8800gts320 vs 640 or 2900xt

[gamerX1]

is the 8800gts 320 mb card worth having?
or is the 640 mb version worth the xtra money?
or should i just get the 2900xt?
trying not to go over 400 dollars if i dont hanve too

i have a X800 now

 

[Gusty987]

What resolution? At 1680x1050 or below, the difference between 640mb vs. 320mb will be negligible. Above that res, you may see a gain of a few percentage points in some games with the 640.

 

[bryanW1995]

you might want to wait until sept 30. 2900 pro is supposed to release then and appears to be a slightly lower-clocked 2900xt with a much better price.

 

[cputeq]

I went over this same debate for about a week straight, reading review after review and benchmark after benchmark. Here are my conclusions, and why:::

Out of the 8800-320 -640 or the 2900XT, I went with the -640.

1) I have a 19" monitor and want to play some games at 1920x1200. The 640 was the safer bet over the 320.

2) ATI seemed to have driver problems with several games (especially OpenGL-based) in multiple benchmarks. Nothing unplayable, but slower than normal. Of course, there have been driver revisions since then, but I still kept that in mind. It typically seems ATI has more overall driver problems than Nvidia, but makes great improvements for each driver release...still, I felt a bit uneasy with the drivers (not like Nvidia is much better though)

3) The 640MB card just seemed more "future proof" than the 320MB card. Some benchmarks had the 320 either slowing way down or not even able to run the game at a given resolution and/or AA level. Also, the 640 generally performs better using AA modes.

4) The ATI card took up way too much power. I feel even if the newer card appears, and it's based from the same core, it's going to suck a lot of power. With my 640, I'm able to run it from my Zalman 460W (just barely) because it only uses 1x PCIe plug.


Overall it was pretty easy for me. I was really leaning for the 320MB because of cost, but decided to blow the ~$75 more for the 640MB. I was strongly considering the ATI card, but driver worries (small problem) and power requirements (big problem) prevented me from buying that card.

Also, I happened to get an EVGA card, which comes with a lifetime warranty and has a step-up program. That was also a deciding factor.

If I would have had a sufficient power supply to run the 2900XT, the choice would have been much harder.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: cputeq
I went over this same debate for about a week straight, reading review after review and benchmark after benchmark. Here are my conclusions, and why:::

Out of the 8800-320 -640 or the 2900XT, I went with the -640.

1) I have a 19" monitor and want to play some games at 1920x1200. The 640 was the safer bet over the 320.

2) ATI seemed to have driver problems with several games (especially OpenGL-based) in multiple benchmarks. Nothing unplayable, but slower than normal. Of course, there have been driver revisions since then, but I still kept that in mind. It typically seems ATI has more overall driver problems than Nvidia, but makes great improvements for each driver release...still, I felt a bit uneasy with the drivers (not like Nvidia is much better though)

3) The 640MB card just seemed more "future proof" than the 320MB card. Some benchmarks had the 320 either slowing way down or not even able to run the game at a given resolution and/or AA level. Also, the 640 generally performs better using AA modes.

4) The ATI card took up way too much power. I feel even if the newer card appears, and it's based from the same core, it's going to suck a lot of power. With my 640, I'm able to run it from my Zalman 460W (just barely) because it only uses 1x PCIe plug.


Overall it was pretty easy for me. I was really leaning for the 320MB because of cost, but decided to blow the ~$75 more for the 640MB. I was strongly considering the ATI card, but driver worries (small problem) and power requirements (big problem) prevented me from buying that card.

Also, I happened to get an EVGA card, which comes with a lifetime warranty and has a step-up program. That was also a deciding factor.

If I would have had a sufficient power supply to run the 2900XT, the choice would have been much harder.

1. my 19" monitor doesn't go above 1440x900. I would say that you have a crt but isn't 1920x1200 a WS resolution?
2. I have not done in-depth research on the subject of drivers, but it does seem that more people prefer ati drivers to nvidia drivers. Now, some games are also better on one card than another, so if you have a couple that you really like you might want to see how those stack up.
3. Agreed
4. Unsure about this one, though with lower clocks it seems likely that the 2900 pro will consume less power. Reaslistically, the vast majority of users get too much PSU for their system. You'll be hard-pressed to convince me that you couldn't run a 2900 pro (or xt for that matter) on just about any rig belonging to somebody who is considering any of these cards.

The more I think about this the more I think that you really should look at the 2900 pro. I've almost talked myself into getting one now for that matter. If it really is just a lower-clocked 2900xt then you should be able to get similar/same performance for much less cost and yet not have to make the 320/640 decision that 8800 buyers are stuck with.

