Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GTS320 or 8800GT256

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 19, 2008 10:18:10 PM

I could get either card within 5 bucks of each other. I Dont game at high resolutions and Id like to keep it Nvidia. Which is a better card? Ive tried the VGA charts but i didn't see the GT256. Btw. I Have an Antec NeoHE 550w PSU and a GeForce 8600GTS SSC right now.

More about : 8800gts320 8800gt256

January 19, 2008 10:25:27 PM

8800GT 256MB > 8800GTS 320MB > 86XX
January 19, 2008 10:34:03 PM

I'd go with the 8800GTS 320MB over the 8800GT 256MB anyday. 256MB just doesn't cut it.
Related resources
January 19, 2008 10:39:57 PM

I was wondering that. Doesn't the GTS have a bigger memory bandwidth? Is the G92 gpu that much better that the smaller bandwidth and less memory still make it a better card? Im kinda leaning toward the GTS because of the memory and the dual slot cooler.
January 19, 2008 10:45:30 PM

Shaihalud9 said:
I was wondering that. Doesn't the GTS have a bigger memory bandwidth? Is the G92 gpu that much better that the smaller bandwidth and less memory still make it a better card? Im kinda leaning toward the GTS because of the memory and the dual slot cooler.

Yes, the G80 8800GTS has a 320bit memory interface while the 8800GT has a smaller 256bit. However the 256bit is sufficient and cheaper to make, so that's a win win deal. Just overclock the memory speeds higher and it's all good.

I believe that the 8800GTS 320MB is a better deal. It probably out-performs the 8800GT 256MB in couple of games. The fan on the 8800GTS exhausts hot air out of the case, bringing down the temps. The fan is also much quieter under load.
January 19, 2008 10:46:42 PM

double post

oops
January 19, 2008 10:53:02 PM

The only advantage of the GTS is the extra memory and bandwidth which would only help if you are running games at a high resolution.

The GT uses less power and is significantly faster as long as you don't play at the highest resolution.

Edit: found benchies

http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1733_8.htm...
January 19, 2008 11:13:32 PM

Spend a little more and get the 512.
January 19, 2008 11:16:57 PM

turboflame said:
The only advantage of the GTS is the extra memory and bandwidth which would only help if you are running games at a high resolution.

The GT uses less power and is significantly faster as long as you don't play at the highest resolution.

Edit: found benchies

http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1733_8.htm...

First 3dmark doesn't mean squat. Game benches are more important when comparing different cards.

Second, the Alpha dog series is a highly OCed 8800GT while the 8800GTS 320MB is using stock speeds.

So your benchies doesn't mean too much.

On the resolution of 1280x1024, the cards are about equal, depending on what game. The price of the 8800GTS 320MB is falling below $200, so either card is a good choice. However because of the 8800GTS's better cooling, I'd recommend the 8800GTS 320MB.
January 19, 2008 11:26:13 PM

Hey, I kinda have the same dilema, but I didn't create a new thread, I just posted it at "The Short List: the Best Gaming Videocards for the money".

I want a card that I can use for 6-12 months, at 1280x1024, right now I mainly play BF2, and I might start playing BF2142, but my main interest is Frontlines: Fuel Of War, that is coming out next month (or later).

I'd like a card that costs about $200 and can run Frontlines at the previous resolution.

The card I was looking at were the 8800GTS 320mb, the 8800gt 256mb and the HD 3850 512mb.

I might have more info at "The Short List: the Best Gaming Videocards for the money" .. so if any of you can help.
January 19, 2008 11:29:56 PM

Quite frankly, if you play on res higher than 1280x1024, the HD 3850 512MB is your best bet. It beats the 8800GT 256MB in most tests.
January 19, 2008 11:35:10 PM

That doesn't really answer my question, because im going to be playing at 1280x1024, nothing higher and nothing lower.
January 19, 2008 11:37:12 PM

Fagaru said:
That doesn't really answer my question, because im going to be playing at 1280x1024, nothing higher and nothing lower.

Well than, either the 8800GT or the 8800GTS 320MB should be fine. ;) 

I prefer the 8800GTS because it's quieter and it expels heat out the case.
January 19, 2008 11:40:15 PM

So performance wise, they are pretty close?
January 19, 2008 11:41:22 PM

i would go with the gts, runs cooler and is cheaper. i just upgraded to a 8800gt from a 8800gts 320. the gt was worth the money but you get get a gts 320 on ebay cheap. i actually have one laying around...
January 19, 2008 11:42:07 PM

the gt 512 is closer to gtx. but keep in mind your looking at 240+ for a gt
January 19, 2008 11:42:56 PM

I've been looking on eBay, and they sell for about $200, so that isn't all THAT great, considering I can get an 8800GTS for $200 after rebate on Newegg.com
January 19, 2008 11:43:07 PM

Fagaru said:
So performance wise, they are pretty close?

Generally speaking, the 8800GT is more powerful. Due to it's limited memory, 256MB, it greatly hinders the performance, especially at higher resolutions and some games.
January 19, 2008 11:51:45 PM

So for a card that needs to last me 6-12 months, I should just go for the 8800GTS.

Gaah.. so many people say the 8800GT and others say the 8800GTS (not just here.. but in other placed too).
January 19, 2008 11:53:45 PM

Actually the best deal would be 8800GT 512MB, if you could spend a little more.
January 19, 2008 11:55:21 PM

Yeah.. if I could, but I can't :(  .. just bought a new motorcycle, took all I have.
January 19, 2008 11:58:13 PM

Wow you guys really don't get it. You keep saying "especially at higher resolutions but Fagaru clearly said that he plays on 1280x1024. @Fagaru: Get the 256MB GT

@Shaihalud9: Exactly what's your native res? It will help us tell you what's better. If its 1440x1280 or lower, the 256MB GT is probably your best bet.
I got a HD2600XT 512MB because I play on a 21.6" monitor and the res isn't that easy to maintain without at least 512MB of VRAM.

Note: Lol don't flame me for getting that crap card, it handles America's Army (which is the only gamae I play at the moment) at HIGHEST SETTINGS and 8x AA with 16x AS @60FPS no prob, it's limited at 60 though because of my monitor's refresh rate or something, how can I fix this?
January 20, 2008 12:06:08 AM

Akifuddin said:
Wow you guys really don't get it. You keep saying "especially at higher resolutions but Fagaru clearly said that he plays on 1280x1024. @Fagaru: Get the 256MB GT

I did say "generally speaking"...;)
January 20, 2008 12:17:50 AM

I play at 10x7 natively. I'm probably going to upgrade to a 17in display shortly. I'm thinking i'm gonna get the GTS due to the cooler and price.
January 20, 2008 12:45:33 AM

What ever happened to the 2900XT?
January 20, 2008 12:48:48 AM

Fagaru said:
What ever happened to the 2900XT?

Let's see...takes too much power, too expensive, hot as he||, noisy...oh and only performed as well as the 8800GTS 320MB or 640MB.
January 20, 2008 12:50:22 AM

lol.. why did I ever ask.
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2008 1:58:54 AM

Problem is, in some games the 256MB 8800GT starts to tank even at 12x10, if you turn on fsaa. To me fsaa is pretty important at 12x10 too. That said, this will be a weak spot for the 320MB GTS too. Honestly I think the two would trade blows, and while the 256MB GTS would probably win more than it loses, I would go for the cooler, quieter 320MB GTS myself if priced the same.

look at 12x10 in crysis:
http://en.expreview.com/?p=159&page=13

January 20, 2008 2:08:57 AM

Listen to pauldh, he definitely knows vidcards.
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2008 2:46:54 AM

I agree that the 320 is quieter and cooler, but only half the heat is pushed out the back of the case. Its the way its set up. That alone keeps the card cooler, sending it out into the box. some gets out the back, but not all. And cooler usually means quieter
January 20, 2008 2:51:24 AM

the 256 cards always perform poorly - get 512mb

get the 320 but really you should pop for 512mb
a b U Graphics card
January 20, 2008 5:21:16 AM

Yeah, that is true the 8800GTS 320MB/640MB and GTX cooler have vents that let some air into the case. Not quite as bad as the 7900GTX that pushed air out both ends, but it could end up being 50/50 too. Still nice and quiet and it does get some of that air out for sure. Much better than that 8800GT ref cooler.
January 20, 2008 11:39:42 AM

Shaihalud9 said:
I could get either card within 5 bucks of each other. I Dont game at high resolutions and Id like to keep it Nvidia. Which is a better card? Ive tried the VGA charts but i didn't see the GT256. Btw. I Have an Antec NeoHE 550w PSU and a GeForce 8600GTS SSC right now.


Neither, get a 512mb card, 256mb and even 320mb is looking a little low in this day and age. The 9600gt will be 512mb and about $170 when it comes out, which should be pretty soon. It is roughly double the performance of a 8600gt in gaming. Or if you wanna stick to nvidia just save a bit more cash and get a 8800gt 512mb. You WILL appreciate paying the extra.
January 20, 2008 3:39:14 PM

My budget is 200 dollars. Firm. I also can't justify spending the extra 50 or 60 bucks on a card when I don't play higher than 10x7 or 12x10 when i get my new display. I won't ever drop 400 dollars on a 24in LCD. I also don't see how the 9600GT would compete with any 8800 series card, if the past is any proof. On a side note, I asked about X and Y, not X, Y and F.
January 20, 2008 4:24:51 PM

Im in the same position as Shaihalud, its 200, NO more, by no means, so those who say, save a litle more and get a 8800gt 512mb are not helping. I just spent all my money on a new motorcycle, and any money I save up is going towards that, id only be able to spend the money I get from re-seling my x1900xtx (here in Chile, I can get about $200 for my x1900xtx, and the 8800gt 256mb costs 310-320 bucks.. so thats why im gonna buy it in the States).
January 20, 2008 5:11:41 PM

homerdog said:
For $200 you can't do any better than a 512MB HD3850. This one even has a dual-slot cooler:
VisionTek 900206 Radeon HD 3850 512MB

That's nearly pointless at the res he's playing at, 1280x1024. The other reason is the 3850 isn't powerful enough to fully take advantage of the 512MB, especially at a lower res.
January 20, 2008 5:22:29 PM

Agreed, get the 3850 512MB, nice find homerdog.

edit: @ Evilioni: If he wants to use AA or AS, he'll need it. Also, newer games usually want more VRAM anyways.
January 20, 2008 5:23:22 PM

Evilonigiri said:
That's nearly pointless at the res he's playing at, 1280x1024. The other reason is the 3850 isn't powerful enough to fully take advantage of the 512MB, especially at a lower res.

For some games 512MB is overkill, but in games that it matters it makes a BIG difference. Running out of VRAM is death to framerates. I experienced this with my old 320MB GTS and I game at 1440x900.

Benchmarks don't always show the benefits of added VRAM since they usually don't run for more than a couple of minutes and VRAM usage goes up the more you play (at least with Nvidia cards).
January 20, 2008 5:23:54 PM

I not looking for an ATI card. I've got an nForce mobo and i'd like to keep it nvidia.
January 20, 2008 5:34:25 PM

Akifuddin said:
Agreed, get the 3850 512MB, nice find homerdog.

edit: @ Evilioni: If he wants to use AA or AS, he'll need it. Also, newer games usually want more VRAM anyways.

Yeah I know. It's just that at the res of 1280x1024, the HD3850 isn't strong enough to use all 512MB. Turning up the AA will bring down frames regardless of the size of the vram.
January 20, 2008 6:06:25 PM

I looked up the 3850, nice card. They only had the 256mb version on the VGA charts.. But if what Oni says is true then it shouldn't matter. Anyway, the GTS still beats it.
January 20, 2008 6:08:46 PM

Shaihalud9 said:
I could get either card within 5 bucks of each other. I Dont game at high resolutions and Id like to keep it Nvidia. Which is a better card? Ive tried the VGA charts but i didn't see the GT256. Btw. I Have an Antec NeoHE 550w PSU and a GeForce 8600GTS SSC right now.


Here's a review comparing your options with each other. Even though the 8800GT 256MB is an overclocked one, i think.

http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1733_1.htm...
January 20, 2008 6:20:00 PM

Evilonigiri said:
Not trusting the one Slobogob gave, here's one:


You're right. There is something odd with the new GTS too since it can't touch the 8800GT in some benchmarks.

edit: I see. I posted the wrong benchmark. The g92 GTS isn't even on the charts of that one. Stick to the Anandtech reviews.
January 20, 2008 9:37:15 PM

In reference to the GS, it would be a nice choice.. But i can't find anything in regards to a release date.. And i'd like to purchase by the end of the month.
January 20, 2008 10:01:51 PM

The 8800GT is the better deal as it is based on the G92 core.It has 112 pixel pipes as opposed to the 96 pipelines of the older G80 GTS card.The GT also has faster clock speeds all around than the GTS.The GT also has support for DX10.1 as opposed to the GTS 320 which has support for DX10 and not 10.1..I recommend the GT as you don't game at higher resolutions so the extra memory of the 320 is not really needed.I would also like to suggest that you make the 8800GT the 512 version as it will help with rendering and overall performance.It's only a few dollars more,but well worth it.Goodluck.

Dahak

M2N32-SLI DELUXE WE
X2 5600+ STOCK (2.8GHZ)
2X1GIG DDR2 800 IN DC MODE
TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
EVGA 8800GT SUPERCLOCKED
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WS LCD 1680X1050
250GIG HD/320GIG HD
G5 GAMING MOUSE
LOGITECH Z-5500 5.1 SURROUND SYSTEM
500WATS CONTINUOUS,1000 PEAK
WIN XP MCE SP2
3DMARK05 15,686
3DMARK06 10,588
Related resources
!