Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8600GT vs 7600GT, do i smell....smoked?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 24, 2007 12:12:40 AM

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=637

This over at Legionhardware should help all you people with your "is an 8500,8600GT faster then current DX 9 7600GT/X1650XT problems.

AND I QUOTE

"Now has the 8600 GT carried on the success of the 6600 GT and 7600 GT graphics cards? Not at all, the 8600 GT is a joke in my opinion and does not deserve to be part of the x600 GT series. If anything, what we have see here today should have been performance delivered by the 8500 GT, not the 8600 GT. The results really spoke for themselves, as the GeForce 8600 GT was 12% slower in Far Cry, 17% slower in F.E.A.R, 7% slower in X3: Reunion and 19.5% slower in Company of Heroes. The only two games that the 8600 GT came out on top in was Prey (15.5%) and Supreme Commander (27.5%), making a two out of six effort very poor indeed."

More about : 8600gt 7600gt smell smoked

April 24, 2007 12:23:17 AM

old news, but correct in every aspect. The new 8600 series has failed to continue the tremendous success of the 6600 and 7600 GT cards. A disappointment if you ask me. I was planning on buying an 8600GTS with a budget of about $200, but benchmarks have convinced me to keep saving and get an 8800GTS 320. By far a better deal.
April 24, 2007 1:04:07 AM

Ouch. THAT is bad. So much for mid-range DX10, unless these benchmarks are due to driver issues or something. If not, this card better do a heck of a job in DX10 games or it aint worth the price at all. The good news is that I fell good about my 7600 GT which I picked up for $80. It'll hold me over until i absolutely need a DX10 game.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 24, 2007 1:07:14 AM

i'm still kinda hoping that that "ultra" version i heard about a while ago is better than all this bad-looking 8600 business now... but the 8600 sounded so damn appealing...! [/bitching]
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2007 1:15:22 AM

The sad thing is that the Ultra is unlikely. And the same goes for AMD IMO, 128bit blockade.

The only thing people can hope for is very fast GDDR4 on thes 1.4/2.8ghz is easily available now and 1.6/3.2ghz soon enough and 2/4ghz by mid-late summer.

The only problem is that for now it looks like the mid range sucks, and really while I hope for better I currently doubt that the HD2600 series will be much better with the same 128bit shackles.
April 24, 2007 6:19:45 PM

Also what you guys have to remember is you're testing these cards on old directx 9 games .... crysis will show the real potential of them .... better wait for those statistics . :roll: the 7600 series wil falter on all the newer games and programs !
April 24, 2007 7:16:18 PM

If these cards tank on DX9 titles, they will tank on DX10 titles. They simply don't have much more horsepower over their predecessors and that's the bottom line.

There's not much point to playing Crysis at 800x600 at low settings and I doubt Crysis will be DX10 only meaning it will also run on DX9 hardware and OSs. Only Microsoft is dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot like that. It's going to be awhile before you start seeing DX10 only games be the norm.

That being said, in all fairness the 8600GTS is the better card to compare the 7600GT to when considering the two on a hardware standpoint, not the 8600GT. I would compare the 8600GT to the 7600GS. Unfortunately current 7600GT prices offset this, but when the 7600GT debuted it was priced almost exactly like the 8600GTS is now. Ditto for the 7600GS and the 8600GT.

Once prices drop on the 8600 series, they will be an attractive buy over their older counterparts.
April 24, 2007 8:15:20 PM

I think those benchmark are false. In fear i have a 60 fps average with maximum setting in 1280x1024 and in theirs benchy have only 25 fps, maybe they don't know how to do benchmark. Yeah the 8600Gt is not that powerfull but its between a 7600GT and 7900GS but the for same price (maybe 10-20$ higher) of a 7600GT don't expect to be has powerfull has the 8800... I am saying that because my friend have the same system with a 7600GT and my 8600GT is faster then his 7600GT in most of game we tested. + my Score on 3D Mark 06 was: 4939
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2007 10:38:21 PM

Quote:


That being said, in all fairness the 8600GTS is the better card to compare the 7600GT to when considering the two on a hardware standpoint, not the 8600GT. I would compare the 8600GT to the 7600GS. Unfortunately current 7600GT prices offset this, but when the 7600GT debuted it was priced almost exactly like the 8600GTS is now. Ditto for the 7600GS and the 8600GT.


