Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GTS:320MB or 640MB?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 10, 2007 5:57:07 PM

I plan on getting a 8800GTS,i'll be getting a 1280x1024 LCD with it,but since i don't plan on upgrading the grafx card for a while (9-12 months) will a 320MB version be good enough for that resoultion?

More about : 8800gts 320mb 640mb

March 10, 2007 7:10:30 PM

Quote:
I plan on getting a 8800GTS,i'll be getting a 1280x1024 LCD with it,but since i don't plan on upgrading the grafx card for a while (9-12 months) will a 320MB version be good enough for that resoultion?


Short answer, yes.

But thats as far as we know. Graphics advance quickly, and uncompressed textures take ALOT of video memory, think Doom3/Quake4 Ultra quality. I think DX10 games will take alot of video memory with high quality textures, however, you can *usually* decrease how much videomemory is used by not using AA and lowering texture quality. As far as I know though, except Ultra quality from Doom3 and Quake4, no game uses over 256MB video memory at 1280x1024 0xaa 16xaf. You get some breathing room with 320MB memory. Keep in mind though, that once you use up that 320MB vidememory, the 8800gts starts to suck...
March 11, 2007 9:22:10 AM

I would say go for the 640MB.

With a resolution of 1024x768 u may be ok for a while, but the 640MB u would have better performance anyhow and a lot less to worry about.

The 8800 GTS is such an amazing card. Why bottleneck it if u dont have to? Its only another 50$, wich is 16% more money over the 320MB.
Related resources
March 11, 2007 10:16:47 AM

In almost all benchmarks I've seen for the 320mb version compared to 640mb at 1024x768, there was very little difference and the 320mb even came out on top.

And the 640mb is more like £100 more than the 320mb in england anyway so the 320 is my choice.
March 11, 2007 10:45:32 AM

Yes it will be good enough for that resolution.And indeed it should run all but the highest resolutions.But that is where the 640 outshines the 320 version is in the high resolutions.The 320 will run them,but will take more of a performance hit.Whereas the 640 will keep you playing at the same frame rates for the most part.

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 13,471
March 11, 2007 11:10:49 AM

Yes and at that resolution of 1280x1024 the 320Mb have little difference to a 640Mb version.

Click here for the review.

Click here for another review.

So with that, you'll have a good time with the 320Mb for a year or so. Not to mention it's cheaper than the 640Mb card.
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2007 1:50:42 PM

I say go for the 320MB version because of the cost difference. Look below how rare it is to see any difference at your resolution. Shoot, pick a factory overclocked 320MB and it will beat the reference clocked 640MB in almost every 12x10 test, and most of the 19x12 tests too. Just shows a little extra clock speeds provides more fps than double the memory. I just don't even think smoothness will come into play at 12x10.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gts_32...
March 11, 2007 2:55:58 PM

Quote:
Yeah but its way to easy to just download ATI TOOL and overclock the 640mb 8800GTS and stomp the OC'd 340mb version in the ground at higher resolutions.


But if the guy is specifically playing at 1280x1024, what does performance "at higher resolutions" matter?

The way I see it is, by the time 320MB will really be a crippling factor at 1280x1024, you'll probably be able to get something that will spank the 8800GTS for not too many $$$s.
March 11, 2007 3:05:26 PM

I bought the 320 version about 2 weeks ago and run 1600x1200. The included game with evga cards, Dark Messiah, the card does seem to struggle a bit with AA. I think that if you are going to be able to upgrade in 9 to 12 months that the 320 is definitely the way to go at your res. And while I am not positive don't the factory oc'ed cards generally oc a little higher in the end because they all ready have been somewhat handpicked. I did buy a the superclocked version (which was the same price at the time as the stock before MIR, which was nice because I didn't have to wait for the damned rebate) I run mine 600/1900. Overall I am really happy with it. I knew that I may have problems with some games at my res but I took the budget route and don't regret it. I also plan on upgrading next spring and new this would be an affordable card to bridge into next year as I tend to play a little older games. Again I think you will be very happy with the 320 at your res.
March 11, 2007 3:13:57 PM

Quote:
I plan on getting a 8800GTS,i'll be getting a 1280x1024 LCD with it,but since i don't plan on upgrading the grafx card for a while (9-12 months) will a 320MB version be good enough for that resoultion?


I would say WAIT if you're not in a hurry.
We know that for DX9 below 1920 or 1600 the 320Mb are more than enough to run games at high settings, but maybe you should wait for 1 or 2 DX10 games to come out just to see how they run with newer massive textures that are going to be implemented in those titles. And by that time we may have the R600 in the game, so keep it cool :wink:
March 11, 2007 4:24:32 PM

Quote:
[As far as I know though, except Ultra quality from Doom3 and Quake4



The thing I always found funny about this was the fact that my old 256mb X850XTX ran doom 3 at Ultra quality with 4XAA and 8XAF at 1280X1024 at a silky smooth 60fps.

My friends 256mb X1900GT just tears it up. :lol: 

ATI cards seem to handle games better when the game needs more video memory then the videocard can deliver.

