EVGA 8800 GTS Superclocked $263.99

I think I got it for the exact same price ($230) back in April... It was like $270 with a $40 rebate or something...

I'm glad it hasn't dropped much, makes me feel better that I bought it early.

Really nice board
 
I wish Nvidia hadn't come out with the gimped GTS. The 640 is still 400$. It's ridicules.
 
Just an FYI, I purchased an EVGA 8800 GTS SC 320mb, from Dell a month or so ago, for $250. Overclocked to 693/1100 it scores 11,700 in 3DMark06 w/ an e6600 @3.6. Noticable increase from my 7900GS. Very happy with the card. Enjoy!
 
Well, it's nice to get high 3dmarks, but when you use 1680x1050+ resolution with with AF and AA, the card hits brick wall.
 
Absinthe said:
Just an FYI, I purchased an EVGA 8800 GTS SC 320mb, from Dell a month or so ago, for $250. Overclocked to 693/1100 it scores 11,700 in 3DMark06 w/ an e6600 @3.6. Noticable increase from my 7900GS. Very happy with the card. Enjoy!
Click to expand...
very similar OC as my evga GTS
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Well, it's nice to get high 3dmarks, but when you use 1680x1050+ resolution with with AF and AA, the card hits brick wall.
Click to expand...

where's the benches to back this up? [H] call of juarez benches don't count

look at the countless benches from all the many sites, the 320mb is faster and has always been faster. Since the voodoo days it has almost always been true that a card with higher ram but the same clock speed and features will be slightly lower in fps but will have lower load times and possibly less stuttering

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1196&Itemid=91&limit=1&limitstart=10
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
Well, it's nice to get high 3dmarks, but when you use 1680x1050+ resolution with with AF and AA, the card hits brick wall.
Click to expand...

butterfliesrpretty said:
where's the benches to back this up? [H] call of juarez benches don't count
Click to expand...
I don't have the time/desire to pull up benchies to support, but it is generally known that the 320mb card can show its weakness at high resolutions with lots of aa and af. Although, I think you have to go higher than obi said...i think you have to get to 1900x1200 and up in order to really show the difference. And it doesn't appear in every game. Mainly stuff like Oblivion, etc.

For reference, TF2 at 1600x1200 with 8x QXAA and 16xAF doesn't even use the full 320MB...only like 300MB IIRC.
 
jebo_4jc said:
I don't have the time/desire to pull up benchies to support, but it is generally known that the 320mb card can show its weakness at high resolutions with lots of aa and af. Although, I think you have to go higher than obi said...i think you have to get to 1900x1200 and up in order to really show the difference. And it doesn't appear in every game. Mainly stuff like Oblivion, etc.

For reference, TF2 at 1600x1200 with 8x QXAA and 16xAF doesn't even use the full 320MB...only like 300MB IIRC.
Click to expand...

thats the thing everyone assumes that it's true with higher ram cards but where's the benches that show this? The fact is when the extra ram finally becomes important, our 8800's will be long gone.

Also here's some oblivion benches that back what I said up ;)

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1196&Itemid=91&limit=1&limitstart=4
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
look at the countless benches from all the many sites, the 320mb is faster and has always been faster. Since the voodoo days it has almost always been true that a card with higher ram but the same clock speed and features will be slightly lower in fps but will have lower load times and possibly less stuttering

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1196&Itemid=91&limit=1&limitstart=10
Click to expand...
false
You might see SOME 320MB versions that are faster than their 640MB counterparts, but only if the 320MB version is overclocked. In some cases, you're right, the larger RAM video cards use slower RAM, so the bigger RAM might be on slower cards. But the 8800GTS is a special case where nvidia simply took 320MB off the 640MB card. The GPU and RAM are exactly the same. So, unless one of the cards is overclocked, or unless more than 320MB of video RAM is used, they will be identical.
`
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
thats the thing everyone assumes that it's true with higher ram cards but where's the benches that show this? The fact is when the extra ram finally becomes important, our 8800's will be long gone.

Also here's some oblivion benches that back what I said up ;)

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1196&Itemid=91&limit=1&limitstart=4
Click to expand...
That review is comparing two cards at two different clock speeds. The evga card has higher GPU speeds than the Sparkle card does, so that's why you're seeing better FPS from the 320MB card.
 
jebo_4jc said:
false
You might see SOME 320MB versions that are faster than their 640MB counterparts, but only if the 320MB version is overclocked. In some cases, you're right, the larger RAM video cards use slower RAM, so the bigger RAM might be on slower cards. But the 8800GTS is a special case where nvidia simply took 320MB off the 640MB card. The GPU and RAM are exactly the same. So, unless one of the cards is overclocked, or unless more than 320MB of video RAM is used, they will be identical.
`
Click to expand...
OK you made me look up some benchies :)
http://techreport.com/articles.x/11830/7

Note the Standard 320MB vs the Standard 640MB

640MB: 40.1 FPS
320MB: 24.5 FPS
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
where's the benches to back this up? [H] call of juarez benches don't count

look at the countless benches from all the many sites, the 320mb is faster and has always been faster. Since the voodoo days it has almost always been true that a card with higher ram but the same clock speed and features will be slightly lower in fps but will have lower load times and possibly less stuttering

http://it-review.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1196&Itemid=91&limit=1&limitstart=10
Click to expand...

Your comparing overclocked cards. Who knows what OC each card was able to hit.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzMSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Here's a stock vs. stock review from a reputable source.

At stock you really don't see much of a difference until you play games that need lots of VRAM. Larger amounts of memory have never caused significant performance losses. We're talking about 2-3fps, if that. The problem is that the new games which which we actually need to upgrade to these cards for are very RAM hungry. I'm noticing more and more instances where people get terrible performance with their GTS320's because they run out of VRAM. If your gaming on 1280x1024, it'll be a great card, but at 1680x1050 some games may leave you up a creek with out a paddle.
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
at 1680x1050 some games may leave you up a creek with out a paddle.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing that happen very often. I think 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 is within the comfort zone of the 320MB card, in most cases. If you have a monitor higher than that, you should go for 640MB IMHO.
From the H review you linked:
Our tests have shown that, with the exception of S.T.A.L.K.E.R., there is little difference in performance between the 640 MB GeForce 8800 GTS and the 320 MB version at 1600x1200 or under. In a couple of games, we were able to increase the detail level, but it did not result in a dramatically better gaming experience, except for S.T.A.L.K.E.R....At 1920x1200 and upwards the memory capacity makes more of a difference
Click to expand...
 
And granted that the case for most current games, but it cuts it to close. Texture sizes are beginning to see dramatic increases in newer games. If I spend 300$ on a card, I'm not really in love with the idea of having to adjusting my settings around my frame buffer. I have been reading of too many problems on forums about GTS320s running out of VRAM. If we're just talking about current gen games, I can live with my X1800XT, but if I buy a new card to play new games, I was to play that at full resolution with AA, and that's not really a very sure thing with the 320.
 
To those looking at this card, EVGA is offering ET:QW for free if you buy from select etailers.

So $300 - $50 comes to $250. CC will have ET:QW on sale for $40, so it will only be a couple dollars better than this deal ATT.

/shrug

http://www.evga.com/
 
Obi_Kwiet said:
And granted that the case for most current games, but it cuts it to close. Texture sizes are beginning to see dramatic increases in newer games. If I spend 300$ on a card, I'm not really in love with the idea of having to adjusting my settings around my frame buffer. I have been reading of too many problems on forums about GTS320s running out of VRAM. If we're just talking about current gen games, I can live with my X1800XT, but if I buy a new card to play new games, I was to play that at full resolution with AA, and that's not really a very sure thing with the 320.
Click to expand...
You're right. The 320MB is fine for now, but it isn't really the great long-term solution that some people hope it will be. I think if you're buying a video card for a long-term keeper, you need to buy the highest-end card you can possibly afford. I think the 640MB would be worth it in that case. I went from 512MB X1900XT to this, and I'm not 100% sure it was worth it, since Oblivion actually shows an advantage to the X1900s at 1600x1200. Most other games go to the 8800 though :)
 
This title is so common place now. PC magazine does the same thing. Whenever they do reviews on a 8800 VS anything else they never specify if it is 640 or 320 except in the paragraphs. They always seem to use the 320 versions too. Many places do this for whatever reason. I think many people that know little about computer hardware think the only difference between the 320 and 640 is the memory.
 
jebo_4jc said:
You're right. The 320MB is fine for now, but it isn't really the great long-term solution that some people hope it will be. I think if you're buying a video card for a long-term keeper, you need to buy the highest-end card you can possibly afford. I think the 640MB would be worth it in that case. I went from 512MB X1900XT to this, and I'm not 100% sure it was worth it, since Oblivion actually shows an advantage to the X1900s at 1600x1200. Most other games go to the 8800 though :)
Click to expand...

It will be too soon to upgrade, first off these cards are still expensive while some of us are still playing older games with DX9 cards.
 
jebo_4jc said:
You're right. The 320MB is fine for now, but it isn't really the great long-term solution that some people hope it will be. I think if you're buying a video card for a long-term keeper, you need to buy the highest-end card you can possibly afford. I think the 640MB would be worth it in that case. I went from 512MB X1900XT to this, and I'm not 100% sure it was worth it, since Oblivion actually shows an advantage to the X1900s at 1600x1200. Most other games go to the 8800 though :)
Click to expand...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf8800gts320MB-roundup.html
Click to expand...

Yes, and here you'll notice that while the over clocked GTS320s do slightly better on non ram intensive benchmarks, there a a number of situations (more than I first though) where even the X1900XTX does better because of the larger amount of VRAM. Some games even show the 640 being twice as fast down to 1280x1024 with AF and AA. Bottom line is, right now, it's really hit or miss as to weather a 320 will be an effective card depending on the game you play.
 
im gonna stick with my 256mb x1800xt since i have no real reason to go out and upgrade and get a video card thats faster and better than mine.
 
this is a good deal as long as you dont live in a state that has a micro center; otherwise you pay taxes and it comes to the same price as an etailor anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top