Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

will 8800gt 256 do or must i have 512mb version?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 15, 2008 5:41:12 PM

after my tax riches come in i've decided to lay my agp setup to rest and go with core2. now i have a viewsonic at 1680x1050 and i mostly play BF:2142 and wanna know which 8800gt version would allow me to max ALL the eye-candy and still get around 60FPS at tha least. will the 256mb get it done or will i need the 512mb version? my price range will be no more than 300bones. can't see myself going past that number for a GPU since i mostly play 1 game at this time!

open to ALL suggestions and thanks for your input!


also, i will salvage my PSU towards the new setup. it's a thermaltake true power 600w. in case ya needed to know!
a c 169 U Graphics card
January 15, 2008 5:55:26 PM

For 1680x1050 i recommend 8800GT 512, it will do the job very good
8800GT 256 is good for resolution lower than 1680x1050 like 1280x1024
January 15, 2008 6:06:22 PM

I would second Maziar....at that res you'll need the extra memory...putting 256MB on the 8800gt is just crippling the GPU you payed good money for...

With 512 you might even be able to pick up some FSAA
Related resources
January 15, 2008 6:09:17 PM

I also agree with Maziar.

If you check out some benchies for the 256MB vs. 512MB GT, you'll see why. The 256MB performs almost on par with the 512MB up to like 1440x900. After that the 256MB card takes a HUGE hit in most game. It'll dip down to 15 FPS or less while the 512MB card is still up in the 50's or 60's.
January 15, 2008 7:08:21 PM

I have an Evga 8800gt Superclocked and run at 12x10. I play Battlefield 2142 almost exclusively. I currently get around 80 frames per second (Pentium D 940, 3.2 Ghz) with everything at max, including AA. I think you would safely get 60 frames at your increased resolution if you used the 512 version. Of course it is more advantageous to turn off the shadows so enemies can't hide!
a c 107 U Graphics card
January 15, 2008 7:10:52 PM

Anybody buying a card with 256 memory is insane at this point in time, especially at the resolution you are playing at. My "gaming" machine only has an 8800 640/320 card and it "falters" a little in Crysis, naturally, perhaps because I like to turn on the goodies or the game doesn't look right. Maybe an 8800gtx would have been better, but I don't pay that much for high end video cards anymore. They become useless in short time and aren't worth the investment.

Battlefield, with it's wide open spaces is going to need all the video memory it can get.

I do own a few 256 cards and they play "quake" based games and similar very well. ( medal/quake/doom/unreal/etc. ) But they are starting to show their age.

Another thing that gets my goat is the 256 memory bus. I have a feeling that will be of no use soon. Can't understand why they did it...... for the sake of money I assume.
January 15, 2008 8:54:37 PM

well it looks like i will def zero in on a 512mb version only. thanks for everyones input! currently i play on a XFX 7900gs agp card and use the 2142 ingame res of 1440x1050 and can only play at meduim w/ 2x AA (except titan mode. no AA on there!)

i only got that card because newegg screwed me (yes THE newegg!) over by sending me the 7900gs when i purchased the 7950gt 512mb version and wouldn't refund me the difference (without voiding warranty) of sending me the lesser card.

was hoping that because it is the 8800gt and i'm only playing 2142 that it wouldn't matter witch version of the card i got.

thanks to you guys for your inputs!
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2008 8:56:49 PM

I think everyone here wants you to buy a card that can take you beyond 2142. If buying just for that game, you may be fine with the 256MB. BUT, take a look at this review and you will see the 256MB often lags way behind the 512MB even at a smaller 1280x1024 resolution. For 16x10 gaming, personally I'd avoid the 256MB 8800GT.
http://en.expreview.com/?p=159
January 16, 2008 2:52:52 AM

wow! thanks pauldh. that's exactly the review i needed to see. hands down it's the 512 version for me!
January 16, 2008 3:21:06 AM

That is the best chart I have seen on the GT, thanks.
a c 169 U Graphics card
January 16, 2008 5:06:26 AM

doubletake33 said:
wow! thanks pauldh. that's exactly the review i needed to see. hands down it's the 512 version for me!

yeah thats a good review
btw,good luck with going with the 512 version
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2008 10:19:48 AM

Glad to help. And here is one more review that shows with fsaa the 256MB GT is often far behind (the 512MB) at 12x10 even, and drops bigtime at high res. Depends on the game, and Oblivion is a bad one for the 256MB GT.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_radeon_hd_...
January 16, 2008 1:09:54 PM

pauldh said:
Glad to help. And here is one more review that shows with fsaa the 256MB GT is often far behind (the 512MB) at 12x10 even, and drops bigtime at high res. Depends on the game, and Oblivion is a bad one for the 256MB GT.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/sapphire_radeon_hd_...



wow! the 256 version on 19:12 aspect didn't even register a FPS at all when everything is turned on and the 512 lead the pack at 36.3 FPS.


what's interesting is that the 512 version slightly beats the 1024 version. what's up with that?
January 16, 2008 1:54:40 PM

512 all the way.
July 27, 2008 2:49:28 PM

I play every game to date on at least highest settings or highest/medium some with AA on (if possible) 1680x1050(even 1920x1080) with a 8800GT 256MB (even crysis). 2142 1680x1050 all high 8xAA plays smooth as... The 512mb would still be best for future-proof, the 256MB is no slacker. I know this post is old but i seen everyone dissing the 256MB card i had to reply.
!