8800gts 320 (FO) vs 8800gts 640

would you pick the f.o version with less memory or the stock card with more memory?

yes i know you could overclock the card yourself, but you could also overclock an already fo card an get even more performance. Also consider the price as well

would you pick the f.o version with less memory or the stock card with more memory?

yes i know you could overclock the card yourself, but you could also overclock an already fo card an get even more performance. Also consider the price as well

throwsomeDDs

f.o?

It really depends on what resolution you play at.

I have the 320mb version and it's an excellent card. If your playing at the higher resolutions and have the money there really isn't a reason not to get the 640mb version tho IMO.

That depends on what resolution you're running at.firefly026

1900x1200 being max res

[QUOTE="firefly026"]That depends on what resolution you're running at.throwsomeDDs

1900x1200 being max res

At 1900 * 1200 I would definitely advise the 640mb version.rfc2k

[QUOTE="rfc2k"]At 1900 * 1200 I would definitely advise the 640mb version.WhiteSnake5000

[QUOTE="WhiteSnake5000"][QUOTE="rfc2k"]At 1900 * 1200 I would definitely advise the 640mb version.kodex1717

Hes right, look at the charts on tomshardware.com. Cranking up the resolution really doesn't give the 640 mb version the edge that its supposed to. See for yourself. Search for vga charts on tomshardware.com.shanelevy

Would a 320 be enough playing at 1440 x 990 at max?GarchomPro

At 1900 * 1200 I would definitely advise the 640mb version.rfc2k

The resolution does not depend on memory. Only a few mb for ascreen at 1900*1200. It's texture quality and surface effect. 320mb is not bad for 8800gts.

[QUOTE="rfc2k"]At 1900 * 1200 I would definitely advise the 640mb version.Macolele

The resolution does not depend on memory. Only a few mb for ascreen at 1900*1200. It's texture quality and surface effect. 320mb is not bad for 8800gts.

Thats what I was thinking, although I didn't want to say that because I wasn't sure (but those VGA charts seemed to prove that). Anyways, at 1440x990 a 320 mb GTS should be just great, and spending an extra hundred for the 640 wouldnt affect your performance at all I imagine.

[QUOTE="shanelevy"]Hes right, look at the charts on tomshardware.com. Cranking up the resolution really doesn't give the 640 mb version the edge that its supposed to. See for yourself. Search for vga charts on tomshardware.com.firefly026

Yeah, its a quad-core with 2 gigs of ram, but why would that matter? Please explain. thanks.

Well doesn't sound like you're going with the 640, but if you do decide to get it, don't :). If you're going to pay the money for a 640, you might as well get a 2900XT which will perform much better and is at most $20 more. There really isn't any reason to get a 640 instead of a 2900XT.

[QUOTE="shanelevy"]Hes right, look at the charts on tomshardware.com. Cranking up the resolution really doesn't give the 640 mb version the edge that its supposed to. See for yourself. Search for vga charts on tomshardware.com.firefly026

No there wouldn't. Higher end CPUs don't give the benchmarkers more VRAM. The speeds of both cards are identical.

Here I'll explain,for example:

low end CPU:

8800 GTS320MB clocked at 500/700 (forgot actual speeds)

8800 GTS640MB500/700

The game is not using more then 250 VRAM at 1900x1200. Both cards have have more then 250VRAM. Only advantage from 8800GTS 640MB not being used. Everything else is the same. Game performence is the same. CPU allowing 80 FPS average for both cards.

high end CPU:

8800 GTS320MB500/700

8800 GTS640MB500/700

Game not using more then 250VRAM. Everything else is the same about the cards. Only advantage from 8800GTS 640MB not being used. Game performence is the same. CPU allowing 100FPS average for both cards.

[QUOTE="firefly026"][QUOTE="shanelevy"]Hes right, look at the charts on tomshardware.com. Cranking up the resolution really doesn't give the 640 mb version the edge that its supposed to. See for yourself. Search for vga charts on tomshardware.com.DarkRecruit

No there wouldn't. Higher end CPUs don't give the benchmarkers more VRAM. The speeds of both cards are identical.

[QUOTE="DarkRecruit"]

[QUOTE="firefly026"][QUOTE="shanelevy"]Hes right, look at the charts on tomshardware.com. Cranking up the resolution really doesn't give the 640 mb version the edge that its supposed to. See for yourself. Search for vga charts on tomshardware.com.firefly026

No there wouldn't. Higher end CPUs don't give the benchmarkers more VRAM. The speeds of both cards are identical.

There may be a difference between the graphic cards but the difference will not be affected by CPUs. Cause you said in the tomshardware benchmarks the performance of the 320MB version and 640MB were the same because it was a high end CPU and you said in mid-range CPUs there would be a difference. What I'm saying is if there was no difference with a high end cpu with the 640mb vs 320mb there wouldn't be with a lower end CPU.

[QUOTE="firefly026"][QUOTE="DarkRecruit"]

[QUOTE="firefly026"][QUOTE="shanelevy"]Hes right, look at the charts on tomshardware.com. Cranking up the resolution really doesn't give the 640 mb version the edge that its supposed to. See for yourself. Search for vga charts on tomshardware.com.DarkRecruit

No there wouldn't. Higher end CPUs don't give the benchmarkers more VRAM. The speeds of both cards are identical.

There may be a difference between the graphic cards but the difference will not be affected by CPUs. Cause you said in the tomshardware benchmarks the performance of the 320MB version and 640MB were the same because it was a high end CPU and you said in mid-range CPUs there would be a difference. What I'm saying is if there was no difference with a high end cpu with the 640mb vs 320mb there wouldn't be with a lower end CPU.

Well i have the stock 320 mb...but i overclocked it well past the gtx clocks. My dell monitor runs its native res at 1920x1200 and i see people saying 320 isnt enough, but i first hand disagree...its enough...for now. I run everything at max res and max settings and i blow through them. With Bioshock im running over 45 fps at all times in native res and max settings...and i average at 65 fps. So inorder to save money you CAN go with the 320, but come Crysis...the textures and AA will be too hard for the 320 mb to handle. If i were in your situation i would get the 320 now...and maybe step-up using eVGA later when the 620mb price comes down...that is if it does in november. Or just get the 640 now haha its ur call.Darkfire6247

There are several things wrong with what you are saying, which correlate with whats wrong with the 640 mb version of the 8800 GTS.

You are saying the reason to get a 640 bm 8800GTS is to be able to run crysis at 1900x1200. Now, I SERIOUSLY doubt that even the GTX or Ultra could run that game at that resolution, let alone a GTS. With only 96 stream processors I don't think the GTS can deal with that many pixels. I forsee the GTS playing the game on resolutions like 10x7 or 12x10, because seeing as how a GTX can barely play oblivion at 19x12, i don't see how a GTS can play crysis at 19x12.

This leads us to the inherent problem of the 8800 GTS 640mb. The huge amount of memory on the card is way out of balance with the processing power of the card. Don't get me wrong, the card is great, but to be able to utilize that much memory it must be playing games like Crysis, and it doesn't have the processing power to play crysis well at that resolution.

So theres absolutely no reason for someone to buy an 8800gts 640mb right ?anshul89

Right.

[QUOTE="Darkfire6247"]Well i have the stock 320 mb...but i overclocked it well past the gtx clocks. My dell monitor runs its native res at 1920x1200 and i see people saying 320 isnt enough, but i first hand disagree...its enough...for now. I run everything at max res and max settings and i blow through them. With Bioshock im running over 45 fps at all times in native res and max settings...and i average at 65 fps. So inorder to save money you CAN go with the 320, but come Crysis...the textures and AA will be too hard for the 320 mb to handle. If i were in your situation i would get the 320 now...and maybe step-up using eVGA later when the 620mb price comes down...that is if it does in november. Or just get the 640 now haha its ur call.shanelevy

There are several things wrong with what you are saying, which correlate with whats wrong with the 640 mb version of the 8800 GTS.

You are saying the reason to get a 640 bm 8800GTS is to be able to run crysis at 1900x1200. Now, I SERIOUSLY doubt that even the GTX or Ultra could run that game at that resolution, let alone a GTS. With only 96 stream processors I don't think the GTS can deal with that many pixels. I forsee the GTS playing the game on resolutions like 10x7 or 12x10, because seeing as how a GTX can barely play oblivion at 19x12, i don't see how a GTS can play crysis at 19x12.

This leads us to the inherent problem of the 8800 GTS 640mb. The huge amount of memory on the card is way out of balance with the processing power of the card. Don't get me wrong, the card is great, but to be able to utilize that much memory it must be playing games like Crysis, and it doesn't have the processing power to play crysis well at that resolution.

No im not saying get a 640mb to run crysis at native res...never once did i say that. I was going by what the topic is about (320 vs 640). That right now 320mb is good enough for games out now. And a 640mb will be better (not best) for games coming out later. I totally agree that a gts won't handle crysis at 19x12. There wasnt anything wrong with what i was saying.

[QUOTE="Darkfire6247"]Well i have the stock 320 mb...but i overclocked it well past the gtx clocks. My dell monitor runs its native res at 1920x1200 and i see people saying 320 isnt enough, but i first hand disagree...its enough...for now. I run everything at max res and max settings and i blow through them. With Bioshock im running over 45 fps at all times in native res and max settings...and i average at 65 fps. So inorder to save money you CAN go with the 320, but come Crysis...the textures and AA will be too hard for the 320 mb to handle. If i were in your situation i would get the 320 now...and maybe step-up using eVGA later when the 620mb price comes down...that is if it does in november. Or just get the 640 now haha its ur call.shanelevy

There are several things wrong with what you are saying, which correlate with whats wrong with the 640 mb version of the 8800 GTS.

You are saying the reason to get a 640 bm 8800GTS is to be able to run crysis at 1900x1200. Now, I SERIOUSLY doubt that even the GTX or Ultra could run that game at that resolution, let alone a GTS. With only 96 stream processors I don't think the GTS can deal with that many pixels. I forsee the GTS playing the game on resolutions like 10x7 or 12x10, because seeing as how a GTX can barely play oblivion at 19x12, i don't see how a GTS can play crysis at 19x12.

This leads us to the inherent problem of the 8800 GTS 640mb. The huge amount of memory on the card is way out of balance with the processing power of the card. Don't get me wrong, the card is great, but to be able to utilize that much memory it must be playing games like Crysis, and it doesn't have the processing power to play crysis well at that resolution.

Firs teach yourself about GPUs thatn talk that kind of things about 96 stream processors and bla bla bla. BS.

DX10 games need 512mb for texure memory, advanced AA, etc

If you buy the 320mb at the moment you cannot run Company of Heroes or Call of Juarez

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM4NCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

You will no doubt notice the drastic performance of the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS at these settings. Basically this video card lacks the RAM capacity to run at these settings in DX10 mode. The video card seems to be running out of local memory storage and thus is using the PCI-Express bus to transfer textures, utterly killing performance in this game at these high settings. It seems with the 320 MB GeForce 8800 GTS you are going to have to run at a lower resolution or lower settings. -[H]enthusiast

dont let any one trick you into buying the Gimped 320mb

[QUOTE="Darkfire6247"]Well i have the stock 320 mb...but i overclocked it well past the gtx clocks. My dell monitor runs its native res at 1920x1200 and i see people saying 320 isnt enough, but i first hand disagree...its enough...for now. I run everything at max res and max settings and i blow through them. With Bioshock im running over 45 fps at all times in native res and max settings...and i average at 65 fps. So inorder to save money you CAN go with the 320, but come Crysis...the textures and AA will be too hard for the 320 mb to handle. If i were in your situation i would get the 320 now...and maybe step-up using eVGA later when the 620mb price comes down...that is if it does in november. Or just get the 640 now haha its ur call.shanelevy

There are several things wrong with what you are saying, which correlate with whats wrong with the 640 mb version of the 8800 GTS.

You are saying the reason to get a 640 bm 8800GTS is to be able to run crysis at 1900x1200. Now, I SERIOUSLY doubt that even the GTX or Ultra could run that game at that resolution, let alone a GTS. With only 96 stream processors I don't think the GTS can deal with that many pixels. I forsee the GTS playing the game on resolutions like 10x7 or 12x10, because seeing as how a GTX can barely play oblivion at 19x12, i don't see how a GTS can play crysis at 19x12.

This leads us to the inherent problem of the 8800 GTS 640mb. The huge amount of memory on the card is way out of balance with the processing power of the card. Don't get me wrong, the card is great, but to be able to utilize that much memory it must be playing games like Crysis, and it doesn't have the processing power to play crysis well at that resolution.

Lol thats cos Oblivions optimized like cr*p, crysis is optimized for the 8800`s and isalready running at 1600 and 1900 on a gtxas pics have show with AA on , but anyways i had the 320mb and a 640mb before i upgraded and they were both factory oc (evga) and id say the 640mb is better it seems more stable especially in stalker and bioshock

If you buy the 320mb at the moment you cannot run Company of Heroes or Call of Juarez

Lanfeix

lol my 7600gs with 256mb can max CoH (with effects at high because artillery lowered my fps too much) with max AA and high textures at 1024x786 with 25-40 FPS