Guru3D.com Forums

Go Back   Guru3D.com Forums > Videocards > Videocards - NVIDIA
Videocards - NVIDIA This forum is all about NVIDIA graphics cards and their technology. Do you have a question regarding an older GeForce videocard? Want to tell people how stylish a game works on that new shiny watercooled GeForce GTX 580 or SLI gaming rig? Get in here!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Jelle's "8800GT 512MB vs 8800GTS 640MB" Review
Old
  (#1)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default Jelle's "8800GT 512MB vs 8800GTS 640MB" Review - 11-06-2007, 18:47 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Some of you might remember the thread a started last week where I recommended to sell your GTS 640MB for the GT price while you still can so that you can buy the GT without spending a single cent. But I got these comments:

Quote:
To be honest I think that anyone who has a V1 of the 8800 series (whether GTS or GTX) is best keeping it and putting that hard earned cash towards a G92 9800GTX product.
Quote:
Peh not worth my time.
Quote:
Keeping my GTS 640mb.
Quote:
If I had an 8800 GTS 640 at your clocks, I'd not even consider the GT. Especially at the resolution your pushing. Both cards would perform the same. The lead in performance (from the few reviews out there) seem to come in the higher resolutions. Even if the GT is a poor overclocker, I can at least get it at the same speed as my current GTS 320.
Quote:
The 8800gt just doesnt have what it takes for me to consider it as a viable upgrade at this point.
Quote:
I had my GTS 640 for a year and i am quite happy with it so for me its a keeper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sold my GTS and bought the GT for the money I got for it ( schipping costs included ), in fact, I now have 10 extra

Because I already sold my GTS, I asked a friend if he could give his card to me for a day so that I could compare performance. I overclocked the GTS to the same speed I had on my GTS.

As you will see in this review, I only mentioned the Core and the Memory speed for the GTS. For the ones that are interested in the Shader-speed, it was linked to the core. I didn't overclock the shaders on my GTS so if I wanted to compare, I had to use the same overclocks. Besides, there is no need to risk destroying a card that wasn't my own. I knew from my own experience that overclocking the Shaders on the GTS would only give me artifacts, something I don't like in games And eaven if you do manage to get the shaders a little higher, the performance improvement on a GTS isn't worth it. ( just my opinion )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Test System:
- Windows XP Pro SP2 X86 ( 32bit )
- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz
- 4069MB RAM DDR2 @ 1000Mhz
- Geforce 8800GTS 640MB & Geforce 8800GT 512MB
- Antec Nine Hundred ( My Case )
- Nvidia Forceware 169.04

All driver settings are at default. The only thing I changed in the driver CP was the Vsync setting ( I had to disable it offcourse ).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Shop

I bought my card at www.dollarshops.eu . It's not the cheapest shop, but the support is great and they deliver fast. I got my card one day after the payment.

2. Sparkle

I bought the Sparkle 8800GT 512MB. Sparkle didn't put much effort in the package. It's just the card, only 1 DVI adapter, 2 cables voor video-out, a disk with the driver and that's it.

The default speeds for this card are:
600Mhz for the core
1500Mhz for the shaders
1800Mhz for the memory

That's pretty low if you ask me, but who cares, I was planning on overclocking the card to the maximum...

3. Finding the maximum speed ( Overclocking )

From the start, I wanted to know if my card was able to get 735Mhz/1170Mhz/1050Mhz ( speeds in VR-Zone review ) but my core was not able to run stable at that speed. The Shader speed and Memory speed was not a problem, but my core just refused to work...

After reading the VR-Zone review I knew that overclocking the shaders was the most important thing. VR-Zone claimed that overclocking the core and the memory did not give a big performance boost while the shader overclock did. After some experimenting, I could tell that it was true.

The first thing I did was searching for the maximum Shader speed. After a couple of 3DMark lockups I found it, 1836Mhz. The next overclock step brought the shaders to 1890Mhz and the card was not stable at that speed. Actually it was, but not in the game "America's Army", the game I play the most. Strange because America's Army is not, I repeat, IS NOT a game that has problems with GPU overclocks. ( I've been overclocking cards for years in this game )

Next thing I did was searching for the maximum Core speed, because this is the 2nd most important speed on the card. Like I sad before, I knew that I was unlucky with my core so i didn't expect much. I was able to get 684Mhz. 700Mhz worked fine in 3Dmark, Crysis and WIC, but again, not in "America's Army". America's Army seems to be a better tool for stressing the card.

For the memory I ended up with 2088Mhz and that speed is just find if you ask me.

4. The temperature



Why didn't I test the temperature at default speeds? Well, look at the temperature at the maximum overclock, no need for me to know how COLD ( yes I can say cold ) the card is at default speeds.

There is an easy explanation for this. My case, te "Antec Nine Hundred". This case has an unique design that lowers the card temperature A LOT!



I am no architect, that's for sure , but you see how come my card has such a low temperature. The fan placed in the middle ( Antec placed a fan slot in the middle of the case ) provides fresh air for the GPU, and the hot air just gets blown in to the PSU fan and directly out the back. There is no way for the card to get hot with such a good airflow. And beleave it or not, the air that leaves my PC at the back is not eaven warm. All fans in this case are 120mm 1900rpm fans.

Last edited by Jelle Mees; 11-06-2007 at 19:22.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#2)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 18:48 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

5. 3DMark 05 and 3DMark 06



As you can see, in 3DMark05 the 8800GT is a lot faster then the 8800GTS.
If you compare the cards at default speed you see 12% difference. If you compare the maximum overclocks you see 6% difference. So by selling my GTS, I got 6% extra performance for free



Again, you can clearly see the performance difference. 14% difference at default speeds and 10% difference between the cards when they are overclocked to the maximum. So by selling my GTS, I got 10% extra performance for free

6. World in Conflict



Here I was a little suprised. Both cards gave me the same performance at stock speeds. Quickly I visited VR-Zone again to check if it was normal and it looks like it is. Still, I was hoping that the overclock could give me extra performance compared to my old card and luckely, it did. To bad it's not much. Only 3%. But still, it's 3% for free

7. America's Army



I don't see the point in calculating percentages here. If you have 400FPS or if you have 600FPS, the human race is not able to see or feel the difference Only reason why I did this test was because it's my #1 game that I've played for the past 4 years and I am sure I will play it for many more years to come.

8. Crysis



16% extra performance @ default speeds, 18% extra performance with the cards overclocked, for free that is

These results suprised me a little, I never expected to have 40+FPS on 1280x1024 with 16xAF with the highest graphics possible in the game. Looks like I will be able to play this game at 1600x1200 16xAF with no problems. 30-35FPS has the same "mouse-feeling" as 60FPS in another game. My GTS just wasn't fast enough, but the GT is.

UPDATE:

Some people requested a benchmark from me on another forum, might aswell post it here:



That's right, this time it got above 41

9. Conclusion

Upgrading for free ( yes, i dare to say it again ) was the best thing I could have done. Ok, in some games only a few % extra, but in others I have 10-20% extra performance.

I don't know how fast my card is compared to GTX or the Ultra. I wasn't able to contact someone who had a GTX or Ultra. But I am pretty sure that there isn't much different between my GT and the Ultra.

I would also like to mention that I jumped from # 28 to #17 in the 3DMark05 chart in the Netherlands ( the previous #17 had Core 2 Duo E6850 @ 4100Mhz and 8800GTS 320MB ) and I jumped from #54 to #32 in 3DMark06. My PC is now faster then the previous #32, a guy with the E6850 @ 4700Mhz and the Geforce 8800 Ultra.

I hope some of you liked this review, comments are more then welcome.

Last edited by Jelle Mees; 11-06-2007 at 21:45.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
tuco
Ancient Guru
 
tuco's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2 460's
Processor: 2500k
Mainboard: Asus
Memory: 4GB
Soundcard: Asus Xense
PSU: Corsair
Default 11-06-2007, 18:57 | posts: 3,034 | Location: SoL 3

I think these tests could be much improved with higher resolutions, to see whether the 640 mem is better than the 512.

Nice benchies tho, could you run a source game, or perhaps oblivion?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
Copey
Ancient Guru
 
Videocard: Asus 460 1GB
Processor: Phenom II 955 Black
Mainboard: Gigabyte 790X-UD3P
Memory: 4GB Patriot Viper
Soundcard: X-Fi Xtreme Music
PSU: Antec QP 850W
Default 11-06-2007, 19:04 | posts: 10,696 | Location: U.K

Good stuff mate, i use this resolution and it is the most popular resolution used in the world(supposedly) so is fairly useful, still aint decided what im doing yet.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#5)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 19:05 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco99 View Post
I think these tests could be much improved with higher resolutions, to see whether the 640 mem is better than the 512.

Nice benchies tho, could you run a source game, or perhaps oblivion?
Already returned the GTS 640MB, but I could run a source game on all resolutions on my GT if you are interested in that.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
Crossfire
Maha Guru
 
Crossfire's Avatar
 
Videocard: HIS Radeon HD 4670 1GB
Processor: AMD Phenom II X4 3.2GHz
Mainboard: ASUS M4A87TD/USB3 AM3
Memory: G.SKILL DDR3 1333 4GB
Soundcard: Onboard
PSU: Antec High Current 520W
Post 11-06-2007, 19:05 | posts: 1,737 | Location: Kentucky, US

Nice review Jelle !!

I think this will help alot of people decide on wether or not they will upgrade. And people who are getting ready to build new PCs.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 19:08 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copey View Post
Good stuff mate, i use this resolution and it is the most popular resolution used in the world(supposedly) so is fairly useful, still aint decided what im doing yet.
I could have tested on many resolutions, but beleave it or not, "all of the above" took me many hours. And it's true what you are saying, only 14% of all gamers games on a resolution that is higher then 1280x1024. And 16xAF does stress the cards more.

Last edited by Jelle Mees; 11-06-2007 at 19:13.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 19:14 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by [G3D]CrossFire View Post
Nice review Jelle !!

I think this will help alot of people decide on wether or not they will upgrade. And people who are getting ready to build new PCs.
Thanks, I hope so.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Jagman
Maha Guru
 
Jagman's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire HD7950 Vapor-X
Processor: FX6300 @4.3 G/Tech Igloo
Mainboard: Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3
Memory: Kingston 8GB DDR3 1866
Soundcard: onboard HD audio
PSU: Corsair CX600
Default 11-06-2007, 19:16 | posts: 1,786 | Location: Kent, UK

Nice job Jelle, been looking at the Antec 900 case for a while now and you may well have forced my wallet open again, dammit!
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 19:20 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagman View Post
Nice job Jelle, been looking at the Antec 900 case for a while now and you may well have forced my wallet open again, dammit!
It's really worth it, with this case there is no need for extra cooling. And I know people who buy extra VGA cooling for every GPU they buy, with this case you only have to spend money once.
   
Reply With Quote
 
Old
  (#11)
BlackZero
Ancient Guru
 
BlackZero's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 7970 OC
Processor: 2600K H2O
Mainboard: Asus P67 Pro
Memory: G.Skill 2133
Soundcard: X-Fi + 2400ES
PSU: Corsair AX860
Default 11-06-2007, 19:25 | posts: 8,113 | Location: United Kingdom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelle Mees;[B
8. Crysis[/B]



16% extra performance @ default speeds, 18% extra performance with the cards overclocked, for free that is

These results suprised me a little, I never expected to have 40+FPS on 1280x1024 with 16xAA with the highest graphics possible in the game. Looks like I will be able to play this game at 1600x1200 16xAF with no problems. 30-35FPS has the same "mouse-feeling" as 60FPS in another game. My GTS just wasn't fast enough, but the GT is
Ok can you confirm you are geting 40+ fps in the gpu benchmark with very high settings and 16xaa.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 19:28 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol_48 View Post
Ok can you confirm you are geting 40+ fps in the gpu benchmark with very high settings and 16xaa.
Yep. I confirm :p 40+, well...it's very close to 41 isn't it

Here you can see how the game looks on the so called "DirectX 10" tweaks:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=241946

Last edited by Jelle Mees; 11-06-2007 at 19:35.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
BlackZero
Ancient Guru
 
BlackZero's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 7970 OC
Processor: 2600K H2O
Mainboard: Asus P67 Pro
Memory: G.Skill 2133
Soundcard: X-Fi + 2400ES
PSU: Corsair AX860
Default 11-06-2007, 19:47 | posts: 8,113 | Location: United Kingdom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelle Mees View Post
Yep. I confirm :p 40+, well...it's very close to 41 isn't it

Here you can see how the game looks on the so called "DirectX 10" tweaks:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=241946
I must say that is very hard to believe, i get around 25fps with all very high settings with my 8800gts fully overclocked and without any aa at 1280x1024.

I am not doubting you , its just really difficult to accept and if someone else could also confirm this is the case then I will truly believe a 8800gt is the way to go even for gts 640mb owners who are gonna be running at 1280x1024 as current trade values for both cards are the same almost.

Last edited by BlackZero; 11-06-2007 at 19:51.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 19:58 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol_48 View Post
I must say that is very hard to believe, i get around 25fps with all very high settings with my 8800gts fully overclocked and without any aa at 1280x1024.

I am not doubting you , its just really difficult to accept and if someone else could also confirm this is the case then I will truly believe a 8800gt is the way to go even for gts 640mb owners who are gonna be running at 1280x1024 as current trade values for both cards are the same almost.
Mmm... isn't that pretty low? Are you using 169.04? My FPS on another Nvidia driver was 29.54FPS with my GTS 640MB. Try to update and see how that helps. And I don't know what the performance difference is between 4 x 3.0Ghz and 4 x 3.6Ghz.

Last edited by Jelle Mees; 11-06-2007 at 20:02.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
tuco
Ancient Guru
 
tuco's Avatar
 
Videocard: 2 460's
Processor: 2500k
Mainboard: Asus
Memory: 4GB
Soundcard: Asus Xense
PSU: Corsair
Default 11-06-2007, 19:59 | posts: 3,034 | Location: SoL 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelle Mees View Post
Already returned the GTS 640MB, but I could run a source game on all resolutions on my GT if you are interested in that.
No, thats ok m8, I was just curious about the GT performance at high res, I'm going to upgrade shortly, but fortunatly in january. I'm assuming I will have more choice at that time reguarding cpu and gpu, plus op 64 vista with cyrsis. I want to play at 1680x1050, so I really want to see those benchies at that resolution.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#16)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 20:01 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco99 View Post
No, thats ok m8, I was just curious about the GT performance at high res, I'm going to upgrade shortly, but fortunatly in january. I'm assuming I will have more choice at that time reguarding cpu and gpu, plus op 64 vista with cyrsis. I want to play at 1680x1050, so I really want to see those benchies at that resolution.
Crysis doesn't perform well on Vista. Haven't tried it yet, but I don't think I can get 40FPS on DirectX 10 1280x1024 16xAF.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#17)
BlackZero
Ancient Guru
 
BlackZero's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 7970 OC
Processor: 2600K H2O
Mainboard: Asus P67 Pro
Memory: G.Skill 2133
Soundcard: X-Fi + 2400ES
PSU: Corsair AX860
Default 11-06-2007, 20:06 | posts: 8,113 | Location: United Kingdom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelle Mees View Post
Mmm... isn't that pretty low? Are you using 169.04? My FPS on another Nvidia driver was 29.54FPS with my GTS 640MB. Try to update and see how that helps. And I don't know what the performance difference is between 4 x 3.0Ghz or 4 x 3.6Ghz.
Ok i did some tests for cpu scaling in another thread and the difference between my quad at 2.4 and 3.0 was around 1%, so that doesnt seem to matter.

I am using 169.04 and unless i am missing something I think everyone is getting frames in line with mine, thats why everyone is complaining.

I mean if people were getting 40+ fps with the 'very high' settings and 16x AA at 1280x1024 they would have no reason to complain.

Please have another look and if your results are correct then we should all be buying an 8800gt
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#18)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 20:11 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol_48 View Post
Ok i did some tests for cpu scaling in another thread and the difference between my quad at 2.4 and 3.0 was around 1%, so that doesnt seem to matter.

I am using 169.04 and unless i am missing something I think everyone is getting frames in line with mine, thats why everyone is complaining.

I mean if people were getting 40+ fps with the 'very high' settings and 16x AA at 1280x1024 they would have no reason to complain.

Please have another look and if your results are correct then we should all be buying an 8800gt
I think you are confusing AA with AF.

AA: The feature that removes the Jagged lines that are created when you draw a diaganal line on a screen. It removes the jaggies by adding a slightly darker shade next to the pixel creating a blurred effect that makes the image more smooth.

AF: Is Texture filtering of objects that are far away and usually tilted at an angle the further object is blurred slightly to help the effect of distance. Think of the opening titles of star wars where the letters blur as they get further away.

The performance impact from AA is 10x bigger then the impact from AF
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#19)
Dieheart
Master Guru
 
Dieheart's Avatar
 
Videocard: GeForce 8800GT 512MB
Processor: Core 2 Duo e4300 @ 2.57 G
Mainboard: ABIT AW9D 975X 775
Memory: 4gig (2x2g) DDR2 800
Soundcard: ABIT AudioMAX - Sony Rece
PSU: SUNBEAM SLI 550wattz
Default 11-06-2007, 20:14 | posts: 699 | Location: Texas

I want to see some benchies with a rez at 1680 x 1050.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#20)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 20:19 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieheart View Post
I want to see some benchies with a rez at 1680 x 1050.
Sorry, can't do that, I have 4:3 screen
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#21)
Colt M4
Maha Guru
 
Colt M4's Avatar
 
Videocard: Sapphire 7970OC 1125/1625
Processor: Intel Core i5 2500K
Mainboard: Asus P67 Sabertooth
Memory: 16gb Corsair 1600mhz
Soundcard: Realtek
PSU: Corsair TX750W
Default 11-06-2007, 20:19 | posts: 816 | Location: Eden, NY

How come there wasn't a increase in performance in World in Conflict? Also I did the same thing as you I sold my 8800 GTS 320 and plan to get the 8800 GT. Since I am going up in Vram won't I see even more of a gain?

Also which brand did you get?
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#22)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 20:24 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt M4 View Post
How come there wasn't a increase in performance in World in Conflict? Also I did the same thing as you I sold my 8800 GTS 320 and plan to get the 8800 GT. Since I am going up in Vram won't I see even more of a gain?

Also which brand did you get?
Maybe you should ask the WIC developpers that

You will see a bigger performance increase then me because you are coming from 320MB. In WIC there is a big difference between de 320MB and the 640MB card.

Quote:
HardOCP Review:

The only video card in this evaluation to have any trouble with World in Conflict is the 320 MB equipped GeForce 8800 GTS. There is no denying it: World in Conflict eats video memory for breakfast. Those of you with 256 MB DirectX 9 era cards who have been holding out for a reason to upgrade may have found it, and those of you with a GeForce 8800 GTS 320 MB may have just found your reason to upgrade again.

We've seen this coming for a while now. Increased required memory capacity is a trend that that has not stopped since the first PCs arrived on the scene decades ago. Video cards are no exception. The first 3D accelerators had but a fraction of the 256 MB that was sufficient for most tasks just a year ago. But now, with this game, 320 MB (to say nothing of 256 MB) video cards aren't enough. You will want at least 512 MB of video memory to play this game.

That doesn't mean that those of you with a 512 MB NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or ATI Radeon X1950 XTX are in the clear. Not by a long shot. You will need a GPU that can perform at least on par with the GeForce 8800 GTS GPU, coupled with at least 512 MB of memory if you want to enjoy World in Conflict with "Very High" settings. If you want maximum settings, you have three options right now: a GeForce 8800 GTX a GeForce 8800 Ultra or a GeForce 8800GT.
And you asked about the brand? Read #2 in the review.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#23)
BlackZero
Ancient Guru
 
BlackZero's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 7970 OC
Processor: 2600K H2O
Mainboard: Asus P67 Pro
Memory: G.Skill 2133
Soundcard: X-Fi + 2400ES
PSU: Corsair AX860
Default 11-06-2007, 20:39 | posts: 8,113 | Location: United Kingdom

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jelle Mees View Post
I think you are confusing AA with AF.

AA: The feature that removes the Jagged lines that are created when you draw a diaganal line on a screen. It removes the jaggies by adding a slightly darker shade next to the pixel creating a blurred effect that makes the image more smooth.

AF: Is Texture filtering of objects that are far away and usually tilted at an angle the further object is blurred slightly to help the effect of distance. Think of the opening titles of star wars where the letters blur as they get further away.

The performance impact from AA is 10x bigger then the impact from AF

I am not confusing it at all you clearly said 16xaa and as far as i know aa= antialisng, and af= anisotropic filtering, thats why i asked you to confirm it.

Even with 16xaf and very high settings at 1280x1024 40+ seems a bit high but definately more believable.
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#24)
BlackZero
Ancient Guru
 
BlackZero's Avatar
 
Videocard: MSI 7970 OC
Processor: 2600K H2O
Mainboard: Asus P67 Pro
Memory: G.Skill 2133
Soundcard: X-Fi + 2400ES
PSU: Corsair AX860
Default 11-06-2007, 20:45 | posts: 8,113 | Location: United Kingdom

And the reason I am skeptical is that I score reasonably well in 3dmark06 for e.g but in crysis I get 25fps. So naturaly hearing 40+ fps at very high settings is gonna make me wonder.



Heres my log with the mentioned settings for crysis:

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 82.85s, Average FPS: 24.14
Min FPS: 10.95 at frame 145, Max FPS: 28.60 at frame 975
Average Tri/Sec: -16162494, Tri/Frame: -669549
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.37
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 78.74s, Average FPS: 25.40
Min FPS: 10.95 at frame 145, Max FPS: 29.38 at frame 999
Average Tri/Sec: -16838622, Tri/Frame: -662971
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.38
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 78.72s, Average FPS: 25.41
Min FPS: 10.95 at frame 145, Max FPS: 29.43 at frame 994
Average Tri/Sec: -16847544, Tri/Frame: -663109
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.38
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 78.75s, Average FPS: 25.40
Min FPS: 10.95 at frame 145, Max FPS: 29.43 at frame 994
Average Tri/Sec: -16825258, Tri/Frame: -662522
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.38
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
   
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#25)
Jelle Mees
Banned
 
Jelle Mees's Avatar
 
Videocard: 8800GT 512MB 684Mhz/1836Mhz/2088Mhz
Processor: Intel Q6600 G0 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Gigabyte DS3R
Memory: 4 x 1024MB DDR2 ( 1 Ghz )
Soundcard: Onboard Audio + Headphone
PSU: OCZ GameXStream 1010 WATT
Default 11-06-2007, 20:47 | posts: 2,355 | Location: Belgium -> Limburg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protocol_48 View Post
I am not confusing it at all you clearly said 16xaa and as far as i know aa= antialisng, and af= anisotropic filtering, thats why i asked you to confirm it.

Even with 16xaf and very high settings at 1280x1024 40+ seems a bit high but definately more believable.
On the benchmarks you can clearly see AF, not AA.

Then you ask me to confirm the performance, sorry that I missed that you changed a letter there. You asked me to confirm something I never posted. Again, I didn't see you asked about 16xAA but if you ask for something else, it's not really confirmation now is it?

Just view the benchmarks, AA is not enabled, only 16xAF.

Last edited by Jelle Mees; 11-06-2007 at 20:49.
   
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright (c) 1995-2014, All Rights Reserved. The Guru of 3D, the Hardware Guru, and 3D Guru are trademarks owned by Hilbert Hagedoorn.