• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

320mb vs 640mb 8800GTS benchmarks

gurusan

gurusan

gurusan

Soldato
Joined
2 Sep 2006
Posts
13,483
Location
Forest Grove, OR, 'Merica
The general consensus here seems to be that the 640mb does show some increase in performance over the 320mb.

Well I've been looking around and they seem almost identical....can anyone link me to some benchmarks that clearly show the 640mb doing better at resolutions as low as 1280x1024? More than 1 preferably.
 
Depends on the game. Something like GRAW/Vegas (one of the R6 games) showed a sizeable dependancy on video memory even at 1280x1024. Whereas in some other games even at 1920x1200 there was negligible difference.

Personally I think the 320meg version offers better value unless you plan on keeping the card a long time. If you are wanting to play in high resolution then really you need to be looking at the 8800GTX. In fact the price difference between a GTS320 and GTS640 is now almost as much as between a GTS640 and a 8800GTX.
 
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM4NCwzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
You will no doubt notice the drastic performance of the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS at these settings. Basically this video card lacks the RAM capacity to run at these settings in DX10 mode. The video card seems to be running out of local memory storage and thus is using the PCI-Express bus to transfer textures, utterly killing performance in this game at these high settings. It seems with the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS you are going to have to run at a lower resolution or lower settings.
Click to expand...



http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM4NywzLCw=
At 1600x1200, the GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB and the Radeon HD 2900 XT perform almost identically. The GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB, however, trumps them both. It appears as though memory beyond even 512MB is beneficial to BioShock performance at high resolutions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would wait for crysis demo to see if there is any difference really as more dx10 games come out the 320 might be left behind the 640.
But if the new driver have fixed the slowdown bug the 320 might have a new lease of life.
As i got a 320 i am just waiting to see how it handles the new games.
Q
 
Really its just the resolution you need to worry about if your deciding between the two. In short, i recommend the 640mb version for resolutions higher than 1280x1024 in very GPU intensive games. ET:QW isn't really that GPU intensive so they perform the same.

The 320mb will be fine for next gen games. Im running the Crysis beta on a 320mb 8800GTS on High at 1280x1024 and 4xAA with no problems at all. And this is a beta that wont be as optimized as the demo or the final game.
 
This is the best i've found:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/416/11/

It compares albeit overclecked XFX and BFG 320Mb cards with 640Mb GTS and GTX cards and even SLI on both in about 8 games up to 2560x 1600 resolution.

As you can see the slightly overclocked 320Mb cards are faster than the 640Mb GTS even in 2560 x 1600 with the following games:

Serious Sam 2
Company of Heroes (very surprising result as you would think memory would count in this game but it doesn't)
Splinter Cell 3 Chaos Theory
Prey

In Far Cry they are only faster up to 2048 x 1536 and same in Battlefield 2

In HL2 Ep 1 the're only faster till 1900 x 1200 and are then crippled at 2560 x 1600

However, the 320Mb cards only keep up with the 640Mb cards up to 1280 x 1024 res in FEAR and can't even match at that res in GRAW however you still get playable framerates over 30fps up to 1900 x 1200 res.
/
 
Nymins said:
Really its just the resolution you need to worry about if your deciding between the two.
Click to expand...

Tihis is right as the cards are exactly the same, apart from ones got half the ram of the other, thats the only difference. :)

queamin said:
I would wait for crysis demo to see if there is any difference really as more dx10 games come out the 320 might be left behind the 640.
Click to expand...

Should run the same on the 320mb GTS, Crysis is just like the differences Bioshock has going from Dx9 to Dx10, nowt much, only a couple of differences like the water, i thought it was written from the ground up using Dx10 so it would use it loads, and use it loads more than Bioshock, but apparently its just gona be the same as it.

Mines just as fast as the 640mb, or faster, if the 640mb ones are standard clocked ones as i only game at 1280x1024. :p
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't make any assumptions unless you have owned both i can tell you there isn't much difference as i have owned both but try bioshock amongst others @1600-1200 and there is.Depends on clock and the game as well as resolution mine will do 670/900 without errors but i leave it at 600/850 to be safe.As said above you can't take information seriously that is using old drivers and clockspeed not even confirmed.
 
Last edited:
neocon said:
will the 640 be ok for 1920 x 1200?
Click to expand...

I can tell you from personal experience that the 640 will run any current game at maxed out settings, with the possible exception of Flight Simulator X but rumour has it that FSX requires a 64Ghz 16 Core processor to be run maxed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom