9600GT VS 8800GS VS 8800GT

[narreth]

I will not be overclocking.
I also don't do rebates
http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...&body=MAIN#detailspecs

This 9600GT seems like a steal at this price but I'm not so sure about PNY...




http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...pNo=3680416&CatId=3614
$140 for this 8800GS seems good as well



http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...pNo=3538922&CatId=1826
only $210 for an 8800GT!


This will be paired up with XP pro, 2GB DDR2 800 RAM and a E4500 if that matters...

I'm hoping the rig would last at least 4 years ( I don't mind playing on low res/settings)

 

[narreth]

I will be gaming @ 1440 x 900 BTW

 

[error8]

First of all there isn't a rig right now that could last that long. In 4 years time you will have difficulties just running a game.

So, you can either get the 9600 GT or the 8800 GT, depends on the money you would like to spend. The difference between them in terms of performance is very small. The 8800 GT though, has a bit more shader power so it could be useful in future games.

 

[taltamir]

tough call... when it comes to power they are
8800GS < 9600GT < 8800GT
But the GS is very weak. I would avoid it. their prices are sort of in line with that. So it is hard to recommend.
4 years though? Buy a 100$ card NOW and buy another 100$ card in 2 years. for such a low budget, I would recommend you check out used cards from ebay. XFX has a double lifetime warranty (lifetime of first owner, and lifetime of second owner) so buying a second hand XFX card for 100$ now and again in 2 years will give you much MUCH more bang for the buck. And make your game play a million times better. I doubt any of these cards will be playable with high end 2012 games @ 1440x900 resolution even WITH lowest settings.

http://search.ebay.com/search/...satitle=xfx&category0=

 

[Dream Operator]

At that res, a 9600gt should be fine, for now. I use one and usually game at 1600x900 or 1920x1080 (older games for the higher res).

The 8800gt is more powerful and will be better in the long run. Here's one for $200.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143118

If you don't want to spend that, check out the newegg offerings on the 9600GT. If you can go dual slot, the MSI has nice cooling already built in. The Palit that I purchased has HDMI, if that does anything for you.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...&name=GeForce+9+series

The 8800GS is a great value, but I would buy the GT since you don't like to upgrade often.

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: taltamir
tough call... when it comes to power they are
8800GS < 9600GT < 8800GT
But the GS is very weak. I would avoid it. their prices are sort of in line with that. So it is hard to recommend.
4 years though? Buy a 100$ card NOW and buy another 100$ card in 2 years. for such a low budget, I would recommend you check out used cards from ebay. XFX has a double lifetime warranty (lifetime of first owner, and lifetime of second owner) so buying a second hand XFX card for 100$ now and again in 2 years will give you much MUCH more bang for the buck. And make your game play a million times better. I doubt any of these cards will be playable with high end 2012 games @ 1440x900 resolution even WITH lowest settings.

http://search.ebay.com/search/...satitle=xfx&category0=

It's funny how many people said the same with the 8 series card and yet someone who bought a 8800GTX is going to be set for games in 2010, 4 whole years after it was released

And although buying two cards over 4 years is a better choice in 2012, unless there is some kind of revolution in computing, I think a 8800GT will suffice for low settings and low resolution like the guy said he would, for example, a 6800GT is more or less the same speed as a 7600GT, games like CoD4 still run on it medium settings 800x600 or 1024x768 if you can take a little stuttering, likewise, the 6800GT coupled with a decent dual-core processor (like any Athlon X2 but even a Pentium D would suffice) is just fine for Bioshock at medium/high settings and Unreal Tournament 3.

It's not THAT absurd.

 

[IL2SturmovikPilot]

Originally posted by: taltamir
tough call... when it comes to power they are
8800GS < 9600GT < 8800GT
But the GS is very weak. I would avoid it. their prices are sort of in line with that. So it is hard to recommend.
4 years though? Buy a 100$ card NOW and buy another 100$ card in 2 years. for such a low budget, I would recommend you check out used cards from ebay. XFX has a double lifetime warranty (lifetime of first owner, and lifetime of second owner) so buying a second hand XFX card for 100$ now and again in 2 years will give you much MUCH more bang for the buck. And make your game play a million times better. I doubt any of these cards will be playable with high end 2012 games @ 1440x900 resolution even WITH lowest settings.

http://search.ebay.com/search/...satitle=xfx&category0=

How is 33FPS @ 12x10 with 2xAA in Crysis High weak? http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...rce_9600_GT_SSC/7.html

Out of those cards,the 9600GT has the best bang for buck.

 

[narreth]

I'll have to replace the GPU around the 3 year mark then? The E4500 (if overclocked) and 2GB ram would suffice in the future right? (with XP).

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: taltamir
tough call... when it comes to power they are
8800GS < 9600GT < 8800GT
But the GS is very weak. I would avoid it. their prices are sort of in line with that. So it is hard to recommend.
4 years though? Buy a 100$ card NOW and buy another 100$ card in 2 years. for such a low budget, I would recommend you check out used cards from ebay. XFX has a double lifetime warranty (lifetime of first owner, and lifetime of second owner) so buying a second hand XFX card for 100$ now and again in 2 years will give you much MUCH more bang for the buck. And make your game play a million times better. I doubt any of these cards will be playable with high end 2012 games @ 1440x900 resolution even WITH lowest settings.

http://search.ebay.com/search/...satitle=xfx&category0=

It's funny how many people said the same with the 8 series card and yet someone who bought a 8800GTX is going to be set for games in 2010, 4 whole years after it was released

And although buying two cards over 4 years is a better choice in 2012, unless there is some kind of revolution in computing, I think a 8800GT will suffice for low settings and low resolution like the guy said he would, for example, a 6800GT is more or less the same speed as a 7600GT, games like CoD4 still run on it medium settings 800x600 or 1024x768 if you can take a little stuttering, likewise, the 6800GT coupled with a decent dual-core processor (like any Athlon X2 but even a Pentium D would suffice) is just fine for Bioshock at medium/high settings and Unreal Tournament 3.

It's not THAT absurd.

I recall the 8800GTX costing 800$. How well did the 150-200$ cards from 2006 fare? I bought a X2 3800 for 130$ and 7900GS for 250$ in 2007 and it had trouble playing crysis on min, and had to be on min settings for games like bioshock. Even halflife 2 was having issues at absolute min settings (but that was due to the CPU...)
And it is not 2010 YET. You don't know how much more intensive they will get.

Originally posted by: IL2SturmovikPilot

Originally posted by: taltamir
tough call... when it comes to power they are
8800GS < 9600GT < 8800GT
But the GS is very weak. I would avoid it. their prices are sort of in line with that. So it is hard to recommend.
4 years though? Buy a 100$ card NOW and buy another 100$ card in 2 years. for such a low budget, I would recommend you check out used cards from ebay. XFX has a double lifetime warranty (lifetime of first owner, and lifetime of second owner) so buying a second hand XFX card for 100$ now and again in 2 years will give you much MUCH more bang for the buck. And make your game play a million times better. I doubt any of these cards will be playable with high end 2012 games @ 1440x900 resolution even WITH lowest settings.

http://search.ebay.com/search/...satitle=xfx&category0=

How is 33FPS @ 12x10 with 2xAA in Crysis High weak? http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...rce_9600_GT_SSC/7.html

Out of those cards,the 9600GT has the best bang for buck.

Compared to a similarly priced 9600GT it is weak.

Originally posted by: narreth
I'll have to replace the GPU around the 3 year mark then? The E4500 (if overclocked) and 2GB ram would suffice in the future right? (with XP).

The CPU will be atrociously slow, the 2GB of ram is already low. and you intend to be using XP in 2010? MS next OS should be out next year, so I wonder how many games will come out for XP by then. And vista already requires 4GB to work properly.

You should really upgrade every 2 years or so. I prefer to upgrade every year. If you have 1000$ to spend on a GAMING computer (and gaming is a big resource hog) for the next 4 years (that is 250$ per YEAR!) then you should build a 500$ computer today, and put 500$ in a savings account to be used to upgrade in two years.

 

[error8]

The best thing to do when you are upgrading very, very rare, is to buy the best card around. That will be the GX2 or the ATI 3870X2. But these are really expensive, so buy either the 9600 GT or the 8800 GT, and after an year or so upgrade to some better card, and so on. It's quite clear that a mid range card will not last to much.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: error8
The best thing to do when you are upgrading very, very rare, is to buy the best card around. That will be the GX2 or the ATI 3870X2. But these are really expensive, so buy either the 9600 GT or the 8800 GT, and after an year or so upgrade to some better card, and so on. It's quite clear that a mid range card will not last to much.

That card costs 550$! He is better off putting it in a savings account and buying a WHOLE COMPUTER for that price in 2-3 years...

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: error8
The best thing to do when you are upgrading very, very rare, is to buy the best card around. That will be the GX2 or the ATI 3870X2. But these are really expensive, so buy either the 9600 GT or the 8800 GT, and after an year or so upgrade to some better card, and so on. It's quite clear that a mid range card will not last to much.

That card costs 550$! He is better off putting it in a savings account and buying a WHOLE COMPUTER for that price in 2-3 years...

Of course, but what can you say when somebody wants for his new built computer to last a lifetime.

 

[taltamir]

True true. But I figured, we can inform him of the speed at which new technology develops in the computer market

Now, I had a case where someone said "I am a teacher and after 5 years I have been granted a budget for a new computer, it is 5000$ limit and will likely be more then 5 years before I get another upgrade, please advise". But as far as I understand he is paying for it with his own money.

 

[Lithan]

Those prices arent great.
Newegg has a 9600gt for $120 After MIR and a 8800GTS g92 for $200 after coupon code + MIR and Zipzoomfly has a 8800gt for $160 after MIR

 

[MustangSVT]

for the price/performance 9600gt or 8800gs will give you the best value.

their performance is similar. 9600gt does have more memory but with the resolution you are playing in, it should not matter.

so if you find 8800gs for say.. 100, go with that. but if the prices are similar between 8800gs and 9600gt, I would say go with 9600gt.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Lithan
Those prices arent great.
Newegg has a 9600gt for $120 After MIR and a 8800GTS g92 for $200 after coupon code + MIR and Zipzoomfly has a 8800gt for $160 after MIR

$240 will get you SLI performance that rivals the 9800GX2, an angle I'm now enjoying quite thoroughly

 

[narreth]

bleh

i was hoping the CPU at least (OC'd to 3.2 Ghz) would last for like 4 years and I'd upgrade the GFX card twice in 4 years.

oh well...

 

[Lithan]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Lithan
Those prices arent great.
Newegg has a 9600gt for $120 After MIR and a 8800GTS g92 for $200 after coupon code + MIR and Zipzoomfly has a 8800gt for $160 after MIR

$240 will get you SLI performance that rivals the 9800GX2, an angle I'm now enjoying quite thoroughly

Yes, and the MIR lets you apply it to two cards, so you dont even have to jump through hoops.

8800gt sli is slightly ahead of gx2 so im guessing 9600gt sli will be a little bit below it, but the 9600gt are so much more power efficient that it'll probably use less or about the same power. And at 1/2 the price, you can't argue.

BUT, that cooler is definately not one slot SLI compatble, so on some boards you'll need to change coolers.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: narreth
I will be gaming @ 1440 x 900 BTW

IF you are gaming @ that resolution you should go with 9600gt or 8800gs.

Check out my article on the GS. GS is cheaper and overclocks like crazy.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2171730&enterthread=y

Lot of people get fooled by 9600gt because it does good with AA performance but in the end its raw performance is no better than 8800gs or 3850. More shader heavy games arise 8800gs>9600gt.

 

[happy medium]

8800gs now and step up to a 9800gs in late April/May.
Buy a evga model.

8800gs is more than enough for your resolution and has more shader power then the 9600gt for future games

 

[Lithan]

Actually, all the reviews I've seen show 8800gs only performing on par with 9600gt even in the most shader-dependant games... and once you go over 1920x1200, 8800gs completely collapses (not enough memory?) and 9600gt holds on about as well as it did every other resolution bump. Overall, 9600gt is almost as much ahead of 8800gs as 8800gt is ahead of 9600gt. But yes, this only applies at resolutions above 1280x1024 (except in the very latest games). Below that, everything from this generation is pretty even.

 

[AzN]

That's not entirely correct. Try oblivion without AA? How about Fear with Soft shadows without AA?

http://www.legionhardware.com/...on_HD_3850/FEAR_01.png

9600gt does good with AA and takes barely and impact when AA is forced but the raw performance is no better than 3850 or 8800gs.

9600gt is ahead for now but don't be so sure where games require more shader. Game community will have a 1950pro vs 7900gs all over again.

 

[Lithan]

Yes, but you're talking like the game will take more shader power and not more 'everything else' power. The memory substructure of the GS limits it now, and it will limit it when more shader-taxing games come out. So maybe if you're running future games @ 800x600 the 8800gs will handle them when the 9600gt wont, but once you get up to a resolution people play at (even 1024x768) the other limitations of the GS will keep it from running the game playable enough that shaders even come into play.

On the flipside... it's a HELL of a lot easier to reduce the shader quality in a game than to reduce the memory bandwidth required (Almost every setting impacts mem bandwidth).

Your link is dead.

 

[AzN]

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=726&p=6
direct link


Not necessarily true. We've been using 256bit memory controllers for the last 5 years or so. Only thing that has changed from a 7900gs to a 8800gs are shader and better texture fillrate a while performing with lower memory bandwidth. Memory bandwidth does help but it is useless if the core or shader is weak. Bandwidth isn't the limitation if it was 8800gs would be a whole lot slower than 9600gt but it's not.

You might want to read BFG's findings.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2171240&enterthread=y




or my findings about pixel fillrate and texture fillrate combination with memory.

pixel fillrate test

texture fillrate test

As you can see, pixel fillrate does hold back by memory bandwidth to a certain extent but core clock speed increases does more than memory bandwidth alone. Texture fillrate doesn't have a impact with these G9x gpu's probably because it is handled by shader.


Case in point. 9600gt does good where memory bandwidth or pixel performance like uber high resolutions or AA. 8800gs is better at texturing and shader performance which would be better geared towards raw performance @ medium resolutions. 9600gt will fall flat when games will require more shader than 64SP just like how 7900gs fell flat.

 

[Lithan]

"Not necessarily true. We've been using 256bit memory controllers for the last 5 years or so. Only thing that has changed from a 7900gs to a 8800gs are shader and better texture fillrate a while performing with lower memory bandwidth. Memory bandwidth does help but it is useless if the core or shader is weak. Bandwidth isn't the limitation if it was 8800gs would be a whole lot slower than 9600gt but it's not. "

Look at resolutions above 1900x in many games 8800gs drops to single digit fps while 9600gt stays in the 20-30 region. That is the memory and/or memory bus maxing out. The ultra doesn't get effected so much, 1 because it doesnt have capacity problems, it's got 700+megs, not 380megs. And Two it's a 384bit arch and not a 192bit. So you're scaling down from 100+ GB/s instead of <40GB/s... when he's clocked his vram down to 1/3 of it's stock speed, then you can start applying his results to the 8800gs.

http://en.expreview.com/2008/0...s-384mb-768mb/?page=24

The 3850 beats the 8800gs in high res situations. If they limit it to the low rest situations the 8800gs likes, it beats the 3850 by 7%. 9600GT crushes 3850 in every review, by a much larger margin than that.

256bit mem vs lower mem structures have been known to have massive impact on performance since the days of the G4's and R300's. Add to that that most games take for granted that modern cards have 512megs memory, and you'll be running out of vram.