Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800GTS (512 MB) vs. 8800GTX (768 MB)

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 4, 2008 4:01:39 PM

I'm looking at these two graphics cards for my build right now. They're both absolute monsters, but I have two questions:

1) Is the 8800GTX worth the extra $100 over the 8800GTS?

2) Would an 8800GTX even fit in a Cooler Master RC-690 case?

Thanks for the help.
March 4, 2008 4:05:14 PM

GTS ftw.

Gtx aint worth it over GTS. GTS = less heat, much less power.
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 4, 2008 4:18:47 PM

1) Not worth the extra $$$
2) They are similar in size.
3) GTS takes like 40% less power to operate
4) G80 vs G92 technology

The GTX does do better in more video memory intensive apps and ones that render alot of AA and AF. but it's a slight improvement. All and All the GTS is your best bet.

I'm not so sure about the less heat because my buddy has a GTX and it runs about the same temps as my GTS.
Related resources
March 4, 2008 4:32:28 PM

Okay, I'll probably stick with the GTS then. Roughly how long is the GTS card, though? I need to make sure it'll fit in my RC-690 case.
March 4, 2008 4:33:43 PM

The ONLY reason to get the 8800GTX over the 8800GTS is if you plan on doing 3-way SLI.

Even if you did, I would wait for the soon to be released 9800 cards which will support it.

a b U Graphics card
March 4, 2008 4:40:24 PM

nerr said:
Okay, I'll probably stick with the GTS then. Roughly how long is the GTS card, though? I need to make sure it'll fit in my RC-690 case.
Its 9 inches, just do a quick google
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 4, 2008 5:34:54 PM

9 inches same as the GTX
a c 169 U Graphics card
March 5, 2008 11:34:06 AM

from hothardware:
It is little difficult to summarize the new GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB card’s performance. In games or benchmarks where fillrate and shader performance are the limiting factors, these new cards are excellent performers and can outpace even a GeForce 8800 GTX. But in situations where memory bandwidth and frame buffer size are more important, like say at high resolutions with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB can’t quite keep up with the more expensive GTX due to its narrower memory bus and smaller frame buffer. Generally speaking though, the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB’s performance is better than the original 640MB GTS and the relatively new 8800 GT and on-par with the GeForce 8800 GTX at lower resolutions. Crank up the resolutions, however, and the GTX (or Ultra) is still the king of the hill.
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 5, 2008 11:46:36 AM

I like the 8800GTS 512MB for the simple fact that I did not have to upgrade my PSU to accomidate it. I would have needed a little beefier PSU for a GTX. But to each his own.
March 10, 2008 6:56:09 PM

what if you could get a GTX for the same price as the GTS?

Would the GTX be the way to go?
March 10, 2008 6:58:55 PM

I would...but thats just me...and that same price was like $230 after MIR, then yes.
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 10, 2008 7:04:13 PM

I would still go for the GTS for the simple fact that it uses less power and creates less heat.
March 10, 2008 7:22:16 PM

Is that a huge downfall though? It runs hotter, but that doesn't sap its' performance. Also, anything with that much to it, will naturally need more power to run it.
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 10, 2008 7:28:06 PM

BUT a GTX only outperforms the GTS 512 in a few games and not by much. The GTS outperforms the GTX in fewer by a hair. To me the GTS was the correct choice. If you want every ounce of power then yes a GTX is your ticket.
March 10, 2008 7:36:30 PM

I have a GTS 512 as well and I am really happy with it. Really happy. I dont even feel like the grass is greener on the GTX side of the fence. And it's very rare for me to feel that way.
a c 266 U Graphics card
March 10, 2008 7:43:19 PM

The 8800GTX is a longer card. It is 10.5 inches long which causes problems with some cases. The 8800GTS-512-G92 is shorter, about 9".

The performance is similar, but the 8800GTX, particularly the ultra version is a bit faster. Unless you can get it used at a similar price, the 8800GTS-512-G92 is a better buy.
March 10, 2008 8:11:16 PM

Wow, this is friggin' amazing. So far, dare I say it....everyone agrees.
March 10, 2008 8:22:54 PM

I beg to differ,, I say get a 3870 because they are far supperior to anything Nvidia has at the moment and has been for a long time now. If any one dares to prove me wrong then feel free but, you will have a hard time doing so,, lmao. I had to sorry.
March 10, 2008 8:38:31 PM

LOL truehighroller if you are such an ATI fanboy why do you list an 8800 GTS in your sig.? Just starting trouble I see, LOL!

Anyways...GTX for $100 more is not worth it...GTX for same price is a better performer, so yes.

I'm looking to SLI 2x nVidia cards to run high resolutions, so if someone put a gun to my head and made me buy today it'd be 2x eVGA G92 GTS. That $100 dollars multiples when SLIing, and there is also the heat and power factors, and the fact that it's older tech. Also the 8800 Ultra is a discontinued card (yuck!). So that's my argument to basically never get a GTX or Ultra unless you really have a ton of cash to blow.
March 10, 2008 9:29:02 PM

Bottom line... If you have the cash GTX is faster. (Especially @ higher res)

Why not go with a 3870x2? It is the #1 card and pretty close to the GTX price.
March 10, 2008 11:32:46 PM

truehighroller said:
I beg to differ,, I say get a 3870 because they are far supperior to anything Nvidia has at the moment and has been for a long time now. If any one dares to prove me wrong then feel free but, you will have a hard time doing so,, lmao. I had to sorry.


I'm sorry but I disagree Via multi-Chrome 46's FTW!!!
March 10, 2008 11:50:08 PM

FrozenGpu said:
I'm sorry but I disagree Via multi-Chrome 46's FTW!!!


LMAO.
!