8800GTS 320 vs. 9600GT SSC decision

N

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
You have $100-$120.

You need a new video card. Coming from a 8600GT.

You are trying to choose between a NEW (full warranty) 8800GTS 320 Zotac card or a USED (already registered to someone else) 9600GT SSC 512 EVGA card.

Whick one do you choose and why?

Thanks guys. :D
 
I'd get the 9600GT hands-down. If you know the person with the 9600GT then they can RMA it for you if you ever have a problem. Unfortunately, I don't think EVGA transfers warranties, so this would be your only option if something were to go awry. :(

The 9600GT is a superior card, so it still gets my vote.

EVGA Warranty Info
 
bicycle_wreck said:
I'd get the 9600GT hands-down. If you know the person with the 9600GT then they can RMA it for you if you ever have a problem. Unfortunately, I don't think EVGA transfers warranties, so this would be your only option if something were to go awry. :(

The 9600GT is a superior card, so it still gets my vote.

EVGA Warranty Info
Click to expand...

well, i know the warranty is not transferable and i know how good their support is, (i moderate on their support forums sometimes and have owned several of their cards), but i am just wondering if it's worth the extra cash, i dont really do a lot of gaming, but a 8800GTS 320 for $99 sounds really really good for the money, i just wanted to find out if the 9600GT SSC was worth the extra risk and cost compared to a 8800GTS 320;)
 
The cooler on the GTS 320 is quieter and performs better, but 320MB is just not that much a of a buffer anymore. The 9600GT would be worth it in most instances, but if you're running 1024x768 or something ridiculously small, then the 9600GT would be pointless.

Otherwise: 9600GT.
 
ok, yeah, i run a 1440x900 standard resolution, native to my LCD anyways....and the 256Mb 8600GT has been somewhat ok, but like i said, i dont do a bunch of gaming, just figured since i sold my 8600gt for $50, a 8800GTS 320 would be a good enough upgrade for $50 anyways....
 
Looking through fatwallet, you could get a 9600GT for $110-120 these days on sale (mostly with rebates).
 
^^^^ if you dont do much gaming 8600GT is fine. You wont see spectacular difference in graphics unless you play high end games which are demanding enough for a USER to see the differenec these high end cards have. I had 8600GT, finished Crysis on itm then bought 8800GT i only felt very high FRAME RATES and smoother game play. I was able to see the difference as i am a gamer, you might feel u wasted money once u get it....
 
you can currently get a 8800GTS 640 for 119. I don't know how it compare directly with the 9600 though
 
Sorry to ask this question in this thread, but i figure its relevant. My buddies 8800gts 320mb beats my 9600gt.

I recently built a whole new machine almost from scratch.

AMD 9500 Phenom quadcore @2.45ghz
9600gt oc to 760mhz
gigabyte ga-ma78gm-s2h motherboard
3gb pc6400 DDr2
Vista 64bit

The only thing that i kept from my old machine was the hard drive which is a 7200rpm sata 250gb. I forget what brand. Anyways I was pretty pleased with the way it ran (i am posting scores in 3dmark 06 of about 9400), that is until my friend bough a phenom combo from frys yesterday with one of their new 9750 processors. I helped him build it with the new MB/Processor and his old 8800GTS 320mb everything stock. He posted a score of almost 11000 right off the bat! And i know that 3d mark does not equal actual gameplay so we threw in crysis. Right from the first battle in the daylight at the ridge overlooking the water i could tell that his machine was beating mine hands down, even at much higher settings. He was running everything at HIGH 1650x1080 while i struggle to run 1280x720 on medium. I was under the impression when i bought the 9600gt that it was a faster card then the 8800, and has more on board memory.

Is it the card bottlenecking my system? Or could it be something else completely? I figure our processors are clocked almost equal. He is using a WD 74gb raptor drive, but everything ive read says that HD have no factor in the performance in gaming. Any advice?
 
If you're considering a G80-8800GTS 640mb at this point I'd recommend trying to find a good deal on an eVGA 8800GTS 640mb SSC which has 112 stream processors instead of 96 and also has a nice OC to boot. I had originally picked one up to SLI with my eVGA 8800GTS 640mb Superclocked but quickly realized my first-gen SLI mobo and RAM would not foment that (well, they wouldn't justify the joint price of the two cards), so I sold-off the 8800GTS 640mb Superclocked and kept the SSC. Since then I've OCed the core to 621MHz and the stream processors to 1.458GHz (standard clocks on this are 578MHz core, 1.35GHz stream/shader, and 1800MHz mem). I haven't been able to OC the memory at all but the 320-bit bus and 640mb of VRAM alleviate any such need, and with the core and streams OCed as they are, is definitely is a very nice step-up from an 8800GT which has the same stream processor count and even w/out the OC what I've seen indicates that the 8800GTS 640mb SSC soundly thwacks an 8800GT but with the OC, just more so; however, the price NewEgg wants for it is in G92-8800GTS 512mb territory, and the larger bus and extra VRAM are nice, but for most games it won't offset the G92-8800GTS 512mb's 16 extra stream processors and definitively higher core and stream/shader clocks. But the G80-8800GTS in any form is largely viewed as obsolete so you may be able to find a much better deal than what NewEgg is offering and you may even be able to find one in your price range.

But otherwise I'd recommend the 9600GT or 8800GT. Imo, the 320mb of VRAM on the 8800GTS 320mb will be limiting. And, also, if the difference between the 9600GT and 8800GTS 320mb mentioned above really is because of the difference in the cards, I then recommend a 9600GSO as Crysis and STALKER, particularly, are known to benefit from more stream processors (despite that the 9600GT obviously uses its 64 extremely well, the 9600GSO tends to outperform it in STALKER and Crysis because it has more sp's). Yeah... it's complex. But my best suggestion for 1440x900 is the 9600GT for an admitted non-gamer, as I'm assuming the 9600GT will perform better in most of the games you'll want it to than the 8800GTS 320mb or 9600GSO, but I could be wrong... ugh.
 
9600gt>>>>8800gts 320mb..

Look at lots of bench and only differs from 8800gt(g92)512mb in 5%.
 
nobody_here said:
ok, yeah, i run a 1440x900 standard resolution, native to my LCD anyways....and the 256Mb 8600GT has been somewhat ok, but like i said, i dont do a bunch of gaming, just figured since i sold my 8600gt for $50, a 8800GTS 320 would be a good enough upgrade for $50 anyways....
Click to expand...

If you don't game, then what is the point of getting a power hungry/hot running card?

...other than "just because you can" ;)

Oh, and go for the 9600GT, it is better overall.
 
well, i recently moved and changed jobs, i was out of town 99% of the time before, but now i find myself with a lot of time at home and a steam account and a chance to upgrade from a 8600GT 256 to a 8800GTS 320 for $50....so it seemed like a decent return on the investment, also wanted to play around with UT3 demo a bit and the 8600GT was struggling at my 1440x900 resolution

at any rate, i already pulled the trigger on the GTS, who knows, in the next week or so while waiting on it, there might be a $99 offer for the 9600GT, and then i should be able to sell my new GTS 320 for enough to do that....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top