# Twintech GeForce 8600 GTS



## W1zzard (Apr 27, 2007)

Twintech's new GeForce 8600 GTS is based on the NVIDIA reference design using the G84 GPU. It comes with 256 MB of fast GDDR3 memory clocked at 1 GHz, the graphics processor runs at 675 MHz. This is the first DirectX 10 card for the midrange segment with its price tag of around $210.

*Show full review*


----------



## tkpenalty (May 5, 2007)

Its performance is sorta dissapointing...


----------



## Wile E (May 5, 2007)

I agree tk. They need to release a card for this price, that's between the 8600GTS and 8800GTS in performance, then lower the 8600GTS's price to around that of the 1950Pros.


----------



## theonetruewill (May 5, 2007)

Yeah, again I feel a bit disappointed. Maybe ATi will take the mid-range market.


----------



## DaMulta (May 5, 2007)

It sure is fast in 3dmark


----------



## Tatty_One (May 8, 2007)

This is just an initial release price that NVidia can get away with until R600 hits the shelves, I am guessing we can expect about a 20% price reduction in about a month or so.  You can alrweady get them in the UK for cheaper than a mainstream 1950pro if you shop around.

It says it's power consumption is low, I would be interested to know just how low as TBH, when the prices drop for these I might be interested in 2 for SLi and am wondering if my SLi Drive bay PSU would run two of them, it has 250W available and 13A on each of the 2 rails, otherwise I would have to run one from the Drive bay and one from the main PSU.


----------



## zekrahminator (May 8, 2007)

Personally, I think the performance is quite nice for it's class. It's designed for the midrange segment, in direct competition to cards like the X1800GTO and X1950PRO. The 8600GTS, performancewise, brings very nice performance to those who won't be gaming at extremely high resolutions, and does this at a good pricepoint ($190 on newegg?). It also has the added benefit of DX10, assuming NVIDIA will actually make good drivers....

While I find this to be a very good deal, I think I'll stick with ATI. I will be getting an HD 2600 ASAP. I don't need the extreme performance and can't afford the electric bill that would come with the R600, and I hate low-end products. I'm a very happy midrange customer .


----------



## wazzledoozle (May 8, 2007)

I dont see the point when there arent any DX10 games on the market; and by the time there are, there will probably be 2nd gen DX10 cards or at least a refresh of the current ones.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (May 8, 2007)

This is stupid.  Cards that are cheaper and faster...  with dx9.  Thats better!  This is first gen crap.


----------



## Chewy (May 9, 2007)

dont call the 2900xt first gen crap.. I have my hopes up ! 

If it dont hold up to what I expect, I may go with a 8800gts once I know it runs dx10 decently  (soon I hope).

 off-topic post +1.. I want a new card soon... so I can max my graphics.


----------



## bigboi86 (May 9, 2007)

How is this thing bad? It's a midrange card....

I think I'm going to get a 8600GT.


----------



## wazzledoozle (May 9, 2007)

In the past, the mid range has always outperformed the best of the generation it succeeded.
Geforce 6600GT was faster than any FX series, the 7600GT was much better than the 6800 Ultra etc.

This card cant even touch a 7900GT, let alone the GTX. It's just not in-line with past improvements. Now unless DX10 has some magical performance enhancers, this is a serious disappointment to me.


----------



## bigboi86 (May 9, 2007)

wazzledoozle said:


> In the past, the mid range has always outperformed the best of the generation it succeeded.
> Geforce 6600GT was faster than any FX series, the 7600GT was much better than the 6800 Ultra etc.
> 
> This card cant even touch a 7900GT, let alone the GTX. It's just not in-line with past improvements. Now unless DX10 has some magical performance enhancers, this is a serious disappointment to me.



Well, this years last gen cards were quite badass.

Looking at newegg prices, the 8600GTS and 7900GT are basically the same price. However, if you look at the 8600GT, it's like half the price. It uses the same core and similar specs. Looks to be a better midrange budget buy. I want to see an overclocked 8600GT compared to a 8600GTS.


----------



## tkpenalty (May 9, 2007)

Man, this card is horrific, especially after 1024x786, it really starts to die, my X1950PRO thouroughly outperforms it in Need for speed carbon, my friend set it on max shader settings and max AF and AA, and it was slower at 1024x786, even though i was running at 1280x1024.

The 128bit bandwidth is the obvious culpruit. However Nvidia probably cut down on costs by using capacitors and more components as well. 256 Bit at least but the PCB would have to be a bit bigger. What makes it worse there is not ring bus. Like the X1650XT, 128 bit, 256MB Ringbus. The 8600GTS suffers from the total 128 bit bandwidth.

ATI's midrange have large PCBs... thus I conclude the GPU may have the following:
-Ring bus
-256bit full bus





zekrahminator said:


> Personally, I think the performance is quite nice for it's class. It's designed for the midrange segment, in direct competition to cards like the X1800GTO and X1950PRO. The 8600GTS, performancewise, brings very nice performance to those who won't be gaming at extremely high resolutions, and does this at a good pricepoint ($190 on newegg?). It also has the added benefit of DX10, assuming NVIDIA will actually make good drivers....
> 
> While I find this to be a very good deal, I think I'll stick with ATI. I will be getting an HD 2600 ASAP. I don't need the extreme performance and can't afford the electric bill that would come with the R600, and I hate low-end products. I'm a very happy midrange customer .



Not to mention a HD2600 has double the shaders... Electric bills? Seriously thats an overstatement. Computers take in 230V/150V and convert it to 3.3v, 5v, 12v and supply the power. If you have a crappy PSU running ur PC obviously your power bills will go up. R600 will not make your power bills go up by a lot. A stove uses pure 230V/150V and wastes it as heat continously.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 9, 2007)

Why are you all comparing a DX10 card with another cards DX9 performance?  those that have already bought them of course are playing DX9 games but in a few months most of the games released are gonna be DX10 so is everyone going to say all DX9 cards are crap because they wont play the new games?

Noone can ever win here it seems to me, the 6800 comes out, everyone says the 800/850 are poor cause they dont have SM3, as soon as Ati get SM3 support everyone says that the 7900 is crap because it does not support simultaneous AA/HDR and now are we saying that a new gen DX10 card is crap when noones ever seen its performance in DX10......just seems a bit odd to me, All these ATi fanbois started screaming in these forums a couple of weeks ago when the article/thread came out showing the 8800 series beat the R600 equivilent in DX9 benches, and yes.....they were screaming "but thats just a DX9 test, these are DX10 cards!"  seems thats forgotten again now as people seem to be looking at DX9 performance again, I don't care what the cards performance is in DX9 just so long as it can play DX9 until DX10 comes out, if DX10 performancxe is crap I am gonna use the card for a door stop and sue!  (or god forbid....take up console gaming!)


----------



## bigboi86 (May 9, 2007)

I don't see why everyone expects these cards to outperform last years cards. I wont get the GTS, unless I really needed DX10, but the GT looks promising for the price.


----------



## Ketxxx (May 11, 2007)

Really makes folk see how underpowered the 8600 series is.. anything above 1280*1024 in DX9 games the thing basically falls flat on its face and lays there motionless.. I dont even wanna think about its DX10 performance *shudder*


----------



## Wile E (May 12, 2007)

My problem isn't the performance of the card, personally. It's the price you pay for this level of performance. I firmly believe it should be a $150 card, not a $175-230 card.


----------



## Tatty_One (May 12, 2007)

Wile E said:


> My problem isn't the performance of the card, personally. It's the price you pay for this level of performance. I firmly believe it should be a $150 card, not a $175-230 card.



Agree totally, thats just not enuff performance for the money but as I said earlier, these are false inflated price's because there is no competition, I am willing to bet inside of 4 weeks they will reduce by 20%


----------



## mullered07 (May 12, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Why are you all comparing a DX10 card with another cards DX9 performance?  those that have already bought them of course are playing DX9 games but in a few months most of the games released are gonna be DX10 so is everyone going to say all DX9 cards are crap because they wont play the new games?
> 
> Noone can ever win here it seems to me, the 6800 comes out, everyone says the 800/850 are poor cause they dont have SM3, as soon as Ati get SM3 support everyone says that the 7900 is crap because it does not support simultaneous AA/HDR and now are we saying that a new gen DX10 card is crap when noones ever seen its performance in DX10......just seems a bit odd to me, All these ATi fanbois started screaming in these forums a couple of weeks ago when the article/thread came out showing the 8800 series beat the R600 equivilent in DX9 benches, and yes.....they were screaming "but thats just a DX9 test, these are DX10 cards!"  seems thats forgotten again now as people seem to be looking at DX9 performance again, I don't care what the cards performance is in DX9 just so long as it can play DX9 until DX10 comes out, if DX10 performancxe is crap I am gonna use the card for a door stop and sue!  (or god forbid....take up console gaming!)



only thing is tatty all DX9 cards out play DX8 a lot better than the DX8 cards before them so why shouldnt the first gen of DX10 cards be able to crush DX9? i dont see what the point is paying out the same i paid for my x1950pro for a card that performs worse here and now, and tbh DX10 games are going to run in DX9 for at east a year?


----------



## Ripper3 (May 12, 2007)

Well either way, I think most people with current mid-range and high-end cards that are cash strapped will agree, it seems that the next-gen probably won't deliver the crushing performance everyone was hoping.
Frankly, I think I'll keep my X1800 for now, as the 8600 doesn't outperform my card by as much as I'd have thought it would, even with the 1280x1024 res that I use. Until DX10 games start arriving, there's no real point in everyone rushing to upgrade to next-gen equipment if current-gen still works just fine.

Seems that the 8x00 series might be a little like the old FX. Promises more than it can deliver (at least in mid-range, and until we see performance figures from low-end to high-end ATi and some performance figures for 82/8300s added into the mix)

EDIT: Also, can someone show some performance figures comparing some of the 6 series GPUs? I know they're old and outdated, but I'm really curious as to how thy perform against the 8 series.


----------

