8800GTS vs 8800GTX

[Evilonigiri]

I was just wondering if a highly overclocked 8800GTS can match the performace of the stock 8800GTX. And if it can't, I want to know how high the clock speeds theoretically has to be on a 8800GTS before it can match a stock 8800GTX.

 

[itotallybelieveyou]

a highly oced 8800 gts CAN outperform or level to the 8800 gtx in games. in the 320mb case you have to oc alot and be at a lower resolution let's a 8800 gtx and uber oc 320 gts at 1280x1024 the gts can make up to the gtx in current games. however as gamers approach dx 10 and higher quality texture graphics memory becomes more important. in that case the gts will not match up to the gtx with only the 320mb of memory. in the 640mb case it's basically the same thing BUT it will last longer then the 320 mb version.

 

[Maziar]

take a look @ this 2 xfx cards :

XFX GEFORCE 8800GTS 640 XXX EDITION @ 600/1.9

http://xfxforce.com/web/product/listConfigurationDetails.jspa?series=GeForce%26trade%3B+8800&productConfigurationId=795899

XFX GEFORCE 8800GTX @ 575/1.8

http://xfxforce.com/web/product/listConfigurationDetails.jspa?series=GeForce%26trade%3B+8800&productConfigurationId=731092

The 8800GTS OC MAY beat the 8800GTX non OC in some games , but not all of them , because 8800GTX has more memory bandwidth , more stream processors and also more V-RAM , i was stuck @ this situation too and i ended up buying a 8800gtx and i am not regreting it

 

[Evilonigiri]

Hmm...I was thinking it like this:
Forget about the vram right now, look at the stream processors. 96vs128 right? So let us assume the 8800GTS is clocked at 575. Then 575/96 X 128=767. So this way you need a 767 mhz 8800GTS to match a 575mhz 8800GTX.

I know this isn't right because the core clock is not the stream processor clock speed, however I read somewhere that if you increase the core clock, the stream processor's clock speeds also increases. Also so there is the shader clock, but that becomes to complicated, too many variables...Am I right you guys?

 

[accu]

this might be off-topic, but when ocing which is important? core or memory?

 

[Falken699]

If you want a GTX, just get it. If you plan on having a good time with 20 games over the next 2 years, that works out to the vcard being a small factor in the total entertainment cost.

Let the newer games sink to 30$ before you buy them, so you are always grabbing cheaper titles for fun, then the new stuff like Bioshock hits 30$ and so-on.

The GTX is a sweet card, don't be dissappointed with a GTS if it IS a GTX you want, OCing the card won't make up all those missing stream processors.

 

[spuddyt]

if you get the gts, you can always be glad you didn't get an 8600

 

[rammedstein]

good point spuddyt, wiht video cards, memory usually, umm, and yes, actually overclockign can make up or the stream processors, just like more clock speed can make up for less cache

 

[ethel]

No way can you overclock a GTS to be as powerful as a GTX.

Don't forget you can overclock a GTX as well.

 

[spuddyt]

he said compared to a "stock" gtx (I would make the broad assumption he means not overclocked you know )

 

[Evilonigiri]

Well, actually I had the 8800GTS for awhile now, I was trying to do a comparison to see which is the "better" value. For example, with the 8800GTX having twice the price, it should have twice the performance right? Well since there is a lot of variables, I really don't know. After another 2 hours of thinking I came up with this...

Now lets say the vidcard's price is composed of 5 parts: Stream processors, vram, core clock, memory clock, and the memory interface (not all of them but oh well). Obviously the the stream processors, vram, and memory interface costs the most of the vidcard. So should we say it costs 1/4 for the stream processor 1/4 for the memory interface and 1/4 for the vram? That leaves 1/8 for the core clock and memory clock each.

With that in mind, lets assume $500 for the 8800GTX. So that's $125 for the stream processors, vram, and memory interface each and $62.5 for the core clock and memory clock each.

When comparing the 8800GTS 320mb:
125/128 X 96 = $93.75
125/768 X 320 = $52.08
125/384 X 320 = $104.17
62.5/575 X 500 = $54.35
62.5/900 X 800 = $55.56
Grand Total = $359.91

What this means, if I am right about the costs, is that if the 8800GTX is somehow turned in to a 8800GTS 320mb, but still keep the same pricing (using ratios like I did), then the 8800GTS 320mb will cost $359.91. This obviously means that the 8800GTS 320mb is an almost $100 better deal than the 8800GTX...that is if I'm right.

So, is this valid?

 

[homerdog]

When comparing the 8800GTS 320mb:
125/128 X 96 = $93.75
125/768 X 320 = $52.08
125/384 X 320 = $104.17
62.5/575 X 500 = $54.35
62.5/900 X 800 = $55.56
Grand Total = $359.91

What this means, if I am right about the costs, is that if the 8800GTX is somehow turned in to a 8800GTS 320mb, but still keep the same pricing (using ratios like I did), then the 8800GTS 320mb will cost $359.91. This obviously means that the 8800GTS 320mb is an almost $100 better deal than the 8800GTX...that is if I'm right.

So, is this valid?

You're making some bold assumptions there with regards to the cost of producing a GPU. I doubt that it works out like that in the real world.

