8600GTS Preview

not impressed????? midrange cards are usually always as powerful as the end of the last generation. so what were you expecting?
 
I'd blame it more on drivers (EDIT: okay, looked again. You're probably right about the memory width), but yeah- I'd say it just keeps up with an X1950 Pro: sometimes a bit faster, sometimes a lot slower. Considering the ATI is under $150, I don't think it's well-positioned. Only good thing is DX10 support, which probably doesn't save it.
 
mavalpha said:
I'd blame it more on drivers (EDIT: okay, looked again. .
Click to expand...

Probably drivers also. but read up more on the advantages of 128bit vs 256bit memory bandwitdh.

People are suckers when they buy cards with 512mb or 256mb of ram, and then get cards with 64bit of memory bandwidth.

128bit is not bad, but it needs to be 256bit
 
My 7900GT beats it in most cases, and by a rather large margin at that. I expected this new card to pull out ahead by at least a little bit, but it looks like that 128-bit bus is choking it to death.
 
lol, I replied and you had already edited. Yeah it is not well positioned, unless want a Dx10 card NOW, then I guess your stuck in that price range until AMD releases their card.
 
what exactly is the point of a completely gimped dx10 card again? so far even the 8800s don't seem too hot for dx10...
 
Stupac said:
lol, I replied and you had already edited. Yeah it is not well positioned, unless want a Dx10 card NOW, then I guess your stuck in that price range until AMD releases their card.
Click to expand...

Sadly, ATI's midrange offering, the 630xt (one step below r600, available for $200) also has 128bit bus I'm just not seeing the magic card this time around, guess I'll be springing for an 8800 when they are cheaper, their plan worked....
 
Came across this (p)review of a Club3D model 8600gts @ au-ja.org/de..Mangled deutsch -> english translation courtesy of google.

Not impressed with this either if these 2 early reviews hold up come actual release day. 128 bit bus was a *bad* idea. I thought the 86gts was supposed to be somewhat high end, certainly not in the class of the 8800s, but at the same time not a mid level card? What were they afraid of if they gave it a 256 bit bus? Maybe that it would come too close (even overtake in some parts) the 8800gts (being that it's clocks are so much higher *stock* that even most o/c model 8800 gts cards). If this is the replacement to the 7900/7950, I for see many buyers sticking with their "old" cards, or at least waiting until r600/g81 refresh (and low-mid variants).
 
Well I'm quite disappointed by these results, (the german site has more btw) in most games the 8600 gts kinda sucks, almost seems like geforce 5 again- I think nVidia will have to bring out a version with wider bandwidth, because this really feels like a low end card.
I do wonder what ATI have up their sleeve, will there mid range parts be any better? I really hope so!
 
With this kind of performance they better drop price to 150$ soon if they want to sell it instead of 7900 or 1950pro.
 
Domini said:
not impressed????? midrange cards are usually always as powerful as the end of the last generation. so what were you expecting?
Click to expand...

The X1950Pro is not high-end. I was expecting it to be beaten by the likes of X1950XT/X, 7900GTX but it really is a poor showing especially considering what the high-end G80 does to last generation cards in its bracket.
 
you do not have to read very much of the article to figure out the 8600gts is a P.O.C.
This really upsets me. I was waiting on this particular card to upgrade. I am glad I have a 7900gs to hlod me over till somethin better comes along.

I think Nvidia has got egg on there face again a la 5 series cards. When are they gonna learn???:mad:
 
wow, the card got its ass kicked in some of those benchies. And it was an OC version.
 
tpfaff said:
Sadly, ATI's midrange offering, the 630xt (one step below r600, available for $200) also has 128bit bus I'm just not seeing the magic card this time around, guess I'll be springing for an 8800 when they are cheaper, their plan worked....
Click to expand...

I think the 8800GTS 320mb version is the magic card in the mid-range. Hopefully it'll drop to around $225 or so (with rebates, etc.).

I'm still interested in the 8600 Ultra, but since it's going to be in the $175 range, I'd probably just rather spring for the 8800 320.
 
kirbyrj said:
I think the 8800GTS 320mb version is the magic card in the mid-range. Hopefully it'll drop to around $225 or so (with rebates, etc.).

I'm still interested in the 8600 Ultra, but since it's going to be in the $175 range, I'd probably just rather spring for the 8800 320.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this is the case, which is why I went for one. $225 with rebates seems about right for the final price point before next-gen. There's already a PNY for $250 AR on newegg now, which is hardly a big price to pay for the performance you get.
 
better drop price to 150$ soon
Click to expand...
Pretty much what I was thinking, at $150, I'd see this card selling a lot better, at $200 no way. You could scrounge a 7950 up for that and beat this card in many points, esp if overclocked and esp if volt-modded too. The real nail in the coffin is the wide retail availability (as others have mentioned) of 320mb 8800s for not much over the reported MSRP of these 8600s. If the reported $200 price pans out, they're not going to sell a lot of these, and prices will need to drop and FAST (esp if the mid range r600s turn out to kick ass & be priced sanely).

[Speculations for the nTH time] Then again, if the green team has their answer to r6x0 very soon, these cards faults could be mitigated; smaller die process perhaps, higher clocks (ala ungimping the 7800gt -> 7900gt was; ~7800gtx @ way lower pricing & smaller footprint), lower prices (certainly if they make the switch from 80nm to 60/65nm) and so forth.

Personally, I'm sick of all this drawn out BS, and crap like nvidia dragging their heels because they know they're the king of the hill; as well as DAAMIT being so late to the party. Get you damned product(s) [both of you] to market already so we can stop this crap already! My 7900gt (#3) is chugging along just fine, and as much as I want to pull the trigger on a nice 320mb GTS, it's kicking ass. And I'm not even looking @ upgrading until the end of the year, with a rebuild (if reported quad prices drop like has been speculated)
 
yeesh. And i thought I definitely wouldnt get the 320 gts. Looks like the 640 gts is the one for me.
 
Dang this is such a disappointment to me :( I was hoping the 8600s would be faster than that but I was getting my hopes up a little too far. Oh well, just ordered a evga 8800gtx 320 which will be a minor improvement from my integrated nVidia 6150gfx ;) /brag
 
jcll2002 said:
yeesh. And i thought I definitely wouldnt get the 320 gts. Looks like the 640 gts is the one for me.
Click to expand...

If you're looking at those 1920x1440 #s then yes, you should get a 640 GTS or 768 GTX, but I wouldn't consider this your end all way to compare the two cards when the 640 GTS isn't even being tested in this review on the same platform for comparison. Many purchasers that were and are looking for a $200-$300 price point, including myself, are very happy with the 320 GTS.

There's a number of good reviews around that compare the 320 and 640 directly that should help you with a decision like this properly.
 
despite the fact that we are less than impressed by the benchmarks, I'm sure these cards will still sell well despite this, especially in the retail sector. I wouldn't be surprised if dell started selling these off as the new hotness.
 
ehh i dont think that review is worth the bandwidth it takes up.

why is the 1950xt kicking th 8800 gts around?

wait till a reputable site like Hardocp or tech report gives a review. i would bet its not as bad as those graphs showed.. probaly not the magic bullet we all wanted at the cheaper price but i dont think it will be backhanded like it was in those graphs at relese.

could be wrong
 
At MSRP these aren't a good deal if this performance level pans out, we will have to wait till the price normalizes first.

It seems G80 technology actually needs large RAM sizes and high memory bandwidth levels in order to perform adequately, I would also like to see how a 256 to 512 comparison on the 8600 GTS would be like.
 
dajet24 said:
ehh i dont think that review is worth the bandwidth it takes up.

why is the 1950xt kicking th 8800 gts around?

wait till a reputable site like Hardocp or tech report gives a review. i would bet its not as bad as those graphs showed.. probaly not the magic bullet we all wanted at the cheaper price but i dont think it will be backhanded like it was in those graphs at relese.

could be wrong
Click to expand...

It is well known in F.E.A.R. that the 8800 GTS 320 takes a nose dive in performance in comparison to the 640 version. Enough that a R580 is within striking range.
 
Yeah there's always the driver aspect - I still don't know why the 8800GTS-320MB loses out to older 256MB cards in some cases.
 
No better than a 7950GT huh? It will all come down to pricing. How much are they asking for the 8600s again?
 
dajet24 said:
ehh i dont think that review is worth the bandwidth it takes up.
why is the 1950xt kicking th 8800 gts around?

wait till a reputable site like Hardocp or tech report gives a review. i would bet its not as bad as those graphs showed.. probaly not the magic bullet we all wanted at the cheaper price but i dont think it will be backhanded like it was in those graphs at relese.

could be wrong
Click to expand...
I agree because Hardwarezone ALWAYS has the slowest gaming benchmarks for every card they test. They only got 27fps in FEAR on the overclocked 8600gts 1280x1024 4aa 16af. Thats total bs because I just ran the FEAR benchmark on my 7600gt with same resolution and aa/af and all MAX settings(except soft shadows) and got 30fps. So according to Hardwarezone an overclocked 8600gts cant even beat my 7600gt plus I have a slower cpu.:confused:
 
what sucks is those of us with 24 inch displays at 1920x 1200 es iw as hoping that a 8600 gts would fly but it appears not.

hell even a 320 gts is no good hope a 512mg 8600gts proove a better performer at higher res's or maybe the r600 with its nifty audio chip will proove worthwhile.

seeing as my audigy 2 is worthless in vista it may be a good choice if it plays nice with vista.
 
Heh, why would you possibly expect a $200 card to drive 1920x1200? Talk about setting yourself up for disappointment :p
 
What you guys have to bear in mind is that nvidia is going to stop manufacturing the 7 series, this is replacing them. The 8800gts versions are already well placed in the mid range, arguably providing performance far beyond what most consumers will need/want or even notice is better than 1024x768. I'm still using a vanilla 6800 and for most games it's fine as long as you don't think 1024/768 is ugly.

My flat panel only goes up to 1280, and i wish every game played at that, but 1024 is still good to me if the game is impressive enough. I'm about to upgrade my whole rig, just waiting another month or two to see whether ati or nv is on top, but if it were right now i'd get a gts 640, cos i obviously don't plan to upgrade for another 2 years. I'm pretty sure the gts can handle 1280 res for a looong time.
 
trek554 said:
I agree because Hardwarezone ALWAYS has the slowest gaming benchmarks for every card they test. They only got 27fps in FEAR on the overclocked 8600gts 1280x1024 4aa 16af. Thats total bs because I just ran the FEAR benchmark on my 7600gt with same resolution and aa/af and all MAX settings(except soft shadows) and got 30fps. So according to Hardwarezone an overclocked 8600gts cant even beat my 7600gt plus I have a slower cpu.:confused:
Click to expand...

Something funny is definitely going on here.

Our usual graphics test system was used to benchmark the GeForce 8600 GTS. Consisting of an Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66Ghz) matched with an Intel D975XBX 'Bad Axe' motherboard, this high-end system had up to 2GB of DDR2-800 Kingston HyperX memory modules running in dual channel mode. A Seagate 7200.7 SATA 80GB hard drive completed the setup, installed with Windows XP Professional updated with Service Pack 2 and DirectX 9.0c.

The following graphics cards and their respective drivers were featured in the comparison. So far, ForceWare 100.95 beta drivers seem to be the earliest version to support the GeForce 8600 series properly, though at this point of publishing, there are newer beta versions available out there. We did not have scores for some of the older cards at higher resolutions like 1920 x 1440. For those cases, we have labeled them with a 'N.A'.
Click to expand...

They used their "usual graphics test system" for this little preview, eh? With WinXP Pro, eh?

Then why is the driver revision for the 8600 a 100-series driver? Aren't all 100-series drivers Vista-only? My guess is that the only drivers they could find that supported the 8600 series were Vista drivers, so they benched it under Vista. Massive performance issues right there, especially pre-101-series drivers.

Plus the whole testing methodology is sloppy and suspect. It's pretty clear from the different driver revisions listed and the comments about missing resolutions that they are just cut-and-pasting old numbers from previous benchmarks together, with who knows how many variables?

See the "had up to 2 Gig memory" note. Up to? So numbers are being compared from test runs with different amounts of system RAM? This is ridiculous!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top