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.
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.
---------------
XPS M1730,IntelCore2Duo T9300@2.5GHZ,2x8800MGTX in SLI,4GB DDR2 667 RAM,DUAL 250GB 7200 RPM,VISTA HP with SP1,17" with 1920x1200 resolution
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.
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.
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.
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.
---------------
EVGA 750i FTW ¤ Intel E8400 @ 3.6ghz ¤ EVGA 8800GTS 512 ¤ 2GB OCZ Platinum DDR2 ¤
Western Digital Raptor X 150GB ¤
MCSE, MCSA, Comptia A+ N+
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.
---------------
E8400-stock, GA-P35-DS3R(rev2.1), Corsair 4x2gb 6400C5, EVGA 8800GTS-512-G92, Vista home premium-64-bit, WD velociraptor-300gb, PC P&C silencer-610, Antec SOLO, 2 x Samsung 275T, Samsung-203b-dvd
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.
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.
Message edited by Waspy on 03-10-2008 at 11:08:30 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.
I'm sorry but I disagree Via multi-Chrome 46's FTW!!!