB graphics memory is a must with newer games. It makes a noticable difference.

You seem so certain base on rumor and high-expectations alone.
:Q

--What if the Radeon comes along 2 weeks later and destroys the 8800GT?


http://www.tomshardware.com/cn/119,news-119.html

You will have stale bread

Speaking as someone who proudly had a 9800 Pro and loved it's performance and competitiveness for a long time...ATI hasn't had a decent card in a LONG time.

I play at 1900x1200 with AA/AF, all the time. I didn't spend my hard-earned pennies on a big monitor to play with jaggies at a lower resolution. 3DMark is one thing, real world gaming is another can of beans completely.

But, you are right; the possibility of AMD's new top-midrange card being better than NVidias is a possiblity, but IMO, not a probability. Hey, I might turn out to be wrong, but based on AMDs one-disappointment-after-another track record of the past almost a year with GPUs and CPUs...I don't think I'll be wrong.

IF the pre-release benchmarks we're seeing of the 8800GT 512MB turn out to be completely true, I'll order one period and be happy with it no matter if AMDs direct competitor turns out to be better.

Fact of the matter is that my current card cannot give me what I want ATM. Fact of the matter is also that IF the current 8800GT 512MB benchmarks ARE TRUE, that it beats the crap out of 7900GTO.

Me :heart:s the 8800GT 512MB

ooh, a under-performing track record of nearly a whole year .,.. you sound like you want to fire your entire management team 'cause you got beat in the Super Bowl and you can't stand being #2 for a whole year
:Q

What you are forgetting is that x1900 series is still an excellent midrange GPU ... and 2900xt as an upper-midrange card only has one issue with power consumption [i still won't give anyone AA as an issue because 2900xt performance only "falls" to GTS levels when it is enabled - and IQ is the same] ... and these cards were "all ATi" ... well, mostly ATi as we can see AMD's hand in the 2900 series ... and i kind of like what AMD did to ATi's design [considering].

This will be AMD's first GPU and i am interested to see what they wroth
-just as i want to see a 3.5Ghz Phenon
--their product line [finally] looks to be competitive


as to AA ... i am playing with 8XAA temporal AA as well as multi sampling and super sampling adaptive AA and some of the other newer features ... so i don't think i am really missing a lot - certainly not over my old 8800GTS-640M-OC

 

[bryanW1995]

x1900 series is still an excellent midrange gaming solution??? I'll check back in 2 wks and see if you still feel that way

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
x1900 series is still an excellent midrange gaming solution??? I'll check back in 2 wks and see if you still feel that way

i am talking *now* ... not your future

and yes x1900 IS midrange ... Ultra/GTX occupy the top spots [~$600]

2900xt/8800GTS are the upper-midrange [$400]

x1950/7900 series are the midrange [$250]

--or how do you define it?


i'll check back ... Hellgate Beta has me hooked
:thumbsup:

 

[bryanW1995]

well, as long as you stay away from that cursed intersection, it will be BOTH of our future. I was questioning your use of the word "excellent", by the way, not your categorization of x1900 series as midrange.

 

[Ares202]

Add the 8800gt benchmarks to the Thread

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=197188

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Ares202
Add the 8800gt benchmarks to the Thread

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=197188

Already been posted.

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: JPB

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Looks good. Benchmarks 11th post down. Impressive

Already posted those benches in the OP of this thread originally from Here :thumbsup:

This isn't "3DMark06", this is FPS in games. Did you guys even look? From the 11th post in the thread.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
well, as long as you stay away from that cursed intersection, it will be BOTH of our future. I was questioning your use of the word "excellent", by the way, not your categorization of x1900 series as midrange.

well what did you want me to say?


10 hours into HellGate London [2 sessions, this evening] ... i think i like it


"server error" ... thank goodness