XFX 8800GTX versus XFX 8800GTS G92 - which is better?

[Jellybelly]

Hi guys!

I need some input from people more knowledgeable than myself, so it would be great to hear from some of you. I am in the process of purchasing a new computer, and was pretty much settled on the XFX 8800GTS G92. Then it comes to my attention that the people I am buying from are offering the XFX 8800GTX at a 22% discount which amounts to a negligible price difference. The price difference is around $30, which is not a lot to me at all. The question is then, is the GTX objectively the better card? I can swallow the price difference fine, but not if the GTS G92 is actually the objectively better card.

For complete comparison, here are the specs of the cards:
8800GTX: http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product...rce™+8800&productConfigurationId=879481

8800GTS: http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product...800&productConfigurationId=1731240#openLarger

Thank you very much in advance!

 

[pauldh]

The GTX is better than the G92 GTS. Without fsaa or at medium resolutions they are about the same. But when you crank the resolution or Crank fsaa/af, then the GTX shows it's the more powerful card. Both are extremely capable cards of course. But for $30, I would grab the GTX.

A couple reviews you can look at that explain what I am saying. Look at the high eye candy (4xaa/16xaf) tests:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512mb/page6.asp
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=10

 

[Evilonigiri]

Would drivers improve the performance of the G92 GTS further?

 

[pauldh]

No, wouldn't think so, not unless it does the same for the GTX. The G92 GTS is amazing, but it is still inferior to the year older GTX. Biggest reason being 24 ROPS for the GTX vs. 16 ROPS for the new GTS.

 

[Evilonigiri]

No, wouldn't think so, not unless it does the same for the GTX. The G92 GTS is amazing, but it is still inferior to the year older GTX. Biggest reason being 24 ROPS for the GTX vs. 16 ROPS for the new GTS.

Meh. I still think the 8800GTS is a better card, at least on lower resolution. Besides you can OC it to 800/1050, which the 8800GTX can't.

 

[rallyimprezive]

It can be viewed in two different ways.

Are you asking if it is better raw power....
Or better value.

The 8800GTS G92 may not be quite as fast as the GTX, but its price is so attractive.

EDIT: Aw bummer, I should have read the whole post first. If price is similar, the only benefit in going with the GTS is lower power consumption, and less heat.

 

[grieve]

XFX 8800GTX versus XFX 8800GTS G92 - which is better?

**GTX has more Juice,period.

 

[pauldh]

Meh. I still think the 8800GTS is a better card, at least on lower resolution. Besides you can OC it to 800/1050, which the 8800GTX can't.

Yeah, at lower resolutions, why does it matter. Either card is overkill in most games. The way to compare which card is more powerful is to stress them at look at the highest playable settings. and OC'in is great, but if it still lags behind then it's not a victory.

Look at those review links to FS and legion. The GTX is sometimes way ahead. Even the Asus TOp clocked 740MHz/1.8GHz/2.07GHz effective barely starts to gain on the GTX. Take Oblivion at just 12x10 4x/16x in the FS review, a stock GTS 512MB scored 61.5 fps, the Asus Top only gained a bit at 65.2 fps, while the GTX managed 78.1 fps. If a 90MHz core, 175 MHz shader, and 130MHz effective DDR OC only gains under 4 fps fps, no way you could gain another 13 fps and touch the 8800GTX with an OC. (Plus then just OC the GTX too.) And that is just 12x10 res. Typically, max things out at 19x12 and the GTX has left the GTS 512MB behind. To me even if they are equal at lower settings, pulling ahead at high settings makes it the stronger card period. Maybe not worth the extra money, but still more powerful reguardless.




BTW, After looking over all the GTS 512MB reviews, I think Anand made a big blunder and misled his readers bigtime by saying 8800U > 8800GTS 512MB > 8800GTX in his review. He didn't even test the 8800GTX in his review, yet ranked the cards anyway putting the GTX behind the new GTS 512MB.

Quote - " So you end up with the following lineup today:
8800 Ultra > 8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GTX > 8800 GT > 8800 GTS 640 > 8800 GTS 320"

 

[Evilonigiri]

**GTX has more Juice,period.

And the GTS has more potential, period.

 

[Evilonigiri]

BTW, After looking over all the GTS 512MB reviews, I think Anand made a big blunder and misled his readers bigtime by saying 8800U > 8800GTS 512MB > 8800GTX in his review. He didn't even test the 8800GTX in his review, yet ranked the cards anyway putting the GTX behind the new GTS 512MB.

Quote - " So you end up with the following lineup today:
8800 Ultra > 8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GTX > 8800 GT > 8800 GTS 640 > 8800 GTS 320"

Yes, that's why I was surprise to hear the 8800GTX being better than the 8800GTS G92.

 

[pauldh]

And the GTS has more potential, period.

How do you get more potential? It overclocks higher, but big deal. Max OC both a GTS and a GTX and the GTX still wins. Lower clocks but more performance. Which matter more, saying my core hits 800MHz or having more performance? Stress them out and the GTS 512MB will sink in fps first.

 

[Evilonigiri]

How do you get more potential? It overclocks higher, but big deal. Max OC both a GTS and a GTX and the GTX still wins. Lower clocks but more performance. Which matter more, saying my core hits 800MHz or having more performance? Stress them out and the GTS 512MB will sink in fps first.

How high can a 8800GTX go? On stock voltages, I remember people getting around 650MHz on core. How will that fair against the GTS with 800MHz core? I would suspect that the GTS will be as fast, if not faster than the GTX.

EDIT: Typo...

 

[pauldh]

Did you look at the links above. If 90MHz core OC gained less than 4 fps, how will another 60 MHz core manage to gain 13 more fps and tie a stock 8800GTX.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512mb/page6.asp

I am not saying the GTS can't hang with the GTX most of the time. I am saying at the most stressful settings (and even lower in some games) the GTX flex's it's muscle and pulls ahead. If you want to crank fsaa or game on a 24" LCD, the GTX is the better card stock and OC'ed.

edit: Shoot, almost every game the GTX is ahead in the FS review. Bioshock is another major victory:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512mb/page11.asp

And the same trend continues at Legion in their fsaa tests.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=10
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=4
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=6
etc.

 

[Evilonigiri]

Did you look at the links above. If 90MHz core OC gained less than 4 fps, how will another 60 MHz core manage to gain 13 more fps and tie a stock 8800GTX.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512mb/page6.asp

I am not saying the GTS can't hang with the GTX most of the time. I am saying at the most stressful settings (and even lower in some games) the GTX flex's it's muscle and pulls ahead. If you want to crank fsaa or game on a 24" LCD, the GTX is the better card stock and OC'ed.

edit: Shoot, Bioshock is another major victory:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512mb/page11.asp

Yes I looked.

But I also looked at Anandtech. In their benchmarks, the GTX goes neck to neck with the GTS, both stock clocks, so naturally I would think that the GTS will out pace the GTX once OCed. However, after you introduced that link, I'm not so sure anymore. Let's call it a tie?

 

[maverick7]

what about ocing?? i would imagine if you had a nice oc on the gts 512, it would run faster than the gtx.

My vote is with the 8800gts 512

 

[Evilonigiri]

what about ocing?? i would imagine if you had a nice oc on the gts 512, it would run faster than the gtx.

My vote is with the 8800gts 512

What pauldh said was the GTX will beat the GTS in higher resolution and AA/AF enabled real high. But in lower res, it's probably a tie, when both are OCed.

 

[maverick7]

*lol sry i didnt read a single post before i posted.. except the original lol

*i actually saw on some benchies the gts 512 coming ahead of gtx when both were stock

 

[Evilonigiri]

*lol sry i didnt read a single post before i posted.. except the original lol

*i actually saw on some benchies the gts 512 coming ahead of gtx when both were stock

Yeah me too. But according to pauldh, when the AA/AF are enabled, the GTX comes ahead. Those tests were probably no AA/AF and the frames were within ~5fps of each other.

 

[pauldh]

Let's call it a tie?

You can call it whatever you want. But you are putting way too much faith in Anand who didn't even test it against the GTX.

But until I see some actual links showing an 8800GTS 512MB outperforming the GTX under demanding settings. (high res & high eye candy) I'll call the GTX the stronger card. No I would not spend $100 more on one, and no someone gaming at 14x9 or 12x10 probably will not see a difference except in rare situations. So the added muscle at high res with the GTX would not benefit everyone; But why would that make it a tie?


here, look over [H]'s conclusions and you'll see in all three games they mention the GTX pulling ahead at high res.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQzMSw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Quote - "We noted that most of the time, at higher resolutions with AA the GeForce 8800 GTX shone through with smoother and higher performance, which makes sense."

 

[maverick7]

well considering he probably doesnt have a 30" screen or even 24" im going to say gts 512mb would be the better buy

but i agree that at 2560x1600 the gtx pulls ahead

 

[Evilonigiri]

You can call it whatever you want. But you are putting way too much faith in Anand who didn't even test it against the GTX.

But until I see some actual links showing an 8800GTS 512MB outperforming the GTX under demanding settings. (high res & high eye candy) I'll call the GTX the stronger card. No I would not spend $100 more on one, and no someone gaming at 14x9 or 12x10 probably will not see a difference except in rare situations. So the added muscle at high res with the GTX would not benefit everyone; But why would that make it a tie?


here, look over [H]'s conclusions and you'll see in all three games they mention the GTX pulling ahead at high res.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQzMSw3LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Quote - "We noted that most of the time, at higher resolutions with AA the GeForce 8800 GTX shone through with smoother and higher performance, which makes sense."

Fine. You win. My ignorance has lost.

 

[systemlord]

My vote is for the 8800GTX/Ultra, its the only card that can tripple SLI.

 

[Jellybelly]

Thank you all for your replies, the ongoing discussion has been very educational. Thanks to you Pauldh, especially. Your insight helped seal the deal for me! It is great having this resource at the tip of your fingers when you find yourself undecided. Thanks again!

 

[pauldh]

What pauldh said was the GTX will beat the GTS in higher resolution and AA/AF enabled real high. But in lower res, it's probably a tie, when both are OCed.

Yes. That is it. And actually, the GTS 512MB OC'ed may pull ahead a bit at lower res. But does that make it more powerful? Both cards will be more than playable at those settings so what makes a card more powerful, 139 vs 136 fps at 12x10, or 46 vs 57 fps at 16x12 4x/16x? I say the 57 fps. And like [H] noted, the GTX can allow for fsaa at a higher res when the GTS can't. Some may say who cares about fsaa at 19x12, but reguardless, it provides a better and smoother gameplay expereince for those who do care to play at those settings.


Let me put it another way. SLi vs single card. It's at high res and/or high levels of aa & af where SLI makes the most difference. SLi is not for 12x10 no fsaa gaming. But I am able to play crysis at 16x10 2xaa/16xaf with two cards gaining over 55% compared to one card which is totally unplayable at those settings. Now does that mean one card vs two cards is a tie? Of course not. But it does mean SLi is not worth a thing for many people. Now the GTS 512Mb and GTX are obviously alot closer. Basically they trade blows in most games up until a point. Basically for many people they are equal. And for very few people should they be worth $100 more. But it's those games/settings where the GTX can distance itself from the GTS 512MB that make me say it's the higher performing card. and for this guy at $30 more, i think the GTX is the better card and probably will have the better resale too.

 

[pauldh]

well considering he probably doesnt have a 30" screen or even 24" im going to say gts 512mb would be the better buy

but i agree that at 2560x1600 the gtx pulls ahead

depends on the game. Oblivion it was ahead at 12x10:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512mb/page6.asp

Use high res texture mods and the lead would probably grow with the extra ram and fatter mem bus.



And although it's $30 more money, he said the $30 means nothing as long as the GTS isn't faster. And for fun, If he were to sell them next week. Don't you think a used 8800GTX would pull in $30 more over a used GTS? Most places it's $100 more new, so i would think he'd get that $30 back.