![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Just picked up a 8600GTS
- Thread starter Kryp2nitE
- Start date
This card is not powerful enough to turn the graphics as high a good DX9 card could, even if it is running in DX10. Just cause it's DX10 compatible does not mean it will play everything on max.
Yea, but honestly who needs everything on max
Theres some things like shadow special effects that you'll never even notice.
Yea, but honestly who needs everything on max
me!!
lillimon04
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,770
lol its good if it looks good and runs great, thats all u need, and then its like having a astin martin car, u dont need it, but u want it and if u got enough money, y not!?
I'm keeping my card. I play on small enough monitor and high enough resolution it doesnt matter.
15 inch CRT soon to be 17 inch widescreen.
No, that was not a silly question. In fact, I have a valid reason for asking it. Specifically, have you noticed the falling prices for 20" and 22" widescreen LCD displays? Both Gateway and Acer have 22" widescreen LCD displays that are HDCP-compliant and have resolution ceilings of 1680x1050; even better, neither lists for $350USD. (I've seen both displays, and I wouldn't pass either one up; in fact, both are on my shortlist of upgrade options.)
For once, the reason *not* to upgrade to the bigger (20" -22") widescreen displays isn't price. I remember looking with envy at the Samsung SyncMaster 243t in 2004 (24 diagonal inches of widescreen LCD goodness; problem was that it had a price tag north of $2500USD); now along come the Gateway and Acer with the same resolution, only two diagonal inches smaller, and one-tenth the price.
If you're the same person that would have considered a display in those same sizes had it been a CRT, then you actually have even less reason to hold back from looking at the new Monsters of the (pricing) Midrange. I have had a 17" CRT since 1998 (in fact, the *same* 17" CRT) and I had originally been thinking of eventually replacing it with (naturally) another CRT (likely 19" or 20" AG, or at least FST). However, first LCD displays for computer use came out in profusion; then, they proceeded to pretty much kill the CRT replacement market. (New CRTs? Right now, I can't name *one* medium to large PC manufacturer that includes a CRT display with any system they sell; if they include a display, it's LCD.) The big bugaboo of LCDs (gaming) is being addressed via a combination of resolution-tailoring and faster-response panels. (Resolution-tailoring is just what it sounds like; improving game performance via massaging game code and even driver customizing under specific circumstances, in this case, common widescreen LCD display resolutions, such as 1680x1050.) The end result is that even this old CRT fan is thinking LCD these days.
nVidia intends to create a DX 10 entry niche (where one doesn't exist); the problem is that we, as customers, largely aren't listening. Instead, we're trying to force the square peg (the 8600GTS) into an existing DX9 round hole (the market largely occupied by the X1950 series, especially the Pro/XT/XTX). The slow uptake of Vista in terms of new computers (upgrade sales, however, are running at a similar pace to those of Windows XP) is only exacerbating the situation.
Yea, honestly I'd much rather have a decent CRT (what happened to Lacie?!?!). I've had my same monitor since about.. 2001? Its been a while at any rate. Mostly the only reason I'm upgrading right now is to get something with reasonably better dot/pixel pitch. I think mine was state of the art back in the day (for a consumer), and its like .28.
Mostly I dont go for larger monitors mostly because of my eyesight, which seems opposite of the obvious, but the large amount of movement on something like a 24 inch monitor kinda wears my eyes out. I'm horribly nearsighted.
Mostly I'm upgrading now for the .255 pixel pitch of the Hanns-G. Its hard to find something short of plasma that will match that.
I do miss the really nice CRT's though. I used to quite a lot of graphic design work, and I really wonder what graphic designers too. Typically speaking LCDs are HORRIBLE for color accuracy, and some of the high end CRTs I've seen ($1000+) well match any LCD I've ever seen.
Sigh..
Mostly I dont go for larger monitors mostly because of my eyesight, which seems opposite of the obvious, but the large amount of movement on something like a 24 inch monitor kinda wears my eyes out. I'm horribly nearsighted.
Mostly I'm upgrading now for the .255 pixel pitch of the Hanns-G. Its hard to find something short of plasma that will match that.
I do miss the really nice CRT's though. I used to quite a lot of graphic design work, and I really wonder what graphic designers too. Typically speaking LCDs are HORRIBLE for color accuracy, and some of the high end CRTs I've seen ($1000+) well match any LCD I've ever seen.
Sigh..
Pulled it out of the back? LOL. There on the shelves at all three BB locations here. Most of the people that work at BB dont know the difference between an Nvidia 8600 or an ATI 9800.So I just heard that this card doesn't come out until the 22nd. I'm glad I struck up a conversation with one of the BB guys, he pulled it out of the back for me
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9011/v1gv7.jpg
Pulled it out of the back? LOL. There on the shelves at all three BB locations here. Most of the people that work at BB dont know the difference between an Nvidia 8600 or an ATI 9800.
I know, I'm not saying it was a supersecret 8600 mission I was on. Just saying that at MY bestbuy, I got lucky. Anyhoo, I'm returning the card. Compare the retail price I paid for it ($249.99) to what I can get an 8800gts for on Newegg ($279.99).
Well didnt you know about the price before you bought it?
I just looked at the cards and laughed. For $199 I would consider it but for $249 no way.
Well didnt you know about the price before you bought it?
I just looked at the cards and laughed. For $199 I would consider it but for $249 no way.
I was on my way home from class and decided to check out what they had, not having researched internet prices. I wasn't too worried because of their no-restocking-fee return policy on video cards. I figured I might as well get it and see how big of a performance increase I could get on my system (as in my sig) before being bottlenecked by my CPU.
Nobody ever claimed it did... Being DX10 compatible is its selling point i didnt say anything about its performance. i just made the point that with the cards he mentioned try telling everyone how great they are when he wants to play a DX10 game on them and cant.
Looking at your monitor you would be much better off with an 8800gts. I wouldnt use an 8600 with anything larger than a 19inch monitor.
It actually runs great, but there is room for improvement, no doubt. It's a very nice step up from my old card, which struggled in BF2. Now, I max out the settings and glide through the game.
But, yep. I agree. For a screen this big I do need something with the extra juice if I want it to last for future games.
most likely Tuesday morning or maybe even on Monday. I say Monday because its not considered breaking a street date for an online reseller to sell it because it wont arrive until after the release date. But thats just my guess... I've never actually really followed a video card release.
In regards to the 128-bit bus: My friend went from a 9800 Pro to a 7600GT. He was looking at the 7800GS, but found that while the bus appears to cripple the 7600GT (it does at higher resolutions undoubtedly cripple performance, but not at 1280x1024), it can overclock to match stock 7800GS benchmarks. And if games run well, who the heck cares about benchmarking software except for the e-wang warriors? Personally, although I have a 3DMark score, I don't give a sh-t about it because my games run. At max. Like butter. What more could you want?
yeah me either....this card has been stiring up some buzz for a while tho.....
funny thing i noticed when i had'em price check both @ BB....the PNY stock card and the BFG oc version....they both rang up @ 249.99+tax..
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
More memory bandwidth.
Look:
The 6600 GT was a monster of a card. I owned one, and so did everone else, because they absolutely slaughtered the 9800 Pro / 5950 XT, and matched performance with the 9800 XT. Even with eyecandy enabled, it outperformed the previous generation.
How did this happen? The move from DDR to midrange DDR3 provided the magic, combined with the more efficient memory controller of NV40. The memory clock of the 6600 GT was almost DOUBLE that of the 9800 Pro, so the 128-bit bus was little detriment to performance.
The 7600 GT continued the tradition with a %40 memory speed bump and double the raw processing power; it could hang with the best of the previous generation. The only problem was, performance dropped off with more eyecandy and higher resolutions, pointing to mounting memory bandwidth problems. That doubling of performance with only %40 more memory bandwidth really took the life out of the 7600 GT at high resolutions.
So, today we have the 8600 GTS, and it really has a problem. It has potentially double the performance of the 7600 GT, and yet again the memory bandwidth has only scaled %40, seriously limiting performance.
You might not see the hit in today's benchmarks or games, but I guarantee you as games start to make use of DX10 features, the 8600 series is going to fall way short of expectations.
It's time to ditch that awful 128-bit bus for the midrange - you would think after all the experience Nvidia had making a 384-bit bus, they could scale it down to 192 bits for cheap. The 7900 GS and x1950 Pro are proof-positive that both companies can make 256-bit cards in the 8600 GTS's price range, so there's really no excuse anymore.
SuperKeijo
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 705
8800 GTS has 3x the memory bandwidth of a 7600 GT.
I agree that Nvidia did drop the ball on the 8600GTS. For it being the upper level of the mid-range it should have 256-bit interface, especially for the price. The problem is the card got hyped up quite a bit and the 8600GTS didn't perform up to par, especially at higher resolutions, where adequate bandwidth really comes into play. If they dropped the price on it a bit, it might be a bigger performer. Still I don't think all hope is lost for the 8600 series, as the 8600 and 8600 gt should put out some pretty nice numbers considering their price. I am looking into picking up a 8600gt myself for my media pc. It will be interesting to see some gaming benchmarks on the cheaper versions.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
I MEANT to say 8600 GTS, my mistake. Does my statement make sense in that light?
arthur_tuxedo
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 559
I do agree that the 8600 GTS doesn't really compare to the 7600 GT or 6600 GT, but I think that people fixate on memory bandwidth way too much. It's not like a wider bus is free, and no one ever reverses the logic, complaining that performance on a mid-ranged is being crippled or bottlenecked by a slow clockspeed or fewer pipelines / stream processors. They grouse that the 7600 GT might perform like a 7900 GT if it only had a 256-bit bus, but forget that it would also be priced like a 7900 GT.
If I had to guess, I'd venture that it's not the memory bus that really holds the 8600 GTS back, but the fact that it only has 32 SP's to the 8800 GTS's 96. A 256-bit bus would probably be mostly wasted when fed by only 32 SP's anyway.
If I had to guess, I'd venture that it's not the memory bus that really holds the 8600 GTS back, but the fact that it only has 32 SP's to the 8800 GTS's 96. A 256-bit bus would probably be mostly wasted when fed by only 32 SP's anyway.
Commander Suzdal
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 2,134
Yeah, I've seen posts about this card that say something to the effect "They only used 128-bit memory when they could have used 256-bit memory," as if they think the bandwidth is an innate property of the RAM chips themselves. Maybe they are just mis-speaking, but if they really do think that, they don't get the fact that we're talking about the connection BETWEEN the RAM and the GPU, and that increasing the bit-width of that connection is a very complex process. More layers in the PCB, more traces on each layer, timing the signals through each trace to make them synchronized, etc. etc.
inotocracy
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,625
Was thinking the same exact thing...
Have you seen the benchmarks on the frontpage?
inotocracy
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,625
I just ordered a MSI 8600gts for 190.00 off of ZipZoomFly. I was planning on getting a 8600gt but for 20 bucks more, I figured the gts is a good deal. For 190.00 this card is a great deal, but I definitely agree that it is not worth more then 230.00. Any more then that and the price difference between it and a 8800gts would be worth the upgrade. I will let everyone know how the MSI gts turns out when I recieve it.