GeForce 8800 GTS 320MiB Preview

Discussion in 'Beyond3D Articles' started by Arun, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    UK
    <a href="http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/8800gts320launch/"><img border="1" src="http://www.beyond3d.com/includes/images.php?id=242" align="right" width="75" height="75"></a>Ladies and gentlemen, the record has been broken: the first $299 semiconductor device based on a die the size of Manhattan has been unleashed. We couldn't confirm the number of casualties at this time, but we do believe Godzilla has fled in terror at the sight of the 480mm² monster.

    More seriously, NVIDIA unveiled the GeForce 8800GTS 320MiB today, which is still based on the 90nm G80 die, and the same board layout. We don't have benchmark numbers today, but plan to have some in the very near future - for the time being, <a href="http://www.beyond3d.com/articles/8800gts320launch/" target=_b3dout>let's look</a> at what's different and what the implications are.
     
  2. Berek

    Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2004
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    This would be an excellent buy I think for those looking for a mix between performance and price. Toning down the memory to 320MB certainly helps and is still quite a respectable amount. Thanks for the Preview!

    I didn't see a power consumption estimate. Since its basically the same board as the 640MB GTS part, I would assume that it would be virtually identical?

    $299, I'm going to have to edit some posts to re-recommend the part. I believe this is also another step closer to a notebook version, following the G83 release.
     
    #2 Berek, Feb 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 12, 2007
  3. Skrying

    Skrying S K R Y I N G
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    61
    I don't know, as much as I know everyone here at Beyond3D really knows their stuff, the comments made in the article seem to fly against benchmarks popping up across the web, where even at resolutions of around 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 with AA there seems to be performance dropping compared to the 640MB model. Theoretics are nice and all, but some real results would have proved the point.
     
  4. Rys

    Rys PowerVR
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    4,156
    Likes Received:
    1,433
    Location:
    Beyond3D HQ
    We mention that it's mostly the case (that it keeps pace), but there are apps that obviously run slower and that we'd show a couple of those (F.E.A.R and CoH to name but two) just so people are aware.

    Real results are coming, we've barely touched the hardware so far but wanted to cover the launch today so readers are aware of the SKU and its basic properties.
     
  5. Arun

    Arun Unknown.
    Moderator Legend Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,023
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    UK
    That might be slightly difficult without a card at our disposal on launch day, though! ;)
    Also, if you look at Anandtech's numbers ( http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8800gts320/16x12.png and http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8800gts320/25x60.png for example), I think you can draw some logical conclusions from that. Basically, many games have very small performance losses, while a few have very big ones. The biggest losses are in Quake 4, Battlefield 2, Serious Sam 2 and Company of Heroes. For the first, it's easy to explain: They used Ultra quality, thus uncompressed textures. For diffuse maps, 4 to 8 times the memory size. As for the others, I'd suspect it's a combination of big render targets and big textures.

    The mainstream is going to stay with 256MiB cards for a fair bit longer, I'd suspect, and D3D10 virtualization ought to help a bit with this too. So at this point, I'd say the rule of thumb is that if your favorite game is in the list of those that have very big textures, then this card isn't for you. And if you game at a resolution above 1600x1200, it isn't for you either. If you fit in neither category, however, this card should perhaps be seriously considered. Especially so given that it's looking like the $299 segment won't be hit by G84/G86/RV630/RV610. All of them, without exception, seem to be aimed slightly or much below that. It'll be interesting to see when the new chips aimed at the segment come out, and whether AMD has a R600 SKU aimed at it too.

    (note: this is merely my own opinion, right now, and of course, our final judgement depends on our own testing and further analysis and etc. etc. etc...)
    (note2: If you want to see some how much texture compression is affecting things in Q4, see Tech Report's numbers, which are not in Ultra mode apparently. Very different picture indeed. I wonder if the same (lack of compression) is true of some of these other games. Probably not, though. So obviously, there certainly are some cases where 512MiB wouldn't hurt.)
     
  6. Pete

    Pete Moderate Nuisance
    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    333
    Tech Report's review sez yes.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...