I understand where you're coming from on that, but compare the GF7600GT to the previous generation and it was trading blows with the GF6800GT and GF6800U and priced near or below those older models. The GF8600GTS is priced above the better old cards.

The GF8600GTS really is the match for the GF7900GS performance wise but is priced much higher, heck higher than a GF790xxGT.

It would be a good effort if last generations cards were still priced high up to the end, but the dominance of the X19xx series in the last year drove GF79xx prices down and the GF8800s drove the X19xx prices down, so compared to what's out there now the GF8600s need to be put up against their price counterparts, and really the X1950XT (selling for $189 on NewEgg) is the GF8600GTS' counterpart, not even the X1950Pro they use in most tests.

Quote:
Once prices drop on the 8600 series, they will be an attractive buy over their older counterparts.


And that's just it, they need to drop and fast. Right now they're primarily selling to n00bs, and people looking for the HTPC functionality (and even then I'd say wait to see the HD's features when the prices should be lower too).

From a tech standpoint it's like the X1950 vs GF8800 debate and I agree that wasn't a fair comparison for tech, but it was for price though. The same is the case here expect the new card is getting pummeled in the price/performance range, and the tech isn't fully exposed as good or bad yet, until we have good DX10 benchies/games/demos.
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2007 10:44:21 PM

Quote:
I think those benchmark are false.


Yet they match most other reviews out there.

Quote:
my Score on 3D Mark 06 was: 4939


Bungholio marks for the GF8600s are very high well beyond the X1950XT even, but actual performance is much lower. Proving yet again Bungholio marks mean very little for gaming performance, the numbers inside for individual tests mean more than final scores.
April 24, 2007 11:23:54 PM

I agree with what you say. I was simply keeping the comparison within the X600 range of NV cards because that's where the review kept it at. It's well known that the ATI DX9 cards in the same price range are the better current choice. I just don't think the 8600GT is supposed to be the equivalent of the 7600GT regardless of the moniker. IMO, legionhardware should have known this and I see it as a somewhat flawed review. The 7600GT is the top of the line for the 7600 class cards. Therefore it should be compared to the top of the line 8600 class cards, the 8600GTS. The 8600GT represents the lower-end of the 8600 cards, just like the 7600GS represented the lower-end of the 7600 class cards.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
a b U Graphics card
April 24, 2007 11:48:51 PM

Quote:
I understand where you're coming from on that, but compare the GF7600GT to the previous generation and it was trading blows with the GF6800GT and GF6800U and priced near or below those older models. The GF8600GTS is priced above the better old cards.


I agree as my 2 68gt,s are comparable to my brothers 76gt
and my friends 76gt.
I have even gotten better bungholio marks with my 68gt,s.
oc,ed of course.
Seperatly of course. Not in sli.
Did you see tech-reports test of the 8600 series?
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/geforce-8600/index...
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 12:20:44 AM

Quote:
I agree with what you say. I was simply keeping the comparison within the X600 range of NV cards because that's where the review kept it at.


Yes however you need to remain realistic of the price and time that has passed, because comparing the R9600Pro to the GF8600GTS wouldn't be any more valid.

I understand what you're saying from a 'let's see how the range has improved' perspective, but I think most people look for a review to show them how their money is best spent. And currently I can get a GF7600GT for less than hallf the price of a GF8600GTS and about $40-50 cheaper than a GF8600GT, so for most people it's not even a good comparo as a buying guide source. Just a potential information source as a whether or not to upgrade question if someone already has the previous generation's great mid-range card, and I think this shows that for anything less than the GTS, it's not worth it,and whether that's worth it or not is a whole different story of pricing with the GF79xxs and X19xxs in the range.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 12:30:37 AM

Quote:

Did you see tech-reports test of the 8600 series?
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/geforce-8600/index...



Yeah, and the most surprising thing to me there was the low TMU power of the GF8600s, the hig power consumption.

The good performance in Stalker is one of the few titles it shines in, the performance in Oblivion is expected and nice, as it benefits alot from the new flexible design that swings alot in it's loads.

I'm surprised they used Supreme Commander as a new benchie simply because it is so CPU-bound.

The GTS does ok against the X1950Pro, but for the price, it needs to do better. The only are I'm impressed with this new series is Oblivion, and there even the GF8600GT makes itself useful compared to an X1950Pro, so hopefully the laptops are similar in that respect, cause I'd love to use Oblivion on the new laptop this summer now that Ski season is only a month away from ending and the Cup race will be over shortly after that.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 12:38:24 AM

Yeah my sys stutters sometimes in oblivion. (usually outside)
when loading new areas.
But my x2 4400 is at stock and so is my 8800gts.
Only avg 50fps and lows of 25 to 30fps.
But this is with all sliders maxed (except) for the self shadows.
And at 1680x1050.

Since i got my new hdd i havent even tried any oc period.

I have seen where some are saying the 8600 series sucks
but i think newer drivers will help them out a bunch.?
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 12:40:28 AM

Quote:
cause I'd love to use Oblivion on the new laptop this summer now that Ski season is only a month away from ending and the Cup race will be over shortly after that.


Its spring here and im going to be outside more and less on the computer.
April 25, 2007 12:46:55 AM

Quote:
keeping the comparison within the X600 range


Is it just me or people getting all excited over my POS card again?!?! My card is way too powerful and advanced for 3DMark06; that's why the tests won't finish! In 3DMark05, I pull down an impressive 2,000!

Please note that this post is a joke; I just couldn't stop myself.
April 25, 2007 12:50:07 AM

Quote:
now that Ski season is only a month away from ending


It's still ski season in late April :lol:  ? What's your definition of summer over there, anyway?
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 12:58:23 AM

Quote:
My card is way too powerful and advanced for 3DMark06; that's why the tests won't finish!


LOL :lol: 
April 25, 2007 1:05:05 AM

Quote:
My card is way too powerful and advanced for 3DMark06; that's why the tests won't finish!


LOL :lol: 

You're just jealous because you know that SM2.0 pwns j00!

Anyhow, I am kinda disappointed with the 8600 series; I was hoping for a fast card with low power usage (cause of my crappy PSU), but it looks as if I'd be better off with a previous-generation card. I hope ATI's next-gen stuff is good.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 1:41:21 AM

Quote:

It's still ski season in late April :lol:  ? What's your definition of summer over there, anyway?


You need to try spring skiing in the rockies some time, absolutely awesome. Mash potatoe skiing is awesome, not as great as huge powder dumps, but still gets close, especially if you're skiing in shorts.

Final day at Sushine Village is May 21st, so there's alot of skiing left, I plan on hitting the hills this weekend. Hey we had 2 inches of snow just last week in the city, the mountains can get twice that for weeks to come.

Quote:
Its spring here and im going to be outside more and less on the computer.


Yeah see, I['m the opposite almost (except when at the cottage), I live for the winters, hockey, skiing, skidooing, and even just walking outside with a cigar on a nice dark 7pm hour-long walk. Hey I like the summers too, but I find myself with more flexible weekends, when I'm not hitting the mountains or playing hockey, or watching hockey. I was a baseball fan until the strike. I almost came back after the Sox won the WS, but even that was short-lived. So my summers are usually free for entertainment until Football season starts (both CFL and NFL). The summer is when I play the most PC/video games, when not at the cottage, swiiming, windsurfing, seadooing, partying, etc. and that's usually the last 2-3 weeks of summer.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 1:47:08 AM

Quote:
Anyhow, I am kinda disappointed with the 8600 series; I was hoping for a fast card with low power usage (cause of my crappy PSU), but it looks as if I'd be better off with a previous-generation card. I hope ATI's next-gen stuff is good.


For the price you would probably be better off with a 76gt.
Low power consumption and a pretty good card for the price.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 1:51:50 AM

Hope you have a good summer man.

P.S. have you talked to GW lately?
I havent seen him since the feb. lan party.
not sure if he went to last months lan?
i forgot about it :oops:  And he didnt call me or pm me.
He usually does.

I might call him tomorrow.
See what he has been up to.

Have checked (OKGG) forums. He is on there sometimes.
But havent seen him post in a while. :?
April 25, 2007 2:24:21 AM

Quote:

I live for the winters, hockey,

Amen to winter and hockey!
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 2:41:51 AM

Quote:
Quote:
For the price you would probably be better off with a 76gt.
Low power consumption and a pretty good card for the price.


I don't understand the comment about power consumption. My understanding is that the 8600 GT uses less power than the 7600 GT. I double checked on the EVGA site and they list the minimum requirement for the 7600 GT at 350w but the 8600 GT at 300w.

It would be nice if video card sites would disclose more about the actual power consumption of their cards.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 3:00:25 AM

I was talking to angryduck about a card (76gt) which is better than his
x600 ati card.

He shouldnt need a new psu with a card like the 76gt or maybe the 86gt.?
April 25, 2007 3:02:57 AM

Psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu psu.
-cm
April 25, 2007 3:03:36 AM

keep in mind that the 8600 cards are highly overclockable....

really i think they are great deals if you like to overclock, if you dont like overclocking then yeah what a waste of money\


oh and for all you who say the cards will tank in dx10...... dx10 is supposed to be much more efficient than dx9. Im sure you can figure out what that means for graphics cards......



ok so you couldnt figure it out: it means that games like crysis running at dx10 and same settings will run better than on dx9 with a dx10 gfx card
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 3:03:56 AM

8O :?:
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 3:43:46 AM

Quote:

oh and for all you who say the cards will tank in dx10...... dx10 is supposed to be much more efficient than dx9. Im sure you can figure out what that means for graphics cards......

ok so you couldnt figure it out: it means that games like crysis running at dx10 and same settings will run better than on dx9 with a dx10 gfx card


And you do realize that the added load and effects may still be too much for the core, and then like HDR in FartCry it may be to much for the Mid-range, just like it was for the GF6600GT. The GF6 series could do in one pass what the X800 could do in 2-3, however HDR knocked the performance down so much that even after runnning 3 passes per HDR portion, the advantage would've pretty much been lost.

So if the effect of the DX10 glitter is to much, or oversaturates the 256MB of memory, you may find that the benefit is lost on the mid-range.

If you have to turn the DX10 effects down to make it playable on the GF8600 it'll be interesting to see if the added geometry is worth it at a lower resolution or AA compared to the X1950XT in DX9 mode. If the GF8600 has to drop resolution down below the native of an LCD panel to play with the DX10 effects, is that as beneficial as running in native on a GF7900GTX in DX9?

I wouldn't be saying which runs better quite yet, because we don't even know the level of control you have for the DX9/10 features, and if the GF8 series is geometry shader weak, then the best benefit they had may be lost in Crysis with all that vegetation.

I don't doubt the GF8800 series is a damn fine choice compared to the X19xx and GF79xx, but until we see them runninng side by side, I wouldn't pick a winner between the GF8600 and the previous generation's top cards.
April 25, 2007 3:50:50 AM

Red Bull?

May I offer you one?
<hands a delicious, thirst quenching Red Bull (registered tradmark) over>
-cm
April 25, 2007 11:06:07 AM

Quote:
I think those benchmark are false.


Yet they match most other reviews out there.

Quote:
my Score on 3D Mark 06 was: 4939


Bungholio marks for the GF8600s are very high well beyond the X1950XT even, but actual performance is much lower. Proving yet again Bungholio marks mean very little for gaming performance, the numbers inside for individual tests mean more than final scores.

Maybe its a question of driver, next driver will be more performant in games.
April 25, 2007 4:56:58 PM

Quote:
.....and even just walking outside with a cigar on a nice dark 7pm hour-long walk......

+5 for that comment! Got a nice little section of downtown by the river that works well for that.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 7:02:58 PM

Yeah man, with all the restos (inside and outside) banning smoking, it's the only way to enjoy a nice contemplative smoke. Really give clarity to the present and future.

My last one was a week ago, nice Puros Indios Lonsdale.

I usually prefer strong smokes especially Cuban, but it's a nice change of pace.

I brought back a dozen Davidoffs (4 2000s, 4 Zinos MC 2s, and 4 Special Ts) from Ozzy Duty Free. I wanted to buy some Cubans bu because of my US stop over, couldn't, which sucked because R&Js, Bolivars were SOOoooo cheap !! And no Punch Champions down there !?!
Davidoffs though are solid non-cuban I found their quality consistent. I had a Cedro Anniversario for 2000 New Year's, still one of my best smokes to date (alongside an early 1980s Cuban Davidoff I had for graduation). I also go with Maduros for non-Cuban because they've got the strength for Port or Scotch, or to compete with steak sauce, etc. I didn't find any good Maduros for a good price in the Sydney tobaconists though.

Needless to say, the winter is the perfect time for that kind of stroll. 8)
April 25, 2007 7:34:36 PM

I usually prefer the smooth and mild ones myself. I only smoke a cigar occasionally as I don't want to make it an everyday habit. Ruins the experience and I quit smoking when I was 22 and don't want to start up again. I honestly smoke less than 6 a year. I don't follow brands that much and I'm not an aficionado. Punch's are quite nice as are Maduros. We have several nice little cigar shops around here that make their own and we used to have a really nice cigar cafe (which also made their own) where you could sip an espresso, drink a beer, glass of wine (meh), scotch ( :wink: ) shoot some pool, etc all without having to be persecuted for a simple pleasure. Unfortunately this town just doesn't have the class or character for such a place and I believe it shut down awhile back.

However, downtown on the riverwalk with snow on the ground and a good cigar makes for an absolutely pleasant experience.

One of my favorites is a local made but looked down upon vanilla flavored cigar. Not familiar with the type. It smells and tastes incredible. Highly unoffensive. Very much like pipe tobacco scent in some ways. Enjoyable from start to finish without any harsh after qualities like some "real" cigars. Unfortunately, in the cigar world they are harshly looked down upon by aficionados. It's a good thing I smoke them for pleasure and myself instead of trying to impress some crowd I could care less about but to each there own.
a b U Graphics card
April 25, 2007 7:58:49 PM

Yeah to me I like variety, and when I smoke I buy the best, and most distinct I can, cause I like to try new stuff. But I also buy a few Prime Time cigars just to enjoy the simple pleasures.

While I'd scoff at an old port (it's just bad tobacco sweetened up), I wouldn't look down upon anyone getting a falvoured cigar, since I love the private brands alot for their variety, and even love the ones that use pipe-tobacco filler.

Main thing is to do it for the flavour and experience, not because of what someone else thinks.

My guilty pleasure is smoking Backwoods when I ski, because I know if I wipe out and kill the cigar it's not great loss, yet it's a pretty nice mild smoke.
April 25, 2007 8:27:19 PM

Quote:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=637

This over at Legionhardware should help all you people with your "is an 8500,8600GT faster then current DX 9 7600GT/X1650XT problems.

AND I QUOTE

"Now has the 8600 GT carried on the success of the 6600 GT and 7600 GT graphics cards? Not at all, the 8600 GT is a joke in my opinion and does not deserve to be part of the x600 GT series. If anything, what we have see here today should have been performance delivered by the 8500 GT, not the 8600 GT. The results really spoke for themselves, as the GeForce 8600 GT was 12% slower in Far Cry, 17% slower in F.E.A.R, 7% slower in X3: Reunion and 19.5% slower in Company of Heroes. The only two games that the 8600 GT came out on top in was Prey (15.5%) and Supreme Commander (27.5%), making a two out of six effort very poor indeed."


Important to mention that for $150 you can get the 7900GS which will kick its ass in most benchies.
April 25, 2007 8:37:43 PM

i think the gts should have been given the gt name. (and a bit higher clock or 196 bit or 48 shaders)

that way it would be correct qua performance compared to the 7600gt and 6600gt.

the gts should ADD something (besides just a letter s) and close the gap between the 8600 and the 8800 series and should have been given 256bit, 512mb and 64 shaders. the gap between the 8600 and the 8800 is way bigger than 7600 and 7800/7900 but the price isn`t, that`s the big problem.
April 25, 2007 8:58:41 PM

the more i read about the 8600gt/gts b4 it ws released, the less i wanted it. Im gonna order the 7900gs pretty soon, I wont need dx10 cause im gonna stay with xp longer than i did windows 98.
April 25, 2007 9:01:05 PM

Hopefully the rumored 8800 GS will fill the gap, and the prices will sort out accordingly...
!