Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HELP, EVGA 8800gts 320mb or 640mb

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 14, 2007 6:16:29 PM

Ive narrowed it down to these two cards. I play battelfield 2 & 2142 and I play at 1280 x 1024. The difference between the two cards if $50. Which one?

Opt 170
2gb Ram
May 14, 2007 6:18:39 PM

What resolution do you plan on playing at?

*Edit* :lol:  Nexttime Ill read the whole post.

Busey already covered it. Go with the 320.
May 14, 2007 6:18:57 PM

Go with the 320 and keep the $50.
Related resources
May 14, 2007 6:20:43 PM

Max resolution is 1280 x 1024
May 14, 2007 6:23:56 PM

Get the 320MB version & Overclock the hell out of that Opty! :twisted:
Opteron Rule!
May 14, 2007 6:43:56 PM

foxconn has an overclocked version of the 320mb for the same price of the evga 320mb, which one in this case?
May 14, 2007 6:58:13 PM

Go with the eVGA. :twisted:
You can OC it easily to 575/1800 like foxconn.
May 14, 2007 7:00:00 PM

I agree with Fahrang on the eVGA. Not just becuase I use them personally, but because their stepup program is great for a future upgrade.
May 14, 2007 7:26:25 PM

If you still have any doubts read this review:

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=...

GTS 640 is a waste of money since even if you manage to get to the point where you need extra MBs (most unlikely with 1280*1024 res), GPU's core clock will hold FPS down so you will not get enjoyble experience anyway. Get a good overclocked GTS 320 and don't give it a second thought :) 
May 14, 2007 7:30:25 PM

Thanks
May 14, 2007 8:59:44 PM

what about 1650x1050 resolution?
May 14, 2007 9:23:25 PM

Quote:
what about 1650x1050 resolution?
I'm interested in the answer to this as well. From what I've heard the 640 can really help out at this resolution and higher. The 320 drops like a stone on some games at high resolutions.
May 14, 2007 10:17:18 PM

Quote:
I'm interested in the answer to this as well. From what I've heard the 640 can really help out at this resolution and higher. The 320 drops like a stone on some games at high resolutions.


i was thinking the same thing as you but when i looked more benchmarks, i found out that the oc ver. of 8800gts320mb seems to able to keep up with the 8800gts640mb in most of the games. but if you play beyond 1650x1050 resolution, then maybe the gtx if you have the money.
May 14, 2007 10:18:10 PM

Quote:
what about 1650x1050 resolution?
I'm interested in the answer to this as well. From what I've heard the 640 can really help out at this resolution and higher. The 320 drops like a stone on some games at high resolutions.

Find one game...
Find one game in witch 320 "drops like a stone" because of lack of vRAM. I keep hearing that and viewed a remarkble amount of reviews on GTS 320 and haven't seen one review worth mentioning that would prove that !!!
In Oblivion/Doom3/Prey there is practicly no difference between the two even under the resolution of 1920*.. AND even if such a game exists (or one may come in the future)... Any game that requires such a sick amount of memory (more then 320MB) under 1650*1050 would also require a sick GPU core clock/architecture to process all the data anyway so Geforce 8800 GTS will fail to give you a decent FPS.

That's my take on the matter anyway. I know that a dual 320 GTS (SLI) setup kills a single GTX card in pretty much every test imaginable but what most people don't know (just figured it out today by asking a question in this very forum) even in SLI this 2 cards use only 320 MB of vRAM(only buffer doubles). They still manage to pwn a single GTX (also 2 SLIed GTS's 640s for some reason) in every test even under 1920*1200 with high AA/AF settings.

Another thing I would like to add is that GTS 320Mb came out later then 640 so all the people that already bought 640mb version needed some kind of excuse to not look like n00bs (don't know why they would look like n00bs but thats the feeling I get when people advise getting a 640mb versions for higher resolutions on forums (most of them have one themselfs somehow :)  )
May 14, 2007 10:55:02 PM

before you buy the 320, which everyone is so quick to recommend, take a second to breath. 320 OC is a great card, however your looking at 320mb of ram.

