-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
-
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.
8800 GT, GTX or GTS
- Thread starter andymac
- Start date
Thanks much all, so the GT is the one to go for, will I benefit from holding out on buying one until these new GTS or GTX cards with better specs arrive?
Are they meant to be offering any better performance, or has the NVidia wave hit a high now with additional cash being wasted on 1 or 2 fps in games?
Are they meant to be offering any better performance, or has the NVidia wave hit a high now with additional cash being wasted on 1 or 2 fps in games?
The new GTS will be faster but it all depends on how much it will cost.
The GT offers GTX performance now for half the cost and if you game at 1680x1050 then I would snap one up.
Excellent, many thanks,
I'll wait a bit to see if GT card prices go down a tad and then either snap up an unwanted GTX or get a good GT card.
GT card EVGA
Looking at this one, good bad or ugly?
I'll wait a bit to see if GT card prices go down a tad and then either snap up an unwanted GTX or get a good GT card.
GT card EVGA
Looking at this one, good bad or ugly?
I would just get the cheapest tbh.
Unless you can get a GTX for 180 ish I wouldn't bother with one.
The GT is a monster for the money.
Yeah...not as if you have a Q6600 at 3.8 is it
Even a dual core sees gains when in 06.
The GTX is no longer the card to get for the money.
My GTS 8800 640@ 3.6ghz quad got 12712
MY 8800 GT@ 3.6ghz quad got 15004
The GT is cheaper and faster and is on par with a GTX that cost twice as much.
Just had a look at my 06 projects..
@3ghz quad I was getting 12591 with a GTX
Last edited:
Theres no doubting the GT is by far the best bang for buck and if you are gaming on a 20" screen or less then its deffo the card of choice.
However for those who want to game at high res with AA then the GTX/Ultra is still a better choice imo (unless you go SLI). The GT has a 3rd of the fps then a GTX in crysis at high res (1920x1440 4x AA).
Food for thought maybe.
However for those who want to game at high res with AA then the GTX/Ultra is still a better choice imo (unless you go SLI). The GT has a 3rd of the fps then a GTX in crysis at high res (1920x1440 4x AA).
Food for thought maybe.
Sli GT takes care of this problem and will see better gains at this res than a single GTX.
The GTX now is no longer a valid choice both financially and in performance for high res gaming imo.
But it has had a phenomal run.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 16,278
- Location
- Paisley
4fps instead of 12fps?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 3,954
- Location
- guildford, surrey
chances are the new 8800gts will be nearly on par with an ultra, and if theres a new GTX then gods knows how fast that will be.
6 instead of 18 if TH is to be believed.
It all depends on pricing.
The whole range has shifted up a gear.
I may get a new GTS but only if the gap over the GT is significant enough.
Also the price.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 8,204
No sli will not help when gaming at such a high resolution with AA. It will still cripple the GT because of it having 256bit memory instead of the 320bit (?) GTS and the GTX is 512bit i beleive. Benchmarks have shown big gaps between the GTX and GT when aa and high resolutuions are used and the current GTS has been shown to creap aheadof the GT.
So at 1680x1050 A single GTX will be faster than two GT's in SLI?
Thats all i'm interested in.
They cost the same
I doubt it, two GT's would probably be faster.
