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

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?  

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.

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

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

If you game at resolutions over 1280X1024 and use a decent amount of AA and AF then get the 640mb GTS and overclock the piss out of it. The 640mb GTS'S overclock great and actually perform very close to a stock GTX in DX9 Games once you overclock it to GTX speeds and beyond.














IMO the 640mb GTS will last you a whole lot longer than the 320mb version.

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

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:

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.

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...

Thanks for all the replies. Yes, it was helpful.   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.    

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.   I wrote these so that you can understand my position. If you read it all   than special thanks to you & for your patient   and if you didn’t read than I don’t mind at all.   Thanks.

OMG you live in my country 8O

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

I dont care what resolution you game at, if you can get a 640mb GTS for almost the same cost of a 320mb GTS as you say you can then you must be crazy for choosing the lesser card.

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

You said yourself that you were going to (GET A FACTORY CLOCKED 320MB GTS FOR ALMOST THE SAME PRICE AS A 640MB GTS)

And you want to know why I question you?

You keep talking how the 320mb version when OC'd will outperform a stock 640mb GTS but I guess you must have forgotten that the 640MB GTS once overclocked performs very close to a 8800GTX which would make your point pretty much NULL.


BTW if you are paying extra $$$ to get a OC'D version of the 320mb GTS which is what I think you are meaning to say then you are not making a wise choice at all. Pay the same money and get a normal 640mb 8800GTS, Download ATI TOOL and overclock the 640mb 8800GTS yourself.

No one should pay the extra $$$ to overclock when its so damn easy and free to do it yourself.


Yes ATI TOOL works the best with overclocking the G80'S, I use it on my 8800GTX.

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.

Unless you are a complete and total noob and use a little common sense it is just as reliable as any factory overclocked card that you payed extra $$$ for :roll: . Also the percentage of overclock that you payed extra for is pretty small compared to what you can overclock the card to yourself.


I have been running GPU's overclocked for as long as its been an option and have yet to ruin a card.

If the price is about $100 difference and your not going to play in higher resolutions then I can understand. But this is not what you said earlier, you made it sound like they were the same price.

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?

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



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: