Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GTS’s performance > 320MB vs. 640MB

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 26, 2007 6:57:26 AM

In “The Short List: the Best Gaming Video cards for the money” it is written that “The (8800GTS) 640mb cards can be $100 more expensive than the 320mb versions, but the price premium isn’t worth it as the 320mb and 640mb cards perform almost identically.”
I’m going to buy 8800GTS 640MB. Now should I buy the cheaper one with 320MB? If I buy the 640MB, will it be waste of money? :? 640MB is double than 320MB, so it must give a lot better performance!! So what’s wrong!!! :(  If the 320mb and 640mb cards perform almost identically than what’s the point of having extra 320MB!!! 8O
I love to play games with all the eye candy. Will my extra money for 640MB going to give me better performance?!?
You guys are expert; please tell me what I should do. :? Thanks in advance. :D 
February 26, 2007 7:24:38 AM

It was written that the performances are almost identical. I can afford 640MB but my question is; will I get better performance with double memory (640MB)? :? Or Is it waste of money? :( 
February 26, 2007 7:38:52 AM

There are far more clued up people than me on here but my understanding is the 640 will be more futureproof for up and coming games with more textures and details.
Related resources
February 26, 2007 8:34:01 AM

This one's easy. Only two questions need be answered:

1) What resolution do you play at?

a) below 1680x1050
b) 1680x1050 to 1920x1200
c) above 1920x1200

2) What personailty type are you?

a) cheap / poor / no quite so geeky
b) like the feeling of doing some math to achieve the best price/performance ratio within given parameters
c) feel good about having higher numbers on my stuff regardless of empirical value of said numbers

If your answer to either questioin is C, get an 8800 GTX or nothing at all.
If your answer to either question is A, get an 8800 GTS 320MB, or whatever is within your budget.
If your answer to either question is B, the situation is slightly trickier. The extra money for the 640 WILL give you better performance, especially if you like to turn eye candy to full and use AA, and this will get more pronounced into the future. However, the 320 GTS will still be fast at a notch less image quality, and it's a crap shoot as to how fast new games will chew through memory as opposed to saturating the 96 unified pipelines that both GTS's have. My suggestion would be that if you lean towards budget conscious and have a 20-incher, go with the 320 and pocket the $100. Otherwise, go with the 640 and feel good that 640 is 2x (twice!!) 320.

mythos

Edit:
Futureproofing doesn't exist. You are either a) an enthusiast who upgrades all the time (in which case your parts don't have much of a future anyway) or someone who upgrades in cycles in which case you should really only be concerned about the best price/performance at the time you purchase as by the time you upgrade again there will be new paradigms that leave even your supposedly "futureproof" parts in the dustbin of history
February 26, 2007 8:51:35 AM

If I remember correctly you're going to be using a CRT monitor, aren't you? So your choice of resolutions is not limited as in an LCD screen.
Still, if you have a preferred resolution that you play at, let that be your guide as to which card will be best for your needs.
Anything at or below 1280x1024 is fine with the 320MB card. If you want higher resolutions with high/ultra quality settings then the 640MB version will serve you better
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2007 9:12:33 AM

Not to add MORE confusion, but another question to ask is: "Should I use any money that I save buying a 320 MB card to buy either more or faster main memory?"

john
February 26, 2007 10:34:16 AM

At 1680x1050 the overclocked BFG and XFX 320MB cards performed better then the stock 640MB card.
It was really only in resolutions at 1920x1200 and above the 640MB card started to show its worth.
So im going to get a factory clocked 320MB card at almost the same price as a 640MB 8800GTS, why?
My screen maxes out at 1280x1024, so im going for fast & furious instead of big and reliable :wink:
February 26, 2007 11:04:19 AM

More memory doesn't just make something faster. If a game uses less than 320MB of texture memory then it'll run at the same speed on either card. If it exceeds 320MB then the 640MB GTS will romp away with much better performances as the 320MB card is out of memory and hence has to start leaning on system RAM instead which is much slower. I have a 640MB GTS and with a couple of texture mods for Oblivion, I can easily get it up to using 500MB+ of texture memory. The game then still runs smoothly on my card but would be almost unplayable on the 320MB version. Without any texture mods at 1280x1024, Oblivion uses about 250MB of texture memory.

I also forsee the likes of Alan Wake and Crysis easily managing to surpass the 320MB mark once detail is ramped up so these games may well run noticably slower on the 320MB version of the card compared to the 640MB version.

That's the differences between them.
February 26, 2007 12:27:14 PM

If you're having problems with the recommendation, Do your research.

Look for benchmarks of the games you plan to play and decide for yourself...
February 26, 2007 5:49:50 PM

Thanks for all the replies. Yes, it was helpful. :D  After reading all of your replies I have decided to go for the 640MB. I have to stick to it for a long time. As games are becoming more demanding, it will help me to run games with most eye candy. Thanks everybody for the help. :D  :D 

If you have interest (unrelated topic)-
My rig will be: Intel E6600 2.4; XFX 8800GTS (640MB); PSU- Good brand that fits with the card; 2GB ram; average motherboard; other necessary things; Monitor 17 CRT(analog). I know the monitor sucks. My budget is $1700(converted). I can buy new ram, monitor later but to upgrade my processor and graphics card I will have to pay a lot. So instead of even it, I am paying more money for those things to last longer.
If you have more interest (very unrelated topic) -
My country is slow though it is capable of match speed with others. I don’t want to start an issue of it. 8800GTS is not available in my country, that is why I told my uncle to buy it from UK, as he living there. I’ll get it in April. This card will be available in here after 4 or 6 months, hope so; and the price will be around $700. 8O No I’m not joking and No I’m not living in hell. I have to work with the stock as there are no special cooling system available. You are lucky. Most of the time life is worse here but some times it is better.
Sorry for too many unrelated things. :oops:  I wrote these so that you can understand my position. If you read it all :o  than special thanks to you & for your patient :D  and if you didn’t read than I don’t mind at all. :D  Thanks.
February 27, 2007 2:48:57 AM

OMG you live in my country 8O
February 27, 2007 2:53:18 AM

if you run high resolution get the 640mb - best value is the gts 640mb over clocked - they are almost on par with the gtx

this is well documented in recent comparison tests last week1
February 27, 2007 10:07:55 AM

So i should pay more for memory i would only use in resolutions over 1600x1200?
A factory OC'ed 320Mb card outperforms a stock 640MB card in resolutions 1600x1200 and lower.
And to a about $100 lower price (the 320MB got cheaper).

I dont see from my perspective that im crazy.
Care to explain?



Guru3D Review
February 27, 2007 10:17:49 AM

So when your self OC'ed card breaks you gonna get a new on your warranty?
Im not sure many manufacturers allows OC'ing but on that im not sure, since i heard on this forum some does.

To me those $35-45 compared to the stock 320MB card is worth it, since it will out perform a stock 640MB and still have the warranty.

When i first wrote that they were almost the same price it was like $50 dollars between the OC'ed 320 and the stock 640, now its more like $100 and the OC'ed 320 is still better in the benchmarks.

Wouldn't it be crazy to pay more for something i wouldn't use until/if i get a bigger screen!?

Oh and i didnt react on the questioning part it was the insult part i reacted on.
February 27, 2007 10:40:30 AM

Yeah well $50 diff isnt much when your paying $450-550 for a card. (i know prices are horrible here)
And i suck at OC'ing thats why i going for the safe bet =/.


Oh and don't OC'ing lessen the lifespan of the card?
February 27, 2007 9:23:18 PM

Quote:

And i suck at OC'ing thats why i going for the safe bet =/.


Even A monkey could overclock a GPU :lol:  The software does it for you, its really easy.

Quote:

Oh and don't OC'ing lessen the lifespan of the card?


No more than the factory overclocked cards do that you pay extra $$$ for. Like I said, all it takes is a little common sense, watch your temps etc..........


My OC'd 8800GTX runs at 650mhz core and 2030mem. My idle temps are just 49c and load temps after hours of gaming are just 57c. Compare that to the normal temps that a 8800GTX gets :wink:


!