8800GTS worth the extra for a 640mb?

Greebo · 27 Sep 2007 at 23:06

Okay you can overclock a 2900 pro to xt speeds but you can overclock a 640 8800 GTS so it's as fast as a standrad 8800 GTS (well almost in some games)

So I say get a 640Mb GTS. The extra memory will come in handy compared to a 320Mb.

TheRealDeal · 27 Sep 2007 at 23:08

I would get the 2900pro tbh way cheaper and with an overclock will get you
better performance than a standard 8800gts.

gurusan · 27 Sep 2007 at 23:10

TheRealDeal said:
I would get the 2900pro tbh way cheaper and with an overclock will get you
better performance than a standard 8800gts.

Thing is, a GTS overclocked will out-do the 2900...so it's really down to the budget and personal preference.

TheRealDeal · 27 Sep 2007 at 23:21

Won't out do it by much guy is hitting 816 on his core no probs in his
review on this board. Thats 66 on the core over an xt. So save the 50-60
pound and buy a 2900pro. Even with an overclock the gts ain't gonna get 50-60 pound in performance over the oced pro.

Tute · 28 Sep 2007 at 00:11

This thread is priceless.

The 2900 Pro is £50 cheaper, just as fast, and people are still recommending the 8800.

And "the GTS overclocks" isn't really valid, as you know the 2900 Pro overclocks as well right?

I think ATi could bundle gold bullion with their cards and people would still recommend the 8800s.

ACESHIGH · 28 Sep 2007 at 00:31

The 2900Pro is definitely the card to buy, considering 8800GTS beating performance & cheaper price.

Shocky-FM · 28 Sep 2007 at 01:04

Tute said:
This thread is priceless.
And "the GTS overclocks" isn't really valid, as you know the 2900 Pro overclocks as well right?

Of course the 2900Pro overclocks but it will have to be overclocked well beyond stock 2900XT speeds to compete with an overclocked 8800GTS 640MB.

Overslop · 28 Sep 2007 at 05:32

Buy a second hand 8800GTX and beat all the others under £300.

Camalot · 28 Sep 2007 at 09:33

Tute said:
This thread is priceless.

The 2900 Pro is £50 cheaper, just as fast, and people are still recommending the 8800.

And "the GTS overclocks" isn't really valid, as you know the 2900 Pro overclocks as well right?

I think ATi could bundle gold bullion with their cards and people would still recommend the 8800s.

I think what people are tying to get at, is you have to overclock the pro before its on par with the gts. But then you can just overclock the gts to push ahead again + its extra memory.

I dont know i haven't got either cards, just how i took things!

As far as i can tell, pro if your on budget then overclock it, or gts 640 if you got the money and want slightly better performance+ memory?

Serpico · 28 Sep 2007 at 09:39

I'd search down the back of every sofa you've ever sat in and scrape together enough for a 8800 GTX. My new one is the dog's danglies.

Rackerz · 28 Sep 2007 at 10:28

Get the 8800GTX is you can stretch for £300, if not it's definately the 2900 Pro you should be getting. The XT is still an extremely worthy card so if you can clock a Pro to XT speeds you should have no problems gaming

.

Greebo · 28 Sep 2007 at 11:51

Tute said:
This thread is priceless.

The 2900 Pro is £50 cheaper, just as fast, and people are still recommending the 8800.

And "the GTS overclocks" isn't really valid, as you know the 2900 Pro overclocks as well right?

I think ATi could bundle gold bullion with their cards and people would still recommend the 8800s.

Not really. We all know that both cards overclock really well. I think the pro is a great card for the money. I also think the 8800 GTS is too and same can be said for both the GTX and the 2900 XT.

I know there are price differences but there are speed differences as well.

2900 pro at stock is slower than a 8800 640Mb GTS at stock : FACT
So priced right at £50 less.

2900 pro at xt speeds is slower than a 8800 640Mb GTS overclocked : FACT
So still worth the £50 difference

An overclocked 8800 GTS can almost match a 8800 GTX at stock.

Doesn't matter how you stack it up, they will always be faster but also more money.

Now if the pro at stock was the same speed as a 8800 640Mb GTS then we wouldn't be agruing. You would be mad to buy a 8800 instead of a pro.

SO if you can only afford a 2900 pro then get that card. It's great and good value for money.

If you can stretch another £50 then get the 8800 GTS 640Mb. The extra performance is worth the extra money.

Equally if you can stretch another £70 more than a 8800 GTS 640Mb, get the GTX.

Me, I was on a tight budget so a 8800 GTS 320Mb for £160 was all I could afford. If the 2900 pro had been out I would have bought that in preference to the 8800 320Mb.

Tute · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:24

Shocky-FM said:
Of course the 2900Pro overclocks but it will have to be overclocked well beyond stock 2900XT speeds to compete with an overclocked 8800GTS 640MB.

Well the 8800GTS would have to overclock something silly to make up a £50 price defecit.

And with AA off, it doesn't have a lead at all.

http://pclab.pl/art28806-3.html

2900 Pro is 23% cheaper. It's certainly nowhere near 23% slower.

Shocky-FM · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:40

Tute said:
Well the 8800GTS would have to overclock something silly to make up a £50 price defecit.

And with AA off, it doesn't have a lead at all.

http://pclab.pl/art28806-3.html

2900 Pro is 23% cheaper. It's certainly nowhere near 23% slower.

Most GTS's will do around 648/2000 which is right on the heals of stock 8800GTX performance and slightly faster in some games, if your lucky enough to get one with an ultra core which does 675-700MHz core then you have better performance then a stock 8800GTX,. either way thats worth the extra £30-50.

Parallax · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:42

You know which manu will more likely to ship with Ultra cores? Im ready with my visa card...

willhub · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:43

Shocky-FM said:
Most GTS's will do around 648/2000 which is right on the heals of stock 8800GTX performance and slightly faster in some games, if your lucky enough to get one with an ultra core which does 675-700MHz core then you have better performance then a stock 8800GTX,. either way thats worth the extra £30-50.

even 650/2.2Ghz aint on stock performance of a GTX, 710/2.2Ghz is around or close to stock performance of a GTX.

Shocky-FM · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:47

willhub said:
even 650/2.2Ghz aint on stock performance of a GTX, 710/2.2Ghz is around or close to stock performance of a GTX.

I never said it was as fast, I said it's right on the heals of a stock GTX as in almost as fast, but in some cases it is faster. But with a core speed of 675-700MHz it is faster then a stock 8800GTX especially when it's not limited by it's slightly lower memory bandwidth.

willhub · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:51

Shocky-FM said:
I never said it was as fast, I said it's right on the heals of a stock GTX as in almost as fast, but in some cases it is faster. But with a core speed of 675-700MHz it is faster then a stock 8800GTX especially when it's not limited by it's slightly lower memory bandwidth.

Well, right on the heels means almost as fast, then you're saying in some cases it is faster, when it really is not, a guy I talk to has tested a GTX, and an 8800GTS 640 in his rig overclocked to around 710/2.2, and the GTX was still faster always than the GTS 640.

Tute · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:53

Shocky-FM said:
I never said it was as fast, I said it's right on the heals of a stock GTX as in almost as fast, but in some cases it is faster. But with a core speed of 675-700MHz it is faster then a stock 8800GTX especially when it's not limited by it's slightly lower memory bandwidth.

I'm trying not to sound obstinate, but don't you think it's a bit of a risk? He "might" get a good clocking 8800GTS. Or he "might" get a good clocking 2900.

It's certainly no guarantee of an A03 core.

Shocky-FM · 28 Sep 2007 at 13:55

willhub said:
Well, right on the heels means almost as fast, then you're saying in some cases it is faster, when it really is not, a guy I talk to has tested a GTX, and an 8800GTS 640 in his rig overclocked to around 710/2.2, an

and the GTX was still faster always than the GTS 640.

Well I've seen a review done comparing them directly and in some cases the overclocked 8800GTS was ahead, in some it was on par and in the others it was slightly behind.

It's pretty old, but the games tested are still demanding, Oblivion, Fear etc.. I'll try and find it if I can.

EDIT: Found one, close to 648/2000, and shows how much performance the 8800GTS gains from overclocking, in most of benchmarks it's not far behind the GTX and in a few it's slightly ahead, probably limited more by the memory due to 4xAA being used in every bench, but saying that the benchs the overclocked GTS comes ahead in are at 2560*1600 4xAA/16xAF which is just odd.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gtx_gts_overclocking/page4.asp

Tute said:
I'm trying not to sound obstinate, but don't you think it's a bit of a risk? He "might" get a good clocking 8800GTS. Or he "might" get a good clocking 2900.

It's certainly no guarantee of an A03 core.

Even if you don't get a A03 core, it's still worth it as the bog standard 648/2000 overclock is good enough, of course theres a chance you will be unlucky but thats also the case with 2900Pro.