8800GT vs 8800GTS 320

josh2thad · Nov 7, 2007, 12:39 AM

Currently i have the XFX 8800GTS XXX Edition. I'm pretty happy with this card currently. But from the benchmarks i've seen around the 'net im a 'tad confussed. I thought that specs were specs and that 320 bit memory was better, i dont understand how the 8800 GT beats this card in amlost every benchmark? i thought GTS>GT? is it because its 512 mb? whats more important speed or size because ive always tried to get the hight speed Example 320>256>128...

CDsDontBurn · Nov 7, 2007, 02:46 AM

the architecture of the 8800GT card is different to that of the 8800GTS card. the 8800GT would be more comparable to the current 8800GTS 640MB card respectively.

each of the two cards are better than each other other different perspectives. one has more memory, higher bus bit rate, etc. the other has more stream processors, higher clock speeds, etc.

but the 320MB doesn't have nearly as much memory as the 640MB to compare with the 8800GT in all regards.

i would be interested in seeing the benchmarks between the 640MB 8800GTS and the 8800GT card though.

Chaos · Nov 7, 2007, 07:50 AM

I think the 8800GT would win most benchmarks against a 640MB GTS until high resolution and AA/AF are added to the picture

josh2thad · Nov 7, 2007, 01:24 PM

well seems to me they have screwed their selves on the rating extentions now as far as GT and GTS go. Who will know what to buy? everyone i know things that a GTS is better than a GT.. because it was the norm untill now. people upgrading from a GTS to GT? wtf

jp306 · Nov 7, 2007, 01:48 PM

The naming schemes on most video cards are confusing on purpose IMO. It always has been like that and always will be. It confuses people that aren't in the know about PC hardware.

Tipstaff · Nov 7, 2007, 09:26 PM

What will really confuse people is that there will be 2 variations on the GTS come mid November when Nvidia launches the GTS that uses the same chip that the 8800GT has.

On top of that, manufacturers are releasing revised G80 chips that have slightly higher clocks, and some of the stream processors unlocked, but people (and this is where I got conned) are being misinformed into thinking that these are the G92 based cards.

CDsDontBurn · Nov 8, 2007, 01:09 AM

the revised g80 core will be a good thing i think. it will keep the GTS, the 640MB version at least, on top of the 8800GT. This i feel will also keep the current pricing scheme appropriate for performance to price ratio of the two cards; this of course, assuming that the current pricing does not change for the 640MB 8800GTS cards. the 320MB 8800GTS cards should be discontinued IMO now that the 8800GT cards have been launched.

josh2thad · Nov 8, 2007, 02:13 AM

makes me want to ditch this 8800GTS but i dont game all that much anymore so i guess ill just keep it... I want an 8800GT tho.. or maybe the NEW gts?

OmegaRED · Nov 9, 2007, 04:58 PM

When the 320mb is overclocked it holds up pretty well against the 8800GT(stock) so I wouldn't worry too much about it. Now that people are unloading their GTS's you could buy a used one for cheap and then SLI.

Tipstaff · Nov 10, 2007, 08:54 AM

Well.. ordered a BFG 8800GT OC this time around. My God you guys wouldn't believe how hard it is to get any 8800GT, and how much markup there is on these things. For instance, everyone seen the price for the Asus 8800GT? $300+ dollars? Well guess how much the distributor sells it for? $238. Yep.. you read that right, but guess how long I have to wait to get one? Put it this way: Asus sends out cards in lots of 50, and these guys have to fill 500 back orders, with me being 501. Not waiting.

EVGA? If I could get one, I would, but they are sooo damn back ordered it's not funny. Unlike Asus, though, EVGA sends out more lots at a time, but I'll be damned if I can't find one single card at all.

SFOSOK · Nov 14, 2007, 02:58 PM

Isn't the 8800 GT more comparable to the 8800 GTX?

Review

I was just about to buy an 8800 GTS 640 then the GT popped out of no where for 100 to 200 cheaper and much better in performance.

The weird thing is that I keep reading their performance reviews in crysis and my 7800GTX can play near the same framerate on high.

For the price you can't beat the GT and it matches the 8800 gtx at everything but ultra high resolutions. It also uses less power and heat.

deathvirus_me · Nov 28, 2007, 03:16 PM

Well , the 320 MB always limited the 8800GTS somehow ... and from the current benchmarks , and from my personal experiences , for the same price the 8800GT 512 MB is a great upgrade , particularly since the 8800GT oc's damm well , and at times , easily touches the 8800GTX's performance .. My opinions are dx9.0c biased though , coz i don't think about dx10 anyway ..

savo_x86 · Nov 28, 2007, 07:38 PM

todays high end graphic cards are not limited by memory bandwidth ...with 256bit memory bus at 1.8GHz we are talking about 55GB of data that has to be processed every second...8800gt simply has more stream processors (112 compared to 96 on a 8800gts) so it gives you more performance just because of a greater muscle power I.E. stream processors...also, these stream processors are clocked much higher than on a 8800gts...so, conclusion...8800gt has more stream processors that are clocked higher than 8800gts...it's as simple as that...the amount of memory is important if you are playing at higher resolutions and on higher video settings...the greater the level of details, more memory it requires...greater resolution...you need a whole lot of memory...AA and AF enabled...well, then you are in trouble... :P

CDsDontBurn · Nov 28, 2007, 09:02 PM

^^ what he said

Tipstaff · Nov 29, 2007, 12:23 AM

Hell.. people seem to think that a slower CPU can be a hindrance to a high end graphics card, and while that may be true to the very top, or when running the card in ultra high resolutions (2500x1600), but it's not true with the 8800GT running in 1280x1024, or 1680x1050... the resolution the average person is running in.

For instance, while I'm not a fan of 3DMark06 it did help to persuade me not to upgrade my CPU atm (although I might still do it due to a deal coming down the pipe from Intel). Take a look at my specs on the side bar. Those are for my gaming rig. With those specs, and a nicely tweaked system to boot, I got 10400 3DMarks (4000 more then my previous Crossfire x1950 Pro setup, btw). Now, take that same card, and drop it into a tweaked system running on a P35 board, a Core 2 E6850 (which is 3GHz @ 1333mhz bus), 2GB of DDR2-667 (fast timings), and everything else pretty much the same. You would think that this new system would generate some nice scores, right? Well it didn't. I only got 700 3DMarks more, 11239 to be exact. AND I did this test in Vista as well with the exact same setup, and what I got for my troubles was exactly 11 points less.

Suffice it to say, while the faster CPU did generate higher scores, it wasn't by a whole damn lot. Hell, I could have gotten those scores just by overclocking the card. Come to think of it... I think I'll do that right now.