XFX Geforce 8600GTS

[sameev29]

I thinking of upgrading my graphics card with XFX Geforce 8600GTS 512MB DDR3.It is much better than XFX Geforce 8600GT.In some features GPU Clock,Shader Clock and Memory Clock it is like XFX Geforce 8800Ultra 768MB DDR3.I think this card will be the wisest choice.Can someone tell me if Steam Processors,Texture Fill Rate and Pixels Per Clock improves the graphics of games or not?I mean does these creates massive effect on improving the quality of graphics?

Take a look at the comparison:
Product Comparison (http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/ShoppingTools/ProductComparison.aspx)

[Mad]

If you have a 8600GT, its not a big upgrade.
You should aim for at least a 9600GT, or a 8800GT.

[PCXL-Fan]

The 8600GTS is a pale comparison to the 8800GTX Ultra.

Its only slightly improved over 8600gt. As I said get at least an 8800GT.

Here's a look at the 8600GTS vs the 8800GT (using Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800)
AnandTech: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT: The Only Card That Matters (This was the viewpoint back when 8800GT first hit) its no longer true (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140&p=8)
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8800gt/8600-Bioshock.png

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8800gt/8600-Oblivion.png

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8800gt/8600-UT3.png

8600GTS vs 8600GT
AnandTech: 8600 GT/GTS Follow-up Performance (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2975&p=2)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/8600%20followup_042407120453/14525.png

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8600followup/fear.png

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/nvidia/8600followup/stalker.png

[ViperXtreme]

In some features GPU Clock,Shader Clock and Memory Clock it is like XFX Geforce 8800Ultra 768MB DDR3
Yes, the 8600 GTS operates at high frequencies but that doesnt make it close to the 8800 Ultra performance. You also need to consider the architecture inside.
The 8600 GTS makes up for its lesser components inside (lesser number of ROPs, TMU's shader processors, memory interface) by having a high clocked frequency.

[Squall-Leonhart]

upgrading from a GFX card with a 128bit bus, to a GFX card with a 128bit bus, = FAIL.

[StriderVM]

Umm... I suggest the Radeon 3850. It should be a LOT faster than the 8600GTS.

[ViperXtreme]

upgrading from a GFX card with a 128bit bus, to a GFX card with a 128bit bus, = FAIL.
Well, not always :D

look at the Radeon HD 4670 :D

[redlofredlof]

I thinking of upgrading my graphics card with XFX Geforce 8600GTS 512MB DDR3.
Can someone tell me if Steam Processors,Texture Fill Rate and Pixels Per Clock improves the graphics of games or not?I mean does these creates massive effect on improving the quality of graphics?


Steam Processors,Texture Fill Rate and Pixels Per Clock all help in performance.
you will get the same quality in 8600 series as 8800 series the only difference is performance. 8800 series has better performance than 8600 series.

also 8600GT/GTS have 32 stream processors, EDIT=9600GSO-96,GT have 64 stream processors.

the more the number of stream processors the better the speed. So look for more stream processors and higher clock speeds according to your budget. Wikipedia has a very good specification chart for all this.

[ViperXtreme]

the 9600GSO has 96 Stream processors, the 9600GT have 64 ;)

[gamefreak94]

I thought you were aiming for an 8800GT? If you think that the 8600GT is cheaper and doesn't loose out on performance that much then please forget that! People sometimes get fooled because their naming is pretty similar i.e. only a difference of 2 numerals in the second digit.

[Phil]

my 8800gt was $106. Pretty cheap

[sameev29]

I am getting sick of graphics cards.What can I do I want a graphics card that has everything latest and good(Memory Clock,Shader Clock,GPU CLock,DirectX,Open GL,Pixel Shader etc)and which will be able to give me graphics alomst like Playstation 3 or like the Playstation 3 and render ultra quality graphics.But money is the big problem.I can't buy cards which are of high price.That's why I thought 8600GTS will be the good choice.Please someone show me card which is of low price and will be able to render ultra quality graphics.Another thing I am going to upgrade my PC on April 2009.So also consider if the price will get cut or not.

[emwearz]

If your upgrading in April, dont even bother looking now, your wasting your time.
And generally speaking PRICE = POWER, you get what you paid for. Buy the 8800GT now, best bang for buck there cheap as hell. If your buying in April, dont waste your time and our time asking these questions now.

[gamefreak94]

Specify a price range if you want the best card within a certain price range. We might be able to help.

[sameev29]

I have made up my mind that I would buy a graphics card of XFX brand.I have changed my mind from what you guys have mentioned.I am thinking of buying XFX Geforce 9600GT 512MB DDR3 XXX Alpha Dog or XFX Geforce 9600GT 512MB DDR3 XTor XFX Geforce 9600GT 512MB DDR3 XXX.What is your opinion?

Take a look at the comparison:
Product Comparison (http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/ShoppingTools/ProductComparison.aspx)

[gamefreak94]

Look,
8800 Ultra > 8800GT(S) > 9600GT > 9500GT > 8600GT(S) > 8500GT

Pick which ever fits your price range.

[Memulator91k]

No Ati Love?

What about the upcoming cards, the HD4830 (http://news.softpedia.com/news/ATI-Radeon-HD-4830-Comes-in-October-93998.shtml) or the 192 bit RV770le.

[gamefreak94]

Well I'm not too sure as to where exactly the ATI ones will fit in, so I didn't want to misinform him since he already seems a little confused;)

[Cid Highwind]

Good lord there's about 5 threads about your inner debate in the hardware discussion. Everytime we give you advise you still can't seem to make a decision. On top of that you don't even know how to find out what it is you want yourself either.

Here's a little self-help advise:
Set a budget -> Go to Tom's Hardware: Hardware News, Tests and Reviews (http://www.tomshardware.com) -> look up the monthly GPU breakdown per pricespot

If you still don't know which card to choose, or want to see numbers, pick some cards from that list that fall within your budget:
Google (http://www.google.com) -> do a query on [videocard model (8800GT for example)] + [review]

If you can't be arsed to do some investment in research on what you'd like to buy, don't expect us to do it for you, especially not if you're not goign to listen anyway.

And yes, this is pissing me off, and you should be happy I'm no mod or I would've closed several threads of yours already to keep things centralized.

[Princess Garnet]

Look,
8800 Ultra > 8800GT(S) > 9600GT > 9500GT > 8600GT(S) > 8500GT

Pick which ever fits your price range.
It's more like this for the GeForce 8/9 series (excluding anything under midrange segments). The 8600GTS is slightly quicker than the 9500GT, since the latter is merely a slightly slower clocked version of the former (the opposite of how the 9800GT is nothing but a slightly overclocked 8800GT). I'm not entirely positive about the 9800GX2, but I think it's the fastest of the series. If cards are really close, I lump them together.

9800GX2 > 8800 Ultra > 8800GTX & 9800GTX > 8800GTS (G92 version) > 8800GT & 9800GT > 8800GTS (G80 version) > 9600GT > 8800GS aka 9600GSO > 8600GTS > 9500GT > 8600GT

As for the topic, just get an 8800GT and be done with it. It's an extremely good in giving alot of bang for the dollar spent. It's in the budget range so it should be within your grasp (if you're considering a 9600GT, the 8800GT is barely higher). If you want more performance, get an HD4850 and be done with it.
upgrading from a GFX card with a 128bit bus, to a GFX card with a 128bit bus, = FAIL.
I went from one with a 256 bit bus width (6800GS AGP) to one with a 128 bit bus width (8600GTS OC) and saw a 150%-175% average increase. Bus width isn't the be all end all. The 7600GT overcoming the 6800GT showed us that. I do agree with you that I don't like going backwards, but if the performance is better, that's what matters.

[Squall-Leonhart]

Sorry, but if you want decent settings with decent res, going from a 256bit bus to a 128bit bus is a freaking downgrade and is what i'd call stupidity.

[Cid Highwind]

Depends of course, but as a general rule it is true. Lord Zedeck just gave an example, but that's when you get a card of two generations later. Also, the ATi 4870 also shows you can have more bandwidth with half the bus, but that's with DDR5. So yeah, your statement still stands ;)

[Princess Garnet]

Sorry, but my 8600GTS OC let me play on higher resolutions, with higher settings, and with higher speed, than the 6800GS did, meaning in simple terms, card A performed better than card B, and that is all that matters to me (well, I want a quiet and cool card too, but that's beyond performance). The bus width is really only a big issue when all other things are equal or near equal. Theoretically, double the memory speed can overcome half the bandwidth. There's way more at play here than one single thing. Half the bus width and double the memory speed and you've theoretically got an equal. There's too many things to count at play.

[ViperXtreme]

yep, it mostly depends on the memory architecture and how the GPU handles the data transfers. Your 8600GTS basically has faster clocked memories and more efficient structure(better compression etc.) compared to the older GeForce 6800 architecture. It was the same when i upgraded from a GeForce 5900 XT, a 256bit card to a GeForce 6600GT, a 128bit card. The 6600 just destroys the 5900 in just about everything.
Also look at the 128bit bus of the HD 4670, its just trailing behind the 9600GT/8800GT/3870 which has 256bit bus ;) or even the G80 8800GTS which has 320bit bust but still slower than the G92 8800GT which has 256bit bus :D

[gamefreak94]

Same here;) Upgrade from a FX5500 to this i.e. 128-bit to 64-bit:heh: Massive performance difference.

[Squall-Leonhart]

Sorry, but my 8600GTS OC let me play on higher resolutions, with higher settings, and with higher speed, than the 6800GS did, meaning in simple terms, card A performed better than card B, and that is all that matters to me (well, I want a quiet and cool card too, but that's beyond performance). The bus width is really only a big issue when all other things are equal or near equal. Theoretically, double the memory speed can overcome half the bandwidth. There's way more at play here than one single thing. Half the bus width and double the memory speed and you've theoretically got an equal. There's too many things to count at play.

Give me 5 minutes with the comparitive systems and i'll make the 8600 eat dirt, while the 6800 chews through it. the 8600 will obviously win in terms of Shader intensive processes, but the 6800 will win in situations where heavy memory processes are done.

[ViperXtreme]

http://tinyurl.com/3fg5jf

[Cid Highwind]

Give me 5 minutes with the comparitive systems and i'll make the 8600 eat dirt, while the 6800 chews through it. the 8600 will obviously win in terms of Shader intensive processes, but the 6800 will win in situations where heavy memory processes are done.
So in older games the 6800 may win while the 8600 still displays a 60FPS+, but new games aren't playable on the 6800 while the 8600 does them fine. I think the point is that to most of us it's the in-game performance in new games that matters. As long as the bandwidth is sufficient and not crippling a card it's fine, right?

[Princess Garnet]

Give me 5 minutes with the comparitive systems and i'll make the 8600 eat dirt, while the 6800 chews through it. the 8600 will obviously win in terms of Shader intensive processes, but the 6800 will win in situations where heavy memory processes are done.I never said the 6800GS/GT could never, ever, be faster at anything at all than an 8600GTS. You're picking at straws here. I was simply saying it was a performance increase, because you made it sound stupid to go for more performance over one technical specification. Bus width is important, but remember, it's nothing but a part of a performance equation. If one card has that part of the equation lower, but still ends up with better performance in the end, it's the superior, and that's my point. It wouldn't be stupid to go with the faster card. It's more like the other way around. The 8600GTS will be faster than any 6800 card 95%+ of the time. The only time in the graph I saw even the 6800 Ultra beat it (and this was by less than a single frame, mind you) was in Doom 3 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF, and neither card was very playable that way anyhow.

[Squall-Leonhart]

i played Doom3 at 1280x0124 with 2xAA on a 5900XT, with average fps 49. theres no wa a 6800 couldn't own Doom3 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA. unless you are doing something wrong :\

So in older games the 6800 may win while the 8600 still displays a 60FPS+, but new games aren't playable on the 6800 while the 8600 does them fine. I think the point is that to most of us it's the in-game performance in new games that matters. As long as the bandwidth is sufficient and not crippling a card it's fine, right?

Any game where you use AA/AF benefit from a large memory bus width, 7600 and 8600's are fine at lower res's with AA but if you go to high you run into the vram bottleneck.

When large amounts of FBE's are used, this also is reliant on on memory bandwidth as the effects are applied in the framebuffer (ie memory)

[ViperXtreme]

on comparing cards on the same generation(GeForce 7600 to a 7900) Naturally the ones with higher memory bandwidth will prevail on intensive AA and AF plus higher resolution since they share the same architecture but when comparing a geforce 7/8 series card to a geForce FX/6 card, you just don't consider the memory bandwidth. You also consider how the GPU handles tha data transfers from GPU to VRAM as each generation has their own way of handling the memory bandwidth. They usually optimize on how it makes use of the available bandwidth at their disposal (usually on a form of data compression) And also consider other stuff such as their TMU's and ROPs (TMU's and ROPs themselves undergo some optimization)
Another example again would be the 6600GT 128MB 128bit and how it can go head to head or even surpass with the Radeon 9800XT with 256MB 256bit ram, even at intense AA, AF and higher resolution.

[gamefreak94]

64-bit VRAM here. I can still run Crysis!

[StriderVM]

For me, I side with Lord Zedeck because primarily the main reason for a new video card is to play newer games. Not older games. ;)

[ViperXtreme]

^reminds of the 8600 vs 7900 stuff. The 8600's can't go head to head with the 7900's on older games but on newer shader intensive games it takes the lead.

[Princess Garnet]

i played Doom3 at 1280x0124 with 2xAA on a 5900XT, with average fps 49. theres no wa a 6800 couldn't own Doom3 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA. unless you are doing something wrong :\



Any game where you use AA/AF benefit from a large memory bus width, 7600 and 8600's are fine at lower res's with AA but if you go to high you run into the vram bottleneck.

When large amounts of FBE's are used, this also is reliant on on memory bandwidth as the effects are applied in the framebuffer (ie memory)
I don't recall numbers offhand, but when I had my 6800GS (it was paired with an Athlon 64 3200+ and 1GB PC3200 Dual Channel at the time for reference), if I wanted to use 4xAA and 8xAF (which comes naturally with the High quality and Ultra quality setting), I had to go no higher than 1280x960. Then again, I strive for no less than as close as possible to a constant 60FPS in that game (occasional dips are fine), so I'm not saying it can't do it, but I wouldn't settle with it. I remember Chris Ray long, long ago saying that even his SLi setup of two 6800 Ultras struggled a bit with that game with those settings and resolution. Don't forget, you're talking about, what, somewhere close to 170% more pixels at twice the AA demand versus your settings, which is theoretically about three to three and a half times the demand.

Take a look at this.

[H] Enthusiast - id Software's Official DOOM3 Benchmarks (http://www2.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjQy)

It does okay at 1600x1200, but if it's with 4xAA, the mainstream 6800GT was around 37FPS (which I personally find dang slow). That's also the average, which means the intense parts would be even lower.

[Squall-Leonhart]

For me, I side with Lord Zedeck because primarily the main reason for a new video card is to play newer games. Not older games. ;)

forgetting myself that Doom3 on ultra had particularly large high detailed textures,

For me, I side with Lord Zedeck because primarily the main reason for a new video card is to play newer games. Not older games. ;)

which shows you don't understand whats going on at all so should stay clear out of it.