Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GTS and 1920x1200

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 4, 2007 3:23:55 AM

Anyone that has a 24 inch LCD and an 880GTS, help me out please! Does it work? Are you happy? What games do you play, at what settings, and is the framerate living up to your expectations?

In particular, I'd like to know how WOW and CoH do with the GTS at 1920x1200.. can't seem to find benches of them anywhere and those are the two games I play the most at the moment. Any personal experiences greatly appreciated!

Edit: Asking because, though I would ideally like to get a GTX, my wallet is telling me, after getting the Dell 2407 ,that a GTS is about all that's left.. :roll:

More about : 8800gts 1920x1200

March 4, 2007 3:27:00 AM

8800GTS, to be honest sucks in higher resolutions the 8800GTX would be money well spent, specially if you do SLI and that resolution you would be kicking,
March 4, 2007 4:08:01 AM

Thanks for the replies!


Quote:
8800GTS, to be honest sucks in higher resolutions the 8800GTX would be money well spent, specially if you do SLI and that resolution you would be kicking,


Doesn't sound to me like you're speaking from experience, no offense. And obviously I'm not looking to SLI them as a) I would at the utmost have enough for a GTX though I'd prefer not to spend that much and b) SLI isn't cost effective and really, unles money is no object and you run multiple 30-inchers, is a waste of time.


Quote:
If you add a GTS to that Dell you will also need to upgrade the PSU.


Heh the rest of the system is not dell, just the screen. Everything else is up to par, OCZ GX 700W, E6400, 2GB DDR2800, etc. Just needing to make a decision on the GPU.

Quote:
If you get the 640mb version of the 8800GTS you will have no problem getting good frames in your games at that resolution.


Good to know, more or less what the benchmarks say too. But anyone actually tried it? Have one, and a 1920x1200 screen?
Related resources
March 4, 2007 4:39:04 AM

Thanks for the link!

A few things about that artice:

1) The only game they use is fear.. hard to make a true judgement without some variety. And are there no benches with WOW or CoH? Guess not.

2) The manually overclocked GTS cards - and all of them oced well - perform almost on par with the stock GTX's. How is that possible? A small bump in core clock and memory frequency can make up for 1/4 less streams and 1 less rop? Seems odd...

3) That article leads to beleive I should pick up the GTS and overclock it if I have to, but really the GTX is where it's at..

Still waiting for someone who actually has the combination I'm looking at though to chime in :wink:
March 4, 2007 4:59:35 AM

Quote:
Thanks for the link!

A few things about that artice:

1) The only game they use is fear.. hard to make a true judgement without some variety. And are there no benches with WOW or CoH? Guess not.

2) The manually overclocked GTS cards - and all of them oced well - perform almost on par with the stock GTX's. How is that possible? A small bump in core clock and memory frequency can make up for 1/4 less streams and 1 less rop? Seems odd...

3) That article leads to beleive I should pick up the GTS and overclock it if I have to, but really the GTX is where it's at..

Still waiting for someone who actually has the combination I'm looking at though to chime in :wink:



hey i m in the same situation as you.. i got a 6800gs right now.. and i ve decided to just go with a 8800gts and save some chedda...
March 4, 2007 5:33:13 AM

Just found a review of the Foxconn 8800GTS.

CoH at 1920x1200 and max settings:

min fps = 22
max fps = 58

Palit 8800GTX with same settings:

min fps = 47.6
max fps = 105.8

You'll be able to run WoW at any settings you want with the 8800GTS.
March 4, 2007 6:25:42 AM

I'm using a Eizo 24" and a 7800GS+ (agp), Opty 170 @2.7
Playing BF2 at 1920x1200 with everything at max works just fine. No vanilla map drops below 60fps.

Games like CoD and FEAR I need to take down some settings, like AA, but there is no noticable difference unless you really scrutinize screenshots... and how many does that while playing?

With the 8800 GTS I would expect even better scores. With regards to the GTX... why play with GTX settings? Play with settings that fits the GTS.
March 4, 2007 6:53:38 AM

Nope I'm not speaking from experience seeing as i own one.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=854435

8800GTS wont cut it at such High Res and High Settings i say you can get Away with High setting without AA/AF but then if you just get the 8800GTX u'd be fine at any res.
March 4, 2007 7:29:16 AM

Quote:
Nope I'm not speaking from experience seeing as i own one.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=854435

8800GTS wont cut it at such High Res and High Settings i say you can get Away with High setting without AA/AF but then if you just get the 8800GTX u'd be fine at any res.


