Which is faster?

G

gkg101

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
422
Which is faster, a single 8800 GTS 512 vs. 8800 GTX vs. 8800 GTS 320 x2 in SLi?
 
Depending on the resolution I would say either the 8800GTS 512 or GTX,with the GTX taking a slight lead at higher resolutions.
 
gkg101 said:
However it seems that the 8800GTS 320x2 setup has something to offer. I bought a second one for my system for $190 after $30 rebate from Newegg.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=2108

It's an older article, that doesn't take DX 10 in account. But it does say something if it's true.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it says that the 8800GTX == 2x 8800GTS 320mbs in SLI. The problem I have with that article is the age of the games. I remember seeing some GTS 320 vs. 640 articles where the 320mb became a limiting factor - two of them in SLI means some (if not most) of the extra speed gained from having two in SLI will be lost due to the lowered frame buffer. He also looses dual-monitor abilities, generates more heat, and uses more power to get ever so slightly better FPS @ lower/medium resolutions, which is quickly lost once AA/resolution get cranked up and 320mb is no longer enough.
 
kllrnohj said:
Depending on the resolution I would say either the 8800GTS 512 or GTX,with the GTX taking a slight lead at higher resolutions.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this.

To the OP, if your 320's are working fine for you at your resolution, then you should be happy with them.
 
i am in the process of getting a 2nd 8800 gts 320mb for sli

this surely got me thinking

thanks
 
Yup, get a 2nd 8800GTS 320 and make it SLI. At least this way, you don't have to sell or get rid of your current card. If you have SLI support, another 320MB 8800GTS will boost your system. 2 x 8800GTS 320MB in SLI will be faster than a single 8800GTX or 8800Ultra video card when you go higher in resolution. However, depending on the game, the SLI does not really benefit and a GTX will be faster.


http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/index.cfm?a=wiki&tag=rmp_vds
 
According to the article, in some tests, the GTS SLi actually blows by the GTX, and this, in fact, becomes meaningful at lower the resolutions such as when going from 1024x768 towards 1600x1200, and from lower to higher AA/AF.
I don't the know the technical too much but in the test it would seem that the SLi benefit outweighed the memory limit under SLi.
Now as for Vista and DX 10, there's a new equation. But even in Bioshock running in DX9 (a beautiful game) my single 8800 gts had trouble keeping smooth with 2x AA. According to some test, forgot the address, the 8800 gts 640 is better at 1600x1200. So the newer games, even under DX 9 will benefit from from more video ram even using lower resolutions.




Opteron 185 dual core @2.8
Socket 939 Asus A8N-E single slot
Windows xp sp2
8800 gts 320 oc@620/880
2 gigs ram
Samsung 226BW 22 inch widescreen

 
According to the article, in some tests, the GTS SLi actually blows by the GTX, and this, in fact, becomes meaningful at lower the resolutions such as when going from 1024x768 towards 1600x1200, and from lower to higher AA/AF.
I don't the know the technical too much but in the test it would seem that the SLi benefit outweighed the memory limit under SLi.
Now as for Vista and DX 10, there's a new equation. But even in Bioshock running in DX9 (a beautiful game) my single 8800 gts had trouble keeping smooth with 2x AA. According to some test, forgot the address, the 8800 gts 640 is better at 1600x1200. So the newer games, even under DX 9 will benefit from from more video ram even using lower resolutions.


Does my CPU/MB which is not the latest, become a limiting factor regarding this subject?

Opteron 185 dual core @2.8
Socket 939 Asus A8N-E single slot
Windows xp sp2
8800 gts 320 oc@620/880
2 gigs ram
Samsung 226BW 22 inch widescreen

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