Examples
Look at any of the benchmarks at really high res and high aa. You'll notice the 8800gts 320MB falls behind the x1950xt 256MB in some cases. The 8800 series, as far as we know, cannot handle games with more videomemory required then the card has as well as other graphics cards can
March 11, 2007 4:50:53 PM

Quote:
Well since a factory overclocked 320mb 8800gts is nearly the same price as a standered 640mb 8800gts it makes zero sense to limit yourself to the 320mb version no matter what res you are playing at.

Makes no sense.


Over here, at least, the normal 320s are around £180-£200, factory OCed 320s at £210, and 640s are £270-£300+.

I'd advise the guy to go for the normal 320, at his resolution the performance boost just isn't worth the substantial extra cost.
a b U Graphics card
March 11, 2007 7:06:15 PM

Quote:
I plan on getting a 8800GTS,i'll be getting a 1280x1024 LCD with it,but since i don't plan on upgrading the grafx card for a while (9-12 months) will a 320MB version be good enough for that resoultion?


At 12x10, the GTS-320 will be fine for a very long time. The 640MB is not worth it for anything below 1600x1200.

I would say if you're uncomfortable with OC ing get a pre-overclocked card, but if you're ok with a little tweaking then getting a stock card can save you a bit of money over an OC'ed 320, and alot over a 640.

The level of difference depends on where you can buy from, but usually the savings translate arithmetically outside the US.

Over the next year you should be fine at that resolution with very little to no difference in performance between 320 and 640.
March 12, 2007 5:03:11 AM

You will be more than happy at that resolution .

That card should last you a long time with no problems whatsoever.

As for the guy who is suggesting that you should get it if you game at 1024x768 is just plain retarded and has no idea what he is talking about. :evil: 

This card will kickass the plain 640mb cards period . :x If you dont believe me then check out the comparisons on this site http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/geforce-8800gts-32...

You can also get the EVGA suoerclocked 320mb 8800 gts, which i can personally recommend as i own one.

EVGA has a great step up program as well a great lifetime warranty if you register your card on their website.

you can checkout that cards review over here http://firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800_gts...

Also checkout this article http://firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_8800_gts_320mb_...

which compares all the 320mb cards . 8)
March 12, 2007 9:37:33 AM

Sorry but all of us cant afford a Uber rig like yours 8)

I can just afford a Gts so i am gonna be backing it . :D 
March 12, 2007 10:31:50 AM

I guess since you just got your LCD you wont upgrade your screen anytime soon.
So the "at higher resolutions the 640MB performs better" argument falls short.
And about overclocking the 320MB can be overclocked too, right?
So why spend the extra money?
To just be really really sure you might be a little safer when DX10 games comes?
Because to date 320MB is all you need, no one knows how the 320MB or even the 640MB will perform with DX10, right?.
March 12, 2007 10:40:24 AM

Quote:
I guess since you just got your LCD you wont upgrade your screen anytime soon.
So the "at higher resolutions the 640MB performs better" argument falls short.
And about overclocking the 320MB can be overclocked too, right?
So why spend the extra money?
To just be really really sure you might be a little safer when DX10 games comes?
Because to date 320MB is all you need, no one knows how the 320MB or even the 640MB will perform with DX10, right?.


RIGHT :wink:
March 12, 2007 2:31:42 PM

Quote:
I still say you will be eating your words on this very very soon :wink:


How soon is "very very soon"? 2-3 years?
March 12, 2007 3:01:45 PM

Personally i think the graphics card is the most changed bit of hardware in a machine. I've had like 4 over 5 years, I think the ram does matter even at the lower resolutions in some games. I played dark messiah at ultra high at 1280x1024 and it reccomended I drop it down on my 7600 and it was right, it lagged to buggery on some levels e.g. the ship level.
However i think that 2 gig of ram can offset the ram difference and personally i never feel a video card gives you everything that you think it will so I'd opt for the 320mb and get another gig of ram if you don't have at least 2 gig.
March 12, 2007 3:21:28 PM

I still think that those of you recomending the 640 over the 320 for dx10 games aren't realizing he may be upgrading as soon as 9 months, or just shortly after dx10 games start to come out in full force. This only strengthens the argument for the 320 because if the current g80's for some reason struggle he won't have dropped as much money into somethin he plans on replacing anyway. And as far as getting a factory oc'ed card at the time I bought mine it was instant savings to $299 and the stock card was $279 after $20 MIR which reviews on Newegg said that the evga MIR was a real pain to deal with. Let's not forget that some of us actually never see a MIR as things tend to "get messed up" and you never receive it. So at the time you could say I bought mine for the same price and still bumped it to 600/1900. Get the 320 and buy an 8900 or better or ATI offering for Christmas that will be sure to play dx10 games that will have been released by then.
March 12, 2007 3:32:19 PM

if you tell us first what is your rig we might suggest how to spend well your money since you want to keep the card for a short period of time and games wont benefit from dx10 and all the power of the gts for the coming months.
March 12, 2007 4:58:44 PM

Quote:
if you tell us first what is your rig we might suggest how to spend well your money since you want to keep the card for a short period of time and games wont benefit from dx10 and all the power of the gts for the coming months.

I plan on build this in the near future:

E4300 OCed to 3.6 with tuniq tower 120.
Gigabyte DS3.
2GB DDR2 800 from either corsair or OCZ.
Corsair HX 520 watt PSU.
And a 8800GTS (either 640 or 320,i should have created a poll for this)
March 12, 2007 6:59:51 PM

I think it all comes down to pricing. BFG offers the 320MB version OC'd for $329.99. BFG 8800 GTS 320MB RAM OC'd. MSI offers a stock speed 640MB version, after discounts and rebates for $339.99. MSI 8800GTS 640MB RAM Stock. By spending $10 more bucks, you can get a longer lasting gfx card. You can make up the clock speeds by OC'ing yourself. Rebates will bring stock 640MB cards closer to the price of OC'd 320 cards. Doubling RAM for 40-50 bucks may be worth it.

However, since rebates come and go, know that a 320MB version is roughly $299.99 and a 640MB version is roughly $399.99, before rebates and discounts. If you're unsure, pick EVGA's 320MB version. It offers a step-up program so you can deduct the cost of the 320 from a future card like a 8800GTX or 89x0, within 90 days (3 months). The OC'd version of it is only $10 more than stock, so it's worth the extra protection in case when you OC yourself and screw up.

320MB is good enough for today at 12x10, you won't see a huge improvement in gameplay having 640MB of RAM. In the future, it's more cloudy. We do know the 640 will perform better, question is, how much better and will it worth the extra cash? If you got the money, go for the 640. Otherwise, get EVGA's 320 card and get a new one in 2-3 months, nVidia should have some new gadgets by then.
March 12, 2007 7:01:34 PM

By in the near future I hope you mean after the late April price drops on the E4300. In which case it should make your post nearly a moot point because prices and possibly products will all be different. If you don't have your monitor yet I would splurge on something with higher res and go with an appropriate card that is available when you do actually order.
March 12, 2007 7:12:45 PM

Quote:
Otherwise, get EVGA's 320 card and get a new one in 2-3 months, nVidia should have some new gadgets by then.


Eh? I think the 8800GTS should be good for a bit more than 3 months...
March 12, 2007 7:21:53 PM

seriously i don t know what is your current card but if the coming games doesn t interest you that much(crysis,c&c, supreme commander, etc) and you like palying battlefield for instance or equivalently demanding games then i would hang on or buy something like x1950 pro or 7600 gt or something like that until a better card is released 12 months from now or until a price drop
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2007 11:15:17 PM

Quote:
I think it all comes down to pricing.


Yeah and your pricing is terribly Fudged. You went with the most expensive 320 versus the cheapest 640.

The 320MB version can be had for much much less @ $279 (was $269 2 days ago);
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

Even 2 OC versions for $40 less than the one you posted @ $289;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...

So for $60 difference, and even $50 fo OC'ed it's a far different story than before.
a b U Graphics card
March 12, 2007 11:20:14 PM

Quote:

I still say you will be eating your words on this very very soon :wink:


Maybe, but I doubt it, especially considering the resale value add that $70-80 to it and buy a replacement part when it matters, and still the 320MB is more compelling the way I see it. Of course as usual only time will tell whether it's worth the extra 30% price difference.
March 13, 2007 12:01:49 AM

Quote:

I still say you will be eating your words on this very very soon :wink:


Maybe, but I doubt it, especially considering the resale value add that $70-80 to it and buy a replacement part when it matters, and still the 320MB is more compelling the way I see it. Of course as usual only time will tell whether it's worth the extra 30% price difference.

True, also keep in mind that you most likely have the option in any future game to turn off uncompressed textures. So is the price difference really worth the image quality difference between high quality textures and uncompressed textures? This is assuming that option is available with future games, but I highly doubt it wont be. Link. As Ape said earlier:

Quote:
At 12x10, the GTS-320 will be fine for a very long time. The 640MB is not worth it for anything below 1600x1200.

I would say if you're uncomfortable with OC ing get a pre-overclocked card, but if you're ok with a little tweaking then getting a stock card can save you a bit of money over an OC'ed 320, and alot over a 640.

The level of difference depends on where you can buy from, but usually the savings translate arithmetically outside the US.

Over the next year you should be fine at that resolution with very little to no difference in performance between 320 and 640.


Although the comparison in the screenshot is from one graphics engine. And there are alot of variables to what I suggest about changing texture quality, it's still something to consider.
Anonymous
March 13, 2007 12:24:36 AM

your good with 320 MB at the resolution.
a b U Graphics card
March 13, 2007 1:26:07 AM

Amen to your pricing challenge. I faced the same issue. I wanted an eVGA and the 320MB was $270 shipped, while the same version of the 640MB was $90 more. Could have had the MSI 640MB a bit cheaper, but then no step up option, evga warranty, and Dark Messiah.
March 13, 2007 6:52:21 PM

At your resolution, 640MB will be useless, you'll be using less than half of it. 320MB is much better for your uses, and when I move to a next-gen card with my 1680 x 1050 display, I'll be going for no more than 512MB of texture memory. Anything more than that is just money wasted with a screen your size.

If you wanted a larger screen, however, then go for a card with more memory.
!