First G92 8800GTS review

[Dreaming]

It's always a bit tricky though, because the cards are given out and have to be tested on certain games with certain software which nvidia already know which will get high benchmarks. There have even be very recent records of fudged benchmark results in nvidia's favour. Certainly they seem to have money on their side.

Not that I'm trying to judge one way or the other, but I'd certainly take it with a pinch of salt. My 8800GTS was supposed to be the mother of all cards to run everything, but try putting 2x AA at 1680x1050 on dx10 on any game and it falls on it's face. I certainly wouldn't spend the kind of money I spent on the 8800gts again. £150 max from now on. Which lands me right in ATI territory for my next upgrade (I expect easter time next year or something).

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It's always a bit tricky though, because the cards are given out and have to be tested on certain games with certain software which nvidia already know which will get high benchmarks. There have even be very recent records of fudged benchmark results in nvidia's favour. Certainly they seem to have money on their side.

Not that I'm trying to judge one way or the other, but I'd certainly take it with a pinch of salt. My 8800GTS was supposed to be the mother of all cards to run everything, but try putting 2x AA at 1680x1050 on dx10 on any game and it falls on it's face. I certainly wouldn't spend the kind of money I spent on the 8800gts again. £150 max from now on. Which lands me right in ATI territory for my next upgrade (I expect easter time next year or something).

I agree!! I think it is better to buy a £100-£150 card that will play most games well for one year and then replace it with something better.

[Ciber]

So stupid to give it the same name IMO. So easy to end up with the guff one by mistake!

[Blitzen]

£199 from Play:
"http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/3563944/PNY-Verto-GeForce-8800-GTS-512MB-GDDR3-PCI-Express-x16-Graphics-Card/Product.html"

thats not a G92.
It only has 96 streams.

Its either a typo somewhere or the other GTS revision.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

thats not a G92.
It only has 96 streams.

Its either a typo somewhere or the other GTS revision.

It also could be Play.com thinking that the new GTS revision is exactly like the old one except for the memory.

I still do not know why Nvidia did not call the new cards 8900GT and 8900GTS??!!

[Anubis386]

I might just swap out my pair of current 8800GTS (640Mbs) for a pair of these new ones .. then overclock them ... @ 650/2000 (atleast) they'll perform great

[Ciber]

It also could be Play.com thinking that the new GTS revision is exactly like the old one except for the memory.

I still do not know why Nvidia did not call the new cards 8900GT and 8900GTS??!!

That would be too easy.

[Fornowagain]

£199 from Play:
"http://www.play.com/PC/PCs/4-/3563944/PNY-Verto-GeForce-8800-GTS-512MB-GDDR3-PCI-Express-x16-Graphics-Card/Product.html"

Unfortunately they just cancelled my order, said its unavailable.

[TooNice]

It'll come down to pricing IMO. I would go GTS if the price gap is no more than 15-20%. It must be a pricing nightmare though, the GTX and GTS rev.2 (and even the GT) perform close enough that it's hard to justify very significant price gap between them.

Looking at the review, the difference in performance under even the more demanding circumstances (ie. at 1900x1200 - where there is the biggest difference) only 10%-15%.

We only see really a significant improvement in CoH (37% but only for the mininum frame rate). It might suggest some latent potential, but I don't bank on potential.

[Blitzen]

If the 8800GT could be found for £150 (obviously not the case right now) and the GTS £200, then I would still go for GT

I wouldnt.

The ONLY benefit of the GT is the £50 saving and if you are after great performance, coupled with a decent rig, £50 is a tiny amount, especially with all these £150 mobo's and £160 cores flying around.

The GTS is quicker, cooler and should clock very well.

For the non-enthusiasts the GT is fine.
For everyone else the GTS is the card to get.

I would bet a whole load of cash that if the GT and new GTS were releaed at the same time the popularity of the GT would be a tiny % of what it is now. The only reason forums at the moment are jammed with the comment 'I would still buy a GT' is that whoever did get one, when the GTS is on sale, will secretly wish they had waited.

[robcrowley]

I wonder how easy getting the GTS will be before xmas. Are they supposed to be on sale with retailers next week, or simply arriving next week?

[TooNice]

After running the numbers on a spreadsheet, I've decided that even if the saving was lower than £50, I may still not consider the GTS (hence the edit). On the face value the rev.2 GTS is pretty much GTX for, presumably lower in cost.
But what other benefit to do expect the GT to offer other than cost saving? They are built on the same architecture, and the GTS is meant to be the bigger brother. You could say the same thing about the G92 version of the GTX comes out.
The stock cooler of the GTS something will give credit for. But it remains to be seen whether it is quiet enough to satisfy all quiet PC enthusiast. Still, the point is moot I would need to go 3rd party.

