GTS or GTX?

I

Ionium

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
351
I have a 21" flat screen dell monitor (1680 x 1050 res), which G80 series would be best for the kind of monitor I have? Do I really need a GTX or will a GTS give me plenty of performance? Thanks.
 
Ionium said:
I have a 21" flat screen dell monitor (1680 x 1050 res), which G80 series would be best for the kind of monitor I have? Do I really need a GTX or will a GTS give me plenty of performance? Thanks.
Click to expand...

In all honesty a GTS will do you just fine at that resolution, especially if you're on a budget and can't swing the enourmous price difference.
 
GTS, but when the DX10 titles hit, you might want the power of a GTX...

Depends how deep your wallet is.
 
Arcygenical said:
GTS, but when the DX10 titles hit, you might want the power of a GTX...

Depends how deep your wallet is.
Click to expand...

I really want to go GTX, but $600 is mighty pricey.
 
Ionium said:
I really want to go GTX, but $600 is mighty pricey.
Click to expand...



Are you overclocking your cpu? Buy a GTS, overclock that cpu to about 3ghz (or better most likely) with a decent cooler, and you are going to have LOTS of video power...for a long time. The extra cash can be spent on some games or other hardware like a bigger display or more ram, etc.

My 1680x1050 display is wonderfully matched to my GTS, with a minimum of 2x AA and 8x AF in EVERY game I play....some games I use 4x AA and 16x AF....I use vsync on to hold the fps at 60 and it plays butter smooth and tear free....
 
I say GTX, because the difference in power between a GTS and a GTX is just obscene...around 30-50%. This is not a 7900 GT / 7900 GTX generation, where the only difference is an overclockable clock speed. There is so much more to be had with the higher-end card this time around...so much more.
 
Cyrilix said:
I say GTX, because the difference in power between a GTS and a GTX is just obscene...around 30-50%. This is not a 7900 GT / 7900 GTX generation, where the only difference is an overclockable clock speed. There is so much more to be had with the higher-end card this time around...so much more.
Click to expand...

Whaaaat? Everything I've heard says 15% to 20% performance difference between the cards, tops. I'd be really interested to see / read/ digest some evidence to the contrary. :eek:
 
GTX is not 50% faster than a GTS....at high res and IQ settings, it can be 15% plus or minus a couple points....what matters is that the GTS can indeed give a whooping to games at 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 resolutions, like 60fps+ depending on settings.
 
Get the GTS.

I picked up one evga 8800GTS for $422 after $20 rebate.

My card overclocks past the GTX speeds and my brother has the GTX and you really can't tell the difference. Yea his may have higher benchmarks but you don't play those. In games, performance is pretty much the same.

Anyways by the time DX10 games really take off i'm sure there will be something better and faster by then. For current games the GTS is more than powerful enough to keep you happy imo.
 
I didn't mean at 1600x1200. I meant at 1920x1200 with very high settings and beyond. My point is, in terms of raw power, it is THAT much faster. If you're not the type of guy that likes the term future-proof, then fine, 8800 GTS will do. If you're the type of guy that likes to:

a) have the best at a certain point in time
b) try to be future-proof without overspending (8800 GTX is proportionally a good deal when compared to the 8800 GTS)

...then pick the 8800 GTX.

If you want me to give you sources stating 30-50%, I will find them for you, guaranteed. Give me a moment.

Edit (here they are):

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/401/10/

43.3% faster at 2560x1600 with Serious Sam 2
43.2% faster at 2560x1600 with Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory
43.3% faster at 1920x1200 with Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory
40% faster at 1600x1200 with Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/401/11/

42.5% faster at 1920x1200 with FEAR
36.2% faster at 1600x1200 with FEAR

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/401/12/

37.5% faster at 2560x1600 with GRAW
32% faster at 1920x1200 with GRAW
40% faster at 1920x1200 with Prey
34% faster at 1600x1200 with Prey

Ok, enough with the Guru3D, how about Anandtech?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=21

45.9% faster at 2560x1600 with Company of Heroes

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=25

48.1% faster at 2560x1600 with Battlefield 2

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=26

60.4% faster at 2560x1600 with Prey

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2870&p=27

54.5% faster at 2560x1600 with Half Life 2: EP1

Enough anandtech? TrustedReviews below:

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2006/12/12/BFG-GeForce-8800-GTS/p3

21.3% faster at 1600x1200 with Call of Duty 2
23.5% faster at 1920x1200 with Call of Duty 2
27.9% faster at 2048x1536 with Call of Duty 2

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2006/12/12/BFG-GeForce-8800-GTS/p4

29.5% faster at 2048x1536 with Quake 4

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2006/12/12/BFG-GeForce-8800-GTS/p5

33.2 % faster at 2048x1536 with Battlefield 2

http://www.trustedreviews.com/graphics/review/2006/12/12/BFG-GeForce-8800-GTS/p6

31.5% faster at 1600x1200 with Prey
29.4% faster at 1920x1200 with Prey
33.3% faster at 2048x1536 with Prey

Need more proof? I can find you more.
 
Also someone posted a 3dMark06 score with an E6600 @ stock, and 8800GTX @ stock, and my score was actually higher by a few points.

I have a E6400 @ 3Ghz and 8800GTS @ 620/950.

Like others have said, at 1680x1050 the GTS paired with a C2D 3Ghz and up will provide ALL the power you need for a long time (unless you have to be the latest and greatest all the time).

I plan to keep my machine for about 2 years (Just built it a week ago) along with a 22" Acer LCD.

I have no regrets and feel I got a great value. The ONLY game my system seems to have some issues with is the new Rainbow Six Vegas. I sometimes dip to low teens @ 1680x1050 w/ HDR on. Then again this game is Unreal 3, a 360 port, AND doesn't support widescreen resolutions by default. It also looks terrible :(

Everything else runs amazing w/ 4x-8x AA, 8-16x AF at 1680x1050!!
 
keldegar said:
Also someone posted a 3dMark06 score with an E6600 @ stock, and 8800GTX @ stock, and my score was actually higher by a few points.

I have a E6400 @ 3Ghz and 8800GTS @ 620/950.

Like others have said, at 1680x1050 the GTS paired with a C2D 3Ghz and up will provide ALL the power you need for a long time (unless you have to be the latest and greatest all the time).

I plan to keep my machine for about 2 years (Just built it a week ago) along with a 22" Acer LCD.

I have no regrets and feel I got a great value. The ONLY game my system seems to have some issues with is the new Rainbow Six Vegas. I sometimes dip to low teens @ 1680x1050 w/ HDR on. Then again this game is Unreal 3, a 360 port, AND doesn't support widescreen resolutions by default. It also looks terrible :(

Everything else runs amazing w/ 4x-8x AA, 8-16x AF at 1680x1050!!
Click to expand...
See above...if you prefer to be more or less future proof, it's up to you, but there's no denying the 8800 GTX is CONSIDERABLY more powerful.
 
Cyrilix said:
See above...if you prefer to be more or less future proof, it's up to you, but there's no denying the 8800 GTX is CONSIDERABLY more powerful.
Click to expand...

and considerably (50%) more expensive.

also let's not forget most of us aren't running our GTS at stock speeds. These OC easily.

3dm06.gif


c1600.gif


dm1600.gif


d31600.gif


lomac1600.gif


pf1600.gif


fear1600.gif


mts1280.gif


fol1280.gif


cod21600.gif


fc1280.gif


coh1600.gif



The overall tally for the overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS at 1600x1200 in comparison to the stock GeForce 8800 GTX was:

1% behind in Company of Heroes (this could increase with further driver optimizations)
8% behind in Quake 4
13% behind in F.E.A.R.
7% behind in HL2 Lost Coast
7% behind in Call of Duty 2
Pacific Fighters: CPU-bound case
4% behind in LOMAC
17% behind in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic
16% behind in Far Cry HDR+AA
9% behind in Oblivion Mountains area with HDR+AA
11% behind in Oblivion Foliage area with HDR+AA
 
keldegar said:
snip
The overall tally for the overclocked GeForce 8800 GTS at 1600x1200 in comparison to the stock GeForce 8800 GTX was:

1% behind in Company of Heroes (this could increase with further driver optimizations)
8% behind in Quake 4
13% behind in F.E.A.R.
7% behind in HL2 Lost Coast
7% behind in Call of Duty 2
Pacific Fighters: CPU-bound case
4% behind in LOMAC
17% behind in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic
16% behind in Far Cry HDR+AA
9% behind in Oblivion Mountains area with HDR+AA
11% behind in Oblivion Foliage area with HDR+AA
Click to expand...

You should compare gtx oc to gts oc to be fair.
 
skadebo said:
You should compare gtx oc to gts oc to be fair.
Click to expand...

not really, isn't the point of OC'ng to get more performance for lesser $$? So we can see how close to GTX performance we can get, for only the cost of the GTS.

The question isn't whether the GTX is faster than the GTS, that's a given. The question is if the performance increase is worth the premium price (+$200). If you can get near to stock 8800GTX performance from an OC'd 8800GTS, I think that makes a huge difference than comparing a stock GTS to GTX.

Would you buy a X6800 for $999 when you can get a E6400/6600 for way less and OC to faster than X6800 speeds? You are buying an X6800 because you either 1) have lots of money, 2) don't overclock and want the best machine or 3) want the 11x multiplier.
 
skadebo said:
You should compare gtx oc to gts oc to be fair.
Click to expand...
^^ qft

not really, isn't the point of OC'ng to get more performance for lesser $$?
Click to expand...
aren't you doing that exact thing by ocing a gtx? therefore, when future cards come out, you are getting more performance for less money. i'm confused
 
sumofatguy said:
^^ qft

aren't you doing that exact thing by ocing a gtx? therefore, when future cards come out, you are getting more performance for less money. i'm confused
Click to expand...

what is faster and costs more than an 8800GTX?

TWO 8800GTX :D

Also not everyone overclocks, maybe everyone on this forum..
 
I'd also vote for the 8800GTS, even though you want a higher res it's still a damn nice card. Like many people have stated, you can overclock it very closely to 8800GTX speeds and save $200. OCing a video card is easier than ocing a processor IMO. Also, for me, I wouldent want to go that high in res. The max I will ever play at is 1280x1024 and the 8800GTS does really well on that resolution, and in some benchmarks, comes very close to the 8800GTX.

8800GTS FTW~
 
OC's are never guaranteed, if you want to play every game with all the eye candy at 1680x1050, a GTX is a safer bet.

Or better yet, get and Evga GTS, see how it OC's, if you are happy keep it, otherwise step up to a GTX.
 
See, I would overclock my CPU but I know absolutley nothing about overclocking and am very afraid of burning something out. Otherwise I would.
 
Ionium said:
See, I would overclock my CPU but I know absolutley nothing about overclocking and am very afraid of burning something out. Otherwise I would.
Click to expand...

Lol I don't think you can burn out a Conroe processor...

Unless you take the HSF off or shoot the Vcore up past 1.7v.

It'll go into a HALT state and avoid any instructions if it gets too hot.
 
Cyrilix said:
I didn't mean at 1600x1200. I meant at 1920x1200 with very high settings and beyond. .
Click to expand...



At those settings. yes. I said at 1600x1200 or 1680x1050...not everyone has a 24" or 30" display.....the majority is at 1600x1200 or less...in that case, the GTX is a bit overkill considering the price, and the GTS, especially overclocked, is fast enough to be indistinguishable to the GTX, once everything is running at 60fps or more average...you really can't tell which card you are on.
 
Alright alright, so we've established the 8800 GTX is more powerful by enough, and is overkill. Does the OP want some overkill? He/she can decide.
 
Cyrilix said:
Alright alright, so we've established the 8800 GTX is more powerful by enough, and is overkill. Does the OP want some overkill? He/she can decide.
Click to expand...

Obviously he/she cannot, thats why they started this thread. :D
 
Then let me give my personal opinion after receiving my 8800 GTX yesterday. I have a 20" 1600x1200 LCD monitor. FEAR runs great with every possible setting enabled + 4xAA. I get an average of 46 fps and a minimum of 32 fps (stress test). Do you really want to go into the low 20s for a minimum at max settings? If you overclock, it'll get you out of the hole, but just wait for UT2007 and Crysis -- they should make your card scream.

Oblivion runs great at 1600x1200 max + 4xAA, and I'm sure it would run great on a GTS with those settings as well. Dark Messiah and Quake 4 are similar. Neverwinter Nights 2 (at max possible + 4xAA) dives into a minimum of low 10s with a maximum at my vsync refresh rate (60). The average is around 25, however. WARNING: This is one game that makes me wish I had more power than the 8800 GTX!

That's all.
 
Okay, lets say I know nothing about overclocking, what would be the easiest way to OC mine up to maybe 3.5 ghz? (If that's a good number)
And give me simple instructions that I can understand please.
 
I'm in the same boat, I have a 1680X1050 widescreen LCD. I'm going to get a 8800GTX so my new rig will be more future proof. When Cysis and UT2007 come out I'll just put in another 8800GTX and I'm good it go. I will probally overclock them to.
 
Well I have 20" widescreen with same 1680x1050 resolution and with my GTS every game I've tryed works just great.

GTX is stronger and better grafic card though with Sli mainboard I can allways go with second GTS.
Till I need second card for future games GTS is going to be cheep to.

Two GTS cards in Sli will own single GTX.

Till then drivers are going to be better to :)

Though till games are so complicated that GTS can't run them good on my screen most proboby I will have like 9800GTS or some other second generation DX10 card (maybe Ati who knows)

Also when I've got mine GTS I've done some reaserch and eveyone said it's suficient even for 24" screens.

GTX cards where not even avaible at that moment due recalls of first generation.

Hardware on it selft is great on GTS only some drivers suck.
Though it asks for fast CPU (Dual core CPU is a must) good Power Supply and realy good ventilated case.

It's thermal radiation made me eat my own words I was preaching about modern silent cooling.
Although I was a person with like 30 fans in case and 8k rpm 60 mili Deltas in end of 90's and early 2000's I've changed to silent efficient cooling freek.

I've claimed that for any normal PC with single grafic card two HDD and two optical drives it's enough to run two silent 120 mili fans and mayebe additional quiet 92 mili and god PSU with quiet 120 or 140 mili fan.

Now to cool my PC I need to make soe more noise then I'm use to and run temps I do not feel comfortable with.

8800 series grafic cards are like open flame in Your case.

Although 450 watt quaity PSU will work with normal system with GTS (it works even with Shuttle 350 watt PSU) I recommend 600watt or more PSU. 450 watt PSU will just run to hot with 8800 series grfic card in system.




MD
 
Ionium said:
I have a 21" flat screen dell monitor (1680 x 1050 res), which G80 series would be best for the kind of monitor I have? Do I really need a GTX or will a GTS give me plenty of performance? Thanks.
Click to expand...

If you're a serious gamer and want to play your games at max settings, buy the GTX. No other card comes close to it. It will run every game @ that resolution with ease. But as you know, this comes with a price: ~$650.
The GTS, is not as powerful, but it handles current games extremely well too, even at that res. You might need to compromise the eye candy in some cases, but the card is about $200 cheaper than the GTX, so it's worth every penny.

IMHO, if you have the money for a GTX, buy it. You won't be disapointed and you'll be ready for future games, where the GTXs power, will surely be used in full.
 
I can find a bunch of 8800 GTX on newegg for $610 (and in Canada on ncix, $700 CAD). $650 is only if you really want to pay the extra. :p
 
I bought an eVGA 8800GTX to go with my 20" widescreen LCD that runs at the same res you are and I can tell you right now I am glad I did. Being able to play all the games currently out at 1680 x 1050 with everything on and max AA and filtering is well worth the money. It being future proof is just a bonus.

Also as far as heat is concerned I found that using a shroud of some sort to route the hot air being pushed down out of the holes in the heat sink out of the case help dramatically. Dropped my temps down by about 5C.
 
How many more FPS are You getting with GTX then me with a GTS? Is that worth money? Can You feel diference between 69 and 75 FPS?

Also if You can aford GTX why not. You do not need an reason to get it.

Do You realy need it with that resolution I do not think so. Not now atleast.


I'm afraid that games that are going to max ou GTS wnat be playable on GTX to.




MD
 
'Future Proof' is thrown around way to much here, and in the case of enthusiasts like us, is a completely bogus term anyway. My less-than-one-year-old X1800XT still plays Oblivion well, yet I'm upgrading anyway. All of you on this forum buying an 8800GTX now will have it for less than two years.

Nothing is future proof, it's just an investment. Sell it when you want something else.
 
Nicepants42 said:
'Future Proof' is thrown around way to much here, and in the case of enthusiasts like us, is a completely bogus term anyway. All of you on this forum buying an 8800GTX now will have it for less than two years.

Nothing is future proof, it's just an investment. Sell it when you want something else.
Click to expand...



EXACTLY...I doubt I will have my single GTS a full year....
 
Nicepants42 said:
Nothing is future proof, it's just an investment. Sell it when you want something else.
Click to expand...

True nothing is future proof, but for my situation when I upgrade everyone in my house upgrades. Last years hot hardware goes down the totem pole to whoever is next.
 
Nicepants42 said:
'Future Proof' is thrown around way to much here, and in the case of enthusiasts like us, is a completely bogus term anyway. My less-than-one-year-old X1800XT still plays Oblivion well, yet I'm upgrading anyway. All of you on this forum buying an 8800GTX now will have it for less than two years.

Nothing is future proof, it's just an investment. Sell it when you want something else.
Click to expand...
Nice try, nicepants42. Don't go deciding for others what their upgrade plan is. I like to get the best of the best every 2 generations. which is reasonable. Some people will upgrade faster, some won't.

This is the last video card I'm getting before I buy a totally new machine sometime in the future. My processor cycle typically lasts 4 years, especially if you buy the best of the best (before my upgrade to 4400+, I was on a Pentium 3 866 MHz). That said, "future proofing" means something, as it means my computer will be able to last the length of time I expect it to. And people keep on trying to insinuate that the difference is small, like the poster that said 69 vs. 75 fps. You are just totally wrong, especially when it comes to higher resolutions and more horsepower. The difference is large -- you're just not feeling it right now because the hardware is a bit ahead of the software at the moment.
 
Cyrilix said:
Nice try, nicepants42. Don't go deciding for others what their upgrade plan is. I like to get the best of the best every 2 generations. which is reasonable. Some people will upgrade faster, some won't.

This is the last video card I'm getting before I buy a totally new machine sometime in the future. My processor cycle typically lasts 4 years, especially if you buy the best of the best (before my upgrade to 4400+, I was on a Pentium 3 866 MHz). That said, "future proofing" means something, as it means my computer will be able to last the length of time I expect it to. And people keep on trying to insinuate that the difference is small, like the poster that said 69 vs. 75 fps. You are just totally wrong, especially when it comes to higher resolutions and more horsepower. The difference is large -- you're just not feeling it right now because the hardware is a bit ahead of the software at the moment.
Click to expand...
I could not have said it better myself. My new rig is going to last me 4-5 years, that is why I chose the GTX and not the GTS. If your one of those people that upgrades your PC every 3 months, get the GTS it's plenty fast for your needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top