8600 gts review

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: josh6079

Hmm, but 800mhz core on the G84 with stock volts, and stock cooling is impressive though.

Maybe checkbox impressive. Overclocking the core does almost nothing if the card is bandwidth limited - which this card seems to be.

Proof?

From what i can see, it can be because

a) as you said bandwidth constrained
b) lack of ROP
c) lack of framebuffer (256mb)
d) a driver problem

Or its could be a mixture, and we wont know til people start testing the card in bandwidth limited scenarios, etc etc. The weird thing is that it was able to beat the 7900GT in a stencil shadow heavy game, riddick. But didnt in another stencil shadow heavy game and that was doom3.

Is FEAR or COH fillrate limited? or bandwidth? or both?

Riddick uses some heavy shaders also. My guess is it's more shader limited than stencil limited.

Its more stencil limited, and its already proven by the dominance seen by the 6/7 series compared to its competitors in that game because they excel at stencil shadow performance.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Proof?

About what? That the 8600 is bandwidth limited?

Whether it is or not depends on the application it's running, but for most recent games with high resolution / high IQ the 128 bit bus is going to be one of the factors that chokes this card - no matter how high the core goes.

Your jumping on the "oh noes" 128Bit parade, we currently do not have enough information to determine if that sole feature is responsible for the 8600's performance deficiencies, remember with it's higher clock memory it does have bandwidth levels at about 70% of the 7950 GT, which is what the 7600 GT had of the 6800 GT.

From the 8800 GTS 320 to 640 scenario we see that G80 actually reacts to the reduction in frame buffer (depending on the game of course), and we still aren't too sure if it is a driver issue with that card or just that G8x likes larger frame buffer sizes in general.

Same issue with the 8600 but now we have another variable to contend with, so the conclusion is mixed on what COULD be the cause of the G84 while performance fluctuations.

 

[josh6079]

Your jumping on the "oh noes" 128Bit parade, we currently do not have enough information to determine if that sole feature is responsible for the 8600's performance deficiencies, remember with it's higher clock memory it does have bandwidth levels at about 70% of the 7950 GT, which is what the 7600 GT had of the 6800 GT.

I'm not saying that that will be the reason, but I don't doubt that it will be one of the reasons.

 

[ArchAngel777]

It is pretty said when midrange cannot even best my 21 month old 7800 GTX. Nearly two years after my high end 7800 GTX, I still cannot replace it with a faster mid-range card... Depending on how you look at it - The midrange is either crap, or the G70 was that great.

 

[SickBeast]

Looking at how the card scales with high resolution and high AA and AF levels will help determine if the card is hindered by the low memory bus.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
It is pretty said when midrange cannot even best my 21 month old 7800 GTX. Nearly two years after my high end 7800 GTX, I still cannot replace it with a faster mid-range card... Depending on how you look at it - The midrange is either crap, or the G70 was that great.

QFT

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Looking at how the card scales with high resolution and high AA and AF levels will help determine if the card is hindered by the low memory bus.

Somewhat, G84 could lack the internal buffers necessary to handle high resolutions from the get go, remember it's designed for mainstreamers so 1280x1024 and a optimistic 1680x1050 at best.

Then we also have to see if it is the frame buffer issue with G8x to contend with as the 320 to 640 8800 GTS shows us.

And we also have to get the a look at the official tech specification first to see how much corners were cut with G84 compared to G80.

7800 GTX has internal buffers for 20x15 so it scales better at higher resolutions.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
It is pretty said when midrange cannot even best my 21 month old 7800 GTX. Nearly two years after my high end 7800 GTX, I still cannot replace it with a faster mid-range card... Depending on how you look at it - The midrange is either crap, or the G70 was that great.

Yeah, this I can agree with I was expecting the 8800 GTS to at least match the 7800 GTX/7900 GT overall minimum, hopefully that will still come to pass.

Guess I might have to splurge on that 460 CND 8800 GTS 640. Hopefully it will fall to 400 by summertime. :disgust:

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Your jumping on the "oh noes" 128Bit parade, we currently do not have enough information to determine if that sole feature is responsible for the 8600's performance deficiencies, remember with it's higher clock memory it does have bandwidth levels at about 70% of the 7950 GT, which is what the 7600 GT had of the 6800 GT.

I'm not saying that that will be the reason, but I don't doubt that it will be one of the reasons.

Ok, this statement I have no problems with. You have to keep in mind 8600 GTS isn't designed with high resolution gaming at all. So expecting high performance at high resolution is a bit absurd.

 

[josh6079]

You have to keep in mind 8600 GTS isn't designed with high resolution gaming at all. So expecting high performance at high resolution is a bit absurd.

Yes, but expecting to see an improvment in performance over last generation's mid-range isn't absurd.

Like I said, it seems as though it's just a DX10 compliant card with the performance of last generations mid-range parts.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: josh6079

You have to keep in mind 8600 GTS isn't designed with high resolution gaming at all. So expecting high performance at high resolution is a bit absurd.

Yes, but expecting to see an improvment in performance over last generation's mid-range isn't absurd.

Like I said, it seems as though it's just a DX10 compliant card with the performance of last generations mid-range parts.

It should be an improvement over the 7600 GT minimum, anything over that is icing on the cake, nothing on the 7900 core is mid range, those are performance-mainstream offerings another bracket entirely. I would expect better performance at the cards intended resolutions like 10x7 and 12x10 with 4XAA at 10x7 and lighter settings at 12x10, the card might be able to do 1680x1050 alright without AA.

It should most definitely have a speed improvement compared to the 7600 GT. It will probably be competitive with last generations performance mainstream offerings at more moderate workloads.

 

[hans007]

i think a lot of people are really dispappoited by the 8600gts since it isnt' hugely faster than the last midrange ones.

the 7600gt i think was an exception because it simply was faster than all the 6800 cards, even the 7600gt. i think its actually somewhat more disappointing because the 8600gts , has a power connector and is probably a little higher up the scale than the 7600gt was when it came out. the 8600gt will be interesting, but its mabye 7900gt speed at stock.

i really think though that the 6600gt and 7600gt were real exceptions. 6600gt was also as fast as the previous gen high end (5900 ultra). i guess we'll have to see when all the real benchmarks are out.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: hans007
i think a lot of people are really dispappoited by the 8600gts since it isnt' hugely faster than the last midrange ones.

the 7600gt i think was an exception because it simply was faster than all the 6800 cards, even the 7600gt. i think its actually somewhat more disappointing because the 8600gts , has a power connector and is probably a little higher up the scale than the 7600gt was when it came out. the 8600gt will be interesting, but its mabye 7900gt speed at stock.

i really think though that the 6600gt and 7600gt were real exceptions. 6600gt was also as fast as the previous gen high end (5900 ultra). i guess we'll have to see when all the real benchmarks are out.

You sure? The 8600GTS is alittle faster then the 7900GT but not by much at all.
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4883&s=2

 

[josh6079]

...nothing on the 7900 core is mid range, those are performance-mainstream offerings another bracket entirely.

I called the 7900 core mid-range because that's what Anandtech called it in one of their earlier reviews: Link

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: MyStupidMouth

Originally posted by: hans007
i think a lot of people are really dispappoited by the 8600gts since it isnt' hugely faster than the last midrange ones.

the 7600gt i think was an exception because it simply was faster than all the 6800 cards, even the 7600gt. i think its actually somewhat more disappointing because the 8600gts , has a power connector and is probably a little higher up the scale than the 7600gt was when it came out. the 8600gt will be interesting, but its mabye 7900gt speed at stock.

i really think though that the 6600gt and 7600gt were real exceptions. 6600gt was also as fast as the previous gen high end (5900 ultra). i guess we'll have to see when all the real benchmarks are out.

You sure? The 8600GTS is alittle faster then the 7900GT but not by much at all.
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4883&s=2

yeah that is what i meant, that the 8600gts is only a little faster than a 7900gt or 7950gt etc.

i guess the 8600gt isnt even going to be 7900gt class , maybe 7800gt ish (which is slower than 7900gs) so thats pretty disappointing too.


the 7600gt i know is faster than a 6800ultra, and i guess that is where all the "its not as good relatively" talk is. hopefully this just means, they will drop from MSRP really quickly and we can get 8600gts for $120 a month after launch. I could be ok with that. haha

 

[imported_Equinox]

Less than impressive, but not terrible. Seems a bit pricey for the performance that you get. I'm glad I have my 8800 GTS 640 and that I didn't wait. I also snagged a 1900GT for $129, which is absolutely killer price/performance.

 

[ronnn]

Seems like a nice card, when the price is right. I expect prices to drop as production gets going and this will be a huge seller unless ati actually release something.

 

[imported_thefonz]

I wonder how SLI'd 8600's will stack up against the 8800's

 

[AVP]

Originally posted by: Equinox
Less than impressive, but not terrible. Seems a bit pricey for the performance that you get. I'm glad I have my 8800 GTS 640 and that I didn't wait. I also snagged a 1900GT for $129, which is absolutely killer price/performance.

Off topic...x1950 gt $109.99 After Mail in rebate

Anyways, I am expecting ATI to win at this price point. Nothing to back it up. But since they decided to wait to have a broader launch, they must be giving extra focus to winning the midrange battle.

 

[motoxpress]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster*remembers the 6600GT days*

This is still a reality for some

-gl

 

[Cookie Monster]

But then again the gap between the 8600GTS and the 8800GTS 320 is too big.

So i do think once the 8600GTS drop in price as intended, we might see that bridge product between the 8600 and 8800 series.

So current rumours point to a possible 8600 ultra, or maybe even a more cut down version of the current G80 core. (256bit, 16 ROPs, etc)

 

[Acanthus]

All i know is i still really dont see a midrange card thats much better than my now ancient 6800GT.

30-40% is pretty lackluster for a part thats 2 years newer on a smaller process.

As for the memory bandwidth argument, it's an easy test. Underclcok the 8600s memory by 10%, then compare scores.

If its bandwidth starved, youll see a noticable drop in performance.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: thefonz
I wonder how SLI'd 8600's will stack up against the 8800's

SLI'd 6600's didnt do well against a single 6800, SLi'd 7600 were worse than a single 7900, so I'm going on a hunch here and say a single 8800gtx will be better than dual 8600gts's.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: AVP

Originally posted by: Equinox
Less than impressive, but not terrible. Seems a bit pricey for the performance that you get. I'm glad I have my 8800 GTS 640 and that I didn't wait. I also snagged a 1900GT for $129, which is absolutely killer price/performance.

Off topic...x1950 gt $109.99 After Mail in rebate

Anyways, I am expecting ATI to win at this price point. Nothing to back it up. But since they decided to wait to have a broader launch, they must be giving extra focus to winning the midrange battle.

Yeah, the last couple of generations Ati midrange cards seemed like an afterthought compared to their high end cards. The 9500p was great, but even that was too costly for them to keep up for long.

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
All i know is i still really dont see a midrange card thats much better than my now ancient 6800GT.

30-40% is pretty lackluster for a part thats 2 years newer on a smaller process.

As for the memory bandwidth argument, it's an easy test. Underclcok the 8600s memory by 10%, then compare scores.

If its bandwidth starved, youll see a noticable drop in performance.

the 8600gts is twice as fast as your 6800gt