EVGA 8800GTS 320mb KO ASC3

[J.D]

classed as most? Are you calling me a monkey again?

Don't worry if you are, someone out there will still love ya .

 

[Shep_Cobain]

I think i will go with the GTX to be honest. The extra 5 - 15 FPS isnt worth it from an Ultra which is superclocked. I just want to play games at 1920 x 1080 with no slow down. At the moment with certain games my GTS cant offer me that. I want Crysis on 1920 x 1080 with acceptable fps.

Ill probably go for the '768Mb XFX 8800GTX XXX, PCI-E (x16), Mem 2000 MHz, GPU 630 MHz, Dual DVI/HDTV'

or

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-042-BG&tool=3

Unless anybody else has any other suggestions?

 

[J.D]

I think i will go with the GTX to be honest. The extra 5 - 15 FPS isnt worth it from an Ultra which is superclocked. I just want to play games at 1920 x 1080 with no slow down. At the moment with certain games my GTS cant offer me that. I want Crysis on 1920 x 1080 with acceptable fps.

Ill probably go for the '768Mb XFX 8800GTX XXX, PCI-E (x16), Mem 2000 MHz, GPU 630 MHz, Dual DVI/HDTV'

or

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-042-BG&tool=3

Unless anybody else has any other suggestions?

Your expectations of 1920 x 1080 with no slow down on Crisis is a little bit too much maybe. From a thread I've read here recently (I think by ex X2900 guru Tom) the X2900 and 8800GTS should run it at full graphics at 1280x1024 and for the GTX at max settings it's 1600x1200. If you're going to overclock the card then you could stretch it (nobody knows yet). With you hoping for that resolution running like warm butter then if you can afford it I'd spend the extra on the Ultra and get it a little bit faster than you'd be able to push that GTX. The extra 5 - 10 FPS could be the saviour for you at your wanted resolution. This is just speculation from me after reading Tom's thread so it could be wildly inaccurate but it's all I have to go on.

Trust me, if your resolution was 1600x1200 then I'd have wished you well with your new beast of a card .

I wonder if my X1900 will run Crisis at 2048x1536 on my P225f Viewsonic CRT screen ?. Lol, it wouldn't even run Far Cry at that resolution. Hopefully I have a GTX come Crisis time or my game will be in Crisis itself.

If you would lower that resolution to get playable frame rates then go ahead with that GTX but the resolution you're wanting is a little too much I think.

 

[stickroad]

Im sorry but LOL @ Thread.

The 8800 Ultra is faster than the 8800 GTX, /end of story.

Can you clock the GTX to Ultra speeds, i belive you can but you still wont get an Ultra because the Ultra uses a diffrenct core revision and you can also clock the Ultra, /end of story.

The question is, is the Ultra worth £90 more than the GTX?

I belive it is not.

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-051-OK&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=877 = GTX

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-065-OK&groupid=701&catid=56&subcat=877 - Ultra

Will you be happy with the GTX, you better be.

Get the 8800 GTX my friend.

 

[Greebo]

Im sorry but LOL @ Thread.

Can you clock the GTX to Ultra speeds, i belive you can but you still wont get an Ultra because the Ultra uses a diffrenct core revision and you can also clock the Ultra, /end of story.

QUOTE]

Although I agree with you that the Ultra isn't worth it, there is no difference in core revision. The Ultras are all revision 3 core guaranteed which is meant to be the best overclocker (in general though each one will vary) but my 6 week old GTS was also a revision 3 core so you might get a revision 3 core core with a GTX card as well.

The only other difference is the Ultra has faster memory chips enabling it to be clocked higher with the memory but from what i've seen memory overclocking does not increase fps as much as core or shader overclocking.