PDA

View Full Version : Value for money 8800 GTS 320MB?


Pages : [1] 2

Maverickman
02-24-07, 07:31 PM
From the reviews I've seen, there isn't much difference between the 8800 GTS with 320MB vs. the 640MB version in most games. However, the situation changes with 4X AA and higher resolutions. I'm still thinking that upcoming DX10 games like Crysis will be real memory hogs, so it might be actually worth spending an extra $80-$100 for the memory in the long run. I've seen some people complaining of lower FPS on some games like Fear with their 8800 GTS 320MB cards. This may be a problem with the card, but I think the lower memory is hurting their performance. As more DX10 games release, that 320MB of memory will seem pretty puny when most cards will have at least 512MB.

In sum, it's probably advisable to stay away from the 8800 GTS 320MB cards. Even though they look like a great deal, they're definitely not as future proof as the 640MB cards. There will come a time in the next where we will need 1GB of video memory to bring out the most performance in the latest games. I remember when there were two versions of the GeForce 3 Ti 4200 with 64MB and 128MB of RAM. I was happy I bought the 128MB version when I was playing DX8 games three years ago.

Subtestube
02-24-07, 08:30 PM
Just out of interest, what's the price differential? The price of a regular 8800GTS is well out of reach for me, but the 320MB one might actually be in range. Seeing as I don't care much about AA, it could be a good option for someone like me. Bear in mind that not everyone needs to run at 1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF! ;P

Maverickman
02-24-07, 09:43 PM
I'm glad the title of this post was changed. i was advising people to stay away from the 8800 GTS 320MB and opt for the 640MB version. If money is a problem, the 320MB 8800 GTS is a great deal. I would strongly recommend the 640MB version though as the extra memory will really come in handy later this year. It's going to be tough fitting DX10 games in high resolution into 320MB of video memory.

toxikneedle
02-24-07, 10:39 PM
Future proof? By the time DX10 games become mainstream, or when Crysis comes out, the 9000 series will probably be out, 8900 for sure. So if all you care about is DX10 games, don't buy either one of them and wait til you actually need them and get a better card. I needed a new card and I had 300, that's why I bought it, who knows what will happen by the time Crysis will be out. But it runs all the games I'm currently playing great, even with AA.

john19055
02-24-07, 11:49 PM
I think it would be good at low resolution ,but the price is to close to the 640mb version right now,when you are just talking about $80 to $100 difference

ATOJAR
02-25-07, 12:47 AM
When i bought my card the 340MB versions wernt out, im still very glad i bought the 640MB version because as said it will help alot when the more demanding games are released!....... the 340MB's are still very nice cards though.

Zelda_fan
02-25-07, 12:55 AM
You can basically buy a computer to run as fast as you want, but it comes down to how much money you want to spend.

You can run two 8800GTX's watercooled, overclocked, in SLi and have run every game on max everything, but a system like that will cost you $3000 .

$300 for the ability to run DX10 games is not a bad deal when you consider that.

KickAssCop
02-25-07, 01:51 AM
I bought the 320 MB version on day one when the price of an 8800GTS online was 400 bucks (not including MIRs since I couldn't redeem them anyways). The 320 MB version is great for a low end rig like mine and pumps sufficient frames to enjoy games. I wanted a card to hold me over till june and also not reduce my enjoyment of games like CnC 3, STALKER etc that come out before june.

For a rig like mine the 8800GTS delivers since I cannot run over 1600*1200 anyways. I usually run 1280*1024 resolution (which is bare minimum for me) and am getting 35-45 fps outdoors in Oblivion with 8xSSAA 16xAF which I think is damn good value for money.

Once I upgrade to something peachier I guess an 8900GTS or an R600 variant in 400 bucks (which is my cap for video cards) w/ core 2 duo should suffice. I am very happy with my purchase since I am not at all bottlenecked w/ size of frame buffer at even 1600*1200 4xAA 16xAF (for now). Even NWN2 runs damn good @ 1280*1024 4xAA 16xAF and all the bells and whistles. (I used to get 12-15 fps w/ these settings, now I am usually over 30-45 fps).

Rakeesh
02-25-07, 02:25 AM
I'm still using a 6600GT :D

CaiNaM
02-25-07, 02:39 AM
From the reviews I've seen, there isn't much difference between the 8800 GTS with 320MB vs. the 640MB version in most games. However, the situation changes with 4X AA and higher resolutions. I'm still thinking that upcoming DX10 games like Crysis will be real memory hogs, so it might be actually worth spending an extra $80-$100 for the memory in the long run. I've seen some people complaining of lower FPS on some games like Fear with their 8800 GTS 320MB cards. This may be a problem with the card, but I think the lower memory is hurting their performance. As more DX10 games release, that 320MB of memory will seem pretty puny when most cards will have at least 512MB.

In sum, it's probably advisable to stay away from the 8800 GTS 320MB cards. Even though they look like a great deal, they're definitely not as future proof as the 640MB cards. There will come a time in the next where we will need 1GB of video memory to bring out the most performance in the latest games. I remember when there were two versions of the GeForce 3 Ti 4200 with 64MB and 128MB of RAM. I was happy I bought the 128MB version when I was playing DX8 games three years ago.

i disagree with you for the most part. it's all about balance; what makes up the rest of your pc and what budget you have available.

you can get a 320mb version for $279 after MIR. for a mid-range or 'enthusiast' system running a 19-20" screen with a res of 1680 or lower, it would balance it out nicely and offer very good value.

now, if you're system has a 24" screen running a res of 1920 or higher, it wouldn't make sense; it all depends on what you're after. to say 'don't buy it' as a blanket statement is not sound advice to me. not everyone feels good about (or is even able to) spending almost $400 on video card no matter how good it is ;)

Maverickman
02-25-07, 09:21 AM
Your video card muscle will always be dictated by how much you are willing or able to spend. I'm not denying that the 8800GTS 320MB is a tremendous value for the money. But if you're a diehard gamer and you don't want to wait for the 8900 GTX or 9800 GTS, you might as well spend the extra $$$ and spring for the 640 MB 8800 GTS. Nvidia introduced the 320MB flavor to appeal to the upper mainstream segment users who don't want to drop over $350 for a new video card. It fills that niche nicely. Right now, ATI has nothing to compete with Nvidia at the high end. The 8800 GTS 320MB was a great idea. You can easily get one for under $300 shipped. Just don't expect to be able to play Crysis in high resolution with AA and AF and get good framerates.

DarkOneX
02-25-07, 09:08 PM
What about play Crysis @ 1600x1200 w/ no AA, think this 320MB could do it playable?

SeriTonin
02-25-07, 09:43 PM
I'm guess Crysis will be highly optimized. This is after all, the showcase game of what dx10 and vista can do.

I honestly don't see Crysis releasing until early 08 but when it does arrive, I think the 8800gts should be able to hit more around 1280x1024 no aa/af.

Edit: Heck, you might even get 4xaf @ 1280X1024.

mustrum
02-26-07, 04:02 AM
Here in europe you get the 320mb for 265. Cheapest 640 is 345 atm.

The price difference is huge and the 320 seems worth it now.
A shame i play on a 1920x1200 monitor.

If i had a 1280x1024 resolution native i`d went for the 320 for sure.

I think the 320 is a lot value for money atm.

DarkOneX
02-26-07, 07:40 AM
It's funny peeps say stuff like "Due to the lower memory, it works great only at 1600x1200 or below". Hell my last 2 cards have been 256MB cards (7800GT and 7900GT) and those 2 cards played everything except Oblivion at 1600x1200 max details. I'm pretty sure this 8800GTS 320MB is gonna blow my 7900GT 256MB out of the water being that I'm still on a 1600x1200 native LCD and probably will be for a couple years or more. Plus since I got eVGA most likely I'll be stepping up to the 8900GTS if it's out in the next 90 days, or maybe I'll go crazy and step up to an 8900GTX.

911medic
02-26-07, 07:57 AM
I remember when there were two versions of the GeForce 3 Ti 4200 with 64MB and 128MB of RAM. I was happy I bought the 128MB version when I was playing DX8 games three years ago.(A bit off-topic) I bought one of those 128MB GF4 Ti4200s back then, and while the card performed well, I wished I'd bought the 64MB version. IIRC, the 64MB ones came with faster memory, and overclocked better. Also, with a 128-bit memory bus and using (relatively) slow-clocked DDR1, the card really couldn't make use of the extra memory that well anyway. It was kind of like equipping a 6200 with 256MB of memory.
From Beyond3D:Board Name GeForce4 Ti4200
Memory Quantity 64MB
Chip NVIDIA NV25
Core Clock Speed 250MHz
Memory Speed 250MHz (http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcomp/?view=boarddetails&id=25)

Board Name GeForce4 Ti4200
Memory Quantity 128MB
Chip NVIDIA NV25
Core Clock Speed 250MHz
Memory Speed 222MHz (http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcomp/?view=boarddetails&id=24)
Now we know that's not the case with the 8800GTS', as they're identical other than memory quantity. Having said that, the 320MB versions of the 8800GTS look like great bang-for-the buck cards. However, I'm glad I have the 640MB version, as my LCD's native res is 1680x1050, and it's at the edge of seeing a performance difference w/AA-AF turned up. But I'm sure many people will be thrilled with the performance of the 320MB version.

KickAssCop
02-26-07, 08:35 AM
It's funny peeps say stuff like "Due to the lower memory, it works great only at 1600x1200 or below". Hell my last 2 cards have been 256MB cards (7800GT and 7900GT) and those 2 cards played everything except Oblivion at 1600x1200 max details. I'm pretty sure this 8800GTS 320MB is gonna blow my 7900GT 256MB out of the water being that I'm still on a 1600x1200 native LCD and probably will be for a couple years or more. Plus since I got eVGA most likely I'll be stepping up to the 8900GTS if it's out in the next 90 days, or maybe I'll go crazy and step up to an 8900GTX.
Your last 2 cards blew everything at max details? What was the situation in games like FEAR? I doubt you could pull over 30 fps @ 1600*1200 w/ 4xSSAA 16xAF in FEAR. I do that now with the 8800GTS but I am sure that if I go higher than 1600*1200 the card will tank. Even in Oblivion I play at 1280*1024 w/ 8xSSAA 16xAF for best quality and fps are around 35-45 outdoors. Upping the resolution to 1600*1200 4xSSAA 16xAF causes the game to stutter in some places (20fps). 8800GTS is a solid card but I am sure with the exception of a few games it does not scale all that well above 1600*1200.

john19055
02-26-07, 07:21 PM
Don't get me wrong I think the 320mb 8800GTS is a good card at lower resolutions but if you look around you can get a 640mb 8800GTS for low as $374.99 with a $35 rebate and for a total of 339.99 after the rebate and even the Evga has it for $379.99 with a $35 rebate ,and I just think 320mb of extra memory is worth the extra $40.But if you are like me I hate messing with rebates,But the main thing is what you think,I just think they should be lower in price since they are to close to a 640mb version.

KickAssCop
02-26-07, 09:12 PM
By similar logic you can grab an evga 8800gts 320 mb for 280 after MIRs :). And I can never redeem rebates since I am in Pakistan so I just purchased the 8800GTS 320 MB on day of its release and it was priced about 100 bucks lesser than the 640 MB version.

DarkOneX
02-26-07, 09:17 PM
Got my evga 8800GTS 320 installed today and it's nice so far, still having wierd issues in FEAR in Vista though, runs great for awhile then starts stuttering horribly, pausing and shiz. Now, how do I overclock this bad boy? I tried nTune but it doesn't work, and tried RivaTuner 2.0 but can't find any overclock page. Do I have to use certain drivers for it maybe? I'm running 100.64 (was running .65 but I was getting BSOD's in the nVidia demos now I'm not).

CaiNaM
02-27-07, 01:52 AM
Don't get me wrong I think the 320mb 8800GTS is a good card at lower resolutions but if you look around you can get a 640mb 8800GTS for low as $374.99 with a $35 rebate and for a total of 339.99 after the rebate and even the Evga has it for $379.99 with a $35 rebate ,and I just think 320mb of extra memory is worth the extra $40.But if you are like me I hate messing with rebates,But the main thing is what you think,I just think they should be lower in price since they are to close to a 640mb version.

where is the $379 evga?

edit: meh.. pricegrabber showed it for $379 @ newgg, but if you click the link, newgg shows it at $389.... chiefvalue shows it for $379, but how are they? anyone used them? it concerns me a bit that they list it as "in stock", but state it will "ship within 48 hours", so 3 days turns into 5 or 6...

DarkOneX
02-27-07, 12:23 PM
Downgraded the drivers to 100.64 and it fixed my wierd stutters in FEAR and my BSOD's in the new demos, and CSS runs great as always too. One thing about buying this $300 Superclock 320MB card is that I know it's clocked faster than alot of 640MB cards, and it will clock even higher, so that makes the $300 price tag even though it has less memory more attractive to me. Kinda reminds me of back int eh 5X00 days, I bought a Gainward FX5600 256MB card thinking it would be better than the 128MB one I was looking at, and when I got the card I found it was clocked like 100Mhz slower on the core, and a 200Mhz or so slower on the memory than the 128MB cards. So I found out the hard way that more mem doesn't always mean it's the faster/better card.

I cranked this baby up to 600/1800 (being conservative atm) and got around 9800 3dmarks in '06, running my 2.4Ghz e6600 @ 3.2Ghz. Is that good? At least it was better by alot than my 7900GT SS as it was around 6200 3dmarks. ANyway, I'm very happy, and those new demos look incredible it's insane!

Hochi
02-27-07, 02:38 PM
where is the $379 evga?

edit: meh.. pricegrabber showed it for $379 @ newgg, but if you click the link, newgg shows it at $389.... chiefvalue shows it for $379, but how are they? anyone used them? it concerns me a bit that they list it as "in stock", but state it will "ship within 48 hours", so 3 days turns into 5 or 6...


chiefvalue is newegg but they won't say they are :P

CaiNaM
02-27-07, 06:18 PM
chiefvalue is newegg but they won't say they are :P

hmm.. interesting. thanks for the tip.

ended up grabbing one from buy.com for $372 after a $15 off coupon (chiefvalue wanted too much for 2nd day shipping, and the "ship in 48 hours" concerned me). this will be my first evga product.. my other GTS is a BFG - actually my last 3 nv cards have been from BFG.

KickAssCop
02-27-07, 09:26 PM
My BFG is steadily pumping frames at blazing speeds and that with a decent overclock too 625/1050 :D.