XXXXXX

This topic is locked from further discussion.

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

Can someone please describe the difference in performance in a 640 MB 8800 GTS card ($385) is vs a 320 MB 8800 GTS ($300) card is. Is it worth the extra $85 to go w/ the 640 MB?

I'm primarily a RTS (Dow, C&C3 & Supcom...) & racing (needforspeed, etc.) PC player. Not really into 1st person shooters at all. Should this affect my decision on going w/ a 320 MB vs a 640 MB card?

Thanks in advance.

18 years ago

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

link in case anyone's intersted: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Order=PRICE&Page=1&N=0&Submit=ENE&Nty=1&Description=8800+gts&Ntk=all

18 years ago

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

nm... there's a cool review on the front page... just kick me. :(

18 years ago

435

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 435 Posts

if i was u i'll take...640Mb...

18 years ago

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

do you think the difference will be significatly noticible?

18 years ago

766

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 766 Posts

do you think the difference will be significatly noticible?Phantasticus

It's when you run games in a resolution higher then 1920x1200 then you will see a difference for current games (same GPU) But then again future games will need more graphics memory..

18 years ago

407

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#7 matthewjackman

Member since 2006 • 407 Posts

Only at high resolutions.

18 years ago

435

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 435 Posts

yes i was too lazy to explain why choose the 640Mb...now u understand why...

18 years ago

19738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2003 • 19738 Posts

Yeah.. So for 1024X768... just stay with the 320 Mb one...

18 years ago

435

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 435 Posts

i personally dont think its worth it buying a 8-series card for a 15" monitor...i rather get a 17" or 19"...

18 years ago

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

I've got a samsung 940b monitor w/ a 1280 X 1024 resolution. Would it be worth it for me to get a 640 MB?

18 years ago

2783

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 2783 Posts

I've got a samsung 940b monitor w/ a 1280 X 1024 resolution. Would it be worth it for me to get a 640 MB? Phantasticus

Read the benchmark on Anandtech. Personally I'd get the 320 MB, especially with that monitor. Basically... a few games had a great benefit from that much memory, other than that the 320 MB card only struggled with 4x AA, and stupid high resolutions.

18 years ago

435

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 435 Posts

lol...stupid high resolution...thats an interesting one...i'm aniticipating of playing games at high res high graphics...b/c its been more than 5 years that i play games in 1024X800 and low graphics...yes for that 1280X768 res u should get the 320MB one...if u planning to get a 20" monitor with 1600X1200 res then 640MB would be a better chose

18 years ago

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 frost_mourne13

Member since 2006 • 1615 Posts

Well, on resolutions up to 1600 x 1200, an OC'ed version pwns the 640 MB, but in super high res, the higher memory of the 640mb version. So the 320 MB Oc'ed version is recommended if you dont have a 24"+ screen. Plus, it costs less =)

18 years ago

435

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 435 Posts

but some games require high memory to get tha best out of it...

18 years ago

442

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 442 Posts

I am soo tempted to get the 320MB version right now because it looks like such a good value(from anandtech benchmarks), but the ati x2k series are coming out in three weeks. I want to see what the ati is capable of and I'm hoping it will drive down the price of the 8800 too.

18 years ago

Generalkill8888

5305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 Generalkill8888

Member since 2004 • 5305 Posts

Can someone please describe the difference in performance in a 640 MB 8800 GTS card ($385) is vs a 320 MB 8800 GTS ($300) card is. Is it worth the extra $85 to go w/ the 640 MB?
I'm primarily a RTS (Dow, C&C3 & Supcom...) & racing (needforspeed, etc.) PC player. Not really into 1st person shooters at all. Should this affect my decision on going w/ a 320 MB vs a 640 MB card?
Thanks in advance.
Phantasticus

If your gaming on lower resolutions I would take the 320mb in a heartbeat.

18 years ago

6273

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 6273 Posts

Yeah.. So for 1024X768... just stay with the 320 Mb one...KSlater85

1024x768 will be a huge bottleneck for a 8800GTS 320,just get a 8600U for that resolution.

18 years ago

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 frost_mourne13

Member since 2006 • 1615 Posts

How so? read this review
it only suffers on ultra high resolutions. In fact, the 320MB beats the 640MB version because the extra memory is not needed, and the 320MB's faster speeds overtake the 640MB version, on "lower" resolutions

18 years ago

36

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 36 Posts

here is something that might pursuade: http://www.xfxforce.com/web/viewFeature.jspa?featureId=901525
It costs $330 and comes with Call of Duty 2 and Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for free. Now, $100 for that extra ram is a debate, i cant figure out which to get either honestly...

18 years ago

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 frost_mourne13

Member since 2006 • 1615 Posts

WHOA. COD2? i thot it only came with GRAW sweet. its the 576/1800 version, right?

18 years ago

1525

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 1525 Posts

Well IMO no diff realy only that games that WANT 512 will fail to reconise 320 like GR:AW :(

18 years ago

1615

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 frost_mourne13

Member since 2006 • 1615 Posts

dude, wonder that graw2 will ask for. 2 gb, please?

18 years ago

Generalkill8888

5305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 Generalkill8888

Member since 2004 • 5305 Posts

[QUOTE="KSlater85"]Yeah.. So for 1024X768... just stay with the 320 Mb one...AARONRULZ1

1024x768 will be a huge bottleneck for a 8800GTS 320,just get a 8600U for that resolution.

How do you know? No DX10 games are out.

18 years ago

8575

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 Xbox360gamer1

Member since 2005 • 8575 Posts

For RTS I would say 640mb, Just because th NPCs on scren can always use it

18 years ago

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

For RTS I would say 640mb, Just because th NPCs on scren can always use itXbox360gamer1

Thanks for all of the feedback everyone. Anyone else agree w/ the RTS's needing 640 MB? Was wondering about that... in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade there is an option to modify the amount of dead bodies on the screen. This option will severely slow my current system down (2.8 ghz proc, 1 gig RAM, 6600 gt vid. card). I wonder if other features like the persistant dead bodies cranked all the way up would slow a 320 MB 8800 card down? Not that I'm really into massive fields full of dead bodies... but, I'm spending a chunk of $ on a video card I want it to run slick as lard on a brass knob cranked all the way up. BTW, I'll be getting a dual core proc. to run that 8800... Long live RTS's!!!

17 years ago

2700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 2700 Posts

I have to say that RTS games are slightly more RAM and CPU intensive. I suppose they need more RAM to run at max settings. As for choosing between the 320 and 640, it's a difficult one. For current games, 340 is more than enough - but more RAM is handy for games in the years to come.

17 years ago

201

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Phantasticus

Member since 2004 • 201 Posts

Well... If I can remember to send that dang rebate in, it looks like I can get the 640 for about $350-$360 (newegg.com)... not to shabby for double the RAM...

17 years ago

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment