8800GTS and 1920x1200

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..

Thanks for the replies!

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.

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.

Good to know, more or less what the benchmarks say too. But anyone actually tried it? Have one, and a 1920x1200 screen?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

just something to note about overclocking. reaching the same speeds as a gtx isn't the same as in CPU's. the gts has major hardware differences in the memory interface and the number of stream processorts so simple overclocks ain't going to even them out.

Yeah, except for the fact that the 8800GTS has 32 fewer shaders, less memory, and a slower memory bus. :?

Hey:
just check the benchies at Guru 3d, and choose for yourself

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/416/13/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/416/16/

Max.-

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

also, i do not care if you own company of heroes, i do too. all i was wanting to know is what game the OP, you know the guy who started this thread, had.

are you some kind of lame troll?

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

http://tomshardware.co.uk/2007/02/ [...] page7.html

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?

let me guess, by struggling you mean not over 60FPS

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.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO I WAS ASKING THE OP WHAT GAME HE WAS USING YOU IGNORANT LITTLE POS.

also, lol at the thought of you giving heyyou advice, lol.

Edit: i actually do feel kinda stupid for using that article as proof. however, your still a dumbass. for the very fact that you couldn't figure out that there was a game called city of heroes or the fact that you cannot get a GTX just by overclocking. regardless of scores, i was talking about the hardware differences and you failed to understand that point. if you couldn't overclock a gtx
then fine but since you can your point is moot.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.