• 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.

Which nvidia?

drak3

drak3

drak3

Associate
Joined
26 Jan 2006
Posts
1,502
I am totaly confused with nvidia naming :(

I am looking for a good nvidia card (need nvidia because of linux native support) and I the 9600 looks good, but then again the 8800GT and GTS, GTX
are closely priced.

Which is the best performer with this mess on names?
 
"640mb 8800GTS
256mb 8800GT"

Ohh, debatable that. :p

Edit: A more complete list would be:

8800 GS
8800 GTS's
8800 GT 256
9600 GT
8800 GT 512
8800 GTS 512
9800 GTX
8800 GTX
9800 GX2
 
Last edited:
An 8800GTX is better than the 9800GTX ... you see what I mean? nvidia really messed this up!


so I should be looking for a used 8800GTX I guess. Seen some quite cheap!
 
what res do you play at?

different cards are better for different things:confused:

GTX is by far the best at high resolutions(1600 x 1200+) and the GT 512 and the GTS 512 are good at low/mid resolutions(1280 x 1024)

i think...:p
 
drak3 said:
An 8800GTX is better than the 9800GTX ... you see what I mean? nvidia really messed this up!
Click to expand...

Yeah they pulled a fast on on us, the 9800GTX is actually a slightly tweaked 8800GTS and not tweaked by much.

I'm running an 8800 GTS 512MB at 1920 x 1200 at max detail on all my games and it runs them great, it is comparable to the 8800 GTX.
 
I am a fool not buying an ultra when I had the chance for a stupid price it was!

I will look for an 8800 gtx or ulta as they seem the best option for the time.

Nvidia went too green it seems with all this recycling lately!
 
drak3 said:
I will look for an 8800 gtx or ulta as they seem the best option for the time.
Click to expand...

They may be the two top cards but they are not the best when it comes to value for money. You should be looking at the 8800 GTS 512 and the 8800 GT because they are based on the newer G92 chipsets and are a lot cheaper. The 8800 GTS 512 actually outperforms the 8800 GTX in some situations because of the newer chipset and the 8800 GT isn't far behind. These cards will easily run resolutions up to 1920 x 1200 (24" LCD Native) at high detail.
 
RobH said:
They may be the two top cards but they are not the best when it comes to value for money. You should be looking at the 8800 GTS 512 and the 8800 GT because they are based on the newer G92 chipsets and are a lot cheaper. The 8800 GTS 512 actually outperforms the 8800 GTX in some situations because of the newer chipset and the 8800 GT isn't far behind. These cards will easily run resolutions up to 1920 x 1200 (24" LCD Native) at high detail.
Click to expand...

True about the new core. In fact, I do have a 24" monitor. Currently I am using an ATI 3870 XT (clocked to 825Mhz). Is "OK" with 1920x1200 but ATI linux support sucks.

I could get a 8800GTS 512 new (price is ok). Will I gain performance (over the ATI) and solve my linux support problem you think?

(believe it or not, nvidia seems to work on linux drivers more than M$ ;p)
 
Lightnix said:
"640mb 8800GTS
256mb 8800GT"

Ohh, debatable that. :p

Edit: A more complete list would be:

8800 GS
8800 GTS's
8800 GT 256
9600 GT
8800 GT 512
8800 GTS 512
9800 GTX
8800 GTX
9800 GX2
Click to expand...

Or

8800 GS
8800 GT 256
8800 GTS 320
9600 GT
8800 GTS 640
8800 GT
8800 GTS 512
9800 GTX
8800 GTX
8800 Ultra
9800 GX2

From the benchmarks I've seen from the 8800 256mb GT's they're pretty woefull at anything over 1280x1024. I've also had both the old 640mb G80 8800GTS and the newer 8800GT and the diffference was not particuarly noticeable, framerates were quite similar at my resolution of 1680x1050.
 
RobH said:
They may be the two top cards but they are not the best when it comes to value for money. You should be looking at the 8800 GTS 512 and the 8800 GT because they are based on the newer G92 chipsets and are a lot cheaper. The 8800 GTS 512 actually outperforms the 8800 GTX in some situations because of the newer chipset and the 8800 GT isn't far behind. These cards will easily run resolutions up to 1920 x 1200 (24" LCD Native) at high detail.
Click to expand...

This is debatable. I just whacked a free downloadable game on my PC about 5 days ago and even that @ 1600x1200 can slow my card down. 16xAF, 4xAA with everything set to max in TrackMania Nations Forever. My screen is capable of 2048x1536 so you can see I had to tone it down. What I'm getting at is that we all know the 8800GTX has better bandwidth than any G92 based card and I'm feeling the burn at over 1600x1200 with a free game that is under 1gb in size. The AA applied and resolution could go a lot further but I want my game to be smooth and free flowing as possible. How could the G92 do better at 1920x1200+ with less bandwidth available?.

If anyone has got this game and a G92 card then set everything to max as well as check all the boxes in the graphic options and use 4xAA with 16xAF @ 1600x1200, 1920x1200 and 2048x1536 if possible to compare with the inbuilt benchmark.

@ 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF Max game settings = 51FPS

@ 1920x1200 4xAA/16xAF Max game settings = 41FPS

@ 2048x1536 4xAA/16xAF Max game settings = 37.5FPS

So if a free game can do this to the 8800GTX then how is the 8800GT/GTS/9800GTX affected?. This was only running 4xAA. If anyone wants to test this then I will run with more AA on any resolution required (up to my screens max) to compare. (A free game also which is pretty good, looks great and is challenging :)).

I'm just interested to see how the G92 will cope with less bandwidth in this situation.
 
Ooops had motion blur off - as I hate it.

45fps at 1920x1200 with all max settings 4x FSAA/16x AF. (With motion blur on)

With my normal settings which are above Very High (complex shadows, dynamic colors) but with motion blur off as I hate it - I get 72fps at 1920x1200. To my mind its better to play without the motion blur as it seems to hit the fps hard and look crappy.

My graphics card is an 8800GT with a moderate overclock.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Ooops had motion blur off - as I hate it.

45fps at 1920x1200 with all max settings 4x FSAA/16x AF. (With motion blur on)

With my normal settings which are above Very High (complex shadows, dynamic colors) but with motion blur off as I hate it - I get 72fps at 1920x1200. To my mind its better to play without the motion blur as it seems to hit the fps hard and look crappy.

My graphics card is an 8800GT with a moderate overclock.
Click to expand...

My bad. I got the resolutions wrong. I tested at 1920x1440 and not 1920x1200. I forgot that I ran 4:3 instead of widescreen as I'm using a CRT.

I just installed the 174.93 drivers and with an overclock of 620Mhz core, 1600Mhz Shaders and 1000Mhz Memory I scored as follows:

4xAA/16xAF with everything checked in the advanced graphics options.

1600x1200 = 51.8FPS

1920x1200 = 46.2FPS

1920x1440 = 41.9FPS

4xAA/16xAF with everything apart from motion blur checked in the advanced graphics options.

1600x1200 = 73.7FPS

1920x1200 = 67.7FPS

1920x1440 = 63.6FPS

trackmaniabenchmarknm7.jpg


The picture is everything I had selected when using motion blur and only unchecked that for the second batch of tests. I do agree it's much better with it off. I'll be able to play it more comfortably at 1920x1440 with 63.6FPS :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom