Is a 8600GT better than a 7600GT?

Go to either GPU Reviews or Toms hardware to find out.

Dx10 and Vista are non-issues at this time. Ignore them.

For all of the whining and complaining I've seen regarding the comparative performance of the 8600 GPUs, they show up well in Toms Hardware's benchmarks. One of the only anti-8600 benches I saw was this one:

http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=855&model2=716&chart=282

it's the same card but only the dx10 version. but it gives nearly about 6-7 fps better than 7600gt.

the 8600GT is definetly better than the 7600GT..yoyo462001

Only in Vista.

[QUOTE="yoyo462001"]the 8600GT is definetly better than the 7600GT..quietguy

Only in Vista.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=637&p=0

See for yourself

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=637&p=0

See for yourself

Big_Black_Eyes

the 8600 GT is better than a 7600 GT. It is one genration ahead of the 7600 GT.hacker_xyzzy

"Ding !" You lose ! Wrong reason. Generation numbers are about features, not performance. On your (erronneous) basis, an FX 5500 would be better than a GF4 Ti-4200, when in fact it required an overclocked version of an FX 5700 Ultra to match the Ti-4200's performance in Dx8 or Open-GL. Yes, there is "performance creep", and it is a fact that by the time the 7300 GT was available, it could match the FX 5700 (not that hard to do by then). The difference from generation to generation is MUCH less than the improvement from 7300 to 7600, or from 6200 to 6600 (the 8400 is worse than a 7300, almost as bad as a 6200, so I skipped over it). Dx10 is a non-issue for gaming, as is Vista. It isn't needed (Vista most certainly is not) for anything a majority of gamers are interested in.

There seems to be a perception among some of GameSpot's messagers, however, that the 8600 GT amounts to a much smaller little brother to the high level 8800s than the 7600 GT was to the 7800s and 7900s. The 7600 GT simply had set a very high level of expectations, but it amounted to a fluke compared to where the 6600 GT sat within its own generation, and especially to where the (Yuck !) FX 5600 related in its own (awful) generation. I really also have the opinion that the Geforce 7800/7900 cards are the ones to blame in the entire affair, for being less impressive for their time (and easier for a 7600 GT to almost match to), than the 8800s are in the currently matured Geforce generation.

[QUOTE="Big_Black_Eyes"]

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=637&p=0

See for yourself

Indestructible2

I have the XFX 8600 GT XXX edition. It runs Crysis 1280 x 960 at all High with shaders and shadows turned to Medium, 40-50 fps outdoors and 20-30 fps with action.

BTW. www.tigerdirect.com is selling XFX 8600 GT XXX for $100 right now, and it comes with Company of Heros free. If you're looking for an affordable card, buy this one, it has a TON of performance for the money, it easily maxes Call of Duty 4 at 60 fps for me.

I have the XFX 8600 GT XXX edition. It runs Crysis 1280 x 960 at all High with shaders and shadows turned to Medium, 40-50 fps outdoors and 20-30 fps with action.

BTW. www.tigerdirect.com is selling XFX 8600 GT XXX for $100 right now, and it comes with Company of Heros free. If you're looking for an affordable card, buy this one, it has a TON of performance for the money, it easily maxes Call of Duty 4 at 60 fps for me.

kungfukid

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3048552&CatId=1560

[QUOTE="hacker_xyzzy"]the 8600 GT is better than a 7600 GT. It is one genration ahead of the 7600 GT.Kiwi_1

"Ding !" You lose ! Wrong reason. Generation numbers are about features, not performance. On your (erronneous) basis, an FX 5500 would be better than a GF4 Ti-4200, when in fact it required an overclocked version of an FX 5700 Ultra to match the Ti-4200's performance in Dx8 or Open-GL. Yes, there is "performance creep", and it is a fact that by the time the 7300 GT was available, it could match the FX 5700 (not that hard to do by then). The difference from generation to generation is MUCH less than the improvement from 7300 to 7600, or from 6200 to 6600 (the 8400 is worse than a 7300, almost as bad as a 6200, so I skipped over it). Dx10 is a non-issue for gaming, as is Vista. It isn't needed (Vista most certainly is not) for anything a majority of gamers are interested in.

There seems to be a perception among some of GameSpot's messagers, however, that the 8600 GT amounts to a much smaller little brother to the high level 8800s than the 7600 GT was to the 7800s and 7900s. The 7600 GT simply had set a very high level of expectations, but it amounted to a fluke compared to where the 6600 GT sat within its own generation, and especially to where the (Yuck !) FX 5600 related in its own (awful) generation. I really also have the opinion that the Geforce 7800/7900 cards are the ones to blame in the entire affair, for being less impressive for their time (and easier for a 7600 GT to almost match to), than the 8800s are in the currently matured Geforce generation.

Never fails. This guy writes some of the best, most informative posts on the GS PCHW forum. :)

[QUOTE="hacker_xyzzy"]the 8600 GT is better than a 7600 GT. It is one genration ahead of the 7600 GT.Kiwi_1

"Ding !" You lose ! Wrong reason. Generation numbers are about features, not performance. On your (erronneous) basis, an FX 5500 would be better than a GF4 Ti-4200, when in fact it required an overclocked version of an FX 5700 Ultra to match the Ti-4200's performance in Dx8 or Open-GL. Yes, there is "performance creep", and it is a fact that by the time the 7300 GT was available, it could match the FX 5700 (not that hard to do by then). The difference from generation to generation is MUCH less than the improvement from 7300 to 7600, or from 6200 to 6600 (the 8400 is worse than a 7300, almost as bad as a 6200, so I skipped over it). Dx10 is a non-issue for gaming, as is Vista. It isn't needed (Vista most certainly is not) for anything a majority of gamers are interested in.

There seems to be a perception among some of GameSpot's messagers, however, that the 8600 GT amounts to a much smaller little brother to the high level 8800s than the 7600 GT was to the 7800s and 7900s. The 7600 GT simply had set a very high level of expectations, but it amounted to a fluke compared to where the 6600 GT sat within its own generation, and especially to where the (Yuck !) FX 5600 related in its own (awful) generation. I really also have the opinion that the Geforce 7800/7900 cards are the ones to blame in the entire affair, for being less impressive for their time (and easier for a 7600 GT to almost match to), than the 8800s are in the currently matured Geforce generation.

[QUOTE="hacker_xyzzy"]the 8600 GT is better than a 7600 GT. It is one genration ahead of the 7600 GT.Kiwi_1

"Ding !" You lose ! Wrong reason. Generation numbers are about features, not performance. On your (erronneous) basis, an FX 5500 would be better than a GF4 Ti-4200, when in fact it required an overclocked version of an FX 5700 Ultra to match the Ti-4200's performance in Dx8 or Open-GL. Yes, there is "performance creep", and it is a fact that by the time the 7300 GT was available, it could match the FX 5700 (not that hard to do by then). The difference from generation to generation is MUCH less than the improvement from 7300 to 7600, or from 6200 to 6600 (the 8400 is worse than a 7300, almost as bad as a 6200, so I skipped over it). Dx10 is a non-issue for gaming, as is Vista. It isn't needed (Vista most certainly is not) for anything a majority of gamers are interested in.

There seems to be a perception among some of GameSpot's messagers, however, that the 8600 GT amounts to a much smaller little brother to the high level 8800s than the 7600 GT was to the 7800s and 7900s. The 7600 GT simply had set a very high level of expectations, but it amounted to a fluke compared to where the 6600 GT sat within its own generation, and especially to where the (Yuck !) FX 5600 related in its own (awful) generation. I really also have the opinion that the Geforce 7800/7900 cards are the ones to blame in the entire affair, for being less impressive for their time (and easier for a 7600 GT to almost match to), than the 8800s are in the currently matured Geforce generation.

[QUOTE="hacker_xyzzy"]the 8600 GT is better than a 7600 GT. It is one genration ahead of the 7600 GT.Kiwi_1

"Ding !" You lose ! Wrong reason. Generation numbers are about features, not performance. On your (erronneous) basis, an FX 5500 would be better than a GF4 Ti-4200, when in fact it required an overclocked version of an FX 5700 Ultra to match the Ti-4200's performance in Dx8 or Open-GL. Yes, there is "performance creep", and it is a fact that by the time the 7300 GT was available, it could match the FX 5700 (not that hard to do by then). The difference from generation to generation is MUCH less than the improvement from 7300 to 7600, or from 6200 to 6600 (the 8400 is worse than a 7300, almost as bad as a 6200, so I skipped over it). Dx10 is a non-issue for gaming, as is Vista. It isn't needed (Vista most certainly is not) for anything a majority of gamers are interested in.

There seems to be a perception among some of GameSpot's messagers, however, that the 8600 GT amounts to a much smaller little brother to the high level 8800s than the 7600 GT was to the 7800s and 7900s. The 7600 GT simply had set a very high level of expectations, but it amounted to a fluke compared to where the 6600 GT sat within its own generation, and especially to where the (Yuck !) FX 5600 related in its own (awful) generation. I really also have the opinion that the Geforce 7800/7900 cards are the ones to blame in the entire affair, for being less impressive for their time (and easier for a 7600 GT to almost match to), than the 8800s are in the currently matured Geforce generation.

I have the XFX 8600 GT XXX edition. It runs Crysis 1280 x 960 at all High with shaders and shadows turned to Medium, 40-50 fps outdoors and 20-30 fps with action.

BTW. www.tigerdirect.com is selling XFX 8600 GT XXX for $100 right now, and it comes with Company of Heros free. If you're looking for an affordable card, buy this one, it has a TON of performance for the money, it easily maxes Call of Duty 4 at 60 fps for me.

kungfukid

It is simply impossible for the 8600 to do that, it is a rather bad card. Even the 8800GTS 320MB would have some difficulties managing that with a standard range CPU. The 8600 is far behind the 8800GTS in performance.

[QUOTE="kungfukid"]

I have the XFX 8600 GT XXX edition. It runs Crysis 1280 x 960 at all High with shaders and shadows turned to Medium, 40-50 fps outdoors and 20-30 fps with action.

BTW. www.tigerdirect.com is selling XFX 8600 GT XXX for $100 right now, and it comes with Company of Heros free. If you're looking for an affordable card, buy this one, it has a TON of performance for the money, it easily maxes Call of Duty 4 at 60 fps for me.

haols

It is simply impossible for the 8600 to do that, it is a rather bad card. Even the 8800GTS 320MB would have some difficulties managing that with a standard range CPU. The 8600 is far behind the 8800GTS in performance.

I have the XFX 8600 GT XXX edition. It runs Crysis 1280 x 960 at all High with shaders and shadows turned to Medium, 40-50 fps outdoors and 20-30 fps with action.

BTW. www.tigerdirect.com is selling XFX 8600 GT XXX for $100 right now, and it comes with Company of Heros free. If you're looking for an affordable card, buy this one, it has a TON of performance for the money, it easily maxes Call of Duty 4 at 60 fps for me.

kungfukid

I have this exact card and it cannot play crysis at those settings with that FPS. Playing on 1280x1024 with everything set to medium settings the game gets 20FPS and dips as low as 14FPS during stressful parts of the game.

7600GT>8600GTdayaccus007

really? then how come the 8600gt in my laptop can keep up with a 7800gt?

Hi,guys i am new to this website i want to talk about that i have a 8600 gt fatal1ty edition i was asking that how much fps should i gat in dx10 on med settings.TheGameReturns