Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

7900gtx or 8800gts 320mb??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 6, 2007 9:12:17 PM

which is a better deal?


the 7900gtx with a crap load of games for 300 dollars or a 8800gts 320mb?

More about : 7900gtx 8800gts 320mb

February 6, 2007 10:17:55 PM

noo...theres a new 8800gts coming out. its 320mb instead of 640mb
February 6, 2007 11:03:54 PM

Not even close.

Get the 8800 GTS 320MB, it's the exact same spec as the full blown GTS just with half the memory.

Why anyone would buy a DX9 card now defies understanding (unless it's financial of course!) - i don't care what the DX9 card is - by either team, it's old tech, and it's slower than the 8800 series.

With a rake of new DX10 card (from both teams)s coming at at all the different price points over the next 2-3 months DX9 only cards are dead. That said if you really don't care about DX10 you will be able to feast on great cards at bargain prices, you'll be SLI'ing XT's in no time!!!

The last 2-3 months have been a crap time to buy a new GPU all that is set to change - it's a new tech/bargain old tech feast this Spring and Summer!!!
Related resources
February 6, 2007 11:27:32 PM

Deal.. well the 7900GTX is an awful deal. As far a fps/$ , the 8800GTS isn't that bad. Look Here Although the pricing may have changed slightly, cheaper cards are usually a better deal. But if you can afford it you can hold the top spot for awhile
February 7, 2007 12:36:31 AM

The question here is: Will the 8800GTS perform as well as it is doing actually with half the RAM?
It's a big drop from 640 to 320 MB. Even though I don't know a single game that could benefit from more than 256 MB (Oblivion, maybe? :? ), the outcome is yet to be seen.
February 7, 2007 9:54:47 AM

The tech is the same, the drop off from the 640MB GTS will come, if at all, with very high res, everything maxed out, on larger monitors.

I'd say in a years time 512MB might be the standard for DX10, Graphic instensive, high detail, high res gaming. By that time, you'll be able to SLI 2 320MB on the cheap and outperform a GTX.


Obviously it's too early to say, but everything points to the GTS being a superb card for the price.
February 7, 2007 10:58:21 AM

The 8800 GTS is about twice as powerfull as the 7900 GTX.
February 7, 2007 11:25:17 AM

the 8800gts 320mb is around 3% slower when compared to 640mb and in europe will cost +/-€300

i'm already saving money :D 
February 7, 2007 11:43:57 AM

When is the 8800GTS 320 supposed to be released in the US?
February 7, 2007 11:54:27 AM

In Europe Gainward cards will start to sell next monday, probably the same will happen in US
February 7, 2007 12:59:29 PM

Quote:
the 8800gts 320mb is around 3% slower when compared to 640mb and in europe will cost +/-€300

i'm already saving money :D 


How do you know they lose 3% to the bigger sister?
February 7, 2007 1:30:33 PM

it's the rumor on the street from unofficial benches done with a club3d next monday nvidia will remove the NDA and we will know for sure...


DFI LP nF4 Ultra-D
opteron 165@2.6GHz (1.475V, stock HSF)
2x1024MB HyperX @ 236MHz (2.5-3-3-6)
Club 3D 8800GTS 320MB

3DMark2006 - 8181 Marks (SM2.0 - 3694, HDR/SM3.0 - 3677, CPU - 2002)
3DMark2005 - 13480 Marks
3DMark2003 - 23260 Marks
Aquamark3 - 112140 Marks (GFX - 20760, CPU - 12191)
February 7, 2007 1:41:09 PM

The BFG 8800GTS 320MB Factory Overclock released on Monday will cost £199 Inc Vat from Overclockers.
February 7, 2007 1:43:03 PM

My only concern is 320mb won't be sufficient.
February 7, 2007 1:43:52 PM

Sufficient for what?
February 7, 2007 2:01:47 PM

I'm thinking along the lines of Supreme Commander, Crysis, etc.
February 7, 2007 2:24:59 PM

On what settings? On what size monitor?, and at what Res?

Supreme Commander will tax your RAM, and CPU much more than your GPU memory.

What CPU do you have and how much RAM?
February 7, 2007 2:47:35 PM

Well I am actually building a new PC by the end of this month, and I was considering getting the 320mb version if it comes out this month, and proves to be worth it.

I plan on either going with a C2D setup with 1 gig of ram or a AM2 setup with 2 gigs of ram.

My budget is about $1000

The current price of the 8800GTS is what puts me slightly over the $1000 I'd like to spend. If the 320 version proves worth it, it would keep me under my budget.

I have a 19" widescreen monitor. I primarily run in 1440 x 900.

I do like to be able to enjoy every piece of eye candy and graphical bliss that I can when I game.
February 7, 2007 2:59:31 PM

To be the honest buying AMD now is crazy, it's not just that they are slower - they are old tech. Games like Sup Comm really benefit for dual core.

What is your budget for CPU and RAM put together?


I think with what your proposing there's no way just having 320MB on your GPU will be a problem, GPU memory is really overrated anyway.


The GTS 320MB will run anything maxed out on a 19" at that res.
February 7, 2007 3:11:20 PM

what Malazan said is right. If you stay with some older components like dvd, monitor, case, hdd, $1000 is enough for a c2d, mobo, 2gb ram, gfx and psu setup.
February 7, 2007 3:50:26 PM

This is the C2D setup I was looking at getting:

Case: Enermax ECA3092
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-965P-S3 P965
Processor: Intel E6300 Conroe
Memory: 1 GB G.Skill DDR2 800
Video Card: EVGA 8800GTS 640MB
Hard Drive: Western Digital 160GB 7200 16mb
DVD Drive: NEC 18x DVDR Burner
Power Supply: Rosewill RT550 550w
CPU Cooling: MassCool 90mm Ball Cooler
Fan1: 120mm Antec Red
Fan2: 120mm Zalman

With that setup it came to $1100.00 incl. shipping.

That is with the 8800GTS 640MB. If the 320MB version was to come out fairly soon, I could save an extra $100 or so and possibly increase the memory to 2 gigs, otherwise I'll have to leave it at 1 gig for now till I can upgrade.

If anyone has any suggestions for reducing the costs or improving this at all, it would be appreciated :) 
February 7, 2007 3:55:00 PM

Quote:
To be the honest buying AMD now is crazy, it's not just that they are slower - they are old tech. Games like Sup Comm really benefit for dual core.


Hogwash.

1. AMD (Ati) video cards are just fine. DirectX 9 cards will be servicable for two years at the very least, just like DirectX 8 cards were usable years after DirectX 9 was introduced. Hell, you can play Half Life Episode 1 with a DirectX 8 card and it's almost indiscernible from the DirectX 9 codepath.
There is a huger install base of DirectX 9 cards and developers can't ignore them unless they want to go out of business. Pretty much every game in the next 2 years will have a DirectX 9 path.

And for the record, Ati cards are not slower in general, yes the 8800 is the fastest videocard out there but there are price points where Ati cards are still king, like the $250 X1950 XT.

AMD CPUs are fine too, at resolutions above 1024x768 the videocard will be the bottleneck, not the CPU. I'd personally get a Core2 if you're buying new, but an Athlon X2 is still a great gaming cpu.

2. Dual core is far from necessary, the few games that do utilize it so far don't make a 'must have' difference. As far as supreme commander, we'll see.

But to answer the OP's question... I'd wait for the 320mb 8800 GTS. The 7900 GTX is way overpriced, the $250 X1950 XT will beat on it.
February 7, 2007 3:58:31 PM

edit
February 7, 2007 4:04:17 PM

Cool, I will take a look at what you suggested. I won't be able to use anything from my current PC, because my friend is going to buy it from me because his died suddenly and he wants mine.
February 7, 2007 4:18:03 PM

It isn't "Hogwash" as for "crazy" i was referring to AMD processors, not ATI cards.

Ask around, it's blalant insanity and short sighted insanity at that to buy AMD chips at this time. Core2 is thrashing the pants off AMD - FACT.

Also, why buy DX9 when you can buy DX10 at almost the same cost?


More than anything, i'm trying to help the guy future proof himself as well buying for now. Buying AMD and DX9 NOW is the complete antithesis of future proofing.

PS, If you don't think games like Supp Comm and the games coming out over the next year will benefit greatly for Core2, then you should do a little research man.

Malazan.
February 7, 2007 7:27:32 PM

Quote:
Ask around, it's blalant insanity and short sighted insanity at that to buy AMD chips at this time. Core2 is thrashing the pants off AMD - FACT.

Also, why buy DX9 when you can buy DX10 at almost the same cost?

PS, If you don't think games like Supp Comm and the games coming out over the next year will benefit greatly for Core2, then you should do a little research man.


For a gaming machine, Core2 doesn't offer much more than an Athlon X2 unless you're playing at low resolutions - FACT

Who buys a new rig to play at low resolutions?...

Sure, Core2 is a better bet if you're buying new. I'm not debating that. But Athlon X2's are still good gaming processors because the video card is the limiting factor, not the CPU. 'Insane' is a strong word for someone choosing a cheap X2.

Dx9 the same cost as Dx10? I don't think so lad, find me a Dx10 card under $400 please... I can find you decent Dx9 cards for $120.

*I* should do research? OK, I'll bite... please show me the research I'm missing, because I can't find any benches proving that dual cores make a colossal difference anywhere. There is a slight difference in some games that support dual core, but it's hardly the difference between playable and not playable... the deciding factor for that is still the videocard.
February 7, 2007 11:42:48 PM

Quote:
...then you should do a little research man.


Oh please...
...

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 


You're telling Cleeve to do a little research??? Obviously you don't know him...
February 8, 2007 12:25:29 AM

Quote:
To be the honest buying AMD now is crazy, it's not just that they are slower - they are old tech. Games like Sup Comm really benefit for dual core.


Hogwash.

1. AMD (Ati) video cards are just fine. DirectX 9 cards will be servicable for two years at the very least, just like DirectX 8 cards were usable years after DirectX 9 was introduced. Hell, you can play Half Life Episode 1 with a DirectX 8 card and it's almost indiscernible from the DirectX 9 codepath.
There is a huger install base of DirectX 9 cards and developers can't ignore them unless they want to go out of business. Pretty much every game in the next 2 years will have a DirectX 9 path.

And for the record, Ati cards are not slower in general, yes the 8800 is the fastest videocard out there but there are price points where Ati cards are still king, like the $250 X1950 XT.

AMD CPUs are fine too, at resolutions above 1024x768 the videocard will be the bottleneck, not the CPU. I'd personally get a Core2 if you're buying new, but an Athlon X2 is still a great gaming cpu.

2. Dual core is far from necessary, the few games that do utilize it so far don't make a 'must have' difference. As far as supreme commander, we'll see.

But to answer the OP's question... I'd wait for the 320mb 8800 GTS. The 7900 GTX is way overpriced, the $250 X1950 XT will beat on it.

before your 2nd statement, the 1st is wrong..
the games are CPU BOUND when in lower resolution, since they cant give the vid cards enought information to do that many fps.. ( thus the huge cap )
as soon you start using super high resolutions, the stuff normalizes and the diference betwen cpus isnt that big.
(read the many benchmarks with diferent cpus around, they will agree on this )

and Id munch on the 8800gts but 640 MB ( since I change vid card every 1-2 years, not every 6 months like most entusiasts here )
a b U Graphics card
February 8, 2007 2:12:36 AM

Just an update of the GF8800GTS-320 appearing on Overclockers;

!