Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8600GT positives?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 17, 2007 12:21:19 PM

Hi

i wanted to know what are the positives in buying this card. This is a midrange card but i keep on hearing people criticize it.

However i hear this card is better than most of the dx9 cards on its level for games that are shader intensive, so won't it preform with newer games better. Also crysis recommends it in its system requirements if i'm correct.

More about : 8600gt positives

August 17, 2007 12:47:03 PM

Its cheaper than other 8800 series cards ---
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 1:13:38 PM

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/HD-2600-AND-GEFORCE-8600,...
The above link is a good read to help you understand where the card fits in.
Basically its a midrange card as far as Nvidia are concerned but performance wise as in fps for gaming it would be concidered (from my point of view any way as strictly entry level).
I would use it in a pc that was for light gaming ie nothing graphically intensive definatly not Crysis,the actual specs havent been released yet (unless they did it today),and as a HTPC.
Mactronix
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
August 17, 2007 1:39:43 PM

The main problem is that it doesn't compare favorably to previous generation cards (7900 GS comes to mind) that are in its price class. I think everyone was surprised at what a cut-down card the 8600 series was... just look at the numbers on the above link... the 8600 has 1/3 the stream processors as the 8800 GTS. That along with the 128 bit bus means there's a huge gap between it and the next DX10 card from Nvidia (8800 GTS 320 MB) Apparently Nvidia's problem is contagious because ATI pretty much did the same thing with their cards. It's not a horrible card... just not what the community was expecting from a "mid-range" card.
August 17, 2007 1:51:58 PM

Like I said - cheap and cheerful!
August 17, 2007 1:58:54 PM

THG said with the cheap prices of them now that they are a relatively good buy, Check the charts and the cheapest cards on newegg, and best cards for money: August
DONT GET THE 8500!
August 17, 2007 2:30:30 PM

I wouldn't call it midrange. It's more of a mid-low.

The worst thing about the 8600 GT is that:

1- It doesn't perform much better than the old 7600 GT
2- The X1950 PRO doesn't cost much more, yet it's a far stronger performer at higher resolutions

However, the 8600 GT is relatively strong at shader-heavy stuff like oblivion. IMHO it's worth the 5-or-so bucks more than a 7600 GT just for that.

But the X1950 PRO is a pretty sweet card.
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 2:51:08 PM

I think the 8600GT is a great card, for a certain type of people. It's designed to be silent and relatively cheap and able to handle Vista's Aero and to support HD video (which is very important if your CPU is also relatively cheap). It does all this very well IMO. As a gaming card it stinks, sure, but it's not designed for that market. If you're into gaming you need the 8800 series. Come to think of it, I wouldn't be surprised at all if nVidia sells more 8600GT cards than 8800GTX cards.
August 17, 2007 2:54:34 PM

I love my 8600gts so far, I am running last Gen games at decent framerates with high settings 1600x1200 graphics 2x AA and 2x AF. I dont like to raise AA and AF higher than that anyways as I feel it makes games too blurry.

For more recent games if you turn down the settings a little you can get good frame rates.

The 8600 series shines when playing back video, along with the 2600ati series they're perfect for home theater PC's.

8400, 8500, 2400 are all garbage for gaming though.
August 17, 2007 2:59:24 PM

Would i be correct that if i overclock the 8600GT and get it on par with the 8600GTS its opinion would improve, and it would make it better for medium to high gaming?, since apparently the 8600GTS is more of an overclocked version of the 8600GT and isn't worth getting as its price is much closer to the 8800GTS.
August 17, 2007 3:34:17 PM

You could OC the 8600GT to match the GTS frequencies, but don't expect too much from it. Even OC-ed, it won't do great in games.
I would still recommend a good DX9 card, like X1950PRO or 7900GS.
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 3:49:56 PM

OP, why don't you tell us about your budget for the video card, screen resolution, CPU type, PSU type, and which games you want to play. Then we'll be able to recommend a card that serves you best. For example if you want to play Crysis at 1920x1200 it's really pointless to talk about the 8600 series.
August 17, 2007 4:11:35 PM

Quote:
OP, why don't you tell us about your budget for the video card, screen resolution, CPU type, PSU type, and which games you want to play. Then we'll be able to recommend a card that serves you best. For example if you want to play Crysis at 1920x1200 it's really pointless to talk about the 8600 series.


My monitor can take only up to 1280x1024 resolution but i don't mind playing at 1024x768. I am currently using a geforce 6600

My budget for a new graphics card is more or less in the £75-£100 region, don't want go over £100.

I want to be able to play games like Rainbow Six Vegas, Bioshock, Crysis and other upcoming games at least on medium settings and if possible of course in high settings. I know that my budget isn't big thats why i don't mind getting a card that will allow me to play on medium and let me play with some of the eye candy graphics for those games.

Thanks
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 4:15:44 PM

This sounds like a job for the x1950xt. It is the best card in that price range as far as I can tell.

An 8800 GTS 320 would be better but it's over £100.

I don't know if that PSU can take an x1950xt, you'll have to check the amps.
August 17, 2007 4:34:09 PM

Are you sure a x1950xt can be found under £100 because the cheapest i could find was £116.24 and that was out of stock, whilst the cheapest 8600GT is £67.38 is it worth it? btw the 8600GT isn't a card i'll be sticking with long term.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 5:00:36 PM

Would think that a XT would be borderline for his PSU i know that its a good make but without knowing the amps on the +12volt rail i wouldnt want to risk it.
A pro would be a safer option i would have thought?
Mactronix
August 17, 2007 5:17:16 PM

x1950 pro if you can find one in your price range. An 8600 GTS at the right price might be a good buy.
August 17, 2007 5:19:53 PM

On the psu it says +12V1 14A and +12V2 15A so its got a twin 12V rail with total of 29amps.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 5:40:16 PM

Not sure it works like that dont think you just add them up im not up enough on psu ratings ,there is a equation but i dont know it so if one of the other guys wouldnt mind posting it so i can save it for later use that would be great.
Mactronix
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 5:45:46 PM

new_builder said:
Are you sure a x1950xt can be found under £100 because the cheapest i could find was £116.24 and that was out of stock, whilst the cheapest 8600GT is £67.38 is it worth it? btw the 8600GT isn't a card i'll be sticking with long term.


Well, I saw the x1950xt for $170 recently and I thought that would mean under 100 pounds. Apparently though it's not that nice in the UK... OK, x1950Pro is another card with great bang-for-the-buck and it should be cheaper and it's easier on the PSU too. Besides, if you're going to upgrade soon anyway it's smart to get something cheaper indeed.

The x1950 pro wants 450W and 30 A, but that's a recommendation "based on fully loaded system". You may be able to use it with your PSU. I would rule out the x1950xt at this point, because that will want even more power.
http://shop.ati.com/product.asp?sku=3122113
August 17, 2007 5:52:48 PM

Quote:
Not sure it works like that dont think you just add them up im not up enough on psu ratings ,there is a equation but i dont know it so if one of the other guys wouldnt mind posting it so i can save it for later use that would be great.
Mactronix


Well actually i checked the psu and it says +12V1 14A and +12V2 15A and then i looked up on the internet and it said its got a total of 29amps so...
August 17, 2007 6:48:58 PM

aevm said:
Well, I saw the x1950xt for $170 recently and I thought that would mean under 100 pounds. Apparently though it's not that nice in the UK... OK, x1950Pro is another card with great bang-for-the-buck and it should be cheaper and it's easier on the PSU too. Besides, if you're going to upgrade soon anyway it's smart to get something cheaper indeed.

