• 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.

EVGA's 8800GTS 320MB

J

JimiP

Senior member
I would like to ask everyone in the AnandTech community how they feel about the EVGA 8800GTS 320MB GPU. Now, I'm a gamer. I play games such as COD2, Oblivion, BF2 and others. However, I plan to play the DX10 games such as Crysis along with games including UT3, Quake Wars, and COD4. Now my question is how does this GPU perform with the newest games in DX10? Also, another question I had is, exactly how does this card fair in the SLI configuration? Will it perform as well as a single GTX? (of course minus the missing memory noting that even if you SLI you still only get 320MB)

I initially wanted to purchase the GTX but I also need to save as much money as I possibly can. I'll appreciate your thoughts.
 
Originally posted by: JimiPNow my question is how does this GPU perform with the newest games in DX10?
Click to expand...

Well there aren't any DX10 games out yet, but I heard a report that the 8800 will get like 60 fps in Crysis with all settings turned up...

 
Prices should drop in the next week or two. If you're a gamer grab the 640 instead of the 320 for a few bucks more.

I don't do SLI but I'd imagine 2 GTS's would outperform a GTX.

DX10 is only on vista and if you have it then the question is...what's the best performer. Your only option 8800 (8000 line), you don't have any other options until the new R600 from ATI comes out (2 weeks) and no one knows how it performs yet.
 
A few bucks? The 640mb's are around 75-100 bucks more. And at only a 5-10% gain in FPS...is that worth it? I didn't think so.
 
The gts can perform almost as well as a gtx if you plan on overclocking it, otherwise the gtx performs about 25% faster.

I just bought a gts and am waiting for it to come in the mail, I'm so excited!!!
 
My oldest son just bought the superclocked 640mb version at newegg for $409 plus it has a $30 MIR. Evga has the best warranty in the industry which is why we buy from them. I've also got 2 xfx cards with a lifetime warranty but it isn't as good as the evga warranty. Bfg also carries a very limited lifetime warranty and the rest of the brands carry from 1-3 year warranties. I realize that standards change and you'll probably replace your card before those 3 years are up but if you do keep the card as a spare or in another system then the lifetime warranty is a great thing especially since you aren't paying any more for it.
 
Originally posted by: dbdynsty25
A few bucks? The 640mb's are around 75-100 bucks more. And at only a 5-10% gain in FPS...is that worth it? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? Maybe at like 1280x1024 were its more cpu dependent. Try doing 1920x1200 and see if the 320mb holds up......
 
Originally posted by: aclim
Originally posted by: dbdynsty25
A few bucks? The 640mb's are around 75-100 bucks more. And at only a 5-10% gain in FPS...is that worth it? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? Maybe at like 1280x1024 were its more cpu dependent. Try doing 1920x1200 and see if the 320mb holds up......
Click to expand...
Also note that you won't be able to run Quake 4 in ultra quality, with any rez...for that, you need 512. Don't think that SLI down the road will compensate: it won't combine the two buffers to create 640 of display space.

However, you *will* be able to play FEAR with 38fps at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and 8x aniso with the 320 version...pretty impressive.

Games in the near future are gonna tax that card. But it will probably be OK for now. If you're gonna keep a new card for awhile, the extra 75-100 bucks might be worth it.
 
Originally posted by: aclim
Originally posted by: dbdynsty25
A few bucks? The 640mb's are around 75-100 bucks more. And at only a 5-10% gain in FPS...is that worth it? I didn't think so.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? Maybe at like 1280x1024 were its more cpu dependent. Try doing 1920x1200 and see if the 320mb holds up......
Click to expand...

Seems to be working fine on my 24" Dell...
 
up to about 16x12 both the 320 & 640mb 8800gts will perform the same, then the 640mb card will pull ahead. so it really depends on what res you want to play at.

i play 2142 @ 1600x1200 almost all settings on high save for a couple on medium, with 16xAF and 2xaa and i get framerates at around 70-100fps except for in some super busy fights where it still stays very respectable.
 
Actually, I know there aren't any DX10 games out currently but since this is the AnandTech forums, I just wanted to make sure that no one here knew anything about them performing well with those particular cards.

I normally play COD2 at about 12x10 resolution. I use a 17" Acer flat panel so I'm not using any crazy resolutions while gaming. Anyways, thanks for the help all.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
At 12x10 you aren't really even stressing the 8800 series.

You should be fine with a 320MB part.
Click to expand...

At 1280 x 1024 you are stressing your CPU. The 8800 doesn't even work hard at that res. Trust me I know from experience.
 
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Another thing I was curious about... From your comments I understand the video memory is basically making it easier to use much larger resolutions. Now, how will the actual card fair compared to the GTX in terms of FPS in COD2, BF2 and the like? That's really what I want to know.
 
I would definitely recommend, it should run older generation games much better, but there is only so far you can go as far as quality on those older-gen games too.
 
In all honesty, I'm a very competitive gamer so actual graphical quality isn't better than better performance for me. I play COD2 with the highest resolution but with DX7, No AA,ASF and all the eye-candy. Frame rates is all that matter to me. As long as I can get that beautiful constant solid 125FPS throughout the match then I am happy.
 
Originally posted by: JimiP
In all honesty, I'm a very competitive gamer so actual graphical quality isn't better than better performance for me. I play COD2 with the highest resolution but with DX7, No AA,ASF and all the eye-candy. Frame rates is all that matter to me. As long as I can get that beautiful constant solid 125FPS throughout the match then I am happy.
Click to expand...


why 125 fps?

really anything over 70 or so wont make a perceptible difference

and with an lcd, youll only get a constant 60fps anyways since that is their refresh rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top