Bullshat! Im running GRAW right now max settings on everything 16x Antroscopic , antialiasing on my Dell 24" a@ 1920x1200. same thing with FEAR. Get the GTS you'll love it for the dell 24". its actual going to have little videocard babies with my 24"
March 4, 2007 7:37:15 AM

I have a 8800GTS and a Dell 24", and can't be more happy. I play CoH and Oblivion with everything on high and they run pretty smoothly. You have to remember that you can O/C the GTS and reach GTX speeds @ stock easily.
March 4, 2007 11:09:07 AM

In truthe you really should save for a couple more weeks and get the 8800gtx version as it rocks on high resolutions.Not sure,but I think I read somewhere that the gts version is just a little sloppy at the really high resolutions.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
2X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,442
March 4, 2007 11:27:47 AM

well from what i heard, the 320 meg card is good for 1600x1200 and under resolution. while the 640meg card is good for anything greater than that.

but as someone pointed out, that could just be a driver issue.
March 4, 2007 12:25:40 PM

Hi!
I have the GTX (upgraded from 2X7800 GTX-SLI) and noted a GREEEAAATT difference, in all my settings, and all resolutions, Right now, I have the 2407WFP from dell, and i can tell you the bst thing to do, is wait, and buy a 8800GTX, for two main reasons

1st: is almos 40% faster than the GTS at that resolution
2nd: a matter of pshycology, You will have the best :wink:
March 4, 2007 12:48:06 PM

Quote:
I have a 8800GTS and a Dell 24", and can't be more happy. I play CoH and Oblivion with everything on high and they run pretty smoothly. You have to remember that you can O/C the GTS and reach GTX speeds @ stock easily.
Yeah, except for the fact that the 8800GTS has 32 fewer shaders, less memory, and a slower memory bus. :?
March 4, 2007 2:11:51 PM

Yea i was going to say the same thing WoW is a not at all a very GPU intensive game. I can turn everything all the way up and still get 60fps in when i played even in places like BWL. I wouldn't base your decision off of WoW or CoH. Those are not two gpu intensive games.
March 4, 2007 3:07:57 PM

CoH is Company of Heroes.

Two things:

@ 1920x1200 the GTX is not 40% faster, is 25% faster, that at stock speeds (both).

About the GTS not reaching GTX speeds because of his different architecture, I am not talking about clock speeds, I'm talking about scores in 3dmark benchmarks and FPS in game benchmarks. The GTS normal score in 3dMark06 is around 8500-8700. But with my GTS I reach very well over 10.000, and that's a GTX score.

Of course, if you find a good deal for a GTX, go for it, because is the best card in the world now. But to say that the GTS "struggles" @ 1920x1200 is not knowing anything about it. That's simply not true.
March 4, 2007 3:30:53 PM

Huh?

I wasn't just replying to you. About CoH I have the game and absolutely love it, so I think I know what stands for lol.

Sure, if you OC both cards, the GTX will be always faster, because is INDEED faster. But what I meant is that if you OC the GTS you get GTX @ stock numbers easily, which is more than you will need for any game now. About greater than 1920x1200 resolutions I don't know, never tested. But at that resolution you are more than happy with the GTS.
March 4, 2007 4:33:57 PM

Quote:
Hi!
I have the GTX (upgraded from 2X7800 GTX-SLI) and noted a GREEEAAATT difference, in all my settings, and all resolutions, Right now, I have the 2407WFP from dell, and i can tell you the bst thing to do, is wait, and buy a 8800GTX, for two main reasons

1st: is almos 40% faster than the GTS at that resolution
2nd: a matter of pshycology, You will have the best :wink:


thats only when you have a powerful cpu
since the GTX is cpu bound a lot...
with a medium or low end = same fps as a GTS
March 4, 2007 4:48:33 PM

Quote:
Listen you little noob.(yes it is time for name calling)

Due to the hardware differences it is impossible to get a GTX from a GTS by overclocking. Seriously, learn to read.

Also, you little noob. There is a game call City Of Heroes, hence why i was asking the OP if he meant Company or City Of Heroes.


Ok, now that you show that you have some kind of hate inside (dunno why, maybe you hate the 8800 owners because you can't buy one, or whatever), I did some benchmarks, as you can see. In the first chart, is the review of the BFG 8800GTX made by Guru3d.com (Hilbert), showing the score on 10658 and 10684 (3dMark06)...

There you go:



So, I ran 3dMark06 in my 8800GTS overclocked, showing this score:



I could push it more, of course no need of that. Oh, and you could see the first icon in the desktop, is the CoH icon "Company of Heroes". :) 

Tamalero is right about 1 thing, you need a powerful cpu to get the most of this cards. There is even an article in this very website about that.

I rest my case.
March 4, 2007 5:10:01 PM

Quote:
you don't seem to understand. i ain't caring what scores you get in 3dmark, i am only stating the fact that overclocking the GTS does not suddenly give you the extra memory interface bandwidth or the shaders. there is physical differences between the two cards.


Oh, last word hoe... I do understand perfectly, I think you are the one that doesn't understand... My whole point in this discussion (I think you forgot the discussion) was about the 8800GTS being more than enough to play any game @ 1920x1200. After that, I said that the GTS overclocked matches the GTX performance @ stock speed.

There is INDEED a difference between the cards, and that's why the GTX will outperform the GTS when overclocked. But the GTS is an AWESOME card, cheaper, and you can get an excellent performance out of it. I would get a GTS, and save those US$ or use it in another component, like a powerful CPU, or better RAM.

BTW, my apologies to the thread starter for the hijacking, but I think this is something anybody needs to know before getting a 8800. At the end, of course, is your decision and your money.
March 4, 2007 5:30:58 PM

Quote:
Oh, last word hoe... I do understand perfectly, I think you are the one that doesn't understand... My whole point in this discussion (I think you forgot the discussion) was about the 8800GTS being more than enough to play any game @ 1920x1200. After that, I said that the GTS overclocked matches the GTX performance @ stock speed.

There is INDEED a difference between the cards, and that's why the GTX will outperform the GTS when overclocked. But the GTS is an AWESOME card, cheaper, and you can get an excellent performance out of it. I would get a GTS, and save those US$ or use it in another component, like a powerful CPU, or better RAM.

BTW, my apologies to the thread starter for the hijacking, but I think this is something anybody needs to know before getting a 8800. At the end, of course, is your decision and your money.
Way to spell ho wrong :wink:
No matter how fast you say the 8800GTS is, I still find my overclocked 8800GTX struggling on parts of Oblivion at 1680x1050 with 4xAA 16xAF and ever in game option at the max. :( 
March 4, 2007 5:37:19 PM

Quote:
Huh?

I wasn't just replying to you. About CoH I have the game and absolutely love it, so I think I know what stands for lol.


*cough* http://www.coh.com *cough*

my vote for CoH being city of heroes is that both(coh, wow) are MMORPGs I went from CoH to WoW back to Coh.

then again, most people would call it CoX(for both villians and heroes).



and i probably could have worded that post better.
March 4, 2007 5:42:58 PM

Quote:
guess you missed this and pretty much every article done on these overclocked GTS's.

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/02/12/the_amd_squeeze_uk...

as you can see while it gains some FPS above the stock clocked on it does not match the GTX

so where is you proof that it does?


The OCed GTS is the 320Mb version, and anyway that's @ 550Mhz core. Mine is the 640Mb version @ 635 core (as you can see in the sig). The other GTS used is the 640Mb one, @ stock speed (500Mhz core in this case). That's why exists differences in FPS. Read the article carefully (also read the test set-up).

@Heyyou27: I think maybe your CPU or even your PSU is holding you back. I ran oblivion in my system and it runs awesome. In fact, it was the first game I tested when I finished my PC. It wondered me how well it ran, with ALL the sliders all the way to the right. The game looks absolutely gorgeous that way.
March 4, 2007 5:45:01 PM

Quote:
and i probably could have worded that post better.


Oh lol. Well then I guess we have 2 CoH then :p  . Anyway, I was referring to Company, not City :wink:
March 4, 2007 5:54:44 PM

Quote:
let me guess, by struggling you mean not over 60FPS :p 
Pretty much... :lol: 
Quote:
@Heyyou27: I think maybe your CPU or even your PSU is holding you back. I ran oblivion in my system and it runs awesome. In fact, it was the first game I tested when I finished my PC. It wondered me how well it ran, with ALL the sliders all the way to the right. The game looks absolutely gorgeous that way.
I'm use to playing F.E.A.R. at a constant 60FPS so anything different is going to be slow to me, not that it matters in an RPG like Oblivion. Your Core 2 Duo vs. my CPU with the in game settings at the max with 4xAA 16xAF at 1680x1050 would show no visible improvement, and my PSU is fine thanks. :roll:
March 4, 2007 6:17:07 PM

