• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

BFG NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT OC 256MB PCIe

In my opinion it's not a great card for gaming.

It only has a 128-bit memory bus, and it suffers because of this. At lower resolutions and with no AA, it can hold its own against the 7900GS and the X1950Pro.

But as soon as you start cranking up resolution and AA, it chokes on that limited memory bus and performs similarly to a X1650XT, as you can see in these benchmarks. And I doubt that OC 8600GT would fare much better.

Yes, the card supports DX10 but that's a moot point since DX10 performance is yet to be seen for the most part and the few examples we have today indicate that even a 8800GTX suffers
running DX10 games.

I'd say go with the 7950GT or the X1950Pro, which is probably the best bang for the buck card in the market right now.
 
Originally posted by: Noema
In my opinion it's not a great card for gaming.

It only has a 128-bit memory bus, and it suffers because of this. At lower resolutions and with no AA, it can hold it's own against the 7900GS and the X1950Pro.

But as soon as you start cranking up resolution and AA, it chokes on that limited memory bus and performs similarly to a X1650XT, as you can see in [/L=these benchmarks]http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=3[/L]. And I doubt that OC 8600GT would fare much better.

Yes, the card supports DX10 but that's a moot point since DX10 performance is yet to be seen for the most part and the few examples we have today indicate that even a 8800GTX suffers
running DX10 games.

I'd say go with the 7950GT or the X1950Pro, which is probably the best bang for the buck card in the market right now.
Click to expand...

i agree, the x1950pro gives higher frame rates mostly across the board, esp when u turn up the quality settings. unless u dont mind playing with jagged edges and low texture.

even maximum PC rated the 8600gts low bc its low performance and useless DX10
 
yeah, it wouldn't really be a big jump from your x850 (x850xt is roughly equal to a 7600gt, and as noema said when the settings go up the 8600gt performs about at the level of an x1650xt, which is also about equivalent to a 7600gt). i also think you should go with a ~high end x1k or gf7 part.

EDIT: x1650xt
 
AA is overrated, in 1 year you won't be using AA at a decent resolution in new games for ANY of the cards mentioned.

If the 8600 had 64 shader units instead of 32, and more ROPs, none of us would be complaining about the memory bus.

The 7950GT or x1900xt gives the most consistent frame rates for current games, so that would be my first pick.

Against the x1950pro, I would take a 8600GTS but not the GT (the OP mentioned GT) over it.
 
Originally posted by: superbooga
AA is overrated, in 1 year you won't be using AA at a decent resolution in new games for ANY of the cards mentioned.

If the 8600 had 64 shader units instead of 32, and more ROPs, none of us would be complaining about the memory bus.

The 7950GT or x1900xt gives the most consistent frame rates for current games, so that would be my first pick.

Against the x1950pro, I would take a 8600GTS but not the GT (the OP mentioned GT) over it.
Click to expand...

Whether on not the x1950xt has enough power to use AA in future games is debatable. But the fact that the 8600gt is too weak to even use it in current games is clear as daylight.
 
It's an excellent HTPC card, with its video acceleration capabilities. Not recommended for serious (modern/large res/AA) gaming, though.
 
Originally posted by: superbooga
AA is overrated, in 1 year you won't be using AA at a decent resolution in new games for ANY of the cards mentioned.

If the 8600 had 64 shader units instead of 32, and more ROPs, none of us would be complaining about the memory bus.

The 7950GT or x1900xt gives the most consistent frame rates for current games, so that would be my first pick.

Against the x1950pro, I would take a 8600GTS but not the GT (the OP mentioned GT) over it.
Click to expand...

Really? I use at least 4x AA at 1920x1200 in pretty much everything I play.
 
Originally posted by: f4phantom2500
yeah, it wouldn't really be a big jump from your x850 (x850xt is roughly equal to a 7600gt, and as noema said when the settings go up the 8600gt performs about at the level of an x1650 pro, which is also about equivalent to a 7600gt). i also think you should go with a ~high end x1k or gf7 part.
Click to expand...
I think you mean x1650xt because the 8600gt is much stronger than the x1650pro unless Im mistaken. Also the x1650pro is just a rebadged x1600xt and the 7600gt was stronger than it. I know I have an 8600gt but no way would I suggest getting one if gaming above 1024.

 
toyota, you're right i did mean the x1650xt. i was using it as a reference since noema had already referenced it. musta had a brain fart. fixed.
 
From all the reviews I have read, on the 8600GT and 8600GTS, it is generally agreed that the GTS is a disappointment, and yes, you are better with a 1950Pro and 7900GS for less money.

As for the 8600GT, it is generally rated as a better price/performance ratio than the GTS. It is a smallish, low-power card (no external power needed) that performs distinctly above the 7600GT in a majority of games...with some exceptions in older games.
 
I recently purchased a 8600gt for the other half's computer which is strictly to run FS9 - not realising that AA does not work with any Nvidia 8 series cards and FS9!!!!

So anyway, have currently put it in my pc in place of my 8800gtx and am going to play around with it a bit.

Currently i have only tried a couple of games, and I plan to do a nice little write up for it, but so far I can say it is a better card than I thought it would be.

Sure it may not perform as well as a 1950 Pro, but it also cost £20 less than said 1950 pro.

F.E.A.R runs wery well at medium, and what surprised me was that at Max settings, it still maintained pretty much playable frame rates for most people - above 30.

Tomb Raider Anniversary runs brilliantly with 4xAA at 1440 x 900. This one surprised me the most.

Oblivio and GRAW both suffer from the same problem (which I have experienced before with my 8800gtx in oblivion) in that while it maintains playable frame rates, there is a strange jerking as if frames are being dropped or soemthing like that. And this is not the loading stutter when entering new areas. Although from brief testing so far seems only to be with outside areas in oblivion.

FSX with the same settings I used with my 8800gtx, was running between 15 and 20 fps.

Anyway, enough rambling from me. Will do a nice review of it with a few more games soon.

 
Lets pretend the 8600GT is a kid in school. Now, immagine that same kid getting picked on by all the older kids and for the sake of arguement lets call these older kids 7600GT's.

Now, lets say that one day the 8600GT was on it's way to lunch when all the sudden a group of 7600GT's jump on it and START WHOOPING THE EVER LOVING HELL OUT OF IT !!! Now that poor little 8600GT is laying on the ground crying and no longer has his $1.30 to buy his lunch.

Moral of this story : Always hide extra lunch money in your underwear.
 
Wait, so the little kids are bullying the bigger kid? by bigger I mean a little more stocky, a fraction taller, nothing like David and Goliath....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top