# 2900 Pro/XT vs 8800 GT



## Darren (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm planning on upgrading my graphics card in the next few weeks, been researching and I've out ruled the 9600 GT, 3850, and 3870 completely. My budget is about £130 and I'm considering the 8800 GT and the 2900 Pro in which I'll flash to XT. 

Prices:

8800 GT - £130
2900 Pro and passive cooling - £127

Edit:: No fan boy comments, just facts and reviews accepted with backed up arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit 2:

I've made my decision and purchased an Inno3D 9600GT Armor Edition, thank you for everyone that helped. Now i've got another isuse!

I'm getting extremely low scores benchmarking in 3D mark 2006 and scored a crappy 5440. Although my CPU is a huge bottle neck I'm sure my score should be a few hundred points higher.

I've tried everything! re-installed Nvidia's driver v175.16 twice, re-installed chipset drivers, reseated my graphics card. GPU-z states I'm getting a full PCI-E 16x @ 16x 

I found a thread where someone has a similar spec to mine (graphics card and CPU wise) and he has managed to get a full 8118 points in 3d mark 2006



> Done running 3dMark06 and the result was 8118 points. Normal result? What about updating chipset drivers; have never updated them before so they are kinda out of date.....


http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=57460


----------



## PyroX1040 (Feb 28, 2008)

2900 Pro flashed to XT is deffently better

The 8800GT's run at about 55-65C load depending on the cooling of it and the case,

My 2900 Pro flashed to XT runs at about 45-55C Load,

the GT can be overclocked to about 600/2000 from my knowledge without seriuosly increasing heat and stress,

the 2900Pro can go to about 700-750 :X!


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 28, 2008)

hwat res do u game at? what size galitor


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 28, 2008)

i would go for the 1gb version of the pro flashed to an xt, it will be much better


----------



## DaMulta (Feb 28, 2008)

PyroX1040 said:


> 2900 Pro flashed to XT is deffently better
> 
> The 8800GT's run at about 55-65C load depending on the cooling of it and the case,
> 
> ...



uMM NO, the GT is without a doubt is the better card.

I have had 2 2900Pros 1 Gb that I have ran at 900Mhz, and 3 8800GT 1Gb cards with one of the clocked at 800Mhz.


----------



## Darren (Feb 28, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> hwat res do u game at? what size galitor



I tend to game at a resolution of 1280x720, sometimes 1440x900 but because I'm spending big money I expect to run full detail.



DaMulta said:


> uMM NO, the GT is without a doubt is the better card.
> 
> I have had 2 2900Pros 1 Gb that I have ran at 900Mhz, and 3 8800GT 1Gb cards with one of the clocked at 800Mhz.



Tell me more about the performance of the 2900Pro, was it the 512bit architecture or the crappy 256-bit version and did you attempt to flash it to XT. Also do you have any tangible evidence such as benchmarks or statistics.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 28, 2008)

the pros you can oc the hell out of them---look at mein, not even flashed to an xt (never got around to it) the gt is a great card, i personally cant tell the diff between the two in most games, i can show you benchmarks where one is superior over the other and vice versa, both are very close matched cards, the gt will give a few more fps but not much, it really for me anyway come down to price between the two, but with your setup i would go with the 2900


----------



## DaMulta (Feb 28, 2008)

They were the 512-bit versions of the card. I did flash both of them into XT cards, and I didn't really test them with the PRO Bios. Which I did hear, had better ram timing than the XT does.

With the 2900 card, I could not run AA in my games very well. For example in COD4 I had to run my res lower at 1440x900 to get a steady frame rate. With my GT I can run COD4 at 1920x1200 full maxed out about 70-100FPS at all times.

However I do have to admit, that internet/DVDs movies with my 2900XT were better than this GT.

If you look here, you can see that I have some of the best clocks on video cards for those.
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=25995

Here is a GT review
http://www.techpowerup.com/printreview.php?id=/Zotac/GeForce_8800_GT


----------



## FatForester (Feb 28, 2008)

Seeing how you have strict requirements for any replies as if everything is all of a sudden under the MLA writing system, I have a bit of advice: Google is your friend.  Personally I'd say the 8800GT gives you a better lifespan since it has the PureVideo which offloads HD content to the GPU unlike the 2900's. It is also a lot easier to cool and doesn't use up nearly as much electricity. If you buy the evga variant for the 8800GT you can use their step-up program and nab a 9800GTX when they become available.


----------



## Psychoholic (Feb 28, 2008)

I have a 512bit 2900 pro, i just edited the pro bios with my stable clocks of 820/1900, and it rocks.  COD4 1920X1200 everything maxxed (without AA) ~80fps.

If they're the same price, i'd probably go with the GT, the cards are really close performance wise and the GT sucks less power.


----------



## DaMulta (Feb 28, 2008)

Psychoholic what about when you turn on AA? I know that it really kills the performance.


----------



## Darren (Feb 28, 2008)

FatForester said:


> Google is your friend.



I've been researching and Googling for months, hence why I disqualified the 9600 GT, 3850, and 3870 cards. The scores on the 2900 XT and 8800 GT is close according to the reviews, I need a Tech Power Up decision to swing my purchase.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 28, 2008)

im not sure how efficient your psu is, if you something on the little less of the power hungry side go for the 8800


----------



## FatForester (Feb 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> I've been researching and Googling for months, hence why I disqualified the 9600 GT, 3850, and 3870 cards. The scores on the 2900 XT and 8800 GT is close according to the reviews, I need a Tech Power Up decision to swing my purchase.



Since that's the case, then by all means the 8800GT is the better purchase.


----------



## Rurouni Strife (Feb 28, 2008)

just wondering, why did you eliminate the 3870?  it's basically a 2900xt. that uses less power.  costs or something?


----------



## Psychoholic (Feb 28, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> Psychoholic what about when you turn on AA? I know that it really kills the performance.



Yes, my only complaint about the card.  it does hurt alot..  thats one reason i leave it off, and to me it doesnt do much for the game at 1920X1200.


----------



## flashstar (Feb 28, 2008)

I can play COD4 with my 2900pro/xt at 1680 x 1050 with full 4x AA and 16x AF at 50-60 fps even with my slow cpu.


----------



## CrackerJack (Feb 28, 2008)

Psychoholic said:


> I have a 512bit 2900 pro, i just edited the pro bios with my stable clocks of 820/1900, and it rocks.  COD4 1920X1200 everything maxxed (without AA) ~80fps.
> 
> If they're the same price, i'd probably go with the GT, the cards are really close performance wise and the GT sucks less power.



wow 80fps at 1920x1200!!! i only get 65fps with 2900gt crossfire. but that's in my old 939 x2 4200+ i'm waiting for my board to get RMA. i'm hoping to get around 80fps, when it gets back.


----------



## Darren (Feb 28, 2008)

Rurouni Strife said:


> just wondering, why did you eliminate the 3870?  it's basically a 2900xt. that uses less power.  costs or something?




The 3870 is a great card, the majority of benchmarks I've seen it's slower than 8800 GT and 2900 XT, it's even slower than the 9600GT which is only £15 cheaper, that's why I eliminated it.

DaMulta, what I've noticed from reviews is that the first batch of drivers for the 2900 series were rubbish and didn't portray the card in a good light, but in the later reviews late 2007 early 2008 the card seems quiet competitive. I'm really confused here as I've seen some reviews where the 8800 GT kicks the 2900's ass, but I've seen other reviews where the 2900 XT has kicked the GTS ass and shamed the GTX.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> The 3870 is a great card, the majority of benchmarks I've seen it's slower than 8800 GT and 2900 XT, it's even slower than the 9600GT which is only £15 cheaper, that's why I eliminated it.
> 
> DaMulta, what I've noticed from reviews is that the first batch of drivers for the 2900 series were rubbish and didn't portray the card in a good light, but in the later reviews late 2007 early 2008 the card seems quiet competitive. I'm really confused here as I've seen some reviews where the 8800 GT kicks the 2900's ass, but I've seen other reviews where the 2900 XT has kicked the GTS ass and shamed the GTX.


I'm the same as Damulta, I came from a real 2900XT, to these Palit 8800GT's. The 8800GT wins, hands down, in almost everything. Not really even a contest. This is coming from an ATI fanboy. Do yourself a favor, and buy the 8800GT. I guarantee, you will not regret it.


----------



## wolf (Feb 28, 2008)

+1, bought an 8800GT, coming from an x1950Pro 512 and 8600GT's......never looked back


----------



## yogurt_21 (Feb 28, 2008)

from a power consumption per frame perspective, the 8800gt will win hands down, from an overclocking perspective, it really depends on the card, both damulta's and wile's 2900's fell quite short of mine and mandelors on air, and then both me and mand went to water. Most 8800gt's can go to record high 3dmarks with uberclocks, but I haven't seen them really dominate the 2900xt in gaming, a few frames here and there sure, but when both are oced it's a matter of which game. I'd say it's a matter of preference, which do you prefer features or aa? the 2900 has the features, the 8800gt can handle aa much better.


----------



## Psychoholic (Feb 28, 2008)

they only pull ahead of the 2900s when AA is enabled (which to me isnt that big of a deal when im at 1920X1200).  IMO its not enough to justify getting one, if i was going to upgrade tomorrow, it would be a G92 GTS, not a GT.

I did come from a G80 8800GTS to the 2900, I can say the games do look a tad better on the 2900 for some reason.

My 2900 was $159 too


----------



## Darren (Feb 28, 2008)

It seems that most people who have suggested the 8800 GT opposed to the 2900 XT have used poor anti-aliasing performance as justification. But I've found a review using "Catalyst 7.10" from FiringSquad.com which indicates the 2900XT's strong point is indeed anti-aliasing at high resolutions, from most benchmarks it's able to defeat the 8800 GTS but loose against the GTX. Why is there so much anti aliasing ambiguity with the Tech Power Up recommendations in comparing the to the reviews I'm reading?

I'm confused FiringSquads.com's indicates that the 8800GTS is weaker with AA and AF, but you guys are saying the 8800 series is better with AA, which one is it?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/powercolor_amd_radeon_hd_2900_pro_review/default.asp (look at the XT not the Pro)

thanks


----------



## DaMulta (Feb 28, 2008)

That review is before the updates to the N cards.

Trust me, I am a major ATi fan. I still like my 2900PRO card alot. It's just not the same in games right now. The GT blows it away in performace.

AA killed the 2900 cards badly. When you turn it on your performace just goes out the window. I don't honestly know why that is.


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 28, 2008)

when the 2900 first launched they intally held the crown for performance, but now the 8800 takes teh cake


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 29, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> when the 2900 first launched they intally held the crown for performance, but now the 8800 takes teh cake



how do ya get that, remember Nvidia launced the Ultra right before that, and even at the rare times it beat the GTX it didnt touch the Ultra, you should reread some of your reviews there buddy.


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 29, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> That review is before the updates to the N cards.
> 
> Trust me, I am a major ATi fan. I still like my 2900PRO card alot. It's just not the same in games right now. The GT blows it away in performace.
> 
> AA killed the 2900 cards badly. When you turn it on your performace just goes out the window. I don't honestly know why that is.



because it uses the shaders to compute AA


----------



## wolf (Feb 29, 2008)

yeah the 2900XT was only ever a match the old GTS 320/640, it totally couldnt touch the ultra, and lost to the GTX 95% of the time.


----------



## Darren (Feb 29, 2008)

wolf said:


> yeah the 2900XT was only ever a match the old GTS 320/640, it totally couldnt touch the ultra, and lost to the GTX 95% of the time.



Are you telling me to get the 2900 XT over the 8800GT because it only looses against the GTX and ultra? Remember I'm not interested in the GTX or Ultra just a GT to 2900 XT comparison. Secondly everyone keeps talking about "old 8800" did Nvidia change the physical architecture recent?



DaMulta said:


> That review is before the updates to the N cards.



I'm confused did Nvidia implement a physical change to their architecture to merit an "update to the cards" what was the changes?

I'd appreciate if you guy scan tie up a few loose strings of ambiguity, thanks


----------



## das müffin mann (Feb 29, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> how do ya get that, remember Nvidia launced the Ultra right before that, and even at the rare times it beat the GTX it didnt touch the Ultra, you should reread some of your reviews there buddy.



sorry i should have specified, i was talking about cards that people could afford at the time


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 1, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> That review is before the updates to the N cards.
> 
> Trust me, I am a major ATi fan. I still like my 2900PRO card alot. It's just not the same in games right now. The GT blows it away in performace.
> 
> AA killed the 2900 cards badly. When you turn it on your performace just goes out the window. I don't honestly know why that is.



it's easy actually, without aa on the 64 shaders with 5 stream processors per shader (1 complex 4 simple) are enought to handle the job, as the 4 simple stream processors per shader are working normally. With aa on the 1 complex stream processor per shader is doing all the work leaving the rest to do little work if any at all (depending on the game). 

The architecture was good on paper, but really would have been much more effective with 4 stream processors per shader, two complex, two simple. then nv would have never domintate dfor this long. but hey who am I? right.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Mar 1, 2008)

i would go for the gt ,2900 is a power hog. who needs a second heater anyways.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 1, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm confused did Nvidia implement a physical change to their architecture to merit an "update to the cards" what was the changes?
> 
> I'd appreciate if you guy scan tie up a few loose strings of ambiguity, thanks


Yes, nVidia shrunk and tweaked the core. The 8800GT and 8800GTS 512MB are based on this tweaked and shrunk core, called G92. The original 8800 core was G80. The newer G92 core is much more efficient. The 8800GT is actually faster than the 8800GTS 320/640MB cards.


----------



## candle_86 (Mar 1, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> it's easy actually, without aa on the 64 shaders with 5 stream processors per shader (1 complex 4 simple) are enought to handle the job, as the 4 simple stream processors per shader are working normally. With aa on the 1 complex stream processor per shader is doing all the work leaving the rest to do little work if any at all (depending on the game).
> 
> The architecture was good on paper, but really would have been much more effective with 4 stream processors per shader, two complex, two simple. then nv would have never domintate dfor this long. but hey who am I? right.



its more of an issue with the thread dispatch processor, Nvidia uses a more conventional approach while AMD is using one requring specfic optimations in the game engine to use effectivly, thats the major downfall. And with Nvidia being the number one add in board GPU maker, it makes little sense to program a game for AMD hardware as this would cut Nvidia preformance down alot.


----------



## wolf (Mar 1, 2008)

Darren said:


> Are you telling me to get the 2900 XT over the 8800GT because it only looses against the GTX and ultra? Remember I'm not interested in the GTX or Ultra just a GT to 2900 XT comparison. Secondly everyone keeps talking about "old 8800" did Nvidia change the physical architecture recent?



well the GT is only marginally behind a GTX, so with an o/c it pars, if not exceeds it, so id tell you to get a GT over the 2900XT cos the 2900 is old, hot, power hungry, and an over clocked 2900 vs an over clocked GT (same argument stock for stock) the GT should win most of the time too. its pretty much proven the 512-bit bus does nothing for the time being, sure it might come in handy in a while, but by that time the GPU wont have enough power to fill the pixels.

and remember the 2900 was only a par for the G80GTS which the G92 exceeds in leaps and bounds, so yeah get a GT.

and its the old 8800 cos its a year OLD, not because the architecture is old. and the newer ones are better, they're faster, cheaper,and cooler, with more overclocking headroom.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 1, 2008)

All you need to do is read TechPowerUp's video-card reviews, any of the recent ones which feature the 8800 GT alongside HD2900 XT 512M and 1024M in the charts. You can get your comparisons right in there. My verdict, bless yourself with a 8800 GT that consumes far lesser power, runs games better, faster.


----------



## wolf (Mar 1, 2008)

as would be my verdict.


----------



## Darren (Mar 1, 2008)

btarunr said:


> All you need to do is read TechPowerUp's video-card reviews, any of the recent ones which feature the 8800 GT alongside HD2900 XT 512M



I have and on average it shows the 2900XT performing better. Right now the only thing that's convincing me to get the 8800 GT is it's quiet fan and low power and heat consumption.




wolf said:


> and its the old 8800 cos its a year OLD, not because the architecture is old. and the newer ones are better, they're faster, cheaper,and cooler, with more overclocking headroom.



How would I verify that the 8800 GT I purchase online would be of the newer model, I might very well receive an old model taken from the back of the warehouse, right?


----------



## btarunr (Mar 1, 2008)

Darren said:


> I have and on average it shows the 2900XT performing better. Right now the only thing that's convincing me to get the 8800 GT is it's quiet fan and low power and heat consumption.



Really   Let me put 1600x1200 as an average resolution though you're free to go back to the other resolutions' charts.










































That's the list of games of whose charts suggest the 8800 GT as a better performer to the HD2900. I'm talking only of games, we all use our video-cards to let us play games primarily, right?



Darren said:


> How would I verify that the 8800 GT I purchase online would be of the newer model, I might very well receive an old model taken from the back of the warehouse, right?



Don't need to. If you're hinting at the whole PCB layers issue then be noted, unless you're volt-modding and are into serious over-clocking, that issue doesn't hold ground. At a said set of parameters (clock-rates of the core, memory, shader) there is no difference in the 8800 GT's with different PCB's.  At least the fact remains the 8800 GT is a better option and it stays that way.


----------



## FatForester (Mar 1, 2008)

Is this thread still going on??  It's like beating a dead horse. By the time this will be resolved, those cards won't matter anymore!


----------



## Deusxmachina (Mar 1, 2008)

Darren said:


> Tell me more about the performance of the 2900Pro, was it the 512bit architecture or the crappy 256-bit version



Have there been any side-by-side tests done yet between the 256bit and the 512?  The 3870 has a 256bit and is neck-and-neck with the 512bit 2900xt.

For the OP, if prices are close, I can't see not going with a 8800GT as long as it's not the 256mb version.  

Although I would add that with all the talk about quiet fans on the 8800GT also comes talk about overheating.  The 2900 fan is a leafblower, but only when it needs to be.  Turn it down for desktop stuff or mild gaming and you can barely hear it.  It's Jeckyl and Hyde.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 1, 2008)

the 8800GT outperforms the 2900XT.


----------



## Darren (Mar 1, 2008)

FatForester said:


> Is this thread still going on??  It's like beating a dead horse. By the time this will be resolved, those cards won't matter anymore!



 

Yeah I'm going to have to make my decision soon... But I do appreciate all the great Tech Power Up advice I've been receiving. 




btarunr said:


> That's the list of games of whose charts suggest the 8800 GT as a better performer to the HD2900.



I'll be honest, I never read the Tech Power Up review until now, I was basing findings on other sites like tweaktown.com which heavily contradicts the Tech Power Up's findings. Either way you guys have convinced me to get a 8800 series, I think the idea of having a radiator at my desk has put me off as my bedroom is hot enough as it is.  Thanks again everyone for your input


----------



## ATi > nVidia (Mar 1, 2008)

Darren said:


> I'm planning on upgrading my graphics card in the next few weeks, been researching and I've out ruled the 9600 GT, 3850, and 3870 completely. My budget is about £130 and I'm considering the 8800 GT and the 2900 Pro in which I'll flash to XT.
> 
> Prices:
> 
> ...




I'll sell you my 512-bit HD 2900 Pro already flashed to XT. Sapphire version, full retail box with all unused, unopened accessories, including Crossfire bridge. Name your price and PM me.  I'm an ebay power-seller.


----------



## warhammer (Mar 2, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> when the 2900 first launched they intally held the crown for performance, but now the 8800 takes teh cake



You are joking when you say that 2900 held the CROWN when it first launched it failed to run FARCRY it was meant to be the GTX killer.

I held off waiting for the 2900 it got delayed so many times I bought the 8800GTX.

Do yourself a favour get the GT it goes hard and OC as well.


----------



## flashstar (Mar 2, 2008)

Get the 2900pro 512 bit if it costs $200 or less.


----------



## wolf (Mar 2, 2008)

Darren said:


> Either way you guys have convinced me to get a 8800 series, I think the idea of having a radiator at my desk has put me off as my bedroom is hot enough as it is.  Thanks again everyone for your input



thats it man, complete fanboyism and that crap aside, the 8800GT is _simply_ a better choice.


----------



## Wile E (Mar 2, 2008)

warhammer said:


> You are joking when you say that 2900 held the CROWN when it first launched it failed to run FARCRY it was meant to be the GXT killer.
> 
> I held off waiting for the 2900 it got delayed so many times I bought the 8800GTX.
> 
> Do yourself a favour get the GT it goes hard and OC as well.


You're wrong, it was only meant to compete with the 8800GTS 640MB, which it did very well. It won some, and lost some to it, but the ones it did win, it often times reached or exceded GTX performance. The 2900 continued to gain speed with every driver release for the next 6 months after it's release. It was a respectable card.

And it not running Far Cry is a silly argument. It's called a driver bug, and it was fixed promptly.Both ATI and NV has had similar issues. It's not an uncommon thing for new cards to have driver bugs, especially one that's a completely new design. The 2900 continued to gain speed and stability with every driver release for the next 6 months after it's release.

But anyway, being an owner of both cards, my suggestion still goes to the 8800GT.


----------



## wolf (Mar 2, 2008)

+1 Wile E, thats exactly how it went down.

and agreed it was definitely a respectable card.

but atm its gotta be the GT.


----------



## CrackerJack (Mar 3, 2008)

hey guys i found a radeon bios editor for most 2k and all the 3k cards

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=54163

check it out


----------



## Darren (Mar 17, 2008)

Quick question guys. Why is the 2900 XT outperforming the 3870 in Crysis (DX9.0) This is a recent review January 2008, I thought the 2900's were sluggish performers?

http://www.techspot.com/article/83-crysis-patch-performance-multigpu/page2.html

Edit:
obviously in DX10 the 3870 has a slight advantage but enough of an advantage to justify the extra money. Right now I'm waiting for some conclusive reviews comparing the 9800 GX2 VS 3870 X2. I'm very unimpressed with the 3870 X2 so far as I've seen reviews of a single 8800 Ultra keeping up with it.


----------



## das müffin mann (Mar 17, 2008)

atm the 3870x2 is beating the ultra in almost all tests, the reason the xt is outperforming the 3870 is because it has a 512 bit bus for one and its a much beefier card, although the xt really doesn't beat it by much(from what ive seen) but the downside is that it uses a lot of power and gives off a good bit of heat, the 3870 uses a good chunk less power and so on, i'm guessing that the 9800x2 will beat ati's x2 card but it wont be by much(at least not enough to justify the price difference) , after a few months of drivers these cards will really shine

also initially they were sluggish performers, but thank god for mature drivers


----------



## Darren (Mar 18, 2008)

das müffin mann said:


> atm the 3870x2 is beating the ultra in almost all tests



I found this one review, and the 3870 X2 can barely shake off an 8800 GTX, it actually looses a quiet fair bit with the exception to 3dmarks.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...s/4236-ati-radeon-hd3870-x2-1gb-review-7.html


----------



## das müffin mann (Mar 19, 2008)

im really surprised buy those scores tbh, nvidia really did a great job with the 8800 series, i would love to test the two in my system, but im sure that once the drivers mature a little bit it shouldn't have a problem beating them

btw what happened to the stars being replaced by the tpu logo?


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 19, 2008)

.. the 2900XT is still a very powerful card, by far faster and about double the price of a 3870...not to mention crysis is messed up on ATI cards...


----------



## Scrizz (Mar 19, 2008)

Darren said:


> I found this one review, and the 3870 X2 can barely shake off an 8800 GTX, it actually looses a quiet fair bit with the exception to 3dmarks.
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...s/4236-ati-radeon-hd3870-x2-1gb-review-7.html



look at the date, 3870x2 cards didn't even have real drivers :shadedshu


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 19, 2008)

Thats true, the gtx has had drivers work for it for a year and a half now, the x2 is just getting started, an it has even been cheaper until just very recently (today) where it gets beat only because of a rebate.


----------



## Scrizz (Mar 19, 2008)

I'm just saying the drivers used in the review were beta drivers


----------



## Darren (Mar 27, 2008)

I am thinking of international delivery from the states as the 8800 and 9000 series are still slightly too expensive here in the UK. I found a website called TigerDirect.com that are willing to deliver to the UK at reasonable prices.

Specifically they have an EVGA GeForce 9600 GT 512 MB for $169.99 and a EVGA GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB for $189.99. I know typically the 8800 GTS is a much faster card however the limited memory should come into play, surely 320 MB would impact performance sooner than a card with 512 MB or 640 MB?

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=2900232&CatId=2669

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3612203&CatId=1826

*Edit:*

*PS. does anyone know whether Newegg.com deliver to the UK?*


----------



## Scrizz (Mar 27, 2008)

get the 9600gt(G92), that 8800gts 320MB is the old G80 gts.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3612203&CatId=1826


----------



## Xaser04 (Mar 27, 2008)

3870x2 said:


> .. the 2900XT is still a very powerful card, by far faster and about double the price of a 3870...not to mention crysis is messed up on ATI cards...



