As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Nvidia 8600 cards = disappointing performance
JWFokker
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/426/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/486/1/
and when you correspond those prices to these Hardwarezone benchmarks of an overclocked 8600GTS (745 MHz core clock / 1145 MHz memory clock)
and then consider that an X1950 Pro is only $159 online ($139 after rebate), the only thing the 8600GTS has going for it is DX10 support, which may be a moot point as many effects like HDR and advanced shaders will have to be disabled to get playable framerates on upcoming games. It's been suggested that the continued use of a 128-bit bus by Nvidia for their midrange cards is responsible for the hobbled performance of the 8600GTS (and the absolute necessity of such high clock and memory speeds). It would seem that the 8800GTS 320MB at $280 ($260 or less after rebate) is the bang for the buck leader in this generation of Nvidia cards.
Guru3D wrote:The 8600 GTS will serve a $199 to $229 price point, followed by the 8600 GT ($149 to $159) and the GeForce 8500 GT ($89 to $129).
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/486/1/
Legit Reviews wrote:
and when you correspond those prices to these Hardwarezone benchmarks of an overclocked 8600GTS (745 MHz core clock / 1145 MHz memory clock)
Hardwarezone wrote:
and then consider that an X1950 Pro is only $159 online ($139 after rebate), the only thing the 8600GTS has going for it is DX10 support, which may be a moot point as many effects like HDR and advanced shaders will have to be disabled to get playable framerates on upcoming games. It's been suggested that the continued use of a 128-bit bus by Nvidia for their midrange cards is responsible for the hobbled performance of the 8600GTS (and the absolute necessity of such high clock and memory speeds). It would seem that the 8800GTS 320MB at $280 ($260 or less after rebate) is the bang for the buck leader in this generation of Nvidia cards.
JWFokker on
0
Posts
PSN ID : Xander51 Steam ID : Xander51
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102067
Oddly, it's $40-50 less than the rest of the X1950XT's on the market.
PSN ID : Xander51 Steam ID : Xander51
Yeah. There are some open box X1950XT's for a little bit less than that, but the rest of the retail cards are $240+. Color me surprised.
The only thing about it is, is that the 8800GTS 320mb is alot more bang for buck.
That's what I thought, as well.
I noted a few differences, and did some comparing/contrasting with what I needed in a graphics card, and I ended up getting the 7900 GS. I've yet to install it (I want to get a 450W or 500W power supply, so I can comfortably run the fans I bought), but I'll have it in and going mid-week.
It'll be a great day.
Actually an X1950 PRO 512MB is in the $200+ range online. The 256MB version which was shown in those benchmarks can get as low as say $140 After rebate
That's really disappointing, I was hoping this card could offer a cheap solution. I was looking forward to building some PC's for some of my clients using this card, but now it looks like DX10 is still going to come at a price.
That would explain why the X1950XT is in the $200-250 range. I'll correct the OP.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
a midrange card is near equaling last gen's high end.
thats par for the course every go around
- 12 pixel shader units – 12 TMUs – 8 ROPs – 8 vertex shader units
The card is a bit faster than a 6800 Ultra and performs similar as a 7600 GT. Some cards can be softmodded.
X1800 XL 256MB (500/1000) (8.0/32.0) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 16 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
It’s a bit slower than a 7800 GT.
X1950 GT 256MB (500/1200) (6.0/38.4) (PCIe) 256-bit HDCP D-DLDVI Native CF
- 36 pixel shader units – 12 TMUs – 12 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
A bit faster than a 7900 GS.
X1900 GT 256MB (575/1200) (6.9/38.4) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 36 pixel shader units – 12 TMUs – 12 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
An X1800 XT 256MB is marginally faster while the 7900 GT has about the same speed. When more pixel shader intensive games are released an increase in performance is expected. Some cards can be softmodded.
X1900 GT 256MB (512/1315) (6.1/42.1) (PCIe) 256-bit HDCP D-DLDVI
- 36 pixel shader units – 12 TMUs – 12 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
This is the new revision of X1900 GT which features a better cooler and HDCP support. The changed frequencies have little to say for its performance.
X1950 Pro 256/512MB (580/1400) (6.9/44.2) (AGP/PCIe) 256-bit HDCP* D-DLDVI Native CF
- 36 pixel shader units – 12 TMUs – 12 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
The performance is marginally better than a X1900 GT which in turn puts it side by side a X1800 XT 256MB. The fastest card using the AGP interface.
* Till now everybody includes it despite the fact that this isn’t obligatory.
X1800 XT 256/512MB (625/1500) (10.0/48.0) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 16 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
In general the performance is a bit faster than a 7800 GXT and marginally faster than a 7900 GT. When equipped with 512 MB of VRAM it often pulls further ahead, especially at high resolutions.
X1900 XT 256MB (625/1450) (10.0/46.4) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 48 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
The only thing separating it from a regular X1900 XT is less memory available. The performance is usually affected – thus revealing that 256MB is often a bottleneck for such a fast card. The severity will of course vary from game and setting used but a ~10% hit isn’t unusual in newer games. To summarize the performance: about 5% faster than a 7950 GT.
X1950 XT 256MB (625/1800) (10.0/57.6) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 48 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
Speed wise is it pretty equal a X1900 XT 512MB, which in turn shows a bottleneck caused by low amount of memory (read also X1900 XT 256MB).
X1900 XT 512MB (625/1450) (10.0/46.4) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 48 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
The card is substantially (~25%) faster than a X1800 XT 512MB, although it can’t entirely match a 7900 GTX. The performance is marginally better than a 7800 GTX 512 MB. When more pixel shader intensive games are released an increase in performance is expected.
X1900 XTX 512MB (650/1550) (10.4/49.6) (PCIe) 256-bit D-DLDVI
- 48 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
It’s a bit faster than an X1900 XT and marginally faster than a 7900 GTX. When more pixel shader intensive games are released an increase in performance is expected.
X1950 XTX 512MB (650/2000) (10.4/64.0) (PCIe) 256-bit HDCP D-DLDVI
- 48 pixel shader units – 16 TMUs – 16 ROPs - 8 vertex shader units
Even though the GDDR4 memory offers unparalleled memory bandwidth it still isn’t all that much faster than a X1900 XTX – only about 5% in average.
This may very well be the case. I wouldn't think so because Quake 4 and FEAR aren't exactly new games or CPU limited, but those two benchmarks don't exactly match up with the couple other review benchmarks that included the 8800GTS 320MB and the X1950XT. Unfortunately, far too many "reviews" don't compare the review card to it's direct competition so you have no frame of reference.
I'm happy with my 8800gts... hope it's enough to play some DX10 games without sacrificing too much.
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
Unless there's a single slot 8800/X2800 coming out soon. That or the X2600 if they kick the 8600's ass.
I'd tend to agree. Longer product cycles with greater variation was the idea for this generation.
Also, I'm curious about this: Can anyone break down on a 6 month period what the price/performance champion has been for the past 4 years? I'd be really interested to see if prices have followed inflation or nvidia/ati have been slowly increasing the price of the middle of the pack to previously "expensive" levels.
Seeing as the rumored price was between 199 and 229, not really. The much better 8800GTS sits around 280-300 on the low end (320MB) URL="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130082"]259 with a mail-in rebate[/URL. Check the OP for the performance difference you'd get for 40 or 50 dollars.
However, this is Best Buy, so who the hell knows.
Anyway, this is depressing. I guess this is AMD's opportunity for a comeback.
Their idiocy pretty much sold me on a 8800GTS, though (not from Best Buy, haha). I guess they're good for something.
I edited my post up there with some more stuff.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
But don't worry, we'll have cards to power physics, AI, smellovision, and grilled cheese drives pretty soon.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Unless I'm mistaking it for the 8800 GTS, which could be the case.
It will cost $700 for the first year, though. After that, a mid-range version will be released that only makes half a sandwich and can only use American cheese.
For $260, the 8800GTS is definitely the best bang for the buck in Nvidia's lineup. I was hoping the 8600GTS was going to be a solid performer, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I wouldn't be surprised if Nvidia is trying to force "midrange" market average price up. Hopefully ATi capitalizes on this and releases a killer $200 card.