• 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.

X-bit labs: 8 Series shootout- GTS 320 vs 640 gap closed?

Soldato
Joined
3 Nov 2004
Posts
9,871
Location
UK
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8-roundup.html

The GeForce 8800 GTS, with 640MB or 320MB of graphics memory, runs modern games at an acceptable speed and provides comfortable gaming conditions in resolutions up to 1600x1200 and, occasionally, even to 1920x1200. The results of the two versions of the card are in fact identical and purchasing the more expensive 640MB version isn’t reasonable. You may want to add some more money and buy a GeForce 8800 GTX instead.

bf2142_4x.gif


nwn2_4x.gif


trl_4x.gif


coj_hdr.gif


stalker_hdr.gif
 
Last edited:
The S.T.A.L.K.E.R tests with 8800GTS dont add up tbh, ive run tests using the 320mb and 640mb versions using same PC build with said game, 640mb version was always faster. Rest of tests i can't comment on.
 
Last edited:
Sean_UK said:
The S.T.A.L.K.E.R tests with 8800GTS dont add up tbh, ive run tests using the 320mb and 640mb versions using same PC build with said game, 640mb version was always faster. Rest of tests i can't comment on.


Was tested on Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit; wich takes up some system ram to be used as addidtional GFX's RAM, just looks like stalker doesn't need fast ''on-board'' gfx ram but system ram is good enough to make up for the loss of the 320 mb.
Hell, my 6800GS appears to have 1 gb of gfx RAM in vista...
Let me guess you tested in xp? Well xp doesn't assign system ram for the GPU so in xp less gfx ram is a much heavier blow to performance as in vista.
 
This has to be something caused by Vista or drivers in Vista, because something doesn't add up. I have a 640 MB GTS and a friend of mine has a 320 MB GTS, and mine is noticably faster in many games, especially at higher resolutions and with higher levels of AA/AF.
 
I'm not trying to pick holes here, but for me personally with the 640Mb GTS I try and always play my games with 8Q AA. Perhaps if the benchmarks did that, there would be a greater difference instead of just using AF?
 
Dutch Guy said:
It's prolly ******* Vista messing up, no way a 320MB card is just as fast as a 640MB card in STALKER, at 1280*1024 the game already uses 514MB of the videocard memory.
yeah, notice that the only test there using AA is Tomb Raider which is the least demanding of the games. Maybe the difference without AA is negligible. BTW what are the figures in white about half way up the bars?
 
MystaEB said:
They use AA in some of the other tests (View the link) but never higher than 4x for whatever reason.

The figure halfway up the bars is the minimum FPS value.
Thanks, cba to read through 20 odd pages. Seems like the tests therefore are designed to illustrate a point rather than being totally objective. Don't get me wrong, the 320MB card is a cracker and as I play at 1280x1024, I saw no point in getting the 640MB version. Will hang on to my GTS until early next year when something noticeably better should be out for a sensible price. I ain't paying £300+ for a GTX.
 
Dutch Guy said:
It's prolly ******* Vista messing up, no way a 320MB card is just as fast as a 640MB card in STALKER, at 1280*1024 the game already uses 514MB of the videocard memory.

I agree here. They're doing something wrong in that test.

It's well known (and proven) in many benchmarks that the card chokes at high detail 1600x1200 in the newest games.
 
Yep gaming at 1280x1024 here so 320mb GTS was the way to go for me, plus theres nothing wrong with Stalker, i play it maxed out, Full Dynamic Lighting and get between 50-60fps with v-Sync on (i posted a screenshot in another thread showing), runs great, mind you im on XP so can't comment on how it runs in Vista, ive never seen it use over 500mb, everytime i leave the game it always reports less than 300mb (when all that disconnecting etc... comes up, if thats the memory as well there its showing). :)

Only trouble i have is when i enter a new zone, i have to save and quit the game as for some reason it doesn't clear the previous the zone from the memory so it lags, other than that though its fine as once ive saved and restarted i can go through the whole of the zone perfect, they may fix that in a patch though, clear the memory from the previous zone when entering a new one.
 
Last edited:
Sean_UK said:
The S.T.A.L.K.E.R tests with 8800GTS dont add up tbh, ive run tests using the 320mb and 640mb versions using same PC build with said game, 640mb version was always faster. Rest of tests i can't comment on.
In Vista with 158.24's? Can we exclude the possibility NV were deliberately holding back the 320Mb? Is it possible the offset was there to create a price point until they had a little 'competition'?


8800 GTS 640MB vs. GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/msi8800gts-640.html

Same place, only XP 97.92, though different system. Strange, the 320Mb improves quite a lot in their latest test.
 
Last edited:
Dutch Guy said:
It's prolly ******* Vista messing up, no way a 320MB card is just as fast as a 640MB card in STALKER, at 1280*1024 the game already uses 514MB of the videocard memory.

PEOPLE, VISTA assigns SYSTEM RAM to be used as GFX ram, in Vista GFX ram isn't a Problem as every time A game demands more than the assigned gfx memory, Vista expands the Graphics memory.

This has to be something caused by Vista or drivers in Vista, because something doesn't add up. I have a 640 MB GTS and a friend of mine has a 320 MB GTS, and mine is noticably faster in many games, especially at higher resolutions and with higher levels of AA/AF.

Same explantion Vista expands gfx RAM, Reserves System RAM for the GPU.

Vista does NOT reduce performance on the 640 mb version, it increases the performance on the 320 MB, or any card that has less ram than a game needs.

Tute said:
I agree here. They're doing something wrong in that test.

It's well known (and proven) in many benchmarks that the card chokes at high detail 1600x1200 in the newest games.

Not anymore in Vista & pc with fast System ram.

The overall performance on vista may be lower than in xp, but vista is a lot less affected by gfx with few ram.
 
Last edited:
Just a bit off topic here, looking at the results of their tests it does'nt half show how pants the 8600 series is. They are way behind the 320mb 8800gts, even the 8600gts sucks big time. I have seen those for sale more expensive than a 8800gts 320mb. :eek:
 
pastymuncher said:
Just a bit off topic here, looking at the results of their tests it does'nt half show how pants the 8600 series is. They are way behind the 320mb 8800gts, even the 8600gts sucks big time. I have seen those for sale more expensive than a 8800gts 320mb. :eek:
Aye :( Although roll on G92's and better midrange stuff :)
 
Back
Top Bottom