Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

2900Pro Vs 8800 320 GTS OC

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 10, 2007 12:12:44 PM

I wuold like to have some suggestion about my next buy.
I will need the Video Card mainly to play Lineage II videogame.
The monitor i will buy very soon is

24" TFT Samsung SyncMaster 245B 5ms Wide

The card I'm considering are.

- Sapphire 1024MB 2900Pro GDDR3 PCIe
- XFX 320MB 8800GTS XXX GDDR3 PCIe

That have almost same price

Ty

More about : 2900pro 8800 320 gts

October 10, 2007 12:22:37 PM

I'm guessing that moniter has a 1920x1200 resolution, so the 320mb 8800gts is out on the question as it performs badly at the higher resolutions.

The 1024mb on the 2900pro is probably not needed, as 512mb may suffice and be cheaper. There are few reviews and benchmarks for the 512 version, let alone the 1024mb version, so we dont know if the extra memory will make any difference.

Not familiar with Liniage II, but if its not very graphically intensive then you could get away with almost any card, but I have no idea.
October 10, 2007 12:40:05 PM

That's not a fair comparion. HD2900PRO 512 VS 8800GTS 320 are about the same prices. 2900 is cheaper, but it's sold out at most places. egg included. 8800GTS is a bit faster in most game benchmarks for a higher price. Keep in mind newegg jacked up the 2900pro prices due to demand.

If you get the 8800, at least 640mb gts or gtx. Otherwise, at 1200, some game settings have to be toned down.
Related resources
October 10, 2007 1:33:49 PM

At my store (online).

XFX 320MB 8800GTS XXX DDR3 PCIe - 229 Euro

XFX 640MB 8800GTS DDR3 PCIe 273 Euro

XFX 640MB 8800GTS XXX GDDR3 PCIe 305 Euro

8800GTX - 400 Euro ~

Sapphire 1024MB 2900Pro GDDR3 PCIe 239 Euro


Sapphire 512MB HD2900XT PCIe 286 Euro

But if for hi res (like mine) is needed more ram than i exclude tha 320Mb.
October 10, 2007 1:34:55 PM

The 1024 2900Pro has GDDR4 not GDDR3 RAM.
I would suggest to buy the 512MB version of the 2900Pro. I have one myself and i'm very satisfied
October 10, 2007 4:37:01 PM

Almost all the 2900Pro 1gb ram I have seen are GDDR3 not 4.
Maybe is European "problem"?
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2007 10:12:31 PM

If you like using highest quality settings (AA/AF) the 8800GTS/320 will outperform the 2900Pro at 1920x1200.
From www.hexus.net review










From Guru3D review (Other game reviews there as well)





Both the 2900XT and 2900Pro have issues with AA
From Hexus.net review showing AA and No AA results on the same game.
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory @ 1920x1200 Also shows 2900 OC potential




XFX 320MB 8800GTS XXX DDR3 PCIe - 229 Euro with the factory overclock and warranty seem like the best value IMO.
October 10, 2007 10:37:59 PM

Then why everyone say that the 320mb version have problem with hi resolution?
a b U Graphics card
October 10, 2007 11:01:18 PM

Do they say what "hi resolution" means?

In the Far Cry chart above you can see small differences between 640/320 @ 1920x1200

At 2560x1600 the differences become larger.



THG Video charts lets you compare 320/640 versions of 8800GTS


October 10, 2007 11:32:30 PM

Yes but according to HardOCP, the 320 struggles in World in Conflict at 1600X1200.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM5OSwz...

Quote:
The only video card in this evaluation to have any trouble with World in Conflict is the 320 MB equipped GeForce 8800 GTS. There is no denying it: World in Conflict eats video memory for breakfast. Those of you with 256 MB DirectX 9 era cards who have been holding out for a reason to upgrade may have found it, and those of you with a GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB may have just found your reason to upgrade again.

We've seen this coming for a while now. Increased required memory capacity is a trend that that has not stopped since the first PCs arrived on the scene decades ago. Video cards are no exception. The first 3D accelerators had but a fraction of the 256 MB that was sufficient for most tasks just a year ago. But now, with this game, 320 MB (to say nothing of 256 MB) video cards aren't enough. You will want at least 512 MB of video memory to play this game.

That doesn't mean that those of you with a 512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or ATI Radeon X1950 XTX are in the clear. Not by a long shot. You will need a GPU that can perform at least on par with the GeForce 8800 GTS GPU, coupled with at least 512 MB of memory if you want to enjoy World in Conflict with "Very High" settings. If you want maximum settings, you have two options right now: a GeForce 8800 GTX or a GeForce 8800 Ultra.
October 11, 2007 12:03:34 AM

I don't know about you, but if I get the hd2900pro, I'd o/c it to the max. At stock, the gts is faster in most games except 3dmark which isn't a game.
a c 363 U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 12:19:47 AM

Read the following review comparing nVidia vs. ATI GPUs in DirectX 10 games:

DirectX 10 Shootout: Nvidia vs. ATI

The 8800GTS 320 is capable of matching the ATI 2900XT in a couple of benchmarks and capable of beating it in others.

a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 12:37:36 AM

Evilonigiri said:
Yes but according to HardOCP, the 320 struggles in World in Conflict at 1600X1200.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM5OSwz...

1600x1200 at Very High Image quality yes - at medium image quality not so much. There maybe a GTS driver bug at Very High image quality settings. Its in the 640MB version as well.




The 2900 series is also having some driver issues:
[#000000" face="Verdana" size="2 said:

A warning here about the 2900 XT though (before you get too excited)
there's a bug in the 7.9 Cats drivers we used and we noticed poorer
Texture Quality in certain situations.
[/#000000" face="Verdana" size="2]

][#000000" face="Verdana" size="2]
A warning here about the 2900 XT though (before you get too excited)
there's a bug in the 7.9 Cats drivers we used and we noticed poorer
Texture Quality in certain situations.
[/#000000" face="Verdana" size="2]


OCing a 2900Pro and voiding the warranty? Or buying a factory OCed 8800GTS?
You'll probably see the same 2900Pro/8800GTS scaling of performance as the non-OC'ed versions.

a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 12:48:42 AM

Besides the THG DX 10 review jaguarskx linked here is another review covering the same ground - but also showing the DX 9 performance for comparison. The graphs might seem scary but remember you can back off the quality settings to get better performance, still have great graphics and of course, enjoy the gaming experiance.
Firingsquad.com DirectX 10 Performance Update: Is DX10 Really Worth It?



October 11, 2007 2:05:30 AM

Just a little interjection, I've heard quite a few comments from customers about how the 2900s run quite loud, and how the 8800s run wisper quiet in comparison. I don't know about you, but I put quite a bit of value in a rig that runs quiet with high performance, so I got an 8800 320mb OC, couldn't be happier, can't even hear it running.
October 11, 2007 2:06:14 AM

tukulka said:
I wuold like to have some suggestion about my next buy.
I will need the Video Card mainly to play Lineage II videogame.
The monitor i will buy very soon is

24" TFT Samsung SyncMaster 245B 5ms Wide

The card I'm considering are.

- Sapphire 1024MB 2900Pro GDDR3 PCIe
- XFX 320MB 8800GTS XXX GDDR3 PCIe

That have almost same price

Ty


8000GTS faster or as fast as the 2900XT. 2900XT faster then then 2900Pro.
So the choice between two cards that are not in the same class, get the better one..8800GTS.
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 2:19:28 AM

I don't see how you could even consider the HD2900Pro when the HD2950Pro is coming out November 19th.

The HD2950 Pro will be built on the 55nm process
Will use close half the wattage of the current HD2900Pro
Will have a single slot cooling system
and should be a lot quieter and run cooler.

Stick it out for one more month man. This is really a bad time to buy.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/10/01/...


Also the GeForce 8800GT is coming out also on October 29th. It probably will not be quite as strong at as the HD2950Pro but it may be a better DX10 Budget card:

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&ta...

The 8800GT has an awesome looking heat sink to it also.

a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 2:22:24 AM

Also the Nvidia 8800GT is built on the 65nm process and only uses something like 105 Watts of power which is a pretty impressive power vs performance ratio.

I think the HD2950 Pro only uses 115 or 120 Watts of power, but then again it is projected to be a littlebit stronger of a performer.
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 3:39:50 AM

computertech82 said:
8000GTS faster or as fast as the 2900XT.


What month are you pulling those results from?

Unless the 8000GTS is some mythical beast better than the 8800GTS.

The GTS-320 is more often than not slower than the XT (be it 512 or 1GB), the GTS-640 competes with the XT, and they're more head to head than winner/winner (depends of course on if you run only a few test or enough to truely compare).

Now both have the games/settings they play better, but the GTS-320 (the one being talked about here) is nowhere near what you say it is as an outright winner vs the XT, however the main thing is to check the titles in question because from one to the next the lead will easily swap hands favouring either architecture.

tukulka said:
I wuold like to have some suggestion about my next buy.
I will need the Video Card mainly to play Lineage II videogame.


The main thing is if your focus is LineageII then look for LineageII benchmarks if you can find them (I haven't bothered to look for any, but the usual suspects are kind of Lineage bare for tests). Knowing that your card is awesome in Bioshock or DiRT or World in Conflict or QuakeWars, yet sucks at the games you play is pointless. Neither will give you BAD performance in general, but you should check into which one matches your needs beause one or the other may be a better fit for Lineage and the settings you favour.

I think you should also consider RWayne's comments about upcoming cards, at least the 8800GT which is a few scant weeks away and will affect this segment so much they are dropping the GTS-320, and be sure to consider any issues you may focus on like noise and power consumption (if power is a concern wait for the refreshes IMO).

Also it's pretty irrelevant which card plays a game @ 1920x1200 with 4XAA at 14fps vs 13 fps, both are pretty unplayable and right next to each other in suckitude, so you'd want to find the noAA results that give you playable framerates. Because when it comes to an LCD for me, 16x10 with 4XAA interpolated on a 19x12 LCD usually doesn't look as good as 2x or 0 AA @ native resolution with 40+fps. Don't get confused by the number that seem better, because a 50% win of 6fps over 4fps is still not going to be something you're actually going to use. So be sure to think if these situations are realistic to use or simply good benchmarking results to test hardware limits, but that no one would ever play at. Look at this THG result as part of the review linked to above, according to it the GF8600GTS is obviously the card to buy because @ 1920x1200 with 4XAA it get 9.3fps versus the GF8800GTS-640's 2 fps and the GTS-320's 1 fps :sarcasm: ;



What do results like that tell you about anything? It's almost as consistent at those settings the GF8600GTS-512 outperforms the GF8800GTS-320 by a wide margin when they start to choke, but even the the GF8800GTX is barely playable at those settings , let alone the cards you'd be considering. So while they're good stress tests, they mean nothing if even the top cards become unplayable under those conditions (also see World in Conflict benchies).

I'd say either of your options is fine, but for a long term build expected to last more than a year, I'd be avoiding the GTS-320 and looking to the GTS-640 instead if your tastes gravitate in that direction, especially after the GTS-640 refresh comes out and pushes the 'old' GTS-640 down in price. But the main thing is if others games don't matter to you, then you really should be looking at which game plays Lineage the best, because nothing else really matters.

Unless there's a rush, wait out the end of the month at least, and the ton of benchmarks with the new 8800GT.
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 3:49:23 AM

Re: Great Ape's Comments
Quote:
I think you should also consider RWayne's comments about upcoming cards, at least the 8800GT which is a few scant weeks away and will affect this segment so much they are dropping the GTS-320, and be sure to consider any issues you may focus on like noise and power consumption (if power is a concern wait for the refreshes IMO).
Does Nvidia really have plans to discontinue the 8800GTS and replace it with the 8800GT? I had no idea that they were going to do that. Do you have an links on this? That is amazing. I thought the 8800GT was going to be a card in it's own segment. I did not know it was replacing the 8800GTS.

What are the preliminary benchmark projections for the 8800GT? Is it going to perform at, above or below the level of the current 8800GTS?

This card is being released in two different flavors right? 256MB and 512MB
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 4:43:00 AM

rwayne said:
Does Nvidia really have plans to discontinue the 8800GTS and replace it with the 8800GT? I had no idea that they were going to do that. Do you have an links on this? That is amazing. I thought the 8800GT was going to be a card in it's own segment. I did not know it was replacing the 8800GTS.


It's not so much a direct replacement, but it is a performance value repalcement, and it's something most of us have been talking about for a while. The GTS-320 is expensive to make for a $250 card unless they have enough rejects of their high end parts that they aren't just selling perfectly good G80s as cripples. The GF8800GT allows them to sell a $200 part that costs much less to make per part, and with its speed it'll rival the GTS-320 in performance, and it will be able to add 512MB of memory without competing with the GTS-640 too much, especially if it's revamped with more SPs as rumoured as well. Here's a link among many confirming the commonly held belief that the GTS-320 will be discontinued, but with the more interesting idea that ther'll be a G92 version of the GTS to replace it, either instead of or in addition to the increased SPU model;

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=16367&catid=6

Just like the R9600Pro replacing the R9500Pro, it doesn't require equal performance to be a better replacement for the mfr.

Quote:
What are the preliminary benchmark projections for the 8800GT? Is it going to perform at, above or below the level of the current 8800GTS?


It should perform below the GTS-320 in some situations, and as seen in the results above, it should perform above the GTS-320 in others. It will depend alot on the areas of bottlenecking, be it the speed or the SPUs or the amount of VRAM, speaking of which....

Quote:
This card is being released in two different flavors right? 256MB and 512MB


Yes, initially that's the expectation, but there is also mention of a third option with 1GB of memory, however, nothing has been confirmed on that at all. The availability of GDDR3 and GDDR4 variants is also up for debate. The expectation is that a 256MB and 1GB model would be GDDR3 and the 512MB model would be GDDR3 & GDDR4 for price/performance reasons, the top of the line likely to sport 512MB of GDDR4.
a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 1:06:17 PM

Did you see this? WOW!

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=16388&c...

October 11th, 2007
Quote:
With 3DMark03 and 05 accounted for, scores of Nvidia's upcoming GeForce 8800 GT in 3DMark06 have now went live on the interweb. On a system with an overclocked Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (400MHz x 9), an nForce 650i Ultra motherboard, 2GB of DDR2 memory at 800 MHz with CL5-5-5-15 and the yet to be released ForceWare 167.26 a stock GeForce 8800 GT (512MB version) has managed to return a 3DMark06 score of 12072. What more can you say?

a b U Graphics card
October 11, 2007 1:46:21 PM

I'd rather see the 3DMark06 scores with a stock CPU & stock GPU. No way to be sure how much the 3.6Ghz CPU is influencing the total score.

!