The x1950 pro wants 450W and 30 A, but that's a recommendation "based on fully loaded system". You may be able to use it with your PSU. I would rule out the x1950xt at this point, because that will want even more power.
http://shop.ati.com/product.asp?sku=3122113


Well i used a psu calculator on a website and with the x1950 pro the psu wattage was 412w whilst the 8600gt was 389w.

btw i was reading a few other websites and there seems to be people claiming to be able to run a 8800gts with the same psu as mine, do you think they are taking a risk or is it possible?
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 7:12:09 PM

They are certainly taking a risk. It's also possible that their video card is bottlenecked by the CPU so badly that it never gets under full load and that allows it to avoid overloading the PSU. I don't know, I'm a noob about PSUs.

+12V1 14A and +12V2 15A: you can't just add them up and say 29 A, it's more complicated and you actually have somewhat less than 29. Maybe somebody who knows this stuff will step in and explain, I can't. I got myself a PSU with only one rail and don't have this problem.
August 17, 2007 7:25:19 PM

Two 12v ratings mean there are two separate 12v rails. One of them is probably decdicated to the PCIe video card power connector, which should be ample for an 8600 GTS... OR an X1950 PRO.
August 17, 2007 7:27:22 PM

Here's a X1950pro for £65 + postage. Buy this instead.
August 17, 2007 7:34:12 PM

I own an 8600GT and it's a terrible gamer, which is why I use it as my secondary card; I use my 8800GTX for all the heavy lifting.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 8:21:39 PM

A little light reading
8. ARE MULTIPLE 12-VOLT RAILS BETTER THAN A SINGLE 12-VOLT RAIL?
With all the hype about multiple 12-volt rails (ads claim that two rails is better than one, five is better than four, etc.), you’d think it was a better design. Unfortunately, it’s not!

Here are the facts: A large, single 12-volt rail (without a 240VA limit) can transfer 100% of the 12-volt output from the PSU to the computer, while a multi-rail 12-volt design has distribution losses of up to 30% of the power supply’s rating. Those losses occur because power literally gets “trapped” on under-utilized rails. For example, if the 12-volt rail that powers the CPU is rated for 17 amps and the CPU only uses 7A, the remaining 10A is unusable, since it is isolated from the rest of the system.

Since the maximum current from any one 12-volt rail of a multiple-rail PSU is limited to 20 amps (240VA / 12 volts = 20 amps), PCs with high-performance components that draw over 20 amps from the same rail are subject to over-current shutdowns. With power requirements for multiple processors and graphics cards continuing to grow, the multiple-rail design, with its 240VA limit per rail, is basically obsolete.

PC Power and Cooling is once again leading the industry. All of our power supplies now feature a large, single 12-volt rail. The design is favored by major processor and graphics companies, complies with EPS12V specs (the 240VA limit is not a requirement) and is approved by all major safety agencies such as UL and TUV.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
Mactronix

August 17, 2007 8:29:46 PM

While this is absolutely right, this is more of an issue with power hogs like the 8800's and 2900's though.

I don't think an X1950 PRO or 8600 GTS will either have a problem with a PSU like this.
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 8:50:50 PM

Do we actually have a hard and fast figure for a 2900xt by the way cleeve i saw 215 watts was expected but with what i have learnt today if i knew i could help a lot more people as it seems to come up quite a bit.
Thanks Mactronix
August 17, 2007 10:03:27 PM

aevm said:
They are certainly taking a risk. It's also possible that their video card is bottlenecked by the CPU so badly that it never gets under full load and that allows it to avoid overloading the PSU. I don't know, I'm a noob about PSUs.

+12V1 14A and +12V2 15A: you can't just add them up and say 29 A, it's more complicated and you actually have somewhat less than 29. Maybe somebody who knows this stuff will step in and explain, I can't. I got myself a PSU with only one rail and don't have this problem.


I checked online and found that it is 29A

http://www.3dvelocity.com/reviews/seasonics12/s12.htm
http://www.tomswiki.com/page/Quality+PSU+Brands+and+Models?t=anon
August 17, 2007 10:14:55 PM

I'm thinking get the 8600GT for now as i mentioned its not something i'm looking at long-term, wait until the geforce 9 series come so that will be a few months which i can live with, then i'll be ready to spend the big bucks.

what ya think?
August 17, 2007 11:08:23 PM

Well it does have a more powerful video processor for PureVideo HD than the 8800 series.
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2007 11:59:33 PM

I'd say either/or, since it's short term, the X1950Pro likely would provide much more playability, but the new series cards do do a fairly good job with some shader heavy games, so you might not sacrifice too much going with a GF8600GT.

I'd personally pick the X1950Pro but both should be fine for short term with the understanding that neither with play Crysis in DX10 mode, and they will both by then be superceeded by better value cards and longer term solutions.

But while the GF8600GT looks better in shader heavy situations than it does in older games, it still usually lags behind the X1950Pro;
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600_gts_roundup/page12.asp

Not a GT but the GTS;
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi-nx8600gts-oc_13.html#sect0

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi-nx8600gts-oc_7.html#sect2

It's not an easy choice.
August 18, 2007 12:14:04 PM

Ok so lets cut to the chase, this is my take on the situation, we have a 8600GTS that is close to a x1950pro in terms of performance whilst the x1950pro is better than the 8600GT.

If I overclock the 8600GT and get it near to an 8600GTS then i'm fine, I have know worrys about overclocking this card its temporary and it probably won't do wonders but there will be performance increase that brings it close to an 8600GTS.

If this is a good idea I will go for the 8600GT, if you guys think its not a good idea, i will choose the x1950pro because the x1950pro is in the same price range as the 8600GTS.

Thanks for everyones input :) 
August 18, 2007 9:37:27 PM

new_builder said:
Ok so lets cut to the chase, this is my take on the situation, we have a 8600GTS that is close to a x1950pro in terms of performance whilst the x1950pro is better than the 8600GT.

If I overclock the 8600GT and get it near to an 8600GTS then i'm fine, I have know worrys about overclocking this card its temporary and it probably won't do wonders but there will be performance increase that brings it close to an 8600GTS.

If this is a good idea I will go for the 8600GT, if you guys think its not a good idea, i will choose the x1950pro because the x1950pro is in the same price range as the 8600GTS.

Thanks for everyones input :) 


Reading this thread my brain heart...

x1950pro is a better card witch also can be overclocked.

8600GT will not be able to run a Dx10 game properly even at 640vs480 so lets rule that out.
x1950pro is better under Dx9 and in general, just don't get a cheap ripoff, the noise will drive you nuts in a week.

You need to figure out how to use the PSU Calculator...

I have no idea what you are doing wrong but my guess would be is that you rushed and didn't read below the

"System type" scroll:

Attention: Dual Core CPU is a Single Processor.

and calculating for 2 E6750 physical CPU's.

You need 319W to run every component in your system @ the full load witch is not gonna happen...

- 8600 GT is a fair overclocker and is quite and cool. It also draws less power. These are the positives you asked about.

- The negative is that it is not a very solid gaming card.. I cannot really find another :( 

August 18, 2007 9:45:50 PM

Dumb question but what is a 8800GT? Your quoted response is regarding a 8600GT or did I miss something?
August 18, 2007 9:52:47 PM

kpo6969 said:
Dumb question but what is a 8800GT? Your quoted response is regarding a 8600GT or did I miss something?


I stand corrected. There is no 8800 GT BTW :) 
August 18, 2007 10:08:48 PM

The only cards right now worth buying on the $100-200 segment are the X1950Pro, 7900GS, X1950XT, and 7950GT. The best buy of all being the X1950XT at $170 of course, the rest is a waste of hard earned money.

EDIT: Developers recommend the card not because it will run things properly, but because it is weakest card that complies with the game specifications (i.e. SM4.0, DX10, etc...). And before someone tries to get smart on me, the 8400GS and 8500GT are not gaming cards, this doesnt mean the 8600GT and 8600GTS are, but they are somewhat better at it than the lesser ones.
August 18, 2007 10:15:45 PM

xela said:
Reading this thread my brain heart...

x1950pro is a better card witch also can be overclocked.

8600GT will not be able to run a Dx10 game properly even at 640vs480 so lets rule that out.
x1950pro is better under Dx9 and in general, just don't get a cheap ripoff, the noise will drive you nuts in a week.

You need to figure out how to use the PSU Calculator...

I have no idea what you are doing wrong but my guess would be is that you rushed and didn't read below the

"System type" scroll:

Attention: Dual Core CPU is a Single Processor.

and calculating for 2 E6750 physical CPU's.

You need 319W to run every component in your system @ the full load witch is not gonna happen...

- 8600 GT is a fair overclocker and is quite and cool. It also draws less power. These are the positives you asked about.

- The negative is that it is not a very solid gaming card.. I cannot really find another :( 


lol @
Quote:
Reading this thread my brain heart...
.

I did rush and make that mistake :whistle:  and now i feel somewhat bad because this thread may have dragged on too long because of this, my apologies.

Ok well i'll end this here, bioshock is coming out in the next few days then we will see how 8600gt/gts performs although i agree it will probably be crap so after that is done i will go for the x1950pro since its only a few days in the waiting, and i am very thankful to everyone helping me reach a decision.
August 18, 2007 11:05:37 PM

new_builder said:
lol @
Quote:
Reading this thread my brain heart...
.

I did rush and make that mistake :whistle:  and now i feel somewhat bad because this thread may have dragged on too long because of this, my apologies.

Ok well i'll end this here, bioshock is coming out in the next few days then we will see how 8600gt/gts performs although i agree it will probably be crap so after that is done i will go for the x1950pro since its only a few days in the waiting, and i am very thankful to everyone helping me reach a decision.


Listen to Emp, he is usually right. I can tell you now that all 3 cards card will underpreform in Bioshock (UT3 engine with amazing graphics). Stick with 6600 and lay off Bioshock and other games with high reqs untill you can get a GTS 320. Anything less then 1950XT is a waste of money and to tell you the truth.. compared to 8800 GTS, 1950XT is a waste as well.
August 19, 2007 12:09:37 AM

1) highly overclockable
2) uses same PCB layout as 7600 GT for example, so there's plenty of aftermarket coolers that will fit
3) it will be more and more comparable over time to "last-gen" cards like x1950pro/7900gs due to its unified shader architechture (shader intensive games generally are benefitted by unified shaders and most new/future games can easily be called shader intensive)
4) doesn't require additional power
a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2007 6:10:53 AM

xela said:
Anything less then 1950XT is a waste of money and to tell you the truth.. compared to 8800 GTS, 1950XT is a waste as well.


I disagree with the last part because the GF8800GTS is usually $100+ more so the X1950XT is usually a good deal, but if you expect the world out of it in future games you'll be disappointed, but then again you'll also likely be disappointed with the GF8 and HD2K series in future games as well just a little less so.
August 19, 2007 7:29:52 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
I disagree with the last part because the GF8800GTS is usually $100+ more so the X1950XT is usually a good deal, but if you expect the world out of it in future games you'll be disappointed, but then again you'll also likely be disappointed with the GF8 and HD2K series in future games as well just a little less so.


I expect a great deal from GTS 320 I am going to get in few days. Unless you have a working crystalball, lay off on the usually and likely. GTS is confirmed to work flawlessly in UT3. No idea about crysis but I don´t see a team of intelegent people releasing a game that 95% of custumers won´t be able to run. Alan Wake might be a pain but I don´t intend to play it under high res (Can´t really). My own bet is that GTS 320 will work fine with my 1280'1024 monitor untill the next summer. By then I can upgrate for a 2 or 3 X faster 270$ card.

a b U Graphics card
August 19, 2007 7:56:06 AM

xela said:
I expect a great deal from GTS 320 I am going to get in few days. Unless you have a working crystalball, lay off on the usually and likely.


Why? Are you going to try and make me with empty statements like this;

Quote:
GTS is confirmed to work flawlessly in UT3.


You show me proof that it's 'flawless'.

You're saying right here that it's confirmed it will not need a patch or driver update because it will be flawless from the start needing no tweaks? You seem to have a problem with the terms 'usually' and 'likely' but you throw around the definitive terms 'waste of money' and 'flawless'. :sarcastic: 

Quote:
No idea about crysis but I don´t see a team of intelegent people releasing a game that 95% of custumers won´t be able to run.


You don't like the use of the 'usually', and 'likely', but that you 'don't see' is fine? Hypocrite! :pfff: 
Who said anything about 'able to run', both will be 'able to run' Crysis and UT3 so there's no point to your statement.

The point is that at twice the price the GTS is no more/less a 'waste of money' than the X1950XT or X1950Pro in either current games or in the speculative future.

BTW, my use of the term 'usually' in a sentence like "the GF8600GT USUALLY loses to the X1950Pro" addresses the idea that while it might lose the majority (50-99.9%) of the time there are also times that the GF8600GT is worth looking into as it outperforms the X1950Pro; whereas some people like yourself use the myopic absolute that the X1950Pro is just a better card, period.

I'll stick to my 'usually' and 'likely' until you fix your own problems.
August 19, 2007 7:59:06 AM

new_builder said:
Hi

i wanted to know what are the positives in buying this card. This is a midrange card but i keep on hearing people criticize it.

However i hear this card is better than most of the dx9 cards on its level for games that are shader intensive, so won't it preform with newer games better. Also crysis recommends it in its system requirements if i'm correct.


It's better than on-board graphics...?
It's better than a sharp stick in the eye as well....
It does do dx10 IFF you are running an OS that supports dx10. (Not well, but it does support it.)
It's cheap. YGWYPF.
August 19, 2007 8:07:23 AM

What kind of frame rates can I expect with the X1950xt and a E6750 on things like BF2142?
August 19, 2007 11:18:09 AM

vonhell said:
1) highly overclockable
2) uses same PCB layout as 7600 GT for example, so there's plenty of aftermarket coolers that will fit
3) it will be more and more comparable over time to "last-gen" cards like x1950pro/7900gs due to its unified shader architechture (shader intensive games generally are benefitted by unified shaders and most new/future games can easily be called shader intensive)
4) doesn't require additional power


You make some good points to my original question. :) 
August 19, 2007 12:38:43 PM

I was checking out the bioshock website and came across this article.

I'm pretty skeptical about this because if you read down the faqs you will find that they say a 8600 card will be able to run bioshock in dx10 with decent frame rates, furthermore in high settings and in 1280x1024. Considering the fact it doesn't perform fantastic with current dx9 games, i wonder how much of this can be taken seriously. Its still is kind of interesting to hear this on the offical website.

does anyone think there is a glimmer of hope for the 8600's

http://www.2kgames.com/cultofrapture/pcblowout.html
August 21, 2007 3:49:12 PM

Looks like the 8600GT is playable in dx10, I've been reading numerous posts that the 8600GT is able to run bioshock in high settings and in high resolution in dx10 and dx9 with decent playable frame rates.

Considering the fact that expectations were non-existent for this card in dx10, i think its pretty good news.

So this game has been optimised to run on wide range of specs, even though crysis seems more demanding it is also being optimised a lot so maybe we should not rule out this card.

I think the previous dx10 games were patched poorly and the midrange dx10 cards do have a chance now with properly developed games. This card doesn't seem as bad as we though it was.

Another positive that can now be added to this card is that it is playable in dx10 with good frame rates.

I'm leaning towards the 8600GT now still not expecting to get high settings with future games but at least medium maybe. Does anyone share similar thoughts
August 21, 2007 9:06:58 PM

I'm in the same conundrum; under £100, looking at either GeForce8600GT or the Radeon x1950Pro, so thanks for all the replies to the thread and the OP for starting it.

I have an additional question: how does then amount of card memory affect performance? how much better would a card with 512MB be compared to the same with only 256MB?
!