Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is the 8500GT or the 7900GS better

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 7, 2007 6:06:42 PM

I'm wondering which of these cards would be better I don't see the 8500GT posted on the report, and it only has GDRR2 not GDRR3. Wi ll that make a big difference in the games, and is the 8599GT a good OC'ed card.

More about : 8500gt 7900gs

a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2007 6:08:27 PM

i would go for the 79gs.
May 7, 2007 6:33:12 PM

You can easily volt mod the 7900 GS to run 700 core 1600 mem.
Related resources
May 7, 2007 6:38:56 PM

the gf 7900gs is better
the gf 8500gt is a lower end DX10 card and isnt that good the only Nvidea cards with DX10 that i would consider are the
GF8600GTS
GF8800GTS 320
GF8800GTS640
GF8800GTX( for the guy who has the cash)
GF8800ULTRA ( for the one who doesnt ever worry about cash
:p )
May 7, 2007 6:50:05 PM

The only reason to buy the 8500 is if you need hardware decoding of h.264, and if you need me to explain that then you most likely don't need it.
May 7, 2007 6:57:23 PM

The 8500GT actually has no place on anybodies shopping list.
It performs so poorly its likely not able to make much use of DX10 when such games come out.

Read below..........................


"Finally, let's look at the budget DirectX 10 card: the 8500 GT. At first glance, the price seems right at a low $100, but we must also look at performance. With a graphics processor about half as powerful as that in the 8600 GT, the 8500 GT performs on par with the age-old Geforce 6600 GT - not encouraging.

At $100, the 8500 GT's opponents are the X1650 XT and 7600 GT, both of which beat it by leaps and bounds. The 8500 GT is a bit of a disappointment when it comes to gaming, and it's so underpowered that I doubt it will be able to fare any better when DirectX 10 titles come along"
May 7, 2007 7:02:05 PM

Quote:
The 8500GT actually has no place on anybodies shopping list.
It performs so poorly its likely not able to make much use of DX10 when such games come out.

Read below..........................


"Finally, let's look at the budget DirectX 10 card: the 8500 GT. At first glance, the price seems right at a low $100, but we must also look at performance. With a graphics processor about half as powerful as that in the 8600 GT, the 8500 GT performs on par with the age-old Geforce 6600 GT - not encouraging.

At $100, the 8500 GT's opponents are the X1650 XT and 7600 GT, both of which beat it by leaps and bounds. The 8500 GT is a bit of a disappointment when it comes to gaming, and it's so underpowered that I doubt it will be able to fare any better when DirectX 10 titles come along"

totally agree
the only cheap DX10 Card is the GF8600GTS
May 7, 2007 7:11:29 PM

I'm really disappointed about the 8500 GT performance. Honestly I was expecting that by this time, it would perform like a 6800 GT. Very disappointing.
May 7, 2007 7:18:20 PM

Quote:
I'm really disappointed about the 8500 GT performance. Honestly I was expecting that by this time, it would perform like a 6800 GT. Very disappointing.

i bet its like my card and thats scary hahaha
May 7, 2007 7:35:27 PM

I'm very disappointed in all of the Low/Mid-Range DX10 cards.

It seems NVIDIA launched a whole series of cards marketed only towards the uninformed.

The 8800s are fine cards and worth the premium.

I am just surprised at the large price premium required to have the honor of being able to lose performance.

The 8600GTS may have a small market since some folks may not want to pay about $200 for an old DX9 card even if it is a bit faster. The other 8600/8500s are sooo much more expensive and totally lack the performance required for decent gaming that there is no point to them even having DX10. Folks will just get 7600s or 1650s.

My guess is that in a few months these cards will drop tremendously in price. NVIDIA is letting the early birds who buy anything feed at outrageous prices and then settle into more reasonable prices with the 8600GTS going for 150ish the 8600GT for about $100 and the 8500 going for the sub $100 market.

If that happens they have sellable cards.
Until then, no.

One guess is that they did not want to start too cheaply and stick their partners with unsellable DX9 cards. This will let the resellers and 3rd party card makers to start trimming their DX9 stocks before the "real" price of DX10 Mid-Range cards is implemented.
May 7, 2007 8:09:50 PM

The 8600GT can barely beat a 7900GS in performance. The 8500GT is about half way a 8500GT.
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2007 8:10:28 PM

The 7900GS destroys the 8500GT. It beats the 8600GT too, and is a good match for the 8600GTS.
May 7, 2007 8:24:17 PM

I like the 8500Gt a lot.

I think of it as not a replacement or a competitor to the 7600gt or X1650XT which are in its price range, but as a basic discrete GPU for Vista and H.264.

I think of it as a good replacement for the GeForce 7300 and X1300 series. The Gigabyte card is fanless to boot.

For $100 you can get H.264 processing offloaded, decent gpu acceleration for Vista and basic games, HDCP for high def, and also low power consumption (as all cards in the range are), oh also DX10 (albeit low powered) for whatever that can be used for.

The 7600gt can offer far superior gpu performance, but what about the mass of PC buyers who arent looking to game, but looking for discrete graphics which are recommended for Vista.

More and more OEM pcs such as Dell and HP are coming with basic discrete graphics such as the X1300 or GeForce7300. These are much better than integrated GPUs.


I believe that the GeForce 8500GT has a VERY strong place in the gpu lineup, and that it was the only good thing to come out of the 8xxx midrange


But if you want to game get the eVGA or XFX (1550mem) 7900GS for $130-140. Good cards.
May 7, 2007 8:27:28 PM

Quote:

i bet its like my card and thats scary hahaha


:lol: 
May 7, 2007 8:31:34 PM

I don't know if I agree with you all that much.

The X1300s and 7300s do just as good of a job in Vista, so what does the 8500 GT offer for the increased price? Only HD vieo decoding as far as I can see, which is nice, but there aren't that many people out there who'll watch HD DVDs on their PCs.

Add to that I don't think there are many - if any - 8500 GT's with HDCP support (required for digital playback of HD DVD/Blu-ray), and you have a card that can do what the 7300 GT/X1300's already do... but for more money.
May 7, 2007 9:37:52 PM

Quote:
I don't know if I agree with you all that much.

The X1300s and 7300s do just as good of a job in Vista, so what does the 8500 GT offer for the increased price? Only HD vieo decoding as far as I can see, which is nice, but there aren't that many people out there who'll watch HD DVDs on their PCs.

Add to that I don't think there are many - if any - 8500 GT's with HDCP support (required for digital playback of HD DVD/Blu-ray), and you have a card that can do what the 7300 GT/X1300's already do... but for more money.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
Its got HDCP, also its fanless

HD video is going to be like SD video is now.... in 5 years. With an 8500gt, they can decode HD much better. The price increase isnt that much anyways (7300/X1300 are what ? around $70?). The 8500GT probably performs better than those cards in 3d. YOu could probably play a game like wOw or the Sims2 at 1024x768 quite well with an 8500gt. Most people that I know have integrated graphics, therefore, an 8500gt would be much better for 3d than ANY intergrated solutions.

I like the 8500gt, specifically the Gigabyte SilentPipe card. Its perfect for a workhorse or HTPC.
May 7, 2007 10:35:23 PM

Actually,

They are as low as $42.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

While you point out that in a couple years folks may want these cards to decode HD stuff, there is no saying that this card will handle the decoding tech that is around then.

Right now the need to actually decode HD would be quite rare and when it is common place, this card will be even more dated from a power point. While it can play low-end games like WoW today, I can picture in a couple years it being unable to play even children's games as they become more graphic intense.

But if you really want those features, I guess any extra $60 may be worth it. Personally I would wait a few months. The prices will settle.
a b U Graphics card
May 7, 2007 10:52:54 PM

Yeah looks like the 86 series is to the 79 series.
What the fx was to the gf4. seires.
May 7, 2007 11:43:37 PM

Quote:
Actually,

They are as low as $42.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


ArcadeFX does not compare with Gigabyte in terms of quality. Not at all.

Here are some comparable cards:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=P...

As you see the best cards are from $60-75 dollars.
Going from that to $100 isnt such a big jump.

I awknowledge your comments, and your points are very good, yet I still believe that the 8500GT is a very well placed card.
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 2:41:53 AM

Quote:

I think of it as not a replacement or a competitor to the 7600gt or X1650XT which are in its price range, but as a basic discrete GPU for Vista and H.264.

For $100 you can get H.264 processing offloaded, decent gpu acceleration for Vista and basic games, HDCP for high def,


Well first of all some GF7900GSs have HDCP support and considering he talked about games and not HD content, I'd say that gameplay framerates are the focus of performance he's looking for primarily.

The interesting thing about the G84/86 H.264 support is that it doesn't seem to be the decoding of the H.264 itself that is better but the content protection decrypting that is the difference. The ability of the GF8500/8600 to accelerate H.264 seems to be no better than the previous generation from nV or ATi/AMD;
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...

It appears to be the AES128 engine that's helping in decrypting content protection that makes the difference not H.264 itself;
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3816/diagnvdapearxa2...
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 3:22:43 AM

Between the two, the 7900GS is a way better GPU.
May 8, 2007 10:39:55 AM

Quote:
Between the two, the 7900GS is a way better GPU.


For gaming of course, but not everyone games.

Also, I would think that the 8500gt would use less power. That could be a buying point.
May 8, 2007 10:42:27 AM

Quote:

I think of it as not a replacement or a competitor to the 7600gt or X1650XT which are in its price range, but as a basic discrete GPU for Vista and H.264.

For $100 you can get H.264 processing offloaded, decent gpu acceleration for Vista and basic games, HDCP for high def,


Well first of all some GF7900GSs have HDCP support and considering he talked about games and not HD content, I'd say that gameplay framerates are the focus of performance he's looking for primarily.

The interesting thing about the G84/86 H.264 support is that it doesn't seem to be the decoding of the H.264 itself that is better but the content protection decrypting that is the difference. The ability of the GF8500/8600 to accelerate H.264 seems to be no better than the previous generation from nV or ATi/AMD;
http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_c...

It appears to be the AES128 engine that's helping in decrypting content protection that makes the difference not H.264 itself;
http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3816/diagnvdapearxa2...

You know what you're talking about so I wont mess.

So if what you say is true (and im not contesting that it is) then what does the 8500gt have over the 7300 series?
May 8, 2007 10:59:31 AM

slighty better gaming? :p 

But is it worth the extra price??
May 8, 2007 11:11:51 AM

Go for the 7900gs as it outperforms the 8500 hands down.The 8500 is a low end DX10 card that is for the people who can't afford anything better.The 7900gs has 256 megs of ddr3 memory on a 256bit interface,whereas the 8500 has 256 megs of ddr2 memory on a 128 bit interface.If you really want a DX10 card,then I suggest you look at the 8800gts 320.It has 320 megs of ram on a 320bit interface.Basically this card rocks.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
May 8, 2007 11:46:27 AM

The 7900gs, all the way! If you want a mid-range DX10 card, then wait until ATI's lineup comes out. I've got a feeling that ATI's mid-range cards will smoke the 8500/8600 cards.
May 8, 2007 12:16:01 PM

Quote:
I've got a feeling that ATI's mid-range cards will smoke the 8500/8600 cards.
Got that same feeling after looking at the options for my next card. It's between an X1950pro or a mid-range hd 2XXX card. Only 6 more days...
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 4:10:24 PM

Quote:

So if what you say is true (and im not contesting that it is) then what does the 8500gt have over the 7300 series?


Well it seems to be the hardware decryption of the content protection (ala AACS) from the BR and HD-DVD disks that is included in the GF8500 vpu, so while the others rely on the CPU to decode the disk into it's raw H.264 stream.

This is still a benefit, don't get me wrong, but it is limited to protected content like encryted BluRay and HD-DVD disks. Unprotected content should see no difference between the previous generation and the GF8s.

And the reason I point it out is that alot of people's current H.264 content is primarily net based. I wouldn't believe it except that podcast numbers are higher than BR and HD-DVD sales combined, so for them there should be no difference. The main difference would be clock rates as the nV accelerators improve with core speed as they are dedicated transistors, whereas the X1K series uses the pixel shaders to assist, and so theoretically an X1950XT should decode better than an X1600Pro, but as we see the difference between the X1650XT and X1950Pro (50% more shaders at the same speed) is pretty much unnoticeable.

Unfortunately the GF84/86 series didn't add updated hardware VC-1 decoding so they didn't get that potential boost the others don't have.

