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

stickroad · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:00

willhub said:
That stalker test aint right, I never ever get down to 23fps, and my average I would say is around 50.

G92 is between 8600 and 8800GTS performance

Yes its G90 that will be hopefully outperforming the GTX/Ultra.

willhub · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:04

stickroad said:
Yes its G90 that will be hopefully outperforming the GTX/Ultra.

It better do, I hope DX10 improves because I dont want to spend 400 quid on a G90, but I am prepared to if it means smooth DX10 performance, I guess DX10 on the 8800's and other mid end cards is just a gimmick like 512mb ram used to be.

Yea I guess thats it, DX10 is just a gimmick on the 8800's, bring on the propor mid range and high end cards for DX10, safe to say 8800GTS/GTX are DX10's low end cards

Teaf · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:04

willhub said:
G92 is between 8600 and 8800GTS performance

Oh I thought it was between the 8800 GTS and the 8600 GTS, like an 8700 stylee :/

-Nick- · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:13

so are these results accurate? would they be much different with xp?
i just want to know if there is any point in me spending an extra 60quid now for a 640 over the 320. i would be running it at 1680x1050.

i suppose i could always get an evga and upgrade it within the 90 days period thing

willhub · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:19

-Nick- said:
so are these results accurate? would they be much different with xp?
i just want to know if there is any point in me spending an extra 60quid now for a 640 over the 320. i would be running it at 1680x1050.

i suppose i could always get an evga and u[grade it within the 90 days period thing

I would, I dont trust many reviews anymore. I only game at 1440x900 and I got the 640mb, I rekon even at this res some games will use more than 320mb ram for isntances Oblivion with a Hi-Res texture pack.

titaniumx3 · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:20

Results look really fishy to me. Unless Ati Tray Tools lying to me, CoH definitely uses around 500mb of ram, so there's no way the 320mb GTS is gonna beat a 640mb GTS in that.

In fact, they've completely changed their testbed and comparing some of the scores with the previous benchmarks don't add up. Seems like a FX60/DDR system beats a X6800/DDR2 system in certain cases. :confused:

james.miller · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:24

snowdog said:
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.

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.

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.

it's doubtful that some ~7gb/sec system ram is going to make up for the deficit seen in windows xp.

i was wondering about the whole ram issue. according to vista my 8800gtx has 1.5gb and my 7300gt has 1gb lol :cool:

Cyber-Mav · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:29

the call of juarez benchmark looks low across the board, is it running the dx10 version?

willhub · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:32

Cyber-Mav said:
the call of juarez benchmark looks low across the board, is it running the dx10 version?

CoJ looks about right I thought, DX10 runs much worse than that.

fornowagain · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:47

titaniumx3 said:
In fact, they've completely changed their testbed and comparing some of the scores with the previous benchmarks don't add up. Seems like a FX60/DDR system beats a X6800/DDR2 system in certain cases.

Looks like they changed back in May for the 2900XT review. As far as graphics bottlenecks go, I don't see as valid any direct comparison between the two systems with different operating systems and drivers.

Cyber-Mav · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:48

willhub said:
CoJ looks about right I thought, DX10 runs much worse than that.

ahh i just remembered i play with shadows turned off thats why my performance is a bucket load higher. one i put shadows on to full i get around the same scores as the 8600gt in that above benchmark.

willhub · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:55

Cyber-Mav said:
ahh i just remembered i play with shadows turned off thats why my performance is a bucket load higher. one i put shadows on to full i get around the same scores as the 8600gt in that above benchmark.

You should get higher than an 8600GT O_o

Cyber-Mav · 12 Jul 2007 at 15:57

willhub said:
You should get higher than an 8600GT O_o

i running vista 64 so ati's current driver for vista64 take a bit of a hammering in speed. hopefully they can get vista speeds up to xp speeds over the next few driver releases.

although i hope they sort out some additional driver stability though.

willhub · 12 Jul 2007 at 16:06

Cyber-Mav said:
i running vista 64 so ati's current driver for vista64 take a bit of a hammering in speed. hopefully they can get vista speeds up to xp speeds over the next few driver releases.

although i hope they sort out some additional driver stability though.

I thought ATi had better Vista drivers than Nvidia.

Dutch Guy · 12 Jul 2007 at 16:08

I can understand Vista reserves system RAM to use as graphics RAM but IIRC system ram has a bandwith of 7GB/sec max vs a 8800GTS that has 64GB/sec so does that mean that STALKER is very little bandwith limited as it gives the same performance :confused:

killer_uk · 12 Jul 2007 at 16:10

willhub said:
I thought ATi had better Vista drivers than Nvidia.

I believe the 64bit driver for vista is slightly lacking, the 32bit version is rock solid.

Cyber-Mav · 12 Jul 2007 at 16:13

yea 64bit driver is a bit behind but hopefully they can sort it out in the future.

willhub · 12 Jul 2007 at 16:36

TBH all NV/ATi drivers need improving for all OS's.

Cyber-Mav · 12 Jul 2007 at 17:00

willhub said:
TBH all NV/ATi drivers need improving for all OS's.

ill agree to that. although xp drivers are more mature than vista ones.

Rroff · 12 Jul 2007 at 17:09

Wow some really mis-informed opinions in this thread/link...

"in fact identical and purchasing the more expensive 640MB version isn’t reasonable." - ROFL!!! Ok in older DX9 titles there is no difference - but in games that can load more than 300megs of texture data in higher quality settings theres going to be a huge huge performance difference...

and NO you can't make up that performance difference even in vista using system memory - even if you had DDR3 with 25+gig/s for your system RAM theres penalties in latency, batching and the fact that the various buses are also shared with whatever else the system is doing...