Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800 GT 512Mb verus 8800 Fatality Edition 320 MB

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 30, 2007 2:23:15 PM

What is better?
8800 Fatality 320MB Specs:
Price$320 but 30 dollar rebate so like $299
Video Memory: 320MB

Memory Type: DDR3

Core Clock: 650 MHz

Memory Bus: 320-bit

Memory Clock: 2000 MHz

Shader Clock: 1500 MHz

Stream Processors: 96

Memory Bandwidth: 80GB/sec.

8800 GT 512 Mb Specs:
Price:$299
Memory Type: GDDR3

Core Clock: 600 MHz

Memory Bus: 256-bit

Memory Clock: 1800 MHz

Stream Processors: 112

Memory Bandwidth: 57.6GB/sec.

Can someone let me know what to buy! Ahh!
October 30, 2007 2:32:21 PM

That Fatality is 320-bit?...for the same price-point?

EDIT: Sorry, that wasn't very helpful. Tough choice there... I'll let someone with a little more knowhow advise you on that decision. Either way I'd wait for the ATI3800. If not for the possibility of a greater price-to-performance ratio, then for the likely price-drop of 8800GT cards.

Right, I need more coffee. Ignore what I said. For whatever reason I assumed that the fatality was one of the new GT's.
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b } Memory
October 30, 2007 2:36:37 PM

8800GT
October 30, 2007 2:38:47 PM

based on specs the 8800 Fatality looks better...
Can anyone show me why I should buy the GT over the fatality?
October 30, 2007 2:44:38 PM

Read the Reviews on the 8800GT.

There are on Toms and every other major website.
You should be able to find the 8800GT for much less than $299.
October 30, 2007 2:51:00 PM

::sighs::..People..the fatality name is just utter marketing. It's complete garbage. I can't believe people really fall for this crap. All you gotta do is read some reviews. There are TONS of 8800 GT reviews floating around right now which show the same exact thing..The 8800 GT is a better solution then the 320 and 640 8800 GTS. It is even capable of besting the 8800 GTX in a select few benchmarks...meanwhile staying on the GTX's heels if it doesn't surpass it.

No offense man..But there are TONs of threads regarding the 8800..Just give it a read and you'll have your answer..There isn't really any need to create more threads regarding the same issue...

8800 GT > 320/640 8800 GTS

October 30, 2007 3:02:28 PM

The GT is better, I feel silly now for having two 8800GTS 320's in SLI.
Poor me.
October 30, 2007 3:06:15 PM

bornking said:
The GT is better, I feel silly now for having two 8800GTS 320's in SLI.
Poor me.


You cal alway give me em if don't like em anymore... :D 
October 30, 2007 3:38:09 PM

the 8800gt performs close to the gtx..... you do the math
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b } Memory
October 30, 2007 3:39:30 PM

8800GTS FATAL1TY is an OC'd 8800GTS 320 , and as kamrooz said : 8800GT>8800GTS 640 > 8800GTS 320
October 30, 2007 3:40:06 PM

Kamrooz said:
::sighs::..People..the fatality name is just utter marketing. It's complete garbage. I can't believe people really fall for this crap. All you gotta do is read some reviews. There are TONS of 8800 GT reviews floating around right now which show the same exact thing..The 8800 GT is a better solution then the 320 and 640 8800 GTS. It is even capable of besting the 8800 GTX in a select few benchmarks...meanwhile staying on the GTX's heels if it doesn't surpass it.

No offense man..But there are TONs of threads regarding the 8800..Just give it a read and you'll have your answer..There isn't really any need to create more threads regarding the same issue...

8800 GT > 320/640 8800 GTS



Listen, first of all the reviews were pitted against a vanilla 8800GTS 320. If you compare the specs of the generic 320 vs the Fatality 320 you will see dramatic differences everywhere. So much so that if you were to match them up I guarantee the Fatality 320 will match the 8800GT. Look...

generic 320:
Core: 500 mhz
Shader: 1200 mhz
Memory: 800mhz x 2

Fatality 320:
Core: 650 mhz
Shader: 1620 mhz
Memory: 1000 mhz x 2

Like I said, let the reviewers pit the Fatality against the 8800GT and let's see where those charts end up. I bet the Fatality matches or beats the 8800GT...plus the 8800GTS is 320 bit, not 256 bit like the 8800GT.
October 30, 2007 3:41:25 PM

