8800 gts (old chipset) performance..

[Zeppelin8]

Hey everyone..

I own a 8800 gts (640mb) graphics card. Now it is one year old (lets say 14 months or so) and has the oldest chipset of 8800 series. I searched internet for a few tests but couldn't find any since my card became old. (sad to hear that after paying loads of cash for it at that time.)

How much is the performance difference between my card and new 8800 gts cards?

How good is it compared to 8800 gt and 9600 gt's?

So i can have an idea.. i might think of an upgrade or so..

thanks in advance..

 

[romulus47plus1]

The new GTS(G92) is like so much more times better than the old one(the one you got)
The new one also runs cooler, more silent and consumes less power.
http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/02/g80-vs-g92-hi-end-geforce-gfx-cards-round-up/
The new GTS is so good that it's almost equivalent to the GTX!
http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/02/g80-vs-g92-hi-end-geforce-gfx-cards-round-up/?page=11
As for the 8800GTS 640 vs 9600GT, they perform almost the same...
But the 8800GT is a better card for sure.
http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/02/g80-vs-g92-hi-end-geforce-gfx-cards-round-up/?page=10

 

[cisco]

People tend to overrate the new G92 series, most of the people giving their opinion on the old G80 have never had one. Most people just look at benchmarks without looking at the entire product. They are not a huge leap forward, they are a diagonal step at best. If they were so great why are they not named something else? Companies normally don't name a product the same name without a good reason. It's because there is little real world difference between the two series. The G92 has potential but they were not forced to unleash it since ATI took the year off. I can tell you first hand owning an old G80 GTS and new (G94) 9600 SLI that the performance is not that much different. The build quality of the G80 series is far superior to the G92 cards. I put a 8800GT in my nephew's computer and it was a flimsy P.O.S., not to mention the heat sink sucked. There is a reason why the G80 series are still more expensive then the new g92, it's build quality. The new cards may well perform just as well and in some cases better but they are not even close in build quality. The G80 8800 Ultra is still the fastest single card. The new 9800GTX beats it in a few benchmarks but not all. I would not buy another card until the 9900 and ATI 4xxx are released sometime this summer. The current crop of cards are very nice mid-range cards but they are not true high-end cards like what we are used to. I think if they had put larger amount of ram standard, a higher bit interface, and a better heat sink on the G92, it would have been a real step up from the G80. If I had it to do over again I would have spent the extra $60.00 and added another 8800GTS 640mb. For what it is worth one of my 9600GT benchmarks about the same as my old GTS, but in games my GTS seemed to run better obviously in SLI the setup runs a little better.

 

[romulus47plus1]

Don't upgrade. Wait for the newer cards....

 

[emp]

Not THAT much better, some people love to oversell these G92 cards over the G80 counterparts. The GT and GTS fall behind the 8800GTX but slightly above the G80 GTS, so with a mild OC you should be able to catch the G92 cards performance wise.

Remember that OC'ing a G80 card nets you better results than OC'ing a G92 card, at least that's what I've witnessed first hand with my G80 GTS and my brother's G92 GT, not a very noticeable boost with his best stable OC, but mine can give improvements of around 20-30% I've seen. It's a nice card (The GT), I'll give you that, but I wouldn't trade for it, because at my best OC speeds I can outdo what I've seen his GT do.

 

[caamsa]

Saw the PNY 8800GT at best buy for $179.99 not bad.

 

[lucuis]

Well i'm running the "overrated" g92 8800gts and i can tell you it's FAR from a flimsy pos. And the price it's at now, you'd have to be short a few marbles to buy the old model gts over it. Plus it overclocks well. Score in 3DMark06 is just over 14k, under vista.

I do agree the gt build quality sucks, and they run to hot. But the performance is undeniable.

OP, like romulus47plus1 said. Wait on the new ati card to see how it performs before making a decision.

 

[cisco]

True lucuis my reference to a flimsy POS was the GT. The GTS is built better than the GT. This has been a year of mediocre cards at best. The launch of the g92 was a joke. They crippled it to the point that is actually runs between the two previous gen cards, WTF? When was the last time we saw a company release cards where the base highend cards wasn't faster than the fastest card from the previous generation? I'm not saying the G92s are puke, all I'm saying is this was not an official leap in technology.
And once again I can't emphasize enough wait for the next gen. Let see if they get off their asses and start building some good video cards again. I am looking forward to ATI 4xxx series card as well they claim it's 50% faster, that can often be a very relative term.

 

[Crazy-PC]

Performance of 8800GTS 640M is between 8800GT and 9600GT so don't upgrade and wait around July this year for the newer Nvidia 9800 / 9900 series.

 

[cisco]

Its funny but one of the 9600GT benchmarked almost identical numbers in 3dmark 06 about 10,300 but in Crysis the GTS ran about 5 fps higher @ 1650x1050. Probably due to more ram and 320bit interface versus 256 on the 9600 more SP as well.

 

[Guest]

lol what a great topic... I have a single 8800 GTS 640 as well... is better than my friends gtx, even though we have very similar hardware... and I am able to play EVERY SINGLE GAME I HAVE at max quality with anti aliasing @ 4 AA at a resolution of 1920 by 1200. THe only game I can't use AA with is crysis... Although I still play it at a mix of high and very high at that res around 30 fps... so w/e... next upgrade is gong to be in around a year for me. None of the new games come even close to the graphics of say Call of Duty 4, or Crysis, and My comp can run those, so why get another "better" card if my "old p.o.s." card is capable of doing it


Anyway, forgive my rant-ish run-on sentence =D

 

[rfatcheric]

My 8800GTS 320mb recently died and I upgraded to an 8800GTS 512 (g92) and from I've seen the performance difference is very noticable. My FPS in crysis increased from 20-30 fps to 40-50 fps.

Now, it could in fact be because my card was faulty in the first place, but I saw a pretty big leap in performance with this upgrade.

If my card hadn't died I wouldn't be willing to fork out the money for an 8800GTS 512 (g92) just to upgrade. However, it is nice upgrade and I would imagine most would notice a good increase in performance.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But, like was said earlier, the G80s oc better, and with better results. It isnt a recomended upgrade path from G80 to anything, unless youve bought a new monitor, going for higher res, or already have a high res monitor, and want a better performance thatll actually be felt

 

[dagger]

But, like was said earlier, the G80s oc better, and with better results. It isnt a recomended upgrade path from G80 to anything, unless youve bought a new monitor, going for higher res, or already have a high res monitor, and want a better performance thatll actually be felt

The g80 do not oc better than g92. 8800gt oc badly only because of its lousy single slot stock cooler. It has to do with cooler, not the gpu itself. G92 8800gts oc like a champ.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, youre right. I guess it depends on actually how much nVidia decided to cut their newer cards down. Their chips are expensive, a lil hot, and on some models theyve cut back alot. I cant say that completely about the GTS, like you said.Theyve got the good cooler there, and its smaller node allows for the better ocing, but unless the res is high, I wouldnt "upgrade" to it, or, if my G80 died

 

[pauldh]

The 8800GTS 640MB is an excellent card. Not worth buying now at current prices, but not worth upgrading to a G92 either. Keep it, OC it, game on.

 

[pauldh]

lol what a great topic... I have a single 8800 GTS 640 as well... is better than my friends gtx, even though we have very similar hardware... and I am able to play EVERY SINGLE GAME I HAVE at max quality with anti aliasing @ 4 AA at a resolution of 1920 by 1200. THe only game I can't use AA with is crysis... Although I still play it at a mix of high and very high at that res around 30 fps... so w/e... next upgrade is gong to be in around a year for me. None of the new games come even close to the graphics of say Call of Duty 4, or Crysis, and My comp can run those, so why get another "better" card if my "old p.o.s." card is capable of doing it


Anyway, forgive my rant-ish run-on sentence =D

There is absolutely no way in the world an 8800GTS 640 MB at any clock speed can stay around 30 fps at 1920x1200 high/very high. No chance. An 8800U can't come close to that. SLI 8800GTS would struggle to do that in many levels of the game.

Look at 8800GTX actual gameplay performance at much lower resolution and settings than that: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Also the 9800GTX or 8800GTX are struggling at 19x12 almost all medium settings:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4MSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

The 9800GX2 can't even do that:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ3NSwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Stock clocked, the 8800GT beats the 8800GTS 640MB by a little in Crysis:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[Guest]

well... I don't know why... but it works for me... I have a 3.2 ghz core 2 duo e6420, 2 gigs of 1200 mhz ram with timings of 5-4-4-12 (only payed 90 bucks for them too =D) and have my graphics card at stock voltage 650 core clock, 1700 shader clock, and 950 memory clock. So with a stock overclock... thats obtainable on most, if not all 8800 GTS's... I can run crysis at that res... So...

Please don't explain the logic to me... I don't get it either... BUT it does work

 

[Ananan]

I still have yet to play a game or demo (including crysis) that ran badly on my GTS 320 at 1680x1050.

Upgrading CPU from 4200+ to 6400+ actually made a huge difference with the GTS 320. Games run MUCH smoother.

 

[pauldh]

I still have yet to play a game or demo (including crysis) that ran badly on my GTS 320 at 1680x1050.

Upgrading CPU from 4200+ to 6400+ actually made a huge difference with the GTS 320. Games run MUCH smoother.

I have a 320MB GTS too, and Crysis at 16x10 all high beats the snot out of it. 16x10 medium is not bad. But above that the performance tanks terribly. I don't question the res per say, it's the detail level. No single GPU can play crysis well at 19x12 high/very high. IQ there is a big difference between med/high IMO. Even an OC'ed Q6600 8800GT doesn't do well at 16x10 all high later in the game. [H]'s opinion of max playable put the 320MB GTS at 12x10 mix medium/high at about 30 fps ave. (link above)

Average of 15 fps at 16x10 high in DX9, 33 fps at medium -
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=2


Tad lower in DX10:
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=3

 

[emp]

The g80 do not oc better than g92. 8800gt oc badly only because of its lousy single slot stock cooler. It has to do with cooler, not the gpu itself. G92 8800gts oc like a champ.

No you're not getting what we mean, The G92 can definitely reach far greater frequencies, nobody is debating that, however what we're saying is that the performance increase OC'ing the G80 is higher clock for clock than the G92 chip, I've experienced this first hand. The explanation to this phenomenon (at least from I could gather from other posts) was the the ROP count was higher on the G80 and it would benefit more from the higher frequencies.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

I got it, but dropped it. The G92 ocs quite well, but the performance of a 10% oc on a G92 vs a G80 the G80 will actually see more fps % increase, even tho both cards may oc to over 20% from stock nVidia cards are bottlenecked by their BW, thus the wider bus and more rops help more, even when ocing