Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Recent purchase - XFX 8600gt XXX - WRONG!!!!!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 9, 2008 11:18:16 AM

This has cheesed me off.

I have just bought the above for £70 and found that it doesn't run Crysis to as well as one might hope. It runs OK (and by OK i really mean BAD), at medium settings on 1024. However, you really want it on high settings to get the full experience it deserves - medium just doesn't do it justice.

Now i know the GFX market moves fast - probably faster than any other sector of the market, but to spend £70 on a relatively new card (half the price of a whole Xbox 360) and not be able to play a game that was out last year is a bit much.



a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 11:29:31 AM

Not as bad as nVidia renaming the card and calling ti the new 9500. You need to look around before plunking your money down. Im a yank, but here for a few bucks more you can get a vastly superior card, like a 9600gt or a 8800gt
April 9, 2008 11:33:29 AM

Yeah, it does seem cheaper over there.

£70 is a fair whack though, i'd have to say. You'd expect more for your money. 9600gt is selling at about £100 ($200), and 8800gt is selling at £130 ($260).

Yes, do some research before parting with cash. Personally, I had a budget which i stuck to, but i incorrectly assumed the card would work well on recent games, although tbh performance is ok on everything i've tried apart from Crysis.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 11:41:06 AM

Crysis is considered no cards land. It isnt fair to judge your card against that game. Heres a good place to get info on future purchases, as many here build not only theor own, but for a living as well, and know whats what out there and how it performs. Good luck and good gaming, and dont slam your purchase because it wont play Crysis, as most cards wont either, even the uberist SLI setups
April 9, 2008 11:49:45 AM

Well, of all games it's Crysis i really want. Even playing on my shoddy setup the gameplay is engrossing, i just think its deserves a bit extra.

My mate owns a 8800gtx and reckons he can max it out on 1280.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 11:53:29 AM

In DX10 ultra, maybe in certain parts of the game, its playable, but it still hasnt been truly conquered
April 9, 2008 12:00:54 PM

Unacceptable in my view. Imagine if you bought an Xbox game and it didn't run properly.

I don't think developers should have 6800gt owners in mind. But the 8600gt was the schiznitz just 18months ago.

I'm certainly not forking out £100+ just to play one game. But trust me, its a close run thing...its that good.

Maybe in a year I'll get a 9800gtx when they're around the £100 mark. Then I can play Crysis. :)  ....but not the next new game :( 
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 12:05:00 PM

When youre on the cutting edge , this happens. Its supposed to be this way. Keep moving the target back, so there has to be better performance, which only makes for better consoles too. The consoles wouldnt dare do this, as theyd be lambasted in an instant. PCs are the cutting edge, and have to go in this direction.. There really isnt a upgrade option with consoles, so the challenges you see using PC gaming is only consoles gains, tho theyre limiting, as you get what you get with a console, with no real upgrading going on, and the PC? Just spend more money heheh
April 9, 2008 12:06:29 PM

Yeah cutting edge. Also fecking expensive as it turns out.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 12:09:21 PM

Just like anything "new", you pay for it. And if it lasts, youre setup, but in high tech, nothing lasts, not even our wallets
April 9, 2008 12:11:17 PM

Well i aint playing. I'll wait 12-18mnths then buy a card cheaply and play Crysis.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 12:21:43 PM

Theres newer architectures coming in the graphics market, probably quarter 3, they hold much promise, and maybe by then , Crysis will be tamed
April 9, 2008 12:26:47 PM

Yeah...and a snip at £250-400 for the newest cards. No ta!

I'm aiming for 9800gtx in like 12 months, should be around £100 by the (I hope!!)

In the meantime, Bioshock, COD4, Medieval Total War 2, X3 Reunion all look great (although a bit laggy sometimes).

PS the 8600gt doesn't overclock well.
PPS save another £60 and buy a 8800gtx
PPPS don't get a 9600gt. anything nvidia with a '"6" or a "gt" is bad.
April 9, 2008 12:36:08 PM

chrishoops78 said:
Unacceptable in my view. Imagine if you bought an Xbox game and it didn't run properly.

I don't think developers should have 6800gt owners in mind. But the 8600gt was the schiznitz just 18months ago.

I'm certainly not forking out £100+ just to play one game. But trust me, its a close run thing...its that good.

Maybe in a year I'll get a 9800gtx when they're around the £100 mark. Then I can play Crysis. :)  ....but not the next new game :( 



The 8600gt was never "the schiznitz." It was meant to be an affordable mid level card to begin with. For every generation of graphics cards, there are tiered naming schemes, like 8200/8600/8800, with 8200 at lowest performance level and 8800 highest. Next generation would be something like 9200/9600/9800. The new card would perform slightly better than the previous generation card on the same tier, but will often be significantly slower than higher tier card in the same previous generation. Your 8600gt is a mid tier card, has never been the top dog, at any time, and is significantly slower than the previous generation 7900.
April 9, 2008 12:41:46 PM

will 7900 play crysis better?
April 9, 2008 12:43:45 PM

chrishoops78 said:
Unacceptable in my view. Imagine if you bought an Xbox game and it didn't run properly.

I don't think developers should have 6800gt owners in mind. But the 8600gt was the schiznitz just 18months ago.

I'm certainly not forking out £100+ just to play one game. But trust me, its a close run thing...its that good.

Maybe in a year I'll get a 9800gtx when they're around the £100 mark. Then I can play Crysis. :)  ....but not the next new game :( 


The 8600gt was never considered a good card even at first release (1 year ago) it had a very luke warm reception, it was considered an overpriced underperformer in comparison to last generation dx9 cards and dx 10 features on the card were pure marketing :( .

From the July 2007 review on the midrange cards including the 8600:-

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/HD-2600-AND-GEFORCE-8600,...

"We fear that those buying "DX10" cards in the hope that they will play the highly anticipated game titles due out later this year will be sorely disappointed in the performance levels"


Its a shame the budget wasnt a little higher for £78 you could have grabbed a 3850 and got well over double the performance :(  I budget was hard fixed I would have probably looked at the 2600xt which has slightly better performance but is considerably cheaper.

I run the 8800GTX and have done since launch, personally I think graphics maxed at 1280x1024 looks far worse than graphics maxed at 1600x1200 but then Im playing on a CRT so I get a decent dot pitch and scaleability. Unfortunately the 8800gtx does struggle at 1600x1200 when running AA.

April 9, 2008 1:08:13 PM

chrishoops78 said:
But the 8600gt was the schiznitz just 18months ago.


Not sure where you got that impression from as it was released as a mainstream card and has always been considered average or even sub par. It's best to do a bit of research before buying any sort of hardware, and a simple google search of "8600gt" brings up many dissapointing reviews and information like the following:

The Geforce 8600GT has been considered disappointing and underpowered by many, the main criticism being that it does not actually outperform the previous generation Geforce 7600GT by a wide margin ie. only average of 20 percent improvement in framerates in most games (though it operates at a much higher resolution), and is actually, in some games, slightly slower or on par with the 7600GT.

Architecturally, the GeForce 8600 series in particular is hampered by its lack of sheer processing power - it has just 25% of the full G80 core's stream processors - and also by its comparatively narrow 128-bit memory bus. Older video cards in the same price range, such as the GeForce 7900GS and GT, featured a much wider (and hence faster) 256-bit memory bus.



So expecting a midrange £70 graphics card to play Crysis (a Game designed to push high end hardware (Graphics cards of £300+) for the next few years) on high settings is a bit of a leap. You won't be able to play this game at full settings for a while yet, and certainly not with a cheap card as you are planning.

Anyway, I play Crysis at Medium settings at the moment (on my friend's year old £400 PC) and it still looks gorgeous. You should be happy that you got a card that cheap which can manage medium. As for the comment about an Xbox 360, it's cheap, yes, but there's a reason. It's a console and can pretty much only be used to Game and play movies. Microsoft also lose money each time they sell an Xbox, but make up for it with the games that cost twice as much as the same game on PC (except those games on a PC are modable, usually have more content and always look better on a half decent PC). PC's are far superior and infinately more useful than consoles and more than make up for any extra initial cost. I do everything on my PC, browse the net, listen to music, watch films and TV shows, organise my entire life and most importantly... gaming! :p  Hell, I can run all the latest games perfectly and have recently been playing all my old games (the earliest being more than 15 years old!) as well! No console has such a large back catalogue of games that work on them, hell, they have trouble supporting the previous generations games!

Sorry, got a bit ranty there, but basically what I'm trying to say is that a PC is an investment that will serve you well for a long time, but you can't cheap out and expect excellent results. I understand that money situation plays a part, but I'm in that boat too. I've been planning my gaming PC build for over a year now (it's changed an awful lot as new tech comes out and I have researched more) and will finally be in a position to buy it at the end of this month. It'll be replacing an 8 year old PC that I spent quite a lot of money on building it at the time, but it still works, and while I can't run many of the newer games, it still handles World of Warcraft fine, plays my entire retro gaming collection (which is huge!) and all my non gaming needs. I'm expecting the new one to last at least 3 years and still be able to play all the current games at relatively high settings, so that to me justifies the cost.

Ummm, hope that helps, or even makes sense. Kinda trailed off at the end. :p 
April 9, 2008 1:12:33 PM

chrishoops78 said:
will 7900 play crysis better?


My friend's PC runs it perfectly on Medium (some high) with a 7900GS, an E6300 @2GHz and 2 GBs DDR2 800, so it may be better, but it's not going to be a huge leap or anything.
April 9, 2008 1:48:27 PM

1806733,17,296362 said:
a PC is an investment that will serve you well for a long time, but you can't cheap out and expect excellent results.

I'm sorry but £70 for one component is not what I would consider being cheap. this goes back to my original point that you can buy one half of an Xbox 360 for this money.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 1:54:45 PM

For a cheaper, safe ,easy, sometimes descent graphics experience, a console is perfect. For cutting edge, upgradeability and yes cost, PC is the way.
April 9, 2008 1:55:28 PM

chrishoops78 said:
1806733,17,296362 said:
a PC is an investment that will serve you well for a long time, but you can't cheap out and expect excellent results.

I'm sorry but £70 for one component is not what I would consider being cheap. this goes back to my original point that you can buy one half of an Xbox 360 for this money.
said:


On at at least 3 occasions in my life, I have paid more for a single component than your XBox 360... no one said that PC gaming was cheap.
April 9, 2008 2:00:24 PM

No one said it was cheap. I'm saying it f**king should be.
April 9, 2008 2:01:21 PM

I'm sorry but £70 for one component is not what I would consider being cheap. this goes back to my original point that you can buy one half of an Xbox 360 for this money.[/quotemsg said:


That may be true, but you can do a hell of a lot more with a PC then with an Xbox 360 (Most people use computers for considerably more than just games). I think you are over reacting with the lackluster of performance of your graphics card. The 8600gt is a god awful card for gaming use by today's standards. You should probably spend more time looking at what you buy next time.

I would not wait 12 months to get another cheap graphics card. You will just find yourself in the same boat as you are now. A good graphics card for today costs about $100 (or about £70) more then what you paid for the 8600gt, which is not a whole lot more. Save yourself the aggravation for the next two years and buy a good card now.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 2:03:38 PM

There are better cards for a little more than you paid. MUCH better cards. Always wise to do lots of homework buying ANY electronics, TVs,Refridgerators anything, even lightbulbs to a point.
April 9, 2008 2:03:39 PM

chrishoops78 said:
No one said it was cheap. I'm saying it f**king should be.



Why should it be cheap? A company has a right to charge for their product whatever they will like to. After all, they spent their valuable time creating and manufacturing the product.
a b U Graphics card
April 9, 2008 2:05:15 PM

Ans as was pointed out, the consoles are sold at a loss (except the wii) because of the games markups.
April 9, 2008 2:10:17 PM

"Why should it be cheap? A company has a right to charge for their product whatever they will like to. After all, they spent their valuable time creating and manufacturing the product. "

Wrong, they have a right to charge what I want to pay. Unfortunately, others will pay more.

"as was pointed out, the consoles are sold at a loss (except the wii) because of the games markups."

...doesn't matter to me.




April 9, 2008 2:19:15 PM

chrishoops78 said:
"Why should it be cheap? A company has a right to charge for their product whatever they will like to. After all, they spent their valuable time creating and manufacturing the product. "

Wrong, they have a right to charge what I want to pay. Unfortunately, others will pay more.

"as was pointed out, the consoles are sold at a loss (except the wii) because of the games markups."

...doesn't matter to me.



You seem to have extremely backwards knowledge on how economics work. No company cares about what you can pay. They only care about getting the most amount of money they can for their product. They want to make money, can you blame them? Think about how dumb what you just said sounds. Suppose I only wanted to pay $1 for the best graphics card, should that company then only charge me $1 for it? Especially when it cost them more than that to manufacture it? Come on, people who build computers should be smarter than that.
April 9, 2008 2:23:55 PM

Just because you are not prepared to pay the premium that others are, does not mean that it's over priced. The reason why consoles are so cheap is that they can sell them at a loss, because people will pay a lot of money for the games which are (relatively) cheap to produce. You should also remember that the 8 cores or whatever are in a PS3 are dedicated to the gaming aspect, they don't have to do a lot, which is why your standard CPUs for PCs cost a lot of money, they are more complicated.

I know people that play a lot of good PC games, but they don't have as many games as a console owner. The price difference really isn't that much when you shell out £30-50 for a game that will last you one month, then you buy a new one. The most successful PC games are not like console games, you can buy Counter Strike or (shudder) Warcraft and play it for years. You buy 10 console games, and your cheap £150-200 console is now maybe £650, meanwhile a decent £700 computer will have its owner spend maybe £100 on games...not looking terribly different now are they?

Console companies make their money on the games, which is why games made primarily for that platform tend to be a lot different from games made for the PC platform.
April 9, 2008 6:31:17 PM

maybe you should actually do some research before buying a card?

The 8600GT is not a good card for Cyrsis?

THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT Mr. Obvious.
April 9, 2008 7:02:39 PM

I feel your pain. When I upgraded my platform, i got a 7600GT, because it actually kicked ass compared to its bigger brothers. I ignored the warnings and grabbed an 8600GTS cuz I wanted to see the DX10 eye candy for cheep in Crysis, and expected the same kind of performance compared to the more expensive 8 series cards.. After intense disappointment, I ended up gettin an 8800GT, and am much happier, all my games excepting Crysis run at max settings @ 16x10. Havent had time to really turn Crysis up, but it does run alot smoother.

Moral of the story, Save up some money, and spring for a big card, you wont be disappointed.
April 9, 2008 7:13:33 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
There are better cards for a little more than you paid. MUCH better cards. Always wise to do lots of homework buying ANY electronics, TVs,Refridgerators anything, even lightbulbs to a point.


+1
!