If the GTS had come out before the GT, I'd probably be raving about it. And had the GT been released afterwards, I probably would've thought "least my card is faster". However, as it is, I do not have a GT, but would still consider it over the GTS. Now I have the choice to make an informed decision, and it will come down to the numbers. We've always had to accept a premium for the better performance. The reason why people rave about the GT is because the performance was within 20% of the flagship product (okay, many who did not run the numbers probably thought it was even narrower than that) for nearly half the price. It's something we've not seen in a while.

And what would a non-enthusiast do with a GT? It's a little arrogant to assume what people would 'secretly wish' for, let alone tell what one should get to fit your definition of an 'enthusiast'. An enthusiast with very deep pocket wanting to go all out is still better off with 8800 Ultra (or a pair of them). Depending on the GTS's pricing, the GT could be a better buy (I've only crunched all the numbers at 1900x1200 - but a quick glance at lower resolution will show performance difference that is even narrower). Enthusiasts have different requirements/priorities, and budgets it's rarely one size fit all. At lower resolution, the 256MB GT is an even better buy (FPS/&#163 than the 512MB GT. But not for the resolution I run.

[Blitzen]

After running the numbers on a spreadsheet

Which numbers might these be then??
Please.........share as i would love to see what numbers and where they were aquired from.

I've only crunched all the numbers at 1900x1200 - but a quick glance at lower resolution will show will show performance difference that is even narrower

You havent crunchd any numbers at all as there are none available to you (unless you have a new GTS).

And what would a non-enthusiast do with a GT? It's a little arrogant to presume what people 'secretly wish', let alone tell what one should get to fit your definition of an 'enthusiast'.

What is arrogant is to suggest you have 'number crunched' when you clearly havent/cannot. ALl you can do is see the specs like the rest of us.

One of the few benchmarks that are shown make a point of saying there is a considerable difference in favour of the new GTS when running DX10 games in Vista at the higher resolutions.

You could say the same thing about the G92 version of the GTX comes out.

And you think there will be one or is that a spreadsheet theory.
Everything i have seen so far suggests there isnt going to be another 8800series card.


Fact remains, its a better card for little extra cash.

[staffsMike]

I think it depends on the monitor you're running tbh.

We used to say that the old GTS was perfect was 1680 x 1050 but for anything more get a GTX.

In my opinion the GTS is still a good card at 1680 x 1050 and both the new GTS and GT kill it in benchmarking.
So, if you're gaming on a 20 - 22" screen get a GT, it will be fine.

Anything more take a look at the GTS to give you that bit of extra grunt for the higher resolutions of 24"+ screens.

Since I can run COD4 at native resolution on my Dell XPS M1330 (8400gs) smoothly, all this arguing over the GT and GTS seems a bit trivial

[TooNice]

[...]

I used the numbers from the review posted on this very thread. Isn't that what you used to base your statements on? Since they did not provide the performance gap on every page, and I did have to do some simple calculations. I suppose I should have credited the source of information, but it should have been a obvious, given the topic/first post in this thread. Even then, I must be looking at very different numbers from you. I don't really see where you can claim 'considerable performance [improvement] under DX10':

In Call of Juarez the performance difference is 8.56/9.27/9.67% on average at 1900x1200, 1600x1200, 1024x768 respectively. It is interesting to note that for in this example, performance gap *decreasing* with resolution increase.

If we look only the the minimum frame rate, then it is 9.4/14.3/26.7%.

In Lost Planet: 12.7/13/24.5%

In CoH: 6.4/16.7/5.3% (this one is odd as it does good in 1600x1200 only)

Pretty much falls between my previously stated average of 10-15% (it's actually 13% across this little subset). If that is what you call 'considerable difference' what do you call an improvement of 20-25% across the board? Because that's when I would use the term 'considerable'.

Since I can run COD4 at native resolution on my Dell XPS M1330 (8400gs) smoothly, all this arguing over the GT and GTS seems a bit trivial

nVidia probably finds all this arguing rather trivial too

[Blitzen]

I think it boils down to:

a). Resolution
b). What you have at the moment

Lets be honest though, nVidia are doing their level best to confuse the issue.

BTW....have you seen the prices for GTX's now. YOu can buy a 8800GTX 768mb for £240 delivered