8800 GTS 320

[blade47]

hello guys,
how does the 8800GTS 320MB rate against the newcomers,namely the 8800GT 512 & 256MB ,8800GTS 512MB,the 8800GS,9600GT and the Ati 3850,3870 HD series?

 

[Maziar]

Hello mate

All of those other cards are better than 8800GTS 320

8800GTS 512 > 8800GT 512 > 9600GT > 8800 GS > 8800GTS 320

 

[blade47]

thanx mate!that was quick!!!

 

[Maziar]

No problem mate glad i could help u

 

[jay2tall]

Still a good card though!

 

[Maziar]

yep for resolutions lower than 1600x1200 its still a very good card

 

[jay2tall]

Ok before someone says it... I is a good card if you already own it or get a great deal. I have a buddy who has one and it runs his 22"WS VERY well.

 

[blade47]

i have one but it is bottlenecked by my old Athlon64 3200+ (S939).
I plan to upgrade to an intel E8400 or 8500.how will this card along with these processors and a 22inch LCD?

 

[Maziar]

8800GTS 320 works well with those CPUs
about the 1600x1200 i didnt mean that the card cant play games well @ 1600x1200 resolution, i meant that if u rememered the benchmarks of 8800GTS 320 and 640 the difference was very little in resolutions lower than 1600x1200 but the difference gap becomes larger when playing @ 1600x1200+

 

[TSIMonster]

I have the 8800GTS 320 to perform better than the 8800GT 256 in many occasions and it has a better cooler. The GTS is still a great card for sub 1080p resolutions. Really, any dual core CPU and the GTS are the perfect match for a 22" LCD.

 

[jay2tall]

i have one but it is bottlenecked by my old Athlon64 3200+ (S939).
I plan to upgrade to an intel E8400 or 8500.how will this card along with these processors and a 22inch LCD?

It will allow your card to open up much more and just inherently a faster CPU can process video much faster as well.

 

[ineedjuice]

and here i am selling my 8800gts 320mb to get a 8800gts 512 lol. and i'm on 19" lcd. yikes

 

[jay2tall]

and here i am selling my 8800gts 320mb to get a 8800gts 512 lol. and i'm on 19" lcd. yikes

Sooo buy a bigger monitor now. HAHA

I love my 8800GTS 512. It was nice boost from my X1900XTX. Not sure if I'd run it on anything larger than a 22" though. I hooked it up to my 1080P TV and had to lower a few texturing settings in COD4 to keep 60FPS.

 

[TSIMonster]

my 8800GT 512 handles 1920x1200 pretty well. I run 2xAA instead of the 4xAA I had to run at 1680x1050. 1920x1200 rocks. I don't think I could ever go back

 

[4745454b]

I'm not sure 8800GS > 8800GTS 320 is true. Heck, even Nvidia's own naming scheme says its not. (same numerical value, and GTS > GS) The 8800GS is not based off the G92, but is a cut down GTS 640/320.

On the same note, I'm not sure about 9600GT > 8800GTS. The 9600GT is faster, but I'm not sure its worth spending the $200. Before you plunk down the money, make sure the 9600GT is fast enough in your situation.

 

[pauldh]

I'm not sure 8800GS > 8800GTS 320 is true. Heck, even Nvidia's own naming scheme says its not. (same numerical value, and GTS > GS) The 8800GS is not based off the G92, but is a cut down GTS 640/320.

On the same note, I'm not sure about 9600GT > 8800GTS. The 9600GT is faster, but I'm not sure its worth spending the $200. Before you plunk down the money, make sure the 9600GT is fast enough in your situation.

9600GT is better than the 8800GTS 320MB. For the 8800GS it depends on clock speeds as they are very close. Higher clocked versions should be better. I have a XFX 580/1400 clocked version and also a 320MB GTS. More often than not my 8800GS would be the slower card, but they are not far apart, so the 8800GS is excellent for $110AR. 9600GT is also very good for $150 or less AR.

IMO, Avoid the 256MB 8800GT.


BTW, many of these cards are in this Fudzilla 9600GT review:
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5849&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=1

8800GTS 320 vs some other GF8's in this review:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=2

 

[Maziar]

lol NVIDIA is confusing many people
8800GS,9600GT,8800GT 512 they perform very close

I agree with Paul about the 8800GT 256:

8800GT 256 VS 8800GT 512 VS 8800GT 1024 :
http://techreport.com/articles.x/14230/3

 

[pauldh]

Yeah, NV's naming mean little. Just look at the four different 8800GTS versions.

 

[4745454b]

I never said the 9600GT wasn't faster. I said I don't think its worth the price to "upgrade" to the 9600GT if you have a 320/640 GTS. While I haven't checked, I'd bet the performance of these cards are rather close, and not worth the cost of upgrading. (Just like how you said your OC'd GS is nearly as fast as the 320.)

If you are starting from scratch, by all means get the 9600GT. But if you have a 8800GTS already, I wouldn't bother. If I was Maz, I would have wrote

8800GTS 512 > 8800GT 512 > 9600GT ~ 8800GTS 320 ~ 8800 GS

If you already have an 8800GTS 320, then a good upgrade would be the 8800GTS 512. (or the 3870x2) Either of these will provide a noticeable boost, assuming you have a monitor that allows them to flex their mighty muscles.

 

[crusoe74]

The 8800GS is not based off the G92,

Err.. yes it is.
8800GT - 112 shaders 256Mbit bus
8800GS - 96 shaders 192Mbit bus

Both have the same core although the GS is clocked slightly lower.

 

[4745454b]

Weird. In order to prove my point, I went digging. I thought all odd memory width cards were based of the older g80. According to this, I am wrong.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GeForce_8800_GS

The GS is a g92. (Unless this graph is wrong.) I thought they were selling their old chips in a new configuration, but I guess not. Either way, it doesn't change what I was saying. While neither of pauls links compare these two cards side by side, I would be VERY surprised to learn that the GS is faster then the GTS.

 

[iluvgillgill]

get the new 8800gts.its future proof for at least 2 year from the speed games are develop these days.

 

[crusoe74]

get the new 8800gts.its future proof for at least 2 year from the speed games are develop these days.

I certainly hope so, I don't want to upgrade my GTS 512 for at least 2 years

 

[hesskia]

get the new 8800gts.its future proof for at least 2 year from the speed games are develop these days.

I think you're statement is off, way off. Lets look at it this way, two years ago would have been March of 2006. I think it is possible, that the 'next-to-top-of-the-line' GPU in 2006 was the best GPU in 2005 (or atleast performance wise is).

Accodring to Tom's Charts, the best card in 2005 is 7800GTX (Or the ATI X1900 XTX). There are of course SLI and Crossfire options, but for this conversation, we'll leave them out of it (which doesn't make the scenario any better).

The Best cards in 2005 (which would mimic the 2nd tier card in 2006) only achieves 958/1577 (Nvidia/ATI) at a 1600x1200 resolution. This is closely the current day 2600 XT is readily available for about $75. I wouldn't want to be a gamer in these days with a 2600xt.

On the flipside, the X1900 XTX current day equivalent is an Overclocked 8600 GTS. I realize that there are people gaming on 8600GTS today, but woudl you consider it "current-gen-proof?"

I would recommend that you buy the best card available given your budget (and also look at the cards just outside your current budget--if $50 is the difference between a 2600XT and a 9600GT, you should be aware of the options). Once the performance of the card you buy falls below your expectations (or minimum gaming limits of detail/fps), then develope a new budget and start the process over again.

Using this method, you could probably get away with a $200 GPU purchase every 18-24 months (which does not make the card future proof).

 

[hesskia]

I certainly hope so, I don't want to upgrade my GTS 512 for at least 2 years

I think you're statement is off, way off. Lets look at it this way, two years ago would have been March of 2006. I think it is possible, that the 'next-to-top-of-the-line' GPU in 2006 was the best GPU in 2005 (or atleast performance wise is).

Accodring to Tom's Charts, the best card in 2005 is 7800GTX (Or the ATI X1900 XTX). There are of course SLI and Crossfire options, but for this conversation, we'll leave them out of it (which doesn't make the scenario any better).

The Best cards in 2005 (which would mimic the 2nd tier card in 2006) only achieves 958/1577 (Nvidia/ATI) at a 1600x1200 resolution. This is closely the current day 2600 XT is readily available for about $75. I wouldn't want to be a gamer in these days with a 2600xt.

On the flipside, the X1900 XTX current day equivalent is an Overclocked 8600 GTS. I realize that there are people gaming on 8600GTS today, but woudl you consider it "current-gen-proof?"

I would recommend that you buy the best card available given your budget (and also look at the cards just outside your current budget--if $50 is the difference between a 2600XT and a 9600GT, you should be aware of the options). Once the performance of the card you buy falls below your expectations (or minimum gaming limits of detail/fps), then develope a new budget and start the process over again.

Using this method, you could probably get away with a $200 GPU purchase every 18-24 months (which does not make the card future proof).

Herm, after I posted this, I went back and reread the message and I think I may have been long winded. I misread what you ment by "future proof." If "future proof for two years" implies that you'll have to buy a new card in 2 years, i agree.

but likely so, you'll probably be better off with a 9600gt unless you have a large (22+) monitor