Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8600GT or 8600GTS for 1280x1024 gaming ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 5, 2007 1:32:34 PM

Heyas,

First of all, i'd like to know if eVGA is a good brand for video cards ? The 2 last cards i had was an Alabtron (4200TP or something) and a MSI (6600GT). I was currently looking at Asus since i'm getting a M2N32-SLI (i tought it would be logical to go with Asus all the way mobo + video card). But eVGA is less expensive (10 canadian dollars) and i heard good things about them. Then i've read that the 8600GT wasn't a big upgrade from a 7600GT. People seemed to recommend the 8600GTS instead. Since my Samsung Syncmaster 936BF won't handle anything over 1280x1024 (and frankly, i don't give a sh** about higher resolution) i was wondering if the 8600GTS was worth the 70 extra canadian dollars.

Regards,

trep-
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2007 2:09:20 PM

The GTS would be better. For the money though and 1280x1024 gaming, I'd see if I could find a X1950pro, if you have a PSU that will supply at least 28a on the 12 volt rail.
September 5, 2007 2:12:20 PM

Hmm,

Call me fanboy, but i always had nvidia based card and never had problems with them. So i think i'll stay with nvidia this time again ;) 

trep-
Related resources
September 5, 2007 2:12:27 PM

Recently built a PC with a AMD x2 5600 and a 8600GT that is using a 1280x1024 display and it works great.
First thing i noticed about the 8 series graphics cards is that the video playback is better.
We also have a number of PCs here with different specs and i found the 8600 is be quieter than the older equivelent cards.
So all in all i found the 8600GT a pretty good buy for the money.
September 5, 2007 2:37:42 PM

8600gts is very close in frame rates to the 1950pro. I used to have 1950pro and now 8600gts. They're about same. 8600gts does better in new games while 1950pro will be faster in older titles.

One thing about 8600gts is that it has much better picture quality compared to 1950pro and have more features like 8x and 16xAA. You can usually apply 8x 16x AA on older games and the frame rate doesn't jump too much unless you use 8xQ/16xQ AA.
September 5, 2007 2:52:59 PM

If you can afford a 8600gts witch is around 200$ then a 8800gts isn't that far.
September 5, 2007 3:05:20 PM

trep- said:
Hmm,

Call me fanboy, but i always had nvidia based card and never had problems with them. So i think i'll stay with nvidia this time again ;) 

trep-


dont get us wrong, there is nothing wrong with nvidia cards, the only reason he suggested the X1950 pro was cause its cheaper and the performance is similar to the 8600GTS and better at some games. So depends on ur gaming needs, and which games u play.
September 5, 2007 3:19:24 PM

At the low resolution of 1280x1024, the X1950 PRO wouldn't have as much on the 8600 GTS. The X1950 PRO will really shine when the going get's tough, with higher AA & AF

Regardless: at 1280x1024, the 8600 GT will work, but don't bother with AA or AF.

At 1280x1024, the 8600 GTS will probably provide 4xAA and 8xAF comfortably.
September 5, 2007 3:35:46 PM

That's kindda funny. I've seen AA and AF since the nvidia 4xxx series. Yet every cards i got since the 4xxx release were never able to handle AA and AF. I alway had major FPS drop on both my old 4200Ti and my current 6600GT. I kindda gave up on AA and AF, but if i could enable these features, that could be interesting.

I mainly play WoW and might play some RTS. I'm also a big fan of racing games, but i get these on the 360 instead. I don't play FPS anymore, or maybe a bit of CSS a couple times a year.

I'm currently looking forward into getting the Antec Sonata III to put the new rig in. I've read good reviews regarding the power supply that comes with it, tho, the 12V rail provide only 17A. I think this will be enough to handle either the 8600GT or GTS (if anyone can confirm).

Regards,

trep-
September 5, 2007 3:41:10 PM

17A is pretty low. The 8600 GT would work comfortably, but the GTS might be pushing it a little.
September 5, 2007 3:45:32 PM

... and you can forget about the 1950 idea
September 5, 2007 3:51:44 PM

The X1950 PRO draws a similar load to the 8600 GTS, doesn't it?
September 5, 2007 4:09:33 PM

cleeve said:
17A is pretty low. The 8600 GT would work comfortably, but the GTS might be pushing it a little.


Antec power supplies have 2 12volt rails. Look again. It's 34A.
September 5, 2007 4:10:16 PM

cleeve said:
The X1950 PRO draws a similar load to the 8600 GTS, doesn't it?


Correct. 8600gts is slightly lower.
September 5, 2007 4:13:29 PM

trep- said:
That's kindda funny. I've seen AA and AF since the nvidia 4xxx series. Yet every cards i got since the 4xxx release were never able to handle AA and AF. I alway had major FPS drop on both my old 4200Ti and my current 6600GT. I kindda gave up on AA and AF, but if i could enable these features, that could be interesting.

I mainly play WoW and might play some RTS. I'm also a big fan of racing games, but i get these on the 360 instead. I don't play FPS anymore, or maybe a bit of CSS a couple times a year.

I'm currently looking forward into getting the Antec Sonata III to put the new rig in. I've read good reviews regarding the power supply that comes with it, tho, the 12V rail provide only 17A. I think this will be enough to handle either the 8600GT or GTS (if anyone can confirm).

Regards,

trep-


6600 and ti4200 is pretty underpowered. Video cards today have caught up and can use AA depending on what game. Racing games you could use AA definitely but not 2007 released FPS with a card like 8600gts. You should definitely use AF on all your games because it takes much less of a performance hit than AA while clearing up textures nicely. 8600gts AF is the best I've seen and that includes 1950pro's and take much less performance hit because 8600gts superior texturing abilities.

Personally I play battlefield 2 a lot @ 1440x900 16xAF 8xAA while pertaining 70fps average.
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2007 4:21:13 PM

trep- said:
I'm currently looking forward into getting the Antec Sonata III to put the new rig in. I've read good reviews regarding the power supply that comes with it, tho, the 12V rail provide only 17A. I think this will be enough to handle either the 8600GT or GTS (if anyone can confirm).
Both the 8600GT and 8600GTS call for 22amps from the +12 rails. From the eVga website info
Antec Sonata III has the Antec EarthWatts 500w PSU with TWO 17 amp rails so it will handle even 8800GTX.




September 5, 2007 4:31:57 PM

marvelous211 said:
Antec power supplies have 2 12volt rails. Look again. It's 34A.


Ah, a dedicated 17A rail... I don't think the 8600 GTS or X1950 PRO would have a problem with that.
September 5, 2007 4:56:40 PM

Great,

Sorry about misleading some of you, i learnt about the 12v AMP today hehe

Anyway, glad to hear it would work fine with that power supply !

trep-
September 5, 2007 5:09:01 PM

I use an 8600GT as my secondary card(3 monitors) and it's not a very good gaming card. It's unlikely you'd see much of a gain with the 8600GT aside from maybe Oblivion.
September 5, 2007 6:20:23 PM

A gain compared to what card ?

Right now, i'm running a Athlon XP 2600+ with 1.5gb pc3200 and a 6600GT (AGP). I doubt i won't see any gain from this system to a much more recent system running with a 8600GT.

trep-
September 5, 2007 6:22:03 PM

trep- said:
A gain compared to what card ?

Right now, i'm running a Athlon XP 2600+ with 1.5gb pc3200 and a 6600GT (AGP). I doubt i won't see any gain from this system to a much more recent system running with a 8600GT.

trep-


Probably his other card 8800gtx. :lol:  But honestly everyone here is infatuated with 1950pro's... It's good card but it's a old card with less features than say 8600gts and they perform very similar. Now that 8600gts are falling into radeon 1950pro prices I usually don't recommend it anymore unless it's cheaper by good amount.

Are you upgrading your whole system? Looks like you need it soon.
September 5, 2007 6:40:02 PM

An 8600 GT will show sizable gains over a 6600 GT.

But if you really want to make a huge leap forward, yes, the X1950 PRO or 8600 GTS will do better.

At higher resolutions or with high levels of AA, the X1950 PRO does pull far ahead of the 8600 GTS from what I've seen.
September 5, 2007 6:49:35 PM

Yea, upgrading to new stuff. Since my old board was AGP, i can't really upgrade it anymore.

Right now i was looking at something like this.

Antec Sonata III
Asus M2N32-SLI
AMD X2 5600+
Corsair 2x 1GB PC6400 (XMS2 or something i think)
2x Seagate Barracuda 320gigs (in RAID1)
eVGA 8600GT (or GTS) 256mo DDR3

I think this kind of setup leaves much places for upgrades in the next years and will be reliable !

trep-
September 5, 2007 7:39:42 PM

7900GS are being cleared out, that is the best bang for the buck if you find one around $120 USD or lower after a rebate. It is faster than 8600GT or GTS which really aren't good cards at all, the features they depend on to look good are too slowly implemented to be used in the next generation of games, so they'll have to be disabled and then you're left with less raw GPU muscle and a slower 128bit memory bus than on the 7900 series. DX10 doesn't mean squat if it's not a 8800 series card (from nVidia), too many features would have to be disabled and at that point the 8600 shows it's time has already passed, there is really no good reason why it still costs over $85.
September 5, 2007 7:48:44 PM

trep you should go with core 2 duo. They perform much better than AMD clock for clock. Like E4300 for instance and overclock to 3.0ghz. it's a good bang for your buck.
September 5, 2007 8:17:54 PM

Well,

Again, i've always had AMD CPUs and i gotta say that i enjoy feeding the CPU wars between AMD and Intel by buying a CPU with less market parts ;) 

What you think about the 7900GS idea ?

Prices:

8600GT = 149$
8600GTS = 219$
7900GS = 199$

trep-
September 5, 2007 10:03:11 PM

An amd board is just as good as an intel based one, this is if amd keeps it's promise and the barcelona will be compatible with current boards after a bios update. 219 dollars is pretty expensive for a 8600gts, if i'm not mistaken you can get a 8800gts 320mb for something around 250$.
September 5, 2007 10:07:43 PM

You Fanboi. :D 

7900gs was a good idea last year before these shader intensive games started showing up more and more but now it's just doesn't look attractive unless you get one that overclocks to 7950gt speeds. I would skip it all together. A radeon 1950pro would be better than a 7900gs.
September 5, 2007 10:08:16 PM

he's probably in Canada.
September 6, 2007 12:32:03 PM

Yea, i'm from Canada.

Thanks for all the input, i guess i'll see if i could get a 8600GTS since the GT doesn't seem to be worth it.

trep-
September 6, 2007 1:27:51 PM

Have a look at the following from the sparkle high end range. In most place's it's performance is pretty good and in some case's it's not a great deal more than the standard 8600GT. http://www.calibrestyle.com.tw/main.asp P860
September 6, 2007 1:31:31 PM

Here's a link to a review. http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1132
Not bad at all for the price. Here in Australia, it's a bit dearer than some but cheaper than others but is by far the best performance Iv seen from an 8600GT. :) 
September 6, 2007 2:03:48 PM

martyjs said:
Have a look at the following from the sparkle high end range. In most place's it's performance is pretty good and in some case's it's not a great deal more than the standard 8600GT. http://www.calibrestyle.com.tw/main.asp P860


Nothing more than an overclocked 8600gt. Probably premium price over other 8600gt..

512vram isn't going to help a 8600gt.
September 6, 2007 2:07:57 PM

martyjs said:
Here's a link to a review. http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1132
Not bad at all for the price. Here in Australia, it's a bit dearer than some but cheaper than others but is by far the best performance Iv seen from an 8600GT. :) 


That review seems off too..
September 6, 2007 2:33:19 PM

A 1950Pro or a 7900 series is the better choice. There is no point in buying an 8600GT, GTS, etc.

There seems to be a mindless group that can't see straight on this. 8600GTS can't do the features it supports (over DX9 cards) fast enough to continue using them for even 1 year. Those features will have to be disabled to retain good framerates and once those features are disabled, a 1950Pro or 7900 will STOMP ALL OVER THE PIDDLY 8600 family.

Don't be a fool for benchmarks, see what happens when you compare apples to apples, how fast each card is at the things it is most efficient doing because nobody is going to run a game with all the eyecandy next year when it causes 20FPS instead of 60FPS and that is the real difference here, 8600 is really that much slower beyond those features it can barely do.

There is no good use for an 8600 series card, it was an overpriced orphan the moment it came out and will only make sense if it drops down under $70 once the last-gen 1950 and 7900 cards disappear from the market. Heck, even 7600GT is faster on average once you disable that eyecandy the 8600GTS won't be able to do next year.

Don't ever buy a midrange card and try to comare it on features it can barely do. This doesn't just apply to 8600, it will be true next year and the next, just like it was for the past 10 with AGP cards.
September 6, 2007 2:41:43 PM

trep- said:
Well,

Again, i've always had AMD CPUs and i gotta say that i enjoy feeding the CPU wars between AMD and Intel by buying a CPU with less market parts ;) 

What you think about the 7900GS idea ?

Prices:

8600GT = 149$
8600GTS = 219$
7900GS = 199$

trep-


Those prices are crazy, 7900GS has been around $105 after rebate for the past 2 or 3 months in the US. Is it really the lowest prices you can find or only retail pricing?

Regardless, if you had to pick among these 3, the 7900GS is the best value among them. I've already expressed my reasons why, that the 8600 and it's memory bus simply do not have the muscle to support the DX10 feature set through the next year. That it can do some DX10 slightly faster to play "catch up" and sometimes pass other cards, ignores that once both cards are struggling with DX10 features in game, the last-gen 7900 and 1950 will still be able to run the games good with the eye candy turned down another notch while the 8600 won't.
September 6, 2007 3:11:52 PM

I said:
A 1950Pro or a 7900 series is the better choice. There is no point in buying an 8600GT, GTS, etc.

There seems to be a mindless group that can't see straight on this. 8600GTS can't do the features it supports (over DX9 cards) fast enough to continue using them for even 1 year. Those features will have to be disabled to retain good framerates and once those features are disabled, a 1950Pro or 7900 will STOMP ALL OVER THE PIDDLY 8600 family.

Don't be a fool for benchmarks, see what happens when you compare apples to apples, how fast each card is at the things it is most efficient doing because nobody is going to run a game with all the eyecandy next year when it causes 20FPS instead of 60FPS and that is the real difference here, 8600 is really that much slower beyond those features it can barely do.

There is no good use for an 8600 series card, it was an overpriced orphan the moment it came out and will only make sense if it drops down under $70 once the last-gen 1950 and 7900 cards disappear from the market. Heck, even 7600GT is faster on average once you disable that eyecandy the 8600GTS won't be able to do next year.

Don't ever buy a midrange card and try to comare it on features it can barely do. This doesn't just apply to 8600, it will be true next year and the next, just like it was for the past 10 with AGP cards.


A 7900gs is better for what? Gaming? Maybe 2 years ago. Even in dx9 games 8600gts does quite well and beat out 7900gs in some games and while getting beat in some... Now that shader intensive games are abundant 7900gs are starting to look weak...

A 7900gs can only do 9000 shader Operations/sec. A 1950 pro can do 20700 shader Operations/sec. And the 8600gts can do 46400 shader Operations/sec. In recent shader intensive games a 7900gs are struggling just to keep up with a 8600gt that has only half the memory bandwidth including bioshock even in medium settings.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/bioshock_mainstream...

1950pro has a slight edge because of it's 12 rop vs 8 rop 8600gts and slight memory bandwidth advantage. But 8600gts excels in others like texturing fill rate and shading power that is double of 1950pro. Other than older games and higher resolutions like 1600x1200 with AA which is not really playable with 1950pro either. It doesn't beat 8600gts in too many games if not tied. They are pretty much neck and neck for medium resolutions like 1280x1024 with better picture quality, better aniso, better AA, HTPC...

Prices have come down a lot for 8600gts and is pretty much neck and neck with a 1950pro recently. I think this isn't an issue if you shop around. I have linked to several people here in the forums how to get a 8600gts for $131 before shipping which is right around 1950pro/7900gs prices.

