Which 8800?

A

aikjo2

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
299
I am buying an 8800. of that there is no doubt.

ATI people, kthxbye.

I have a 19", 1280x1024 LCD. with that in consideration, would buying an 8800 gts fatal1ty be better than a GTX? It has higher clock speeds by a good bit, so do I need that extra vram?
 
You're obviously a bit confused. A GTX is faster than a GTS and has more video memory as well. The GTX is also clocked higher, and is faster per clock than a GTS.

GTS: 96 stream processors, 320MB and 640MB video memory versions available
GTX: 128 stream processors, 768MB video memory.

At that res the 320MB 8800GTS should be just fine. If you think you might get a new display at some point fairly soon, get the 640MB GTS or, if you think it might be a 24"+ LCD, the GTX.
 
not the Fatal1ty on though, check out the specs, I kid you not, It is faster clock for clock. but thanks for the pipeline question / answer.

Thanks.
 
aikjo2 said:
not the Fatal1ty on though, check out the specs, I kid you not, It is faster clock for clock. but thanks for the pipeline question / answer.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Might be clocked higher but it is /not/ faster clock for clock. That'd imply that running the same speeds the Fatality edition would be faster. It won't be. Promise. Also, a 580Mhz core clocked GTX is going to be faster than a 580Mhz clocked GTX every time. In fact, a 620Mhz GTS is still slower than a 576Mhz (stock) clocked GTX.
 
silent-circuit said:
Might be clocked higher but it is /not/ faster clock for clock. That'd imply that running the same speeds the Fatality edition would be faster. It won't be. Promise. Also, a 580Mhz core clocked GTX is going to be faster than a 580Mhz clocked GTX every time. In fact, a 620Mhz GTS is still slower than a 576Mhz (stock) clocked GTX.
Click to expand...

he is correct... there is no way a gts could be faster per clock than a gtx. It has less stream processors, less vram (in any config), and has 320bit ram vs 384 bit ram. So with that said unless mr fatality has figured out a way to alter the laws of physics on any product that bares his name then a gtx is still faster. Now for the positive side.... if you dont plan to change you monitor pick yourself up a 320mb 8800gts before they dissapear because the performance difference at that resolution is going to be unnoticeable (itll still be there you just wont see it) between the 320mb, 640mb 8800gts and even the gtx... you just wont notice the difference, thats a really low res these days. If you do plan to get a higher res monitor...wait a month because the g92 is going to drive prices down on the higher end cards
 
aikjo2 said:
ohhhhhh... I see now. The G92 is just the 8800GT right?
Click to expand...

That's my belief. Others will tell you different. Fact is, there are no facts yet and there won't be until release or right before. If you're willing to wait, wait. If you don't feel like it, buy. Simple as that.
 
If you can put the money down for a GTX it would be the card I would choose. People keep talking about the new cards coming out, so to 90 day futureproof (sorta) get an EVGA version of the card. Really if you are looking for top end, I don't believe the fast cards will be coming around until next year (08 sometime).
 
GTX - 575/600 mhz Core/ 1800mhz ram / 128 stream / 384bit
GTS - 650 mhz Core/ 2000mhz ram (Fatal1ty only) / 96 stream / 320bit

My question is, would the GTS be faster than the GTX in this case, not clock-for-clock, but clock vs. clock. The extra speed and the $200 lower price tag are what concern me. With my Monitor, would there really be any difference? I CAN afford the GTX, but WHY should I pay $200 more if I don't have to...?
 
aikjo2 said:
GTX - 575/600 mhz Core/ 1800mhz ram / 128 stream / 384bit
GTS - 650 mhz Core/ 2000mhz ram (Fatal1ty only) / 96 stream / 320bit

My question is, would the GTS be faster than the GTX in this case, not clock-for-clock, but clock vs. clock. The extra speed and the $200 lower price tag are what concern me. With my Monitor, would there really be any difference? I CAN afford the GTX, but WHY should I pay $200 more if I don't have to...?
Click to expand...


--->320MB at 96 Stream @ 320bit interface vs. 768MB at 128 Stream/384bit interface.
The core and ram are fast, but it will NOT play the new games which are proving to be vram intensive (World In Conflict - [H]'s Take ) you will benefit from it more than the core speeds and RAM speeds. Plus with the GTS its already pushed to the limit and does have a bit of room. With the GTX it has alot of room to move.
 
aikjo2 said:
GTX - 575/600 mhz Core/ 1800mhz ram / 128 stream / 384bit
GTS - 650 mhz Core/ 2000mhz ram (Fatal1ty only) / 96 stream / 320bit

My question is, would the GTS be faster than the GTX in this case, not clock-for-clock, but clock vs. clock. The extra speed and the $200 lower price tag are what concern me. With my Monitor, would there really be any difference? I CAN afford the GTX, but WHY should I pay $200 more if I don't have to...?
Click to expand...

The GTX is always going to be faster. Always. Period. There is absolutely no situation in which a GTS is ever going to be faster than a GTX.

The GTS has 3/4ths as much hardware as the GTX and a smaller memory bus width, so for every 3Mhz the GTX is clocked on the core and shaders the GTS has to clock 4Mhz to get the same performance.

Stock GTX speeds are 576Mhz core 1350Mhz shader
to be roughly equivalent a GTS would have to clock 768Mhz core 1800Mhz shader

The 320bit memory interface on the GTS vs. the 384bit memory interface on the GTX means that for every 1Mhz the GTX's memory is clocked the GTS has to clock 1.2Mhz. (This is assuming we're running low enough resolution that the GTX's extra memory does not come in to play -- this is only to equalize memory bandwidth/speed)

Stock GTX speed is 1800Mhz DDR RAM (900Mhz real)
to be roughly equivalent a GTS would have to clock 2160Mhz DDR RAM (1080Mhz real)

You can normally get fairly close to closing the gap so far as memory throughput but I've yet to see anyone running higher than around 721Mhz core 1760Mhz shader, and those are /very/ high clocks even for an A3 revision GTS. More typical would be 684Mhz core 1620Mhz shader. At that speed, yes, you're nearing stock GTX performance. The problem is, GTX and Ultra owners can OC too, and they get more per Mhz than GTS owners.

For example, to match my GTX, on water, OC'd to 675Mhz core 1620Mhz shader 2052Mhz DDR RAM (1026Mhz real) you'd have to clock a GTS to 900Mhz core 2160Mhz shader 2462Mhz DDR RAM (1231Mhz real). That's only going to happen with a volt mod, some serious cooling, and a whole hell of a lot of luck, if it happens at all. Ultras clock even higher -- no GTS owner can hope to touch them.




All of that said, do you need a GTX at your res? No. I think the 320MB GTS would be fine for you so long as you aren't dead-set on World in Conflict at max settings, maybe even the upcoming 8800GT, depending on what its finalized specs turn out to be. If you want to be able to max everything without worrying about it for the next few months, however, go with the GTX. That also leaves you the option of getting a nicer monitor at some point. If you buy the 320MB GTS you're pretty much stuck with a ceiling of 1280x1024 or 1650x1080 depending on who you ask.
 
Dang... the only two dx10 games I would like to play/currently do are Crysis Beta and World in Conflict. Oh well.

I guess I will go with the GTX in a bit. Those are very nice clocks on that Fatal1ty GTS though... (the ones I posted are the listed speeds for that model)... Oh boy, guess I am in for the plunge (I am upgrading nothing until Nehalem / x38 SLI (yes, with a jerry-rigged 680i) comes out so it makes sense...)

It is the 8800GT, it has more stream processors than GTS, but less 256/512 vRam... I know...
 
aikjo2 said:
Dang... the only two dx10 games I would like to play/currently do are Crysis Beta and World in Conflict. Oh well.

I guess I will go with the GTX in a bit. Those are very nice clocks on that Fatal1ty GTS though... (the ones I posted are the listed speeds for that model)... Oh boy, guess I am in for the plunge (I am upgrading nothing until Nehalem / x38 SLI (yes, with a jerry-rigged 680i) comes out so it makes sense...)

It is the 8800GT, it has more stream processors than GTS, but less 256/512 vRam... I know...
Click to expand...

Define "in a bit" -- Nvidia and ATI have a long-standing history of not dropping prices when newer cards coming out, just phasing out the older hardware. So if you want a GTX, buy it now -- better to have it 3 months than save $30-50, in the minds of most.
 
silent-circuit said:
Define "in a bit" -- Nvidia and ATI have a long-standing history of not dropping prices when newer cards coming out, just phasing out the older hardware. So if you want a GTX, buy it now -- better to have it 3 months than save $30-50, in the minds of most.
Click to expand...

Tons of truth in these words.
 
i would just buy a GTX if you wanna play things like crysis etc... i dont think you'd be running out of graphic power any time soon on a monitor that resolution.
 
This thread was awfully close to something I was going to ask:

If I want to run games at my monitor's native rez of 1920X1200 (24 inch monitor), is one 8800GTX enough to get the job done, especially if I want to max out the eye candy or close to it?

From what I read about the differences between the GTX and the Ultra, it seems like the GTX is the "sweet spot" at least for now.

I was thinking of making a system with one 8800GTX and a Q6600 or 6700. I'd love a Q6850, but the difference in cost of the 6850 over the 6700 is really hard to swallow right now IMO.

All input appreciated. :)
 
Q-BZ said:
This thread was awfully close to something I was going to ask:

If I want to run games at my monitor's native rez of 1920X1200 (24 inch monitor), is one 8800GTX enough to get the job done, especially if I want to max out the eye candy or close to it?

From what I read about the differences between the GTX and the Ultra, it seems like the GTX is the "sweet spot" at least for now.

I was thinking of making a system with one 8800GTX and a Q6600 or 6700. I'd love a Q6850, but the difference in cost of the 6850 over the 6700 is really hard to swallow right now IMO.

All input appreciated. :)
Click to expand...

At 1920x1200 you're likely going to need SLI for Crysis at max/near max. I could of course be wrong here -- we have nothing but beta code, some recommended specs (with no mention of resolution or settings) and speculation to go on at this point.

Pretty much everything else will be fine dropping one or two settings at most, max in many cases. You can normally OC a GTX to or near to Ultra speeds (above if you run water, save on the RAM) but an Ultra will always clock higher and run cooler doing so due to the slightly revised A3 core and its use of higher rated RAM means it will pretty much always clock higher than a GTX on RAM.

If you're concerned with budget the GTX is the way to go at that res -- anything less will be a disappointment, and I have no doubts about that. If you think you might go SLI, again, go GTX -- the difference between the Ultras and GTXs in SLI will be negligible. If you're going to stay with a single card and want the best performance possible right now at that res, the Ultra is the obvious choice.
 
silent-circuit said:
At 1920x1200 you're likely going to need SLI for Crysis at max/near max. I could of course be wrong here -- we have nothing but beta code, some recommended specs (with no mention of resolution or settings) and speculation to go on at this point.

Pretty much everything else will be fine dropping one or two settings at most, max in many cases. You can normally OC a GTX to or near to Ultra speeds (above if you run water, save on the RAM) but an Ultra will always clock higher and run cooler doing so due to the slightly revised A3 core and its use of higher rated RAM means it will pretty much always clock higher than a GTX on RAM.

If you're concerned with budget the GTX is the way to go at that res -- anything less will be a disappointment, and I have no doubts about that. If you think you might go SLI, again, go GTX -- the difference between the Ultras and GTXs in SLI will be negligible. If you're going to stay with a single card and want the best performance possible right now at that res, the Ultra is the obvious choice.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips. :)
 
finally a decent thread... some of these others make me want to start hitting things. So, thanks.

I've been struggling with this for a few weeks now. what to do, when to order, etc... I think i've made my mind up, i'm going to WC a GTX if nvidia doesn't release their monster card at the end of the month. going with evga so I will at least have the option until feb if they release the G90.

Under no circumstances do I have the self control to wait until 08 to play the 6+ AAA titles coming out next month. My new build starts in two weeks. can't. effing. wait. :)
 
you can wait for gt

06.jpg


05.jpg
 
tgR said:
finally a decent thread... some of these others make me want to start hitting things. So, thanks.

I've been struggling with this for a few weeks now. what to do, when to order, etc... I think i've made my mind up, i'm going to WC a GTX if nvidia doesn't release their monster card at the end of the month. going with evga so I will at least have the option until feb if they release the G90.

Under no circumstances do I have the self control to wait until 08 to play the 6+ AAA titles coming out next month. My new build starts in two weeks. can't. effing. wait. :)
Click to expand...

I'm starting to feel the same as you. I've been holding off on buying a new system because November is usually a big month for video cards, and I don't want to buy a GTX now and have something way faster come out in a few weeks. But then again, I'm about tired of not being able to play the games I want to play. So many good games coming out this holiday season and I'll be damned if I'm sitting on the sidelines.
 
nigerian_businessman said:
I'm starting to feel the same as you. I've been holding off on buying a new system because November is usually a big month for video cards, and I don't want to buy a GTX now and have something way faster come out in a few weeks. But then again, I'm about tired of not being able to play the games I want to play. So many good games coming out this holiday season and I'll be damned if I'm sitting on the sidelines.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top