PC-Age: 8800GTS 320MB reviews out

F

Fragamemnon

Member
Anand, [H]ardOCP, and a few others have reviews out for the new 320mb 8800GTS. Looks really good for people running on lower resolutions who want to still be able to crank their games to a higher level of performance and get DirectX 10 support for limited future-proofing (I say this because 320mb cards are going to get beaten down bad by the middle of next year as required texture memory continues to skyrocket).

The main thing you seem to lose out on versus the 8800GTS 640mb version seems to be higher levels of AA and AF. The extra RAM in the higher-end part really does seem to help bump up those particular sliders a notch without losing performance.

Review links:

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI4MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA - [H]
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926 - Anand

Currently the prices are a bit above MSRP even online, but in about three weeks or so they should drop to around the $270 mark or so. If you're still playing at 1280x1024 or another lower resolution, this card definitely looks like a good price/performance point after the initial rush and prices online fall to more usual levels.
 
Wait..I've been out of PC gaming for awhile, but 380MB is somehow not enough now? Also you said that one of the 8800's has 680MB, does the top of the line one have 1GB onboard or something.

If so then..damn
 
Smokey Bones said:
Wait..I've been out of PC gaming for awhile, but 380MB is somehow not enough now? Also you said that one of the 8800's has 680MB, does the top of the line one have 1GB onboard or something.

If so then..damn
Click to expand...

That's what I thought.
 
Oblivion with texture mods can fill up a 768mb video card memory without too much difficulty. That being said, it looks farking hot in doing so, too bad it is Oblivion. :(

Currently, 256MB is the standard mainstream level, but everyone kind of agrees that 512mb or so of video RAM is going to soon be a requirement for "enthusiast" class performance (read: almost everything cranked on with some AA and AF with high resolution). It's still another year or more off for people that like medium to high settings with reasonable resolutions and (maybe) some AA or AF, but only if they can get away with it.
 
Nice. It looks like DX10 hardware will be reasonably priced by the time the first DX10 games start to hit (ie- whenever Crysis comes out.)

PC Gaming: Still expensive as ****, but getting better.
 
Draft said:
Nice. It looks like DX10 hardware will be reasonably priced by the time the first DX10 games start to hit (ie- whenever Crysis comes out.)

PC Gaming: Still expensive as ****, but getting better.
Click to expand...

Total cost of ownership for an enthusiast PC gamer who actually resells/trades hardware as it is not needed just about that of a console gamer. It's expensive if you just leave your old stuff lying around, but if you recycle/sell your crap and don't always upgrade to the super latest and greatest it's just fine.
 
Amazing how the technology curve is always well ahead of me. And I'm still happy with my overclocked 128mb 6600gt in my secondary machine.
 
i found the anandtech review really bad for once as they seem to totally miss the market that this card is aimed at i. the mainstream 1280 x 1024 crowd.

the best one ive read is from guru3d here

as for the lower video memory actually making adifference in real world games im not so sure especially at 1280 x 1024 or so , check this review out 256mb vs 512mb
 
For ****s sake, this industry needs to find more efficient means of rendering graphics.

There's gotta be a point where it will be impossible to cool these cards anymore. Has anyone ever tried stream lining the manufacturing process like CPU manufacturers strive to do? I really hope there is concerted efforts in lowering the power consumption of video cards.
 
Xdrive05 said:
And I'm still happy with my overclocked 128mb 6600gt in my secondary machine.
Click to expand...
That's the video card in my primary (primary because it's my only) PC. What does that make me?
 
bee said:
i found the anandtech review really bad for once as they seem to totally miss the market that this card is aimed at i. the mainstream 1280 x 1024 crowd.

the best one ive read is from guru3d here

as for the lower video memory actually making adifference in real world games im not so sure especially at 1280 x 1024 or so , check this review out 256mb vs 512mb
Click to expand...

I didn't like the Anandtech review for the same reason. Not including 1280x1024 in their reviews but including resolutions that begged for a full blown 640m GTS or better seemed stupid. They did, however, actually include scores from more recent games. he Guru3D article kind of dropped the ball a bit and only really covered F.E.A.R and BF2, when it should have visited BF2142, Oblivion, and Flight Simulator X as well.

