Just picked up an 8800GTS 320mb, quick question...

Z

ZenDragon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
1,698
I just picked up an EVGA 8800 GTS with 320Mb for around $280. I was talking to a buddy at work about it who has the 640mb version. He said there was a pretty big difference in a lot of games due to the extra ram. My question for you all is; do you agree? Do you think the extra ram is worth the additional $100 bucks for the 640mb version?
 
Generally the big differences are only at very high resolutions, like 1920 x 1200, 4xAA.

I got the 640 MB version, but it was only like $60, don't think I'd pay $100.
 
ZenDragon said:
I just picked up an EVGA 8800 GTS with 320Mb for around $280. I was talking to a buddy at work about it who has the 640mb version. He said there was a pretty big difference in a lot of games due to the extra ram. My question for you all is; do you agree? Do you think the extra ram is worth the additional $100 bucks for the 640mb version?
Click to expand...

the 320mb actually scores higher alot of the time, depends on the games you play I guess, check benchmarks for whatever it is you like
 
Varmint said:
Generally the big differences are only at very high resolutions, like 1920 x 1200, 4xAA.
Click to expand...

QFT

Unless you have a monitor of that rez or above, don't bother swapping for a 640. The 320 is still the best deal on the market (until the new cards come out this winter).
 
yup, the 320 is fine and the 640 only pulls away at stupid high resolutions.
The 320 often runs faster then the 640 in resolutions up to and beyond 1920x1200

Some people have reported 8800GTS 320mb OC2 cards reaching GTX speeds.
 
On some newer games, especially World in Conflict, the 320 gets slapped around by higher settings that the 640 is able to fly with. It just doesn't have the ram. Which is unfortunate, mine overclocks like mad.
 
The owner of the company making Crysis has implied the 8800GTS 320 is not sufficient to run at 1680x1050. He suggested only the 640 meg version can run at that resolution.

Im unhappy I bought the 320, but somewhat relieved that EVGA has the stepup program that I can use.
 
there's already hints in quite a number of games and up and coming that the ram will make a difference now even in low res. The trend seems to be why hold back on quality textures now...
 
Keep your 320, it offer best bang for the buck. Don't bother so-called "future proof" mentioned by some people here, there is no such thing in computer world; software developers always find a way to max out the hardware.
 
robber98 said:
Keep your 320, it offer best bang for the buck. Don't bother so-called "future proof" mentioned by some people here, there is no such thing in computer world; software developers always find a way to max out the hardware.
Click to expand...

True, although with new cards being released very soon, it would have been better to wait on the 8800gt.
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
the 320mb actually scores higher alot of the time, depends on the games you play I guess, check benchmarks for whatever it is you like
Click to expand...


Nah it never actually does, only the superclocked version of the 320mb beats the 640mb stock in some games. And by the way, the memory serves also for antialiasing and starts affecting performance at 1440, not only extreme resolutions.
Try Company of Heroes for example (20 fps of difference)
And you gain about 10fps in Oblivion (which is pretty much a good standard of games by today) in 1600.
 
Woah there is some really bad information in this thread.

1) The 320mb and 640mb are the exact same in everything except the amount of ram. This means that they will score the same when games require less than 320mb of ram. The 320mb is NOT faster than the 640mb unless it is OCed and the 640mb card is not. They will run at the same fps when at the same clocks. The 320mb does not clock any better than the 640mb.

2) Games use more than 320mb of ram. This is true in some older games (Oblivion) as well as quite a few of the newer ones (LOTRO, World in Conflict, Lost Planet(I think) and some others I can't remember off the top of my head.). These games will either run poorly, or will not allow you to run some settings.

3) Some games require you to have a certain amount of ram (usually 512 as most cards go 128->256->512, 320/640/768 are odd balls by NV) for certain levels of textures. Examples of this are Doom 3 "Ultra" and Lord of the Rings online's highest texture setting. You can not run these w/ the 320mb card.

The 320mb card is a very good card, but there are some drawbacks to having half the ram.
 
Google 8800 reviews. The 320 stock can have a slight lead over the 640 stock in some games. Obviously not at 1920x1200, or DX10, but it does happen. We're talking like 4 or 5 frames, nothing that matters.
 
TomGreen321 said:
Google 8800 reviews. The 320 stock can have a slight lead over the 640 stock in some games. Obviously not at 1920x1200, or DX10, but it does happen.
Click to expand...

Thats just because games aren't all the exact same each time you run through a map/level. Small differences in computer usage can lead to 1-2 fps difference each time a test is run.

There is no built in advantage of the 320mb card over the 640mb. They will run the exact same in games which use less than 300mb of ram.
 
jmackay said:
Thats just because games aren't all the exact same each time you run through a map/level. Small differences in computer usage can lead to 1-2 fps difference each time a test is run.

There is no built in advantage of the 320mb card over the 640mb. They will run the exact same in games which use less than 300mb of ram.
Click to expand...

Read my post, I never said anything about there being an advantage. and of course it varies. All I mean is that for someone to say a 320 has never had better numbers then the 640 is ignorant.

Anyways, there is no way in hell I would buy a card with less then 512MB of ram on it these days.
 
TomGreen321 said:
Read my post, I never said anything about there being an advantage. and of course it varies. All I mean is that for someone to say a 320 has never had better numbers then the 640 is ignorant.

Anyways, there is no way in hell I would buy a card with less then 512MB of ram on it these days.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: When you remove the margin of error in testing, there is no time that a 320mb can be a 640mb card as they are the exact same in every other piece, and the lowered ram offers no gains in speed or anything else.

And I didn't say it never has better numbers, I said its not faster in real usage when you remove any margin of error. Its like comparing two identical cards and one is 2fps faster in a benchmark. That doesn't mean its faster, it means something else effected it in the test.
 
I do not understand why an enthusiast would buy a <512MB video card today, or even a month ago.

A value-segment user should and could, but getting a GTS vs a GTX is not the kind of "value" I am talking about. Those are both 8800-series cards, and I just do not understand an enthusiast buyer limiting one's self in that fashion. Not unless there is a huge price difference.

I understand no computer product is "future proof" but the writing is on the wall on texture memory requirements for future (and even a few current and older) games, so why limit yourself in that way. It makes no sense, at least when going from an EVGA 320 to a 640 is what, ~$70 - that shouldn't break the bank of someone who can already afford an 8800GTS 320, right? I saw the memory requirement increases coming back in March, when I got my first 640MB XFX.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

That being said, there does seem to be a new 8800GTS 640MB part comming from Nvidia with additional SPs and a die shrink. Waiting a couple weeks, just in case, shouldn't kill anyone.
 
Well its Evga, so he can always step-up to the new nvidia cards which are coming out in the next two months.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
I do not understand why an enthusiast would buy a <512MB video card today, or even a month ago.

A value-segment user should and could, but getting a GTS vs a GTX is not the kind of "value" I am talking about. Those are both 8800-series cards, and I just do not understand an enthusiast buyer limiting one's self in that fashion. Not unless there is a huge price difference.

I understand no computer product is "future proof" but the writing is on the wall on texture memory requirements for future (and even a few current and older) games, so why limit yourself in that way. It makes no sense, at least when going from an EVGA 320 to a 640 is what, ~$70 - that shouldn't break the bank of someone who can already afford an 8800GTS 320, right? I saw the memory requirement increases coming back in March, when I got my first 640MB XFX.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

That being said, there does seem to be a new 8800GTS 640MB part comming from Nvidia with additional SPs and a die shrink. Waiting a couple weeks, just in case, shouldn't kill anyone.
Click to expand...

A true enthusiast, yes. Get the best card you can afford. That goes without saying.

The thing is, alot of people are looking at 8600GT at $150 as their "most that I can afford" card. Even the 8800GTS 320 SC cost almost twice as much. Getting a 640MB card puts that even out further from their reach. I try to suggest that the 8800GTS 320 is totally worth it if you can scrap enough change to get it.

I'd rather suggest a sub-$200 ATI card than a 8600GT.
 
tuksonrider said:
A true enthusiast, yes. Get the best card you can afford. That goes without saying.

The thing is, alot of people are looking at 8600GT at $150 as their "most that I can afford" card.
Click to expand...

Well, that person would be in the market for a "value-segment" card, through no fault of their own. There are no $150 enthusiast cards, just enthusiasts who can't afford more than $150 for a card. There is a difference. That is too bad for them, but things change over time. I was there a bit more than 7 years ago, or so.


tuksonrider said:
Even the 8800GTS 320 SC cost almost twice as much. Getting a 640MB card puts that even out further from their reach. I try to suggest that the 8800GTS 320 is totally worth it if you can scrap enough change to get it.

I'd rather suggest a sub-$200 ATI card than a 8600GT.
Click to expand...

Enthusiast cards are expensive, and that started the first time a $400 card was released and it sold. Now we have cards for twice that, which still sell. As I said, enthusiast cards are expensive, and if someone can pay to play with a 320 GTS, they should either stretch to a 640 or just wait until they can stretch to a 640. Alternately, they could just wait until another part with similar performance and at least 512MB is released at a low enough price point for them. As I said, the writing is on the wall regarding texture memory requirements in games. Why, as someone who can afford any 8800-series card, would anyone limit themselves in that way. For $70? Again, I just don't get it.

As far as needing to "scrap together" to get a video card, I think that is a red-herring. There is no due-date to a video card purchase. There is a due date with a utility bill, so you might have to "scrap together" to pay that on time if you are in a bad way. If you don't have the money for a video card though, just wait 'till you do. That is not hard. Especially if the amount that comes up short is something like $70. And double-especially since these things go down in cost over time.

I also don't know why you would recommend an ATI card at any level, or to anyone. Well, unless they are building an HTPC and want sound over HDMI from that PC to their HT. I guess you could be "recommending" a card that isn't out yet, since there should be new ones from ATI out in less than a month. As far as that goes though, I don't have a crystal ball, and I am sure you do not either. Regardless of what ATI actually releases in a bit, I just don't see any kind of refresh pulling them out of the mess they got themselves in. Especially since the Nvidia refresh will actually happen first.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
I do not understand why an enthusiast would buy a <512MB video card today, or even a month ago.

A value-segment user should and could, but getting a GTS vs a GTX is not the kind of "value" I am talking about. Those are both 8800-series cards, and I just do not understand an enthusiast buyer limiting one's self in that fashion. Not unless there is a huge price difference.

I understand no computer product is "future proof" but the writing is on the wall on texture memory requirements for future (and even a few current and older) games, so why limit yourself in that way. It makes no sense, at least when going from an EVGA 320 to a 640 is what, ~$70 - that shouldn't break the bank of someone who can already afford an 8800GTS 320, right? I saw the memory requirement increases coming back in March, when I got my first 640MB XFX.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

That being said, there does seem to be a new 8800GTS 640MB part comming from Nvidia with additional SPs and a die shrink. Waiting a couple weeks, just in case, shouldn't kill anyone.
Click to expand...

The reason is you can be "enthusiast" AND spend your hard earned money wisely. 3-6 months ago, when people argued about 320MB vs 640MB, people would put their money in 640MB for so-called "future proof". Time fly by and many test results tested with latest games proofed that unless you play game at 1920x1200 with AA on and with the exception of few games, the performance between 320MB and 640MB are almost identical. So if you filter out those factors (In other words, you don't play game with AA or the games that don't do well with GTS 320MB), there is no reason to get 640MB version.

Maybe I am lucky but I am able to get GTS 320MB for $250 after rebate (tax included). So I get almost identical performance for $100 less, that's a no brainer. :D
 
robber98 said:
The reason is you can be "enthusiast" AND spend your hard earned money wisely. 3-6 months ago, when people argued about 320MB vs 640MB, people would put their money in 640MB for so-called "future proof". Time fly by and many test results tested with latest games proofed that unless you play game at 1920x1200 with AA on and with the exception of few games, the performance between 320MB and 640MB are almost identical. So if you filter out those factors (In other words, you don't play game with AA or the games that don't do well with GTS 320MB), there is no reason to get 640MB version.

Maybe I am lucky but I am able to get GTS 320MB for $250 after rebate (tax included). So I get almost identical performance for $100 less, that's a no brainer. :D
Click to expand...

Right, but how long will you have that 320 before you upgrade? Even if it is only another 6 months, there will be several game that come out that will excessively load your 320MB card, even at 1280X1024, I bet.

And, who doesn't play games with AA if they own an 8800-series card? The only game I play were I don't use AA is Bioshock, but that is because that setting doesn't work in that game for me.

So, for me, your point is "there are only a few games where the 640 crushes the 320, and it only beats it in about every game when you go up to 1920X1200". Additionally, there will be even more high-texture usage games, the further out you look. What is not very many games now, will be a boat load of games at some point. Again, for $70? No thanks. There is no "future proofing", but there is planning for the future.

EDIT: Here is an XFX for $320 after free ground shipping and MIR, and that is for one with a double-lifetime warranty. Still only ~$70 more, and it comes with Lost Planet. There are deals to be had on 640 models, too. This one took me about 2 seconds to find:

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=321103&prodlist=pricegrabber
 
To those saying that the 320mb version is never faster you are very very wrong. It actually usually is faster in lower resolutions due to quicker access times, this has been true for many many years on many different cards with the same clock speed but different ram sizes. Some of you need to do your homework on benchmarks, and never just take the word of one site.

Now don't get me wrong on a very few (no games I play, but like I said it depends on the games you play) the 640mb will be faster, especially in higher resolutions.

I buy a card for the games that are out now, if some new games I want to play require more then I'll sell that card and get a new one.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
Right, but how long will you have that 320 before you upgrade?
Click to expand...

I will upgrade when the game I want to play "in the future" requires a better video card. FYI, I will not buy computer hardware for "future", that just dumb IMO. ;)

Even if it is only another 6 months, there will be several game that come out that will excessively load your 320MB card, even at 1280X1024, I bet.
Click to expand...

Orly? http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=8

And, who doesn't play games with AA if they own an 8800-series card? The only game I play were I don't use AA is Bioshock, but that is because that setting doesn't work in that game for me.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't play game with AA, I care about frame rate only. :p

So, for me, your point is "there are only a few games where the 640 crushes the 320, and it only beats it in about every game when you go up to 1920X1200". Additionally, there will be even more high-texture usage games, the further out you look. What is not very many games now, will be a boat load of games at some point. Again, for $70? No thanks. There is no "future proofing", but there is planning for the future.
Click to expand...


I don't get your logic. You agree that no computer product is "future proof" and now you saying better planning for future... Also, how do you know 640MB is capable to handle the load in the "future"? Is there any scientific proof? Or just base on your assumption? Even there is a performance difference, better hardware with a better price tag will be available soon or later, don't you agree? ;)
 
butterfliesrpretty said:
I buy a card for the games that are out now, if some new games I want to play require more then I'll sell that card and get a new one.
Click to expand...

Well said. That's exactly what I want to say: why pay more if the game you want to play can't take advantage of it? ;)
 
Alot of games at 1280x1024 can use over 400mb, Stalker is one game for example when maxing it all, crysis will to benefit from 640mb of ram, if you ask me the 320mb gts is kinda useless today.
 
Mortuus said:
Alot of games at 1280x1024 can use over 400mb, Stalker is one game for example when maxing it all, crysis will to benefit from 640mb of ram, if you ask me the 320mb gts is kinda useless today.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you define "a lot" and I am sure there are some games require more than 320MB vram. However, 320MB handles many games as well as 640MB from the reviews I read, including Stalker:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8-roundup_2.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/enemy-territory-performance_6.html#sect0
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/09/directx_10_shootout/index.html
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=8

320MB useless? I LOLed :D
 
MrWizard6600 said:
go here, read this.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much what I figured out the first time I went through the DX10 Technical Brief at Nvidia's site, back in February. I made sure I got a lot of ram on my DX10 card. DX9 card, OK, I don't care so much. When I read through that DX10 brief and it is pretty obvious that when DX10 is actually utilized to any real degree, the amount (in MB) of textures used is going to go through the roof!

And yes, planing for the future is not future proofing. Things will surprise you so no "proof", but if you already know something is coming (because you read up on technology), you shouldn't buy your card with your head in the sand. Insufficient video memory is an obvious future theme for <512MB cards. Just do the math on what memory an 8K by 8K 32 bit texture takes up. By doubling how much vRAM I got (for all of $70), I avoid that potential pitfall for a good bit longer.

Check out the number of textures supported and the max texture size in DX10 vs DX9 on page 8, if nothing else (800KB PDF):

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_37099.html

The next page (9) might interest some of you, as well.

EDIT: I like the 1024x768 4xAA 8xAF Ultra Quality test at that Tom's Article, and in case you missed it:

8800GTS 640: 44.4
8800GTS 320: 35.8

That is just a DX10 Patch to a DX9 game. The future is here, guys. Fight it all you want:

World In Conflict from the same linked Tom's Hardware article (Test1):

1280X1024X32 4xAA 4xAF Very High Quality

8800GTS 640: 15
8800GTS 320: 9

That is at 1024X768 and 1280X1024, respectively. Not 1920X1200. Also, neither of these titles are likely to take full advantage of DX10 this early in the DX10 game. The more titles that start to do so, the more this trend will continue and get worse for the 320MB cards. I like how half of the DX10 games in this Tom's article show a real advantage to the 640MB card, and one of the 4 titles that doesn't is a bad console port. lol

Going forward, things will only get worse.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
That is pretty much what I figured out the first time I went through the DX10 Technical Brief at Nvidia's site, back in February. I made sure I got a lot of ram on my DX10 card. DX9 card, OK, I don't care so much. When I read through that DX10 brief and it is pretty obvious that when DX10 is actually utilized to any real degree, the amount (in MB) of textures used is going to go through the roof!

And yes, planing for the future is not future proofing. Things will surprise you so no "proof", but if you already know something is coming (because you read up on technology), you shouldn't buy your card with your head in the sand. Insufficient video memory is an obvious future theme for <512MB cards. Just do the math on what memory an 8K by 8K 32 bit texture takes up. By doubling how much vRAM I got (for all of $70), I avoid that potential pitfall for a good bit longer.

Check out the number of textures supported and the max texture size in DX10 vs DX9 on page 8, if nothing else (800KB PDF):

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_37099.html

The next page (9) might interest some of you, as well.

EDIT: I like the 1024x768 4xAA 8xAF Ultra Quality test at that Tom's Article, and in case you missed it:

8800GTS 640: 44.4
8800GTS 320: 35.8

That is just a DX10 Patch to a DX9 game. The future is here, guys. Fight it all you want:

World In Conflict from the same linked Tom's Hardware article (Test1):

1280X1024X32 4xAA 4xAF Very High Quality

8800GTS 640: 15
8800GTS 320: 9

That is at 1024X768 and 1280X1024, respectively. Not 1920X1200. Also, neither of these titles are likely to take full advantage of DX10 this early in the DX10 game. The more titles that start to do so, the more this trend will continue and get worse for the 320MB cards. I like how half of the DX10 games in this Tom's article show a real advantage to the 640MB card, and one of the 4 titles that doesn't is a bad console port. lol

Going forward, things will only get worse.
Click to expand...

Toms doesn't do benchmarks, they get paid for there numbers. This has been known for years.
 
It all depends on what games you play and what you're going to play. EVGA has the step-up, which might be a pain, but might actually work. I have no experience with it.

For myself, there is no reason to play at 1600x1200 on super duper high. So from what I can tell the 320 version would probably be just fine.
 
Betrayer00GT said:
That is pretty much what I figured out the first time I went through the DX10 Technical Brief at Nvidia's site, back in February. I made sure I got a lot of ram on my DX10 card. DX9 card, OK, I don't care so much. When I read through that DX10 brief and it is pretty obvious that when DX10 is actually utilized to any real degree, the amount (in MB) of textures used is going to go through the roof!

And yes, planing for the future is not future proofing. Things will surprise you so no "proof", but if you already know something is coming (because you read up on technology), you shouldn't buy your card with your head in the sand.
Click to expand...

So you are looking for short-term "future proof"! I get it! :D

Check out the number of textures supported and the max texture size in DX10 vs DX9 on page 8, if nothing else (800KB PDF):

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_37099.html

The next page (9) might interest some of you, as well.

EDIT: I like the 1024x768 4xAA 8xAF Ultra Quality test at that Tom's Article, and in case you missed it:

8800GTS 640: 44.4
8800GTS 320: 35.8

That is just a DX10 Patch to a DX9 game. The future is here, guys. Fight it all you want:

World In Conflict from the same linked Tom's Hardware article (Test1):

1280X1024X32 4xAA 4xAF Very High Quality

8800GTS 640: 15
8800GTS 320: 9

That is at 1024X768 and 1280X1024, respectively. Not 1920X1200. Also, neither of these titles are likely to take full advantage of DX10 this early in the DX10 game. The more titles that start to do so, the more this trend will continue and get worse for the 320MB cards. I like how half of the DX10 games in this Tom's article show a real advantage to the 640MB card, and one of the 4 titles that doesn't is a bad console port. lol

Going forward, things will only get worse.
Click to expand...

I just LOL so hard because you just slap on your face by what you just said:

8800GTS 640: 15

And you think this is the card for so-called "future"? LOL!

Please, if you REALLY want a card for "future", please do yourself a favor and get Ultra. ;)

I buy computer hardware that I need it and, when I need it. :D
 
Where did he say he won't? Also bear in mind that a few more future titles will run the same.
 
Abu Som3a said:
Where did he say he won't? Also bear in mind that a few more future titles will run the same.
Click to expand...

People said that when 320MB launched and look how many games run fine on it and make those people eat their words.

If you play WiC, go for 640MB. If the game you want to play doesn't need 640MB, go for 320MB. It's that simple. If you look for "future proof", please don't be silly, no hardware is "future proof". ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top