8400 GS SLI vs. 8800 GT

[rehtwol]

Ok, I'm having a little trouble choosing a system here, I have the choice between 2 8400 GSs in SLI configuration, and an 8800 GT. I'm just wondering what the difference between them will be in the end.

As far as I understand it, the 8800 is a better choice no matter what (I may be wrong), but then how far will the 8400s hold up?

 

[lostandwandering]

The single 8800GT will KILL the 8400GS SLI set-up. The 8400's aren't really meant for gaming and will not hold up well in games out now or in the future.

 

[smokedyou911]

As said above, 8400gs are not made for gaming. I dislike sli, too. 8800gt is a much better choice. If you can wait and want to save some money but get lower performance for around $180 the upcoming 9600gt might be a good choice.

 

[rehtwol]

Oh and another question! I'm looking around since, well it seems that the 8400's aren't a good choice... and I've found some interesting prices, now my question is, how big of a difference does the memory make?

Is 1GB DDR2 better or worse than 256MB DDR3? Is size, or speed (DDR2/DDR3) the most important?

 

[zenmaster]

Memory Speed is very important.
Do not get a DDR2 Graphics card that will be used for gaming.

Do not consider anything less than 8600GT for gaming in the 8xxx series.

Even the 8600GT will be very weak for gaming.

 

[rehtwol]

Weak how? Will a 8600 GT with 256MB DDR3 not be sufficient for current games?

If so, what should be the minimum for decent look in modern games?

 

[timaahhh]

There is no question even SLI 8600 won't take down an 8800. Plus to get real benifit from SLi a game has to be somewhat optimized for it. It increases the chance of hardware failure.

Memory is important but really event the slowest 8800 memory is gonna be fast enough to run any game out. GDDR3 or better is what you want. Size is more a factor of resolution. 256 to 512 will be good for most games at middle resolution 1280x720 and even 1280x1024 if you are wanting larger resolutions, 1600x1200+ you should prolly invest in cards with 512 to 1 gig.

 

[IndigoMoss]

The lowest I think you should spend on a GPU solution is $159, the price of the 2900Pro. If you are in a really low budget, the only sub $150 card I'd get is the 2900GT. The 8600GT doesn't stand a chance against the 2900GT, and it's only about $15 dollars less.

$115-125 get the 2900GT
$159-180 get either the 2900Pro or the 3850, depending on your PSU
$220-250 get either the 8800GT or the 3870.

Check out my other forum post for a good price on the GT. http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/247956-33-guys-later-round

 

[cleeve]

Depends on the resolution and detail/image quality options.

At 1280x1024, a 2600 XT or 8600 GT DDR3 will provide good performance in pretty much all games with medium/high detail, no AA enabled. (except maybe crysis)

If you want to run 1600x1200 with some AA, yes, you'll be needing a powerful card - at least a 2900 PRO, Radeon 3850, 8800 GT 256mb, or the upcoming 9600 GT.

Stay away from dual card SLI or crossfire. Not good performance for the money, a high end single card is almost always faster, and is always more consistant.

 

[rehtwol]

So... in order:

-Radion 3850
-Radion 3870 (I guess)
-GeForce 8800 (any variety?)

Worst to best... I think (am I right?)

 

[chedrz]

Yes, you're right there. Really, those are the only three cards anybody should consider getting. The only thing you have to watch for is the 8800GT with 256MB RAM. It falls in between the 3850 and 3870 for the most part.

So basically, it looks like this:

3850
8800GT 256MB
3870
8800GT 512MB

 

[Evilonigiri]

Simply put, the only cards worth considering are (from cheap to expensive):

3850 256MB
3850 512MB
8800GT 256MB
3870 512MB
8800GT 512MB

and perhaps the 8800GTS 512MB if you have the money.

 

[rehtwol]

Anyone got benchmark prices for those?

The 8800GT 512MB linked earlier in the thread is $225ish...

 

[eagles453809]

i have an 8800gts 320 on ebay for 175...just upgraded to a gt. very happy.

 

[paq7512]

I did not think this thread was real.

 

[eagles453809]

i know lol

 

[cleeve]

I'd definitely choose a 512MB 3850 over a 256MB 8800 GT.

 

[blotch]

I believe that at least ATI and maybe Nvidia are moving to multi-card setups so staying away from it will be a little difficult. Two 3850s in crossfire are faster then one GTX and cost 2/3 of the price for example. Personally i wouldn't recommend anything less then a 3850 for gaming. But if you plan on a res higher then 1280x1024, using AA or AF you should have a 512mb card.

 

[wh3resmycar]

8400gs in SLI? hmm afaik theres no slot for the SLI adapter for this card

 

[phantom93]

As said above, 8400gs are not made for gaming. I dislike sli, too. 8800gt is a much better choice. If you can wait and want to save some money but get lower performance for around $180 the upcoming 9600gt might be a good choice.

dotn get the 9600 when it coems out, the ranking the 88GT is better then the 88GT, the 88GS is better then the 96. So get the 88GT or wait for the 98's to come out BUT done get 84's.. yuck lol SLi or not they are really bad.

 

[xerohour]

I'd definitely choose a 512MB 3850 over a 256MB 8800 GT.

seconding that, seeing as modern (crysis) and upcoming games will not hold over smoothly with 256 megs any longer.

 

[SEALBoy]

I too would choose a 512MB 3850 over an 8800GT 256MB... that card is going to have problems with games down the road.

 

[noloboy]

How about:

8600GT 256mb ddr3 VS 8600GT 512mb ddr2?

 

[MikosNZ]

How about:

8600GT 256mb ddr3 VS 8600GT 512mb ddr2?

Ignoring the ram speed for a moment, I would imagine there would be very few games that a 8600 can run that would require 512mb texture memory.

Without seeing any benchmarks I would probably go for the 256mb DDR3.

 

[cnumartyr]

This thread wins.