• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

320 vs 640 MB GTS difference

V

Varmint

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
1,854
Is there some stuttering you'd see w/ 320 MB that doesn't show up in the FPS comparisons? I heard that and wondered if that's true.

I'm ready to pull the trigger on an 8800GTS but still mulling which one to buy.
 
check out the [H] review on the 320mb GTS. they focus more on "experience" than raw fps numbers that may not reveal playability issues in the games they test. from what I saw in reviews, the 320mb GTS was pretty dead even with the 640mb card in most instances and only really suffered at high resolutions or antialiasing levels.

personally, I think 640mb is a memory size more suited to a powerful chip like the G80. 320mb may be fine for current games, but for next-gen DX10 titles, who the hell knows if it will hold up?

if you've got the money, go for a 640mb. if not, then think a bit harder ;)
 
If you game at resolutions higher than 1280x1024, the 640MB version might be more up your alley. I'm in a similar situation as you, looking at the 640MB to pair up with a 2007WFP.
 
If you have a good res or plan on having a good res monitor, then get the 640mb. Period.
 
im getting the 320mb version which should be good for 1680x1050/1600x1200 and under.

i dont plan on playing higher than 1680x1050.
 
The difference is now just $80, since the 640 MB EVGA dropped to $340 AR.
 
MJCfromCT said:
If you game at resolutions higher than 1280x1024, the 640MB version might be more up your alley.
Click to expand...

+1.
In any reviews you find, the 320MB will perform completely even with the 640MB at 1280x1024 and below. There appeared to be a noticeable drop at 1600x1200, 1680x1050 and higher in most newer games. At 1900x1200 and above the 320MB will take a noticeable drop in every game, and suffers an extreme performance penalty in some.
 
MrMike said:
+1.
In any reviews you find, the 320MB will perform completely even with the 640MB at 1280x1024 and below. There appeared to be a noticeable drop at 1600x1200, 1680x1050 and higher in most newer games. At 1900x1200 and above the 320MB will take a noticeable drop in every game, and suffers an extreme performance penalty in some.
Click to expand...

I didn't really see a gain of more than 10% in most games, except Guru3D showed like a 100% gain in Ghost Recon w/ 640 MB. If it was just 10% or less, I don't think the $80-100 difference is worth it, but if future games use large textures like GRAW . . .

Has anyone seen Stalker FPS w/ the two cards?
 
I went with the 640MB version because I knew what games I currently play and what games I would like to play in the future. I would have gone with the GTX but I certainly didn't have the cash at the time...so I went one step lower. I play alot of Oblivion now and I know that's murder on video memory. I have RivaTuner set to monitor my system and the video memory usage is almost constantly pegged. That's with every setting on high and using a number of graphical enhancements (Natural Environments, Qarl's Texture Pack, etc.)


I'd say go with the 640MB version. With newer games using larger and larger textures, it's a safer bet to go with more memory.
 
evilcartman said:
I'd say go with the 640MB version. With newer games using larger and larger textures, it's a safer bet to go with more memory.
Click to expand...

I'd say buy the 320mb and then get a better card in 6 months when Crysis comes out.
 
Wildace said:
im getting the 320mb version which should be good for 1680x1050/1600x1200 and under.

i dont plan on playing higher than 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

i was using the 320mb on my 20" lcd (1680x1050). replaced it with a 640mb version which i found to be much more suitable at that resolution, especially if you prefer to use AA.
 
I have the 320MB and it plays all the current games out now. Id save money and wait until DX10 games come out and then buy a bad ass card.
 
The tricky thing about comparing video memory sizes is that benchmarks, in particular average or maximum framerates, usually do not reflect the full effect that the extra memory has on the "smoothness." This has been going on since 6 or 8MB vs. 16MB. Now pretty soon we're going to have 640MB vs. 1GB. Back to the effect it has on minimum framerates. Stuttering, chugging, lagging, whatever you prefer to call it, can be the fault of texture thrashing a good portion of the time. It depends on what games you play, at what res and amount of FSAA. If you plan to keep this card well into the DX10 era, scrounge around for the extra dough because nobody knows what kind of color/normal/specular mapping fidelity will come forth. The advice in this thread is sound for the games currently available. 1280x1024 with little FSAA = 320MB save the rest for the next next gen. Feeling the pinch at 1680x1050 with 256MB here...
 
PliotronX said:
The tricky thing about comparing video memory sizes is that benchmarks, in particular average or maximum framerates, usually do not reflect the full effect that the extra memory has on the "smoothness." This has been going on since 6 or 8MB vs. 16MB. Now pretty soon we're going to have 640MB vs. 1GB. Back to the effect it has on minimum framerates. Stuttering, chugging, lagging, whatever you prefer to call it, can be the fault of texture thrashing a good portion of the time. It depends on what games you play, at what res and amount of FSAA. If you plan to keep this card well into the DX10 era, scrounge around for the extra dough because nobody knows what kind of color/normal/specular mapping fidelity will come forth. The advice in this thread is sound for the games currently available. 1280x1024 with little FSAA = 320MB save the rest for the next next gen. Feeling the pinch at 1680x1050 with 256MB here...
Click to expand...

Ok, so it is true that the problems of lower memory may not show up in benchmarks.

I'm pretty much sold on 640 MB then, after reading all these posts. Thanks guys.
 
I tested a 320 MB version at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 on all of the games in my evaluation, and it played just fine. This whole "only good for 1280x1024" idea people have is nonsense. People are trying to predict the future and decide how DX10 games are going to run on it, and that's nothing but speculation. Truth is, nobody here knows how it will run on DX10 games, and if they do they are under an NDA, so you won't hear from them about it anyway.
 
Mark_Warner, Would it be possible to do a SLI test of these cards to see if going the SLI route is preferrable to a 8800GTX, especially if you already have the GTS? Also, can one SLI a 640MB GTS together with a 320 one, since 320+320MB does not equal 640MB in gaming terms, according to SLI.
 
ScourggeFX said:
Mark_Warner, Would it be possible to do a SLI test of these cards to see if going the SLI route is preferrable to a 8800GTX, especially if you already have the GTS? Also, can one SLI a 640MB GTS together with a 320 one, since 320+320MB does not equal 640MB in gaming terms, according to SLI.
Click to expand...

Anything is possible. Some things are just a lot more likely than others.

If you already have a GTS, then adding another for SLI is a good option. If you are buying SLI from the start, it makes no sense to go anything less than 8800GTX SLI. If you bought a pair of 320 MB GTSs for SLI, it'd cost as much and be slower than a single 8800GTX.

For now, you can not mix a 320 MB GTS and a 640 MB GTS in SLI.
 
Mark_Warner said:
I tested a 320 MB version at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 on all of the games in my evaluation, and it played just fine. This whole "only good for 1280x1024" idea people have is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't buy that either, regardless of resolution, most games don't benefit from over 320 MB yet. But I'm more concerned about the Guru3D review that showed GRAW2 running like 100% faster on the 640 MB version.
 
Mark_Warner said:
Anything is possible. Some things are just a lot more likely than others.

If you already have a GTS, then adding another for SLI is a good option. If you are buying SLI from the start, it makes no sense to go anything less than 8800GTX SLI. If you bought a pair of 320 MB GTSs for SLI, it'd cost as much and be slower than a single 8800GTX.

For now, you can not mix a 320 MB GTS and a 640 MB GTS in SLI.
Click to expand...

With a 19" LCD monitor, the GTX in most reviews does not greatly outpace a GTS @ 1280. But I can see your point at higher resolutions and higher AA, where a 8800GTX should be faster than GTS (320) SLI, simply due to memory. GTS SLI 640 is another story.
 
Mark_Warner said:
I tested a 320 MB version at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 on all of the games in my evaluation, and it played just fine.
Click to expand...

unfortunately the games in your evaluation were not all conclusive. @ 1680xc1050 (my native res) for example, "Company of Heroes" performed significantly better on my 640mb card than it did on the 320mb version with the settings I use (RT showed 590-600mb used at all times). "F.E.A.R. Extraction Point" showed a significant performance difference as well.

OTOH with "Supreme Commander" there was no noticeable difference whatsoever.

having had both 320mb & 640mb versions of the GTS, I found the performance differences can be non-existant to severe, depending on the game and the settings used.

i'm sure DX10 titles will likely follow a similar path. some will show little or no difference, while others may show significant differences, depending on the game & settings used.
 
CaiNaM said:
unfortunately the games in your evaluation were not all conclusive. @ 1680xc1050 (my native res) for example, "Company of Heroes" performed significantly better on my 640mb card than it did on the 320mb version with the settings I use (RT showed 590-600mb used at all times). "F.E.A.R. Extraction Point" showed a significant performance difference as well.

OTOH with "Supreme Commander" there was no noticeable difference whatsoever.

having had both 320mb & 640mb versions of the GTS, I found the performance differences can be non-existant to severe, depending on the game and the settings used.

i'm sure DX10 titles will likely follow a similar path. some will show little or no difference, while others may show significant differences, depending on the game & settings used.
Click to expand...


Just how much of a difference are you talking about? Did you enable high AA, 16x AF? I just bought FEAR Extraction point, and I am now hesitant. Oh well....

Edit: Now I am running FEARXP all settings on maximum (volumetric lighting on medium) 4xAA, 8xAF, Supersampling on, High quality. Smooth. Could be faster with a 640, but smooth gameplay. I have not needed to turn anything down yet.
 
More memory is required for more frame buffer usage, so if you are playing at high resolutions or with a lot of Antialiasing.. then go with the 640.. I'm running the evga 320bm 8800GTS and I have no problems so far, although I've only just got it setup and running supreme commander taht came for free with it :)

Look at ti this way, if you go with evga, step up later if its not enough. The price differences between the 320 and the 640 are meager if you wait a month and trade the card in.. or wait 85 days or so ( pre to the 90 ) and upgradeas best you can.. and then dont feel bad :)

It's relative to how much its worth to you, evgas step up program for gamers who want to stay playing games at high fps.. is the best route.

Just my 2 cents.
 
ScourggeFX said:
Just how much of a difference are you talking about? Did you enable high AA, 16x AF? I just bought FEAR Extraction point, and I am now hesitant. Oh well....
Click to expand...

i don't have the actual figures, but iirc the biggest difference was in min framerates. in the performance test the "% below xxfps" was almost double on the 320 vs 640 at the setting i used. i no longer have a 320mb version so unfortunately it's not something i can revisit.

also, the 320mb version had large dips in the framerate which was noticeable during gameplay that the 640mb did not.
 
I myself am deciding which card to go with at this very moment - the 320mb or the 640mb. It sounds like I would be ok going with the 320mb because my gaming will definitely be done at 1280x1024 - I bought two 19" lcd's in the past year and am definitely not replacing them anytime soon.

Also, I cannot find the EVGA 640mb part at $340. The Egg has it at $360 AR.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I myself am deciding which card to go with at this very moment - the 320mb or the 640mb. It sounds like I would be ok going with the 320mb because my gaming will definitely be done at 1280x1024 - I bought two 19" lcd's in the past year and am definitely not replacing them anytime soon.

Also, I cannot find the EVGA 640mb part at $340. The Egg has it at $360 AR.
Click to expand...

Clubit has it for $340 after MIR
 
Blah, ClubIT is sold out. I'll probably just get it from the Egg though, because they're bundling it with Supreme Commander, which I would say is worth $20.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top