8600 Ultra @ 1280 X 1024

Cartho · 29 Jan 2007 at 10:59

The max res I can run games at is 1280 X 1024
I was wondering what kind of performance you guys reckon I will get from one at that res?

People are talking about the 8 series being great in DX9, but possibly not as good in D10....

If I got an 8600 Ultra when it came out, do you reckon it would last? Or would it be more sensible to get an 8800 GTS 640 MB?
Is the power of a 8800 GTS 640 MB largely wasted at 1280 X 1024 resolution?

Azza · 29 Jan 2007 at 11:06

Cartho said:
The max res I can run games at is 1280 X 1024
I was wondering what kind of performance you guys reckon I will get from one at that res?

People are talking about the 8 series being great in DX9, but possibly not as good in D10....

If I got an 8600 Ultra when it came out, do you reckon it would last? Or would it be more sensible to get an 8800 GTS 640 MB?
Is the power of a 8800 GTS 640 MB largely wasted at 1280 X 1024 resolution?

Who knows about the 8600 becuase there is no benchmarks of it or anything.

I use a 8800GTS at 1280 x 1024 and I dont think it is wasted. Gives me very good frame rates and that is what I want at maxed out settings.

Cartho · 29 Jan 2007 at 11:12

well I am gonna wait until I have enough money (probably late March) and see what the situation is like then.....

bfar · 29 Jan 2007 at 11:34

Azza said:
I use a 8800GTS at 1280 x 1024 and I dont think it is wasted. Gives me very good frame rates and that is what I want at maxed out settings.

I agree, I use an 8800GTX at that res. I spend all the xtra power on full AA/AF in every game

Might not get away with that in this years titles tho

semi-pro waster · 29 Jan 2007 at 11:39

I've never been sure of the point of arguments along the lines of "well it is good for DXx but it might not be so good for DXx+1" and it was the same for A64s and 64bit OSes, the 8800series are currently the best available bar none so if you want the fastest then go for them and worry about their performance or lack of it in DX10 if/when you move to it. Bear in mind though that there will be new drivers coming out pretty regularly so performance is also likely to improve as the drivers mature and the platform becomes better known.

There might well be more options in March though so I wouldn't worry about it too much until then as more information will be available also.

Lanz · 29 Jan 2007 at 11:42

Going by previous history, chances are the 8600 (or whatever the exact name will be) will be about as quick as the previous gen's top card, so it'll probably be GF7900GTX'ish performance just with DX10.

Just like the 7600GT is like 6800GT/ultra'ish speeds.

MeatLoaf · 29 Jan 2007 at 11:51

7600GT is quicker than a 6800 Ultra i think.

I really hope that 8600 Ultra is quicker than a 7900GTX

jrodga2k5 · 29 Jan 2007 at 12:35

MeatLoaf said:
7600GT is quicker than a 6800 Ultra i think.

I really hope that 8600 Ultra is quicker than a 7900GTX

we all do but i bet its not

Cartho · 29 Jan 2007 at 12:59

MeatLoaf said:
7600GT is quicker than a 6800 Ultra i think.

err no it isn't, it does not have nearly as much overall bandwidth - 22 GB/s compared to the 6800 Ultra's 35 GB/s

it also has less pixel pipelines (12 compared to 16) and a smaller memory bus (128 bit compared to 256 bit)

melbourne720 · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:02

Cartho said:
Is the power of a 8800 GTS 640 MB largely wasted at 1280 X 1024 resolution?

FEAR drops to 58 fps minimum at 1280 x 1024 with an 8800GTS. Depending on your point of view, that can be either overkill, or just right. If you had Vsync on and expected constant 60fps, that might not even be acceptable.

Fine for me though, coming from an 6800 GT on an AGP system.

As this seems to be the most common mid range resolution, I would have thought any card worth its salt is going to have to be able to do min 25fps with full detail and AA / AF in most (if not all) current games to sell at the £150-£200 price point.

semi-pro waster · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:04

Cartho said:
err no it isn't, it does not have nearly as much overall bandwidth - 22 GB/s compared to the 6800 Ultra's 35 GB/s

it also has less pixel pipelines (12 compared to 16) and a smaller memory bus (128 bit compared to 256 bit)

Check the benchmarks, not always a full representation but in this case the 7600GT is on a par or slightly better than a 6800ultra. How Nvidia managed it I'm not totally sure but they have a card with technically inferior specifications in most areas but it is in fact a more efficient card so it betters the 6800ultra. It does prove quite convincingly that raw specifications mean little.

LoadsaMoney · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:09

Azza said:
Who knows about the 8600 becuase there is no benchmarks of it or anything.

I use a 8800GTS at 1280 x 1024 and I dont think it is wasted. Gives me very good frame rates and that is what I want at maxed out settings.

Agreed, you can have maxed everything, AA/AF the lot at 1280x1024 and get frame-rates in the hundreds, plus it will last a very long time, a lot longer than it would at a higher res, so as said it isn't wasted at all, will save you money in the long run to as you wont have to keep ugrading every so often as your starting to struggle playing at uber res's, ive had my x1800 XT since they came out in November 05, still cuts through everything maxed out in 1280x1024 today, i bet if i was running uber res's id have upgraded long before now, so ive been saving money by not having to do so.

Minstadave · 29 Jan 2007 at 13:41

semi-pro waster said:
Check the benchmarks, not always a full representation but in this case the 7600GT is on a par or slightly better than a 6800ultra. How Nvidia managed it I'm not totally sure but they have a card with technically inferior specifications in most areas but it is in fact a more efficient card so it betters the 6800ultra. It does prove quite convincingly that raw specifications mean little.

Yeah they did really well with the 7600GT, its very efficient and works wonders with only a 128bit memory bus, and yes it does just beat a 6800Ultra. It also uses less power and clocks better.

Cartho · 29 Jan 2007 at 14:36

I think the 8800 GTS will be a sound buy then!
Provided it can run Crysis in D10 mode then I am cool with it!
By the way when I say "run Crysis" I mean run it well, with high settings - I hate playing games on low settings

)

Azza · 29 Jan 2007 at 14:52

Cartho said:
I think the 8800 GTS will be a sound buy then!
Provided it can run Crysis in D10 mode then I am cool with it!
By the way when I say "run Crysis" I mean run it well, with high settings - I hate playing games on low settings )

Well know one knows, it could well be only be able to run it at low settings. Then Nvidia will make a lot of people very very unhappy.

Only time will tell.

melbourne720 · 29 Jan 2007 at 15:20

I think DX10 is supposed to be more 'performance improvement' than 'new visuals', so I'm confident (touch wood) Crysis will run fine on an 8800 GTS.

I got an 8800 GTS primarily for the DX9 performance, and it has exceeded my expectations.

LoadsaMoney · 29 Jan 2007 at 16:05

Im sure i read on the main Crysis site that they said it would run maxed out at high resolutions on even the 8600's.

Gashman · 29 Jan 2007 at 17:48

Cartho said:
err no it isn't, it does not have nearly as much overall bandwidth - 22 GB/s compared to the 6800 Ultra's 35 GB/s

it also has less pixel pipelines (12 compared to 16) and a smaller memory bus (128 bit compared to 256 bit)

7600GT > 6800 ultra, both stock, if you overclock 7600GT it will pull further away, its simply a superior card in EVERY single way :rolleyes:

Gashman · 29 Jan 2007 at 17:50

semi-pro waster said:
Check the benchmarks, not always a full representation but in this case the 7600GT is on a par or slightly better than a 6800ultra. How Nvidia managed it I'm not totally sure but they have a card with technically inferior specifications in most areas but it is in fact a more efficient card so it betters the 6800ultra. It does prove quite convincingly that raw specifications mean little.

not remember when people were saying the 7800GTX has 24!!! pipelines, so it MUST be better than ATIs 16 pipeline card...how wrong were they

Cartho · 29 Jan 2007 at 18:12

yes but ATIs 16 piepline card had a RADICALLY different, unified shader architecture - the G70 cards were more like a tweaked 6 series card than a total reimagination.

Still, it probably has better performance due to it being a more efficient design....

I reckon an 8800 GTS should be able to cope with Cryssi maxed out @ 120 X 1024. I mean it is a seriously powerful card, annihilating any other single card out today except for its bigger brother the GTX...