PDA

View Full Version : GTS or GTX


Pages : [1] 2 3

Delbert
04-27-07, 06:44 AM
Hello All

Hoping to tap into some of the expertise on these boards. A complete system upgrade is beckoning so i need to start gathering info.... firstly the Graphics card.

I have a 17" CRT that can go up to 1600x1200 @ 85hz. Do not want to change this as it fits perfectly in the limited space i have.

Will be looking for a card that can run at this resolution without compromises in quality. Will the GTS be enough, or should i go with the GTX.

Money is not an issue as this the first upgrade in 2 years ( 6800gt agp still coping at the lower resolutions... just ), but would the extra cost of the GTX be worth it, or better spent on a better CPU/more RAM etc....

TIA for any help/comments.

Wolfhound
04-27-07, 07:49 AM
Hello All

Hoping to tap into some of the expertise on these boards. A complete system upgrade is beckoning so i need to start gathering info.... firstly the Graphics card.

I have a 17" CRT that can go up to 1600x1200 @ 85hz. Do not want to change this as it fits perfectly in the limited space i have.

Will be looking for a card that can run at this resolution without compromises in quality. Will the GTS be enough, or should i go with the GTX.

Money is not an issue as this the first upgrade in 2 years ( 6800gt agp still coping at the lower resolutions... just ), but would the extra cost of the GTX be worth it, or better spent on a better CPU/more RAM etc....

TIA for any help/comments.

Can you post your other specs? CPU,mobo, memory..? to have a better overall picture, for 1600x1200 the GTS is enough..

Delbert
04-27-07, 08:06 AM
Can you post your other specs? CPU,mobo, memory..? to have a better overall picture, for 1600x1200 the GTS is enough..
Thanks for the reply.
This is going to be for a completely new system, so other specs have not been finalised yet. But i expect it to include an E6600, PB5 deluxe, 150G Raptor and 4GB Ram ( Vista 64bit ).

Do you really think the GTS will be enough for Oblivion at 1600x1200 maxed quality ? ( using Oblivion as a bench as it seems to push the card the most ).

Xion X2
04-27-07, 09:11 AM
Thanks for the reply.
This is going to be for a completely new system, so other specs have not been finalised yet. But i expect it to include an E6600, PB5 deluxe, 150G Raptor and 4GB Ram ( Vista 64bit ).

Do you really think the GTS will be enough for Oblivion at 1600x1200 maxed quality ? ( using Oblivion as a bench as it seems to push the card the most ).

It depends on how picky you are about framerates. Oblivion can drop down as low as 30fps on a single GTX in really thick forests w/ detailed shadows on / maximum quality in your control panel. I would imagine it's worse on a GTS. For the most part, a single GTX will run Oblivion ~60fps or above on high quality.

I play at 1680x1050 and my GTXs benefit me plenty at this resolution. I'd say go with that one since it's more future-proof. You sound like the type that doesn't upgrade left and right like some of us, so go with the card that's going to last you the longest. Games like Crysis, Alan Wake, etc will need it.

Delbert
04-27-07, 02:55 PM
Thnx Xion X2.
I am kind of leaning towards the GTX as it would probably last a little longer. Can you recomend a brand ? Like the look of the EVGA ones, but am not sure if the 'Step-up' is valid in the UK.... any idea ?

Any other contributions well recieved.

Xion X2
04-27-07, 03:36 PM
eVGA or BFG Tech. They seem to have the best warranty and customer service.

$n][pErMan
04-27-07, 06:20 PM
Get a GTX ... well worth the extra $100 :D

Vagabond
04-27-07, 06:26 PM
Why spend the extra 100$ on a GTX when he can get a GTS , OC it at 620/1520/1950 easy ( Like i did ) and have the same performance ?
However if he intends on getting a new 24+ LCD well the GTX will perform better.

Vagabond
04-27-07, 08:46 PM
1600x1200 on a 17inch CRT ?
Am i the only one to see that its too much ?
Models would be too little, not to mention that he will possible notice various graphic glitches.
I still believe that unless he gets an 24+ inch monitor the GTX is too much.

Amuro
04-27-07, 09:27 PM
Why spend the extra 100$ on a GTX when he can get a GTS , OC it at 620/1520/1950 easy ( Like i did ) and have the same performance ?
However if he intends on getting a new 24+ LCD well the GTX will perform better.
Because the difference between GTX and GTS chips is more than just clock speed. The GTX has 33.33% more stream processors, 20% bigger memroy interface, and 35% higher memory bandwidth.

$n][pErMan
04-28-07, 12:09 AM
Why spend the extra 100$ on a GTX when he can get a GTS , OC it at 620/1520/1950 easy ( Like i did ) and have the same performance ?
However if he intends on getting a new 24+ LCD well the GTX will perform better.
lol ... or not. As said above... the GTX has much more than clock speeds under its belt. Plus.. check out the PCB sometime... the design is totally different. Hell... the GTX takes two 12V plugs while the GTS has only one. The GTX is also a much larger card. A GTX at stocks speeds will still beat an overclocked GTS. The GTS is a nice card, but as he said money is not an issue... so a GTX is what he should get. I still game on a 17in CRT... and trust me.. the GTX is hardly overkill. As a matter of fact.. I don't think you can ever have to much power ;)

Madpistol
04-28-07, 12:11 AM
1600x1200 on a 17inch CRT ?
Am i the only one to see that its too much ?
Models would be too little, not to mention that he will possible notice various graphic glitches.
I still believe that unless he gets an 24+ inch monitor the GTX is too much.

So? My Samsung 997DF 19" CRT does 2048x1536. Several years ago, that kind of resolution for anything less than a 22" CRT was unheard of. Now that CRT's are a dying trend, there are some pretty awesome CRT's on the market.

I have an 8800 GTX, and I can honestly say that @ only 1600x1200, it's still worth it, but having the ability to hit even higher resolutions is awesome as well.

Amuro
04-28-07, 12:21 AM
So? My Samsung 997DF 19" CRT does 2048x1536. Several years ago, that kind of resolution for anything less than a 22" CRT was unheard of. Now that CRT's are a dying trend, there are some pretty awesome CRT's on the market.

I have an 8800 GTX, and I can honestly say that @ only 1600x1200, it's still worth it, but having the ability to hit even higher resolutions is awesome as well.
I haven't used a CRT since 2001, but dont' you think @ that resolution, text would appear really small on a 19" CRT?

Vagabond
04-28-07, 06:57 AM
If you all check benchmarks throught the internet between an Overclocked GTS and a stock GTX you will see that they go neck to neck when it comes to Performance.
Sure the GTX can go up to 640-650 core and 2100 memories but in some occations so can the GTS. Now the 96shaders of the GTS in comparison with the 128 found on the GTX are quite usefull but the gain in performance isnt really worth 100$.
Now for a 17'' CRT i could never use resolutions above 1280x1024...Too small for my eyes, as for the 19'' i never went above 1600x1200 and even that was too tiresome.

Redeemed
04-28-07, 09:25 AM
If you all check benchmarks throught the internet between an Overclocked GTS and a stock GTX you will see that they go neck to neck when it comes to Performance.
Sure the GTX can go up to 640-650 core and 2100 memories but in some occations so can the GTS. Now the 96shaders of the GTS in comparison with the 128 found on the GTX are quite usefull but the gain in performance isnt really worth 100$.
Now for a 17'' CRT i could never use resolutions above 1280x1024...Too small for my eyes, as for the 19'' i never went above 1600x1200 and even that was too tiresome.


You must realise that with games such as Crysis and Alan Wake, those extra shaders and memory bandwidth will come in handy. Especially at 1600x1200 with any AA.

I vote a GTX.

Madpistol
04-28-07, 10:10 AM
I haven't used a CRT since 2001, but dont' you think @ that resolution, text would appear really small on a 19" CRT?

You are correct. That's why my desktop res is 1280x1024. However, it's pretty dang cool to play CS:Source @ 2048x1536 and get around 120fps average. :D

BTW, GTX gets my vote.

Xion X2
04-28-07, 10:17 AM
If you all check benchmarks throught the internet between an Overclocked GTS and a stock GTX you will see that they go neck to neck when it comes to Performance.
Sure the GTX can go up to 640-650 core and 2100 memories but in some occations so can the GTS. Now the 96shaders of the GTS in comparison with the 128 found on the GTX are quite usefull but the gain in performance isnt really worth 100$.


:rolleyes2

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/8800%20overclocked%20roundup_030907110324/14165.png

OC'd GTX: 131fps
Stock GTX: 121fps
OC'd GTS: 103fps

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/8800%20overclocked%20roundup_030907110324/14166.png

OC'd GTX: 75fps
Stock GTX: 70fps
OC'd GTS: 58fps

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/8800%20overclocked%20roundup_030907110324/14164.png

OC'd GTX: 38.3
Stock GTX: 35.7
OC'd GTS: 28.6

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2945&p=1

The cards are not "neck and neck."

Vagabond
04-28-07, 10:22 AM
You only posted screenshots of 1920x1200 resolutions, the answer as to why i already know...
In resolutions up to 1650x1080 the FPS difference is non-existent in most games ( 2-3 fps aint my idea of extra speed ) but true in 1920x1200 there are big differences thats why i said that if he wants to get a 24+ inch LCD he should get the GTX.
It would be nice for you to read what ive posted prior to answering the same thing.

Xion X2
04-28-07, 10:24 AM
You only posted screenshots of 1920x1200 resolutions, the answer as to why i already know...
In resolutions up to 1650x1080 the FPS difference is non-existent in most games ( 2-3 fps aint my idea of extra speed ) but true in 1920x1200 there are big differences thats why i said that if he wants to get a 24+ inch LCD he should get the GTX.
It would be nice for you to read what ive posted prior to answering the same thing.

Dude, you are absolutely full of it and a fanboy of the worst kind.

Even games running on as low a resolution as 1280x960 run much better on the GTX:

Rainbow Six Vegas:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/rainbow%20six%20vegas%202006_12240661206/13806.png
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2895&p=4

The GTX is just a much faster card, period. It has more shaders, more onboard VRAM, and runs at higher clocks. What's not to understand about that? No matter what resolutions you tack on or what graphics settings, the GTX is always going to be a good bit faster even with both cards clocked at the same frequencies.

There's nothing "neck and neck" about the two cards.. even when overclocking. You'll get laughed off the forum and the entire enthusiast community for saying something so idiotic.

Xion X2
04-28-07, 10:42 AM
Benches at 1600x1200 resolution between OC'd GTXs and OC'd GTSs:

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/4375/dm1600el1.gif (http://imageshack.us)
As you can see, at 1600x1200 it's not even close. 40fps edge to the GTX. Or a 40% performance increase.


http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/1492/fear1600tc9.gif (http://imageshack.us)
20fps edge to the GTX, or around 30% performance increase.


http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/4475/mts1280ow8.gif (http://imageshack.us)
21fps edge to the GTX, or around 30% performance increase.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gtx_gts_overclocking/default.asp


Can we drop this now?

Vagabond
04-28-07, 11:48 AM
The way i see it the STOCK GTX against an OCed GTS has
174 vs 150
130 vs 107
83 vs 72
79 vs 72

Like i said im not testing the OCed GTX vs the OCed GTS but the OCed GTS vs the STOCK GTX.
Now if you couldnt play the game with the OCed GTS fps well i dont know what else to say :)

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/9168/octrlyp8pu0.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Just a board from an online test

Delbert
04-28-07, 03:08 PM
thanx for all the replies guys/gals.... not too happy about the flaming.... i wish people would just get along...
Vagabond.... i understand your comment about the small text at 1600x1200.... but i only intend to run that in games, and most of them scale the text accordingly.... normal windows i run 1280x1024 with V large text.... looks great.
Kind of decided to get the GTX level of card as the extra shaders would probably come in handy, and the purchase has got to last a while.... just need to decide on the vendor now....
Mods, please feel free to close this thread if the hostility continues....
Once again, thanks for the comments.... and keep an eye out for my other threads about motherboard, psu and ram.

Xion X2
04-28-07, 03:08 PM
Like i said im not testing the OCed GTX vs the OCed GTS but the OCed GTS vs the STOCK GTX.

This makes no sense. The only reason you would do this is to somehow twist things around and say the GTS is a better value than the GTX. But why do that when you can also OVERCLOCK A GTX?

???

I see this stupid argument surface time and time again with you guys who go with lower model cards, and it's ridiculous. You act as if the GTS is a better value than the GTX because it can overclock and perform in the same ballpark? Yeah, so what? Can you not also overclock a GTX to widen the performance gap once again?

Thus, your argument about it being the better value of the two cards is moot, in my opinion. It's downright stupid.

Now if you couldnt play the game with the OCed GTS fps well i dont know what else to say :)

What about when Crysis and all of these other shader-heavy games come out? Do you not think the extra 30% performance increase the GTX has will come in handy then? If so, why not?

And I don't know what that bench you posted is testing, but it doesn't look to be any real games.

Mr_LoL
04-28-07, 03:15 PM
Hotlinking is bad Xion.

Vagabond
04-28-07, 03:26 PM
Lower end models ?
Xion if you only knew how many thousands of euros i have spend since 1989 on computers and what i used to buy you just wouldnt know what to say.
Right now for me its all about what i need and not what i WILL need in the future since when Crysis gets released IF i dont like the GTS performance ill go and get the Ultra thus skipping the GTX. On the other hand im not one of those people that like to run games with 8xAA and 16xAF , i like to run everything at 4xAA and 4xAF thus making a huge increase in FPS.

Delbert people who spend money on something they dont really need tend to start hostilities and as you can see i didnt start this :)


PS : The GTS on the FiringSquad , AnandTech have their Shaders at roughly 1300mhz while the GTX versions have them at almost 1450mhz.......
The GTS on the board i posted has the Shaders at 1500mhz.