September 6, 2007 3:16:46 PM

I said:
Those prices are crazy, 7900GS has been around $105 after rebate for the past 2 or 3 months in the US. Is it really the lowest prices you can find or only retail pricing?

Regardless, if you had to pick among these 3, the 7900GS is the best value among them. I've already expressed my reasons why, that the 8600 and it's memory bus simply do not have the muscle to support the DX10 feature set through the next year. That it can do some DX10 slightly faster to play "catch up" and sometimes pass other cards, ignores that once both cards are struggling with DX10 features in game, the last-gen 7900 and 1950 will still be able to run the games good with the eye candy turned down another notch while the 8600 won't.


He's in Canada.. I think benchmarks speak for itself. 8600gts vs 7900gs.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/g84-3-page4.h...

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600_gts...
September 6, 2007 3:40:42 PM

Well, from what i've read, it seems like the 7900GS will perform better in older game and but will be slightly lower in newer games. I don't really mind losing 10-15 FPS in quake4 if the FPS are still above 50, i couldn't tell the difference anyway. I'm no hardcore gamer and i got kindda bored of FPS a while ago.

And since i was able to do 1.5 year with my old AGp 8x 6600GT, i guess i'll be able to do another 1.5 year with a 8600GTS. Maybe i won't be able to play in 1280x1024 with everything to high, but that's not my goal. If i wanted to do that, i'd just need to throw in more $$. Plus, i can't find any eVGA 7900GS around, or they're all the same price or above than the 8600GTS. The setp-up program is very interesting so...

Anyway, it's always the same thing when you buy a video card, that's like buying a $8,000 car and expecting it to be like a ferrari. You pay what you get for and i'd rather have the new stuff with average same FPS than older stuff that won't support the new features at all.

My point of view heh

trep-
September 6, 2007 3:49:00 PM

That's not true at all either because even old games 8600gts does pretty good and is neck and neck with 7900gs or 1950pro in medium resolutions.
September 6, 2007 4:57:14 PM

I think i kindda misunderstood the step-up program eVGA offers.

Is the program is good for 90days following the purchase of the product ? Cause if so, i doubt i'll upgrade again in 90days hehe.

trep-
September 6, 2007 6:32:32 PM

Quote:
Hows this new 8700GTS gonna fit in. Is it gonna be superior to the 1950xt? I know its 256bit and the 8600GTS is only 128bit.


It's filling in the gap between 8800gts and 8600gts of course. Superior to 1950xt? I do not have the answer to that yet. :)  But looking at the specs and architecture differences.. YES..
September 6, 2007 6:42:19 PM

Quote:
8700GTS is probably gonna be my new card (have 7600GT).
What kinda amps do I need. I have 36A on my 2 rails.


That's plenty. Enough to power 8800gtx or ultra. :ouch: 
September 19, 2007 5:16:20 AM

I just registered here so I'm not really sure if this is the right thread for this but here goes:

Last week I upgraded my computer with a new mobo (Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus), cpu (Core 2 Duo E6550), ram (2Gt Kingston HyperX 800MHz @4-4-4-12) and 2 Asus 8600GT 512MB silent graphics cards. I haven't overclocked anything. My PSU is an FSP Epsilon FX600-GLN (600W). It has 4 12V rails 15 amps each, so that should be enough, right :)  ? Just a few weeks ago I wasn't even aware of this whole 12V rail fuss, but since I've read this and many other similar threads, and if I understood correctly 4x12V rails at 15A each should make a total of 60 amps or so and that should be plenty for two 8600GT's.

And now to the problem I'm having: Since upgrading in addition to running 3DMark06 a few times I've played only 3 games (BioShock, Civilization 4 and NFS Most Wanted) all with SLI turned on and 2 of them have caused the system (Windows XP SP2) to crash 3 times now. BioShock twice in a few days and Civ 4 once just today on the second time I played it. Both of them weren't in any particularly effect heavy state (e.g. gun/plasmid fight in BioShock) when the crashes occured. That blue screen with the "dumping memory something something" just appered and a counter slowly goes up from 1 and nothing happens, only the button reset works. The text says that "nv4_disp.dll" caused the failure or something. That's the Nvidia display driver, isn't it? So I'm wondering if it's a driver (162.18) issue or if the 8600GT's don't get enought power because Bioshock didn't crash when I played it once for a few hours without SLI. Both GPU temperatures have never exeeded 66 celcius. The CPU temp goes between 30-46 celsius, mobo between 35-48 and the ambient temperature at the top of the case is around 25-30 so I don't think that anything is overheating.
September 19, 2007 6:22:29 AM

matsku84 said:
I just registered here so I'm not really sure if this is the right thread for this but here goes:

Last week I upgraded my computer with a new mobo (Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus), cpu (Core 2 Duo E6550), ram (2Gt Kingston HyperX 800MHz @4-4-4-12) and 2 Asus 8600GT 512MB silent graphics cards. I haven't overclocked anything. My PSU is an FSP Epsilon FX600-GLN (600W). It has 4 12V rails 15 amps each, so that should be enough, right :)  ? Just a few weeks ago I wasn't even aware of this whole 12V rail fuss, but since I've read this and many other similar threads, and if I understood correctly 4x12V rails at 15A each should make a total of 60 amps or so and that should be plenty for two 8600GT's.

And now to the problem I'm having: Since upgrading in addition to running 3DMark06 a few times I've played only 3 games (BioShock, Civilization 4 and NFS Most Wanted) all with SLI turned on and 2 of them have caused the system (Windows XP SP2) to crash 3 times now. BioShock twice in a few days and Civ 4 once just today on the second time I played it. Both of them weren't in any particularly effect heavy state (e.g. gun/plasmid fight in BioShock) when the crashes occured. That blue screen with the "dumping memory something something" just appered and a counter slowly goes up from 1 and nothing happens, only the button reset works. The text says that "nv4_disp.dll" caused the failure or something. That's the Nvidia display driver, isn't it? So I'm wondering if it's a driver (162.18) issue or if the 8600GT's don't get enought power because Bioshock didn't crash when I played it once for a few hours without SLI. Both GPU temperatures have never exeeded 66 celcius. The CPU temp goes between 30-46 celsius, mobo between 35-48 and the ambient temperature at the top of the case is around 25-30 so I don't think that anything is overheating.

44amps, not 60amps (you do not just add them together)
good info on psu's
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=205763

You should still have enough power though. Sounds like a driver issue. Doesn't sli use different drivers? Just asking, I don't know. You may not have sli set-up properly?

http://www.slizone.com/page/slizone_faq.html
September 19, 2007 9:30:41 PM

kpo6969 said:
44amps, not 60amps (you do not just add them together)
good info on psu's
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=205763

You should still have enough power though. Sounds like a driver issue. Doesn't sli use different drivers? Just asking, I don't know. You may not have sli set-up properly?

http://www.slizone.com/page/slizone_faq.html

Ok, thanks for the correction and PSU amp list. That will probably come in handy some day.

I think I have everything set up correctly: Two exactly identical GPU's, a soft SLI bridge connecting them, all the other component's SLI approved, the newest non-beta drivers, SLI selected from the Nvidia Control Panel, enough amps and no overheating. Or am I forgetting something?

According to the FAQ you linked, SLI and non-SLI use the same drivers. Since august 2005 I've had 2 6600GT's and I've always installed the standard newest non-beta ForceWare Windows XP 32bit drivers and everything has worked fine with or without SLI, even while using the same version (162.18) as now with the 8600GT's. But I may have already found out what's causing the problem: Asus PC Probe II. With my previous mobo (Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe) I used the old PC Probe "I" because it was imho much better, but it didn't work on the new mobo (Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus) so I installed the newer one. After my initial post I disabled it while testing another monitoring program and played Civ 4 twice for 4 hours without any problems. When the beforementioned crash ocurred I had played only for a few minutes. So PC Probe II is my primary suspect... or it could all just be a coincidence. Anyway, I'm gonna try some Bioshock with PC Probe II disabled now and hope for the best. Thanks for your help! If I don't post here anymore, it means that the problem was PC Probe II and I'm busy playing Bioshock! :lol: 
!