another 640mb or 320mb question 8800gts

right found a lovely gainward 320mb 8800gts for £199 on scan it is pre overclocked at factory to 550/1760 with 1.1ns hynix memory which makes it much better value than an xfx xxx at 580/1800 1.2ns samsung memory at £240

now my question is simple i have a 1280x1024 res monitor which i will be using it on i dont think that in the next year or two at that resolution losing the extra memory from a 640mb will hurt me fps wise

do really i wanna know does anyone think its worth me paying an extra £50 or so to get a stock speed 640mb card

really what does everyone else think as all i have read points to the 640mb only really being better at high res and as the 320 is overclocked would make it abetter deal

simply put 320/640 and why you would choose that card


these are the 2
http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Produ...oductID=546951

http://www.scan.co.uk/Products/Produ...oductID=495289


thanks for all your input


P.S lastly not interested in waiting on the ati cards past experience all my ati cards overheat/die and the fans way too noisy and i dont like the drivers either plus already have sli board for at later date if needed

More VGA memory helps for a lot more than just high native resolution, if you use high FSAA, or play games with complex textures and geometry the games you play will see an improvement.

good call on the ATi I've always have trouble with them too.

I have a 640 but didn't pay for it..If it was my own money I'd get the 320mb especially at that resolution. They perform very well up to 1680 x 1050 and in a lot of cases 1920 x 1200 so i wouldn't worry too much about that.

The only thing that might be worth waiting for is the 8600gt/gts if you dont intend on a monitor upgrade anytime soon. The figures look OK for them and I think they will perform quite well but I'm reserving judgement until they are officially released.

But as I said, as its a good price considering the performance you get I would have the 320mb GTS.

I honestly think the 320mb is more than capable, its cheaper and faster. My res on supreme commander at high doesnt use all the ram on the card so :/ cant see you using 320 at your res.

Although your missing out on widescreen high res monitors dude...!

I would go for 320Mb if you are staying at 1280x1024.

Heres a link http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/10...ory/index.html

which compares 320 vs 640.

Quote:

---

now my question is simple i have a 1280x1024 res monitor which i will be using it on i dont think that in the next year or two at that resolution losing the extra memory from a 640mb will hurt me fps wise

---

At those resolutions you will notice very little difference whatsoever if you use 640 over 320.

wow everyone is all in agreement pretty much what kinda forum is this

you leave me no choice but to say

which is better hd-dvd or blu ray

and ps3 or xbox360 :)

At 1280x1024 the only difference you'll see in games will come from clock speed, so go for the gainward.

I have a 320mb one and it cuts through everything even up to 1600x1200.

what about 1680x1050 or 1900x1200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcvs

what about 1680x1050 or 1900x1200

---

those resolutions are not an issue as i only use 1280x1024 and dont intend on getting rid of my monitor for a long while

what everyone else has said really, 320mb should be good if you're sticking to 1280x1024 tbh.

You're all forgetting FSAA and AF uses a lot of VGA memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danroyle

wow everyone is all in agreement pretty much what kinda forum is this

you leave me no choice but to say

which is better hd-dvd or blu ray

and ps3 or xbox360 :)

---

HD-DVD, it's DRM is less viral. XBOX360 for the same reason even though it's Microsoft and that sounds odd. ;)

Quote:

---

You're all forgetting FSAA and AF uses a lot of VGA memory.

---

That may be the case but with my card in sig i can turn everything onto FULL settings including FSAA and AF and still get huge frame rates.

I did the CS:S bench and hit 236.5 fps.

BF2/Oblivion/HL2/Stalker run flawlessly.

Like everyone has said the 320 card is more than enough for those resolutions on current DX9 games. Only thing thing that would sway me towards the the 640 is the fact that DX10 + SM4 will bring more detailed textures, complex geometry, bigger view distances etc... these things will probably be effected quite heavily by a lack of VRAM and could result in having to play games on fairly low settings (:surprised: nooooooooo).
Who is to say at the moment though im just throwing it in there. For a saving of 40-60 quid id still say go for the 320

also been reading reports that nvidia are going to discontinue the 640mb one already as there seems to be no market for it

also read a review from cebit that said the 8800gtx could not run a demo level of crysis at an acceptable frame rate at resolutions above 1600x1200

also hoping the overclocked 8800 will help with fps as long as i can run games for a couple of years and only have to drop to medium settings the last 6 months or so i'll be happy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by danroyle

also been reading reports that nvidia are going to discontinue the 640mb one already as there seems to be no market for it

---

thats the stupidest thing they could do imo, if they dont have a 640mb GTS, then they'll be left with 320mb GTS and 768mb GTX with a big price gap in between.

also im sure the "1600x1200/1920x1200 full AA/AF" brigade will disagree with them here as the 640GTS seems to be a very good compromise to getting a full blown GTX..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lanceuppercut

thats the stupidest thing they could do imo, if they dont have a 640mb GTS, then they'll be left with 320mb GTS and 768mb GTX with a big price gap in between.

also im sure the "1600x1200/1920x1200 full AA/AF" brigade will disagree with them here as the 640GTS seems to be a very good compromise to getting a full blown GTX..

---

i see your point i am only saying what i read

although to me it does make sense on most resolutions the 320mb matches the 640mb and generally people that use the res were the 640mb makes a difference ie 1920x1200 are running 24" monitors which normally means they would just have to buy the gtx for full aa and af

as it is much faster than a 640mb

and the reason they are supposedly stopping the 640mb is due to bad sales since the release of the 320mb

but as i said i only read this on a website so it may not be accurate

It's fairly well proven so far that the 640mb gives only small advantages if any. If games get more memory greedy which they inevitably will at some point then the 640mb may prove worth it. Wether they will get greedy in the GTS's lifespan is another question.

The 320mb is a relative bargain at the moment. Occasionally the stock XFX is on for £175.. Makes my £225 640mb look very expensive indeed..glad I didnt pay :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by staffsMike

It's fairly well proven so far that the 640mb gives only small advantages if any. If games get more memory greedy which they inevitably will at some point then the 640mb may prove worth it. Wether they will get greedy in the GTS's lifespan is another question.

The 320mb is a relative bargain at the moment. Occasionally the stock XFX is on for £175.. Makes my £225 640mb look very expensive indeed..glad I didnt pay :p

---

yeah prices are good was lookijng at an xfx xx edition at £230 until i found the gainward clocked only slightly slower at £199 on today only

and if i can get a half decent amount for my current card will make it worthwhile

I would probably have the gainward at that price or the BFG and clock it a little more myself.

EDIT: http://www.misco.co.uk/applications/...155&CatId=2696

did see that but knowing my luck i would get a crap clocker and the gainward is 550/1760 out the box plus scan have my two new hard drives cheap at the minute