Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GTS 320Mb Vs GTS 640Mb Vs 2900XT

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 23, 2007 3:50:13 PM

I am finally going to build a new pc.My other specs will probably be-Q6600/E6850,2GB of RAM,not sure about mobo+case yet,and a 800Watt PSU.I have a 19" TFT at the moment,and I think that I will keep it for a long time,so I will be playing at 1280x1024.I really cant decide what card should I go for.All I do is gaming,no rendering/encoding.Which card would you suggest,the 8800 GTS 320/640 or the 2900XT?I found a BFG 8800 320Mb which is factory O/Ced and its faster than the 640Mb version,and ofcourse,cheaper,what do you think?I wouldnt like to go for a GTX as ive heard that Nvidia will launch its new cards on November.Any suggestions?
August 23, 2007 4:28:47 PM

i recomend the 320 mb 8800gts.at that resolution they are all pretty even and its the cheapest
August 23, 2007 4:31:28 PM

At that resolution whichever package has the most pack ins or is the cheapest of those should serve you quite well. I don't think the 640mb will be worth the extra $$$ because you will be gaming at relatively low resolution.
Related resources
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 23, 2007 6:09:24 PM

The 320 would be the best option as has been said you are not running at very high res so the extra ram wount be an issue.
Mactronix
August 24, 2007 6:18:26 PM

Cool,i think ill go with the OCed 320mb then.I wonder if i will be able to play Crysis maxed out with this card though...
a c 130 U Graphics card
August 24, 2007 8:02:48 PM

You could save yourself a few quid if you fancy ocing the card yourself thats all the oc version is a standard card oced
Mactronix
August 24, 2007 9:16:10 PM

The 2900XT is faster and more "forward-thinking" (costs more to)
Make sure you PSU can run it.
Just get a 8800 GTS 320 since 10.1 doesn't exist and there are no native DX10 games yet. (Think of it as a fast DX9 card - I said think of it as DX9 - Not that it IS DX9)
Ya, In February 2008, you can see how Crysis plays DX10 on a 8800GTS.
August 25, 2007 8:50:18 PM

enewmen said:
The 2900XT is faster and more "forward-thinking" (costs more to)
Make sure you PSU can run it.
Just get a 8800 GTS 320 since 10.1 doesn't exist and there are no native DX10 games yet. (Think of it as a fast DX9 card - I said think of it as DX9 - Not that it IS DX9)
Ya, In February 2008, you can see how Crysis plays DX10 on a 8800GTS.



February 2008?What do you mean?Crysis will be out by the end of November.And I still havent decided which card to get :( 
August 25, 2007 9:36:59 PM

I doubt it will be here by November.. just my opinion though.
August 25, 2007 9:48:22 PM

I would go for the 2900 xt. It is just of all the cards I have had I really think the image quality of the ATI ones is better. Also, it sits nice between the GTS and the GTX versions.
August 25, 2007 9:53:36 PM

8800GTS 320Mb and overclock it!
August 25, 2007 10:16:06 PM

get the OC 320, you dont have a guarantee that a non-OC one will get as high as the OCed one, and you could just try and OC the OCed one even more
August 26, 2007 12:38:35 PM

This will be my new rig:

Q6600
I35 mobo,havent decided yet
2GB Crucial Ballistix
Corsair 620W PSU
Thermaltake Armor LCS(with watercooling kit)

As for the gfx card,I've changed my mind 20 times.I cant decide.The 320mb is cheap and good,but I dont know if it will run Crysis maxed out.The 2900XT is noisy and gets really hot,and needs more power.The 640mb is the most expensive and I dont know if I need the extra 320mb because I will be gaming @1280x1024.
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2007 1:36:24 PM

Go with the 320mb and with the extra $ in your pocket you can save that $ and use it later to upgrade to something much better for Crysis. Not that the 320mb one wouldn't play it, but you would have more options later.

