Do I wait?

Marshy · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:12

For gods sake this place is like a ****** junior school playground sometimes , Grow up!!! :mad:

.

For the OP, I'm running an 8800GTS 320 & game at 1650/1080 & it's perfectly happy in everything I play & that includes Oblivion , FEAR , STALKER , C&C3 to name but a few so you'll have no problems what so ever at your res

, And that's with a 4400X2 & i'm running Vista64 too.

Anyone who says a 320meg 8800 can't game at these resolutions either hasn't tried or needs to do their homework on optimising their system.

titaniumx3 · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:12

This a good article to look at before you choose the 320mb GTS:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi8800gts-640.html

As you can see the vast majority of games should be fine at 1280x1024 (with AA/AF) apart from some odd games like Serious Sam 2, Gothic 3, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Company of Heroes. You also get drops in Oblivion but as the review points out, some of these issues could be driver problems.

At 1600x1200 you start seeing a few more games start to suffer and imho I'd splash out for a 640mb GTS or wait for the R600. Yeah sure, you could turn off AA or reduce the texture resolution but that seems a bit wasteful especially when the GPU itself is perfectly capable (see 640mb GTS results).

I personally would either go for the 640mb GTS or wait for the R600 (even at 1280x1024) as it's supposed to be targeting the GTS in terms of price. Really depends on what games you play, the level of image quality you want (i.e. AA/AF levels) and what sort framerates are acceptable to you.

SpaghettiOs · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:15

Thanks for all your posts.

Yes, as I said I will be running a 19" 1280*1024. While uber AA would be nice, I don't need it. I think the 8800 GTS itself will be a welcome jump from an aging 9600 pro.

All I would really like is between 2/4x AA and some anistropic filtering with most of the extra eye candy gubbins.

Darkwave · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:18

gamer_boy said:
I think the 8800 GTS itself will be a welcome jump from an aging 9600 pro.

You're going to crap in your pants. :eek:

SpaghettiOs · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:20

hehe, I sure hope so.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:21

Marshy said:
For gods sake this place is like a ****** junior school playground sometimes , Grow up!!! .

For the OP, I'm running an 8800GTS 320 & game at 1650/1080 & it's perfectly happy in everything I play & that includes Oblivion , FEAR , STALKER , C&C3 to name but a few so you'll have no problems what so ever at your res, And that's with a 4400X2 & i'm running Vista64 too.

Anyone who says a 320meg 8800 can't game at these resolutions either hasn't tried or needs to do their homework on optimising their system.

Sure you can game at those resolutions, I wasn't disputing that, but how much AA do you use and have you ever had to lower the texture sizes or specific details on any of those games, or ever had slight stutering?.

titaniumx3 said:
At 1600x1200 you start seeing a few more games start to suffer and imho I'd splash out for a 640mb GTS or wait for the R600. Yeah sure, you could turn off AA or reduce the texture resolution but that seems a bit wasteful especially when the GPU itself is perfectly capable (see 640mb GTS results).

I personally would either go for the 640mb GTS or wait for the R600 (even at 1280x1024) as it's supposed to be targeting the GTS in terms of price. Really depends on what games you play, the level of image quality you want (i.e. AA/AF levels) and what sort framerates are acceptable to you

This couldn't get closer to exactly what I experienced and the cold hard truth about it.

Ulfhedjinn said:
You're going to crap in your pants

gamer_boy said:
hehe, I sure hope so.

-

Aye, I'd seriously stock up on a fresh set, then strap yourself to your seat.

willhub · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:26

Tom|Nbk said:
As Easy said the GTS 320 is perfect, the XT would be overkilll and you wouldnt need that much memory.

How is the XT overkill???, from the benchmarks I have seen its not much better than a GTS, not worth an upgrade from a GTS as far as current benchmarks go. Sure if someone is upgrading from a low end card, 7900GT etc.., then yea the XT all the way.

LoadsaMoney · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:27

I had Serious Sam 2 maxed out here with 2xAA/16xAF, ran great.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:30

willhub said:
How is the XT overkill???, from the benchmarks I have seen its not much better than a GTS, not worth an upgrade from a GTS as far as current benchmarks go. Sure if someone is upgrading from a low end card, 7900GT etc.., then yea the XT all the way.

Because the 320mb GTS is priced lower than the 2900XT will be, so why get a product that is excessive to his needs?, when he can get the GTS for approx £50 if not more cheaper.

easyrider · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:30

Marshy said:
For gods sake this place is like a ****** junior school playground sometimes , Grow up!!! .

For the OP, I'm running an 8800GTS 320 & game at 1650/1080 & it's perfectly happy in everything I play & that includes Oblivion , FEAR , STALKER , C&C3 to name but a few so you'll have no problems what so ever at your res, And that's with a 4400X2 & i'm running Vista64 too.

Anyone who says a 320meg 8800 can't game at these resolutions either hasn't tried or needs to do their homework on optimising their system.

Agreed,

I have the 8800 GTS 320MB and game at the sam res with no problems at all.

Sean_UK · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:35

easyrider said:
Agreed,

I have the 8800 GTS 320MB and game at the sam res with no problems at all.

Agreed, built enough PC's of late using the 320mb version and they dont struggle in anything ive seen at res mentiond.

willhub · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:37

Tom|Nbk said:
Because the 320mb GTS is priced lower than the 2900XT will be, so why get a product that is excessive to his needs?, when he can get the GTS for approx £50 if not more cheaper.

I was saying about you saying the XT was overkill as in, its going to own the GTS game performance wise.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:38

willhub said:
I was saying about you saying the XT was overkill as in, its going to own the GTS game performance wise.

No i doubt it will own it, but the thing has more memory that his requirements, He should go for the cheaper 320 option.

willhub · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:43

Tom|Nbk said:
No i doubt it will own it, but the thing has more memory that his requirements, He should go for the cheaper 320 option.

Some benchmarks got me worried, in DX10 the 2900XT getting like 200FPS and the GTS getting 4fps :confused:

I hope this is a fake lol.

Tom|Nbk · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:44

willhub said:
Some benchmarks got me worried, in DX10 the 2900XT getting like 200FPS and the GTS getting 4fps I hope this is a fake lol.

Could be the rubbish Vista drivers from NV, but that really is another matter id prefer to leave well alone

willhub · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:46

Tom|Nbk said:
Could be the rubbish Vista drivers from NV, but that really is another matter id prefer to leave well alone

If DX10 really is like that on a GTS, then an R600 will be top choice for me tbh

Marshy · 28 Apr 2007 at 17:59

Tom|Nbk said:
Sure you can game at those resolutions, I wasn't disputing that, but how much AA do you use and have you ever had to lower the texture sizes or specific details on any of those games, or ever had slight stutering?.

On the games you can change the texture size they're set to max , 2x or 4x AA depending on the game (you don't need any more at that res). Don't suffer from stuttering apart from certain areas in STALKER but everyone gets those even with a GTX.

LoadsaMoney · 28 Apr 2007 at 18:11

willhub said:
Some benchmarks got me worried, in DX10 the 2900XT getting like 200FPS and the GTS getting 4fps I hope this is a fake lol.

I didn't think those scores were actually the games fps, Global Illumination and N-Patches sound like effects to me.

willhub · 28 Apr 2007 at 19:00

LoadsaMoney said:
I didn't think those scores were actually the games fps, Global Illumination and N-Patches sound like effects to me.

So why is the 8800GTS so low with those?

The Asgard · 28 Apr 2007 at 19:13

Marshy said:
For gods sake this place is like a ****** junior school playground sometimes , Grow up!!! .

For the OP, I'm running an 8800GTS 320 & game at 1650/1080 & it's perfectly happy in everything I play & that includes Oblivion , FEAR , STALKER , C&C3 to name but a few so you'll have no problems what so ever at your res, And that's with a 4400X2 & i'm running Vista64 too.

Anyone who says a 320meg 8800 can't game at these resolutions either hasn't tried or needs to do their homework on optimising their system.

I would have to agree on all aspects.

I have played with pretty much all the latest cards and my current kick around card until I decide on my next purchase plays everything at 1920x1200 without any issues.

1920x1200 8AF

C&C3 Full in game 6xAA everything on
Stalker Max settings no AA
Wow Max detail 6X AA
Rainbox 6 Max detail 1600x1200 no AA. Plays nice
Eve 6X AA
Oblivion No AA cant remember settings.

The card, 256MB X1950XT running max Overclock in the CCC. Cracking card. The GTS obviously would be even better.