8800GTS 640mb vs. 320mb

[darkspreader]

I was wondering, which one would be better for the job of displaying a 20" monitor at 1680 x 1050 or two 17" monitors at 1280 x 1024? It's a simple question, really, but it's beyond my intelligence.

 

[haywood]

The concensus seems to be 1600x1200 or higher get the 640. 1280x1024 or lower the 320 is fine. For both the setups you listed I would go for the 640 or splurge on the GTX.

 

[slashzapper]

No i disagree the 320meg version has no problem with that resolution ,

i play at that resolution.

 

[red_devil]

320Mb will be fine till u reach 1600x1200 or sometimes till 1920x1200

 

[andybird123]

early DX10 benches show the 320mb struggling much sooner than the 640mb, for the small price difference I'd recommend the 640

 

[prolfe]

Hey if you'd like to buy my 320, I'll buy a 640 for myself. I can't stand the way my 320 sputters and spits in outdoor Oblivion, and that's only at 1280*1024 with all details up and HDR, also with draw distances maxed out.

I think the 320 has real problems with texture swapping, and it is my opinion that the benchmark numbers we see online do not reflect the pauses that the card experiences during swapping.

On the other hand, when the card has all the textures loaded, it processes them incredibly fast, so if you can live with some of the settings turned down, or a little less resolution, you will have a real fast card on your hands.

 

[aevm]

No i disagree the 320meg version has no problem with that resolution ,

i play at that resolution.

It depends on the games too. His favorite games may be more demanding than yours. Also, are you playing with all the eye candy enabled?

 

[slashzapper]

I take strict offense to this :lol:

i play all the candy available dude , i mean i got the whole chocolate factory killing it