How well will a 8800 GT power a 24inch LCD?

[PaladinPup]

I read this...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...MCw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

I see it mentioned what the GT can do at 1920X1200 res. and on a 24inch to boot.

Can anyone confirm this or provide any other insight? Just want to be confident that the GT I plan on buying will be able to do justice to a large lcd. I have been vacillating between the 24 inch (with the higher native res, 1080i or p, etc) and the 22 inch (much cheaper, easier to power etc.)

The rest of my planned specs are as follows:

E6750 CPU
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS4 mobo
8800 GT 512MB GPU
1 Raptor 74G HD
1 Seagate 250G HD
Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1066 RAM
Cosair 620H PSU

Thanks!

PP

 

[Dkcode]

I have a 8800 GTX with a 24" monitor. I know the GT matches its performance except in some situations where AA is used. In all my games except Crysis and the shitty coded Armed Assault the card performs flawlessly.

Buy a 24" they are so worth it. If you can find a 26 or 27 with the same resolution then even better.

 

[toadeater]

The 8800 GT will not do well at 1920x1200 in new games. It is limited by its 256-bit memory bus, which is less than even the GTS. The reason it does so well in some benchmarks (at lower resolutions) is because it has more stream processors and the clock frequencies were increased. It's a good mid-range card for 22" monitors or less, but higher resolutions than that it starts to bottleneck.

Maybe the new ATI 3870 will do better, but probably not.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: toadeater
The 8800 GT will not do well at 1920x1200 in new games.
Incorrect. It does just fine save Crysis.

It is limited by its 256-bit memory bus
Incorrect. 256-bit bus does not show any significant reduction in performance at even the highest resolutions.

which is less than even the GTS.
Correct. But doesn't seem to matter. The only place an 8800GT may falter to a 8800GTS 640 is when that extra 128MB of GDDR3 is needed. Which is rarely encountered.

The reason it does so well in some benchmarks (at lower resolutions) is because it has more stream processors and the clock frequencies were increased.
Incorrect. It does well at ANY resolution, even upstairs at 25x16.

It's a good mid-range card for 22" monitors or less, but higher resolutions than that it starts to bottleneck.
Really? This "mid-range" card you speak of nearly rivals an 8800GTX. Usually within 5 to 10% of a GTX actually. Go check out some benchmarks.

Maybe the new ATI 3870 will do better, but probably not.
We will see.

Can you please show us where the 8800GT performs any worse than a 8800GTS320/640?

This may help you change your mind a bit.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: toadeater
The 8800 GT will not do well at 1920x1200 in new games.
Incorrect. It does just fine save Crysis.

It is limited by its 256-bit memory bus
Incorrect. 256-bit bus does not show any significant reduction in performance at even the highest resolutions.

which is less than even the GTS.
Correct. But doesn't seem to matter. The only place an 8800GT may falter to a 8800GTS 640 is when that extra 128MB of GDDR3 is needed. Which is rarely encountered.

The reason it does so well in some benchmarks (at lower resolutions) is because it has more stream processors and the clock frequencies were increased.
Incorrect. It does well at ANY resolution, even upstairs at 25x16.

It's a good mid-range card for 22" monitors or less, but higher resolutions than that it starts to bottleneck.
Really? This "mid-range" card you speak of nearly rivals an 8800GTX. Usually within 5 to 10% of a GTX actually. Go check out some benchmarks.

Maybe the new ATI 3870 will do better, but probably not.
We will see.

Can you please show us where the 8800GT performs any worse than a 8800GTS320/640?

This may help you change your mind a bit.

Here's one

Keep in mind, TR is using a GTS OC rather than the vanilla GTS against a vanilla GT and running higher resolutions/settings that may be influenced by an extra 128MB VRAM. However, in reviews at the same resolutions/settings where a vanilla GTS is pitted against a GT, the GTS still gets stomped. Personally I think something is bottlenecking the GT which prevents it from scaling the same way the GTS/GTX do with higher core clocks. Not sure if its fewer ROPs, lower bandwidth or lack of VRAM. The updated 65nm GTS should shed more light on this (rumored to have at least 4 more ROPs, maybe 16 more shaders).

 

[chizow]

And yes, an 8800GT or even an OC'd GTS is enough to run most current games at 1920 with most everything set to highest, although you may not be able to run AA. If you're worried about future games, just make sure you get a panel that can do 1:1 pixel mapping so you can run a lower resolution without having the image stretched/extrapolated to your 24". You won't get full use of the 24" real estate, but still better than poor performance at native resolutions or blurry stretched images at non-native resolutions.

 

[JAG87]

Agree 100% with dkcode, toadeater and chizow. seems like the video forums is populated by 8800GT blindfolded lovers lately. Its a good card folks, but there is a reason why its so cheap and affordable. 256 bit pcb is much cheaper than 320 and 384.

 

[Munky]

I know I'm not buying a 8800gt to run 1920x1200, because AA is important to me, and the 8800gt does suffer a huge performance drop in some games at that resolution with AA. I'm hoping the new gts will be a better fit for that resolution.

 

[deerhunter716]

PLENTY of benchmarks that show it does very well at 1920x1200 which is what I run. I have YET to see where running AA or AF makes a difference that I can really notice. It will do just fine even with today's games.

http://sg.vr-zone.com/articles..._GT_Review/5369-7.html

It BEATS the GTX on Crysis at 1920x1200 -- yes with no AA and no AF which again I have tried with my GTX and see no visible difference when playing.

 

[JBT]

It can't do Crysis well at 1920x1200 at all (Heck what card can) All the other games I've played with on mine have been great though.

 

[deerhunter716]

With my current 8800 GTX I Avg 40 FPS with all settings on Very High and Shaders/Shadows/Postprocessing set to low and runs like a champ and I so love shooting the trees in half, lol

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
With my current 8800 GTX I Avg 40 FPS with all settings on Very High and Shaders/Shadows/Postprocessing set to low and runs like a champ and I so love shooting the trees in half, lol

Hmmm that's pretty good. Will have to give that a shot tonite. So basically everything is turned down to low except for textures (most important eye-candy anyways, imo)?

 

[deerhunter716]

No all is turned on at very high and I only turn the shaders, postprocessing, and shadows to low and I see a HUGE increase in FPS and the game still looks beautiful.

 

[jonks]

If cost is at all a factor, get a 22". The 24" isn't worth the hundreds of dollars more they currently cost for a quality screen, the native rez is high and most games will experience some slow down if you play at the highest settings unless you're going 8800gtx sli.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: deerhunter716
PLENTY of benchmarks that show it does very well at 1920x1200 which is what I run. I have YET to see where running AA or AF makes a difference that I can really notice. It will do just fine even with today's games.

http://sg.vr-zone.com/articles..._GT_Review/5369-7.html

It BEATS the GTX on Crysis at 1920x1200 -- yes with no AA and no AF which again I have tried with my GTX and see no visible difference when playing.

You may not see a difference, but I see plenty of difference between AA and no AA at that resolution, and I have seen plenty of benches where the 8800gt falls far behind a gtx even at 16x12, nevermind 19x12. Besides being 2x as slow in Crysis, it also falls on it's face here,here, here and here, just to name a few examples. There is no way that card would last me even a year without having to turn down settings or give up AA. I'm going to need a real high end card for that resolution, and even the gtx does not represent what a high end card should be at this point in time.

 

[deerhunter716]

The point is IF you need AA and AF then sure the GT does not match the GTX. But if someone like me actually sees NO difference at all it beats the GTX period per the review and very much worth the purchase. But that is dependant on if you like to play with AA/AF or not. To me I could not care as the games look great without it.

 

[aiya24]

in crysis benchmarks w/AA, its pretty obvious that the 8800GT is limited by onboard video memory compared to the GTX. but even the GTX is held back due to the same thing.

as of right now, there is no single card that can run crysis @ 1920x1200 w/AA smoothly. if you don't plan on playing crysis, the 8800GT is a great card .

 

[JAG87]

Lets just say that the 8800GT is a great card to play any games that came out before it was released. Perhaps it will excel with some next gen games too, but right now it doesn't look too bright.

 

[techgamer]

Basically the 8800gt is great for the price right now. Just get an EVGA and step up if they release anything better by end of January.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Here was my theory. I had an 7800GT and a 24" 1920x monitor. I couldn't even play BattleField 2142 on it.

So I got an EVGA 8800GT and it overclocks like mad (730/2000). Now I can play Unreal Tournament 3 at max settings. I can play Crysis (but not at max). I figure that I can either 1) Use EVGA 90 day Step-up if something bigger comes out. 2) Sell it if something comes out after that 3) Enjoy my games NOW, rather than wait 4) Buy another 8800GT and SLI.

For the price, the 8800GT is pretty good for NOW, although I'm sure a 9800 is not toooo far away.

 

[alcoholbob]

You could always get a 21.3" 1600x1200 monitor, although they don't come cheap (usually in the $500+ range).

I just got a NEC 2190UXi because I'm not real excited with the prospect of running 1900x1200 on a 8800GT.

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: Deleted member 4644
Here was my theory. I had an 7800GT and a 24" 1920x monitor. I couldn't even play BattleField 2142 on it.

So I got an EVGA 8800GT and it overclocks like mad (730/2000). Now I can play Unreal Tournament 3 at max settings. I can play Crysis (but not at max). I figure that I can either 1) Use EVGA 90 day Step-up if something bigger comes out. 2) Sell it if something comes out after that 3) Enjoy my games NOW, rather than wait 4) Buy another 8800GT and SLI.

For the price, the 8800GT is pretty good for NOW, although I'm sure a 9800 is not toooo far away.

agreed entirely. Just because I have a 8800GT doesn't mean I can't get whats comming out next. I had a x1900XT before and the GT smokes the pants off of it. The GT is a much better option than the GTX... If the next couple cards that come out truely smoke the GT then I'll upgrade if the price isn't to bad.