 

[cputeq]

Oops, nice catch...I meant my 24" monitor does 1920x1200 😉

And yes I agree waiting isn't a bad thing. I was really tempted to wait until November to see what came out from ATI and/or Nvidia, but I just couldn't wait that long as my 7800GT was just driving me crazy

 

[cmdrdredd]

Seeing as cputeq's PSU only has 1x PCIe connector he was unable to even run the HD2900XT on it. That alone would be a no go for the ATi card.

As was mentioned previously it's back and forth in many tests. Most of the time however the HD2900XT can be a challenger to the 8800GTX. Especially with more recent drivers. Bioshock DX9 performance is excellent and better than any of the Nvidia offerings (not including Ultra which is way out of the same pricepoint anyway). Then in other games the 8800GTS would be faster than the HD2900xt. It's not enough to be unplayable and make the game experience less enjoyable though.

I got my HD2900Xt for $360 from dell.com and I was afraid that I would be plagued with the memory leak on the 8800 cards in my current library of games. I read reports all over the forums for weeks trying to figure out a fix. It seems that some people have it and some people don't. Then with the 2900 nobody had the same trouble. That's the only reason I got it vs the 8800 really. I had to have playable FPS in my MMORPG that I play which is Final Fantasy XI. Some people have nothing but problems with the 8800 (game drops to ~10fps and becomes unplayable) and some people have no trouble whatsoever. I just was not going to take a chance. I am happy with my card, and you will likely be happy with either card you choose (8800 or HD2900). I urge you to look at the games you are playing currently and examine the performance from all angles and see the prices of the cards, then make an informed decision without bias.

 

[bryanW1995]

oops, missed the part about 1 x pcie plug.

 

[MegaWorks]

Get the HD2900XT 512mb it's the best all three. Forget about the power consummation it's way too overrated.

 

[soonerproud]

If I was buying now for a 19' monitor, I would probably go for a 8800gts 320 simply because at the resolutions you would play on a 19' monitor there would be little difference between the 2900XT and the 640 in performance. At higher resolutions, I would lean towards the 640 simply because the 2900XT takes a huge performance hit when using antianalizing. ATI decided to change the way they do antianalizing to a software function instead of a hardware function as Nvidia still does it.

If you are not going to use AA then you should base the decision on the 2900XT and the GTS640 based on what games you play.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
The more I think about this the more I think that you really should look at the 2900 pro. I've almost talked myself into getting one now for that matter. If it really is just a lower-clocked 2900xt then you should be able to get similar/same performance for much less cost and yet not have to make the 320/640 decision that 8800 buyers are stuck with.

If the only difference is a lower clock speed then shouldn't enthusiasts be able to overclock it up to x2900xt speeds?

 

[cputeq]

^ The problem with that logic is that people assume they're guaranteed a good overclock, which may or may not be the case. Every CPU/GPU is different, memory chips differ, etc. so there are lots of variables.

Plus, we're assuming this new chip will be slower in clock speed only(from the 2900XT). If it's missing more GPU widgets (fewer stream processors, etc) or lower memory width, then overclocking will have less of an impact in trying to bring it up to 2900XT speeds.

----------------

That's why my thoughts on these things -- Buy the card expecting to get stock performance 😉 If you get a nice and safe overclock then kudos! But always be prepared for the worst. For instance, my old 7800GT I could barely OC, like 20Mhz or less, but I didn't care as I bought the card to get 7800GT performance. More would have been nice, but I never bought the card expecting to OC.

 

[fujimitsu]

for $259 i'm very happy with my 320mb gts, I play at 1680x1050 and I have had no problems with current games. The $100 difference between the two gts's is way too much, there's nowhere near enough of a performance gain at reasonable resolutions to warrant spending that much more money.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: fujimitsu
for $259 i'm very happy with my 320mb gts, I play at 1680x1050 and I have had no problems with current games. The $100 difference between the two gts's is way too much, there's nowhere near enough of a performance gain at reasonable resolutions to warrant spending that much more money.

Unless you are using a really big monitor it just is not worth paying $100 more for essentially the same card with just 320 MB more of memory. In the case you are using a really big monitor then the 2900XT seems to perform a little better overall than the 640 GTS unless you are using AA. The 2900XT takes a huge hit in performance when using AA compared to the 640 GTS.

Overall if you are playing at extremely high resolutions, both the 2900XT and the 640 GTS are great cards for the money.