The proof - GTX vs GT

sw1 · 9 Nov 2007 at 11:04

I think this is great for PC gaming that the 8800 GT is so powerful for the money, I only purchased a BFG 8800 GTX OC 3 weeks ago and contemplated selling it but as I got 130 for 1950xtx it's not too bad.

The fact that high end graphics is available for such a good price will benefit all of us who have been syaing the PC scene has taken a back seat recently.

steve258 · 9 Nov 2007 at 14:07

willhub said:
and at my of 1600x1050 with 16xQCSAA and 16xAF I have never noticed my frame rate drop to 33fps in HL2:Ep2.

Dito. Don't know how they got 33fps in EP2, unless they had vsync on, which I have as well.

LoadsaMoney · 9 Nov 2007 at 15:38

willhub said:
At 1680x1050 I find everything I run runs fine with AA and at a higher res probs will too.

RMA time im afraid, GT cripples under any AA/AF, got my GTS back in at the mo until i can sort mine out, stupid thing is ripping through everything with 16xAA/16xAF and supersampling. :mad:

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 15:41

LoadsaMoney said:
RMA time im afraid, GT cripples under any AA/AF, got my GTS back in at the mo until i can sort mine out, stupid thing is ripping through everything with 16xAA/16xAF and supersampling.

Yea looks like I'm going to be packing mine up soon, thought I had a good card, looks like my 2900 was crippled too coz it could not handle 16xAA like my crippled 8800GT, damn I'm well annoyed dunno what I'm gonna do using celery again.

melbourne720 · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:00

wow, are people turning against the 8800 GT now?

leon4112 · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:01

still you should be happy with the 4th fastest card nvidia has brought out for 200 quid isn't bad!!

saying that when i bought my gtx last nov was only 380 and then had a ultra upgrade for free in sep this year the best is the best for a reason!!

mishima · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:02

melbourne720 said:
wow, are people turning against the 8800 GT now?

Just ordered mine too lol

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:02

leon4112 said:
still you should be happy with the 4th fastest card nvidia has brought out for 200 quid isn't bad!! saying that when i bought my gtx last nov was only 380 and then had a ultra upgrade for free in sep this year the best is the best for a reason!!

Because the GT's are broke they are the 3rd fastest NV card.

leon4112 · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:09

na i was talking about the gt mate thought by looking up the gt was 4th when proper settings were applyed aa af etc!!

as you have now

8800 ultra
8800gtx
8800 gts ssc
8800gt

which i think is good for everyone you have the gt which is good for a bug card for under 200 for someone who wants good quality gfx and fast fps under a certin rez and aa setting and the top 3 for the 22" and above which is how its played out in the long run anyways looks like ati is loosing out in the mid range but im sure they will come back soon

willhub · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:25

I game at 1680x1050 (22"), yea 4th best since the 8800GTS SSC came out but tbh the gap between GT - GTSSSC - GTX is not that huge.

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:42

J.D said:
Very good point. I think 8igDave is taking the GT Anti-Aliasing hit thing WAY too far.

Do you own a GTX 8igdave?. If not you seem to defend it like it was your own .

No i dont own a GTX and i only intend on owning one if a new one is coming out as the GTS will be faster although the GTX would still most likeyl be best for high resoltuions with all the aa and af and max settings.

Looking at the benchmarks above once again my point is proven. Im not going over the top im pointing out soemthing which everyone keeps missingo ut when saying get a GT.

Someone in another thread is getting a 30" monitor and was told to get GTs in SLI. it just wont cut it. Go 6 months down the line and youll be turning down a lot of settings. And if you wanted to play with aa and AF well you wont be able to.

For 24"+ with maxing out settings and aa and af the GTX is far superior and if you intend on doing so then you should not get a GT. No matter if its a good bargin or not 6 months down the line you will be struggling if you expect to run everything with maxed out settings with the aa and af. Infact in some of those benchmarks its already struggling.

You people are expecting to much from the card. Great bargin but not for the big screens.

steve258 · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:44

drunkenmaster said:
Now the GT IS a good card, if the gts 640 was still £200-230 then it wouldn't be worth much more, but i saw gts's at £170-190 all over the place on the GT's release, while being faster in almost every situation.

But that GTS in the above review is the new revision (although still G80) with 112SP with higher clocks so of course it's going to perform better? I don't think it's available yet so no one knows how much it will cost in the UK.

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:46

Sir Random said:
I like my games looking their best (as much AA/AF as possible), and with a native res of 1920x1200 I need the extra power of the GTX to play with lots of AA/AF.

