[first look] Geforce 8800GS 192bit 384MB/768MB released [keep updating the thread]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

LOL castrated 8800GT :rofl:

---

Definitely QFT.

I'm just laughing at the 768MB. Why!?! :ROTF:

Where would this go? Between the 8800 GT 256MB and the 8800 GT 512MB!?

8800GT 256
8800GS 384
8800GT 512
8800GS 768
8800GT 1024
8800GTS 512

Although I would expect the 8800GT with 256MB to still outperform the 8800GS with 384MB simply because it has 112 SP and a larger memory bus.


Also, if this card is coming out in February, I'd expect this would compete with ATI's low-midrange lineup and offer DisplayPort..!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by turtle

So there is going to be a 768MB version. I was wondering about that.

That's actually pretty kick-ass for $200, especially with the 112sp. It's no 8800gt for $200 (like what was supposed to happen) but certainly not bad.

Sure memory bandwidth is kinda of low, but it's not terrible...It could be worse, they could be using 1400/1600mhz-rated GDDR3.

I wonder what the price of these will become when the 8800gt's switch over to the 6 layer PCBs and eventually become cheaper?

At least Nvidia is finally getting something out worth-while is the ~<$200 market.

Thanks for the updates EXP.

---

I'm reading that these are 96 sp , 12 ROPS , and 192 bit bus -- that is quite a crippling. I'd avoid this card -- The HD3850 cards will beat this card especially at 1900x1200 (and they were easily found through bestbuy over the holiday for $150) -- Nvidia does have something worthwhile for <$200 - $199 to be exact; I have one on the way from Newegg (they quickly went out of stock) - it's the Gigabyte 8800GT 256MB card w/ the Zalman cooler, comes factory overclocked at a blazing 700mhz , which matches and beats stock 8800gt 512MB cards in most all situations (unless you want to run 1900x1200 with 8x AA, which I find ridiculous) - The Gigabyte card will obliterate this upcoming 8800gs card, no contest. Also, to address all the DDR3 memory speed references -- memory speed does not make that much of a difference in real world gaming performance (there's a review online, google it, that compares separate differences between overclocking core speed and ram speed independently) - anything over 1400MHZ will be fine, and lower clocked DDR3 on newer cards is running tighter timings vs higher clocked ram with looser timings (just like DDR vs. DDR2) - overclocking will be more effective on lower clocked ram since loosening timings scale as you up the clocks where as ram such as 1900mhz DDR3 is already at very loose timings. Maybe that made a bit of sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DShankar

Definitely QFT.

I'm just laughing at the 768MB. Why!?! :ROTF:

Where would this go? Between the 8800 GT 256MB and the 8800 GT 512MB!?

8800GT 256
8800GS 384
8800GT 512
8800GS 768
8800GT 1024
8800GTS 512

Although I would expect the 8800GT with 256MB to still outperform the 8800GS with 384MB simply because it has 112 SP and a larger memory bus.


Also, if this card is coming out in February, I'd expect this would compete with ATI's low-midrange lineup and offer DisplayPort..!?

---

Nope, the 8800gt 256MB would blow the 8800gs out of the water, including the 768MB card except in maybe a rare instance at 1920x1200 at 8x AA and 16xAF. Onboard Ram amount is not the determining factor unless you run super high resolution with antialiasing (which I know I don't run, nor anybody I know - no need for AA at super high res from what I've seen)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Nope, the 8800gt 256MB would blow the 8800gs out of the water, including the 768MB card except in maybe a rare instance at 1920x1200 at 8x AA and 16xAF. Onboard Ram amount is not the determining factor unless you run super high resolution with antialiasing (which I know I don't run, nor anybody I know - no need for AA at super high res from what I've seen)

---

Actually, 256MB of VRAM tends to struggle on anything higher than 1280x1024 on most modern games.

For 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 I wouldn't be surprised to see the 8800GS 384MB outperform it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Actually, 256MB of VRAM tends to struggle on anything higher than 1280x1024 on most modern games.

For 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 I wouldn't be surprised to see the 8800GS 384MB outperform it.

---

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong - how do you think that card is much different than an 8800gts 320MB, which doesn't do anything spectacular at higher resolutions (64 MB will not make the difference). Your assumptions are incorrect - it might struggle if you are talking about 1900x1200 with 4x AA 16xAF (and that's only in few games). At 1680x1050 even with full antialiasing, you are still good go go with an 8800gt 256MB card & it performs identical to the 8800gt 512MB in all games except Crysis -- that's a fact, a link below for your reference (Since you can't seem to do your own research) . I am finding this common theme that folks on forums simply aren't doing their homework and have no idea what they are talking about, nor even attempt to gather data to back up there posts. Mental laziness is a bad habit.

Summary: the 8800gs, or the mythical 9600gt , are not going to be able to compete with even a 256MB 8800gt at all resolutions and even 4x antialiasing up to 1680x1050 or 1600x1200.

http://en.expreview.com/?p=64&page=8


Here's one little example for you, and I'd say Call of duty 4 is would be a good example of intensive graphics & representative of a graphics engine good for a year -- the 8800gs would be lucky to simply match the HD3850 here:

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...mb/cod4_01.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong - how do you think that card is much different than an 8800gts 320MB, which doesn't do anything spectacular at higher resolutions (64 MB will not make the difference). Your assumptions are incorrect - it might struggle if you are talking about 1900x1200 with 4x AA 16xAF (and that's only in few games). At 1680x1050 even with full antialiasing, you are still good go go with an 8800gt 256MB card & it performs identical to the 8800gt 512MB in all games except Crysis -- that's a fact, a link below for your reference (Since you can't seem to do your own research) . I am finding this common theme that folks on forums simply aren't doing their homework and have no idea what they are talking about, nor even attempt to gather data to back up there posts. Mental laziness is a bad habit.

Summary: the 8800gs, or the mythical 9600gt , are not going to be able to compete with even a 256MB 8800gt at all resolutions and even 4x antialiasing up to 1680x1050 or 1600x1200.

http://en.expreview.com/?p=64&page=8


Here's one little example for you, and I'd say Call of duty 4 is would be a good example of intensive graphics & representative of a graphics engine good for a year -- the 8800gs would be lucky to simply match the HD3850 here:

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...mb/cod4_01.png

---

Take a chill pill. No need to be so rude, especially since you've just joined.
A forum is a place of opinion, and while some may suck, I find no problem in saying,
"hey I've seen these test scores, check them out". No need to slander people.
Knowledge is power, share the wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong - how do you think that card is much different than an 8800gts 320MB, which doesn't do anything spectacular at higher resolutions (64 MB will not make the difference). Your assumptions are incorrect - it might struggle if you are talking about 1900x1200 with 4x AA 16xAF (and that's only in few games). At 1680x1050 even with full antialiasing, you are still good go go with an 8800gt 256MB card & it performs identical to the 8800gt 512MB in all games except Crysis -- that's a fact, a link below for your reference (Since you can't seem to do your own research) . I am finding this common theme that folks on forums simply aren't doing their homework and have no idea what they are talking about, nor even attempt to gather data to back up there posts. Mental laziness is a bad habit.

Summary: the 8800gs, or the mythical 9600gt , are not going to be able to compete with even a 256MB 8800gt at all resolutions and even 4x antialiasing up to 1680x1050 or 1600x1200.

http://en.expreview.com/?p=64&page=8


Here's one little example for you, and I'd say Call of duty 4 is would be a good example of intensive graphics & representative of a graphics engine good for a year -- the 8800gs would be lucky to simply match the HD3850 here:

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...mb/cod4_01.png

---

please read this

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=171466

as you can see in a few games it is close to the 512mb and in others even not as demanding games it loses out at 1280x1024 with AA and it can't even run crysis 1280x1024 noAA without taking a hit.

this is only the beginning as well, newer games will use more and more. in many of those cases a 8800gs with 384mb vram will win while being cheaper as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong... (quote shortened to save room)

---

One game does not represent all. I actually happen to own a 8800GTS 320 and I do know what I am talking about. I play on a 22" 1680 x 1050 display and certain games (Crysis being a prime example, but there are many others) are running out of VRAM. I have to carefully manage texture sizes as well as AA settings to make sure games are playable. In hindsight, I should have probably spent an extra $50 for the 8800GTS 640, but like they say, hindsight is 20/20. ;)

I stand by my claim that 256MB is simply not enough for anything over 1280 x 1024, especially the latest DX10 titles. I am having enough trouble tweaking game settings to make them playable with 320MB, I can only imagine what 256MB would be like. I suggest you go over the link hipno provided, and get educated before calling others ignorant. ;)

Here is a summary of 256MB vs 512MB vs 1GB
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...rd_roundup.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

One game does not represent all. I actually happen to own a 8800GTS 320 and I do know what I am talking about. I play on a 22" 1680 x 1050 display and certain games (Crysis being a prime example, but there are many others) are running out of VRAM. I have to carefully manage texture sizes as well as AA settings to make sure games are playable. In hindsight, I should have probably spent an extra $50 for the 8800GTS 640, but like they say, hindsight is 20/20. ;)

I stand by my claim that 256MB is simply not enough for anything over 1280 x 1024, especially the latest DX10 titles. I am having enough trouble tweaking game settings to make them playable with 320MB, I can only imagine what 256MB would be like. I suggest you go over the link hipno provided, and get educated before calling others ignorant. ;)

Here is a summary of 256MB vs 512MB vs 1GB
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...rd_roundup.png

---

Quite a few of these numbers in your comparison are not confirmed by other reviews, from more reputable sites like firingsquad -- while I think expreview is quite, it's obvious that they either had a serious flaw in their testing or the comparisons are just plain wrong -- Specifically The world in conflict and company of heroes comparison is not adding up, and I'm not buying it. While I agree that the 8800gt 512MB is a better bet for many people that play at high resolutions with 4x AA enabled -- The 8800gt 256MB is excellent value for those like me and others I know that play at higher resolutions without AA (AA is pointless in higher resolutions in my opinion) - like I said in my original post. I am not denying the performance differences at 4x and 8x AA at ultra high resolutions , but's it's not going to affect a large amount of gamers who either play at lower res, still have smaller LCD monitors, or just don't really care about antialiasing and would rather have smoothness and high frame rates.

This review here, http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page10.asp
, shows numbers that debunk some of the data in your chart & confirms the fact that the 256MB 8800gt performs identical to the higher Vram cards in most gaming situations that concern me.

But I definitely stand by my opinion that the 8800gs 384MB cards (whenever they come to light) will not even be in the same league as the 8800gt 256MB even at ultra high resolutions. I'm not sure why the specs of that card would suggest otherwise, and it seems quite careless to think so -- It's rather obvious that it will not. Since I was responding in my previous post to a guy who stated that an 8800gs could beat the 8800gt , I still think it's pretty darn ignorant to think a 384MB card with the specs of the 8800gs would in any way compete with the 8800gt 256MB card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Quite a few of these numbers in your comparison are not confirmed by other reviews, from more reputable sites like firingsquad -- while I think expreview is quite, it's obvious that they either had a serious flaw in their testing or the comparisons are just plain wrong -- Specifically The world in conflict and company of heroes comparison is not adding up, and I'm not buying it. While I agree that the 8800gt 512MB is a better bet for many people that play at high resolutions with 4x AA enabled -- The 8800gt 256MB is excellent value for those like me and others I know that play at higher resolutions without AA (AA is pointless in higher resolutions in my opinion) - like I said in my original post. I am not denying the performance differences at 4x and 8x AA at ultra high resolutions , but's it's not going to affect a large amount of gamers who either play at lower res, still have smaller LCD monitors, or just don't really care about antialiasing and would rather have smoothness and high frame rates.

This review here, http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page10.asp
, shows numbers that debunk some of the data in your chart & confirms the fact that the 256MB 8800gt performs identical to the higher Vram cards in most gaming situations that concern me.

But I definitely stand by my opinion that the 8800gs 384MB cards (whenever they come to light) will not even be in the same league as the 8800gt 256MB even at ultra high resolutions. I'm not sure why the specs of that card would suggest otherwise, and it seems quite careless to think so -- It's rather obvious that it will not. Since I was responding in my previous post to a guy who stated that an 8800gs could beat the 8800gt , I still think it's pretty darn ignorant to think a 384MB card with the specs of the 8800gs would in any way compete with the 8800gt 256MB card.

---

How are their numbers wrong? They are using different settings.

Systems and drivers may differ too. Too lazy to compare.

The numbers are well within an acceptable margin of error.

I think the GS name is just a marketing ploy, possibly to draw those in who found great overclocking success with the 7900GS -- I love my 7900GSs and have overclocked them to the same speeds as my fastest 7900GTs. But, as many have stated and as the benchies show, I don't think they are comparable. I also don't like that they went back to the PCB reference design that they used with the G90 series, since I have an NV Silencer 5 waiting to be lovingly placed on 8800GT 512MB. But, I'm waiting for the 8800GT 512mb to drop below $200, so it may be a while... ;)

Has anyone been able to overclock these cards? I have tried using Riva and that is a no go. ATi Tool and nVhard page do not work. Using coolbits and nTune looks like it's going to work, but it does not actually set the clocks I select (it says it does, but does not).
This is on a second system, so it's not crucial, but I sure would love to test out the OCing ability of this card.