NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512 & GeForce 8800 GT 256MB: Playing with Memory and G92
by Anand Lal Shimpi on December 11, 2007 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
I don't think we've ever had so many competitive graphics cards available in $50 increments of one another. Starting at $179 with the Radeon HD 3850 and now going up to just under $400 with the GeForce 8800 GTS 512, if you have a very specific budget there are plenty of options for a faster graphics card these days.
Honestly, despite the great value from cards like the 8800 GT and the Radeon HD 3800 series, there's still a need for even higher performance GPUs. If you looked at our bar graphs, there are some games where we're still forced to run at Medium Quality settings. Titles like World in Conflict and Crysis simply can't be run at high resolution with full detail settings on even the 8800 GTS 512, at least at reasonable frame rates. We regularly see this seesaw between software and hardware in the 3D gaming space; sometimes our hardware outpaces the software, and other times the software is far ahead of the hardware.
Here's the thing: remember how the 8800 GT came out and made most of NVIDIA's productline obsolete? Well, there's bound to be a G92 based successor to the 8800 Ultra, despite it being faster than the new GTS 512 it's still fundamentally built on old technology and is overdue for a refresh. If you absolutely must have the highest performance and the 8800 GTS 512 won't satisfy you, don't splurge on an 8800 Ultra, we figure you'll regret it within a matter of months. NVIDIA can't go that long without a super expensive graphics card.
Getting back to reality for a moment, what do we think about the 8800 GTS 512 as an overall buy? It's around 10 - 15% faster than the 8800 GT, with a 16% higher price tag (at least). Honestly, in our opinion, GTS 512 just isn't worth the price premium over the 8800 GT 512MB. There's significantly more shader processing power but with barely any more memory bandwidth, this isn't a card that's really any more suited for high resolution/AA performance than the 8800 GT.
It looks like our verdict still stands: if you want one of the best gaming cards on the market today, the 8800 GT 512MB is still our choice. It's more expensive than we'd like, but the 256MB version is a little too slow, and the GTS 512 isn't fast enough. The 8800 GT 512MB is just right.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - link
So the GTS 512 vs the Ultra. The GTS does 26/47 watts less. What's the voltage, 1.5V? So the Ultra draws 17/31 amps more? That's a lotta current.TheRealMrGrey - Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - link
The authors of this review failed to comment on the fact that the 8800 GT 512MB is still under stocked and out of stock just about everywhere! Yeah, it's a really great card, but no one can purchase it! So what's the point? Just to make all those people who already have one feel good? Blah!Mgz - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
so you compare an overclock version of the 8800 GT 256 MB vs the default NO OC HD 3850 and HD 3870 ? at least to make it fair you could compare to an OC version of HD 3850/3870 or compare the non-XXX version to the default clock 3800.=(
just4U - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
I didn't realize they were comparing stock to overclocked. If they were then it's the only oversight in the review. Well done Anand, Finally a review of the 8800GT 256Meg I don't take with half a pound of salt...... Maybe just a dash tho! ;)
LRAD - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
My LCD is 1440 x 900 and it is dissapointing to see so much concern for the high resolutions only. For instance, would a 256 meg solution be fine in the near future for that res? The article beats us over the head with the fact that 256 megs is not enough, but at a lower resolution, might it be?redly1 - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
Thanks for the bar charts at the end. That somehow summed it up for me. Glad to see the power consumption comparison in there too.Spoelie - Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - link
to be honest i really really like the line graphs more, don't really see what's more clear with the bar graphsguess it's a never ending debate
Zak - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
I want a high end $500-600 monster that's at least twice as fast as my current 8800GTX that can play Crysis on 24" screen with reasonable framerates:( I'm thinking about getting another GTX and go SLI but I hear some games, Crysis in particular, don't gain much from SLI. And, of course, the day I shell out $500 on another 8800GTX Nvidia will release 9800GTX or something:( Frustrating....Zak
Bal - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
I think every FPS bar chart should have a FPS/$ overlay. You could incorporate it on all your bar charts and allows users to really compare "bang for buck" vs performance for games they are interested in without adding more graphs..Bal - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link
dang no edit...that was supposed to be an original post...