8600 GTS Should I go for more memory or faster clock?

[NuclearShadow]

I'm considering getting the 8600 GTS instead of the 8800 GTS to save a little money. Since they are both DX10 and it will save me a considerable amount of money plus it seems to be decent on gaming on the benchmarks.

Anyways I'm now debating if I should get the EVGA 256MB version with a higher clock speed OR the EVGA 512MB which of course has more memory. What do you think?

 

[emp]

Neither... get the X1900GT (As fast as the 8600GTS) for $90 for around the same performance or get the 8800GTS/HD 2900 Pro (Which are definitely worth it for the performance you get).

 

[dashbarron]

The 8800 will give a nice performance boost over the 8600. The reason why I say this, the 8800 is 320-Bit interface. A 512MB 8600 GTS 128-bit would be made a mockery by a 320MB 8800 GTS 128-bit. That extra bandwidth, almost three times as much, really is what helps move the data so the card can perform. It looks like there is about a $100 gap between the two cards, give or take. If you have the $100 extra to spend, but just was unsure if it was worth it, I'd defintely say it is worth it, and spend the extra money for the 8800GTS. Between a 640MB and a 320MB GTS, as long as you don't play at "high" resolution (beyond 1280x1024), you shouldn't need the extra video memory, or to spend the extra cash.


But, if you choose the 8600 and make me sad, then I'd say go with the EVGA 256MB. I haven't looked at the card you're speaking of, but if its a question of higher clock vs more memory, I'd say more clock, unless again, you're going to be playing at higher resolutions.

But if you're debating about more money...I'd really invest in the 8800GTS 320MB card for around $300.

Hoped this help

 

[emp]

It's not all about the 320-bit interface either, the 8800GTS has the G80 core, while the 8600GTS uses the crappy G84 core, which kind of reminds me of a guy walking with crotches, he's definitely trying, but he's not quite there yet (No offense to anyone...).

 

[NuclearShadow]

Emp: You may be correct about the performance difference, however, I was looking for a DX10 card that was cheaper, not a DX9 card. But I do appreciate your input.

Dash: I guess you have a pretty good point, but I don't play at very high resolutions, so would such a powerful card be needed? As long as I get good FPS and am able to put graphics on high settings, then I'm good. Would I need the 8800GTS to do that with the DX10 games??

 

[bwdsmart]

if you want high settings on dx10 its 8800 for sure, i dont think the 8600will do very well in games like crysis. id recomend the 2900 pro if you could fine one, 20$ cheaper then the 8800 and can be easily oc'd to beat the 320 and be competitive with the GTX. you could also wait till november for nvidias new mid range g92 and g98 i believe the second one is, the 8700 and 8800gt single slot solution. best of luck to you m8.

 

[emp]

To put high settings you won't be able to use the 8600GTS, at least not to keep a fluid experience on the latest games. Also the 8600 is only DX10 on paper, because it doesn't have the raw power for driving any DX10 content properly (You'll basically get a slideshow out of it).

 

[NuclearShadow]

The problem is my wife and I are going crazy without a gaming pc, so we don't wish to wait much longer... I guess we'll just have to find a way to budget in the 8800 GTS...

 

[jaguarskx]

If you can wait just a little longer (the end of October) the 8800GT will be released by nVidia. More powerful than the 8600GTS (well, at least until proven by benchmarks) but less expensive than the 8800GTS.

 

[maverick7]

get a 8800gts do not consider the 8600...the difference is more than massive.. if you wont go for the 8800gts go for the 1900xt or xtx.. even though its not dx10 it is faster and cheaper than the 8600

If you want to play crysis with a 8600 you will most certainly have to play on low/medium.. assuming the rest of your pc is good... the 8800gts should get high settings not ultra though for Crysis

 

[NuclearShadow]

So... both the 8800 GTS and the 2900 PRO seem to be good, they are both the same price (after the 8800 GTS's MIR), so it's hard to decide on which one to get! bwdsmart said that the 2900 PRO is a good over clocker... how good is the 8800 GTS at over clocking? or does it even really matter at this time?

 

[maverick7]

well to be quite honest i have not seen solid benchmarks where i am able to compare the two. So it is really a toss up as to which you want to go with currently at least. If you wait however you might get a chance to see some very valuable bench marks

 

[emp]

The GTS is a good overclocker too, I can get mine from 500/800 to 650/950 on stock cooling stable (My case temp is pretty warm, about 32-35C). To decide between a GTS 320 and a Pro there are a few things each individual has to consider, because it isn't so simple. First of all, how important is AA to you? (i.e. do you use it a lot, or you don't even care about the jaggies), how big is your PSU and how much do you care about power consumption, and last how big is your display.

The HD 2900 Pro consumes about as much as a GTX (The GTS consumes about 70% of that give or take), when AA is turned on the GTS is more often than not the clear winner (The Pro usually remains at playable framerates though), but when AA is off it's not so clear, sometimes having the GTS lose to the Pro and sometimes the GTS beating the Pro depending on the game engine. And finally, if you have a big display then you might be better off with the bigger memory on the Pro. (However If it's 1920x1200 or bigger I usually recommend SLI GTX or Xfire XTs for a fluid experience)

 

[lunyone]

Short and sweet:
Buying now? 2900 pro 512mb/8800gts
Waiting 2 weeks or so? Maybe 8800gt/or even 2950pro (if it comes out soon)

 

[dashbarron]

If you and your wife want more of a gaming machine, I think it would prove to your advantage to buy the 8800GTS for a bit extra cash. If a 8800GT is going to be released, and it will be more then the current 8600, it can't be too far from the 8800GTS price tag, it would probably be worth it to spend the extra cash.

Seems everyone has the same idea. The 8800GTS is a pretty sound card, one of the top on the market, for a moderate $300ish, which to at least me, seems reasonable (compared to a $550-700 for top-of-the-line).

I've always liked ATI, but they're slacking lately. It seems ATI's last bout of cards just have more hang-ups and freezings/crashing then the current Nvidia, though it depends on settings and game of course I'm sure.

I wasn't aware of how far the 8800GTS could be overclocked either, and I'd like to try that myself. Not to keep plugging it, but it sounds like a good choice to me.

 

[NuclearShadow]

Thanks guys, I'm pretty sure we'll be going with the 8800GTS, that way I could turn on AA and still have the card rock!

 

[dashbarron]

Bravo!