This review of the new CSS 640GTS includes stock GTX and GT cards:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...800gts-640mb-w-112sps-ssc-edition-review.html

At higher resolutions+AA/AF, the GTX really shows it's bandwith advantage:

<benchmark pics>

where's the 1920x1200 tests? we are talking about 24" screen after all

Looking at the benchmarks above once again my point is proven. Im not going over the top im pointing out soemthing which everyone keeps missingo ut when saying get a GT.

your own link disproved what you said, and now your using sir randoms find which doesnt even test 1920x1200 to prove your point again?

lowrider007 said:
I'm not trying to 'fan the flames' but for me personally that is a big difference because lost planet only gets an average of 25fps for me so if that was to drop to 16.6fps it would be unplayable, same goes for quake wars also, I certainly think the GT is the card to go for but the GTX is still the superior card atm, albeit hanging on by a thread, .

an average of 25fps is pretty much unplayable as well imo. I think its best not to work by percentages anyway, as people tend to to prove a point, because its a misrepresentation of the truth. you could say that the GTX is 50% faster than the Gt in lost planet and you'd be correct and then everything thinks 'wow, the GTX slaughters it', but 50% of 16.6 fps is bugger all, and it's still too slow to be acceptable in practice. thats why i dont count these sorts of benchmarks as its only 8 or so fps faster (and thats over the average as well) and is still well short of acceptable performance.

its wrong to say get a gtx over two gt's for high res gaming 'because it will last longer'. the truth is if you're going to use high res and lots of aa, then the GTX isnt going to last much longer that the GT, if at all

it's all irrelevant to me in all honesty, because ive not needed anything more than 4xfsaa on anything @ 1290x1080 and usually 2xFSAA is just fine. like ive said before, bioshock...1080p on a 40" screen.....wow.

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:52

Sorry but my link did not disprove my point. You claim the differences were small but those differences were the difference between playerble and not. You are just out to destroy everyone elses views i have no intrest in arguing with you as it appears to be your hobby on here.

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:03

hey, it sup to you whether you want to discuss this like adult or thinly vail an attack like that towards me. ive not been rude or said anything about you, ever in fact. you are going to have to get over this problem you seem to have with me.

owning a GTX, and playing at 1080p, i'm very much qualified to make a statement. you do neither but you seem to think its ok to say:

You people are expecting to much from the card. Great bargin but not for the big screens.

...and using benchmarks at 1600x1200 to prove a point you made about gaming at 1080p and above, when your own link to benchmarks at 1920x1200 totally disproved your

..Im not going to argue this twice but like i said before gaming on a 24" with aa and AF and it will make a substantial difference.

statement.

i am fair and totally unbiased in my views. why cant you just accept that? get over the fact that helmut doesnt like me, because believe me im not the only person he doesnt like.

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:08

So your saying that if a card is doing badly and getting beaten the moment AA and AF is added in benchmarks at a lower resolution it will bounce back?

Look at benchmarks with and without AA and AF and you will see how it loss's a lot of its performance when its added. Specialy in intense games, which doesn't include the likes of Team Fortress. This card starts gettig over taken by a GTS when they are added even though this card is far faster then the GTS. This shows that it must be the 320bit interface which is helping the GTs and the 256bit which is crippling the GT. You cannot argue this, ive already been through a 3 page arguement with easy rider on this and i proved that the Gt is crippled by the aa and af at the high resolutions and therefoer is not worth buying if you have a 24" or above and want to max the games out.

Im fed up of arguing this.

Darkwave · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:21

8igdave said:
doing badly and getting beaten the moment AA and AF is added in benchmarks

That's not what I am seeing. :confused:

MumboJumbo · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:25

thats strange because they seem to not only contradict but also only use 4xaa ive been specificaly saying maxed out. the difference between the hit of 4x and 8x is quite a lot.

Where is the full review?

james.miller · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:27

8igdave said:
So your saying that if a card is doing badly and getting beaten the moment AA and AF is added in benchmarks at a lower resolution it will bounce back?

it does, actually. looking at your own benchmarks, and others around, its quite clear that the gtx's are more efficient up to around 1600x1200 (funnily enough) but towards the top end, things even out much more. my own thoughts on this, is that the GT's are the more efficient design - which would make sense, they tighten up the core and improve some features, but its bandwidth limits do come in to play above that, which means that the cards are virtually even at 1080p and above.

lost planet

1680x1050 4xfsaa

gt 25.6
gtx 33.6

difference - 8 fps

1920x1200 4xfsaa
gt - 18.3
gtx 28.7

difference - 8.4 fps

2560x1600 0xAA

gt - 14.9
gtx - 19.8

difference - 4.9 fps

TF2:

1680x1050 4xfsaa

gt - 93.4
gtx - 104.2

difference - 10.8

1920x1200 4xfsaa

gt - 75.2
gtx - 84.6

difference 9.4 fps

1920x1200 8xfsaa

gt 57.0
gtx - 66.0

difference 9.0 fps

2560x1600 0xfsaa

gt - 69.2
gtx 73.1

difference 3.9 fps

2560x1600 4xfsaa

gt 46.3
gtx 53.1 6.8fps

ET; quake wars

1680x1050 4xfsaa

gt 68.0
gtx 83.2

difference - 15.2

1920x1200 4xfsaa

gt 55.1
gtx 68.6

difference - 13.5

...and it goes on. of course the GTX is faster, but the gap doesnt open up. it actually gets smaller in the majorty of cases (not that it isnt quite small anyway) totally dispelling any myth that the gt gives up with high res and AA.

Im fed up of arguing this.

Also that is only 4x AA. ive been specificaly saying maxed out. the difference between the hit of 4x and 8x is quite a lot.

in which case, shouldnt we be asking for tests at 16xfsaa and not 8? still, nobody has shown me anything to prove it makes any difference at these resolutions, and ive asked more than once lol

RavenXXX2 · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:30

Yeah the majority of reviews i have seen show the GT to handle AA/AF easily and its always just behind the GTX until you to extreme rez and AA and even then you wouldn't call the fps of the GTX comfortable gameplay.