Any benchmarks comparing 8800GT vs 8800GTS(G92)

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,485
2,363
136
I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy GT, GTS, or just wait...

So here's a question, we've all seen 8800GT/GTS reviews compared together, and GTS is faster 10-15%, no argument here. The question I have is how much of that performance gain is due to more SPs/ROPs/TMUs and how much of that is due to faster stock speeds. Has there been any review out there that compared two cards running at the same core/memory speeds and measured true speed difference?
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
I linked this when the GTS came out, but Firing Squad's Review indicates the 16SP have very little impact on performance at the same clock speeds.

NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (500MHz core/800MHz memory)
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (575MHz core/900MHz memory)
Leadtek GeForce 8800 GT Extreme (680MHz core/1.0GHz memory)
XFX GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (600MHz core/900MHz memory)
XFX GeForce 8800 GT 256MB XXX (650MHz core/800MHz memory)
ForceWare 169.09

ASUS EN8800GTS 512MB TOP (740MHz core/1035MHz memory)
EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB (650MHz core/970MHz memory)
XFX GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB XXX (678MHz core/986MHz memory)
ForceWare 169.21

The highlighted ones are the relevant parts. The review goes on to show very little difference between the two, maybe 1-2% max. They are running different drivers but the GTS is actually running newer ones, so it would actually benefit from any performance tweaks.

The one caveat is that the GTS does have a better dual-slot cooler, reportedly a better PCB design/components, and potentially different voltages/BIOS. The cores are the same revision, but the GT is G92 270 and the GTS is G92 400 with typically later production dates. Take it for what its worth, but this usually adds up to better OCs with the GTS which are tangible in terms of performance gain, as evidenced by the Asus GTS TOP model which comes in at 740MHz factory clocked and AT user OC'ing results.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,485
2,363
136
Thanks, that's exactly what I needed. GTS doesn't have simply more SPs, it also has more ROPs (24 vs 16) and more TMUs (64 vs 56), so you'd think performance would be vastly better, however that's not the case.

Yeah, I know about dual slot cooler and better potential for overclocking, and if prices on GT remained the way they were on release date I would have picked GTS as well as it was not that much more expensive than GT. However, I can get bottom of the barrel GT from ncix along with Accelero S1 and extra RAM sink set for $275-280 after MIR. The cheapest GTS from newegg on the other hand is $317 shipped after MIR. $275 for a card with superior aftermarket cooling that stays <50C under load or $317 for a card that offers only 2-3% performance increase and runs 80C under load... At this point I'm leaning with GT option, it's cheaper, offers nearly identical performance and runs much cooler with Accelero S1.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
Np, Firingsquad does some excellent comparison reviews and reveal a lot of info that I don't think NV wants the end-user to know. They've also got great reviews with OC'd G80 GTS and 112SP G80 GTS compared to G92 and G80 GTX.

Ya, I forgot about the extra TMU cluster, but unless something changed since release, the GTS still only has 16 ROPs that are tied to the 4 x 64-bit memory controllers. The GTS did successfully drive down the inflated GT prices, but unfortunately its price has stayed kinda high. If you can get an aftermarket cooler that allows you to get similar clockspeeds as the GTS than its probably better to go with a GT.

Maybe compare to some user-reports in the two threads here on AT with GT and GTS overclocking results. Lots of people used aftermarket coolers, but I'm pretty sure GTS owners were hitting clockspeed unattainable by the GT even with aftermarket cooling, like 800MHz+. But then you're looking at a 350-400 card compared to a 230-280 card.