Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

8600 GTS vs 8600 GT vs Others

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 1, 2007 10:13:09 PM

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!

More about : 8600 gts 8600

September 1, 2007 10:27:24 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
September 1, 2007 10:37:16 PM

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.
Related resources
September 1, 2007 11:05:04 PM

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
September 1, 2007 11:14:52 PM

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...
September 1, 2007 11:44:30 PM

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.
September 1, 2007 11:57:01 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 12:11:23 AM

If you have to choose between the X1950 Pro and 8600GTS, it is still a clear choice, the X1950 Pro obliterates the 8600GTS.
September 2, 2007 12:13:58 AM

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
September 2, 2007 11:29:23 AM

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!)
September 2, 2007 10:43:18 PM

emp said:
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.
September 2, 2007 10:54:49 PM

spuddyt said:
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.
September 2, 2007 10:57:57 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:09:33 PM

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-nx86...

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-nx86...

You can see rest of the benchmarks if you'd like. They're both 1-3 fps of each other in many games.
September 2, 2007 11:11:46 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:14:01 PM

I think you have it backwards. I have owned both and this is coming from knowledge unlike you who has hate for 8600 series. :sarcastic: 
September 2, 2007 11:18:58 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:24:12 PM



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.
September 2, 2007 11:25:41 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:28:32 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:34:05 PM

Look at the minimum frame rate. At 1280x1024 the game is limited by CPU with a card like 8800gts.
a c 130 U Graphics card
September 2, 2007 11:38:16 PM

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
September 2, 2007 11:43:13 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:43:14 PM

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.
September 2, 2007 11:48:38 PM

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)
September 2, 2007 11:49:00 PM

emp said:
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.


Says the guy with a signature like who hate 8600gts. :lol: 

8600gts performance has been improved since they were released. The cards were quite new when everyone did previews with older drivers.

You want firingsquad benches? You can go look at it yourself. http://firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600_gts...
September 2, 2007 11:52:52 PM

No, I own a 8800GTS, and I know how CoH maxed out runs like, and Im pretty sure it won't run like that on a card that has been reported to have less than half the processing power (A crippled G80 design chip and a lot less shaders)
September 2, 2007 11:56:51 PM

At 1280x1024 its not limiting a card like 8600gts especially a game like COH. Minimum frame rate is the one to watch for. That identifies its limitations.
September 3, 2007 12:03:28 AM

You say it like it was something old like Half life 2 or Doom 3, honestly CoH is a pretty demanding game for many systems, and a fun one, but that's besides the point. What I'm trying to say is that those benchmarks you brought me seem too much like a cinderella story, something that just isn't real and won't be, no matter how badly you want it.

Also you keep referring to CPU bottleneck like if they were using a 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4, but they are supposedly using an X6800, so I don't think there's a CPU bottleneck (If anything a GPU bottleneck with the 8600).
September 3, 2007 12:04:39 AM

We know 8800gts runs at much slower clock rate even with more rops and tmu.

8800gts maxes at 12,000 mtexels/s. A 8600gts 10,800 mtexels/s

Actually 8600gts shader clock is much higher than 8800gts.

8800gts runs its shaders @ 1200mhz while 8600gts runs them at 1450mhz.

At 1280x1024 pure speed its not being limited by memory bandwidth in a game like COH.

Of course guys like you don't understand this.
September 3, 2007 12:07:54 AM

COH is not demanding. Maybe in dx10.
September 3, 2007 12:13:41 AM

wow...., its a 2 man flame war! :lol:  but he was using my experiences with the 8600's, and I have one, and its OC'd and its outperformed by an x1900 xt, which I would imagine would mean it will be outperformed by an x1950 xt which is in the same price range as the 8600 gts
September 3, 2007 12:14:45 AM

So you think all 96 shaders are being used in a game like COH? You have to prove that to me first.

But looking at the results it looks like its not being used. Radeon 2900xt has a hard time beating a 8800gts at times even with 320 shaders. Can you prove that to me?
September 3, 2007 12:17:14 AM

oh yeah, that graph further up, its interesting how, the ATI card is mysteriously 30 fps lower, and the 8800 is slower, and now, I'm sorry but if you ask ANYONE (whose PSU and cooling could handle it) and I'm sure they would get an 8800 before an 8600, because the 8800 is the HIGH END product, and the 8600 is the MID RANGE product, so for the 8800 to lose in performance makes me doubt the validity of those results

OK PPL SKIP PAGE 2 ITS JUST A FLAME WAR, ALL RIGHT, EVERYONE IGNORE IT
September 3, 2007 12:23:26 AM

Quote:
LOL.. We know 8600gts gets outperformed by 1900xt. Any dumb nut can tell you that .
[/b]
yeah... but the fact that its in a similar price range to the x1950 xt, and we are debating its performance compared to an x1950 pro seems bad for the card's reputation, I merely mentioned the x1900 because of my own personal situation (when i spend £130 on a very modern mid range graphics card then I would like it to beat or at least get near to a previous gen one
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
oh, and I resent being called a noob simply because I disagree with you
September 3, 2007 12:31:02 AM

spuddyt said:
yeah... but the fact that its in a similar price range to the x1950 xt, and we are debating its performance compared to an x1950 pro seems bad for the card's reputation
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...


Oh look 1950xt is out of stock and its been out of stock for 2 weeks already and it looks like it will never be in stock. :bounce:  Up till last week MSI had a rebate for their cards for $20 off. Making them $132 before shipping. What is the cheapest Radeon 1950pro? $135 before shipping. :pt1cable: 


September 3, 2007 12:33:31 AM

Quote:
yeah..., if you can show me where to trade in my 8600 gts, and get its full value back then do tell me I would prefer an x1950 xt, oh and I know I am now really the one flaming (well you are to marvelous) but I find it hard to listen to BS


I don't know why you are trying to compare 8600gts to 1950xt when I was clearly arguing against 1950pro. This whole thread was about 1950pro vs 8600gt/s. :pt1cable: 

Everyone knows 1950xt is faster than 8600gts but you have to pay more money. :pt1cable: 

You should go trade you card for a 1950pro because that's what this thread is about. Anyone would be willing to trade in a heart beat.
September 3, 2007 12:37:17 AM

ok, you got me, I didn't check in that much detail (i'm a uk resident, I only used newegg because you were using it) and I don't understand the rebate laws and things in america, and I didn't check the x1950 pro, and I'm not really interested in continuing this any further, oh and btw your 8600 isn't exactly at stock speed, according to your signiture
edit: ok that was slightly hypocritical, I suppose I do want to argue, just not as much or as angrily
September 3, 2007 12:40:47 AM

No kidding. Overclocking gives me better results. Why shouldn't I overclock more to get every bit of performance.
September 3, 2007 12:41:52 AM

marvelous211 said:
This whole thread was about 1950pro vs 8600gt. :pt1cable: 
You should go trade you card for a 1950pro because that's what this thread is about. Anyone would be willing to trade in a heart beat.

1st, the title says 8600 GTS vs 8600 gt vs others, so it does include the 8600 gts, so it does include alternatives in the same price range
2nd didn't you mean 1950xt?
September 3, 2007 12:42:33 AM

spuddyt are you going to trade your card for a 1950pro since you think it performs better? I can get someone if to trade with you if you can't find someone.
September 3, 2007 12:44:14 AM

I wouldn't trust you, anyway, I would expect money as well, I didn't say that the 1950 pro OUTPERFORMED the 8600 I just said it was comparable, and since it was cheaper....
September 3, 2007 12:46:25 AM

please stop with the insults and try to stay civilised
heatware?
September 3, 2007 12:58:43 AM

can you tell me where you got those figures, and apologise for the verbal abuse
"You remind me of me when I was 7 years old"
oh, and don't try and deny that the operations per second doesn't neccesarily translate into actual performance I wouldn't match an 8800 gtx (which won't have 2 times the operations per second of the gts) with a 2900 xt
September 3, 2007 1:02:08 AM

I got those figures because I know how graphic cards work. :sol: 
September 3, 2007 1:03:51 AM

what I supplied was the fact that the 1950 pro is equal in performance (which is what the OP cares about btw) and also is cheaper
September 3, 2007 1:06:40 AM

Oh yeah, you know how well graphics card work that you dared to compare the G80 core to the G84 core based solely on clock speed... hot diggity damn, you must really be the brightest crayon in the box...
September 3, 2007 1:07:44 AM

ok, ok, let me ask you 1 question, would you prefer an 8800 or an 8600
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!