[QUOTE="perl2000"]

[QUOTE="LordEC911"]You guys do realize that 8800GT vs 8800GTS 512mb has both of them clocked the same...darkplayer

Of course we do realize...helloo!!!, those graphs are suppose to show the diference of having more shader processors on the videocards, that's why they are clocked the same, and by the results, going from 112 SP to 128 means almost no diference at all in performance. However, i think that going from 64 SP ( 9600 GT) to 112 SP ( 8800 GT) will really make a diference, specially on shader intensive games. My recomendation is, if you play at 1280 x 1024 go for a 9600 GT ( u should be fine with high settings without spending too much), but if you play at higher resolutions, go for the 8800 GT 512 MB, it will give you more headroom for future games and you can OC it to 8800 GTX /ULTRA performance level...it all depends on your money and needs.

In my case i was on the same dilema, i play at 1600 x 1200 and ended buying the 8800 GT, because i wanted to be prepared for incoming games, without having to sacrifice image quality for having less Shaders Processors ( 9600 GT )...anyway, both gpus are very powerfull at a very low cost...

So since the HD3870 has 320 shader processors, it should blow all of them out of the water?

No the 9600GT uses different shaders, they perform far better than the shaders in the 8800GT however it has less of them.

Im talking about nvidia, not ATI gpu arquitecture. And yes, the shader processors on the 9600 GT may be a little more efficient, but they are NOT so diferent than the 8800 GT, they both use the same chip and process, the main reason that the 9600 GT is pretty close in performance to the 8800 GT is because it has more clocks speed on the gpu and SP's, if you OC a stock 8800 GT, there'll be no 9600 GT SUPER OC Edition that could touch it....

You guys do realize that 8800GT vs 8800GTS 512mb has both of them clocked the same...LordEC911

Of course we do realize...helloo!!!, those graphs are suppose to show the diference of having more shader processors on the videocards, that's why they are clocked the same, and by the results, going from 112 SP to 128 means almost no diference at all in performance. However, i think that going from 64 SP ( 9600 GT) to 112 SP ( 8800 GT) will really make a diference, specially on shader intensive games. My recomendation is, if you play at 1280 x 1024 go for a 9600 GT ( u should be fine with high settings without spending too much), but if you play at higher resolutions, go for the 8800 GT 512 MB, it will give you more headroom for future games and you can OC it to 8800 GTX /ULTRA performance level...it all depends on your money and needs.

In my case i was on the same dilema, i play at 1600 x 1200 and ended buying the 8800 GT, because i wanted to be prepared for incoming games, without having to sacrifice image quality for having less Shaders Processors ( 9600 GT )...anyway, both gpus are very powerfull at a very low cost...

Going from 2 to 4 Gigabytes of ram it really makes a difference when gaming under vista ( not in fps), for example, Battlefield 2 and Batttlefield 2142.

My system is:

E6600

XBX2 MOBO

2 X 1024 XMS2 CORSAIR ddr2-800 Mhz

Evga 8800 GTS 320 MB

When playing at 1600 x 1200 evertything maxxed, i get constant ingame frezzes like when i played Fear with only 1 Gigabyte of ram on my previous machine. Vista is a monster eating resources, i have only two choices, buying another pair of ram or get back to windows xp. If you ask me if with more ram yo get more FPS, the answer is no, when i play BF2 i get constant fps ( 60+) but the problem are the stutters and frezzes that prevent me from keeping steady frame rates because of the system using the paging files of the hard drive instead of the ram...

Hope my experince helps you...:)

[QUOTE="SuzumiyaU1"]

but the memory is too small...

if u compared 8800gts-320mb and 8800gts-640mb,u would find out that 88gts-640 is much better than 88gts-320 cuz the memory...

i wonder why DX10 games need at least 512mb if u run them on MAX......

RayvinAzn

More reading, less posting. The 320MB of VRAM has zero effect at resolutions below 16x12, especially without high levels of AA and AF.

In regards to your other posts, what do you mean that you can't get any DirectX 10 games to run over 10FPS? At what resolution? You show me a serious gamer playing at 19x12 (24" monitor) with an 8600GT that's not a temporary card, and I'll show you a guy who really don't know how to spend his money. I'll also mention that most of the "DirectX 10" games on the market right now are a very poor example of what DirectX 10 has to offer - the games weren't designed for them, they just had some effects thrown in as more of an afterthought than anything. With a card like the 8600GT, you should be able to get most upcoming DirectX 10 games playable at 12x10, or 10x7 if it's a really heavy game, which is probalby the resolution most 8600GT users will be playing at anyway.

As for DirectX 10 games requiring 512MB of Video RAM, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion - but I'll bet that next gen we'll see a 256MB card that will outperform some of the 512MB+ cards on the market today. I'd also love for you to find me where in the papers on DirectX 10 that it "requires" 512MB of RAM to run games on Max.

Edit: Oh, and I've got a 256MB X1900XT.

It's not that DX10 games require 512 MB vram videocards, it's the fact that newer games will use larger textures and hence more room to allocate them while gpu is processing the other tasks. Also keep in mind that 512 MB+ videocards are mostly for gamers who plays at 1600 x 1200 resolution and above ( add some AA and AF), now that relies heavly on vram ( video ram). One last point for the readers, do not buy a videocard only for vram size, the most important thing is the gpu and his processing capabilities/ technologies/speed, etc.

Finally i dont care how much vram, gpu power, shader processors future videocards will have, i only care for 3 things: Power consumption ( we need less power consumption), less heat and size( technologies are supposed to make things smaller, faster and convenient, not make things bigger, hotter and power hungry). Let´s hope in the near future, compañies take that into account..:)

*edit*

i have an 8800 GTS 320 MB :D

OMG everybody!!!, this sound thing is COMPLETELY NORMAL!!!, i checked a post on g*r*3d forum and they where like 20 posters with the same sound issue and it was normal, it seems a little bug with g80 series. I myself have an 8800 GTS 320, and the sound happens everytime i'm playing a game, when is loading it disappear.

There are many gamers with a lot of different system configurations ( mobo, ram, cpu, psu, etc.) but with the same G80, hence the same problem, i repeat, IT'S NOT A FAULTY GPU, DEAL WITH IT, just focus on game...

Cheers

45 nm allows more speed, consumes less energy, produces less heat, more transistors on a smaller die than 65 nm technology... and so on...

Nope that isnt the problem its blurry on every other resolution except 1024x768. Any one else got any ideas. thanks.

Master-blobby

Ok in that case, i suggest you this:

1) Do a clean install of your OS ( If the monitor is new)

2) Install your latest graphics card driver...

3) Install the cd drivers that comes with your monitor ( there should be one)...

and after that, try using your max resolution and lower it and see if the problem persists...

I think that your problem is a common problem with lcd monitors. When you set a resolution below the " recomended " resolution on your monitor, the image quality will become blurry and not so crisp. For example if you have a 19" LCD, 1280 x 1024 should be the native resolution, but when you put 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768, the image will loose clarity, simply because you are not using the " recomended" resolution.

That´s the reason everybody says, that don´t buy a high resolution monitor if you are not going to use it at his full capacity/potential. So, in conclusion, i think that your problem is that, try setting your monitor resolution to max and watch the difference.

PD: Hopes this will clarify your problem, else i have no idea of your problem.... cheers

in my opinion thats kind of hot for a C2D. what case do you have? is the cpu getting good airflow?SLI_Yoshi

WTF?? HOT??, my e6600 idles at 50 C and my load temps are 65 - 70 C ( and i have a thermalright Ultra 120 with artic silver 5) using apevia Xplorer case, i live in a hot country, i've never had any problems with my cpu temps. In fact, the core 2 duos are designed to handle more than 80 C degrees, so your temps are ok.

PD: I think the 2 most importants things to look are:

1) Country /city temps

2) Case temps and ventilation