• 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.

The proof - GTX vs GT

I placed an order for mine at an etailer that said "In Stock" only to find it was in fact out of stock and now I'm on the pre-order list. I wouldn't of placed the order otherwise.

Demand has been so high for these cards because they are such a bargain thats why everywhere is running on empty.
 
They would be a better bargin if people didn't keep buying them when they dont even need them, because there arn't any new games out yet.

The OCUk one started off the cheapest and at one point was as expesive as the overclocked ones becuse they only had OCUk in stock so the price got bumped up by a lot.
 
have we seen any reviews showing the difference between the GT and GTX at 1920x1200, 4xfsaa?

there's only one test in that thread, but its far from a substantial difference between the two:)
 
What you mean one test?

It tests all the Nvida and Ati cards worth having and in sli on multiple games. People think the gt is so good because it does well in some. But they are the ones where it doesn't have any AA and AF in. in the games with that in it falls behind the GTX quite a bit because of it.
 
james.miller said:
your link, to bit tech. lets run down the results: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/11/02/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt/12

1920x1200, 4xfsaa difference between the two cards:

TF2 - 9fps
et: quake wars - 16fps
coh - 4min /12.2 max
lost planet - 8.4fps


i dont see that as the gtx being massively faster?
Click to expand...

Very good point. I think 8igDave is taking the GT Anti-Aliasing hit thing WAY too far.

Do you own a GTX 8igdave?. If not you seem to defend it like it was your own :p.
 
i own a gtx, but im not oblivious to the truth. i just think the card is way better than they really planned it to be lol
 
Last edited:
There's also the Crysis benchmark link for the GT in my signature. Both single and SLI, XP and Vista. :)


edit: Well there was but it seems it has been edited - why not just set the signature parameters in AdminCP -easy enough to limit the number of lines we can use Admins.

....now been added
 
Last edited:
Gamespot played through a level of Crysis using a C2D, 2GB of RAM and an 8800 GT - it looked REALLY nice (was on high settings) and it didnt seem to hitch up at all
 
james.miller said:
i own a gtx, but im not oblivious to the truth. i just think the card is way better than they really planned it to be lol
Click to expand...

I'm using one the now and enjoying it but the only thing I enjoy over my 2900 is the added AA. I usually use 2xAA with the 2900 and the 8800GTX can handle more but in all honesty I've been enjoying gaming the last few days like I've not done in a long time and AA is less important to me now. All I want is a smooth and good looking game. My 2900 might have a new lease of life. The GTX played GoW perfectly on my rig and I was surprised. Wish me luck with the 2900 as I go to test in 5 minutes :).
 
I think the 8800 GTX is a desirable piece of kit myself but the 8800 GT really gives soo much more bang for buck. However it has to be said that since the 8800 GT has come out its certainly put the prices of existing high end cards into free fall. A 8800 GTX for £250 ish is still a nice option for people that can afford the premium, I personally wouldn't pay the extra myself.

Games like Crysis (as well as certain DX10 titles) have shown that the GTX is slowly starting to show its age, and kudos to it, I mean how often do you have a GPU that manages to stay at the top of the pile for over a year, I've not seen that before myself, nVidia really did come up with a *Monster* back in 2006! :eek:

For the record I have only ever purchased two nVidia cards before, the GeForce256-DDR and the TNT2-Ultra, been on an ATI drip-feed ever since. Getting this 8800GT into my system has been very exciting as I've been gaming on a 24" at 1920x1200 since April 2005 and I can tell you its been an uphill struggle to get smooth framerates on a game at that res, you don't really need AA either but a little is always welcomed (mostly used 2XAA myself).

Crysis is a tough game to get *juiced up* at high res but thats the way I expect it, before that I think it was Oblivion which people used as a yardstick.

Anyway enough chitter from me and back to the benches

enemyterritoryquakewarstc0.jpg
 
I like my games looking their best (as much AA/AF as possible), and with a native res of 1920x1200 I need the extra power of the GTX to play with lots of AA/AF.

This review of the new CSS 640GTS includes stock GTX and GT cards:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...800gts-640mb-w-112sps-ssc-edition-review.html

At higher resolutions+AA/AF, the GTX really shows it's bandwith advantage:

60% faster than GT in HL2
HL2.jpg


40% faster in Lost Planet
LP.jpg


30% faster in Prey
PREY.jpg


100% faster in PT Boats
PTBOATS.jpg
 
Sir Random said:
I like my games looking their best (as much AA/AF as possible), and with a native res of 1920x1200 I need the extra power of the GTX to play with lots of AA/AF
Click to expand...
Hey you don't want much huh? :D

It's certainly nice to get a good lashing of eye candy, I can't knock someone for wanting that at all however if we take off our geek caps and put on out gamer caps how much would you really notice the difference between 4XAA and 8xAA while peering your your scope desperately trying to get a headshot off on a sniper thats killed you ten times lol! ;) :D

I think in general there is nothing wrong in wanting the best but from experience I find that you have to make a few concessions along the way! :o

There is a similar example in the CPU scene when faced with a choice between a Quad Core Q6600 and a Quad Core QX6850 although the price difference is a lot bigger there! :eek: but in essence there will perform at a similar level once tweaked (Probably theQX6850 would be faster!).

Be Happy with your card, I'm enjoying the 8800GT and its nice to be back using an nVidia card again after so many years.

I don't think the 8800GT is faster than a GTX but I got it in place of a vanilla 640MB GTS which I had a budget for of £200 so the GT hit the spot quite nicely.

I'm not sure of the actual differences to be honest apart from the GTX has a slightly wider memory bus and perhaps a few more stream processors?

Sir Random said:
60% faster than GT in HL2
HL2.jpg
Click to expand...

Thats looking promising as I intend to play through Half-Life: Source and Half-Life 2 for xmas, maybe need to overclock the card some to get those *minimum* frame rates up a bit for some 1920x1200 action! :)
 
james.miller said:
your link, to bit tech. lets run down the results: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/11/02/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt/12

1920x1200, 4xfsaa difference between the two cards:

TF2 - 9fps
et: quake wars - 16fps
coh - 4min /12.2 max
lost planet - 8.4fps


i dont see that as the gtx being massively faster?
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to 'fan the flames' but for me personally that is a big difference because lost planet only gets an average of 25fps for me so if that was to drop to 16.6fps it would be unplayable, same goes for quake wars also, I certainly think the GT is the card to go for but the GTX is still the superior card atm, albeit hanging on by a thread, :cool::p.
 
Last edited:
yet another review, from a site that WASN'T allowed to publish on release, showing aa/af high detail settings and lots of games the gts, for £10 more, is better than a GT.

seriously, i pointed it out on release, i pointed it out since then many times.

nvidia only gave cards to a select few sites for release day reviews, all those sites HAD to go to a conference with nvidia, where they HAD to go through a 25 slide BS parade on the card. with lots of hints on how THEY wanted the card reviewed. then queue the selected review sites almost all go completely against their normal reviewing method, with fairly weird results. anandtech only using aa in ONE game, the ONE game that the gt can beat the gtx with AA :o

the GT, in reality is still overkill for 1280x1024 gaming as it was a month ago. as the gts, 2900's and gtx were. if you game at 1680x1050/1920x1200 you need a little more power, and thats where the high end cards come in. most of these games, at the settings all these cards let you use, the gts, gts, even in quite a few games(all ut3 based engine games) the 2900 aswell is faster than the GT. the gts/2900 aren't much faster, but we've been able to get 2900 pro's for £150 for quite a bit, and for 2-3 months AA has been great on the cards with very small performance hits in most games now.

Now the GT IS a good card, if the gts 640 was still £200-230 then it wouldn't be worth much more, but i saw gts's at £170-190 all over the place on the GT's release, while being faster in almost every situation.


the benchmarks above might not mean much now, 8xaa isn't going to massively improve the look over 4xaa. but when its 60% faster thats what you need to know, thats how much more powerful the card is, or more accurately, how much less crippled it is. fact is in tougher games that need more power in the next year the extra power available there will start to make a real difference. frankly it also isn't worth the cost, though all the idiots selling gtx's to get GT's, jump on those 2nd hand deals because that will be a steal.

but if i was buying new and had the option of a crippled GT or a GTS for £10-15 more, the GTS comes up winning every time.
 
lowrider007 said:
I'm not trying to 'fan the flames' but for me personally that is a big difference because lost planet only gets an average of 25fps for me so if that was to drop to 16.6fps it would be unplayable, same goes for quake wars also, I certainly think the GT is the card to go for but the GTX is still the superior card atm, albeit hanging on by a thread, :cool::p.
Click to expand...


this is basically it, the GTS is still superior, actually more than you suggest, but when you compare price/performance its hard to justify all that extra performance for £100 more.

the gts replacement should be a good inbetween point, obviously an improvement on the current gts, and a far small hit at high resolutions and far more future proof.

this is just a slightly differently skewed situation than we were in with the gts 320, people loved it for cheapness now, but the 320mb really does affect it now in a lot more games. people that saved £40 then, now find their cards depreciated that much more in the 2nd hand market because its starting to outgrow games. it has all the raw power of the 640MB< but its crippled.


also remember one more thing, look at the HL2 review. i mean the GT is a good card. but the most interesting thing in the whole lot is the minimum number, in the most stressful parts it gave a significantly lower framerate than the gts.

you have to remember these benchmarks are averages, and different achitechtures can do better in different places. the GT has higher raw clocks, so in unstressed situations it can give really high framerates, but in the most stressed places it simply is crippled to far. now in benchmarks you can have a card witha higher average, but if in say, hl2 every time a barrel explodes it dropped to a stuttery framerate but in the rest of the map it gave 20% higher fps than the GTS, it would still be a more unplayable card.

now one of the reasons the 2900xt does badly is ati sticking to the old 16 rop's still, again that choice affects the highest framerate, but under the most stressful conditions you are waiting on pixel instructions to be performed, not the rop's to push them out, so it maintains the lowest framerate VERY well with all that shader power. it's min framerate is 15% or so higher than the GT, which makes it more playable. this is why the 2900XT is under rated by most based purely on review. imagine 3dmark say old style 01. the matrix type option, under low detail it flys along at 500fps, but the low rop count means it can't compete with the GT say getting 600fps there. but in the stressful parts where it was stressed the GT would get a lower minimum framerate.
 
Last edited:
The GT does get crippled by AA, i've had to turn down my AA settings mostly, but still the best card i've bougt, ever, much more happy about it that my GTS :)
And i'm gaming on 1280x1024, and i always will be, don't have any more space on my desktop for the two screens and the MIDI keyboard on there, so cards as the GT are perfect for me.
 
Talrinys said:
The GT does get crippled by AA, i've had to turn down my AA settings mostly, but still the best card i've bougt, ever, much more happy about it that my GTS :)
And i'm gaming on 1280x1024, and i always will be, don't have any more space on my desktop for the two screens and the MIDI keyboard on there, so cards as the GT are perfect for me.
Click to expand...

What games?

So people are saying the GTS 640 is superior now? well I dont know about those benchmarks, but the GT has certainly been an upgrade for me from the GTS I used to have and 2900, I use 8xCSAA, 16xCSAA or 4xMSAA and all games are fine for me, and at my of 1600x1050 with 16xQCSAA and 16xAF I have never noticed my frame rate drop to 33fps in HL2:Ep2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom