8800 GTS or GTX

[WinnieThePujols]

The GTX's MSRP is about $150 more than the GTS. That's a sizable amount of money... from what I've seen, it does seem to perform quite a bit better (to the tune of like 10-15 FPS)...

Do you personally think it is worth it?

 

[imported_Septimus]

I just made this decision myself, and ended up going with the GTS.

eVGA 8800 GTS w/640M RAM from Newegg: $359 after rebate.

Cheapest eVGA 8800 GTX is $550 after rebate.

There's a little more flucuation between manufacturers, but even if the difference was $150 and not $200, I just don't think it's worth it. I have a decent budget for this kind of thing but I refuse to spend $500 on any single computer part.

Look at it this way: it's going to be how long before your 8800 GTS isn't good enough to do what you want? 2 years? And by then, how much will hte next best thing be, and how much might you pay? I'd take your extra $150 and squirrel it away so you can drop $300 on a good card in 2-3 years. I haven't seen anybody going 'god, my 8800 GTS just can't get the job done! I'm so unhappy!'

 

[Zenoth]

An OC'ed 8800 GTS is the best bang for you bucks right now, in my opinion.

 

[WinnieThePujols]

See, with the difference in prices I could save money, and get two more gigs of RAM (while saving like $80-100).

Would 4 GB be overkill for a game like Oblivion? I think that would help dramatically, with the huge environments... Or am I off-base?

 

[imported_Septimus]

I have 4 gigs, and it's not *quite* all it's cracked up to be (and won't until I make the x64 switch).

Main problem is that the 32-bit Windows systems are all limited to 4G total, and so between your PCI devices (video card inc'l) and your RAM, you can't have more than 4. Each system handles this differently, but with my current 7900 KO-256 in there, XP recognizes 3.5 gigs of RAM.

Does that help with Oblivion more than 2 gigs would? I'd say it depends on how clean your OS is. If you can minimize the amount of tasks going on, I doubt you'd see a huge improvement, since (if memory serves) Oblivion is more CPU- and video- intensive than RAM intensive, beyond a certain point.

What it would let you do is not have to worry about closing every last task whenever you wanted to do something like play Oblivion.

 

[secretanchitman]

man i keep telling my friend this exact same thing. you can use the saved money for other parts too by going with a GTS. you're getting 90% of the performance and hardly any performance increase at his resolution (1280x1024) compared to a GTX.

ugh pisses me off, but whatever.

 

[cubeless]

interesting stuff 8800 scaling...

 

[Zebo]

It depends what resolution you game at. 1280x1024 or below, no. Get the GTS. As everything will be totally playable and above 45FPS all the time with everything on. Above that res get the GTX. GTS does'nt cut it.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: WinnieThePujols
See, with the difference in prices I could save money, and get two more gigs of RAM (while saving like $80-100).

Would 4 GB be overkill for a game like Oblivion? I think that would help dramatically, with the huge environments... Or am I off-base?

You won't see a dramatic improvement in gaming with 4 gigs. If you plan to play with Vista though 4gigs will definetly help things.

 

[Imyourzero]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
man i keep telling my friend this exact same thing. you can use the saved money for other parts too by going with a GTS. you're getting 90% of the performance and hardly any performance increase at his resolution (1280x1024) compared to a GTX.

Good point--I'd say spending the extra cash on the GTX makes a lot less sense if you game at a lower res. 1600x1200 - 1920x1200 would definitely help utilize the extra power of the GTX.

OP, what resolution do you game at?

 

[TheRyuu]

Overclock the core on the GTS to 650mhz (not guaranteed though...) and you'll ALMOST have a 8800GTX at 1600x1200 and below.

When you get up in resolution (like 1900x1200) the GTX does start to pull ahead.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: cubeless
interesting stuff 8800 scaling...

Actually that's a very nice article regarding this issue.. One of the best I've seen. I wish they had included more games.. Though the picture is clear.. Even at a gpu limited resolution with full filters a cpu intensive game, will always cause variations..

Regarding the question of the OP, I believe that 32 more SP will make the difference in D3D10.. You can always o/c your GTS for now, and be just fine with d3d9 but if you plan on keeping your card a little longer for "d3d10" games then I'd definitely suggest the GTX..
O/Cing your GTS@GTX just won't cut it as the case is with d3d9.
Due to the "nature" of d3d10 API ,the GTX will be able to show the real potential and performance difference from the GTS..

 

[BFG10K]

I think it's worth it but it might pay to wait as we could be seeing new cards from nVidia in March.

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
I think it's worth it but it might pay to wait as we could be seeing new cards from nVidia in March.

That's true.. More power is always welcome and it's well worth it to wait (just this time for someone that wants a card for a longer period) to get the best d3d10 card possible, since nothing is rushing him from the D3D10 pov right now..

 

[BFG10K]

If the specs are right the 8900 GTX will be a sweet upgrade over my 8800 GTS. :thumbsup:

I just wish nVidia would release new XP drivers to fix the outstanding issues.

 

[jim1976]

The missing MUL will make a significant difference by itself.. Now imagine what this baby will do if the "original" theories about nVIDIA being able to squeeze 160 SPs in the G81 are true.. Now that I'm thinking of it, nothing in the SKU requires major changes to achieve that..
Suddenly INQ and 25% more shaders don't sound unbelievable in my ears.. :shocked:

Let's not forget R600 too.. Interesting couple of months are in front of us..

 

[imported_Septimus]

Admittedly I didn't really have a choice -- I'm not even sure my case would fit a GTX and I would need a whole new PSU for it, while the GTS will work with what I've got.

 

[WinnieThePujols]

As far as resolution goes, well... during Black Friday, I picked up two, 22" widescreen LCD monitors from Best Buy (the $200 Westinghouse ones). Those guys sit at a native resolution of 1680 x 1050, so ideally I'd be playing in that... I guess that would sway me towards the GTX?

 

[imported_Septimus]

I've got a 21" widescreen and run at 1680x1050. It's kind of right on the cusp between being 'high' and 'really high' res but I think you'd still be OK with the GTS.

But honestly, if you're already at 2 gigs of ram and you have the $$$ and the PSU for it, the money's probably better invested in the GTX than in anything else if you're going to be burning it anyway. Much easier to upgrade RAM later than upgrade your video card.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Septimus
I've got a 21" widescreen and run at 1680x1050. It's kind of right on the cusp between being 'high' and 'really high' res but I think you'd still be OK with the GTS.

But honestly, if you're already at 2 gigs of ram and you have the $$$ and the PSU for it, the money's probably better invested in the GTX than in anything else if you're going to be burning it anyway. Much easier to upgrade RAM later than upgrade your video card.

Yup GTS's really borderline at that res in oblivion with add-ons... every other game will be great though at 16x10. For now. I personally don't like to skate this close to the edge buying instead card(s) that get 60FPS now - so they maintain 30-45 FPS later with yet-to-be-released games. Really just depends on budget. If buying a yucky cheap 22" TN in indicative I'd say he's more able to afford the GTS.

 

[WinnieThePujols]

Yep, you're right about not being able to afford it! I'm really going to be pounding hours in at work (while being a full-time student), but I'm still not going to be making much.

I've decided I'll probably just wait for the R600's to come out... the specs on those babies are mighty impressive! I need some time to save up, anyway, so by the time I have the money I'll be able to take a look at benchmarks and analysis and such...

 

[Zebo]

Waiting is never a bad idea since hardware gets cheaper and faster all the time. No one can afford all this crap coming out all the time

 

[WinnieThePujols]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Waiting is never a bad idea since hardware gets cheaper and faster all the time. No one can afford all this crap coming out all the time

PS: I'm hurt that you called my monitors "yucky." They still sell for $400!

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Septimus
I have a decent budget for this kind of thing but I refuse to spend $500 on any single computer part.

That's pretty much what stopped me from pulling the trigger on the GTX although it is a worthwhile and considerable improvement over the GTS. I just looked at target resolutions and performance and found the GTS would be sufficient for now and leave more options open for the future. But ya once you start hitting the $500+ range on components you have to ask yourself whether or not you should just get a PS3 and call it a day.

GTS is fine right now in most games at 1920x1200 with everything cranked up to high. AA needs to be adjusted accordingly. Not a bad idea to wait for R600 and NV's counter though. Looks like the 8-series refreshes are coming sooner rather than later.

G80 Roadmap

I'm really interested in the 8900 GTS out of all those parts. Really comes down to how much headroom the GTX has over the GTS to see whether or not its worth the price difference. If they're released in the next 45 days I'll be stepping up for sure.

 

[nZone]

I went into store determined to buy a GTS; walked out with a GTX instead.
Price difference was $119.