Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

For those considering an 8500 GT...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 29, 2007 3:50:02 PM

Here's a review at hardwaresecrets showing it getting blasted by a 6600 GT in EVERY GAME TESTED.

The only thing the 8500 GT beat the 6600 GT at was 3dMark 06.
In actual games the 6600 GT beat the 8500 GT by a sizable percentage...

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/452/5

More about : 8500

May 29, 2007 4:22:41 PM

Wow, i didnt expected it to be THAT slow :?

I thought it would score something like the 7600gs
May 29, 2007 4:40:39 PM

S.hit. That's what that card is.
Related resources
May 29, 2007 4:41:08 PM

Nice find Cleeve. :trophy:
Man! That sucks bad! :evil: 
I guessed that 8500GT can at least outperform the 7600GS.
Damn...
May 29, 2007 4:42:10 PM

8O
May 29, 2007 4:49:40 PM

Actually the 8500GT can be a good little card in the right hands.

I have the Gainward 8500GT which is factory clocked to 600mhz GPU with the memory switched to GDDR3@ 1200mhz and all with a passive AC designed 2 slot HS which costs the same as a regular 8500GT here in the UK(£60).

Manufacturers page:
http://www.gainward.net/en/product/product_detail_v8613.html

See here for details of my PC/benchies:
http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=238614&highlight=

My PC is equiv to the 1 in the review except i'm using a E6420 which is 800mhz slower but this still gives me a 3Dmark 2006 score of 3360 @1280x768 as compared to 2927@1024x768 in that review showing my card to be A LOT better for no extra money...
May 29, 2007 5:26:08 PM

What a POS. Hopefully the ATI midrange cards will be a lot better (if they ever come out).
May 29, 2007 5:32:28 PM

Quote:
Here's a review at hardwaresecrets showing it getting blasted by a 6600 GT in EVERY GAME TESTED.

The only thing the 8500 GT beat the 6600 GT at was 3dMark 06.
In actual games the 6600 GT beat the 8500 GT by a sizable percentage...

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/452/5


Frankly, I don't like what I am seeing right now. It seems that there is a huge gap in the DX10 spectrum card. You have Top end card like the 8800 or 2900 than the fall is pretty step and you end up with crappy card like that one. Even the 8600 or 2600 doesn't impress me one bit. I think that both AMD and Nvidea should rethink their position. I think that we should rightly assume that the new mid end card should be near as powerful as the last generation top end card and certainly more powerful than the mid end card of todays. True, there is still time to readjust since Dx10 are not out yet but nevertheless, I think it's cause for some concerns.
May 29, 2007 5:39:24 PM

I just quickly ran 3Dmark 2005 v1.3 and got a score of 5987 which puts my 8500GT on par or better than a stock 7600GT. :D 

Here is the 3Dmark compare link:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=3089075

So don't write the 8500GT off so quickly as i've found it to be a solid performer @1280x768 & 1024x768 with always playable framerates in my games...
May 29, 2007 5:54:48 PM

3DMark means shit compared to real world performance tests.
May 29, 2007 6:29:58 PM

Quote:
I just quickly ran 3Dmark 2005 v1.3 and got a score of 5987 which puts my 8500GT on par or better than a stock 7600GT...
So don't write the 8500GT off so quickly


The 8500 GT does great in 3dMark, it just sucks in games. Check the review.

I don't know about you, but I buy cards to play with, not to get bungholiomarks...

The question isn't if the 8500 GT can provide playable performance... it's whether an old card like the 6600 GT can provide much more performance for less money that makes the 8500 GT a bad gamer's buy.

I spend to get the most gaming performance out of my dollar... the 8500 GT does not do that.
May 29, 2007 6:33:30 PM

YOU WANT THE TRUTH?? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
May 29, 2007 6:54:58 PM

Why are reviews like this not being done here?
May 29, 2007 6:59:26 PM

Because I'm too busy as it is! But I hope to tackle it in the future.
May 29, 2007 7:12:01 PM

Quote:
LIES!!!!

...The clock is fast. The hour is near.
Eventful past is everclear.
My life is set. The time is here.
I think i'm coming home...

No More Lies
No More Lies
No More Lies
No More Lies
No More Lies
No More Lies
No More Lies
No More Lies
May 29, 2007 7:37:31 PM

Maybe I'll wait a generation or two before I switch out my 6600GT (passively cooled at that).

So, does this mean that the 8500 is only about twice as powerful as the Radeon 1250 IGP in the AMD690G chipset?
May 29, 2007 7:48:02 PM

Woohoo! :D 
Awesome avatar!
Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries! :D  (i think the Mech in your avatar is Fafnir, right?)
One of the best game that i have ever played in my whole life! (with my Logitech Freedom2.4GHz joystick 8) )
Quote:
Maybe I'll wait a generation or two before I switch out my 6600GT (passively cooled at that).

If you need a good mid-rang card, a 7600GT is almost twice as fast as your current card.(i know that you know it better than me!)
Quote:
So, does this mean that the 8500 is only about twice as powerful as the Radeon 1250 IGP in the AMD690G chipset?

Something like twice as fast a GeForce 4 MX440 would be better! :p 
May 29, 2007 8:48:03 PM

The only game I have for benchmarking purposes is the recently released lost planet demo which runs very well on my 8500GT @1280x768 medium quality settings with the default benchmark giving:

Lost Planet score: Average: 28fps, Snow: 23fps, Cave: 33fps

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/930/lostplanetbenchmark1rr6.jpg

If you actually compare those frame rates they're about equal to what the 2900xt is giving (of course that's down to buggy ati drivers at present) in this game. 8O
May 29, 2007 9:23:04 PM

This is what happens when the competition is fairly non-existent. There's not reason to make a "kickass" product.
May 29, 2007 11:12:34 PM

ok i've just instslled doom 3 v1.3.1 and run the timedemo1 @1024x768x32 medium quality settings on everything and I get 84.9fps.

To keep with what Tom's hardware have done previously in their recent 8600GTS review(see here for comparable Doom3 benchies: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/04/29/foxconn-geforce-8600gts/page9.html ) I then set it to 1024x768x32 ultra quality settings - no AA & 8xAF in the demo and windows and I get 70.6fps.

Link to doom 3 fps screen:
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/8682/doom3benchmark1024x768ulu2.jpg

If you compare this to the above Tom's benchmark selection you'll see that this result puts my 8500GT just above a x850xt and 5fps quicker than a 7600GT and im using a e6420 cpu @stock speeds which is 800mhz slower than the X6800 used in that review (the rest of my PC is on par with their PC, Asus P5N-E, OCZ 2gb ddr2 800)!

This to me shows the great potential in the 8500GT if other manufacturers go beyond the nvidia reference specs as gainward did with their card making it 600mhz gpu\1200 gddr3 mem\passive cooler for the same price as the bog standard 8500gt (£60).

Infact Gainward also have a 8500GT with the memory clocked to 1400Mhz\GPU 600Mhz for the same £60 as my card but this card comes with a fan so I went with the silent option instead (little less speed but MUCH less noise).

Links to cards, My Card:
http://www.gainward.net/en/product/product_detail_v8613.html
600\1400 card with fan cooling:
http://www.gainward.net/en/product/product_detail_v8507.html

So don't diss the 8500GT yet as it just may turn into a cheap dx10 7600GT replacement yet (as it has for me)!
May 29, 2007 11:59:04 PM

Did you jus make a comparison from the 8500gt to the hd 2900xt 8O .
May 30, 2007 12:28:15 AM

Quick lets start 20 "Is Nvidia going bankrupt threads" LOL

Though that card does sound like a bit of a joke.
May 30, 2007 12:42:18 AM

You know, if you put the fusion idea and the 3D chips idea (through-silicon via tech, etc.) together, you end up with incredible transistor budgets as well as opportunities for greater performance. So long as they can tackle the heat production, I can see on-CPU graphics being a hit and growing even into performance areas to compete with entry-level discrete graphics rather than just the IGP sector. Where will nvidia be then?
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 12:49:55 AM

Quote:
Because I'm too busy as it is! But I hope to tackle it in the future.


LOL!

I'd love to help you out. :twisted:

PS, you know why the GF8500 does so well especilly in 3Dmonkey05 eh?

It's lovely to be able to dedicate all your shader resources to vertex loads in a benchmark that everyone complained was more vertex heavy than any game that will ever ship (although technically I think X2 and X3 wouldqualify maybe). That and DST support helps a bit.
Interestingly enough it's that Bungholiomark model that Hardwaresecrets left out, perhaps unlike many they knew in advance that it'd be skewed.

I never expected much out of the card compared to this generation, but to struggle against the likes of the GF7300GT and X1300, oie that's a tough sell.

To be honest I'm not expecting much more from the HD2400 either though, but it will be interesting to see who can 'win' the race to the bottom.

Anywhoo, at least for the laptop models even the low end is looking better than the stuff they were putting in last generation.
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 12:56:57 AM

Quote:
This is what happens when the competition is fairly non-existent. There's not reason to make a "kickass" product.


Uh, there's a ton of competition out there.

The GF7600 and X1650 and GF7900 and X1950 blow away these new offerings. The only reason to get them is for a DX10 slide show and better DRM infection decryption. For gaming these cards aren't impressive at all, and for someone with an existing kind of last generation's mid-range (the GF7600GT) there's no reason to even consider these cards until their bigger brothers come out with 256bit memory and better shader arrangement.

Only casual gamers should even consider these, and only if you don't already have a 'good' card.
May 30, 2007 1:00:43 AM

Hey Ape, how do you think the HD 2600 will compare to the 8600? I've seen the HD 2600'S specs on gpureview.com, and damnit, it's got half the texture fill rate of the HD 2900XT, which as we know is already limited by it's texturing ability.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=520&card2...

The 8600GTS does 50% of the shader operations per second of the HD 2600XT, but has respectable texture and pixel fill rate.

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=520&card2...
May 30, 2007 1:55:40 AM

Quote:
Uh, there's a ton of competition out there.


I'm talking about DX10 cards and a company other than NVidia.

