LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksNot sure tbh.Originally Posted by moogle
They both have the dual slot cooler so i wouldnt have thought there would be much in it.
Not sure tbh.
They both have the dual slot cooler so i wouldnt have thought there would be much in it.
ahhh, it'll be too much hassle switching now
but still i'll be happy. you getting a gtx then blitzen? i know you were eager to find out about the new gts on the scan section
I really cant make my mind up now either tbh.ahhh, it'll be too much hassle switching now
but still i'll be happy. you getting a gtx then blitzen? i know you were eager to find out about the new gts on the scan section
Its a toss up between the EVGA 8800GTS G92 or an OEM 8800GTX.
I actually only game at 1400x900 so either will be fine.
I just know which ever one i buy, i will regret and wish i went fo rthe other one.
BTW.......I think a while back i mentioned that the GT was in short supply as the GTS was taking up all the production runs. This does seem viable now as the GTS is in good supply (at the moment).
If i had a GT on pre-order though i would certainly be cancelling it and going for one of the other 2 now after seeing the prices.
ahaa, yea i changed my mind and went for a gts just in time because the bfg one looks good with the black bracket
plus you don't realize how small the gt fan is till you actually have it/see it in person. i prefer dual slot gfx cards as as some others have said that they channel the heat out of the case. i say for you if your current cards fine save up that money you were going to spend and wait for the next gfx card to come out if we ever need it. crysis sure needs alot of power but it seems people are getting fed up with it after they've finished it.
Has anyone here asked themselves if its actually worth getting a G92 GTS over a GT?
For every game test I have seen, the GTS only makes the kind of difference that shows up in benchmarks, not ones that you will actually notice.
i.e. the difference between 80 and 120 FPS does not matter at all.
The difference between 25 and 28 FPS on Crysis or something like that does not matter either.
If the GT has unplayably slow frame rates on game X at resolution X etc, the GTS will aswell. If the GTS is perfectly playable on game X, resolution X etc, then the GT is aswell.
Plus those extra shaders never really get to stretch themselves as they are strangled by the memory at higher resolutions/AA etc
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
wont it last longer than a gt in most games? Plus I'd rather have a dual slot cooler as it keeps the noise down. I'm not all fussy about noise in cases but I've just switched my antec out with a silent case and I've noticed the noise difference and having a 7600gt with that tiny fan makes a hell of a lot of noise, id rather have a dual slot fan which doesn't make as much noise for the cooling it offers.
On the first point, I dont think so since it only seems to ever be single digit percentages faster at best, however a very valid second point and the main reason I'm not too keen on the GT. I would like a GT with a dual slot cooler TBH.
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
yea, i was thinking of switching the cooler for the gt with a hr-03 or accelero but I realized it does cool it but the hot air is moved around inside. so for £20 or so more ( about price of the coolers ) the gts was the one for me. Plus I got no card at the moment so I say my purchase is justified
The 8800GTS is on a smaller process too, so I would expect it to be a little cooler than the GTX. That said, I suspect that if you start to heavily overclock the GTS, the power saving benefit may be significantly reduced.
@badass: I've pretty much said all I needed to say about the GTS and GT over here. The difference on average is around 10-15%. It's measurable - there may be instances where it is noticeable (it could be what brings 25 FPS to 30 FPS, or 50 FPS to the magic 60), but I also agree with you that there are many instances where it means nothing (15 -> 18 or 105 -> 120).
But as moogle mentioned are some other benefits such as a less noisy fan, though it also mean losing a slot (on the other hand, I don't quite buy the 'last longer' argument though - a game that is truly next gen in performance requirement will still bring both card to their knee - I just don't think there are that many instances where one card will be fine but the other one completely unplayable - it would take at least a 30% performance gap, if not more, to make that sort of difference IMO). If you are going to spend on a third party cooler anyway though, that would be irrelevant. Still, I would probably pay a premium of 20-25% top over the GT for the added performance, cooler and decreased noise.
Having looked at the GT, GTS and GTX, the GT lost out first because it runs too hot.
That single cooler just cannot cope, and by the time you add an aftermarket cooler, you've lost almost all savings.
The GTX still rules the roost, but the GTS is very good value for money.
Personally, I'm going for an OEM GTX.
Its definitely worth it.
The 8800GT is and the 8800GTS are near enough the same price. (well...a decent GT anyway).
If you have £220-£240 to spend then the GTS is without a doubt the better card and better value.
Since you can get the GTS for £211 frm scan with the occasional (already) deal for £200 surely the GT for go down
to the £150/160 where it would perhaps be appealing again. The 256mb GT should go down to £100 becuase the HD3850 is a better price for basically the same performance.
I have to agree with Blitzen though that if you have in the region of £200 to spend on the graphics card the GT
with its furnace temperatures and single slot noisey cooler isn't worth the little saving in cash.
Yeah. or anybody really.
I was just thinking if you have something you can game on over Christmas, you could maybe hold out for the 9800's and either get one of those, or maybe get an 8800GTX for the price of what you where going to pay for the 8800GTS now (or maybe even less). Or even still get the 8800GTS but probably save quite a big chunk of cash.
Everything is always dropping in price of course, and you have to buy sometime. But it's not often that an entire new graphics card range is released, and when they do, they push the price of all the existing cards down, quite a lot.
So to anyone thinking of buying a graphics card, that is what my advice would be. Hold out for Q1 2008 and get a current gen card for a bargain, or buy a better card for whatever you where going to pay for a current card. Thats only if you have something to tide you over though.
If the budget is at £200, then there isn't really anything else [other than the GTS]. The GTX which is not always better, and is in the £235 region at least, and the GT is a good £20 'under budget'. Anandtech would agree that the the GT still hold the sweetspot though (with a $50 gap - which is more or less what we have here). To be fair, it only takes a glance at the previous page of that review to understand why the GTS is getting so popular. Well, it works for me if demands spread between GT and GTS buyers - I reckon that once demands for the GT settles, the GT will be down to the £150 it was meant to be.
I agree.I reckon that once demands for the GT settles, the GT will be down to the £150 it was meant to be.
When...and only when it reaches that price point though, will it be value for money.
Today only at Scan has GTS's for as little as £207.98.
Thats a better price than the GT's (£172.73), for what you get.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SCAN.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