GT is better spend $300 and get an overclocked edition close to 700mhz, should perform on par with the basic model GTX....
October 30, 2007 4:47:37 PM

buying the fatality will make you look like a tool.. go with the GT!
October 30, 2007 4:56:46 PM

twinspar said:
Listen, first of all the reviews were pitted against a vanilla 8800GTS 320. If you compare the specs of the generic 320 vs the Fatality 320 you will see dramatic differences everywhere. So much so that if you were to match them up I guarantee the Fatality 320 will match the 8800GT. Look...

generic 320:
Core: 500 mhz
Shader: 1200 mhz
Memory: 800mhz x 2

Fatality 320:
Core: 650 mhz
Shader: 1620 mhz
Memory: 1000 mhz x 2

Like I said, let the reviewers pit the Fatality against the 8800GT and let's see where those charts end up. I bet the Fatality matches or beats the 8800GT...plus the 8800GTS is 320 bit, not 256 bit like the 8800GT.



And you are basing your info on the vanilla 8800gt... as was mentioned here earlier. The overclocked 8800gt can surpass even the Vanilla 8800gtx in certain applications/benchmarks.
What looks promising are price drops in the GTS line due to the 8800gt and the gt price drop once supply catches up with demand. Win win in my book! :) 
But I plan on waiting till I see what ATI has cooked up, since I'm in no hurry to purchase a card at the moment.
October 30, 2007 5:25:53 PM

Johnathan Wendel is sham and a charlatan. The fatality brand is nothing more than a bunch of marketing bull$#!t to confuse those who know nothing about gaming or computer building. You get an overpriced piece of crap that is no where near worth the price premium over the normal part. At best, fatality is middle of the pack. At the worst, you pay for branding and stickers on a part that you could have 'overclocked' better than what was passed off as 'ub3r 1337 h4xorz'

in sum: eff Fatal1ty and eff Johnathan Wendel for being a sell-out and ruining people who come into this area thinking they are getting the best from the best...someone who is a washed up has-bin that feels the need to whore himself out instead of being a man and getting a job.
October 30, 2007 8:49:14 PM

Well, i do not understand how specs show higher but somehow the other card is better?
I feel you guys are hating on the card because it has some dude on it..

Someone show me in the specs how the 8800 GT super overclocked is better?
October 30, 2007 10:12:33 PM

8800GT. Everyone has basically said everything there is to say. Of note, you don't have all of the specs listed in your GT vs Fatality GTS and in some of those areas the GT really is superior.

GTS shader performance (1500MHz)(96 shaders)=144000
GT shader performance (1500MHz)(112 shaders)=168000 (16.7% faster)
GT has more texture memory for newer games with more textures.
Read p2 of the Toms review.

Also the GT has some OC headroom whereas the Fatality GTS probably has little or none left. This is kind of like my overclocked (470/1100 vs 400/1000) 7800GT vs a 7900GS (450/1300). My 7800GT is almost exactly a stock 7900GS but the GS has plenty of OC headroom and will easily outperform my card when you OC it.
You came to us for advice and we're giving it to you. If you don't want to believe us that's up to you.

-mcg
October 30, 2007 10:27:51 PM

The GT beats the fatality for one simple reason, number of SP's.
October 30, 2007 10:35:23 PM

twinspar said:
Listen, first of all the reviews were pitted against a vanilla 8800GTS 320. If you compare the specs of the generic 320 vs the Fatality 320 you will see dramatic differences everywhere. So much so that if you were to match them up I guarantee the Fatality 320 will match the 8800GT. Look...

generic 320:
Core: 500 mhz
Shader: 1200 mhz
Memory: 800mhz x 2

Fatality 320:
Core: 650 mhz
Shader: 1620 mhz
Memory: 1000 mhz x 2

Like I said, let the reviewers pit the Fatality against the 8800GT and let's see where those charts end up. I bet the Fatality matches or beats the 8800GT...plus the 8800GTS is 320 bit, not 256 bit like the 8800GT.


The fact that you're disregarding the other aspects of graphics card spec gives you a big old ignore from me. There are many more aspects then just clock speed and bit interface....I really don't even know why I'm replying to this to begin with. Everyone else already stated the obvious. But if you purchased a Fatality product, while posting this nonsense in order to defend the validity of your purchase...I'd just have to say sorry to that bud. Fatality branded products are lemons...They are just overclocked versions of the same hardware. I'd rather buy the stock version and overclock myself. It comes out cheaper and I'll be able to pass the Fatality clocks...Overall..Fatality brand = Garbage...A waste of money for a flashy sticker/heatsink.
October 30, 2007 10:38:44 PM

SirCrono said:
The GT beats the fatality for one simple reason, number of SP's.

And that would be the reason why I am buying a 8800GT. That is when there back in stock.
October 30, 2007 10:44:38 PM

Maziar said:
8800GT


No 8800GT 512MB, the 8800GTS 320MB is slower in Crysis than the 8800GT and the 8800GT is almost a fast as the 8800GTX.
October 30, 2007 10:46:34 PM

Umm not to defend twinspar, but those Fatal1ty clocks are pretty extreme to say the least, the reason this purchase wouldn't be so bad is if there wasn't an 8800GT in question, but if that was the case then the Fatal1ty crap would just go back to it's regular price of like $350-60 or something retarded along those lines. If there was no possible way (Or extremely difficult) you could get an 8800GT and you come to me asking if the clocked 650/1505/1000 Fatal1ty GTS 320 was worth your $300 then I'd most likely say yes, it should match pretty well a GTX as long as memory doesn't become an issue.

HOWEVER, the reality is that even though we are right now seeing a massive demand for the 8800GT, you can still get one for about $270 which will perform slightly slower than the Fatal1ty GTS, BUT it will still have some OC headroom. (In my eyes the Fatal1ty GTS is at it's limit, maybe a little more can be done on the shaders, but after all it's still using a G80 core and 650 on the core is a phenomenal OC I think.)
October 30, 2007 10:47:43 PM

SirCrono said:
The GT beats the fatality for one simple reason, number of SP's.


And its 65nm die, hello.
October 31, 2007 4:06:53 AM

65nm on its own won't do a whole lot unless clocks are increased or changes are made to the die architecture.

-mcg
October 31, 2007 4:29:54 AM

get the eVGA 8800GT SSC. Core: 700MHz
Memory: 2000 Mhz
Shaders: 1750MHz
October 31, 2007 10:49:43 AM

The guys at www.overclock3d.net got the Fatal1ty 701MHz core and 2150MHz memory

So the fatal1ty would beat some of the 8800 GT cards but probably not the OC versions
October 31, 2007 2:46:03 PM

DMalak said:
The guys at www.overclock3d.net got the Fatal1ty 701MHz core and 2150MHz memory

So the fatal1ty would beat some of the 8800 GT cards but probably not the OC versions


No NO, the G92 is a hole new chip, plus it has 754 million transistors instead of only 681 million. You clearly haven't seen any of the 8800GT reviews, the 320MB of on-board Vram is the big handy cap compared to the 8800GT's 512MB frame buffer. Frame rates drop alot when at 1650x1050 with only 320MB
a b U Graphics card
October 31, 2007 8:12:50 PM

systemlord said:
No NO, the G92 is a hole new chip, plus it has 754 million transistors instead of only 681 million. You clearly haven't seen any of the 8800GT reviews, the 320MB of on-board Vram is the big handy cap compared to the 8800GT's 512MB frame buffer. Frame rates drop alot when at 1650x1050 with only 320MB

Actually, I think he has seen the reviews but you may need to look at some 8800GTS fatality reviews. The card isn't far behind the 8800GTX either. I still would say a stock 8800GT is probably a bit faster (an OC'ed one even more ahead) and both would lag behind the 8800GTX when res and eye candy get cranked (probably hurt the 320MB GTS first), but really the fatality 8800GTS is alot better than some of you guys may think. It's so far above any of the other 320MB GTS's.


As an example, look how well it does against an OC'ed GTX in this review. It falls behind at the highest res with fsaa, but really so does the 8800GT.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1166&pageID=3948


October 31, 2007 8:44:15 PM

The only thing hurting the Fatality is the small 320MB of Vram.
October 31, 2007 9:11:58 PM

How come evry1s got it in for poor Wendel?? He's one of the most talented fps players in the world and has allowed other gamers to realise that there IS serious money in gaming ( a bit like Fischer proved to the world that Professional chess gamers DESERVE decent payback!) and that it IS a professional job (I noticed someone say - he shoild get a job) I'm pretty damn sure he works harder than a lot of us at his chosen art. It's certainly not a bad thing when gaming as a profession starts being taken more seriously - and sponsoring is all part and parcel my friends.. Christ I respect the guy .. Ok he's got far tooo much money, probably tons of hot babes and a cheeeeesy grin.. But I don't think we can knock him for selling his name. (honestly now - wouldn't you????)(I'm getting off the soapbox now..)
Rubber Rod..
October 31, 2007 9:31:51 PM

fatality, those clock rates are fricking off the charts, core for ultras isnt even that high unless you consider the leviathan, but get the GT if you can find it cheaper. the only reason GT can beat the GTS is because of its insanely higher stock clock, 600/500 and 1800/1600, the SP's are balanced mostly by the 256 bit bus, compared to GTS's 320-bit
October 31, 2007 11:59:27 PM

starcraftfanatic said:
fatality, those clock rates are fricking off the charts, core for ultras isnt even that high unless you consider the leviathan, but get the GT if you can find it cheaper. the only reason GT can beat the GTS is because of its insanely higher stock clock, 600/500 and 1800/1600, the SP's are balanced mostly by the 256 bit bus, compared to GTS's 320-bit


It has to do more than just clock speeds, 754 milion transistors compared to 681m. I can think of many things that make the 8800GT better, VP2 integreated into the GPU.
November 1, 2007 1:39:32 AM

my evga 8800gts 320m is clocked at 667/1050(was stable 694/1080 but i got freaking scared!)and i run everything at 1680x with max everything UNTILL CRYSIS....yup crysis ruined me.. i have to set res at g@y 1280x and aax2 in order to get a steady 25fps with very high settings on xp(changed most of my .cfg files).. yeah i hate my life do to this and i cant wait for the 9800 to come out.btw bf2 aax8 afx16 highest setting and res of 1680x my fps dont drop below 130 and max i seen was 250....because of crysis and my lack of vram i havent bought a 24" monitor. GOOD JOB CRYTEK..J/k.
my 2 cents.
November 3, 2007 2:01:33 PM

systemlord said:
It has to do more than just clock speeds, 754 milion transistors compared to 681m. I can think of many things that make the 8800GT better, VP2 integreated into the GPU.

Can you explain some then? The # of transistors logic says that the GT should beat the GTX, or did I readthat wrong?
November 3, 2007 2:41:02 PM

Look at the link zenmaster posted. 320mb of vram is ****. you should have atleast 512mb. get a 8800GT from evga and be happy that you dont have a **** card like a lot of people do.
November 3, 2007 3:18:10 PM

starcraftfanatic said:
Can you explain some then? The # of transistors logic says that the GT should beat the GTX, or did I readthat wrong?


Your logic is false. The increase of transistors (754 million) is an advantage for the 8800GT's only having 112 stream processers instead of 128 in the GTX. In short the extra transistor count of the 8800GT well then makes up for the missing 12 stream processers in G92. Also the updated VP2 in the GT is intergrated into the GPU where in the GTX's VP1 is not intergrated.

I tried to warn people that the 8800 GTS 320MB wasen't enough on board memory for future games, but when I told them this they said, "320MB is good enough for now. Now I ask all those people, "is it enough now."
November 3, 2007 4:36:19 PM

320mb ov V-ram is good for people with >22" monitors. my video card is 320mb and i run everything on native res which is 1680x1050, i just dont do 8xaa but i do 4x aa and everything runs well above 50fps(except crysis which i get 30 fps on veryhigh settings) Gts 640, GT and GTX(or any of those in sli) is for higher res like 1900x+(1080p HD)and higher AAx.
November 3, 2007 5:28:01 PM

This thread is starting to scare me. What is the argument?

8800gt is better than any 8800gts. It would make absolutely no sense to pay MORE for a slower card with less VRAM unless you REALLY like John Wendel :lol: 
November 3, 2007 6:29:48 PM

javimars said:
Gts 640, GT and GTX(or any of those in sli) is for higher res like 1900x+(1080p HD)and higher AAx.


Is that your opinion or is that a fact? The 8800 GTS/GT are midrange graphics cards, therefore a 20-22 inch LCD is also considered a midsize LCD. 320MB of on-board Vram isn't enough for any size monitor, because in game like graw 1 & 2/Crysis at say 17 inch LCD your still locked out of high texture quality cause those setting require a min. of 512MB. Don't confuse texture quality with screen size. :) 

So if I had a 17 inch LCD and wanted to play graw and set the texture quality to high it wouldn't work, the game engine locks you out of high Q. The 8800 GTS 320 is being retired now because it just won't make it with games like Crysis, Crysis is a memory pig as will other DX10 game will be. The 8800GT will take its place, then in December the new 8800 GTS (G92 based) unknown Vram size will take the place of the 8800 GTS 640. ;) 

Even with my 8800 GTX I will have problems running Crysis @ 1680x1050 with settings to high, I'll be playing it @ 1280x1024 to gain more fps.


a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2007 7:15:25 PM

homerdog said:
This thread is starting to scare me. What is the argument?

8800gt is better than any 8800gts. It would make absolutely no sense to pay MORE for a slower card with less VRAM unless you REALLY like John Wendel :lol: 


While I agree with you a cheaper 8800GT is a much better buy, it's not for certain it is a slower card. Probably is a slower card, but still I'm betting very close. it would be nice to see them and the new 112 SP GTS SSC go head to head in a thorough review. If the 8800GT didn't exist, the fatality GTS would have been a killer card for the money. But yeah, It came out to late and becomes a pretty obsolete option once the cheaper 8800GT is available..
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2007 7:20:38 PM

systemlord said:
...then in December the new 8800 GTS (G92 based) unknown Vram size will take the place of the 8800 GTS 640. ;) 


VRAM size is not unknown, NV slipped up and had the 8800GTS 512MB listed on their site. There will be a 512MB 8800GTS, but it's possible there could be a 1GB version also.
November 3, 2007 8:00:01 PM

pauldh said:
VRAM size is not unknown, NV slipped up and had the 8800GTS 512MB listed on their site. There will be a 512MB 8800GTS, but it's possible there could be a 1GB version also.


I just read about that, wonder if it was a controlled slip-up. Nvidia you slick...
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2007 8:04:11 PM

Who knows, but in this case I doubt it as they removed it very quickly once it hit fudzilla.

One thing I know is if it's a dual slot GTS style cooler, and it's faster than the 8800GT, I WANT ONE. ;) 
November 3, 2007 8:53:17 PM

Well all I have to say is stick to newer tech, they're usually cheaper, faster, and more efficient than the previous gen. That being said, the 8800GTS Fatal1y has some insane clock speeds, no one can clock a stock 8800GTS 320mb to those speeds with out a v-mod. Furthermore, the Fatal1y has been proven to reach clock speeds of 700mhz core, which is totally off the chart. Imo, the 8800GTS looks better because of it's hefty, tough looking heatsink. The 8800GT looks weak.

My belief is that the Fatal1y, overclocked to the 700mhz speeds, can take on the 8800GT and the 8800GTX on small res like 1280X1024. But of course you could also overclock the 8800GT to like 700mhz or so, which should take on the Ultra.

If the Fatal1y was cheaper, like ~270, I'd go with it just because it looks better than the 8800GT, but since they're the same price, the 8800GT wins hands down.
November 3, 2007 10:36:49 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Well all I have to say is stick to newer tech, they're usually cheaper, faster, and more efficient than the previous gen. That being said, the 8800GTS Fatal1y has some insane clock speeds, no one can clock a stock 8800GTS 320mb to those speeds with out a v-mod. Furthermore, the Fatal1y has been proven to reach clock speeds of 700mhz core, which is totally off the chart. Imo, the 8800GTS looks better because of it's hefty, tough looking heatsink. The 8800GT looks weak.

My belief is that the Fatal1y, overclocked to the 700mhz speeds, can take on the 8800GT and the 8800GTX on small res like 1280X1024. But of course you could also overclock the 8800GT to like 700mhz or so, which should take on the Ultra.

If the Fatal1y was cheaper, like ~270, I'd go with it just because it looks better than the 8800GT, but since they're the same price, the 8800GT wins hands down.


You think that because it looks weak (8800GT) that its less than the GTS, the 8800GT (G92) is built on .65 nano metters and the old GTS (G80) is built on 90nm. This shink in die allows for less heat & power, almost always OC's better. You also seem to forget that the GTS only has 320MB on-board Vram, which no matter what size screen you have (be it 17 inch) a lot of games will lock you out of being able to select "high quality" textures ie. graw 1 & 2/Crysis.

Don't confuse texture resolution with screen size, cause there not the same thing. If you want looks and the hefty look and a weaker card go for the GTS 320MB, but if you want 8800 GTX class performance go 8800GT.
November 3, 2007 11:03:35 PM

Man, those marketing gurus really known how to work their magic! I'm still rather shocked the question was even asked in the first place... the answer just seemed that obvious. If the "Fatality" (however it is spelled) label hadn't been slapped on that GTS 320, I bet the OP wouldn't even be asking his question in the first place.
November 3, 2007 11:33:18 PM

8800GT will beat a factory overclocked GTS period. Don't look at specs, they don't match up, you're comparing apples to oranges. Look at benchmarks.
!