Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTS 320 sufficient for 1680 x 1050?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 3, 2007 10:17:55 PM

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
July 3, 2007 11:08:54 PM

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.
July 3, 2007 11:45:28 PM

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]
Related resources
July 3, 2007 11:56:36 PM

also; will a GTX fit in a Lian Li pc-a12 case?
a b U Graphics card
July 4, 2007 12:16:03 AM

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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/grafikkarte...

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/grafikkarte...

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/grafikkarte...

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.
July 4, 2007 1:13:39 AM

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.
July 4, 2007 1:45:21 AM

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?
July 4, 2007 1:52:01 AM

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.
July 4, 2007 7:44:40 PM

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.
July 4, 2007 8:19:29 PM

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.
July 5, 2007 8:19:44 AM

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.
July 23, 2007 5:48:23 AM

So how did the 320 do o the 1680x1050?
July 23, 2007 5:56:29 AM

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.
July 23, 2007 6:27:09 AM

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 :|
July 23, 2007 6:37:42 AM

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.
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 7:07:32 AM

systemlord said:
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...

The GTX does outpace them all but is it worth twice the money with far better cards on the 6 month horizon?
July 23, 2007 7:21:33 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
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...

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.
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 7:33:26 AM

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


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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
July 23, 2007 8:55:14 AM

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. :hello: 
July 23, 2007 9:21:45 AM

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=N82E168...
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!
July 23, 2007 9:45:47 AM

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
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 10:13:22 AM

systemlord said:
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.

Quote:
Maybe require was the wrong word,


No, 'maybe' about it. :heink: 

Quote:
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. :pfff: 
July 23, 2007 10:22:42 AM

andybird123 said:
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.
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 10:50:19 AM

andybird123 said:
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.

Quote:
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=MTM1MSwy... 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.
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 10:59:49 AM

systemlord said:
"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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. :pfff: 

The best way for you to help others is for you to stop posting until you check your post/facts first. :sarcastic: 
July 23, 2007 11:01:23 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Because the difference is rather minor, and the price is alot more than a few pounds, according to ethel its 100 pounds ($200 US) 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.

Quote:
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=MTM1MSwy... 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.


Do you have any constructive feedback for the poster/authur, he has asked for our help. :hello: 
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 11:06:09 AM

systemlord said:
Do you have any constructive feedback for the poster/authur, he has asked for our help. :hello: 


Yeah, like I wrote above, I already gave him my feedback long before you posted your misinformation.

In an attempt to further help the OP, I showed your information to be BS and that he should ignore you all together, which helps him and anyone else ever confronted with your posts. You could've been more helpful by not being defensive and sarcastic and simply correcting your mistake, but instead you decided to dance with the devil.

So to you: Got anything further to contribute or did you just want to go away? :heink: 

July 23, 2007 12:19:33 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yeah, like I wrote above, I already gave him my feedback long before you posted your misinformation.

In an attempt to further help the OP, I showed your information to be BS and that he should ignore you all together, which helps him and anyone else ever confronted with your posts. You could've been more helpful by not being defensive and sarcastic and simply correcting your mistake, but instead you decided to dance with the devil.

So to you: Got anything further to contribute or did you just want to go away? :heink: 


WOW, so you have a god complex, I bet it makes you feel really good to putdown others.
July 23, 2007 12:25:28 PM

I was primarily talking about GRAW, I've not played oblivion but GRAW and now that it's out GRAW 2 are 2 of my favourite games and personally I wouldn't accept Medium textures as a setting having paid £150-200 for a graphics card, I'd much rather pay the extra £30-50 to have all settings on High in my favourite game
July 23, 2007 12:34:10 PM

andybird123 said:
I was primarily talking about GRAW, I've not played oblivion but GRAW and now that it's out GRAW 2 are 2 of my favourite games and personally I wouldn't accept Medium textures as a setting having paid £150-200 for a graphics card, I'd much rather pay the extra £30-50 to have all settings on High in my favourite game


I've played GRAW for a year now with my 7800 GTX 256MB and it shutters somewhat often, My friend loaned me his 7800 GTX 512MB card, and what a difference it made. It didn't shutter at all and was smooth as butter. Good choice and good luck.
July 23, 2007 2:48:39 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Because the difference is rather minor, and the price is alot more than a few pounds, according to ethel its a $100 diff.


in the UK the price difference is about £35, which is about the same price as 1 PC game retail, I spend about £150 per month on games and DVD's anyway so not buying 1 game in order to have bought a better graphics card to play them on was a no brainer, as I'd been bitten by idiots like you advising me to get the card with less memory "because it makes next to no difference" in the past and knew to check out memory requirements before purchasing this time

in GRAW2 the manual states that you must have more than 512mb of VRAM to be able to select the HIGH setting for textures and believe me the visual difference between High and Medium is HUGE, on my friends PC with a 256mb 7900, High doesn't even appear as an option (it's my old 7900 in fact... on GRAW1 they made the mistake of letting people with low memory pick the High setting, and that makes the game crawl to less about 1fps or less)

to back me up, check this link and look at the "Texture Quality" section;
http://www.tweakguides.com/GRAW2_5.html

if you're happy to run games on middling settings then fine go with the (not much) cheaper 320, but the OP asked if the 320 will run GRAW with all setting on max, and the answer to that question is No
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 8:07:39 PM

systemlord said:
WOW, so you have a god complex, I bet it makes you feel really good to putdown others.


And you have a christ persecution complex lord.

So listen son, like I said, show the goods of else blow; because sofar you've talked BS and then whined because I pointed it out to be so.

So unless you have that mythical title that requires 512MB as a minimum, you're simply piling the BS ontop of the hole you dug with that initial statement.
July 23, 2007 8:54:55 PM

systemlord said:
I've played GRAW for a year now with my 7800 GTX 256MB and it shutters somewhat often, My friend loaned me his 7800 GTX 512MB card, and what a difference it made. It didn't shutter at all and was smooth as butter. Good choice and good luck.


Could also have something to do with the fact that the memory in the 512MB 7800GTX is clocked way higher than the 256MB version.
July 23, 2007 9:05:50 PM

systemlord said:
WOW, so you have a god complex, I bet it makes you feel really good to putdown others.


Your original statement was just plain wrong.

You're just pissed because you lost the argument.
a b U Graphics card
July 23, 2007 9:17:02 PM

andybird123 said:
in the UK the price difference is about £35,


You're going to have to provide something more than your belief that that's the case, because right now Dabs and OC-UK match ethel's price and actually just over it with prices being about £50-55 differnce, which is more than his $100US. So you can reduce the value, but it's still not worth it, when also considering a DX10 future in that same question. My intial reco was the GTS-640, but for long term, saving that money and then reselling the GTs to get a more capable refresh makes more sense for that future, because near term the difference between 320 and 640 is nowhere the longer term difference of the GTS versus more compliant parts (without the inefficient texture handling of the G80 [fixed in the G84 series and likely all future refreshes]).

Quote:
as I'd been bitten by idiots like you advising me to get the card with less memory "because it makes next to no difference" in the past and knew to check out memory requirements before purchasing this time

in GRAW2 the manual states that you must have more than 512mb of VRAM to be able to select the HIGH setting for textures and believe me the visual difference between High and Medium is HUGE...

to back me up, check this link and look at the "Texture Quality" section;
http://www.tweakguides.com/GRAW2_5.html


Did you even read the tweak guide? It's not that one will or won't play at that level, it's that it won't be offered by default, "" which is not to say that it will or won't play better than the other. So the 512MB X1300 will get 'High' by default, does that mean it's going to play it better than the GF8800GTS-320 because it has 512MB of 64bit super slow DDR memory on a weak core? Of course GRAW2 was not the questoin, but GRAW.

Quote:
if you're happy to run games on middling settings then fine go with the (not much) cheaper 320, but the OP asked if the 320 will run GRAW with all setting on max, and the answer to that question is No


Well since you want to get techical about what the OP asked; He said GRAW, not GRAW2, so I showed already that Oblivion shows little to no difference, so unless you show me actual performance results that are greatly different (ie 25+% different to match the price difference) in the two titles he asked about, then don't be talking trash about my recommendations when yours are built on clouds and wishes, and speaking of games you don't even know about.
July 23, 2007 10:40:07 PM

ethel said:
Your original statement was just plain wrong.

You're just pissed because you lost the argument.


What pisses me off is I admitted that I was wrong using the wrong word and I'm still getting bashed for it even now. I am not going to waist anymore time with this post, so have a good one.
July 23, 2007 11:16:35 PM

Ditas said:
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 dont want to get invovled As (mr. ape) seems to be taking care of things.
But i agree with (TGGA)= mr. ape.

I have the 640 mb version and a 16x10 monitor.
I have oblivion,STRIKER. and play at max settings.

You seem to want to play at high settings even for crysis so i would go with
the 640mb card if you can afford it.

edit; ooppss i meant STALKER :ouch: 
July 23, 2007 11:40:42 PM

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


You mean the gts? If so it should.
July 23, 2007 11:57:34 PM

GO GRAPE!!!
!