Nvidia 8800GTS 320 is not good for newer games...

[LordPope]

looks like lack of VID memory will killl cars with less than 512 at the higher REZ

Buying a 8800 gts 320 with a big monitor wont cut it with new games


edit: oppss courtesy of AMDZONE

 

[cleeve]

Lower the texture option to medium though, and the 8800 GTS will probably outpace the 7900 512mb...

What's the res of this bench, BTW?
[edit] ah thanks, kowtow - missed that. Doh! [/edit]

 

[kaotao]

It says 1600X1200.

 

[jeff_2087]

Given the shown proof, I think a more correct title would be

"Nvidia 8800GTS 320 is not good for one game at high AF"

seeing as one benchmark isn't much to base a broad statement on. Especially when it's from AMDZone.

Something like this, though, is more legit. It could use a wider variety of settings though.

 

[bfellow]

Based on the anandtech and amdzone benchmarks, it shows that 320MB isn't enough with high resolution AND AA/AF on

 

[garu]

Hmm first of all it is a beta of a game so it should be taken witha grain of salt. Also how many times have we seen miserable performance in a game until new drivers by nvidia were released. my 2 cents

 

[LordPope]

I am sure even with better drivers...more video ram will perform better than less video ram in newer games

 

[Farhang]

7900GTX = 36FPS
8800GTS 320Mb = 20FPS
---------->7900GTX = 2x8800GTS 320Mb? 8O
this is something that even a month old baby won't believe.
I don't believe it either. :roll:

 

[cleeve]

Chipset's still more important than the amount of RAM, on the whole.

The big picture is that in games with a large 512mb texture set, a slower card with 512mb might beat a faster card with 320mb... but neither will give great performance.

However, you lower the texture setting to 256mb, and the 320mb card will probably jump leaps and bounds ahead at good resolutions because it no longer has to swap textures. Howerver, the card with the older chipset and 512mb won't speed up much with texture resolution lowered because it's already running at full potential...

Anyway, it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. This is a single bench and theres a lot more info to digest.

 

[swifty_morgan]

Read through this. Gives good comparison of cards.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/420/

 

[LordPope]

Chipset's still more important than the amount of RAM, on the whole.

The big picture is that in games with a large 512mb texture set, a slower card with 512mb might beat a faster card with 320mb... but neither will give great performance.

However, you lower the texture setting to 256mb, and the 320mb card will probably jump leaps and bounds ahead at good resolutions because it no longer has to swap textures. Howerver, the card with the older chipset and 512mb won't speed up much with texture resolution lowered because it's already running at full potential...

Anyway, it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. This is a single bench and theres a lot more info to digest.

only the Sith deal in absolutes.... so i agree with everything u posted.... I game at 1600x1080 with all eye candy on... so i know my needs will lean toward the larger memory cards....

 

[cleeve]

I game at 1600x1080 with all eye candy on... so i know my needs will lean toward the larger memory cards....

If thats how you game, it's a wise decision.

 

[Ycon]

Serious Sam 2 also kicks the 320's behind and Croteam does say that there is a minimum of 512 MB VRAM needed to turn the settings on.

There are also games that will perform even worse with only 320 MB

 

[Allenn812]

Anyone thats thinking of buying the 320mb version, forget it. I bought an Evga 8800gts 320mb, and it just doesn't have enough memory to run games like Dark messiah of might and magic at max textures, even at 1280x1024. 320mb just doesn't cut it, Stalker uses over 600mb of VRAM and oblivion with a good texture mod uses over 700mb. My 8800gts 320mb is already on its way back to Newegg, and ill be buying a 640mb for sure. So yea, if you want to play the newest games, and future games at high settings, the 8800gts 320mb, is not for you.

 

[LordPope]

Anyone thats thinking of buying the 320mb version, forget it. I bought an Evga 8800gts 320mb, and it just doesn't have enough memory to run games like Dark messiah of might and magic at max textures, even at 1280x1024. 320mb just doesn't cut it, Stalker uses over 600mb of VRAM and oblivion with a good texture mod uses over 700mb. My 8800gts 320mb is already on its way back to Newegg, and ill be buying a 640mb for sure. So yea, if you want to play the newest games, and future games at high settings, the 8800gts 320mb, is not for you.

thnkas for the REAL WORLD insight in the 8800 GS 320

what about the 8600 gs 240?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

So yea, if you want to play the newest games, and future games at high settings, the 8800gts 320mb, is not for you.

Neither is the 640 though, the GTX is the only option with everything cranked.

But for anyone looking for good value the 320MB GTS still offers the most bang/buck for the average game not on large wide panels.

I'd wait for theactual game to ship more than worrying about the performance of GRAW2-BETA. Higly unoptimized to say the least, and they didn't even bother to see what effect an OC has on the GTS-320, far from conclusive.

The GTS-320 has it's limitations, but in future games I suspect that memory will be the least of it's problems. I'd also like to see a comparison of the 512x512 & 1024x1024 textures versus whatever the 'large texture' they are using for the test. some games it matters, others it doesn't.

The texture mods in Oblivion you can see the obvious benefit (and no the GTS-640 isn't enough for the 4096x4096 ones from Quarg, et al) but I'd like to see the difference for GRAW2's 'standard' textures.

 

[carver_g]

I bought an Evga 8800gts 320mb, and it just doesn't have enough memory to run games like Dark messiah of might and magic at max textures, even at 1280x1024.

That's pretty funny, considering that they bundle that very game with their 320MB cards!

I agree though. When the new cards come out, I'm sending mine back through the step-up program.

 

[bourgeoisdude]

I bought an Evga 8800gts 320mb, and it just doesn't have enough memory to run games like Dark messiah of might and magic at max textures, even at 1280x1024.

That's pretty funny, considering that they bundle that very game with their 320MB cards!

I agree though. When the new cards come out, I'm sending mine back through the step-up program.

I have to say--the little experience I have with my card shows that more resolution = slower framerate, yes, but since I don't need no stinkin 1600x1200, it doesn't matter to me.

Heck, my ATI x700 128MB worked well if not better than my 6600 256MB card at higher resolutions (up to 1280x1024). It isn't the memory IMHO--it's the CPU. I think Tom's pointed that out in an article a while back but cannot locate it at the moment...

 

[knowsitall]

i d recommed the 640 gts

 

[knowsitall]

go die and see who cares.

 

[Farhang]

IMO the only upgrade worth doing is a GTX not some pissy card which only has more memory...

Hi man.
it's not that Pissy my friend

 

[Farhang]

No Problem my friend.

would you honestly ditch the 320 for the 640?

no, it's not worth the word "Upgrade"

the guy was going on like he was going to see massive FPS gains at 12 x 10 res.

aaahhh...forget him, he didn't know s**t about the what he said.

 

[gomerpile]

Memory does decrease baud rate considerably. My proof of this: I had to take out some corsair xms dual matched pairs HERE
And put it in one of my other computers. 'Here is the out come of system playing BF1942'; Ping time with 1024 Memory 32 average, and 512 Memory 65 average. Game lag increased considerable when flying plane's,”more so when action was increased in game play”. Applications: object editing tools, HTML, CSS, Server software running, these programs as well hanged considerably. I’m back to 1024 this weekend and the system is back to.'No lag', Hanging Applications, even restarts while using 512 of Memory.