What will max my 8800GTS 320MB card?

[Cheex]

I currently play all my games at 1024x768 on my eVGA 8800GTS 320MB. I have it overclocked to 600/1404/1800 (can go higher).

I just wanted to have a really good idea when the 320MB will start to limit my gaming. Whether in terms of the actual game or other factors.

Example:
I play Oblivion with EVERYTHING MAXED (all sliders to the right, everything on high, HDR enabled) @ 1024x768 and also I force 16x AA and 16x AF from the Nvidia Control Panel for Oblivion.
I get ~45-50 FPS on average outdoors (dips to about 20 near a lot of water), I will get like up to 110 in some places and I get 150-180 indoors.

I'm interested in Qarl's Texture Pack 3 to make the game look really pretty too but I want to know my limits with this 320MB.


Give me your opinions, suggestions, criticisms, etc...

Thanks in advance,
Cheex.

 

[golem]

I would think at the resolution, you'll be good for a long while.

 

[Cheex]

I currently have a 17" CRT monitor...What if I get a 19" LCD and play @ 1280x1024 ??

 

[Cheex]

Also, I'm planning on changing out my memory for a 2GB kit of higher performing memory. Will that be enough to smooth out the gameplay and stop the stuttering?

 

[xSkyDrAx]

more ram would be nice but at that resolution the 8800 is barely breaking a sweat. Other things are limiting your FPS at that point. It's really around the 1680x1050 range where the memory difference on the cards start coming into play.

 

[Cheex]

Well it is good to know that I can get a monitor as high as 22" (1680x1050) and not have to worry too much.

As for the "barely breaking a sweat" part....I find that hard to believe...I know its true but that's amazing. My X850XT that I had could barely manage Oblivion on Medium with no real eye candy.


Now let me get this straight....
(1) As long as the video memory needed by a 3D application (games in my case) doesn't exceed 320MB, then I should have no 'slowdown' on my card?
(2) The is no game currently available that can bog down my GTS @ 1024x768, 1280x1024 or 1440x900 but maybe a little @ 1680x1050?
(3) There is no need to feel that I am in the mid-range (I'm still high-end right?) and should have spent more and gone higher (640MB)?

 

[thilanliyan]

I just noticed, you're not running your memory in dual channel?? (ie. you only have 1 stick of memory??)

 

[Cheex]

Originally posted by: thilan29
I just noticed, you're not running your memory in dual channel?? (ie. you only have 1 stick of memory??)

Yes, you're right. I'm saving up for a 2GB kit and then I might just resell this stick.
I'm saving up for this.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cheex
Well it is good to know that I can get a monitor as high as 22" (1680x1050) and not have to worry too much.

As for the "barely breaking a sweat" part....I find that hard to believe...I know its true but that's amazing. My X850XT that I had could barely manage Oblivion on Medium with no real eye candy.


Now let me get this straight....
(1) As long as the video memory needed by a 3D application (games in my case) doesn't exceed 320MB, then I should have no 'slowdown' on my card?
(2) The is no game currently available that can bog down my GTS @ 1024x768, 1280x1024 or 1440x900 but maybe a little @ 1680x1050?
(3) There is no need to feel that I am in the mid-range (I'm still high-end right?) and should have spent more and gone higher (640MB)?

I can write you a simple terrain engine that draws 2 million polygons per frame and it would bring your card into single digits even at 1024 x 768 . Anyways, there are some games like COD2 and COH that would put your card well behind the 640mb version at 1280x1024.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: thilan29
I just noticed, you're not running your memory in dual channel?? (ie. you only have 1 stick of memory??)

Yes, you're right. I'm saving up for a 2GB kit and then I might just resell this stick.
I'm saving up for this.

Single channel might bottleneck your system somewhat. Not sure how much though. maybe someone with more experience can chime in.

 

[Cheex]

Good thoughts. Also, please make comments about my memory choice.

 

[will889]

@ 1680*1050 a 320MB GTS is just fine as long as you have good balanced system with a newer stronger processor. You may have to drop down to medium high settings in a few games with 2X AA 4X AF but there's nothing wrong with that because at that res many don't even need to use AA-AF. Obviously a 640MB card would allow more AA-AF and a tad higher settings and would especially be better for a 24+" LCD.

 

[sthaznpride17]

At that resolution you will be fine. However, as upcoming games use textures that take up more memory, the 320MB might be a limitation, especially at 1680 x 1050 and above. But for right now, you are good to go.

 

[zig3695]

play the new DIRT demo and watch your expensive setup poop itself.

of course, 1024x768 is a very low resolution in todays standards. my 7800gt cant keep up at all with current games in 1650x1080

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: Cheex
I currently play all my games at 1024x768 on my eVGA 8800GTS 320MB. I have it overclocked to 620/1458/1800.

I just wanted to have a really good idea when the 320MB will start to limit my gaming. Whether in terms of the actual game or other factors.

Example:
I play Oblivion with EVERYTHING MAXED (all sliders to the right, everything on high, HDR enabled) @ 1024x768 and also I force 16x AA and 16x AF from the Nvidia Control Panel for Oblivion.
I get ~45-50 FPS on average outdoors (dips to about 20 near a lot of water), I will get like up to 110 in some places and I get 150-180 indoors.

I'm interested in Qarl's Texture Pack 3 to make the game look really pretty too but I want to know my limits with this 320MB.


Give me your opinions, suggestions, criticisms, etc...

Thanks in advance,
Cheex.

qarls texture pack will bring down performance to the 20s. yes even at 10x7.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Probably not until DX10 starts to be used in top tier titles like UT2007 and Crysis, will you notice your current card to be insufficient.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: Cheex
Good thoughts. Also, please make comments about my memory choice.

I'm not sure if this is correct but the Newegg link you provided says it needs 2.2v to do DDR2-800 at 4-4-4 timings?? Or is that just the max voltage? If you do need 2.2v, I'm sure you could find a kit that could do better at a lower voltage. I got a cheap Kingmax kit that does DDR2-850 @ 5-5-5 timings with 1.9v (haven't tried any higher). Just read reviews of that memory and memory roundups to find something suitable.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: Cheex
Good thoughts. Also, please make comments about my memory choice.

I'm not sure if this is correct but the Newegg link you provided says it needs 2.2v to do DDR2-800 at 4-4-4 timings?? Or is that just the max voltage? If you do need 2.2v, I'm sure you could find a kit that could do better at a lower voltage. I got a cheap Kingmax kit that does DDR2-850 @ 5-5-5 timings with 1.9v (haven't tried any higher). Just read reviews of that memory and memory roundups to find something suitable.

It may depend on the board used. If you want to do 1T on an Nvidia chipset you may need voltage.

 

[gramboh]

That Crucial is really good stuff. Even the Ballistix (non-tracer) is good Micron D9 chips for a bit less money. I've read of people getting 500+ MHz at 2.1V so you will be good. Also I think your DS3 can push 2.2 or 2.3V VDimm can't it?

You really should think about upgrading your display. My roommate has a 320MB GTS and a 17in CRT and also plays at 1024x768. I have a 640MB GTS and bought a Dell 24in LCD (1920x1200) to replace my 19in CRT when I upgraded my PC. When I watch him play games on his tiny 17in and then go into my room and play the same game on my 24in it's such a big difference in terms of the experience. You 'see' so much more detail in games and it is much more immersive. With 22in widescreens being so cheap now (under $300US) i'd consider that as your next upgrade. Sure you will get less fps at 1680x1050 but you will enjoy gaming a lot more.

 

[Cheex]

I don't have a problem with the higher voltage required. I am looking the the Tracer because of the performance and overclockability of the D9's IC's that are used on them and secondly because i like the LED's (they would look great in my case).

 

[Cheex]

My DS3 can take the memory voltage very high (higher than you would really want to anyway), so I don't have a voltage issue.

I want a good 19", 20", 20.1" or 22" LCD. Something really fast, like 2ms, nothing higher than 5ms....for gaming.
I have considered a 22" monitor but the money is just not there for that right now....YET!!

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: xSkyDrAx
more ram would be nice but at that resolution the 8800 is barely breaking a sweat. Other things are limiting your FPS at that point. It's really around the 1680x1050 range where the memory difference on the cards start coming into play.

QFT. My panel maxes at 1680x1050 and my X1950XTX will choke one some games with all settings turned up.

 

[Cheex]

I honestly don't think that is a good comparison. The 8800GTS is a stronger, more efficient card. Maybe it isn't even the video memory that is holding back your X1950XTX, maybe it is the card itself or some other factor.

If I should get a 19" LCD monitor and then game at 1280x1024....what then?

 

[aiya24]

Cheex, the range of monitors your thinking of getting is perfect for your GTS320. we don't know how well it will be in future/DX10 games, but by then you'll probably have enough to get whatever new is out at that time. also depends on the games your playing now.

 

[Cheex]

That's exactly what I was thinking. I need a better monitor but the highest I would go is 22" @ 1680x1050.