8800 GTX still relavent?

E

ebeattie

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
441
Hello all. So I just wanted to get a consensus from everyone here on how an 8800 GTX stacks up for the up coming BF titles.

Ive had my current 8800 GTX since about mid-2008 and havent had an issue with it. I am currently in a planning mode for upgrading my CPU/MOBO/RAM from (heh) an AMD FX-60 939, a DFI NF4 Lan Party and my 2 GB of Corsair XMS (which, no shit, Ive had running in every configuration Ive had since Spring 2005!).

The question I am having is how will my 8800 get along with my new build? As it stands all I plan on playing is the Battlefield franchise i.e. BF:BC2, BF43. I have gotten ALOT of life out of my core system, but I know how volatile the GPU market is and with the coming of DX11, does my card have a prayer? Still seems like yesterday DX10 was the hot new shit...

In the coming months we'll see what offerings Nvidia and ATI have for us but for now its me and my trusty 8800 GTX.

What are your thoughts?
 
It's still an awesome card, around 4850 level performance i believe.

Try it with the new build and see if it handles the games you want to play, it will be cheaper to upgrade after fermi is released (if it doesnt tank) so wait it out - unless you have a burning desire for a fast card now.
 
What resolution are you gaming at? What FPS are you used to playing at? Do you mind turning down graphics?

8800GTX is still a good card, but it will definitely be showing its age on the new Frostbite engine, which has the 8800gt (g92 refresh of the g80) as its minimum recommended spec, which is pretty close to your older GTX.
 
It depends a bit on the resolution that you play at a bit and your detail settings. I'd personally think if you used an 8800 GTX at a slightly lower resolution than 1080p like 1680x1050, you'd do alright with medium-ish settings. Especially since BF:BC2 is fairly cpu dependant with the gpu physics and not as hard as it could have been on your gpu. There's a thread on the forums where someone did a review on the beta for bf:bc2 testing a whole ton of cards if you can find it with the search feature.
 
I appreciate the responses so far. like a rookie I did forget the res I play at. My monitors native res is 1920x1200 so I definitely want to keep it at that. I figure going in to it Im going to have to turn alot of the eye candy down, but as long as I can still feel immersed in the game Im ok with less than optimal graphics.

I was waiting to see what Fermi is all about but it seems Nvidia is taking its sweet time.

My new core build will be:
Intel i7 920 (with a Xigmatek Dark knight cooler)
EVGA X58 mobo
6GB Corsair XMS
8800 GTX
 
Your build as it is honestly seems like a pretty decent build in terms of speed. An iCore i7 920 is still a nice cpu and overclocks well, 6GB of DDR3 is a good amount of ram for games and most tasks on a PC how adays like photo editing, etc.

It sounds like with those three peices you've mentioned that your not reusing will come to roughly $600.00 to $700.00 depending on where you purchase it. If you can, save like 1-2 paycheques more and save another 100-200.00 and get a 5770, you'd probably get a lot better overall immersion imo. A 5770 can run a single monitor fairly well for not a huge investment. A 5830 would probably better which should be released pretty soon.

Fermi, just to warn you, initially will only be high end parts in the $400+ category money wise. I'm not sure what your video-card budget would be if you do go with replacing the 8800 gtx.
 
I'm using a GTS 250 which is a G92 card, with an i7 and 6 GiB of DDR3. I play BC2 with 4xAA and 16xAF on very high settings at 1920x1080. I know the G92 is at least a little more powerful than the older G80s but they should be pretty close. I'd say at 1920x1200 you should easily be able to go 4xAA and 8xAF if not 16xAF.
 
I would think a 8800gtx would be faster than a gts250 or 9800gtx or 8800gts (whatever you want to call it) especially at high resolutions due to higher memory bandwidth (384bit compared to 256bit gts250), i had a 8800ultra and would take that any day over a gts250 as its just plain faster.
 
I have an 8800 Ultra in one of my systems and it still runs most newer games at high-ish settings. It's by no means a slouch at all, but it does use a lot of power and it does run quite hot. Newer cards absolutely destroy it in the area of operating temps and power usage.
 
ya the 8800gtx is still good. I also run my games at high but I can feel it isnt running at 60 fps but around 30. Yet most games use unreal engine which still make it feel smooth by the way the engine works.
 
Makes a great Physx card if you got a higher end GPU already in the system and want to offload the processing..
 
Im still playing BF2 heavily and I still notice that graphics wise its not bad, but my 2GB are starting to show their age.

I figured the higher mem bandwidth would play to my favor, so as e-geek suggested Ill go ahead with my core build, and make a decision about my vid card later. It should be interesting. thanks for all the replies.
 
I have an OC'd 8800 GTX paired with an X4 955 (very lightly OC'd to 3.4 Ghz). I don't play the games you are mentioning, but its still very capable at 1680x1050 in the RPGs and MMOs I do play. I just purchased Divinity II: Ego Draconis and for the first time its bogging down on the higher settings of a game. Had to back it off to medium (although the game is pretty poorly optimized from what I've read). As others have said its about like an HD 4850 and while that's no barn-burner in today's GPU market, its still a nice medium spot.
 
eddieck said:
I'm using a GTS 250 which is a G92 card, with an i7 and 6 GiB of DDR3. I play BC2 with 4xAA and 16xAF on very high settings at 1920x1080. I know the G92 is at least a little more powerful than the older G80s but they should be pretty close. I'd say at 1920x1200 you should easily be able to go 4xAA and 8xAF if not 16xAF.
Click to expand...

9800GTX (65nm) here and playing everything fine on 1920x1200 on high to max settings with no or rarely 2xAA (I seriously don't see jaggies at this resolution) and max af if i can. Crysis wise its all High with 2XAA with 20-32 frames depending on level.

Its still a decent card, enough that its gonna hold me until probably the end of the year if done right.

Random question, you guys sure the G92 series is comparable to 4850? My friend has a 4850 slighty clocked higher than stock, It is an Asus version and my now eh clocked 9800GTX still out performs it by a mile. My 9800GTX is currently clocked at 750/1875/1175, and 815/2026/1215 when I need some more frames.
 
I Still love this card, although it's getting long in tooth. I am using dual Dell1908FP monitors at 1280 x 1024 resolution so most games, even newer ones I can max out the detail. It has not had a hiccup in 3.5 years now.

I plan on purchasing 2 24" monitors so I will be using higher resolutions so a replacement is needed. I plan on purchasing a new video card. I am leaning towards a 460 1 gb Fermi for now due to I am poor. Been hearing nothing but good things about them and the price to performance ratio is pretty good.

Oh, Nice to be here, I always liked your forum. I am a longstanding member of PCper and Extreme :cool:Overclockers.com

I did register years ago and never returned, well that's changed.
 
At 1280x1024 it's probably all you'll need for the near future. Based upon memory it even does a fine job with Crysis at that resolution.
My wife's machine has my old 8800GTX and it rocks almost everything at 1680x1050.
You really see the benefit of newer cards once you go above that resolution or if you're playing stuff like Crysis or Metro 2033 regularly.
 
Ah, an old thread I posted in. My 8800 GTX is finally relegated to the box in the closet. I bought a GTX 460 1GB and its quite nice - cooler, quieter and a good bit faster. The 8800 GTX lasted me 3 years and 9 months though. Never have kept a video card that long before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top