Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference from EVGA 8800's 320MB and 640MB?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
July 9, 2008 8:20:33 PM

Hi.. i was just wondering what's the difference between the 640MB and the 320MB?
For instance... does the 640MB one run twice as fast as the 320MB...?
I don't really know what it does to have more MB's on a videocard... and how much it matters, but awhile back i would hear people say that in most situations the 256MB was better than the new (now old) 512MB video cards.
And.. for what reason they were better? I have no idea... So if.. anyone that's knowledge and knows what i'm getting at.. Could they explain to me how it works?
And i also noticed that the EVGA 8800 640MB is about.. 190-210 depending on which one you get
as for the 320MB one.. it's around 165-185.

I was in the moment of buying a new video card for my build and I didn't really look at what i was bidding on thoroughly, and i noticed when i won the bid that it was the EVGA 8800 320MB instead of the 640MB. BUT i bought it for about $130 which 30-45 dollars less than the other online prices.

I'm not planning to play anything with THAT crazy of graphics.. but just something like left 4 dead when it comes out. AND i doubt it'll have graphics like crysis since it's a shooter game from EA and Valve. They mainly focus on the game concept.. and playability more than the graphics as their main priority. Sooo... could someone also tell me if i got a deal or not? or if i should've bought something else? Some people been telling me to lean towards the 9800 because of the price right now. Soo.. i'm kinda regretting, but there's nothing i can do now. So.. someone say some good things about the 8800 320MB? and make me feel better please? =x

a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2008 8:26:20 PM

They're both pretty close in performance, with the 640 ahead at higher resolution. Under about 1680x1050 (with AA+AF), there will be next to no difference. Memory isn't everything - as long as you have enough memory for your resolution, more will not significantly help in most cases. Memory bandwidth is useful, but the GTS has plenty of that.

Both are relatively old and slow though, and you probably would have been better off in the $130 range with something like an 8800GT, or for slightly more, a G92 based 8800GTS (the ones with 512MB - they are significantly faster than the 320 or 640 versions). It'll still perform fine for moderate gaming, but it wasn't the best choice for the money.
July 9, 2008 8:34:40 PM

hm.. In that case.. i'm assuming it is somewhat pointless to get another 320mb and SLI it?
I would also like to get some information on the difference of 1GB 8800 GT and the 512MB? their prices are about the same.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2008 10:50:49 PM

What resolution are you running at?

For SLI, it would be a significant improvement over a single one as long as you aren't hitting the memory ceiling (SLI does not double the amount of memory available to render graphics, it just doubles the processing power effectively). As for the 8800GT, the 1GB model would be superior at 1920x1200 or above with filtering in some cases, but essentially the same as the 512 otherwise.
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2008 11:02:52 PM

well you can actually get the 8800 gts 640 at as little as 120 @

and I have one... and it plays every single game max w/ AA and AF at 1920 by 1200.... except crysis....

if you want a 200 $ card... get the 4850... you can actually get those for as little as 150 now after rebates
July 9, 2008 11:32:23 PM

"as long as you aren't hitting the memory ceiling "

What do you mean by that? :o 
a b U Graphics card
July 10, 2008 4:39:49 AM

Basically, as long as the game isn't demanding more than 320MB of memory. If that is the case, SLI won't help as much, because the limiting factor will become memory rather than processing power. This usually only happens at high resolution (1680x1050 or higher) with lots of filtering (4xAA or more, lots of AF, etc). This won't crash the game or anything, but it will cause it to slow down a lot, as the card will constantly have to swap stuff between the card's memory and other locations.
a c 169 U Graphics card
July 10, 2008 5:58:24 AM

Hello and welcome to the forums mate :) 

I completely agree with cjl,he is right.
A 8800GTS 320MB is a good card for resolutions like 1280x1024 or those resolutions a 8800GTS 320 doesnt have a noticeable difference with its older brother,but when u add some AA and AF and trun up the resolution then the 8800GTS 320MB begins to struggle due to its lower memory.