Good link about the 256 vs. 512m debate. I may have bought into the CW on that one for someone who isn't interested in running beyond mainstream resolutions.
 
Fragamemnon said:
Total cost of ownership for an enthusiast PC gamer who actually resells/trades hardware as it is not needed just about that of a console gamer. It's expensive if you just leave your old stuff lying around, but if you recycle/sell your crap and don't always upgrade to the super latest and greatest it's just fine.
Click to expand...
I would disagree with that, to an extent. I recently went from an Athlon 2500/9800 Pro/1GB DDR333 system to a C2D E6400/850xtx/2gb DDR800 system. I salvaged the mouse and optical drives from my old system. Total cost, including a new case (not required), new PSU (required), and new HDD (not REALLY required) was around $700.

Now, I could have flipped my old system, but realistically, it wouldn't have parted out to more than $150 bucks. I maybe could get $50 for a used 9800 Pro (kind of doubt it), and I think I possibly could have flipped the CPU/Mobo for another 50, and the RAM for 25-35. But let's assume that someone out there wanted all that shit and gave me $150. That brings my total expense to $550. Less than a PS3, but still a hefty chunk of change. Additionally, I bought a kind of cheap-o video card with the intention of flipping it in 6 months for $50 bucks so I could get a DX10 card.

The cost of PC gaming is grossly exaggerated by some, usually console fans who rationalize away their PC gaming desires. But it's definitely the most expensive way to game, if just by a few dollars.

Amazing how the technology curve is always well ahead of me. And I'm still happy with my overclocked 128mb 6600gt in my secondary machine.
Click to expand...
Still a super decent lower-to-mid range card. See above. I was still rocking PC gaming hard on the old 9800 Pro. Handled everything I threw at it, including DOOM 3, HL2, DoW, WoW. Even ran "next gen" stuff like Condemned or Oblivion admirably. Obviously some details need to be turned down, and frame rates can get nasty during heavy action, but you can still enjoy the game.

edit: Because of the prevalence of wide screen LCDs in the PC market, I really think 1680x1050 and 1920x1280 should be the new "benchmark" resolutions.
 
Haunted_One said:
That's the video card in my primary (primary because it's my only) PC. What does that make me?
Click to expand...

Well if we're going to split straws about it, then you and I are in the same position. I call it my secondary machine because I also built the primary one (with a 6800gt), but it technically belongs to my fiance. :P

6600gt's still good. Source engine games at 1280x1024 maxed out still looks like pure sex. :D
 
Mashing said:
For ****s sake, this industry needs to find more efficient means of rendering graphics.

There's gotta be a point where it will be impossible to cool these cards anymore. Has anyone ever tried stream lining the manufacturing process like CPU manufacturers strive to do? I really hope there is concerted efforts in lowering the power consumption of video cards.
Click to expand...

These things are more complicated than CPUs these days, and the big card makers don't have the kind of fab facilities to drive down die sizes at a face pace or long-term R&D budgets to do that kind of complete architectural overhaul.

I almost cried when I saw a company marketing a 1kW power supply. I wish more enthusiast PC gamers would think about power consumption of their computers when they build them-it's the number 2 reason why the SLI rebirth makes absolutely no sense (the number 1 is cost).
 
Anandtech said:
The performance of the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB is very solid in most cases. It is possible for the reduced amount of onboard memory to severely retard the capabilities of the G80, as we have seen in a few select cases at high resolutions with AA enabled.
Click to expand...
Interesting choice of words :lol
 
Watch out, nvidia's drivers for Vista are right ****ed. They simply are broken. In fact, they're so broken that there's a class-action lawsuit being placed on them. I'd wait a while before jumping on board with their new cards until they've sorted everything out.

http://xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070208235331.html
Nvidia Corp., currently the biggest supplier of standalone graphics processors for notebooks and desktops is facing a class-action lawsuit filed by end-users for erratic behavior in the company’s ForceWare drivers for Microsoft Windows Vista operating system. The plaintiff, who has launched the lawsuit, does not ask for a lot, though, it is unclear whether the demands are going to be fulfilled.

Hundreds of end-users reported complaints about instabilities, erratic behaviour, driver bugs and other kind of issues that they faced because of Nvidia’s ForceWare drivers designed for Microsoft Windows Vista. End-users with various graphics cards, including the latest top-of-the-range GeForce 8800-series, criticized Nvidia ForceWare for poor performance and stability, something, that the logotype “Vista Ready” is not meant to say.

After not receiving a solution or an apology and after seeing that the thread with complaints had been closed and end-users expressing their opinion banned, an end-user from Yarmouth, California has decided to create http://NvidiaClassAction.org (at press time the site was down) web-site to let all the end-users speak about their issues and collect proofs for filing a class-action suit.

Currently the plaintiff asks for a public apology, anticipated release date of proper drivers, a small bonus/rebate (like a game or a T-shirt) for end-users who suffered from the problems that the ForceWare drivers for Windows Vista as well as removal of “Vista Ready” logotypes from Nvidia products currently sold. While the demands do not seem to be something that cannot be done, they would cause Nvidia tens of millions of dollars and, without the actual legal action, the company is unlikely to fulfill them.

Nvidia, according to InformationWeek web-site, has acknowledged that its Vista drivers have not performed as well as they should, and said in an e-mail that driver development for Vista is “the highest priority in our company”.

“We are working diligently to make sure we achieve and maintain the level of driver quality and reliability that Nvidia is known for. Over the coming weeks, Nvidia and our partners, along with the industry will continue to update Windows Vista drivers to ensure maximum performance on 3D applications and add feature support,” Brian Burke, public relations director of Nvidia said.

This is hardly the first time when Nvidia faces scandals with its high-end hardware and gamers in the last twelve months. Back in May it transpired that certain GeForce 7900-series graphics cards may become malfunction; in early November the company had to recall the yet-unreleased GeForce 8800 GTX graphics boards due to manufacturing flaw, nevertheless, some of such boards were then acquired by end-users; in mid-December it transpired that mainboards powered by the company’s latest nForce 680i core-logic can corrupt data on hard disk drives, work unstably and even not let users to install Windows operating system. Each time Nvidia said it “worked” on the situation and at the end the issues were more or less resolved. However, it is unclear why the world’s largest graphics chip designer consistently fails to tackle the problems during internal testing.
Click to expand...

Kinda of wierd demands in the lawsuit, but there sure are a lot of pissed off users.
 
^^^

yes, they suck, as in, i can't even play a dos box game of commander keen without my computer showing some lag in vista. i can only run day of defeat ORIGINAL in vista if i turn the heat off in my apartment and open the door, because my computer with start to heat the hell up faster than the sun. this is from a card that had no problems running dod source on full settings at 1280 * 1024. now im reduced to playing games in 1024 * 768 on minimum settings [if at all possible]
 
Draft said:
Still a super decent lower-to-mid range card. See above. I was still rocking PC gaming hard on the old 9800 Pro. Handled everything I threw at it, including DOOM 3, HL2, DoW, WoW. Even ran "next gen" stuff like Condemned or Oblivion admirably. Obviously some details need to be turned down, and frame rates can get nasty during heavy action, but you can still enjoy the game.
Click to expand...

uhh, I don't know about running Oblivion "admirably" or "enjoying" the game. I have a PC similar to the one you described recently getting rid of/reconstructing (3.2 Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, 9800 Pro 256MB) and there is no way I can play Oblivion without turning it way down and making the game look very poor. Alternatively, I can go in the living room and turn it on 360. I don't have a problem with this per se, I built this PC in August of 2003 for a little less than $2000. I think it's a worthy investment, considering everything I got out of it. It's coming up on 4 years (so it will turn out to be $500 a year) and serves my needs well enough at the moment (mostly WoW, though BF2142 can be run on it barely). But I can't enjoy FEAR or Oblivion or anything newer (and by enjoy I mean at least 1280x1024 with all effects) unless I upgrade.

However, I disagree with those who say it's "just a little more expensive" than console gaming. In my example, it's like buying a new PS3 every year to keep playing games, with decreasing returns each year on performance. You can't future proof for more than a few years either, as I was stuck with AGP technology just at the beginning of PCI-E. PC gaming is clearly much more expensive than console gaming, when comparing direct performance over time.

