Revised 8800GTS

Well I'm just saying that the price disparity between B&M shops and e-tailers is the status quo so not sure why you highlighted it. In terms of product positioning I'd really be surprised if Nvidia filled in their $400-$450 spot with a product that's no faster in most situations than their $250-$300 card.

 

I'd be very interested in seeing how each card scales up to higher resolutions with various amounts of AA. It'd make much more sense if at say 1600x1200 with 4xAA and HDR there's a rather sizable difference, but its hard to judge what an average user will be running at or what their LCDs native resolutions are at. If its say 1280x1024 then there's little reason for them to go higher, but say 1680x1050 with some AA and HDR it might become more clear.

 

uk price

for most gamer who use 19" monitors, the native resolution would be fine for gaming (even with all the eye candy/AA/AAF enabled)

i ahve found the first (i think) site to well the 320MB 8800GTS in the uk

www.novatech.com
£199 including VAT

 

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=37553

 

Interesting review that might give a glimpse of how the new GTS will fare with less memory - http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte-foxconn-gf7950gt_9.html

 

Thanks, that made any potential decision I was going to face clear for me. I'd say going with the 640MB GTS would be the wise idea it would seem if you're going to be playing at say anything around 1600x1200 (such as 1680x1050) or higher, and also if you wish to use it for a longer time.

I find this to be a good thing, now I can just save for a new monitor instead of being temped by a cheap 8800GTS.

 

First review (appears to have broken NDA by a little bit)

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1049/1/page_1_introduction/index.html

I'm not too pleased but, the $280 price is nice.

 

Not the greatest review (only tested two games with AA and AF? Give me a freaking break) but at least some tests show to me that I would certainly not buy the 320MB revision.

 

Heh, you guys aren't pleased that a $300 card doesn't perform exactly like a $400 card in all situations? Some of the performance deltas are massive, but people shopping in that price range shouldn't have too many complaints given the alternatives. It's a very curious move by Nvidia though, wonder what their high-end line up is gonna look like in a few months.

 

Depends highly on how low the 8800GTS 320MB goes though, especially when you consider $330 8800GTS 640MB are not that hard to find anymore. If the difference is only $50 then the 320MB SKU is a real waste. Also, if you even consider holding onto the card for over a year then you really have to call into question if $50 is worth it (I'd personally be shocked if the 320MB falls into $200 price territory).

The 8800GTS is not a $400 card anymore.

 

At this point I'm kinda expecting the 640MB version to slowly fade away. After all, most people are probably going to be a lot more pragmatic about saving that $50 (I'm betting the price delta will be higher) if word gets around that the cheaper version is just as fast in most situations.

Haven't seen those $330 GTS's - where are those, rebates? I figure a good place for the 320MB version to settle is $260-$270.

 

Yes, after rebate. Newegg has an MSI at $344 after rebate and Froogle has one at $329 listed but I didn't look at other more known stores and see what their rebate outlook was like, etc.

I'd personally be rather upset if the 640MB faded unless it were replaced with a more powerful part (an 8800GT?).

 

Yeah who knows, time will tell. In the least the guys currently in the market for a 7950gt or x1950xt class card now have another compelling option.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=1

>14% hit overall from AT's selection of games. This sku would have been insanely popular back at G80 launch, at this point in time it looks wise to save up for the 640MB one.

 

AT also tested at 1920x1200 w/ AA and their Q4 numbers seem strange. Far more interesting is how it holds up at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 since these are the resolutions it's most likely to be used at. I would think the fact that it's just as fast as the 640MB version in most cases is a positive thing - weird that people are looking at it exactly opposite. It did pretty well over at Hexus - http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7842&page=8.

But that's just talking about current performance - it will probably run like a 3 legged horse in newer titles even at those lower resolutions.

 

The drop is not just at 1920x1200 but at lower resolutions also

 

those are some strange results...

 

Yep, those are weird numbers. It fared better in F.E.A.R at FS. But however it does against the 640MB version what it needs most is a price drop.

 

Didn't see a link here, but Guru3d has their review up on the new GTS version.

In a nutshell they state:

 

Guru3d's pool of games is big enough, I thought the review would never end. From that review GRAW is another game thats a poster child for the 640MB version: 65% delta at 16x12.

Also while the 320MB may look slightly slower overall, the min frame-rate is another story.