My guess is the 2600 series cards will be alot better than the 8600 cards. Not that I've had alot of faith in ATI lately but the 8600's kinda suck unless you're coming from IGP, in which case all modern card rule.
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 2:58:24 AM

Quote:
Hey Ape, how do you think the HD 2600 will compare to the 8600? I've seen the HD 2600'S specs on gpureview.com, and damnit, it's got half the texture fill rate of the HD 2900XT, which as we know is already limited by it's texturing ability.


I think the HD2600 will also be underwhelming IMO.

It looks to be a nice card, but not the GF7600GT of this generation we were hoping for. It looks like both nV and AMD will have to make an X1650/X1950GT style card in order to impress people this round.

I expect those to be here in July/August as I think both AMD and nV realized a while ago their mid-range will suck compared to cheap GF7900s, X1900/x1950s.
a b U Graphics card
May 30, 2007 3:12:41 AM

Quote:

I'm talking about DX10 cards and a company other than NVidia.


And I'm taling about performance, the GF8600 and 8500 series' DX10 capabilities are pointless right now, and like the FX series, it's better to get a much faster previous generation card than the weak current generation cards. Buying a GF8500 for DX10 is like the n00bs who bought an FX5200SE expecting it to outperform a GF4ti because it was a DX9 card. :roll:

For anyone who knows anything about value and performance, the GF8500s and 8600s have alot of competitors right now.

Quote:
My guess is the 2600 series cards will be alot better than the 8600 cards.


I doubt it. My guess is that the XT may be 'better' than the GF8600GTS and there may be some better options below it, but I don't think any will be alot better, as I think they will be severly restricted in other ways. Not only is the memory bandwidth and issue, they only have 1 ROP cluster (most people would consider it 4 ROPs) and that may hurt in some areas, especially mid-higher resolutions where you get the double whammy of memory bandwidth and ROP weakness. So I suspect they'll perform close enough to be competative, and close enough for both to equally dissapoint everyonne expeting something notably better than an X1950Pro and equal to the XT.

Quote:
Not that I've had alot of faith in ATI lately but the 8600's kinda suck unless you're coming from IGP, in which case all modern card rule.


Yeah, but in the laptop space like I mentioned earlier these options of the GF8400 and 8600 are freakin' sweet as are the HD2400 and 2600 compared to what we had before. Thanks to all that 65nm goodness. But the mobile market isn't the desktop market, there's alot of better options out there for both the HD26xx/24xx and GF8600/8500 series cards to deal with.

I would only recommend them to light gamers looking for very long term builds, or to people with bad prices in countries outside the US.
May 30, 2007 10:26:07 AM

Quote:
Because I'm too busy as it is! But I hope to tackle it in the future.


LOL!

I'd love to help you out. :twisted:

PS, you know why the GF8500 does so well especilly in 3Dmonkey05 eh?

It's lovely to be able to dedicate all your shader resources to vertex loads in a benchmark that everyone complained was more vertex heavy than any game that will ever ship (although technically I think X2 and X3 wouldqualify maybe). That and DST support helps a bit.
Interestingly enough it's that Bungholiomark model that Hardwaresecrets left out, perhaps unlike many they knew in advance that it'd be skewed.

I never expected much out of the card compared to this generation, but to struggle against the likes of the GF7300GT and X1300, oie that's a tough sell.

To be honest I'm not expecting much more from the HD2400 either though, but it will be interesting to see who can 'win' the race to the bottom.

Anywhoo, at least for the laptop models even the low end is looking better than the stuff they were putting in last generation.

Yeah GF7300 GT beating the 8500GT is a real joke. 7300GT seems to be a nice bargain GPU, still it can run recent games at low resolutions until a better high end deal shows-up.
Nvidia destroyed the GT series reputation with 8600. I recently sold my 6600 GT AGP to switch to 8800 GTS. And i remember that the difference between normal 6600 and the GT was worth the extra money, same for 7600 GT, it was x2 the power of 6600 GT. The 8600 GT is on par with 7600 GT, the 8600 GTS is some kind of 7600 GTX, performing close to 7900 GS. Where is the new gen FPS boost?

NV biggest mistake was cutting to much of SPU, it was roumored that 8600 GTS would have 64, it has 32. IMO it should have at least 48 and 256 bit mem. And those spec would make it a winner with a right price.
May 30, 2007 2:13:27 PM

Quote:
ok i've just instslled doom 3 v1.3.1 and run the timedemo1 @1024x768x32 medium quality settings on everything and I get 84.9fps.


That's nice, but the hardwaresecrets review actually pits the 7600 GT agaist the 8500 GT in Quake4 (based on the Doom3 engine) on the same platform... which is the only way to do a valid comparison:

1024x768
7600 GT: 110 fps
8500 GT: 60 fps

1600 x 1200
7600 GT: 62 fps
8500 GT: 29 fps

It doesn't matter that you get 85 fps in that timedemo. It's nice for you, but it doesn't make the 8500 GT a good buy.

Clearly, the 7600 GT would be getting in the 100+ fps neighborhood on your machine at the same settings.

Playable doesn't make a card a good deal. Getting superior performance to it's comtemporaries does, and the 8500 GT does not do that...
!