Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800 GTS 320

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 24, 2008 2:16:37 PM

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?

More about : 8800 gts 320

a c 169 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 2:23:22 PM

Hello mate :) 

All of those other cards are better than 8800GTS 320

8800GTS 512 > 8800GT 512 > 9600GT > 8800 GS > 8800GTS 320
March 24, 2008 2:27:05 PM

thanx mate!that was quick!!!
Related resources
a c 169 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 2:43:41 PM

No problem mate :)  glad i could help u :) 
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 2:54:05 PM

Still a good card though!
a c 169 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 2:55:50 PM

yep for resolutions lower than 1600x1200 its still a very good card
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 3:04:15 PM

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.
March 24, 2008 3:13:49 PM

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?
a c 169 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 3:21:49 PM

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+
March 24, 2008 4:09:40 PM

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.
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 4:32:58 PM

blade47 said:
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.
March 24, 2008 4:41:02 PM

and here i am selling my 8800gts 320mb to get a 8800gts 512 lol. and i'm on 19" lcd. yikes :) 
a c 147 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 4:50:41 PM

ineedjuice said:
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.
March 24, 2008 5:35:52 PM

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
a c 175 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 6:03:54 PM

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.
a b U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 6:55:16 PM

4745454b said:
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&ta...

8800GTS 320 vs some other GF8's in this review:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=2
a c 169 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 8:04:16 PM

lol NVIDIA is confusing many people :D 
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
a b U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 9:07:29 PM

Yeah, NV's naming mean little. Just look at the four different 8800GTS versions.
a c 175 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 10:01:18 PM

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.
March 24, 2008 10:14:58 PM

4745454b said:
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.
a c 175 U Graphics card
March 24, 2008 11:38:24 PM

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.
March 24, 2008 11:56:40 PM

get the new 8800gts.its future proof for at least 2 year from the speed games are develop these days.
March 25, 2008 12:08:41 AM

iluvgillgill said:
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
March 25, 2008 12:43:08 AM

iluvgillgill said:
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).

March 25, 2008 12:46:32 AM

crusoe74 said:
I certainly hope so, I don't want to upgrade my GTS 512 for at least 2 years


hesskia said:
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

March 25, 2008 1:37:59 AM

but back then high resolution doesnt really exist in games.and its unlikely games are gonne go any higer than 1920 or 2560.and the 8800gts achieve about 100fps in most game with max detail.
March 25, 2008 11:36:51 AM

hesskia said:
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 7900GTX appeared in March 2006 which was the equal of the 1900XTX. I only game at 1280 x 1024 so either of those cards would still be OK apart from in the usual games (Crysis)

I stand by my original statement, I think my 8800GTS 512 will be fine until 2010.
a b U Graphics card
March 25, 2008 12:00:55 PM

To compare a 8600gts even oceed to a 1900xtx isnt right. The xtx would generally walk on it. Since todays games are more similar to yesterdays best/hardest games, just take a look at Oblivion http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx... Its nearly 50% faster. The 1900xtx came out in April 06. So, today that card would be showing its legs, but still be playable. You cant say the next lowest, or if you do in that case, theres the 1900xt512mb, which I have one. That card was only 5% slower than the xtx. Since both cards are about 2 years old, and performing just under the lowest 8800 series, shows that the 8800gts512 would be acceptable for 2 years. The GTS is comparable to the GTX, like the xtx was to the xt.
March 25, 2008 12:15:47 PM

It all comes down to what you think "playable" is. If you must have every graphical option maxed in every game, there is no card out now (or ever) that will be "future poof", even for two years. Even the best card from 2 years ago, can not play every game out now, at MAX (even exluding Crysis). But, if you are willing to keep some of the "sliders to the left" the 8800 GTS will last you a good 2-3 years. Price/performance, it is really one of the best options currently available.
March 25, 2008 1:26:15 PM

pauldh said:
X1900XTX >= 7900GTX then. X1900XTX >>> 7900GTX now. One example - http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128&p=4

I'd hope the 8800GTS 512MB would be as good in two years as the X19x0XT's are now instead of how the GF7900's are now.


Pauldh, that link shows a X1950XTX which as we all know stuffed all the GF7's including the 7950GX2.

I think it's just the way video cards favour alternate companies. ATI with their Radeon X1*** series beat the GF7's, whilst the GF8's beat the HD2's and 3's.
However we may have a swift reversal this summer as the GF9's have not been the quantam leap we expected whilst the HD4's are looking (on paper at least) very promising (fingers crossed that these specs are true)

Also, the link showed Resolution of 1600 x 1200; If I played at that resolution then yes, I doubt whether my 8800GTS 512 would last 2 years.

basketcase said:
But, if you are willing to keep some of the "sliders to the left" the 8800 GTS will last you a good 2-3 years. Price/performance, it is really one of the best options currently available.


Let's put it another way when I bought my GF6800GT early in 2005 It played everything in max. It was only in 2007 that I had to turn down settings and reduce resolution to 1024 x 768 to get acceptable frame rates (especially in CoH & Oblivion)
It was only summer last year that I really felt that it had had it's day and I needed to upgrade.


a b U Graphics card
March 25, 2008 2:26:39 PM

Quote:
Pauldh, that link shows a X1950XTX which as we all know stuffed all the GF7's including the 7950GX2.


Oh sure, I know X1950XTX beats X1900XTX by a small amount. X1950XT and X1900XTX are about equal. But there is no architecture advantage like comparing X1800 to X1900, so we can safely estimate X1900XTX performance if X1950 pro >= 7900GTX and X1950XTX destroys 7900GTX, then X1900XTX is also way ahead and not far behind the X1950XTX.

BTW, while I myself would always have rather owned the X1950XTX over the 7950GX2, more often than not raw performance (not IQ) the GX2 was faster. I figured I'd add that because someone would have nitpicked it I'm sure. :) 
March 25, 2008 2:36:47 PM

the 8800gts 512MB would last for 2 years for sure.everything max will be ok even in full hd resolution.but just turn AA on because it doesnt offer any real visual improvement other than performance hit!on 1920+ res since at the res the texture are so fine by itself so AA doesnt give out improvement.

even today!if games got aa turn on at 1920 will offer not much of a improvement and will give you big frame rate drop.but because without AA its got 100+fps so even if the frame rate half it would be still fluid in game play.
March 25, 2008 3:00:20 PM

Thats not true. On most games at 1920x1200 I need at least 2xAA for there to be minimal jaggies. 4xAA is definitely the desirable setting for most games. I hate jaggies.

Now, given that I need less AA at this res then I did at 1680x1050 (4xAA was my minimum there) I am willing to bet that people who say you don't need AA and 1080P+ haven't played too many games at that res. Trust me, you still need AT LEAST 2XAA!

That being said, my 8800GT 512 does OKAY with my resolution. I did have to turn a couple of games down to keep gameplay fluid, but everything looks great.
a b U Graphics card
March 25, 2008 3:19:27 PM

iluvgillgill said:
the 8800gts 512MB would last for 2 years for sure.everything max will be ok even in full hd resolution.but just turn AA on because it doesnt offer any real visual improvement other than performance hit!on 1920+ res since at the res the texture are so fine by itself so AA doesnt give out improvement.

even today!if games got aa turn on at 1920 will offer not much of a improvement and will give you big frame rate drop.but because without AA its got 100+fps so even if the frame rate half it would be still fluid in game play.

I do agree with you without fsaa it will play most games just fine at 19x12, but you seem to have an inflated outlook of the cards power in current games. The 8800GTS G92 can't max every game now at 19x12, nor 16x10 even when you consider Crysis, so how will it last two more years at max detail at 19x12? You are kidding yourself to expect 100+ fps to be normal for this card at that res and max details. Try Crysis, Lost planet, World in Conflict, Oblivion, etc.

I only game at 16x10, but I am also one who has the jaggies jump out. Depending on the game, 2xaa is typically minimum for me, but I'll crank aa if there is performance to spare. Even at 16x10 I find SLI 8800GT to benefit my gaming experience.
March 25, 2008 3:24:58 PM

well everyone know you cant max crysis in any single card setup!of course under 16x0 aa will see alot of improvement.but 19x0 there is hardly any.it all depend what game you play really.fps or racing game that are fast moving when have you got time to find any jaggies on the building etc.
!