GTS 320 sufficient for 1680 x 1050?

[Ditas]

or should i spring for the 640? this is with full graphical capability for games like oblivion, and GRAW, and upcoming games like Crysis, etc

 

[ethel]

Accepted wisdom is that for 90% of current games, the GTS 320 is sufficient up to 1920x1200 unless you want lots of AA.

Then again for newer games it is quite possible that the extra memory will become more important.

It all depends on the price difference I reckon. Here in the UK the difference is a whopping $100 for that extra RAM so I'd get the 320.

 

[Ditas]

hmm, to be honest, im not that much of a graphics junkie

any thoughts on how the 320 will fare with future DX10 titles?[/quote]

 

[Ditas]

also; will a GTX fit in a Lian Li pc-a12 case?

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

or should i spring for the 640? this is with full graphical capability for games like oblivion, and GRAW, and upcoming games like Crysis, etc

I'd say the GTS-640 is the way to go if you can afford it, but if saving and geting a GTS-320 allow you to later resell and buy an AMD or nV refresh card around the time of Crysis' launch I'd say that may be the way to go.

The GTS-320 is fine for everything now, but alot of these cards may struggle in future DX10 titles, so it may be worth saving the buck now and buying something better later. But if you're not interested in reselling and upgrading, then getting the GTS-640 for a long-term buy makes alot of sense.

any thoughts on how the 320 will fare with future DX10 titles?

Probably not great. It seems to do ok right now, but it's performance does have some interesting holes in it. I recently saw a reviews with the HD2600XT that showed when AA was applied the GTS-320 fell below the performance of the HD2600, which was a little disheartneing.

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_ati_radeon_hd_2400_xt_hd_2600_xt/23/#abschnitt_company_of_heroes_dx10

Now without AA it's 'playable' and clearly well ahead of the HF2600, but it's not very heart-warming for the future of some of these cards.

Even looking at COJ, while it's clearly ahead of the HD2600 yet again this time with/without AA, it's performance is still verging on unacceptable for an shooter where the average is 20fps;

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_ati_radeon_hd_2400_xt_hd_2600_xt/22/#abschnitt_call_of_juarez_d3d10

And I'd chalk it up to memory size alone, but really none of the cards are what I'd call 'impressive' at 16x12, but the GTX is at least more playable getting close to a 30fps average while the GTS-640 stills struggles to stay above 20fps;
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_ati_radeon_hd_2900_xt/31/#abschnitt_call_of_juarez_d3d10

I would say that by the time the killer DX10 titles come out, we may be better off with newer generations of cards, which is why I suggest the re-sell option.

 

[Heyyou27]

The 8800GTS 320MB is already going to struggle on Oblivion at the maximum quality with antialiasing, so there's no way Crysis will be possible at the highest quality.

 

[antonwalker]

what will be the resale value of a 8800 gts 320mb when the new 8900/9xxx (whatever one) comes out?


Is there a estamated release date for the new gpu's?

 

[mrmez]

As a gts 320 owner running 14x10...
IMHO the 640 will show no improvement over the 320 at ur rez

HOWEVER.... as ive said before, at 14x10 with a gts... i can see games already getting to the limit of this cards capabilities.

 

[antonwalker]

i just checked ebay and people were biding on a USED 8800 gts 320mb at about 200. Thats not to bad if you bought it for 260.

 

[sailer]

My monitor runs at that resolution and I'd suggest the 640 model of 8800 GTS. One way around the dilemma is to buy a card from EVGA. That way, you could try a 320 and see if it works well enough. If it doesn't, you have 90 days to use the trade up and get a 640, or even a GTX if you have or can raise the money by that time.

 

[Ananan]

I've been researching this a lot the past few weeks.

You'll get some different answers from different sources, but it seems the consensus of credible info on 320 vs 640 at 1680x1050 is that a 320 will run everything available right now (and for the near future) very well with most or all settings maxed.

While there might be slowdowns if you enable all the "bells and whistles" they generally won't detract from gameplay. An occasional shortlived drop to 25 or 30 fps won't be a dealbreaker for most gamers.

As for the long term - I would assume all bets are off. When Crysis type monsters start to appear 320 will probably fall a bit short.

I'm borrowing a 320 from a guy who's leaving for Europe for a month so I'll know for sure soon.

 

[tubaloth]

So how did the 320 do o the 1680x1050?

 

[systemlord]

Some games will likely need more Vram the more graphics options/eye candie you enable. Don't waist you money on the 320MB. You can get an 8800 GTX for $500.00. There was another poster in this forum that didn't understand why he could not select high quality textures in GRAW 1. He was not to happy about that after I told him why he couldn't, he wanted to enable most or all graphic options with his 8800 GTS 320MB card. So if you like to use lots of eye candy you can't go wrong with the 8800 GTS 640MB card.

 

[Evilonigiri]

According to THG's article on best performance for the price range, it states something like at res lower than 1600x1200 the 320 is perfectly good...Your choice in the end really :|

 

[cole92]

Ummmm... not a lot of people have 500$ dollars to just drop on a 8800gtx.

I think that the 320mb version will work well for now and probably up to around Christmas when the majority of the direct x 10 games come out.It will still do well but might slow a little in games like Crysis and Unreal Tournament 3.

I personally think that the extra 320mb of memory wont make a HUGE difference so its mainly up to you if your real picky or not on turning down graphics settings when it starts to slow.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Some newer games do/will require min. 512MB on board Vram. Don't waist you money on the 320MB.

What are these games?
I doubt any REQUIRE 512MB of VRAM, some may make use of it and add options when more ram is available, but I'd like to see the game that DOES currently or WILL require 512MB of VRAM.

The biggest investigation by the folks at Xbit, shows only minimal difference, not really worth a large premium.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8-roundup.html

The GTX does outpace them all but is it worth twice the money with far better cards on the 6 month horizon?

 

[systemlord]

What are these games?
I doubt any REQUIRE 512MB of VRAM, some may make use of it and add options when more ram is available, but I'd like to see the game that DOES currently or WILL require 512MB of VRAM.

The biggest investigation by the folks at Xbit, shows only minimal difference, not really worth a large premium.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8-roundup.html

The GTX does outpace them all but is it worth twice the money with far better cards on the 6 month horizon?

Ok then, Oblivion's graphics engine uses exacly 400MB Vram, GRAW uses 512 on high texture quality and if you don't have 512MB on-board for GRAW then your limited to meduim texture quality like I am. I even found a way to force high texture quality mode in GRAW and my FPS was VERY shuttery and just not playable. These game that I have listed are "one year old games" and there already using amost 512MB of Vram. Any more questions? Please ask and you shall get.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Ok then, Oblivion's graphics engine uses exacly 400MB Vram,

Amazing how I can play it on my laptop with only 128MB, eh!?!

GRAW uses 512 on high texture quality and if you don't have 512MB on-board for GRAW then your limited to meduim texture quality like I am.

Which still doesn't mean it's a requirement. Like I said, it'll add options but not require it in order to play it.

These game that I have listed are "one year old games" and there already using amost 512MB of Vram.

They may be able to use it, but still don't require it despite your statements.
Your confusing options or even recommendations and requirements.

Any more questions? Please ask and you shall get.

No more questions than the original one, give me a single title that requires a minimum of 512MB of VRAM like you stated, not as an option, but as a minimum requirement.

I've asked and still haven't received, not that I expect I would get a proper answer.

 

[systemlord]

Amazing how I can play it on my laptop with only 128MB, eh!?!

GRAW uses 512 on high texture quality and if you don't have 512MB on-board for GRAW then your limited to meduim texture quality like I am.

Which still doesn't mean it's a requirement. Like I said, it'll add options but not require it in order to play it.

These game that I have listed are "one year old games" and there already using amost 512MB of Vram.

They may be able to use it, but still don't require it despite your statements.
Your confusing options or even recommendations and requirements.

Any more questions? Please ask and you shall get.

No more questions than the original one, give me a single title that requires a minimum of 512MB of VRAM like you stated, not as an option, but as a minimum requirement.

I've asked and still haven't received, not that I expect I would get a proper answer.

I am not going to nit pick with you because I said most newer games do/will require min. 512MB cards. Maybe require was the wrong word, most games will run better/smoother with a 512MB card than with the 256MB version depending on the game. When Oblivion first came out I only had a 7800 GTX 256MB card. I wanted to compare the difference between (A) 256MB card & (B) a 512MB card.

So I ran A & B and let me tell you that "I clearly saw a noticable difference between the two cards." I notice an even bigger difference between A & B in GRAW 1. You may never get the anser you wanted but this is what I wanted to share with the posters. Now go and nit pick with someone else please. Good day and good night.

