I mean even a x1950pro, and 7950gt outperform it so I imagine the new 8600gts with 512 of memory should at least outperform it at higher resolutions. This makes me wonder why the 8800gts 320 exists.
It looks as if they 8600ultra 512 should outperform the 8800gts 320
- Thread starter Xarick
- Start date
I didnt see a lot of situations where the above happened. If it did it was in a higher AA test where 512MB would help.
And besides the 8800 GTS 320 is cheaper than the X1950
And besides the 8800 GTS 320 is cheaper than the X1950
I doubt nvidia would make such a blunder as to let a $200 card outperform a $300 card. It's possible that the 320mb gts performs poorly in some cases due to driver bugs. It's also possible that the 8600ultra is a fake card. When was the last time a midrange card had an 'Ultra' designation? The best case scenario I can imagine is another 6600gt vs 6800 situation, where the less expensive 6600gt performed about the same as the 6800.
I thing the 8800gts 320 will be the card for lower screen res., lower texture res., and no AA. That is when it will fly. The key is to keep almost everything need in video ram. The 8600gt ultra 512 will be a more balanced card for todays games. Good fps (>30) at any setting within reason. The question is will future games/gamers want/use higher res textures, higher screen res., and AA. If they do then the 8600gt ultra 512 could be more future proof. Although if the pixel power needed for games goes up alot then the 8800gts 320 will be more future proof. Now if I could just find my crystal ball. For what it is worth, I plan to by a 8600gt 512 assuming it is around $179.
I assumed you meant 8600gt ultra 512 since I have not heard of a 8600gts.
I assumed you meant 8600gt ultra 512 since I have not heard of a 8600gts.
Where are you seeing a 7950GT outperform a 320MB 8800GTS? I just did a quick run-through of the 1600x1200 numbers in the Firingsquad review and except for FEAR, I see pretty healthy gains in all other games.
It's very obvious that the 8800GTS 320 has driver issues and is not using it's memory correctly/efficiently. Cards with less memory aren't taking the same hit with AA enabled or higher resolutions. I'd wait on a driver revision or two before deciding if it's worth buying or not.
If it was RAM issue, then the 256MB X1900 or 1950 whatever wouldn't be outperforming a 320MB 8800GTS, since they have less RAM.
I'm inclined to agree that it's at least partially buggy drivers, and in non-RAM limited situations, the 8800GTS will almost certainly outperform the 8600 anything.
I have a feeling it is not a driver issue at all, but instead a hardware design issue. Hence the reason the MSRP is $100 cheaper. Nvidia knew that their 320 part would be severly crippled and thus would need a much lower price to be even considered.
There is also the issue of the possibility that the 8600 Ultra 512MB part simply doesn't exist.
To me it makes no sense to use the ultra moniker on the mainstream line when the high end line doesn't use the ultra moniker at all.
To me there will likely be only 2 parts in the 8600 line, the GT and GS. I would say they will both be limited to a max of 256MB at first until the 8800 GTS 320MB can be replaced with a 512MB or greater video card. Nvidia won't let the mainstream line cripple the sales of their high end SKU's.
To me it makes no sense to use the ultra moniker on the mainstream line when the high end line doesn't use the ultra moniker at all.
To me there will likely be only 2 parts in the 8600 line, the GT and GS. I would say they will both be limited to a max of 256MB at first until the 8800 GTS 320MB can be replaced with a 512MB or greater video card. Nvidia won't let the mainstream line cripple the sales of their high end SKU's.
The few 256MB cards that do beat it only just beat it. So I would say it is a RAM and driver or hardware design problem that is keeping it down. Since the 8600 and below cards have a more traditional memory interface (128/256 bit) could they be based off a revised 8800 core? Which would lead to a 8900 later based on this new core.
huh? you can get a 256mb x1950pro for $156, and a 512mb x1950pro for $199 @newegg...
how is that more expensive than the $299 320mb GTS?
^ exactly. Furthermore the 8900gs which is suppose to debut in spring will be 256/512 versions and is rumored at $250 msrp. This would blow the 320 out of the water.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
I just read over the Anandtech benchmarks the x1950xtx (let alone the 1950pro) loses in every benchmark besides Quake 4. They explain why the 8800gts loses too.
The 8800gts is cooler,takes less power, then the 1950xtx and is direct x 10 ready.
AT 300.00$ its no contest at resolutions below 1900x1200
That table does seem somewhat credible. Keeping the midrange cards on a 128-bit bus would improve the profit margins and keep the cost down. It also brings up a question of how much would 512mb of video memory benefit a gpu connected by a 128-bit bus and having 1/3 less shaders than the 8800gts. My guess is not much.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
I don't think the 8600 will only have 128 bit interface. My 6800 has 256bit clocked at 700+ and it is two generations behind. Also the 7600gt almost has the same amount of memory bandwidth at the 8600. I just don't see that happening.
dude look at the 8900gs .. if it is due out in the next few months then it is the card to own. Same price as the 8800gts 320 but with 512ram instead. All the rest of hte spec are the same.. should make the 8800gts 320 cry for its mommy.
happy medium
Lifer
- Jun 8, 2003
- 14,387
- 480
- 126
Well from the leaked charts it looks like the X2600's are also looking like they have a 128Bit Memory Interface.
You also got to keep in mind the 8600 GT with 1.8GHZ GDDR3, will have more memory bandwidth, then the older 7600 GT, no to mention the 6800 Vanilla even with it's 256Bit interface.
There is a minor increase in memory bandwidth.
The rest of the specs aren't identical, the 8900 GS has 512MB of VRAM on a 256Bit Memory Interface, which means a 20% decrease in memory bandwidth, however it does have a 60% larger frame buffer, as well as a higher core clock which implies higher shader clocks.
The 8900 GS 512MB should be faster overall then the 8800 GTS 320MB, though now the question is when will it be coming out.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
Originally posted by: sisq0kidd
5700 Ultra. But I believe we all forcefully forgot that midrange generation
and:
5600Ultra
5200Ultra (lowend)
I HIGHLY doubt there are any FAKE cards in those that were announced. You thought it might be fake just because it has Ultra for the suffix? Why? What have you heard?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter