PDA

View Full Version : 8800 GTS 320 vs. 640


YeaYea911
03-14-07, 01:46 AM
Ok folks, I am ready to upgrade. I currently have dual 7800 GTX's (256) with an FX-60. I am running 2GB of ram with an Apple HD Cinema display running 1920x1200.

Which card do I get? I usually play with all eye candy turned up.

WHat to do?

Thanks

ATOJAR
03-14-07, 02:06 AM
I would get the 8800GTX or the 8800GTS, go for the cards with the biggest memory, i have the GTS overclocked and i play BF1241@1920x1440 with all ingames settings maxed & forcing AA X8, atrophic filtering X8, texture filtering set to high quality ect in the nvidia control panel! i get 70+ fps and it looks awsome!

Madpistol
03-14-07, 08:21 AM
Higher resolutions require more memory to be effective.

The GTS 640mb or GTX are your only options if you want to play at that resolution. i would recommend the GTX personally, but if you don't have that much money to burn, the GTS 640mb is great too.

BioHazZarD
03-14-07, 08:55 AM
This should help ya

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=1&artpage=2321&articID=543

Krakn3Dfx
03-14-07, 11:03 AM
I went ahead and got the 320MB eVGA 8800GTS. I'm running a 22" LCD that maxes at 1680x1050, and I'm willing to dial a few things down if I need to in the future to make it worthwhile. I contemplated the 640MB version for 4100 more, but I'm cheap, and at the resolution I will be running at the 320MB seems fine. I may regret it at some point in the future, but I think for the life of the card itself, 320MB will be fine.

Dragunov
03-14-07, 11:37 AM
Wel quake 4 with ultra settings requires more or less 500MB at texture memory

Jon
03-14-07, 11:47 AM
I read the reviews carefully before picking up my 320mb GTS. Basically the conclusion is 1600x1200 or lower (no AA, no AF) go for 320mb. Higher resolutions or if you must have AA or AF, go for the 640mb version. Personally I reckon if you get the 320mb GTS you will regret it.

Medion
03-14-07, 12:04 PM
Wel quake 4 with ultra settings requires more or less 500MB at texture memory

People were running Ultra settings on Quake 4 on 256MB cards long before the 8800 series was out. I'll never understand why people try to inflate the specs of older games to justify newer hardware.

Does more memory help? Yes. Is it required? Not even close.

LORD-eX-Bu
03-14-07, 12:34 PM
I beat Quake 4 on a Radeon 9550 Pro with 256mb of ram on ultra settings. No slowdows, ran perfect but I was only running it at 1280x1024:D

Dragunov
03-14-07, 12:34 PM
But for my stuff, the more the better (but I also have a look to my money ;) )

KickAssCop
03-14-07, 12:37 PM
640 MB.

3NZ0
03-14-07, 01:20 PM
Ok folks, I am ready to upgrade. I currently have dual 7800 GTX's (256) with an FX-60. I am running 2GB of ram with an Apple HD Cinema display running 1920x1200.

Which card do I get? I usually play with all eye candy turned up.

WHat to do?

Thanks

If you can afford that, its best to get the GTX model, imo.

At that res,
320 = no-no
640 = will struggle to have high fps and quality settings on high at that res
gtx = will cope but you might have to turn a few settings down for constant high fps
sli = now your talking :D

Tygerwoody
03-14-07, 01:45 PM
If you can afford that, its best to get the GTX model, imo.

At that res,
320 = no-no
640 = will struggle to have high fps and quality settings on high at that res
gtx = will cope but you might have to turn a few settings down for constant high fps
sli = now your talking :D

? :wtf:

He would be just fine with a single GTX at that resolution for most games out there. Actually he would be fine with a single GTS with 640mb for the most part. I wouldn't go as low as the 320mb card for that resolution though.

1337_Like_ThaT
03-14-07, 02:00 PM
Ok folks, I am ready to upgrade. I currently have dual 7800 GTX's (256) with an FX-60. I am running 2GB of ram with an Apple HD Cinema display running 1920x1200.

Which card do I get? I usually play with all eye candy turned up.

WHat to do?

Thanks

I'm in the same boat as you are and because my monitor native resolutin is 1680x1050, I could not justify spending the extra $200 for the GTX model, so i am going to go with the 8800GTS. After some consultation from Jacob, I've decided to go with the 640MB version as many future games coming up will use 512mb texture memory, where the 320MB may not be enough in all cases :)

Dragunov
03-14-07, 02:04 PM
Well the 8800GTS 640MB is a very good board, BF2142 all the way up and with driver improvements, the board can only become better and if u OC the board than u are almost, not completely at the same results a 8800GTX gives :)

Madpistol
03-14-07, 02:09 PM
SLI for BF2142 is useless. If you're running an 8800, you're more than likely going to be limited by processor alone. I always check my video temps while I'm playing, and unless I've dialed up 16xQ AA and 16x AF @ 1600x1200 with everything maxed out, the video card just doesn't work that hard. It is only about 5-10 c above where it usually idles. You're probably fine.

3NZ0
03-14-07, 02:38 PM
? :wtf:

He would be just fine with a single GTX at that resolution for most games out there. Actually he would be fine with a single GTS with 640mb for the most part. I wouldn't go as low as the 320mb card for that resolution though.

What about my post is so hard for you to understand?

I said that sli was obviously the best solution but the best choice for not spending huge amounts and getting very good performance was a gtx.

grimreefer
03-14-07, 03:41 PM
i wouldnt buy less anything less than an 8800gtx if i planned on gaming at that res.

YeaYea911
03-14-07, 04:25 PM
I think I am going to go for the 640 GTS in SLI mode. The prices are pretty reasonable right now for them.

Thanks

Dragunov
03-14-07, 05:19 PM
i wouldnt buy less anything less than an 8800gtx if i planned on gaming at that res.

yeah, but 6 months later the board is old again, looking forward to 3 years later to see GPUs who give the most realistic graphics (looking to Crysis shots already)

john19055
03-14-07, 10:02 PM
How the price of the 640mb 8800GTS is comeing down ,IMO I would have went with one of them since newer games comeing out really need that extra memory,and looking at prices and seeing that you can get a 640mb 8800GTS for as low as $339 with rebate ,I would have got one of them,But if you are like me you hate rebates.

mustrum
03-15-07, 06:59 AM
I got a 640mb GTS and i play at 1920x1200. The card works like a charm at that resolution. I wouldn#t suggest the 320mb one though. Having no AA at 1920x1200 will happen someday even with the 640mb version i guess. That'sno biggie when playing at that resolution. One you have to turn of AF it gets really dirty though.

Vagabond
03-15-07, 01:59 PM
SLI & CROSSFIRE are both useless...Its better to go for a single card and keep a few bucks on the side which you can use later on to get a better and newer card. Besides 2 8800GTS in SLI cost more than a single GTX and perform SLIGHTLY better in games..So why get them ? Not to mention the power consumption.
The 8800GTS 320 is the best choice now since the 8900 is around the corner no need to waste much money.

Blacklash
03-15-07, 06:50 PM
Yeah I'd wait on the 8900 that's going to be running @ 700|2200, buy that and call it even. It should spank 1920x nicely. A 8800GTX can already handle 1920x fairly well and it dominates 1680x.

For folks planning on 2560x and filtering in demanding games I'd look into SLi:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/6135/fexshi7.png

I don't consider 36 FPS or less acceptable for a FPS game. The best 8900 may be able to pull it off and we will see.

An example of 8800GTX SLi @ 2560x with filtering in a demanding game:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7986/fexsliar4.png

I'd consider a move from an average of 36 FPS to 66 FPS @ 2560x worth it, because the lows with only a 36 average are probably particularly nasty. If you do something like try to run 16x AA in every game you play then SLi becomes more useful @ lower resolutions.