Also, consider that all 8800s come from the same production line. After production the lesser quality cores have some of their stream processors and other doodads disabled and they become gts's. The higher quality ones go on to become fully functional gtx's or ultras. The cost to Nvidia for producing the actual GPU (i.e. not including memory buses, PCBs, etc.) is the same. Obviously then the gtx and especially the ultra have higher profit margins than the gts's.

Anyway, despite your whack math, you came to the right conclusion: the gts is a better deal than the gtx.

 

[Evilonigiri]

Anyway, despite your whack math, you came to the right conclusion: the gts is a better deal than the gtx.

Ah...But how much better of a deal is what I am looking for. Maybe it is too complex to calculate huh.

 

[Falken699]

Shop around for that GTX, I think they are only 100-115$ more than the GTS 640, for gaming I do think the GTX is the best value, if your computer doesn't bottleneck it, you have an adequate PSU, and it fits your case.

If I had a brand new PC, with a Quad in it, I'd definately go GTX. I got a GTS 640 because this comp is in it's last upgrade cycle, and it will tide me over till the Octos come out.

What really sucks is when you buy something lesser to save a few bucks, and you are unhappy with it for the 2+ years you are keeping it for the sake of a 100$.

No math can justify a purchase if it is something you don't really want.

I truly believe that the MAJORITY of people on Toms get exactly what they want, and if it was a bit too $$$ they just wait a bit longer to purchase the next system, again, one that is thoroughly researched and exactly what they want. I mean, if you get a system that you want what is the big deal if you use it for 6 extra months because you paid a little bit more for it at the time?

I have an Opteron, a slow one, that is dual core. But I am happier than a pig in poop to use it for a LONG time, because I like an Opteron.

Nothing feels better than when you hand an old computer to a parent or a friend as a "hand me down" that you got TONS of use out of, to say, that computer was ALOT of fun, and it "owes me nothing".

People get to get a whole new platform so rarely now because the technology is stabilizing so much, if you are going to keep something for a few years make sure you love the case, the PSU, the proc., the RAM, the vCard.

This is a hobby btw, economics don't really count

 

[javimars]

depends on your monitor. i have a acer 22" monitor with a evga 8800gts 320, e4300 @3420mghz 2 gigs of gskill running @ 950mghz 4-4-4-10 and i play bf2 and bf2142 at 1680x1050 with af16x and aa4x and everything to max and my fps dont drop below 110 even with 64 players on the map. my gts is oc to 667/1051. i also play'd bioshock at max everything and framerate was amazing. it all depends on your monitor. if you going for a 22" or lower a gtx isnt worth it atm. if you have a 24"+ and want to play at insane res like 25xx x19xx then yes i recommend a gtx.

 

[homerdog]

Ah...But how much better of a deal is what I am looking for. Maybe it is too complex to calculate huh.

It's much easier to just look at benchmarks than it is to analyze the GPU architecture and manufacturing costs. I've seen reviews that take the average framerate of all the games tested and dividing that by the price of the cards to come up with a "bang for your buck" number. The 320MB 8800gts always comes out on top (compared to the more expensive 8800s), but that's usually true for all things computer related; you know, diminishing returns...

edit: added smiley

 

[Ananan]

As I've said before: If knowing that the card you have in your rig is not the fastet, most capable GPU on the planet will gnaw at your brain every time you play a game you shouldn't even consider a 320. It's all about enjoying your gaming time while it happens.

If hardware is not that much of an issue for you as long as it performs well (and you don't game at insane resolutions) the 320 seems up to now be the best deal by far.

 

[Evilonigiri]

I guess...I'll go with what Falken699 said, go with what you want. Cause it is a hobby.

 

[Ananan]

I guess...I'll go with what Falken699 said, go with what you want. Cause it is a hobby.

I guess we have to acknowledge we're talking about two different facets of the same hobby:

1) those who like to build the fastest PCs on the planet and achieve the highest performance and benchmark scores first and foremost; gaming is the secondary priority.

2) those who like to build PCs for the purpose of playing and enjoying games; performance and benchmarking are secondary to game performance.

I'm am most definitely not knocking either goal, but put me squarely in category 2. I may drift into category 1 at some point but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Evilonigiri]

I guess we have to acknowledge we're talking about two different facets of the same hobby:

1) those who like to build the fastest PCs on the planet and achieve the highest performance and benchmark scores first and foremost; gaming is the secondary priority.

2) those who like to build PCs for the purpose of playing and enjoying games; performance and benchmarking are secondary to game performance.

I'm am most definitely not knocking either goal, but put me squarely in category 2. I may drift into category 1 at some point but it hasn't happened yet.

Oh wow. I never thought it like that. I'm in 2, I don't know why anyone would want to spend 10,000+ just for benchmarks...I just hope my 8800GTS will be able to support crysis mostly on high.

 

[lostandwandering]

^Remind me to shoot myself if I ever blow 10K+ on a system. Unless it's a powerful laptop, I don't see the need to go over 2 grand on a computer.

 

[spuddyt]

category 2 for me (which is why I kicked myself for getting the 8600, I don't shiv a git about HD video)