Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

nvidia 8800 GTS

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 24, 2007 8:36:25 PM

I'm going to be building a new computer with an Intel Core 2 Duo E6600. I've been looking around at graphics cards, and I like the nvidia 8800 GTS. I was wondering, should I get the 320mb or the 640mb. There seems to be a $60 price difference. I would like to use it with a 19" screen at 1280 x 1024.

Which model should I go for, or is there something better in that price range? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Kevan

More about : nvidia 8800 gts

June 24, 2007 9:23:59 PM

for that resolution a 320mb version would be enough for now. However, that doesnt mean it will still be enough when more demanding games come along. If you can spend the extra $60, then get the 640Mb version.
June 24, 2007 9:53:33 PM

i disagree, i say the 8800gts320 will be fine for a long time.
Related resources
June 24, 2007 10:46:07 PM

Even on a 22" moniter, the difference between 320MB and 640MB is hard to notice.
June 24, 2007 11:24:21 PM

BFG-GeForce 8800 GTS OC2 640MB GDDR3 PCI Express -BFGR88640GTSOC2E. Work great on my 19" LCD Samsung, need 640 for eye candy, 320 just not enough.
June 24, 2007 11:45:46 PM

I disagree no need to upgrade moniter.
June 24, 2007 11:55:59 PM

Quote:
BFG-GeForce 8800 GTS OC2 640MB GDDR3 PCI Express -BFGR88640GTSOC2E. Work great on my 19" LCD Samsung, need 640 for eye candy, 320 just not enough.


Thats a flat out lie. Did you even have the 320 before making comments like that?
June 25, 2007 12:14:57 AM

It's not a flat out lie, with new DX10 games coming out the word is 512 MB minimum. 320 is fine for now, but down the road it's won't be.
June 25, 2007 12:24:39 AM

Quote:
the word is 512 MB minimum


i dont even remember him saying hes gonna use vista. not all people are. and for now i get all the same eye candy as anyone with a 640 at 1440x900
June 25, 2007 1:05:07 AM

Quote:
i disagree, i say the 8800gts320 will be fine for a long time.


WHS...

By the time the 'lack' of ram starts limiting u (at that rez), u will have been running into fps issues WAY before that, due to other non-ram limitations.

Go the 320, take that $60 u saved and put it in the 'gfx card piggy bank' towards an 8900 or 9800
June 25, 2007 1:45:04 AM

Quote:
i disagree, i say the 8800gts320 will be fine for a long time.


WHS...

By the time the 'lack' of ram starts limiting u (at that rez), u will have been running into fps issues WAY before that, due to other non-ram limitations.

Go the 320, take that $60 u saved and put it in the 'gfx card piggy bank' towards an 8900 or 9800

yup, y u want the 8800gts640 now?? when you are playing at 1280 x 1024. i have the the 8800gts640 but i m gaming at 1680x1050. and i dont know if it will runs games like crysis or ut4. so save your money now and go next gen cards.
June 25, 2007 2:09:42 AM

On ETQW Beta if I put my AA at 16X the frame rates go to a crawl. At 8x it runs fine then at 12X there is a pretty big drop and 16x it is hitting FPS in the teens. This is at 1280x1024. Anti aliasing uses lots of ram and 320MB is not enough.
June 25, 2007 2:54:10 AM

Just get the 320 mb version, overclock it to match the GTX, save some money, and wait till December for your upgrade...
June 25, 2007 6:02:30 AM

Quote:
On ETQW Beta if I put my AA at 16X the frame rates go to a crawl. At 8x it runs fine then at 12X there is a pretty big drop and 16x it is hitting FPS in the teens. This is at 1280x1024. Anti aliasing uses lots of ram and 320MB is not enough.


Why do you even need AA that high?
June 25, 2007 6:15:09 AM

Yeh the only thing that 8800gts 320mb may not due in future is play all ames on max quality, but it isnt the top range card do I dont expect it to be always future-prof.

Nothing is future proof but atm its the best buy.
June 25, 2007 6:27:26 AM

Quote:
On ETQW Beta if I put my AA at 16X the frame rates go to a crawl. At 8x it runs fine then at 12X there is a pretty big drop and 16x it is hitting FPS in the teens. This is at 1280x1024. Anti aliasing uses lots of ram and 320MB is not enough.


Why do you even need AA that high?

Have you seen how much better games look with ultra high AA?
June 25, 2007 7:26:15 AM

Quote:
On ETQW Beta if I put my AA at 16X the frame rates go to a crawl. At 8x it runs fine then at 12X there is a pretty big drop and 16x it is hitting FPS in the teens. This is at 1280x1024. Anti aliasing uses lots of ram and 320MB is not enough.


Why do you even need AA that high?

Have you seen how much better games look with ultra high AA?

At that resolution I'd have to say I can't see any difference once you go past 4x AA
June 25, 2007 7:32:37 AM

I can't see a difference after 8X. There is a slight difference between 4x and 8x but nothing really after that. I was just Pointing out that 320MB is not enough to run some games on Ultra High.
June 25, 2007 9:56:52 AM

From the "Guru of 3D.com"

“For who is the 8800 GTS 320MB intended and a fantastic product?
Well if you game up-to a resolution of 1920x1200 you are good to go.
With pretty much all modern gaming titles and this years upcoming games.
If you want to game at roughly 1920x1200 or higher, you'll need more memory on the graphics card.
But (and I stated this before) the majority of gamers out there are still on an LCD screen at 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.
And for you guys this card means bang for your bucks.
If you aim at a higher resolutions then definitely go for the 640 model, or even better the delicious 768 MB GTX.
There's another thing to bare in mind though, upcoming games that require massive amounts of texture memory could form an issue. A good example in our test run was GRAW; the GTS 640 MB model performed way better on all levels thanks to the fact it had enough memory. With upcoming DX10 titles like Crysis I'm not really sure just yet what the effect of 320 MB memory is.”
June 25, 2007 10:59:38 AM

The 640meg version allows for higher resolution.I would go for the 640 version just to be safe as games keep becoming more and more complicated,they require more vram.Good for future proofing yourself a bit.You can always get the GTX version later.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2 5600+ @ 2.8ghz(stock)
M2N32-SLI DELUXE MB
2 GIGS DDR2 800 RAM
THERMALTAKE 850WATT PSU
7950GT KO(WAITING FOR MY OTHER TO COME BACK FROM RMA)
ACER 22IN. LCD
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
80GIG/250gig SATA2 HD's
XP MCE
June 25, 2007 11:02:20 AM

Yep, I remember when cards were making the 256mb versus 512mb transition, people said you didn't need 512mb so I bought a 256mb, just to have a raft of games come out that needed > 256 for "high" textures, so I was stuck playing on Medium for the sake of a lousy $50

I didn't make that mistake this time, I have the 640mb GTS. Right now 320mb is just enough for most games, but I can see a new raft of games coming out that will still need more.
June 25, 2007 1:33:12 PM

even with the 8800gts640mb, there are games that you cant play with everything on "high". my points is wait for next gen cards. games like rainbow six vegas is already killing the 8800gts640mb. so the 8800320mb is the way to go for now, dont let few games holding you back, its not worth it.
June 25, 2007 2:20:26 PM

Why can't people just use the search function for questions like these??? There are so many other topics about this question
June 25, 2007 2:23:18 PM

Quote:
even with the 8800gts640mb, there are games that you cant play with everything on "high". my points is wait for next gen cards. games like rainbow six vegas is already killing the 8800gts640mb. so the 8800320mb is the way to go for now, dont let few games holding you back, its not worth it.


My PC plays Vegas with everything on high, 4xaa and 8xaf, same with all games I'm currently playing, GRAW2 is out in the next couple of weeks and people are saying it needs more than 320mb for high textures. Texture quality makes a huge difference to visual quality, I'd much rather have High res textures with low or no AA than medium textures with higher AA.

for the sake of $60 it's a false economy to skimp and waiting is silly, you may as well buy the best card you can afford now and enjoy it

remember how everyone said "wait 2 months for ATI 2900", which turned out to be 8 months of waiting for a products that's marginally better than a GTS
June 25, 2007 4:09:46 PM

Quote:
even with the 8800gts640mb, there are games that you cant play with everything on "high". my points is wait for next gen cards. games like rainbow six vegas is already killing the 8800gts640mb. so the 8800320mb is the way to go for now, dont let few games holding you back, its not worth it.


My PC plays Vegas with everything on high, 4xaa and 8xaf, same with all games I'm currently playing, GRAW2 is out in the next couple of weeks and people are saying it needs more than 320mb for high textures. Texture quality makes a huge difference to visual quality, I'd much rather have High res textures with low or no AA than medium textures with higher AA.

for the sake of $60 it's a false economy to skimp and waiting is silly, you may as well buy the best card you can afford now and enjoy it

remember how everyone said "wait 2 months for ATI 2900", which turned out to be 8 months of waiting for a products that's marginally better than a GTS

why pay extras $60 on just few games~~ and he doesnt even game @ 1680x1050 above. there are many good games out there and can be playable with 8800gts320. as for next gen cards that is the big deal since games like crysis or ut4 are not out yet, i mean i m happy with my 8800gts640 since that came with my build, but if i have some like x1950xt i will not even thinking about getting 8800640mb. not to let everyone down,but imo the 1st gen dx10 cards are a jokes, i dont think it can handles any dx10 games with good settings
!