NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB

[Tim S]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...s_320mb/1.html

[Kipman725]

a return to meaningfull benchmarking :O

[WhiskeyAlpha]

Originally Posted by Kipman725

a return to meaningfull benchmarking :O

Agreed.

Whilst the 'highest playable settings' way of doing things was good for letting you know how your rig might be expected to handle certain games, or how a potential new purchase might be expected to perform, it doesn't beat the good old 'straight comparison'.

Us geeks then get to see how our FPS are affected in several games, several resolutions, various levels of AA & AF, and as far as I'm concerned, make a more informed decision.

It allows a much easier way of comparing hardware directly to see if that shiny new upgrade is really going to make that much difference. Rather than just saying "it allows you to play Quake 4 with 4xAA!"

That's not taking anything away from the previous method of benchmarking. I think it was 'ballsy', given your readership and probably took as much, if not more work to compile than this one.

I just think that the people who read a hardware article on bit-tech are big enough and ugly enough to make an informed decision themselves, once provided with some hard facts and figures.

Mr. Smalley, I salute you

Oh, and I think I'll stick with my 8800GTS 640MB but the 320MB looks like a great deal.

EDIT: One thing I was curious about is that your screen grab for COH doesn't suggest nearly the highest graphical settings (though I accept this may be a library pic). I run the game with all settings maxed out on my rig except for 'effects fidelity' and 'effects density'. I currently have these set to 'high' but setting them to 'Ultra' brings my lil' beast to it's knees, with shockingly low frame rates, which render the game completely unplayable. Any thoughts?

[Mother-Goose]

hmmm I always liked the highest playable settings feature myself but eitherway, good stuff as always. This little bugger looks like a HTPC solution for some mild gaming....or generals on a 50" lcd

[Mankz]

Originally Posted by Bit-Tech Review

BFG’s GeForce 8800 GTS OC 320MB is not going to win all of the benchmarks with its fairly middle of the road clock speed increases, but BFGTech does appear to have hit a price point right on the top of the head. The card is available for purchase at just under £195 including VAT – that’s about £70 cheaper than the 640MB version of the same card with the same clock speeds.

**cough, £45, cough**

[Fozzy]

Meh. Needs to be a little better. Looks like I'll be getting the 640mb or the GTX......Seems like my 7900GTX can pull those numbers albiet without DX10 support

[specofdust]

Looks like a very nice card to me. A great spot at £190 for now.

I too, do like the return to simple numeric benches. The Best Playable thing was pretty useful in some respects, and if that could be partially maintained or maintained for some games I reckon it'd be cool. Not sure how though since it seems like an all or nothing method. Regardless, it was far easier to compare the 640 with the 320 using the method used in this review imo.

One thing though tim, can we get some Oblivion tests please, preferably with some super-hi res texture mod packs? I'd be very interesting to see how the 320 performs in Oblivion which I have a feeling might chew through RAM with hi-res packs installed.

Overall, great review

[orb]

Guess i'll be getting the 640mb instead of the 320mb of the bfg card to play @ 1920x1200,

[Tim S]

Originally Posted by Mankz_91

**cough, £45, cough**

For the same card with the same spec?

[DougEdey]

Mankz is being funny....


When scan have the Palit 640MB 8800GTS' in stock they normally put them on today only for £240.

[Tim S]

Originally Posted by DougEdey

Mankz is being funny....


When scan have the Palit 640MB 8800GTS' in stock they normally put them on today only for £240.

yeah, my comment in the review was about the exact same card as the 320MB BFG but with 640MB of memory.

[trig]

thx for the review...good info

[samkiller42]

Good review/reviews as allways Tim, think i shall be sticking to my GTS 640MB card

Sam

[rupbert]

Yeah I think for the extra £70 or so double the memory is more than worth it for an
extra year or two out of the card.

Great review.

[Mankz]

Originally Posted by Tim S

yeah, my comment in the review was about the exact same card as the 320MB BFG but with 640MB of memory.

Yeah, I realised later on.

[mctigger]

good review, would consider it, as i may be upgrading my card from a meassely ati x300 , but would conisder the 640MB one just to get a few years out of it. or might just wait till a direct x10 card cums out, the r600 should be good!

[rupbert]

Originally Posted by mctigger

good review, would consider it, as i may be upgrading my card from a meassely ati x300 , but would conisder the 640MB one just to get a few years out of it. or might just wait till a direct x10 card cums out, the r600 should be good!

That's going to be an impressive performance jump!

[BioSniper]

No 1280x1024 benches then?
I understand that the market is moving to larger 1600x1200 panels but still. I'm sure the larger percentage here is still doing 1280x1024.

[specofdust]

Just assume that at 1280x1024 everything runs perfectly with uber high settings dude

[perplekks45]

I'll stick with my 640 MB GTS too. If the 320 had been released earlier... I'd still have picked the 640.

And looking at the overclocking potential those cards have (and the E6600) I think it's hard to get something better for the same money if you're actually willing to overclock a bit.

// edit: What I missed was the overclocking part in the review though. Did I over-read it? And I like the 'apples to apples' approach better than 'best playable settings' too.