Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best Upgrade from a 8800GTS (G92) ?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 15, 2008 2:58:11 AM

So I recently picked up a 22" Widescreen LCD Monitor, and my 8800GTS (G92) has gone from the Videocard that couldn't break a sweat, to having to turn down AA... going from 1024x768 to 1680x1050 put more stress on the card than I was expecting.

While it is holding up for now, I can see myself having to start turning down even more settings in the upcoming months and I want to be able to play the Holiday Season Games without having to sacrifice graphics, for FPS. (Don't worry, the wife will be getting the 8800 so it's not going to waste.)

My Rig:

WinXP Pro
AMD 3.2Ghz Dualcore Processor
3 Gigs 4-4-4-12 Corsair RAM
750GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA HD
650w PSU (1 x 6Pin, 1 x 6+2Pin)

I don't want to spend anymore than $460, so the 3 big contenders seem to be the 9800GTX2, The GTX260 and the GTX280.

The 9800X2 seems like a very powerful contender, lots of muscle, a great price and the advantage of having sli in a single PCIe slot, leaving room to add a second in the future for 4 cards in the space of only 2, but I am a little concerned about the power consumption and reported "Hitching" with the "Two cards in one" technology.

The GTX260 is nice and cheap at only $300, seems to be getting rave reviews and at 1680x1050 the card has a lot of muscle... but I have to wonder if the card will hold up to the test of time. While I have no real issue with upgrading my GPU once a year, I would really like a little more longevity out of a $300-400+ investment. I'm not asking for ATI 9800pro longevity, but if it's a case of spending $100 extra now, for the 280 and not having to update for 2 years, or saving $100 but having to shell out another $400 next Holiday season, I would rather pay more now and save in the long run.

The GTX280 is of course, the top of the current barrel, and is on the upper tier of the cost scale and while I know it will perform better than the 260, is it really worth the $140 extra?

Thank you all in advance for any help or direction.

- Asci

More about : upgrade 8800gts g92

September 15, 2008 3:06:55 AM
September 15, 2008 3:10:49 AM

So for price and performance, the 9800GTX2 is the best pick of the bunch?

Whats the advantage of going with a 260 or a 280 then if the previous generation card is getting higher benchmarks and costs less?
Related resources
September 15, 2008 3:16:03 AM

Ascadia said:
So for price and performance, the 9800GTX2 is the best pick of the bunch?

Whats the advantage of going with a 260 or a 280 then if the previous generation card is getting higher benchmarks and costs less?


The latest generation always cost more. Gtx260 and 280 prices will drop once the next generation comes out. Most people go by hype, buy what's "cool" and don't do serious research. Those cards are priced at whatever people are willing to pay.
September 15, 2008 3:19:45 AM

Well I know that much, but I was assuming the 260/280 had something to offer.

I mean going from the 8800 series to the 9800 series it was significantly advanced streamcore architecture, so I was thinking that the series would have something going for it, but the proof seems to be in the benchmarks.
September 15, 2008 3:22:45 AM

Ascadia said:
Well I know that much, but I was assuming the 260/280 had something to offer.

I mean going from the 8800 series to the 9800 series it was significantly advanced streamcore architecture, so I was thinking that the series would have something going for it, but the proof seems to be in the benchmarks.


What's streamcore? If you meant stream processors, they all use them.

Gtx280 does have something going for it: SLI. 2 gtx280 in dual sli will outperform 2 9800gx2 in quad sli, due to diminishing returns as cores increase.
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 15, 2008 3:35:37 AM

Considering how 9800GX2 prices have fallen it's turning out to be a good deal. Chances are they will be gone soon. I also doubt we will see much improvement on them from the driver side of things. A 9800 GX2 may not always scale well and there are a few instances where they fall behind a single 280 or Radeon 4870, like in Call of duty 4. If you're worried about that then do some research as far as reviews, or just check out the charts here. I think that for the price it's acceptable that it falls behind in a few cases when it pulls ahead in so many others and is so well priced.
September 15, 2008 3:35:44 AM

I'm not much into SLI, I would rather buy one high performance card that buy two cards and only get an extra 75% performance for a second card.

As for "Streamcore" that's for want of a space on my part "Stream core architecture" as in, when the 9600 launched, nVidia was bragging that they had increased performance of the Stream Processors in the 9600/9800 so that it could do the same amount of work as the 9800 with half the stream processors.

I just did a "Click here and see what your computer would score with one of our new cards!" links over at nVidias site... and they are saying I will only get 1400 extra points from Futuremark going from an 8800gts (g92) to a GTX280... yet I would score 1600 more with a 9800GTX2... so even nVidia is confirming that the 9800GTX2 is a better buy for the system.

So it looks like ill be getting a 9800GTX2 come Friday.

Thanks for the help.

:) 
September 15, 2008 5:24:49 AM

It's really surprising to me that a G92 8800 GTS can't sail through 1680x1050.

My 8800 GTS 320 did pretty well at that res.
September 15, 2008 1:06:32 PM

megamanx00 said:
Considering how 9800GX2 prices have fallen it's turning out to be a good deal. Chances are they will be gone soon. I also doubt we will see much improvement on them from the driver side of things. A 9800 GX2 may not always scale well and there are a few instances where they fall behind a single 280 or Radeon 4870, like in Call of duty 4. If you're worried about that then do some research as far as reviews, or just check out the charts here. I think that for the price it's acceptable that it falls behind in a few cases when it pulls ahead in so many others and is so well priced.


That's not true. 9800gx2 significantly outperform both gtx280 and 4870 in Call of Duty 4.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14

It does fall behind gtx280 and end up very close to 4870 in one game: Quake Wars.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=15

At no times does it fall behind single 4870. The average gap is far too big for that to happen.
September 15, 2008 1:58:02 PM

Ummmm ya, I have a 8800GTS 512 with a 22" and it runs everything with no issue.

I do overclock, I think my core speed is at 790 or soo, it might be your cpu thats holding you back..

Again, I have E3110 @ 4.23ghz. Maybe you should look at updating your processor....
September 15, 2008 2:32:28 PM

espslyxerx2 said:
Ummmm ya, I have a 8800GTS 512 with a 22" and it runs everything with no issue.

I do overclock, I think my core speed is at 790 or soo, it might be your cpu thats holding you back..

Again, I have E3110 @ 4.23ghz. Maybe you should look at updating your processor....


I used to have a 8800GTS - had it since they first came out. There hasn't been a suitable upgrade until now (Some games are slow at 1650x1050 with max settings - crysis for a start) I was considering getting a 280 but it was bad value for money, so I decided to wait. Then last month the 4870x2 came out. That's where my money went, got one from dabs for £300. And it kicks the 280 into touch, and that's with dodgy drivers.

Are you kidding about the E3110 its running at over 4 gigs :o  that chip will beat ALL non clocked core duos without even trrying I have a 6850(at stock speeds) and his one will beat the pants off mine, his chip is more than enough grunt for ANY game/application, In my opinion that's some bad advice.

September 15, 2008 2:46:15 PM

I had a 8800GTX and not a GTS like I said above
September 15, 2008 2:49:23 PM

espslyxerx2 said:
Ummmm ya, I have a 8800GTS 512 with a 22" and it runs everything with no issue.

I do overclock, I think my core speed is at 790 or soo, it might be your cpu thats holding you back..

Again, I have E3110 @ 4.23ghz. Maybe you should look at updating your processor....


I apologise I thought the original poster had the e3110 I misread the post. Many apologies for that. I cant seem to edit my posted message, how backwards. :pt1cable: 


September 15, 2008 3:14:36 PM

Oh I am having no problems running games right now, other than in order to keep 60+ fps with everything cranked on high I have to lower the AA from 16, to 8/4/2 depending upon the title, which at 1680x1050 there are significantly less "Jaggys" anyway, so It really does not impact the visuals in any significant way.

I can run Crysis modded and maxed out, Medeval 2 Total war hacked for visuals and everything maxed out. UT3 maxed and modded with the PhysX Maps, Oblivion with 4 gigs of mods all focused on upgrading the visuals with all settings maxed out. Assassins creed maxed out. The 8800GTS (G92) even compensates for shoddy code, playing Neverwinter Nights 2 with everything on max.

However, the reason for the upgrade is that I want to continue playing games at 1680x1050 with everything cranked on high for the next year or two and I can see the 8800GTS (G92) having problems.

I need to upgrade my wifes GPU this month anyway, and as she is only running games in 1024x768. I figured I would give her my 8800GTS (G92) which will serve her needs well for the next year or two as her only real requirement is that her system can play The Sims, and I will future proof my rig a little for the Holiday Season and hopefully next year.

I am curious however... what would you recommend higher than a AMD 3.2Ghz Dual core? There is nothing in the AMD line higher than 3.2Ghz right now. The Xeon E3110 is a beautiful processor and runs fairly cheap at only $180, but I am running an AMD rig and understandably, dont want to have to go out and buy a new processor, motherboard and RAM just to get a Xeon E3110.

Crysis for its recommended specs only asks for a 2.2Ghz dualcore processor, or 2.8Ghz single with Vista, and I don't even use Vista (I'm still waiting for the Win7 Beta) I am not exactly convinced that my processor would be causing any form of bottle necking of my GPU.
September 15, 2008 3:48:25 PM

My apologies, I read the speed backwards, I was thinking 2.3 ghz. The 3.2 ghz would not be a bottleneck.


:) 
September 15, 2008 3:56:27 PM

Ah, that makes sense.

I was a little confused for a while there, hehe.

Although you get me to go searching newegg for new AMD processors which is always fun.
September 15, 2008 4:25:04 PM

hello
your processor is too slow imo. it would be best upgrading your processor first.
and the 260 is what i recommend, i am buying one for myself this months end.
September 15, 2008 4:28:17 PM

espslyxerx2 said:
My apologies, I read the speed backwards, I was thinking 2.3 ghz. The 3.2 ghz would not be a bottleneck.


:) 

are you for real? a 3.2ghz is too damn slow imo, it is worse than an old proc. i have, the intel p4 3.4ghz. you need immediately to buy, a core 2 duo proc.! or a faster amd proc., with all the respect.
September 15, 2008 4:56:18 PM

Your the guy that has a E6700, and is looking to get a Q9650 and a 260 to run the 3D graphics of the vista desktop because your using onboard Video, right?

You do realize how little difference there is between 3.2Ghz and 3.4Ghz CPU if they both have equal cache, right?
September 15, 2008 5:13:29 PM

jvc08 said:
are you for real? a 3.2ghz is too damn slow imo, it is worse than an old proc. i have, the intel p4 3.4ghz. you need immediately to buy, a core 2 duo proc.! or a faster amd proc., with all the respect.



Don’t listen to this guy, he obviously has no idea what he’s talking about.

If you have a newer “dual core” processor running at 3.2 ghz, that is not a bottleneck. Also, the 260 hes “getting at the end of the month” also shows the lack of knowledge he has.

Hes got a P4 at 3.4 ghz, you might as well get a bunch of Chinese workers lined up and have them flip switches on and off. Big difference between a dual core cpu and an old P4.
a c 106 U Graphics card
September 15, 2008 7:42:48 PM

dagger said:
That's not true. 9800gx2 significantly outperform both gtx280 and 4870 in Call of Duty 4.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=14

It does fall behind gtx280 and end up very close to 4870 in one game: Quake Wars.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3341&p=15

At no times does it fall behind single 4870. The average gap is far too big for that to happen.


If you check out the charts here you will see the 9800GX2 falling behind a single 4870 at 1680x1050 with no AA and no AF as well as with 4xAA, 8xAF. You will notice in the AnandTech review the benchmarks were completed with 4xAA 0xAF. The results for the 9800GX2 are going to depend on the test setup and IQ levels, so it's not always going to be consistent.

If your going to get a 9800GX2 you should do the research. Still I think that it's acceptable for it to fall behind in a few cases when it's at such a good price.
September 15, 2008 8:21:52 PM

megamanx00 said:
If you check out the charts here you will see the 9800GX2 falling behind a single 4870 at 1680x1050 with no AA and no AF as well as with 4xAA, 8xAF. You will notice in the AnandTech review the benchmarks were completed with 4xAA 0xAF. The results for the 9800GX2 are going to depend on the test setup and IQ levels, so it's not always going to be consistent.

If your going to get a 9800GX2 you should do the research. Still I think that it's acceptable for it to fall behind in a few cases when it's at such a good price.


I have nothing against Tomshardware, but I don't trust its charts. It also shows weird things like dual 8800gts outperforming dual 280gtx at some settings, and Single 8800ultra outperforming dual gtx280 in Assassin's Creed. Its chart concerning 9800gx2 and 4870 is in direct contradiction to Anandtech chart, or any other site, for that matter.
September 15, 2008 8:29:02 PM

I would like to see crysis maxed out running on your 8800gts. there is no way you can maintain a smooth 25-30 FPS on all parts of the game, I remember FPS dropping below 19 and that was with my 8800GTX !
September 15, 2008 9:12:38 PM

The Benchmarks speak for themselves.

The 8800 GTS (G92) competes very well against the 8800GTX, especially where Crysis is concerned. Both getting an average of 26FPS on 1680X1050 with no AA.

The 8800GTS (G92) was in essence a stripped down 8800 Ultra, with 512Megs instead of 756Megs of Video RAM, and a 256bit memory interface, instead of a 384bit memory interface, however they both run on the same chipset with similer architecture, hence the (G92) tagged onto the end.

When they were first launched last year they caused quite a stir because they were a card that was under $400, yet was competing with the $750, $1000 big boys of the Series 8 line up.

The Card is solid, unlike the original 8800GTS 768meg card, that could talk the talk, but couldn't walk the walk.
September 15, 2008 10:21:26 PM

blazer666_uk said:
I would like to see crysis maxed out running on your 8800gts. there is no way you can maintain a smooth 25-30 FPS on all parts of the game, I remember FPS dropping below 19 and that was with my 8800GTX !


Max settings at a low 1280x1024 resolution, average 29 fps:


High settings, average 52 fps.


The timedemo is somewhat more stressful than in-game. But still, 8800gts just can't handle max settings in Crysis.
September 15, 2008 10:48:59 PM

Not at 60fps, no.

But 20-30fps is still playable. Once again, it's not 60fps, but hence the desire for a new card.

If I was fully satisfied with its performance in all things, I would be sticking with the card instead of looking for something a little updated.

Crysis is one of those games that makes me believe the 8800GTS (G92) will not be able to tough out the next 2 years without making some serious compromises in visuals for performance, but the 8800GTS (G92) still has a lot of muscle behind it and performs better than one would expect.

September 16, 2008 12:26:13 PM

On an 8800GTS (G92) Crysis tanks with AA on.

This entire thread has been about having to slowly lower AA settings to maximize performance with the 8800GTS (G92) being a sign that it may be time for an upgrade if one wishes to continue playing the brand new AAA titles at maximum settings, and weighing the options for upgrade.
September 16, 2008 4:30:50 PM

Just get another one.I have 2 of these and they run GREAT. 47 FPS crysis EVERYTHING VERY HIGH but on 1280x1024.There shouldn't be a large difference at 1600x1050.
!