Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

will 8800gts 320mb be enough for 1680*1050??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 8, 2007 7:14:58 AM

e6420, 2 gb ram, 8800gts 320mb be enough for dx10 game @ 1680*1050 esp games like crysis?? i know the 8800gts 640mb will do better with higher resolution, but i dont want to pay extras 100+ dollars on something that i dont even know how it does on crysis, what are my others option?? x1950xt 256mb for around 180$ and upgrade when 2nd gen dx10 cards show up?? hows the x1950xt @1680*1050??
May 8, 2007 8:04:44 AM

The fact is no one knows, but 95% here suggest you go with the 640MB version even though they are just guessing.
To be completely safe you should wait until some titles are out...

I bought mine in mar-apr and have had a blast, but im only playing in 1280x1024 until my new screen arrives, then ill know how it performs with DX9 @ 1680x1050 atleast.

The longer you wait the lesser it justifies i think getting a 8800, better get a good DX9 price/performance now and upgrade later.
May 8, 2007 8:09:42 AM

i own a 8800 gts 320 and i dont think it will be enough at that resolution , unless you have a really high end rig .

Wait a bit and get a GTX
Related resources
May 8, 2007 8:14:48 AM

Well 1st of all DX10 is supposed to be more efficient than DX9, meaning if it were the same game built on DX10 instead of DX9 it would perform better on DX10. I think that 1680x1050 is kind of border line for the 320mb version if you intend on playing games with everything maxed out, as I use my 640mb version I find it's pretty good at every game out their. It's not a GTX or an ULTRA but those are some what of a waste considering how fast things change. ALTHOUGH, when people complain they only get 70FPS on the 320 instead of 90FPS, those people are retarded. It does mean better performance at 90FPS, but the human eye can't see much past 20-some FPS anyway. I will tell you though that anything under 40FPS I can "feel" the difference, but I can't actually see it. Unless you're really due for a new card right now I'd wait till ATI comes out with their stuff even if it's not better. When ATI comes out with their stuff prices will come down on the NV stuff, and you'll save a bundle. So my suggestion is wait for the prices to drop and then get the 640mb.
May 8, 2007 8:17:37 AM

The 320MB version seems to be fine with 16x10 resolutions as long as AA is off. I'm on the fence for a new video card for my rigs upgrade, as we can't even begin to imagine how it will handle Crysis or any of the DX 10 games.

Here's some DX9 Tests over at vr-zone:
8800GTS 320Mb Review

^Superclocked 320MB
May 8, 2007 8:41:47 AM

not even.. 320 struggled for me to play my 2142 and cs:s
May 8, 2007 8:45:20 AM

Quote:
not even.. 320 struggled for me to play my 2142 and cs:s


With AA? Why would VR-Zone be lying..so much? Maybe it was another part of your system killing the fps.
a b U Graphics card
May 8, 2007 8:49:17 AM

Quote:
e6420, 2 gb ram, 8800gts 320mb be enough for dx10 game @ 1680*1050 esp games like crysis?? i know the 8800gts 640mb will do better with higher resolution, but i dont want to pay extras 100+ dollars on something that i dont even know how it does on crysis, what are my others option?? x1950xt 256mb for around 180$ and upgrade when 2nd gen dx10 cards show up?? hows the x1950xt @1680*1050??


arrrggg for god sake the more you spend on your graphics card the better FPS you will get (to a point), it all comes down to budget and bang for your $$$.
May 8, 2007 8:58:38 AM

Quote:
Well 1st of all DX10 is supposed to be more efficient than DX9, meaning if it were the same game built on DX10 instead of DX9 it would perform better on DX10.


Remember that performance is worse under Vista though, which you need to run DX10.....
May 8, 2007 9:35:43 AM

I have an ati x1950xt. cheap and powerful. Games at 1680x1050 good but Call of duty 2 with aa on makes it suffer a little. All other games fine, stress test for hl2 about 140fps (i think???). Rainbow 6 vegas properly kills it at that resolution tho. I'd probably go for the 8800gts 320mb

My cpu is an amd fx-60 for reference
May 8, 2007 3:02:13 PM

EVGA offers a step up program on all their cards for 90 days. Get the 320 and if its not enough you can upgrade it to the 640 or the GTX for the price difference in the two cards.
May 8, 2007 3:34:35 PM

I have to agree there with T8RR8R, except maybe in the "get one NOW and upgrade soon" part:

Even though I'm playing mostly COD2 at 1680x1050, I still manage to squeeze some 170-180FPS with my totally outdated rig (A64 3700+ @2.5, 1GB, 256MB X800XT-AGP) at that resolution with 4xAA/8xAF enabled. Obviously, this is in DX7 mode since those settings in DX9 would drop my FPS to the craptastic 40-45 FPS range. :cry: 

And yet I see no point in upgrading NOW, so I think I will just hold on to this card for a few more months and get either an HD2900XT or a 640MB GTS as soon as their prices err... "settle down". :wink:
May 8, 2007 4:03:14 PM

Quote:
Obviously, this is in DX7 mode since those settings in DX9 would drop my FPS to the craptastic 40-45 FPS range. :cry: 


Im not sure you would even get that. I have an athlon fx-60 dual core, 2gb corsair xms memory and ati x1950xt and at the settings you've mentioned it doesn't really get over 35fps, at least on the first russia level anyway

A core2 x6800 with an x1650xt at that res and setting will only so 19fps in benchmarks

Unless you have your texture settings on lower
May 8, 2007 4:03:30 PM

as you can see, i dont have any cards right now, its what i m trying to get now or upgrade later... i think i might getting the 8800gts 320mb or a really cheap card now and upgrade later. so i m also thinking about getting the x1950xt 256mb..... but i think the 8800gts 320mb is better buy now @~260$ compare to x1950xt 256mb @~$180
May 8, 2007 4:22:58 PM

I have an evga 320 clocked to 600/1850 paired with a 6600 @2.925. I play Titan Quest (a real resource hog) at 1600x1200 and it lags with AA on and everything at max, not bad mind you but it's still noticeable. The included game, Dark Messiah also had similar performance. It's a nice card but at 16x12 it does have problems. 1680x1050 it slightly less demanding (about 10% less pixels) so that may help, but if I were you I may try to tough it out until ati's solution comes out and hopefully further drives down the price of the 8800's.
May 8, 2007 4:25:18 PM

Yes I would say that VR zone is wrong. Since I generally use HDR and not AA but AF on full at those resolutions.
May 8, 2007 4:26:14 PM

I'm running a GTS 320 1GB 667 RAM and a 6300 and i run CS:S and BF:2 full out on a 20in wide screen. as far as i can tell no skipping and my CS:S stress test scored over 150pts. i've been very satisfied. but if you're going worry i would with evga and use their step up program when the next gen cards come out. not a sure thing but it gives you six months to make sure your happy.
May 8, 2007 4:57:27 PM

You have to be careful of generalizations like this, because bottlenecks can happen at different points in your setup. I have an x1950xt and it can handle 1600x1050 on a 22 in monitor with zero problems for BF2142 and SOE's Vanguard Saga of Heroes, a known rig torturer, with everything on highest/maxed. BUT my rig is overclocked, watercooled, etc.
May 8, 2007 5:20:07 PM

Quote:
not even.. 320 struggled for me to play my 2142 and cs:s


No I don't buy that for CS:S at all... I have a 8800 320, 2gb ram, and an e4300 (which I haven't even overclocked yet)... and its running FAST. The stress test had it at 195 FPS. :wink:
May 8, 2007 5:57:06 PM

Quote:
Obviously, this is in DX7 mode since those settings in DX9 would drop my FPS to the craptastic 40-45 FPS range. :cry: 


Im not sure you would even get that. I have an athlon fx-60 dual core, 2gb corsair xms memory and ati x1950xt and at the settings you've mentioned it doesn't really get over 35fps, at least on the first russia level anyway

A core2 x6800 with an x1650xt at that res and setting will only so 19fps in benchmarks

Unless you have your texture settings on lower

Well I do have all texture (and eye candy) settings on HIGH (but not EXTRA), but you are correct:

I only enable 4xAA/8xAF in DirectX7 mode, in DX9 I do get 40-45 FPS on average w/ same texture and graphics settings but with AA disabled (and only in MP, as I haven't gone back to singleplayer in like..."years") :wink:
May 8, 2007 7:54:23 PM

Quote:
anything under 40FPS I can "feel" the difference, but I can't actually see it.

That's cool. I can taste anything below 80fps so I need the 8800 GTX.
!