Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

8800gt 256 or 8800gs superclocked ?

  • Graphics Cards
  • Monitors
  • Graphics
  • Product
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
April 18, 2008 9:20:38 AM

My monitor supports only 800x600 and 1024x768.
Both of these card are coming at $140 at newegg

More about : 8800gt 256 8800gs superclocked

April 18, 2008 10:42:39 AM

If i had to choose between the two i would go with the GS since it has more memory. 256 MB is not much if you want highly detailed textures etc. - even on 1024x768.

I would suggest at 9600GT though.
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2008 1:20:10 PM

Either is fine for 10x4 resolution. Once you get to 12x10 and above the 256MB 8800GT often tanks bad so the 8800GS is better. Both can hurt once res goes way up though.

I have both 8800GS cards and the evga is the way to go. Quieter variable speed cooler on it. Go for it it's amazing for the price. Make sure it fits in your case (9 inches long + room for the PCI-e power plug) and you have an addequate PSU.

BTW, what are your system specs? CPU, power supply and current video card? See at 10x7 res or lower, you will very often be CPU limited with these cards anyway as that res just doesn't stress these cards. It's not going to hurt your gaming, just means for sure do not go higher than the 8800GS. I won't say go lower either as there is a significant performance drop going under $100. The 8800GS really is where things start to get serious as the HD2600XT and 8600GTS are miles behind. But from my own testing of an 8800GS in a dual core X2 4200+ rig, I am typically CPU limited at 10x7 and 4xaa in the games I have tested. it will be the rare exception game to be GPU limited at 10x7.
But if you have a slower single core CPU, you may find it preventing the 8800GS from outpacing your current card at 10x7 resolution. Just trying to help you not be disappointed, so let us know your specs.
Related resources
April 18, 2008 1:55:04 PM

I agree with Slogobob on the 9600GT.
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2008 2:00:27 PM

9600GT is a nice option and priced well too, but really the two compete well with each other. The 9600GT is only really better with fsaa and a res higher than he uses. For his res I still think he will be CPU limted so it's hard for me to recommend any more money than a $100-110 8800GS. Unless he upgrade monitors he will get zero gain with the 9600GT.
April 18, 2008 2:05:58 PM

8800GS, definitely. Also keep in mind that you could reuse the GPU in an upgraded system in the future (if you're running an older single-core CPU), in which case a new CPU could take away the CPU-bound games point pauld brought up. 9600GT would be more future-proof IMHO, but the 8800GS is not a bad buy either.
April 18, 2008 2:07:47 PM

Damn 8800gt 256 prices dropped way down.. Anything 1280x1024 and this would start to texture thrash. Even crysis with AA @ high settings = no no.

I really don't agree with 9600gt.. It's more money and less shader. It might perform slightly faster than 8800gs now with AA but it doesn't make sense for the future.

Not to mention, there is a beta of physics on cuda... and that means that the more shader power a card has, the more physics acceleration it can do.
April 18, 2008 2:20:03 PM

I have the 8800GT 256mb and have been very happy with it. I run at 1280x1024 and Cod4 looks amazing. I wish I had waited for the 512mb card but they were all out of stock when I wanted to purchase.

Exactly. That is the reason I would say 8800GS/9600GT/8800GT with >256MB only. There is little/no headroom with that [256] memory capacity right now.
April 18, 2008 2:37:39 PM

256MB is insufficient for most games these days at high settings, at least for Nvidia cards. The 384MB 8800GS outclasses the 256MB 8800GT in my book, but as others are saying the 512MB 9600GT is a great alternative.

Also, I wouldn't count out the HD3800s. They seem to have better memory management, and DX10.1 is starting to show some promise. :sol: 
April 18, 2008 4:10:44 PM

The extra 128 vram on the GS is worth it IMO. And as Marvelous said, the extra shader performance makes it a better choice than the 9600.
April 18, 2008 6:30:23 PM

Thank you guys for helping. I ordered the gs.
Btw, I have very old computer p4 2.8, 1gb ram and would be replacing x800xl.
What performance increase with present system can I see ?

If I need to upgrade to dual core, I would need new motherboard, new ram too out of my budget presently.
April 18, 2008 6:53:17 PM

if you are playing games at 1280 then any card that has 256MB of ram is sufficient. Go for the cheapest one IMO
April 18, 2008 7:04:29 PM

I would have to agree with tekzor; 256 is fine at 1280 right now. How long do you plan on having this computer? If its more than 6 month to a year, then id say ur not going to be happy. You simply wont be able to play any of the newer games that require a greater deal of muscle. Just my opinion. :) 
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2008 8:00:17 PM

Actually, at 1280x1024 the 256MB 8800GT starts to struggle if 4xFSAA is turned on. The 256MB HD3850 beats it and it can drop to a fraction of what the 512MB 8800GT can do. The OP is gaming at 10x7 max, so then it should be fine.

FYI, look just how bad the 256MB 8800GT tanks at 12x10:

Edit: I think it's important enough to post more about just how lousy the 256MB 8800GT actual does. This is a good example. Lets look at 12x10 in Oblivion.

Without eye candy, the oc'ed 256MB 8800GT leads this pack:

But with eye candy, it tanks and gets demolished by the 256MB HD3850 even as res goes up:

Anyway, this is why I have hated the 8800GT 256MB from the start. it simply has greater limitations than other 256MB cards.
April 18, 2008 9:22:10 PM

Yeah, Nvidia cards like their VRAM.

By the way, I still get that alt-tab bug fairly frequently in NWN2. It's unplayable with AA enabled because of it. I thought that crap was fixed a while ago :(