This is not a necessarily a bad thing but from what i've read DX10 textures are going to be significantly larger then the current DX9 textures.

In turn this will also eat up more video ram. Buying a OC'd 640meg version might be a better bet if you are looking forwards to DX10 games.
May 14, 2007 10:56:39 PM

Well I made up my mind and got a foxconn 320mb oc . All the reviews for this card kick butt.
May 14, 2007 11:05:33 PM

By the time dx10 start to become the norm in games, Nvidia and Ati will be rolling out new cards that will make the current crop of cards look pathetic in dx10. Save some money and get a 320mb until then.
May 14, 2007 11:24:37 PM

now the question is, is it wise to buy 8800gts320mb and overclock it by yourself or spend extras $ on already oc ver. 8800gts320mb like foxconn or eVGA??
May 14, 2007 11:41:15 PM

Quote:
By the time dx10 start to be come the norm in games, Nvidia and Ati will be rolling out new cards that will make the current crop of cards look pathetic in dx10. Save some money and get a 320mb until then.


Good point, it's like looking into a crystal ball.. Dx10 might need more RAM but on the other side it may also require a GTX at it's very least to run games like Crysis/UT3 at playble framerates... and by the time those are out we will hear something from Nvidia (can count on at least a 8900 release) and ATI ( release of X2900XTX would be nice but I don't count on AMD/ATI to release anything anymore :(  )

Good pick.. Never heard anything bad about Foxconn's cards, I am going with Sparkle's GTX for my new rig but I am willing to wait untill the end of the month hoping that release of 2900 (however poor) may have some effect on GTX's price :twisted:
a c 105 U Graphics card
May 14, 2007 11:45:09 PM

Quote:
Quote:
what about 1650x1050 resolution?
I'm interested in the answer to this as well. From what I've heard the 640 can really help out at this resolution and higher. The 320 drops like a stone on some games at high resolutions.

Find one game...
Find one game in witch 320 "drops like a stone" because of lack of vRAM. I keep hearing that and viewed a remarkble amount of reviews on GTS 320 and haven't seen one review worth mentioning that would prove that !!!


READ THESE benchies all the way through

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

fear and graw are two. Newer games are gonna need more memory
May 14, 2007 11:50:22 PM

Quote:
now the question is, is it wise to buy 8800gts320mb and overclock it by yourself or spend extras $ on already oc ver. 8800gts320mb like foxconn or eVGA??


Get an OC version, enjoy better fps, improved cooling solution and don't worry about the warranty witch you may be forfitting by overclocking the stock version of the card. OC cards also often present a tweaked bios with different voltages/power consumption + improved cooling solutions so you can achive better results by overclocking them even futher if you really want to :) 
May 14, 2007 11:54:14 PM

The difference between the overclocked foxconn I bought and a regular evga card was $10.
May 15, 2007 12:00:31 AM

i dont know about noobs recommending 640 because they own one but i agree that 320 mb on the 8800 gpu is probably the sweet spot and that is worth taking the risk that it s going to come short of memory when the gpu will need it. And i highly doubt that the 8800 is going to play dx10 games at more than 1024*768 with all the goodies on. I think the 8800 series cards will end up more like good dx9 with a little bit of future in mind(like a transition card nothing more).

I wouldn t buy right now a dx10 now thinking i will have a nice dx10 experience.It s just too risky.

Otherwise 8800 320 is THE deal.
May 15, 2007 12:21:32 AM

Quote:
The difference between the overclocked foxconn I bought and a regular evga card was $10.


can you give me the link please.
i m like 50/50 now. 50 is its a dx10 card and 50 is a good DX9 card, lol
May 15, 2007 12:56:16 AM

im still not sure whats the better option... is the 640mb worth the extra $65 CND?
May 15, 2007 1:09:35 AM

You obviously didn’t read the review the whole way. All those 320mb models are the overclocked versions. So yea they all ran better. However It was evident in a few of the benchmarks where they cranked the res to the max and it did in fact drop like a brick. This sort of confused me as to why they didn’t compare a 640mb OC to those other 320mb OC's. You got to remember there the exact same card, same stream processors, same everything, just half the memory. There is no reason why cutting half the memory would improve performance other than the fact that all the clock speeds on the 320mb were MORE than the default 640mb.
May 15, 2007 1:45:04 AM

Quote:
Quote:
what about 1650x1050 resolution?
I'm interested in the answer to this as well. From what I've heard the 640 can really help out at this resolution and higher. The 320 drops like a stone on some games at high resolutions.

Find one game...
Find one game in witch 320 "drops like a stone" because of lack of vRAM. I keep hearing that and viewed a remarkble amount of reviews on GTS 320 and haven't seen one review worth mentioning that would prove that !!!


READ THESE benchies all the way through

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

fear and graw are two. Newer games are gonna need more memory

Alright.. that shuts me up about finding "one" game, you could probably add Q4 with Ultra details to that list :) 

I don't believe for a second that F.E.A.R. and Advanced Warfighter give us a glince into the future of Dx9/Dx10 gaming. About 20 other games (some way more recent) show us a very different picture. Also there is an "awesome" preformance of RadX1950XTX&Ge7950GX2 whitch you can see in graw+fear but also doesn't extend any further then to this two games.

If you REALLY want to play GRAW and Fear with a bang, I give up and admit that 640 is a better option, for the rest it is still a waist of cash :) 

As for newer games, many came out since F.E.A.R. was released (in '05) :lol:  and many since the release of GRAW, non of those games required more then 320 MB of RAM or gave any advantage to GTS 640 at all.
May 15, 2007 1:52:46 AM

We have to come back to this topic after they release Crysis. My guess is that both GTS's will equally suck and 640 will not make it any more playble then it would be with 320 :? :roll:
But I am saying that while looking into a crystal ball and seeing nothing but a n00bish git stearing back at me :wink:
May 15, 2007 2:38:35 AM

Quote:
We have to come back to this topic after they release Crysis. My guess is that both GTS's will equally suck and 640 will not make it any more playble then it would be with 320
But I am saying that while looking into a crystal ball and seeing nothing but a n00bish git stearing back at me


Though i can't say this for sure, because obviously i havn't seen crysis. The textures for DX10 are going to be larger then that of 9. I'm not sure what resolution it will take its toll, but i'm sure the memory will make a difference. How significant, i'm not sure.There was a huge article a little while back on this topic, and i'm sure a search (and a little bit of time) will bring it up.
May 15, 2007 5:00:46 PM

1650x1050 resolution is the line IMO that if crossed justifies spending a little more for a 640 MB version. Since the OP is a step down from that he has a little headroom even with larger textures of DX10. But as stated earlier these first generation of DX10 cards are more of a placeholder and the GPU will become the bottleneck long before the memory for titles comming out in late 2008. I'm getting the EVGA superclocked version myself and will play at 1650x1050 and eventually tone down to 1440x900 on my 22 inch widescreen. Hope to get at least 18 months play out of it before skipping to third generation in 18 months.
May 15, 2007 5:04:54 PM

1650x1050 resolution is the line IMO that if crossed justifies spending a little more for a 640 MB version. Since the OP is a step down from that he has a little headroom even with larger textures of DX10. But as stated earlier these first generation of DX10 cards are more of a placeholder and the GPU will become the bottleneck long before the memory for titles comming out in late 2008. I'm getting the EVGA superclocked version myself and will play at 1650x1050 and eventually tone down to 1440x900 on my 22 inch widescreen. Hope to get at least 18 months play out of it before skipping to third generation in 18 months.
!