• 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.

GTX or GTS?

Matt7613

Matt7613

Matt7613

Associate
Joined
26 Jan 2007
Posts
880
Location
Leicester/The Toon
Hey Guys,

I'm sure you've seen this kind of thread before..

But I have a 20" TFT and want to play games like TDU, BF2 etc..

So basically I just mean an idea on whats best?

I know that there is a new GFX coming out soon, however I'm not sure whether to go with that because the prices might be crazy :rolleyes:

-Matt
 
If you look around you'll see easy enough what card you should go for, but I suppose you could be let off since the search aint working.

What res is your monitor? 1600x1050? If so an 8800GTS 640mb will do the job fine, new cards round the corner, no need to pay for an 8800GTX at your res.
 
The prices of the G80s will drop a lot when the new cards come out. If you wait then you may be able to get the GTS of the new card out or at least a G80 GTX.
 
i use a 640mb gts and bf2 is my current main game, on a 20 inch lcd, i play bf2 maxed out, card breezes through it. even stalker which is a very buggy game im getting 60+fps (without dynamic lighting which can be a system killer) very good card
 
Apart from the 8800GTS 640MB you could look at the 2900XT.
Offers slightly more / similar performance.
Depending on which you find 2nd hand.
 
8800 GTS 640? no way! get a GTX. honestly you'd regret it not buying a GTX. Much faster card for not much more money than the 640MB version of the GTS.

I had a 320 MB GTS at 1600X1200 and it ran everything nice, i later got a 640 MB version and noticed no difference at all, even with the larger video memory. I got rid of the 640MB card and payed a little extra and got the GTX. Now here i noticed a very very big difference. Awesome card!

Buy a GTX. You'll be glad you did when the likes of Crysis will run so much better on a GTX than a GTS

I'm running everything maxed out detail-wise at 1920X1200 and the GTX doesn't break a sweat. The 320 & 640 GTS struggled to cope.
 
Last edited:
XysteR said:
8800 GTS 640? no way! get a GTX. honestly you'd regret it not buying a GTX. Much faster card for not much more money than the 640MB version of the GTS.

I had a 320 MB GTS at 1600X1200 and it ran everything nice, i later got a 640 MB version and noticed no difference at all, even with the larger video memory. I got rid of the 640MB card and payed a little extra and got the GTX. Now here i noticed a very very big difference. Awesome card!

Buy a GTX. You'll be glad you did when the likes of Crysis will run so much better on a GTX than a GTS

I'm running everything maxed out detail-wise at 1920X1200 and the GTX doesn't break a sweat. The 320 & 640 GTS struggled to cope.
Click to expand...

What games do you play, even at that res a GTX is brought down to it's knees in sme games.

At 1600x1200, since there are new cards coming out soon, it is not worth the GTX, you can pick up a GTS 640 for around 220 now, the GTX is 50+ more, could get a new HDD, new ram for that etc..

A 20" monitor should have a natice res of 1600x1050 or 1600x1200, now if it is one of these res, the GTS should not struggle in most games, the GTS will tide over untill the next series, especially since you dont need the high amounts of AA at that res compared ot say 1280x1024/1440x900.
 
willhub said:
What games do you play, even at that res a GTX is brought down to it's knees in sme games.

At 1600x1200, since there are new cards coming out soon, it is not worth the GTX, you can pick up a GTS 640 for around 220 now, the GTX is 50+ more, could get a new HDD, new ram for that etc..

A 20" monitor should have a natice res of 1600x1050 or 1600x1200, now if it is one of these res, the GTS should not struggle in most games, the GTS will tide over untill the next series, especially since you dont need the high amounts of AA at that res compared ot say 1280x1024/1440x900.
Click to expand...

Which games with detail maxed out at 1920X1200 will bring a GTX to it's knees? I'd love to see something that does.

I'm playing a lot of the latest stuff out maxed out at 1920X1200, e'g DiRT, Quake Wars ET, Company of Heroes, Lord Of The Rings Online, to name a few. It just laughs at any slightly older games. The DX10 lost planet demo runs super smooth maxed out. And from what i've heard Bioshock runs amazing with max detail too.
 
I had a Crosshair + AMD 6000 + 4GB then swapped to 2GB faster Ram and a Superclocked Ultra @ 700/1400 (stock 655/2250).

I now know the mobo was bad from new as it later fried and broke 2 CPU's, I had weeks of crap on it and nothing but problems but it gamed well enough but I do not see how buggy console port Lost Planet can be maxed by your spec, I tried 1600x1200 (CRT 100hz) and it was down to 10FPs at times, sure it could have been the bad mobo/damaged CPU's causing this.

I aint tested on replacement set up of Striker E + E6850 in games yet.

All was XPSP2 32bit and obv games were DX9C.
 
Last edited:
XysteR said:
Which games with detail maxed out at 1920X1200 will bring a GTX to it's knees? I'd love to see something that does.

I'm playing a lot of the latest stuff out maxed out at 1920X1200, e'g DiRT, Quake Wars ET, Company of Heroes, Lord Of The Rings Online, to name a few. It just laughs at any slightly older games. The DX10 lost planet demo runs super smooth maxed out. And from what i've heard Bioshock runs amazing with max detail too.
Click to expand...

Try Oblivion, and try some of those games with 16xAA, try CoJ aswell, abit of Rainbow Six Vegas too..
 
helmutcheese said:
I had a Crosshair + AMD 6000 + 4GB then swapped to 2GB faster Ram and a Superclocked Ultra @ 700/1400 (stock 655/2250).

I now know the mobo was bad from new as it later fried and broke 2 CPU's, I had weeks of crap on it and nothing but problems but it gamed well enough but I do not see how buggy console port Lost Planet can be maxed by your spec, I tried 1600x1200 (CRT 100hz) and it was down to 10FPs at times, sure it could have been the bad mobo/damamges CPU's causing this.

I aint tested on replacement set up of Striker E + E6850 in games yet.

All was XPSP2 32bit and obv games were DX9C.
Click to expand...

DX10 lost planet. Ramped everything up res/detail to max. Silky smooth.

I do recal a lot of people having problems running it though but it worked brilliant for me
 
XysteR said:
Which games with detail maxed out at 1920X1200 will bring a GTX to it's knees? I'd love to see something that does. .
Click to expand...
Dirt does,,plus lost planet at max detail at 1920x1200 only just manages around 30fps with a single 8800gtx ,,trackmania united can drop to -40fps in some places as well..

And this is only from some the games that i have tryed with using my 8800gtx at 1920x1200

If gaming at 1680x1050 or above...i would go for a GTX...
 
Last edited:
Id get a 2900 XT as its faster than the 640mb GTS, and will easily handle 1680x1050. :)

If it has to be Nvidia though, then id get the 640mb GTS, no point getting a GTX with new cards supposedly just around the corner.

Theres a 1.4 patch now for Lost Planet that adds a whole load of new Dx10 features, and boosts performance, quite a few ppl raving about it now.
 
Last edited:
XysteR said:
Which games with detail maxed out at 1920X1200 will bring a GTX to it's knees? I'd love to see something that does.

I'm playing a lot of the latest stuff out maxed out at 1920X1200, e'g DiRT, Quake Wars ET, Company of Heroes, Lord Of The Rings Online, to name a few. It just laughs at any slightly older games. The DX10 lost planet demo runs super smooth maxed out. And from what i've heard Bioshock runs amazing with max detail too.
Click to expand...

Neverwinter Nights 2: 4xAA, 16xAF = avg 25 fps, min 18 fps
Call of Juarez: 16xAF, HDR = avg 33 fps, min 20 fps
Gothic 2: 16xAF = avg 38 fps, min 22 fps
Microsoft Flight Simulator 10: AA, AF on and ultra quality = 22fps
Oblivion NO AA, 8 x AF, max quality, HDR = 28 fps average (outdoor scenes)
Quake 4: 4xAA, 16xAF, all settings to max = 13fps min, 64 fps max, avg 43 (I know the average is good but the minimum rate drops below the magic 30 fps figure).

These are just a few examples but as the following link shows (although not at your res but your results would be between the two resolutions quoted), if you put ALL the eye candy to max a 8800 GTX will not run the following games (oblivion, prey, half life 2, FEAR, need for speed, call of duty 2, splinter cell) at a "smooth" framerate.

http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/in...k=view&id=228&Itemid=27&limit=1&limitstart=11

And as far as lost planet goes, even an 8800 ultra was brought down to an unplayable 20fps and that was at only 1600 x 1200, 4XAA, 16xAF, high shadows so it will be considerable less on your 8800 GTX at 1920 x 1200. You sure your running with everything switched on and maxed out?

see link: http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM3MSw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

My point is the next generation of games and certainly some games now CANNOT be played at maximum quality settings on the 8800 GTX at 1920 x 1200. Yes, you can achieve very good playable framerates by dropping some of the quality settings but that wasn't the point of this discussion.

Take Call of Duty 2. Even now you can't play it maxed out at 1920 x 1200 with a single GTX and that is two years after it's release. Therefore expect some of the new games coming out to only be able to play at full quality, hi res settings with the card you will be buying in two years time IMO.
 
LoadsaMoney said:
Theres a 1.4 patch now for Lost Planet that adds a whole load of new Dx10 features, and boosts performance, quite a few ppl raving about it now.
Click to expand...
Thanks...I didn't know about this patch..any idea what the new Dx10 features are ????

This most of been why steam was updating my lost planet a few days ago..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom