8800GT Review(s) - (18 and counting)

[loki5667]

Quick question on the evga cards. They have 3 version and I'm guessing the speeds are the only differences? Why would you buy the top card if you can get the same card for less and oc it yourself?

 

[HigherGround]

Originally posted by: loki5667
Quick question on the evga cards. They have 3 version and I'm guessing the speeds are the only differences? Why would you buy the top card if you can get the same card for less and oc it yourself?

EVGA has 4 8800GT versions. I guess some people are willing to pay the premium for a guaranteed OC.

 

[Dacalo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

something you should know:

http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=639
i missed this at the very end:

Cevat Yerli: Very, very well. Stay tuned for more on this. In mid November you will see the new NVidia cards. They are a blast for Crysis and really, really very good deals.

:Q

He is probably talking about the NEW 8800GTS.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

 

[HigherGround]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

So this review targets GTS owners who don't want to feel bad about their purchase?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

So this review targets GTS owners who don't want to feel bad about their purchase?

No, it more accurately depicts the differences between the products rather than skewing architectural differences with vastly different clock speeds so that those who understand the differences can make a more informed decision between the parts.

If you bought a GTS in the last month or two you might feel bad, otherwise what's there to feel bad about given the lack of anything else comparable besides a GTX over the last year?

 

[HigherGround]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

So this review targets GTS owners who don't want to feel bad about their purchase?

No, it more accurately depicts the differences between the products rather than skewing architectural differences with vastly different clock speeds so that those who understand the differences can make a more informed decision between the parts.

If you bought a GTS in the last month or two you might feel bad, otherwise what's there to feel bad about given the lack of anything else comparable besides a GTX over the last year?

Really? All I'm seeing are tests, which showcase GTS' superior memory bandwidth including the hilarious 1280x800 benchmark.

 

[TMoney468]

Does anyone know if the eVGA step up program would work for me from a 320MB 8800GTS to this card? They're both around the same price, but I don't know if they place the 8800GT above my card...and do you think it would be worth it for me? I game once in a while but definitely not something I do everyday.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

So this review targets GTS owners who don't want to feel bad about their purchase?

No, it more accurately depicts the differences between the products rather than skewing architectural differences with vastly different clock speeds so that those who understand the differences can make a more informed decision between the parts.

If you bought a GTS in the last month or two you might feel bad, otherwise what's there to feel bad about given the lack of anything else comparable besides a GTX over the last year?

Really? All I'm seeing are tests, which showcase GTS' superior memory bandwidth including the hilarious 1280x800 benchmark.

Might want to re-draw some of your conclusions. The 320MB GTS has the same "superior memory bandwidth", yet it gets stomped by both the 640MB and the GT in many instances where memory bandwidth might be a factor.

 

[SniperDaws]

The only problem now is these bastard etailers have hiked the prices up for the 8800GT from £130-140 to £160-180 so now the 640mb GTS looks more appealing again.

So now because of the greedy twats the GT isnt looking like the bargain it first was.....Grrrrrr.

 

[GTaudiophile]

At the end of HardOCP's review is an update indicating that NVDA is "unlocking" features on the 640MB GTS card, so maybe we shouldn't count it out just ye:

UPDATE - 10/29/07-8:29am: A very interesting addendum to this. I just got off the phone with BFG Tech and NVIDIA has been doing some strange things lately. As of this morning, the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB (unsure on the 320MB) will have its stream processors officially increased to 112, the same as the GT. This should put the GTS back ahead of the GT as per the paper specs. However, the separation in the products is still going to be very small except for those of you wanting to run high resolutions with AA turned on. To do that you are still going to need a $400+ video card..or so. Our new spec GTS is on the way to us now and we will of course be updating you. Given the GT's faster clocks and possibly larger texture unit, we will have to wait and see. Undoubtedly though, the 8800 GT remains a stellar value at the expected price points.

 

[HigherGround]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

So this review targets GTS owners who don't want to feel bad about their purchase?

No, it more accurately depicts the differences between the products rather than skewing architectural differences with vastly different clock speeds so that those who understand the differences can make a more informed decision between the parts.

If you bought a GTS in the last month or two you might feel bad, otherwise what's there to feel bad about given the lack of anything else comparable besides a GTX over the last year?

Really? All I'm seeing are tests, which showcase GTS' superior memory bandwidth including the hilarious 1280x800 benchmark.

Might want to re-draw some of your conclusions. The 320MB GTS has the same "superior memory bandwidth", yet it gets stomped by both the 640MB and the GT in many instances where memory bandwidth might be a factor.

Because at ultra high resolutions/AA settings it runs out of memory. Nothing new here, we've been having this discussion since February when 320MB part had been introduced. My conclusions stand as is - the benchmarks were picked to show GTS in the best possible light.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Because at ultra high resolutions/AA settings it runs out of memory. Nothing new here, we've been having this discussion since February when 320MB part had been introduced. My conclusions stand as is - the benchmarks were picked to show GTS in the best possible light.

Yikes though...to be fair, it looks like all of those cards play crisis like shit. Even the GTS I would label as "barely tolerable".

 

[fleshconsumed]

GTaudiophile
That would depend on "unlocking" nvidia does. Simply unlocking SPs to 112 won't do much performance wise as GT has higher shader, core and memory frequency. At best I can see GTS approaching GT performance level, and exceeding it (as is happening right now) at ultra-high end resolutions such as 25x16 and 19x12 with 4AA/16AF, but in this situation 8800GT would still be a better value due to lower price, lower heat dissipation and greater potential for overclocking. Nvidia will have to do much more than simply unlock SPs to make $350 GTS price-tag appealing to the customers.

I just with someone made 8800GT with GTS style cooler.

 

[PingSpike]

Unlocking existing ones? I didn't really get that from the blurb. I thought they mean that the new, replacement gts would likely come with more stream processors.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: HigherGround

Originally posted by: Azn
http://techreport.com/articles.x/13479/4

Look at Crysis benchmark here.

8800gts is beating up 8800gt.

It looks like they went out of their way to make sure that GTS beats GT (by playing into GTS' strengths). In every other review GT wipes the floor with GTS.

Actually that review does what most others don't, compare a higher-than-stock clocked GTS to the GT. Shows pretty well that a GTS OC'd to 600MHz is pretty comparable to a GT @ 600MHz however, you should be able to hit 700MHz with the possibility for more on the GT where the GTS tops out @650MHz.

So this review targets GTS owners who don't want to feel bad about their purchase?

No, it more accurately depicts the differences between the products rather than skewing architectural differences with vastly different clock speeds so that those who understand the differences can make a more informed decision between the parts.

If you bought a GTS in the last month or two you might feel bad, otherwise what's there to feel bad about given the lack of anything else comparable besides a GTX over the last year?

Really? All I'm seeing are tests, which showcase GTS' superior memory bandwidth including the hilarious 1280x800 benchmark.

Might want to re-draw some of your conclusions. The 320MB GTS has the same "superior memory bandwidth", yet it gets stomped by both the 640MB and the GT in many instances where memory bandwidth might be a factor.

Because at ultra high resolutions/AA settings it runs out of memory. Nothing new here, we've been having this discussion since February when 320MB part had been introduced. My conclusions stand as is - the benchmarks were picked to show GTS in the best possible light.

But the 320MB still has the same "superior memory bandwidth," yet gets destroyed in many of those benchmarks so clearly memory bandwidth isn't the problem.

None of those benchmarks indicate bandwidth is the deciding factor in terms of performance (and certainly not the 1280x800 benchmark you pointed out). Even on the GTX/GTS increasing bandwidth by raising memory clock does very little to improve performance unless you increase the core/shader clock as well. This will bear out in a few weeks if the new 65nm GTS with 128SP releases as expected even if its on a 256-bit bus.

Which leaves us with the only real difference this review has over others. They actually tested a GTS with higher clock speeds than the stock versions released a year ago instead of pitting a much higher clocked GT against the stock GTS. Instead of basing performance differences on stock clock speeds, this gives a more accurate comparison of the other differences between the parts, ie. 16 vs 20 ROPs, 56 vs 24 TMUs, 96 vs 112 SPs, 256-bit vs 320-bit, 512MB vs 640MB, 1350MHz vs 1650 Shader core etc.

Now, if you go back and look at the other reviews that take a "less biased approach" pitting a vanilla 500MHz GTS against a 650MHz SSC GT, of course its going to destroy it. Using two parts clocked similarly gives a much better picture of performance differences, but again, the GT should still pull ahead once you factor in OC headroom.

 

[praesto]

There's plenty of reviews where the GT it clocked at stock, it still beats the GTS by more than 15%. Look at vr-zones review, they underclocked their GT to reference clocks before they tested games.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: praesto
There's plenty of reviews where the GT it clocked at stock, it still beats the GTS by more than 15%. Look at vr-zones review, they underclocked their GT to reference clocks before they tested games.

I'll double check but I'm pretty sure it was 650 > 600 (reference) vs. a 500/513 GTS (reference). Again, I'm not disputing the GT isn't faster at both reference and max OC'd speeds, I'm just saying that the performance delta in many of these reviews isn't nearly as great as they're made out to be. I think its a more accurate depiction of relative performance, the wild card being that a GT should be able to OC to much higher speeds than any 90nm G80 part.

 

[s44]

Originally posted by: TMoney468
Does anyone know if the eVGA step up program would work for me from a 320MB 8800GTS to this card? They're both around the same price, but I don't know if they place the 8800GT above my card...and do you think it would be worth it for me? I game once in a while but definitely not something I do everyday.

You can, in fact, step sideways or down. You still have to pay shipping, I think, and they don't refund the difference. But it's faster, so get in line if you want...

 

[40sTheme]

Just bought mine off of NCIXUS. Can't wait...

 

[munisgtm]

I'm officially a fool because i have a 8800GTS 320mb

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: munisgtm
I'm officially a fool because i have a 8800GTS 320mb

there are worse things u can have

 

[dreddfunk]

munis - I agree with swtethan: there are *a lot* worse things to have than a GTS 320. It's still a good card--far better than my X850XT. Enjoy it and move on when it no longer fits your usage patterns.

The problem with technology is that there is *always* something new around the corner, but the consumers don't really know how *soon* the corner is going to come.

You bought probably the best 'bang for your buck' card out there at the time you bought it. That was a good decision and the introduction of the 8800gt doesn't change that.

Cheers.

 

[munisgtm]

Originally posted by: dreddfunk
munis - I agree with swtethan: there are *a lot* worse things to have than a GTS 320. It's still a good card--far better than my X850XT. Enjoy it and move on when it no longer fits your usage patterns.

The problem with technology is that there is *always* something new around the corner, but the consumers don't really know how *soon* the corner is going to come.

You bought probably the best 'bang for your buck' card out there at the time you bought it. That was a good decision and the introduction of the 8800gt doesn't change that.

Cheers.

I bought my XFX GTS XXX edition only months ago but now at much lower price i can get performance equal to GTX(well almost) , my mood is off right now

 

[munisgtm]

I'm thinking about selling my card and buying that tasty 8800GT , but i don't know how much my card would go for (specially in my country,i think i'll have to find a n00b )