• 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.

7600GT's VS 8800GTS

samzetec-s

samzetec-s

samzetec-s

Associate
Joined
22 May 2007
Posts
136
Thinking of upgrading my cards and was looking at the 640MB 8800GTS. I currently get 12401 in 3Dmark05 with my 2 x 7600GT XXX's. What 3Dmark05 scores are people getting with 640MB 8800GTS's?
 
gt_junkie said:
Would be ideal for that res! :cool:

Nothing can touch them in terms of price/performance!

gt
Click to expand...

Agreed, i get about 15k in 05 at stock with a 320mb GTS, absolutely cuts through everything at 1280x1024. :cool:

May as well just get the cheapest as they are all made in the same factory, only differences are the length of warranty, and what software etc.. you get, and also some are pre-overclocked, but you can do that yourself as they all clock very well, and will all surpass the pre-overclocked speeds with ease. :)
 
Just to add my opinion.

I went from a perfectly acceptable 7600GT EE to a BFG 8800GTS OC 320mb running at a resolution of 1400x900 and I can't stop :D

The card handles everything I can throw at it maxed out (except stalker with full dynamic lighting)

Score wise with a mild overclock I get 16.xk in 05 and 10k+ in 06. (33k in 03 too lol)
 
I have a 8800GTS 320MB that I received as an RMA replacement for my 7900GTO 512MB that went ****-up.

While the 8800GTS 320MB out scores the 7900GTO 512MB in 3dMark, its performance in Company of Heroes at maximum possible settings is much worse.

I think this is because of the smaller frame buffer.

So, if you are thinking of playing CoH, or perhaps readying yourself for a furture title - you may wish to consider getting a 640MB version.

Either that, or prepare to turn your texture settings down to accomodate the 320MB frame buffer.
 
Raves said:
So, if you are thinking of playing CoH, or perhaps readying yourself for a furture title - you may wish to consider getting a 640MB version.

Either that, or prepare to turn your texture settings down to accomodate the 320MB frame buffer.
Click to expand...

Does the extra 320MB make the difference? Im looking to play games maxxed and future ones for a while.
 
dno about a GTS v 7600 But

I went from a 7800GTX (major overclocked) and i got 5800 3dmark06 score (spec in sig)

and the exact same cpu speed etc i now get 11040 3dmark06 with a stock HD 2900 XT
and with my cpu @ 3.3ghz i get 11400 ish 3dmark06

so from a 7800GTX to HD2900XT i get double the score

Edit: sorry didnt know the you wanted 3dmark05 scores didnt read it all :p
 
Raves said:
I have a 8800GTS 320MB that I received as an RMA replacement for my 7900GTO 512MB that went ****-up.

While the 8800GTS 320MB out scores the 7900GTO 512MB in 3dMark, its performance in Company of Heroes at maximum possible settings is much worse.

I think this is because of the smaller frame buffer.

So, if you are thinking of playing CoH, or perhaps readying yourself for a furture title - you may wish to consider getting a 640MB version.

Either that, or prepare to turn your texture settings down to accomodate the 320MB frame buffer.
Click to expand...

Company of heroes runs fine maxxed out here :)
 
If you have Rivatuner installed you will see that the 'ultra' texture setting consumes more than 320MB. In fact, when you select 'ultra' texture settings with the GTS 320MB, CoH will tell you that this is not a good idea.

I never used to get the warning message with the 7900GTO 512MB, and Rivatuner confirms that 'ultra' tetures are for cards with 512MB or greater frame buffers.

Once I change the 'ultra' textures to 'high' the memory usage goes to about 300MB and the game plays very smoothly.

Personally, if I was purchasing a card today I would not consider a card with less that 512MB, as many games have been designed to use this amount of memory for textures.

Of course, old games like BF2 do not have this problem. From my experience CoH and World in Conflict certainly do, and from reading around the web, so do Oblivion, STALKER and FEAR.

edit: also if your try the GRAW2 demo you will find that you cannot select high textures with the 8800GTS 320MB, only 'medium'. My friends with the 640MB version tell me they can select 'high'. That being said, you can select all of the other options at high (except for physics; PhysX card required) and the game looks great and plays very smoothly.
 
Last edited:
samzetec-s said:
Does the extra 320MB make the difference? Im looking to play games maxxed and future ones for a while.
Click to expand...
Well, when playing oblivion and stalker with max settings at 1280x1024 the video memory usage is often 550Mb+. I'd definitely go for the 640Mb GTS if you want to future proof a bit more.
 
what i find odd is that mid ranged cards like the 7600gt when sli'd show a larger performance increase over a single card than say 2 x 7900gt's.
not saying that 7600gt is faster than 7900gt but some sli tests were done and showed % increase over single card to be greater when using mid range cards. even today for some odd reason 8600gt in sli show a larger performance increase over a single 8600gt when compared to 2 x 8800gts in sli.

seems like the lower end cards are more efficient in multi card setups. then again it could be cpu limitation....
 
Cyber-Mav said:
seems like the lower end cards are more efficient in multi card setups. then again it could be cpu limitation....
Click to expand...
I think so too. Another member on these forums saw a graphics bottleneck when using a single 8800GTS 320mb with a low end CPU, it couldn't keep up.

A pair of 7600GT's have nowhere near the power of a single 8800GTS, but if you're looking to play games on very high settings with 8xAA and 16xAS, a pair of 7600GT's can handle it, even in 1680x1050 res :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom