8600 GTS vs 8600 GT vs Others

[f_ciacio]

Well... I'm buying a new computer, and i don't know what video card is the best a i can afford... I have money enough for a 8600 GTS, but i was told that it would not be the best choice... I want to play ALL the games that are in the market today and, if possibly, tomorrow, but i don't want to play them with the graphics in HIGH, with a normal or medium quality i'm really OK! Please, tell me if i should go for the GTS, o for another! Thanks!

 

[teh_boxzor]

if you're willing to wait like i am. im waiting until nvidia delivers their refresh and the 8800gts drops a couple more dollars to maybe 250.

 

[WR2]

What game resolution do you play at? 1280x1024? 1600x1200? Or widescreen 1440x900 or 1680x1050?
You can compare the two video cards performance using the THG Video Charts Battlefield 2142 1280x1024 max Quality
Look through the different game benchmarks at the monitor resolution you play with - you'll see the comparison.

If you buy an eVga card you can trade in the video card you next for the a more powerful card - as long as its within 90 days. Its called the Step Up program.

 

[f_ciacio]

The Maximum resolution is 1280 x 1024, because it's an 19'' LCD, so, as i said before, it's not too much what i want as a video card, but a good one

 

[Kamrooz]

Well you have two choices really. Wait till the g92 comes around so the prices of current nvidia cards drops...or...get a dx9 card. the mid/low range dx10 are complete ****....for gaming atleast. For HTPC and video machines they do their duty...Especially with the hidef video decoding features. But if you want to game stay away from them. Why not nab a X1950 xt?...you can get a 256 mb version for around 160 on new egg. If you don't play in really high resolutions it should do you wonders. Use the tomshardware video chart to see the performance...it's literally a steal for the money. If you are staying with that LCD with a 1280x1024 res the x1950 xt is what you're looking for. great bang for the buck...If you want DX10 spec then you are going to have to wait...but yea...don't consider the mid/low ati/nvidia dx10 cards...they aren't good for gaming really...

 

[f_ciacio]

Well, i've done some "research", and the only x1950 which is sold here in Argentina is this: "Asus EAX1950PRO/HTDP/256M DDR3 HDTV/2DVI" and it costs almost the same (there are $11 between them) as the 8600 GTS, so, which one do you think i should take? I don't know if i can put prices in this forum (if i can't, please erase this). The Radeon is at $255 and the other (MSI NX8600GTS-T2D256E-HD-OC 256 DDR3 HDTV/2DVI) is at $266.

 

[teh_boxzor]

well i'd take the x1950xt. its a proven performer in many games. but the con is that it takes more wattage than the 8600gts, so make sure your PSU can handle it.

 

[emp]

If you have to choose between the X1950 Pro and 8600GTS, it is still a clear choice, the X1950 Pro obliterates the 8600GTS.

 

[starcraftfanatic]

i really wish people would tell us where they live first, so we can rule out newegg
get the x1950 Pro, its more powerful than the 8600GTS. and wow those cards are expensive the pros here cost about $140

 

[spuddyt]

I can vouch for the fact that 8600 gts SUCKs ***, I have one myself, and I am still being outperformed by my brother's x1900 xt (which was excusable when I was using my 6800 but not anymore!)

 

[marvelous211]

If you have to choose between the X1950 Pro and 8600GTS, it is still a clear choice, the X1950 Pro obliterates the 8600GTS.

That isn't quite true... I have owned both 1950pro before and now I own 8600gts. I can tell you that the speed is very similar from 1 another. But 8600gts has clear advantage in image quality.

They both have their limitations. 1950 pro does better in higher resolutions and more AA but at medium resolutions like 1280x1024 8600gts has the edge in raw frame rates without any Anti Aliasing. At 1600x1200 both cards are not really able to play too great unless its an older engine like half life 2, doom 3, battlefield 2. In recent modern games they are neck and neck but I would have to give a slight edge with 8600gts while giving a slight edge with 1950pro on older games.

One thing I've noticed about 1950pro is that it's faster with AA obviously because of its memory bandwidth. 8600gts has an advantage with Aniso filtering because of its texturing prowness. 1950pro loses like 10-15fps with aniso filtering at max while 8600gts speed barely changes if you have aniso filter at max or off.

With 1950pro I could only play Battlefield 2 everything high @ 1440x900 4xAA and 16xAF. While with 8600gts I could use 8xAA and 16xAF with same settings.

 

[marvelous211]

I can vouch for the fact that 8600 gts SUCKs ***, I have one myself, and I am still being outperformed by my brother's x1900 xt (which was excusable when I was using my 6800 but not anymore!)

Of course it won't beat a 1900xt but its neck and neck with 1950 pro.

 

[emp]

The X1950 Pro is all around a FASTER card than the 8600GTS, there's no denying that and there's no way to spin it otherwise. Not only that, but it has a $135 tag while the 8600GTS has a $160-175 tag, putting it effectively in the X1950XT price range, which isn't even worth comparing because even the inferior X1950 Pro can chew alive the 8600GTS.

The only scenario I can think of that the 8600GTS would come close to the X1950 Pro (And it still trails behind it) is in oblivion, because of the game's nature (Very shader intensive), but in nearly every other title the difference is very tangible (Sometimes between playable and unplayable at the same settings).

Summing up, the 8600GTS is not only a more expensive, but also inferior card compared to the X1950 Pro and X1950XT, there's no GF8/HD2k series worth buying other than the usual 8800 and HD2900 for gaming. Even if you intend on building an HTPC, the 8600/HD2600/8500 and derivatives still fail to fulfill their purpose in comparison to the superior HTPC cards (8400GS/HD2400 Pro) which not only offer the same HD decoding functionality but at a far lesser price ($40~50), power consumption, and heat.

 

[marvelous211]

1950 pro is slightly faster in higher resolutions but it still loses to 8600gts in 1280x1024 resolution. It just depends on the situation. I have seen 8600gts low as 1950pro prices after rebate. I think price isn't a issue if you shop around. They both have similar prices.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi-nx8600gts-oc_7.html#sect1

Here in BF2142 Radeon 1950pro loses to GTS in 1280x1024 resolution while gaining back some of the performance in 1600x1200.

It's like this most other games. Radeon does better with AA but in pure speed #'s 8600gt wins.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi-nx8600gts-oc_9.html#sect2

You can see rest of the benchmarks if you'd like. They're both 1-3 fps of each other in many games.

 

[emp]

I can't convince a 8600 preacher to embrace the truth, you be happy with your 8600 and I'll be happy with my card, just don't confuse the OP or readers, they are trying to take a decision on what to invest their money on.

Spuddyt can tell you from his experience how good his 8600GTS has turned out to be.

 

[marvelous211]

I think you have it backwards. I have owned both and this is coming from knowledge unlike you who has hate for 8600 series.

 

[emp]

So I'm a noob for preferring a superior last gen product over today's dog poop? mmkay, just let me know when you want to upgrade next time, I'll get some of my dog's crap from the backyard, slap a $5 92mm fan, write nvidia over it, and sell it to you for $150. That's pretty much what nvidia did to you anyway.

 

[marvelous211]

Speeds have grown higher in Company of Heroes as opposed to the older testbed, especially the speed of the GeForce 8600 series. Yet even enjoying a 50% advantage over the Radeon X1950 Pro at 1280x1024, these cards still cannot make the resolution of 1600x1200 playable. Overclocked to highest frequencies the MSI card has a min speed of only 19fps. The Radeon X1950 Pro offers comfortable gaming conditions in 1280x1024.

 

[marvelous211]

That's what I call pure speed. Radeon just can't win. It does good when it uses AA to cover its low BASE frame rates with a card like 8600gts.

 

[emp]

I have a hard time believing that the 8600GTS will outperform so severely the 8800GTS, especially since not even SLI 8600GTS get close. I told you, believe what you want, just don't confuse the rest of the people.

Marketing is amazing isn't it, guess that's how they manage to sell to what are apparently "smart" people (like the guy above me) their midrange products that "outperform" their very own high end products.

 

[marvelous211]

Look at the minimum frame rate. At 1280x1024 the game is limited by CPU with a card like 8800gts.

 

[mactronix]

To marvelous211 you are definatly wrong my friend the 1950 pro is a lot better in gaming than any of the mid range HD cards you say you have had both and the performance was similar and i wonder if your psu was up to running the 1950 pro?is there any chance it was under powered and clocked itself down?
Mactronix

 

[emp]

I just have a very hard time believing those benchmarks, they look so "real", maybe if it was firingsquad or anandtech I would be forced to believe.

I just refuse to believe something so illogical unless someone that is obviously more knowledgeable than me corrects me and gives me a logical explanation for the seemingly unholy performance boost. Anyway, I guess you win if you want to call it like that, Im busy playing Bioshock and I just come here for a break to share what I know instead of confusing people with what seems to be a biased report.

 

[marvelous211]

I've been gaming 25 years. LOL... I use a quality 450watt with 32amps to my 12 volt rail. It can even handle a 8800gts/gtx with this power supply.

Radeon does better when AA is added with 3 year old engines. Other than that these cards are pretty much neck and neck.

 

[emp]

I was about to leave, but since you posted right after I did, I have one last comment regarding the performance witnessed in your benchmarks. Even though tom's charts might be outdated a bit, it still stands that the GTS pumps at the very least twice as much frames (using an X6800 just like your benchmarks), however now the 8600GTS seems like barely underclocked 8800GTS. I just don't think so

Also unless you're using a Corsair VX, I haven't seen many 450W PSUs pumping more than 26A on the 12V rail (Remember, you don't add 12v1 + 12v2 to get 12v total)