Although I agree that you can put together a mid-high range PC for cheap, it seems as though the technology keeps getting upgraded faster and faster than it did in years past. My first gaming PC lasted me from 98-2003. Now this one is done. How long will my next one last? 2009, if I'm lucky? I worry about the costs everytime I see announcements of new gfx cards. I mean seriously, how many new products are these guys releasing? o_O
 
LiveWire said:
uhh, I don't know about running Oblivion "admirably" or "enjoying" the game. I have a PC similar to the one you described recently getting rid of/reconstructing (3.2 Ghz P4, 1GB RAM, 9800 Pro 256MB) and there is no way I can play Oblivion without turning it way down and making the game look very poor. Alternatively, I can go in the living room and turn it on 360. I don't have a problem with this per se, I built this PC in August of 2003 for a little less than $2000. I think it's a worthy investment, considering everything I got out of it. It's coming up on 4 years (so it will turn out to be $500 a year) and serves my needs well enough at the moment (mostly WoW, though BF2142 can be run on it barely). But I can't enjoy FEAR or Oblivion or anything newer (and by enjoy I mean at least 1280x1024 with all effects) unless I upgrade.
Click to expand...
Ran Oblivion at 1024x768 w/ medium to low details @ 20-30 fps. More than playable for that type of game. Obviously, what you and I consider visually acceptable could be quite different, but Oblivion doesn't turn into an ugly game with the texture quality turned down or the bloom turned off. It starts as an ugly game and turns into an ugly game with bad textures and flat lighting :lol

How you managed to sink $2,000 grand into that PC only 3 years ago is a little beyond me. The 9800 Pro couldn't have run you more than $200, a gig of RAM has consistently cost $75-100 dollars for like the last 5 years, and Even the sickest of sick mobos don't go over $200. Factor in a HDD, case, PSU, all that shit, and you can easily stick on another $400 bucks. So now you're at $900. Did you spend $1,000 on your CPU? I didn't follow Intels during their P4 days, but the 3.2 sounds like one of their flagship chips, which means plenty of premium and for little return.
 
hey, you need a 1000W power supply...

117097566407eLioFJVn_2_1_l.jpg
 
Manp said:
hey, you need a 1000W power supply...
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? I've a 8800 GTX which is much powerful than this 88800GTS 320MB and I don't need a 1000W power supply.

reggieandTFE said:
How much RAM are on the 360, PS3 and Wii's video cards? I'm way out of the loop on all this technological mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

256 on the PS3, up to 512 on the 360 (actually less than 512, since much of the ram has to be used for something else), and I'm not sure about the WII since Nintendo has been pretty mysterious about the WII's hardware.
 
Z3F said:
You're kidding, right? I've a 8800 GTX which is much powerful than this 88800GTS 320MB and I don't need a 1000W power supply.
Click to expand...
Mostly likely joking, but damn it will be scary when those days come (if they do). I remember when GPU's were fine on 250W psu's.
 
Z3F said:
256 on the PS3, up to 512 on the 360 (actually less than 512, since much of the ram has to be used for something else), and I'm not sure about the WII since Nintendo has been pretty mysterious about the WII's hardware.
Click to expand...

Muchas gracias.
 
Draft said:
How you managed to sink $2,000 grand into that PC only 3 years ago is a little beyond me. The 9800 Pro couldn't have run you more than $200, a gig of RAM has consistently cost $75-100 dollars for like the last 5 years, and Even the sickest of sick mobos don't go over $200. Factor in a HDD, case, PSU, all that shit, and you can easily stick on another $400 bucks. So now you're at $900. Did you spend $1,000 on your CPU? I didn't follow Intels during their P4 days, but the 3.2 sounds like one of their flagship chips, which means plenty of premium and for little return.
Click to expand...

9800 Pro was $400 at launch. A gig of fast ram can cost 100-200, and my current MOBO (evga 680I) was $250. That would make it $850 already before CPU, PSU, Case. Still, $2000 seems a little high unless he's including high-end harddrives, expensive PSUS, cases, etc.

Personally, I upgrade my CPU/MOBO/ram about every 1-2 years. I upgrade my videocard everytime a new generation comes out. I went from ATI 9800pro>6800 Ultra>7800 Ultra>ATI 1900 XTX>8800 GTX. The videocard upgrades seem excessive but they're not that bad if you sell them whenever a new one comes out. I only lose about 50-100 on each videocard when I sell them after 6-9 months. $10 a month for a videocard is much less than what it would cost to rent a game for that long. You actually lose much more money if you keep your videocard for 2 years and then try to sell it on ebay. Lower end cards also have less resale value which is why I always buy the fastest one.

PC gaming is expensive but it's not that bad if you take into account game prices. Many PC games, even the good ones, can be found for $20 or less in a year. Many one year old Xbox360 games are still selling for full price. Also, PC upgrades can make all your old games look and run better which is something that consoles can't do. As long as good PC games are being made, I think the expense is worth it. Right now, I can play games like NFS:Carbon, Marvel:Ultimate alliance, Oblivion with full effects at 1680*1050 with at least 16x AF, 4xAA, 60 FPS, which is much more than what my supposedly super advanced 360 & PS3 can do.
 
Bad_Boy said:
Mostly likely joking, but damn it will be scary when those days come (if they do). I remember when GPU's were fine on 250W psu's.
Click to expand...

Well, tech insiders are saying that this is the last generation of GPUs which would still require a lot of power. I hope it's true. I would consider getting another 8800 GTX for SLI gaming if it didn't require an additional expense of buying a 800W PSU.
 
The 1kW PSU mentioned earlier in this thread was pretty much exclusively a thing for people running multiple drives, a high wattage CPU, and 2 8800GTX's in SLI configuration.

A *good* 400W PSU will handle a Core 2 Duo with an 8800GTS, a DVD-ROM drive, a sound card, and a couple of internal hard drives without too much issue.

However, I disagree with those who say it's "just a little more expensive" than console gaming. In my example, it's like buying a new PS3 every year to keep playing games, with decreasing returns each year on performance. You can't future proof for more than a few years either, as I was stuck with AGP technology just at the beginning of PCI-E. PC gaming is clearly much more expensive than console gaming, when comparing direct performance over time.
Click to expand...

I dunno. In 2002, I put together a decent P4-based system with a Geforce 4, DVD-ROM drive/CD-R drive and 512M of RAM and a new case for a good bit cheaper-like 700 total when all was said and done. In 2004, I added 512M more RAM and a DVD-RW drive. In 2005, I replaced the Geforce 4 with a 6-series and upgraded the CPU to the max amount the motherboard would support. The first upgrade cost $100, and the second upgrade cost about $200. I replaced everything with a Core 2 Duo/7 series Geforce/new RAM/new case last year. I was able to recoup some costs on the parts along the way. I also upgraded to a 19" LCD a while ago time ago after my wonderful 19" flatscreen trinitron monster bit the dust. That upgrade was done kicking and screaming, btw. I loved that monitor!

I never had the latest and greatest, I never will. That way is just too much money. BTW, that old rig can still play games-the first game that was really "unplayable" on it was Supreme Commander, which really is the first "bring your dual core please" game to date.

All in all, I probably spent about as much upgrading my PC over the span of five years as I did buying 2 GBAs since the first model was total donkey balls and extra controllers for my PS2/Xbox/GC, not including the LCD I bought.

On average, I paid probably about $8-$10 less per game than a console gamer-they were paying $40-$45 whereas frequent sales and cheaper software in general (plenty of $30 releases, lots of $30 sales) made things cheaper on that end. That amount added up big time over those years and the total cost of ownership of the better-than-average PC parts was equal or even less than the console gamer buying the same amount of games.

Also, the PC back catalogue is holy-cow awesome and huge. Not to mention extraordinarily cheap.
 
Z3F said:
9800 Pro was $400 at launch. A gig of fast ram can cost 100-200, and my current MOBO (evga 680I) was $250. That would make it $850 already before CPU, PSU, Case. Still, $2000 seems a little high unless he's including high-end harddrives, expensive PSUS, cases, etc.
Click to expand...
Wow, damn, it totally was $400 at launch. I was seeing things through rose colored glasses for sure.

But still, that's the damn problem. My personal rule is never more than $200 on any individual piece, maybe $250 on a video card.
 
Draft said:
Wow, damn, it totally was $400 at launch. I was seeing things through rose colored glasses for sure.

But still, that's the damn problem. My personal rule is never more than $200 on any individual piece, maybe $250 on a video card.
Click to expand...

I'll go 250 or so on the CPU and video card, especially if the CPU overclocks like a beast. Not much more than that, though-and I have the money to burn, it's just wasteful spending that could be better used to do other things with.
 
I ordered one. The reviews look favorable (decent performance even though they're all using ULTRA HIGH resolutions, which is obviously gonna be this card's weak spot), and I bought EVGA, so in 90 days I'll use my step up. My 6600GT just doesn't quite satisfy me anymore, 'twas a good card, though.
 
320MB ram? I've been out of the PC loop for awhile to be honest, but 320MB onboard memory seems like an interesting choice.
 
Z3F said:
9800 Pro was $400 at launch. A gig of fast ram can cost 100-200, and my current MOBO (evga 680I) was $250. That would make it $850 already before CPU, PSU, Case. Still, $2000 seems a little high unless he's including high-end harddrives, expensive PSUS, cases, etc.
Click to expand...

120GB SATA drive and cables was another $150+, CPU was around $300. Plus I bought a 5.1 Creative surround set with Audigy 2 Platinum. This time around it won't be as expensive since I can re-use parts (I was going from a P2 450 Mhz to my current computer in 2003 :lol). But my point stands, it can be very expensive for great performance and the diminishing returns is something that must be considered.

Edit: the "rose-colored glasses" comment is true. I think a lot of you are underestimating your expenses a bit. Anyway, to veer the thread in a different direction, any suggestions on ATI vs Nvidia for my next rig? Or is that even an issue anymore? I think I will take the AMD plunge now instead of Intel for my next rig, any suggestions on which AMD chip (dual-core) to get? I'm not up to speed on their naming/numbering scheme.
 
Graphic Cards wouldn't be the same without the odd looking people on the boxes. A remnant of the Voodoo age that fills me with joy.
 
I wish someone made some sort of directx 10 patch for xp because I don't want vista, as its expensive, and bloated.
 
Gorgie said:
I wish someone made some sort of directx 10 patch for xp because I don't want vista, as its expensive, and bloated.
Click to expand...

Yeah I totally disagree with MS's method of making you upgrade. Before it was simply because their new OS was hands-down better and you wanted to upgrade. Now it's because they are intentionally crippling their old OS.
 
Fragamemnon said:
I didn't like the Anandtech review for the same reason. Not including 1280x1024 in their reviews but including resolutions that begged for a full blown 640m GTS or better seemed stupid. They did, however, actually include scores from more recent games. he Guru3D article kind of dropped the ball a bit and only really covered F.E.A.R and BF2, when it should have visited BF2142, Oblivion, and Flight Simulator X as well.

Good link about the 256 vs. 512m debate. I may have bought into the CW on that one for someone who isn't interested in running beyond mainstream resolutions.
Click to expand...
Anything lower than 1600x1200 and the GTS 640meg is a waste.
 
Funny, I thought 512meg cards were the norm now... My current machine has a 256 meg card and that's 2 and a half years old now.

I don't really follow this stuff until I'm ready to build a new machine though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Prince Blue Review Thread - New Puzzle game getting amazing reviews. Out April 10th
3
301
AJUMP23 replied
The Last of Us Season 2 reviews are starting to come out
2 3 4
191
9K
Gamer79 replied
Dragon Age: The Veilguard - Simply Brilliant On PC - DF Tech Review
2 3 4
160
9K
Putonahappyface replied
Age of Mythology: Retold - Reviews Thread
2
71
7K
Insanemaelstrom replied
Concord - Reviews Thread (PS5/PC)
7 8 9 10 11
510
36K
Alan Silvestro replied
Top Bottom