Quote:
I'm use to playing F.E.A.R. at a constant 60FPS so anything different is going to be slow to me, not that it matters in an RPG like Oblivion. Your Core 2 Duo vs. my CPU with the in game settings at the max with 4xAA 16xAF at 1680x1050 would show no visible improvement, and my PSU is fine thanks. :roll:


Yeah you're maybe right and is something else, but in TH article "GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU" you can indeed see differences in FEAR between a AMD platform (AMD Athlon 64 FX-60) and a Intel's Conroe PC (Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800). Sure, are different processors than ours and maybe this comparison doesn't apply too much... :?, but anyway, its something you cant overlook.
March 4, 2007 7:11:30 PM

Quote:
I'm use to playing F.E.A.R. at a constant 60FPS so anything different is going to be slow to me, not that it matters in an RPG like Oblivion. Your Core 2 Duo vs. my CPU with the in game settings at the max with 4xAA 16xAF at 1680x1050 would show no visible improvement, and my PSU is fine thanks. :roll:


Yeah you're maybe right and is something else, but in TH article "GeForce 8800 Needs The Fastest CPU" you can indeed see differences in FEAR between a AMD platform (AMD Athlon 64 FX-60) and a Intel's Conroe PC (Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800). Sure, are different processors than ours and maybe this comparison doesn't apply too much... :?, but anyway, its something you cant overlook.Sure your processor would kick the shit out of mine, but it doesn't matter in Oblivion when you're maxing the game out with HDR and antialiasing. Also, your perception of smooth may be completely different than mine.
March 4, 2007 7:26:26 PM

Quote:
Sure your processor would kick the **** out of mine, but it doesn't matter in Oblivion when you're maxing the game out with HDR and antialiasing. Also, your perception of smooth may be completely different than mine.


Never said that, just pointed to an article where the C2D gave better results in FPS at several resolutions than a AMD CPU. Smoothness perception could be different tho. Some people needs more FPS than others to be satisfied with their hardware.
March 4, 2007 8:35:21 PM

Ok, before this thread degenerates any further (yes that means you two feuding monkey... :evil:  )

CoH stood for Company of Heroes, I play RTS and RPG on the PC at the moment, and those are (imho) the best available right now (including SupCom, TA was never really my cup of tea)

As for the overclocked GTS debate - at the moment, clock speeds seem to be the limiting factor, not memory or number of stream processors, as the benchmarks indicate that an overcloked GTS pulls in GTX-level performance.

This also leads me to beleive, however, that as drivers and games get further optimized for the new architecture, the GTX will pull further and further ahead. It might not, though, who knows - something else to consider.

Thank you to all those with 24-in LCDs who chimed in. Still torn though! Here in Canada the cheapest GTX is $200 (plus tax = $226) more than the cheapest GTS, which is quite a hefty premium.

Edit: nm, found the official step-up faq

Edit: Thanks pauldh for the link to the [h] review, very informative. It does add yet another ripple though - seems almost like the most sane thing to do is sacrifice a mite of image quality now and get the GTS 320 - then, by christmas when the dust has started to settle on dx10 and we actually have some native games to play with, sell it and get the best card out then (after the R600 vs G80 war is settled too). So I have yet another question - XFX double warranty, marketing hype? Or will actually increase card resale value? 8)
March 4, 2007 8:58:15 PM

mythos, thanks for clarifying that point about CoH... I'm pretty much agree with you about the "hefty premium"... I just think (and that's MHO) that the GTS is a better buy now, since you can get GTX performance out of it... About the GTX moving further ahead, that's something we don't know, but at the end, you can sell the card and get another one. Right now, the GTS runs very, very good in my 24".

BTW, the insults came from just 1 poster. But, there are people that need to insult or call somebody names to stand a point. Very sad, but unfortunately true. We can respectfully disagree. At the end, is just a hardware thread.
March 4, 2007 10:26:17 PM

I would assume that above 1920x1200 the GTX would pull ahead of an OC'd 640Mb GTS because of the extra shaders and etc; but the OP isn't playing above 1920x1200 so it doesn't matter.

Just a thought: the 6800 was faster than the FX even though it had a slower GPU.
June 4, 2009 5:35:36 AM

I'm not sure about 1900x1200 res, but I have the 8800m GTS in my laptop, and I can pretty much run any game at crazy settings at 1440x900. I can play Cod 4 and 5 at max settings at 1440x900 without making it sweat, so I would assume that bumping up the resolution should still leave you at over 30fps. Cuz I get 60 when I play cod4 online.
!