8800GTX vs. Dual 8800GT vs. 8800GTS (512)

W

WhiteGuardian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
421
Single 8800GTX vs. Dual 8800GT SLI vs. Single 8800GTS (512)

Which one of the above settings would be the fastest for gaming? Probably like 1400x900 resolutions, not too high. Thanks.
 
prolly the SLi 8800GT in most cases.. but for 1440x900.. i think you only need one GT or GTS... really..
 
really? Because in my case the single GTX configuration costs $100 more, and I've been hearing that lower cards is never better than 1 higher card or something like that.
 
WhiteGuardian said:
really? Because in my case the single GTX configuration costs $100 more, and I've been hearing that lower cards is never better than 1 higher card or something like that.
Click to expand...

The GTX is a GREAT card and generally will give you good results in every game.. a lot of games don't benefit from SLi really, but they're mostly games that a single 8800GT will rock their world anyways :D
 
SLI won't do shit at 1440x900 and the GTS generally outperforms the GTX at low resolutions because it has higher clocks, where the GTX's higher memory bandwidth doesn't help it.

Go with the GT or GTS depending on budget.
 
Thanks guys. It looks like I will have the time to see what nvidia has up ahead.
 
personally, i'd get a single 8800gt for running at that low of a resolution and save some coin. then later on down the road, if you upgrade to a larger resolution, or need some extra graphics power for a more demanding game, you can add another 8800gt for even cheaper than the first one (after prices on them drop), and you will be better off with two 8800gt's in SLI than a single 8800gtx in games that can take advantage of SLI processing.

i just got my MSI 8800GT two days ago, and it is an awesome card. i only really play WoW right now (which hardly has "lifelike" graphics), and upgraded from an nVidia 7800gt. my rez is 1920x1200. i used to need to stay at 2x multisampling, low texture detail, and 50% terrain distance to get decent framerates in the capital cities at the bank or near the BG areas. now i have everything maxed out (with the exception of "weather intensity" and "ground flora", which i don't like having anyway, as it's unneccessary clutter for a graphically-challenged game such as WoW), and still get very fluid framerates (around 40 - 45 fps) near these same areas, and a rock-solid 60fps (vertical sync enabled at 60hz) in other, non-crowded areas.

and this is on an aging socket 939 system with an Opteron 165 @ 2.4Ghz (up from 1.8Ghz) and 2GB of DDR RAM running at 1:1 with the CPU clock (266x9). if i were to upgrade to a 45nm C2D or a C2Q and some quality DDR2 RAM, i'm sure i'd probably be seeing rock-steady 60fps, regardless of where i was in the game.....but i'm not ready to upgrade the rest of my system just yet, there are other things that need to take priority right now...
 
If you don't need it right this second, you'd be better off waiting a few weeks as the 9 series is hopefully going to start rolling out within that time frame and if they don't perform as you expected, the prices of the 8 series will surely come down. Anyways, go GTS if you can't wait but there's also a nice deal going on with the GTX (~$300) that has the potential to last you a bit longer, especially if you get a larger monitor down the road.
 
thanks for the replies. In my case the dual 8800GT will cost $100 less than the GTX, and the GTS wasn't really an option, I was just wondering how they're compare because I saw some other threads saying that if a single 512 GTS>GTX 768, then dual 8800GT will definitely>GTX right? But I dont really know why the GTX 768 config cost more than the dual 8800GT
 
I was thinking the GTS not the GT, but either would be fine. Havn't watched the prices. But that is pretty low res. I wouldn't think SLI would have much benefit at all. If your talking 1920x1200 on the other hand then you should get the Dual GTS.
 
any one running a gtx or a gts 512 should be gaming at no lower than 1600 resolutions, even then you should be forcing gobs of anti aliasing. a stock clocked gts is slightly faster than a stock gtx at lower res and standard aa. the gtx and is made for lots of super sampled aa, in the 8x to 16x variety at 1600, and 2x to 4x at 1900 depending upon the game. the ultra is a highly overclocked gtx so the same principles apply. at the op's resolution he won't get as much out of a gtx as he will with a gts or the gt 512. let me reiterate, the 384 bit memory bus and the 768mb of video ram is meant for applying lots of anti aliasing.
 
9600GT 512mb. At that resolution you will be set for quite awhile. The GTS will be faster but it's not worth it. You may get a few fps here and there but it all depends on your budget.

XFX PVT94PYDF4 GeForce 9600GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card
$179.99 - $10.00 promo code "hardocpvga960010" = $169.99 with $5.84 shipping
Promo Expires on 2/29/08

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...AFC-hardOCP&cm_mmc=AFC-hardOCP-_-NA-_-NA-_-NA
 
WhiteGuardian said:
thanks for the replies. In my case the dual 8800GT will cost $100 less than the GTX, and the GTS wasn't really an option, I was just wondering how they're compare because I saw some other threads saying that if a single 512 GTS>GTX 768, then dual 8800GT will definitely>GTX right? But I dont really know why the GTX 768 config cost more than the dual 8800GT
Click to expand...

They're are lots of deals going on the GTX's right now between $299-350. They're definitely not $100 more than two GT's.
 
ya but I'm considering the new Dell XPS 630, which is a really good deal right now and since I'm not much of a builder myself, it is cheaper than any boutique out there that I could find.
 
You play at a low resolution so the GTX is not the best fit for you. Only when you have AA/AF at 24" & 30" resolutions will you see the GTX show whats its capable of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top