It'll be interesting to see AMD's implementation because if they accelerated VC-1 and H.264 without accelerating the decryption process, then you might see the AMDs fluctuate in performance from title to title.
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 4:43:57 PM

Quote:
slighty better gaming? :p 

But is it worth the extra price??


Depends on the unit of course. Too often the GF7900GS is selling for too much on NewEgg.

The eVGA for $135 and XFX for $140 aren't bad for performance/price and they come stock overclocked (not that it matters if he's planning to OC anyways), the problem is that the X1950Pro is in that region, so unless there'sa nV-centric app to consider it makes it hard to justify over and equally prices X1950Pro.

But compared to the lesser performance of the average GF8600 let alone GF8500 I'd say if he's comfortable with his choices and the prices are close enough then the GF7900GS is a clearly better gsamer over the GF8500, the other thing is what is it he's upgrading from, if it's a competant enough card to start with perhaps only the GF7900GS will show enough improvement in gaming to be worth any expenditure.

Tough call over the X1950Pro, but the GF7900GS is the one of the two options he picked that I'd go with, until the prices of the GF8600s come down enough. The GF8500 just isn't worth it right now and compared to the GF7900GS the idea of equal footing in gaming, just isn't there.
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 4:48:55 PM

Quote:
I've got a feeling that ATI's mid-range cards will smoke the 8500/8600 cards.


I hope you're rigjht, but I get the opposite feeling. Well not complete opposite as in underperformant, but I get the feeling that they won't smoke them because they are equally crippled. I suspect the HD2600 series will be +/- 5-10% of the GF8600 series, and that the rumoured HD2900Pro and GF8600U are the cards we're hoping for.

Hey, I hope you're right and I'm wrong, because it'd be a nice card to see in the mid-range if it can manage say 25+% difference over the GF8600s to bring it in-line with X1950Pro performance and above making and X1900XT and X1950XT targets.
May 8, 2007 6:35:34 PM

Yup. If the HD 2600 XT can challenge the X1950 XT, that'd be something.

The rumors I'm hearing is that the Ati midrange is very impressive... :wink:
May 8, 2007 7:14:26 PM

I certainly hope you are correct for all of our sakes.
May 8, 2007 7:43:39 PM

Quote:
Yup. If the HD 2600 XT can challenge the X1950 XT, that'd be something.

The rumors I'm hearing is that the Ati midrange is very impressive... :wink:

that would be great, not only would it cause some of the Nvidia prices to drop but it would bring a good range of cards to pic from
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 7:57:29 PM

Quote:
Yup. If the HD 2600 XT can challenge the X1950 XT, that'd be something.


Yeah that'd be the one where I say 'impressive' a true candidate for the GF7600GT of the DX10 generation. And if that were the case then the roles truely have reveersed all the way to launch order and performance.

I'm still itching for that new laptop though. If they could even squeeze X1950Pro performance in a small package for a reasonable laptop (any that they sold with the GFGO7900GS IMO) then I'd be happy.

Quote:
The rumors I'm hearing is that the Ati midrange is very impressive... :wink:


Somehow I feel the rumours you hear are now better than the ones I hear. :mrgreen:
May 8, 2007 8:24:17 PM

Quote:
Quote:


Somehow I feel the rumors you hear are now better than the ones I hear. :mrgreen:

haha i sadly dont hear any rumors, i feel so left out :p 
May 8, 2007 9:01:39 PM

Quote:

Somehow I feel the rumours you hear are now better than the ones I hear. :mrgreen:


Not necessarily... sometimes a rumor from a 'credible' source is more wildly innacurate than the rumors you find on forums.

Only a couple days now until we find out for sure though. :) 
May 8, 2007 11:19:48 PM

Quote:
slighty better gaming? :p 

But is it worth the extra price??


If what grapeape says is true, then I guess not.

wait.... no, that Gigabyte one is a good budget, silent (passively cooled card), that has HDCP. Three things make it a good placement.

Find me a high quality card that is passively cooled, has HDCP, and is under $100. If you find one, it will probably be around $80. I still like the 8500gt.
May 9, 2007 4:56:39 AM

Quote:
Not necessarily... sometimes a rumor from a 'credible' source is more wildly innacurate than the rumors you find on forums.

Only a couple days now until we find out for sure though. :) 
I just wish the rumor's will stop alltogether and the facts start comin. Oh well, 5 days won't kill me.
!