 

[Sharp]

Wanted to ask someones opinion and advice, I'm thinking about getting a 22 inch monitor wide screen. particularly this one, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009094
Acer AL2216Wbd Black 22" 5ms DVI Widescreen LCD Monitor with HDCP support 300 cd/m2 700:1

I was wondering how it is for gaming. I know some games support widescreen, but for the ones who dont, how does that affect the image? Does the image became really unclear and stretched out at non widescreen res? THANK YOU!

 

[andybird123]

Why would you be in the market for a brand new graphics card and NOT want to play with the highest texture settings?
If someone is in the market for an 8800, why would you then cripple your visual quality to save just a few pounds?

The OP wants to know if a 320 will run "with full graphical capability for games like oblivion, and GRAW", the answer to that question is NO
to run with texture settings on "HIGH" you need the 640

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I am not going to nit pick with you because I said most newer games do/will require min. 512MB cards.

Which was wrong. No nitpicking, just clarifying your mis-statement.

Maybe require was the wrong word,

No, 'maybe' about it.

You may never get the anser you wanted but this is what I wanted to share with the posters. Now go and nit pick with someone else please.

Well you're not going to get out of it by claiming I'm nit-picking. You stated something that was completely wrong in the context of the thread and now want to make it out as if it's my fault for pointing out your error.

I was pretty clear in my first post reply to you (thanks to underlining) that it's not a requirement, but that additional features were available if you had more VRAM available for the app. You ignored that important detail and posted back your Oblivion and GRAW ideas that did nothing to support your statement.

You want to sell him on the 640 or the GTX over the GTS-320, then do it with better formed arguments because what you wrote implies that he cannot even play those games due to memory limitations, and that's specifically what I addressed and told you to provide support for after your sarcastic 'any more questions' reply which both ignored my point about requirement and simply perpetuated your mistake.

 

[systemlord]

Why would you be in the market for a brand new graphics card and NOT want to play with the highest texture settings?
If someone is in the market for an 8800, why would you then cripple your visual quality to save just a few pounds?

The OP wants to know if a 320 will run "with full graphical capability for games like oblivion, and GRAW", the answer to that question is NO
to run with texture settings on "HIGH" you need the 640

"Couldn't have said it better myself", TheGreatGrapeApe seems to have not even read the first post, instead he had to point out the faults in another poster like myself. It would have been nice if he had something to add that was aimed at the authur. We are here to help others not nit pick with each other over one mis-used word.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Why would you be in the market for a brand new graphics card and NOT want to play with the highest texture settings?
If someone is in the market for an 8800, why would you then cripple your visual quality to save just a few pounds?

Because the difference is rather minor, and the price is alot more than a few pounds, according to ethel its a $100 diff.
I recommended the GTS-640, but 'is the GTS-320 sufficient' and 'I'm not much of a graphics junkie' are statements by someone who likely could save some money, not by someone looking to simply empty their wallet for features they might not even appreciate on an LCD.

The OP wants to know if a 320 will run "with full graphical capability for games like oblivion, and GRAW", the answer to that question is NO
to run with texture settings on "HIGH" you need the 640

Well, you'd have to support your GRAW statements, because Oblivion is quite playable at 'LARGE' texture settings, as seen in this [H] review;
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM1MSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFz dA==
"In Oblivion we found the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS to match the 640 MB GeForce 8800 GTS’s gameplay experience. Framerates were slightly lower, but still within an acceptable range for smooth gameplay."

So keeping in mind that BOTH were playing with textures on LARGE in Oblivion I'd like to se yours and SL's proof, considering he already botched his previous statement.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

"Couldn't have said it better myself", TheGreatGrapeApe seems to have not even read the first post, instead he had to point out the faults in another poster like myself.

Actually I read the first, and the second post before I replied to him, and clearly detailed my recommendation. You on the other hand seem incapable of either reading or writing a worthy reply.

It would have been nice if he had something to add that was aimed at the authur.

Oh I did, even quoting his two posts, long before you posted your BS about minimum requirements for games.

We are here to help others not nit pick with each other over one mis-used word.

My helping is by cleaning up the posts like yours that was factually incorrect, and you still seem incapable of figuring that out. I'd go into the CPU section and clean-up your factually incorrect statement about what DDR and effective means, but I'll leave that to others who know that the 'effective' speed has nothing to do with dual channel, but instead dual data rate.

The best way for you to help others is for you to stop posting until you check your post/facts first.