Looks like the Geforce 8800 GTS 640 vs 320 is a non issue now

[pcslookout]

If you want the extra memory its only worth it to go with a GTX now it seems because the Geforce 8800 GTS 320 and 640 now perform the same.

Text

 

[Acanthus]

Glad to see the results actually laid out on the table.

I had a suspicion that was the case.

We shouldnt see 512MB+ usage until its standard on low end cards.

 

[MarcVenice]

Good, I was a bit worried about purchasing a 20inch monitor and then notice I should have gone with the 640mb card

 

[videopho]

The 320mb definitely remains the best card for the $$$, right now for those who own displays of 1680x1050 or less.
Not however, until you see DX10 games or higher resolutions and such, of course where the 640 may become a worthy investment at that price range.
I knew I paid way well below MSRP for my 640mb version during buy.com's Memorial Holiday buying frenzies.
How much of a price delta on these two cards, btw?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Good, I was a bit worried about purchasing a 20inch monitor and then notice I should have gone with the 640mb card

good choice

The GeForce 8800 GTS, with 640MB or 320MB of graphics memory, runs modern games at an acceptable speed and provides comfortable gaming conditions in resolutions up to 1600x1200 and, occasionally, even to 1920x1200. The results of the two versions of the card are in fact identical and purchasing the more expensive 640MB version isn?t reasonable. You may want to add some more money and buy a GeForce 8800 GTX instead. These two cards also have a dangerous rival, ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT, which beats them in quite a lot of tests. You should choose basing on what games you like most, but the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB seems to be the most optimal solution to us. It isn?t any slower than the 640MB model in usable resolutions but has an official price of only $299.

their conclusion surprised me somewhat - not about the 2900xt or the 640M, but about the 320M being more-or-less-"equal" to the 640M.

so ... perhaps the HardOCP benches were less wrong then i originally believed
[that is as much "apology" as KB gets from me]

 

[Cookie Monster]

Could it be because the benchmarks was done on Vista instead of XP? Im dont know much about Vista but dont Vista allow to convert system ram into extra video memory?

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Could it be because the benchmarks was done on Vista instead of XP?

From the 1st page of the article:

"The arrival of the new family might have been called rather too hasty as it took place even before the official announcement of Microsoft?s new OS, Windows Vista. Like with the GeForce 8800 GTX, there were some problems with the newer models. Particularly, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB would suffer from inefficient memory management in the driver and it would sometimes have a performance hit even in those applications where 256MB of memory was quite enough."

I wouldn't go as far as to say that 640 mb = 320mb card because in the near future games in DX10 will increase texture quality and perhaps even at 1600x1200 noAA/noAF 320mb will not be enough. However, in some of today's intensive games even 640mb isn't going to save GTS series from lack of gpu power at high resolutions before AA is even considered.

Oblivion 1920x1200 0AA/0AF
640mb = 35.0
320mb = 31.8

Rainbox 6: Vegas 1920x1200 0AA/0AF
640mb = 26.0
320mb = 25.8

STALKER 1920x1200 0AA/0AF
640mb = 33.0
320mb = 26.2

Supreme Commander 1920x1200 0AA/0AF
640mb = 36.0
320mb = 37.2

 

[Master Shake]

Aw crud

I just placed an order for my 640 gts yesterday

maybe I can call newegg on Monday and have them change the order to a 320.

 

[Skott]

The tests were all done with Vista Ultimate 32. I wonder what difference, if any, the results are with XP? Most people are still using XP.

 

[mrfatboy]

If the 320 & 640 cards are basically the same spec then the decision comes down your video memory needs. Mainly, games, Resolution, Dual monitors.

Let's look a the basic memory usage of a 1280x1024x32 bit color depth video game on the 320meg card. Assuming triple display method.

1 Video Buffer is 4meg (1280x1024X32bit color depth)

so

Video Card Mem 320 - 12 megs (3 buffers) = 308 megs remaining for game textures.

Using 1280x1024 yields approximately 308meg remaining for game textures
Using 1600x1050 yields approximately 300meg remaining for game textures
Using 1600x1200 yields approximately 298meg remaining for game textures
Using 1920x1440 yields approximately 288meg remaining for game textures

So it would seem as long as video games require around 256meg for high specs the 320 card should be plently at any resolution.

Now if games are going to make the jump to 384M, 512M, or higher texture memory then it would seem that the 640 card would be necessary. Do any games need that much memory now?


Everybody, please jump in here and make sure my calculations are correct. I am not sure if I covered all the memory usage. For example, how much video memory does XP use when a game is played if any?

 

[coldpower27]

Where are the GRAW and F.E.A.R. results those are two games I remember where the 8800 GTS 320 takes a nose dive in.

 

[BFG10K]

Also if you plan on using ultra quality textures in Doom 3 based game 320 MB won't be enough.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Also if you plan on using ultra quality textures in Doom 3 based game 320 MB won't be enough.

We both know the massive IQ increase that is

(it disables texture compression entirely, which increases IQ by nothing and takes up enormous amounts of graphics memory)

I remember a review showing side by side screenshots of ultra vs high and there were no visual differences.

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Also if you plan on using ultra quality textures in Doom 3 based game 320 MB won't be enough.

We both know the massive IQ increase that is

(it disables texture compression entirely, which increases IQ by nothing and takes up enormous amounts of graphics memory)

I remember a review showing side by side screenshots of ultra vs high and there were no visual differences.

I agree.
Playing on "Ultra" was/is just bragging rights.

 

[BFG10K]

(it disables texture compression entirely, which increases IQ by nothing and takes up enormous amounts of graphics memory)

There are subtle differences with general texture quality and characters' faces during cinematics.

Also there are large differences in the mars and hell sky textures (no banding like under HQ, just perfectly smooth).

 

[amenx]

You can not play GRAW on high textures with the 320mb, it will default to the medium tex settings. Min 512mb cards to get high tex. This is a game that came out before the G80 cards, dont know how many other games are like that, I suspect very few at this stage.

But we all got these cards for DX10 really, and if I had to make the decision all over again between the 640 and 320 I would still choose the former as I'd hate to see DX10 games having different settings for higher mem cards but cant use them, and also when I upgrade to a higher res display I want to be sure I'm covered.

 

[Keysplayr]

I didn't get my G80 for DX10. I bought mine to play current games. I have no doubt that when full blown DX10 games actually hit the market en masse, I will be upgrading to the next gen of DX10 hardware, what ever is available at the time.

 

[TheSlamma]

Try Company of Heroes DX10 320 vs 640

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I didn't get my G80 for DX10. I bought mine to play current games. I have no doubt that when full blown DX10 games actually hit the market en masse, I will be upgrading to the next gen of DX10 hardware, what ever is available at the time.

:thumbsup:

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I didn't get my G80 for DX10. I bought mine to play current games. I have no doubt that when full blown DX10 games actually hit the market en masse, I will be upgrading to the next gen of DX10 hardware, what ever is available at the time.

Exactly, i upgrade video cards every 15 months or so.

By the time real DX10 titles are out, ill be ready for a next gen card that will push them fine.

 

[Skott]

I didnt buy my 8800GTS 640 for DX10 neither. I bought it because its more powerful than my last card. I also chose it because the 8800GTX and Ultra are too expensive and I dont care for the ATI 2900XT. DX10 really had nothing to do with my choice. I chose to go with XP Pro again too since I feel Vista isnt good enough at this time. Maybe next year.