NVidia 9600GT? 8800GTS?

[dlb]

I'm looking at buying a new video card, and it's likely going to be an NVidia card over an ATI. So, what does everyone think? A 320mb 320bit 8800GTS -OR- a 512mb 256bit 9600GT factory overclocked to 725mhz/2.0ghz?
The 9600GT is PCI-Express 2.0 compliant, but I don't think the 8800GTS is. Is this that big of a deal?

Other specs: AMD64 X2 5400+ @ 2.80ghz; 2gb DDR2-667.


[dlb]

[hegemon875]

Originally Posted by dlb

I'm looking at buying a new video card, and it's likely going to be an NVidia card over an ATI. So, what does everyone think? A 320mb 320bit 8800GTS -OR- a 512mb 256bit 9600GT factory overclocked to 725mhz/2.0ghz?
The 9600GT is PCI-Express 2.0 compliant, but I don't think the 8800GTS is. Is this that big of a deal?

Other specs: AMD64 X2 5400+ @ 2.80ghz; 2gb DDR2-667.


[dlb]

Just going by a few facts that I can remember I say go with the 9600.

The 8800gt out performs all versions of the gts except the 512.
The 8800gts 320 is the weakest of the gts.
The 9600 is only slightly weaker than or equal to the 8800gt in most situations.
The price is similar.

[DarkCypher0x0]

Just from all I've read, stay away from the 9600GT, A LOT of problems. Get an 8800GT or the GTS.

[dlb]

Hmmmm.... one for the 9600, and one against. And what about the PCIe2.0 standard?

[ibbonkers]

I'm with Dark on this one .. after alot of reviews stated the card would go to black screen(put monitor to sleep and require a reboot), unexplained crashes etc... stay with the 8 series.the pci-e 2.0 isnt fully utilized until the cards take another major leap since cards dont use everybit of pci-e slot. just MHO

[hegemon875]

Thats the thing about the internets though. You can find tons of posts about how bad any product is.

If youre not absolutely stuck to those two cards then go for the 8800gts 512 version. Its the one with g92 core and is hands down the best card for the money at the high end IMO.

[Trussman]

I'm running XFX GeForce 9600XXX 512mb on my pc for the past 3 months and I've had 8800gt 512mb in the past. To me there is a little better visual with the 9600, plus it's blu-ray ready. I' haven't had any problems yet.

Now here is the catch, the 8800 only used a max of 300 watts, this 9600 needs around 400 watt total or it will automatically cut itself back, so it can run properly, so now you're not getting the full usage. I had to upgrade from a 650watt PSU to a 800 watt PSU, so that everything can run properly.

Just remember that with whichever card you choose, you need to add up all your wattage uses from everything in your PC and add 20% more for the proper PSU.

Hope this helps

[dlb]

Well, thanks for all the info. I was already planning on upgrading the PSU anyway, so that shouldn't be an issue. I'm leaning more towards the 8800GTS for the time being; it's has been around longer and has proven itself to be one bad-a** video card. Unfortunately, the ATI HD3870 is rearing it's head too, confusing the situation. A freind just got one and says it's the greatest thing since shredded lettuce (??? shredded lettuce? shredded lettuce???). I have always been an nVidia fan, but my current card is an ATI x1950; the reason I didn't get an nVidia card is long and boring. And I've been real happy with its performance. It's an AGP card, and I think it's time to upgrade to some more current technology and go with the PCI-Express.
Anyway- thanks again.

If anyone else has something to add, feel free! I'm not going to be making the actual purchase for maybe a week or so, so there's plenty of time.

[dlb]

I thought all GTS cards were 320bit, but I guess not. I'm looking at a BFG 8800GTS that's 256bit, but there's an eVGA card that is also an 8800GTS but it's 320bit. And the price on both is about the same. And if I'm not mistaken, they both have lifetime warranties. So, I think I'll go with the eVGA in this scenario. I'm confused by something I read in one of the above posts:

The 8800gts 320 is the weakest of the gts.

Whaaa??? I've been looking up video cards for the past 3 or 4 days 'til I'm cross-eyed and this statement is just wrong.

[hegemon875]

Originally Posted by dlb

I thought all GTS cards were 320bit, but I guess not. I'm looking at a BFG 8800GTS that's 256bit, but there's an eVGA card that is also an 8800GTS but it's 320bit. And the price on both is about the same. And if I'm not mistaken, they both have lifetime warranties. So, I think I'll go with the eVGA in this scenario. I'm confused by something I read in one of the above posts:
Whaaa??? I've been looking up video cards for the past 3 or 4 days 'til I'm cross-eyed and this statement is just wrong.

320MB not 320bit is what I was referrnig to. Get the 512mb 256bit version its the best of the 8800gts.

[hegemon875]

Actually now that I think about either way it still makes sense. The two 320bit versions (640mb and 320mb) are inferior to the 256bit version (512mb).

[ACE 256]

I have two 8800GTSs and two 9600GTs. The 9600s beat the 8800s hands down in every thing in SLI or as a single card, more so after overclocking both (9600s tend to be nice overclockers).

In 3Dmark 06:
2 x 8800GTS in SLI = 9714
2 x 9600GT in SLI = 13157
1 x 8800GTS = ~7000
1 x 9600GT = ~9000

As far as compatibility, the 9600 plays all games with out issue (older and newer) the 8800s render red faction and several other older games incorrectly. Most of the rumored 9600GT bugs were due to the first and second driver released for the 9600GTs that were crap. Most if not all driver issues have been fixed and nvidea is now focusing on tweaking drivers for the 9800 series. In short the 9600GT gets my vote.

[dlb]

The two 320bit versions (640mb and 320mb) are inferior to the 256bit version (512mb).

How do you figure?
MSI 8800GTS-OC (model NX8800GTS 512M OC) 256bit 512mb: Memory Bandwidth: 62.1 GB/sec
eVGA 8800GTS (not OC; model 320-P2-N811-AR) 320bit 320mb: Memory Bandwidth: 64 GB/s
eVGA 8800GTS Superclocked (model 320-P2-N815-AR) 320bit 320mb: Memory Bandwidth: 68 GB/s
eVGA 8800GTS (model 512-P3-N841-AR) 512mb 256bit: Memory Bandwidth: 62.1 GB/s
eVGA 8800GTS SSC (model 640-P2-N829-AR) 640mb 320bit: Memory Bandwidth: 72 GB/s
I could go on, but in each case, the 320bit cards have higher bandwidth, even with lower clock speeds. Now I could still be wrong somehow, and would have no problem admitting it, but I just don't see the numbers to prove that the 320bit cards are "slower" than the 256bit cards....

@ ACE256: Is there any truth to the "9600's are unstable and crash" talk that I've been hearing? I know that there's always bad cards in every bunch regardless of make or model, but is this more common with the 9600's? Or is it probably due to other things like weak PSUs? (for example). I'd really like to get a 9600 but I'm a bit leary with hearing all the 'crash' talk....

[ACE 256]

Originally Posted by dlb

How do you figure?
MSI 8800GTS-OC (model NX8800GTS 512M OC) 256bit 512mb: Memory Bandwidth: 62.1 GB/sec
eVGA 8800GTS (not OC; model 320-P2-N811-AR) 320bit 320mb: Memory Bandwidth: 64 GB/s
eVGA 8800GTS Superclocked (model 320-P2-N815-AR) 320bit 320mb: Memory Bandwidth: 68 GB/s
eVGA 8800GTS (model 512-P3-N841-AR) 512mb 256bit: Memory Bandwidth: 62.1 GB/s
eVGA 8800GTS SSC (model 640-P2-N829-AR) 640mb 320bit: Memory Bandwidth: 72 GB/s
I could go on, but in each case, the 320bit cards have higher bandwidth, even with lower clock speeds. Now I could still be wrong somehow, and would have no problem admitting it, but I just don't see the numbers to prove that the 320bit cards are "slower" than the 256bit cards....

There are several versions of GTSs ones that are 256 bit and have 128 shaders and ones that are 320 bit with 96 shaders. Normally the ones with more shaders are faster, depending on the game and settings.

[hegemon875]

Youre absolutely right they do have higher bandwidth but the 8800gts 512MB uses the new g92 core (as I previously stated) while the other two versions dont. Memory bandwith isnt the end all be all of graphics cards. In my experience there really isnt one spec that you can look at and say if a certain card has this one spec higher it will ALWAYS be better.

Numbers are an important part of deciding on a card but they arent everything. There alot of sites out there who do real world performance tests on graphics card (including tomshardware of course) and the results of these tests is that the 8800gts 512 simply puts out higher FPS than any other version.(yes I realize FPS is a number but you know what I mean : P)

[dlb]

Normally the ones with more shaders are faster

Are shaders the same as stream processors? If so, the 9600s have 64 shaders/stream processors, and the ATI cards have 320. I don't really want to drag ATI into this, but it almost seems that the number of shaders/stream processors makes no difference. But then again, I could be wrong.

there really isnt one spec that you can look at and say if a certain card has this one spec higher it will ALWAYS be better

Too true... too bad it would make choosing a video card alot easier. I guess I'm just looking for bang for the buck, and I really hate buyer's remorse. You know when you buy something after shopping for the best deal, then a week later you see something a bit better for a bit less, and it was there the whole time but you didn't see it for some reason. The more I look at these video cards, the more it seems like they are all so close that if I ran one next to another, I probably wouldn't notice the difference. I just want to be sure I get a quality, stable, powerful card that's going to last me a while, and you guys have been MOST helpful. THANKS! If you can offer any other advice, suggestions, specs, links, whatever, I'd appreciate all the info I can get so I can learn what all determines a video card's power. I know the memory is probably the least important of the specs, but after that, it gets a bit hazy with bandwidth, and memory clocks, and video clocks, and shaders, and stream processors, and bits, and pixels per clock and pipelines (which actually don't seem to be much of an issue anymore) and so on....

[ACE 256]

Yes by shaders I meant stream prossessors or universal shaders both are the same thing.

The 8800GTSs I was talking about in my first post are the 320mb 320bit versions.

The 8800GTS in Toms hardware's The Best Gaming Graphics cards for the Money: April 2008 is the 256bit 128shader version of the GTS, NOT the 320bit 96 shader version. But give it a look.

ATIs shaders are not equal to nvidia's shaders because nvidia holds the rights to several universal "stream" shader optimizations. The only way ATI can compete is by adding even more shaders to get around there "inefficient" driver.

Same 8800GTs in your original post and same 9600GT as in your original post.
In 3Dmark 06:
2 x 8800GTS in SLI = 9714
2 x 9600GT in SLI = 13157
1 x 8800GTS = ~7000
1 x 9600GT = ~9000

A clean cut and simple answer to your original post: The 9600GT beats the pants of the 320bit version of the 8800GTS.

Now I have a headache Im off to bed.

[dlb]

Now I have a headache

:o Sorry I didn't mean to hurt you
But why do the 320bit cards cost so much more?
You don't need to answer that....
Thanks for all the great info. Now I know; I've learned something new thanks to you...
Sleep well, ACE.

[ACE 256]

Originally Posted by dlb

:o Sorry I didn't mean to hurt you
But why do the 320bit cards cost so much more?
You don't need to answer that....
Thanks for all the great info. Now I know; I've learned something new thanks to you...
Sleep well, ACE.

Kinda meant it as a joke . Its probably do to the fact that the 65?nm die on 9600 is cheaper to mass produce then the 90nm die of the 8800. More so with more shaders and memory channels. As for why the 64 shader 9600 out preforms the 96 shaders of the 8800, effieiciency. The shaders on the 9600 are more efficient.

[dlb]

Thanks everyone for all your input, and for helping me make an informed decision. I just rec'd a brand spankin' new Geforce 9600GT, factory OC'ed to 720. Here's a link if anyone gives a ....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814121242