Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Noob question - Is Vista required for nVidia 8000 Series GPU??

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 13, 2007 5:16:45 PM

I want to buy an nVidia 8000 series GPU, but I cannot find a definitive answer anywhere regarding whether or not you MUST have Vista for them to work correctly. Sorry for the noob question.

Either: 8800GTS [320mb] or 8800GTS [640mb]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http:/ /www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681413008...

Or should I buy a 512mb 7000 series card? I don't intend on moving to Vista anytime soon...
Any other recommendations would be appreciated.

Gaming Rig
Manufacturer: built by: |Landis|
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 2.4ghz Dual Core Processor 4800
Memory: 2046mb OCZ DDR 400 RAM
Hard Drive: 150gb RAPTOR X & 320 GB x2
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 7900 GT [256MB]
Monitor: Acer 19" Widescreen Flat Panel
Sound Card: SB Audigy 2 ZS Audio
Speakers/Headphones: Alienware® Ozma 7™ Headphones with S-Logic™ Technology
Keyboard: Wolf King Timber Wolf Gaming Keyboard
Mouse: Razer Diamondback Plasma Blue 1600 dpi Gaming Mouse
Mouse Surface: AMD 64 Mousepad
Operating System: Windows XP Home Edition (Service Pack 2)
August 13, 2007 5:34:06 PM

Vista is not required for them to work. However, these cards have DX10 hardware support, and DX10 is currently available only under Vista. So to play games in DX10 you need Vista, under XP you'll only be able to run games under DX9. There aren't too many games that use DX10 anyway, so you can run XP for now.
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 13, 2007 6:36:01 PM

These cards work better on XP than on Vista, at least for now. I think the 320 MB is good enough for a 19" monitor, but feel free to get the 640 MB or GTX if you have the cash.

There may be games that require Vista (I think Shadowrun is one of them), but in general game makers will try very hard to make their stuff work on XP for the next several years so you should be OK with XP and an 8800 card.
August 13, 2007 11:33:10 PM

oh and we should point out, the 8800's are much faster than any 7 series cards at dx9 and they support dx 10 (if you get vista) but the 8600's are beaten by the 7 series in dx 9 and the 8600's can't run dx 10 well AT ALL
August 14, 2007 3:36:39 AM

In addition to the above question, What is the opinion of:

8600 GT [512]
8800 GTS [320] VS. my 7900 gt [256]
8800 GTS [640]

In an "Overall FPS" comparison, the 8800 GTS [320] beats the [640] at 1024x768 in almost everything if you don't use any AA/filtering and such. Is it just me or is the 320 the better bet?
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 14, 2007 3:46:32 AM

Yes, at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 the 320 MB is the best bet.

I suspect that the 320 MB beat the 640 MB in the benchmarks you've seen because the 320 MB was overclocked a bit. In a fair comparison they should be identical until you raise the resolution enough to make the 640 MB win.
August 14, 2007 4:53:57 AM

Like aevm said, the 320 is a better bet for 1280x1024 and lower resolutions. The 8600 series should be avoided, since you can grab X1950Pro/XT cards for the same price, and they are faster.
August 14, 2007 7:14:38 AM

forget the 8600 gt/gts its worse than your 7900GT.

i would go for the 640mb 8800 because in the long run you will need more than 320mb ram even in the 1280x1024 (1440x900 in your case i guess) at least for AA/AF + all settings maxed
the 320 is the best price/performance, its not faster than the 640 but its cheaper without being slower in 12x10
(as said aevm probably was an overclocked version the one that won the 640 in benchmarks but i think its better to go stock 640 than 320 overclocked)

oh and you definitly DONT NEED VISTA FOR THOSE CARDS to work just fine (they actually work faster in xp) in a year when games in dx10 will be more than...2 you can think vista as better drivers will be out.
August 14, 2007 8:07:53 AM

Do you all think a 6800 could handle vista? Im not talking about extreme gaming with very high res i mean general usage like video encoding and some gaming. I cant afford to get another videocard for 3 to 4 hundred bucks but if i have to i would buy one for around 100ish
August 14, 2007 8:52:47 AM

@mychael616 - If you play at low resolutions, get the 320Mb. It's way better than your 7900GT, and should offer good performance for a while. Don't get a 8600, they're crap.
@phillyman36 - I guess you could run games under Vista on that card. Depends what kind of games do you want.
August 14, 2007 11:39:55 AM

Vista is only required for DX10 which you also need a DX10 complient gfx card for any 8800 series cards will work with xp. 8800 series cards work great with xp and already existing DX9 games. They don't even run that well on DX10 games yes we will have to wait for 9800 series cards for better DX10 performance.
August 14, 2007 1:48:33 PM

The only game i really play right now is Command and Conquer Tiberium Wars. I dont use max res either. Other than that its more flash games and video editiing. Im just wondering if the 6800 can handle the Vista Aero and basic multi-tasking? If not i will have to get a cheap card like an 8600 something that can handle it

ps Thanks for the info
August 14, 2007 2:50:06 PM

lol in the long run oull need 640mb? In the long run you'll need a better card :D 
August 15, 2007 4:24:35 PM

Thanks for all the input and comments to this post. From what I have gathered, 640 vs 320 = 640 is better, IF you are playing with higher resolutions, correct? With both cards at the top of the heap, regardless of the ram they can run everything high settings. I suppose the only thing I need to consider is what resolution I play on. I play everything on 1024x786. I am leaning to a 320 with higher clock speeds and possibly down the road sli'ing.
August 15, 2007 4:48:29 PM

@phillyman36

I am running Vista Home Premium 32 on my media pc with an old Ti4200 and it runs movies,web,and light gaming fine so I think that the 6800GT would work well. Granted, I am not using the Aero interface.
August 15, 2007 4:52:12 PM

mychael616 said:
Thanks for all the input and comments to this post. From what I have gathered, 640 vs 320 = 640 is better, IF you are playing with higher resolutions, correct? With both cards at the top of the heap, regardless of the ram they can run everything high settings. I suppose the only thing I need to consider is what resolution I play on. I play everything on 1024x786. I am leaning to a 320 with higher clock speeds and possibly down the road sli'ing.

For your resolution, a 320 Mb model would be better, yes. I would advise not to buy a factory overclocked one, as you'll play extra money for something you can do yourself. And definitely don't use a GTS SLI setup. If you plan that, you'd better get an GTX instead.

a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 15, 2007 4:54:09 PM

Correct.

If you want to have the SLI option later you must pick your motherboard carefully now. Unfortunately I have no idea about AMD mobos, I'm a big Intel fanboy :lol:  For Intel CPUs some good SLI mobos would be eVGA's 680i board or Asus P5N32-E SLI.

By the way, I wonder if anybody will make motherboards in the future that support an AMD CPU and two nVidia cards? They must have some very interesting debates inside AMD, with the chipset division wishing to sell to nVidia customers and the ATI division not happy about it...
August 16, 2007 3:24:25 AM

I response to vonwombat, Yes I've concluded 320mb is better but I confess I must spend the extra money bc overclocking isn't in my department. Last time I messed with stuff like that I had to buy a new mobo and cpu. So...I think I'm leaning to the super-duber Over Clocked version @ $330. Any complaints???
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
August 16, 2007 1:40:33 PM

I think it's a good idea. Cards are binned in the factory and the ones that overclock best end up sold as "super duber". You're not guaranteed to match that on your own with a random card, even if you know what you're doing. Also, some factory OC'd cards have better coolers than the regular cards.
!