My 2cp's
August 26, 2007 2:30:35 PM

Yes, at that resolution I'd go for the 320MB version, it has plenty of RAM for 1280x1024. However, if you were to go for the 640MB vs the 2900XT, I'd pay the $20ish extra for the 2900XT, because with each new driver the card gets better, and it's DX10 performance is significantly better than the 8800GTS's.
August 26, 2007 3:14:19 PM

I agree with everyone, just not sure about 320Mb vram at this point on an 8800... 640 just seems sensible for Crysis and FarCry 2.
August 26, 2007 5:35:23 PM

SEALBoy said:
Yes, at that resolution I'd go for the 320MB version, it has plenty of RAM for 1280x1024. However, if you were to go for the 640MB vs the 2900XT, I'd pay the $20ish extra for the 2900XT, because with each new driver the card gets better, and it's DX10 performance is significantly better than the 8800GTS's.



The 2900XT is cheaper than the 8800 640mb here,and I think im going for it.
August 26, 2007 5:49:48 PM

the 2900xt wins hand down! nearly as good if not better than the 8800 gtx in a small number of games. so you cant lose!
August 26, 2007 6:18:01 PM

Just make sure your PSU can take it, the 2900XT is currently the most power-hungry card on the planet.
August 26, 2007 6:21:50 PM

Nevermind... 800W PSU, you should be fine...
August 26, 2007 6:49:01 PM

New drivers do sure seem to help the 2900 xt. Go for it! It will only get better. Better than the 320 mb version for sure.
August 26, 2007 7:08:27 PM

The PSU will be a Corsair 620W.
August 26, 2007 7:18:43 PM

OMG just go with the 8800gts 320mb!!!! Have you seen the VGA charts on this site? If you click on the overall fps, the non-overclocked 8800gts 320 beats the 2900xt. Then if you look up a little you will see that the overclocked version beats the 640mb version and thats fine for you as like everyone else said: you are playing at a low resoloution so it will run well.
August 26, 2007 7:25:28 PM

alia83444 said:
OMG just go with the 8800gts 320mb!!!! Have you seen the VGA charts on this site? If you click on the overall fps, the non-overclocked 8800gts 320 beats the 2900xt. Then if you look up a little you will see that the overclocked version beats the 640mb version and thats fine for you as like everyone else said: you are playing at a low resoloution so it will run well.


The 2900XT is beaten because it had bad drivers back then,they are much better now(as everyone says)
August 26, 2007 7:47:30 PM

the non-overclocked 8800gts 320 does NOT beat the 2900xt anymore
August 27, 2007 9:46:41 AM

well it does have some other advantages over the 2900xt. the temperatures aren't as high and it doesnt need as much power. And also its noisier.
August 27, 2007 12:38:26 PM

Wait till November. Nvidia should have G92 out around that time leading to price drops
August 27, 2007 12:52:20 PM

I would suggest the 2900xt, and as for as crysis goes the game is finished but they still need to test it and polish it so it should be finished on the launch day.
a c 143 U Graphics card
August 27, 2007 1:32:06 PM

Another vote for the 8800 GTS 320. Maybe wait a week or two for an X38 mobo - PCI-E 2 may be useful for your next video card.
August 27, 2007 2:04:40 PM

8800 if you are el cheapo or the 2900 if you got the cash. but rather wait for the next lot of cards.
September 3, 2007 7:24:01 PM

ahhhhhhhh i was so set on the 2900 but now im unsure again.damit.

its just that the benchmarks are such a mixed bag.in some games the 2900 really blows,others like in bioshock it beats everything.it also seams to be crippled by anti aliasing.also means im gona have to upgrade my power supply.im thinking maybe an 8800 320mb.damit.damit.its quite alot cheaper here
September 4, 2007 9:46:42 AM

For me it was easy i bought a cheap current card that handle current games good ie the BFG 320 OC.
If it doesn't handle DX10 games well, np, i haven't lost that much money.
To say this card or that card will do better is probably true but if they perform adequately is another story.
Saying the 2900 will perform better in DX10 games is just a guess.

I say buy what you need now for now as cheap as possible and upgrade later if it doesnt perfom well enough.
September 4, 2007 1:56:33 PM

TSIMonster said:
I doubt it will be here by November.. just my opinion though.


It's coming out 11/16/2007. Demo is supposed to be released end of September.
September 4, 2007 3:11:43 PM

based on the current crop of tests (like bioshock and call of juarez) I would NOT get the 320. Looking at the benchies now I think 512 is min. for graphics memory and anything less will be crippled on those cards for newer games.

Just my 2 bits, but I don't think the 320 is in the running with the other two... and the 2900 seems to be the better bet as of now over the 640.
September 4, 2007 3:18:54 PM

but the 320 beats the 640 in bioshock!!!

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6177688/p-6.html

it performs identically to the 640 in almost everything.even in higher resolutions, only sometimes is it beaten and not by much.and then sometimes it beats the 640,like in bioshock!!which means it probably will in all games using ut3 engine!!and it costs about R900 more (about 110$)
a c 169 U Graphics card
September 4, 2007 3:27:37 PM

but if u want to max out GRAW-GRAW2-DOOM3 , u need @ least 512 ram
September 4, 2007 3:32:46 PM

2900xt
September 4, 2007 3:41:37 PM

Maziar said:
but if u want to max out GRAW-GRAW2-DOOM3 , u need @ least 512 ram
Doom3 and Quake 4 recommend a 512MB videocard for "Ultra" quality, but both games run fine on a 256MB videocard like a 7900GT.
September 4, 2007 3:55:01 PM

gamestop is NOT a hardware testing site. They are a game testing site. They cater to the larger console crowd with little PC focus. They would not know how to truly test hardware if you drew them pictures in crayon...

...ok, maybe they are not THAT bad, but they are not really into doing "extensive" testing. Honestly, no explanation for the performance discrepancy there? Nothing saying why crossfire does not work beyond "users will likely have to...". And what is with 800x600? Does ANY gamer still run at that res?! lol.

Here is a better bioshock test that shows a slight edge to the bigger memory cards. (HUGE win in dx9 for the 2900 over even a gtx, but loss in dx10 to the 320 shows drivers still need work) Yes, it is not 1280 res, but as games get more hungry that 1280 becomes harder to do. ;) 
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bioshock_directx10_performance/

here is call of juarez:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM4NCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Quote:
You will no doubt notice the drastic performance of the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS at these settings. Basically this video card lacks the RAM capacity to run at these settings in DX10 mode. The video card seems to be running out of local memory storage and thus is using the PCI-Express bus to transfer textures, utterly killing performance in this game at these high settings. It seems with the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS you are going to have to run at a lower resolution or lower settings...

...Once again the ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT is performing strongly. It seems to be right on the heels of the GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB. The average framerates between the Radeon HD 2900 XT and GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB are very close. We received an average of 22.3 FPS with the Radeon HD 2900 XT and an average of 23.2 FPS with the GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB, a meaningless 1 FPS difference. Of course the GTX and Ultra are faster, but compared to the 640 MB GeForce 8800 GTS the Radeon HD 2900 XT is making a good showing.


Whether their assessment that it is vram or not is accurate (good assumption though as that is the only diff) it is THAT performance look that has me seeing vram being more important on new games. (and ya, games like GRAW require it to enable some features) If you have the money, buy the extra buffer and get the 2900 or 640gts.
September 4, 2007 3:57:55 PM

Heyyou27 said:
Doom3 and Quake 4 recommend a 512MB videocard for "Ultra" quality, but both games run fine on a 256MB videocard like a 7900GT.


I have the first GRAW and it is not a recommendation, it requires 512 for the high-res textures and such... firingsquad did a test a while back on vram usage w/ that game and confirmed it used somewhere around 430 megs (if I remember correctly) when enabling all features. They could force it to run on 256 but the game performance tanked.
!