Erm the HD2900XT is not 'far faster' than a HD3870. The only time in which it is faster than the HD3870 is when the 256bit memory interface of the latter card becomes a bottleneck. Even then the difference is marginal at best. 

Also about crysis being messed up on ATI cards well thats odd I played it fine on both of my old HD3850's. 

As for the op there is no real debate here:

The 8800GT is faster and uses less power. Its really a no - brainer.


----------



## savageninja (Mar 27, 2008)

I have a used 2900xt in great condition if you want it.


----------



## Thinker_145 (Apr 3, 2008)

ROFL the fact that this is even an argument is funny.

8800GT is better hands down.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 4, 2008)

Thinker_145 said:


> ROFL the fact that this is even an argument is funny.
> 
> 8800GT is better hands down.



true but on a 19" hanns G, a 9600GT seems far more appropriate for the op, I don't think the 8800gt has too many gains on a 9600gt at 1440x900 especially with the same memory bit and number of rop's.


----------



## PaulieG (Apr 4, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> true but on a 19" hanns G, a 9600GT seems far more appropriate for the op, I don't think the 8800gt has too many gains on a 9600gt at 1440x900 especially with the same memory bit and number of rop's.



What I do know, is my 8800GT scored 1000 pts. higher than my 9600GT in 3dmark06.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Apr 4, 2008)

3dmarks arne't real gaming and real gaming shows the 9600gt quite close to the 8800gt's performance for alot less money while drawing alot less power. especially at lower resolutions, which makes the extra money not worth it for the 8800gt for the op.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9600_GT_Amp_Edition/6.html


----------



## wolf (Apr 4, 2008)

as time goes by i think youll see the difference between a 9600GT and 8800GT widen, those extra 48 sp's don't count for nothing.

and i agree this is a silly argument, the 8800GT has soooo much more going for it than a 2900Pro/XT i wont even get into it.


----------



## Thinker_145 (Apr 4, 2008)

wolf said:


> as time goes by i think youll see the difference between a 9600GT and 8800GT widen, those extra 48 sp's don't count for nothing.
> 
> and i agree this is a silly argument, the 8800GT has soooo much more going for it than a 2900Pro/XT i wont even get into it.


No the 9 series has a different architecture.It doesnt work that way.


----------



## Wile E (Apr 5, 2008)

Thinker_145 said:


> No the 9 series has a different architecture.It doesnt work that way.


Not really. The G94 in the 9600 is a cut down G92 out of an 8800GT. Same basic architecture, with minor tweaks. The 8800GS, 8800GT, and 8800GTS 512MB are all based on the G9x series cores, just like the 9 series. The 8800GT is more powerful than the 9600GT in every respect, and age will only widen that gap.

The 8800GTS 320/640MB, 8800GTX and 8800Ultra are based on the older G80 architecture, which is what I think you may be referring to.


----------



## Darren (May 17, 2008)

Thanks guys. 

I've bought the Inno3D 9600GT Armor Edition 512MB DDR3 for £89.99 

http://www.ebuyer.com/product/143885

It arrived yesterday but I was away but I picked it up this morning from the depot. Quiet an improvement from my old x1600 pro. I can now play Half-Life 2: Episode two maxed out at 14400x900 with no lag whatsoever. Also C&C3: Kane's Wrath plays with everything maxed out even at 1440x900, quiet impressive. I'm going to benchmark it tomorrow and perhaps conduct a slight over clock.

Edit: Yeah I've got TF2: Haven't got round to installing it yet, still trying to complete Episode Two for now, Orange Box kind of overwhelms you for games.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 17, 2008)

Well thats good man  Do you have TF2? You should play with my friends some times were pretty crazy


----------



## Fahim (May 17, 2008)

If its any good, i can provide you some good comparison benched by me (2900 XT, 8800 GTS, 8800 GTS 512, 9800 GTX, HD 3870, 8800 GTX). Don't have 8800 GT though.


----------



## Fahim (May 20, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> 3dmarks arne't real gaming and real gaming shows the 9600gt quite close to the 8800gt's performance for alot less money while drawing alot less power. especially at lower resolutions, which makes the extra money not worth it for the 8800gt for the op.
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9600_GT_Amp_Edition/6.html



With half the shader module, 9600 GT performs better because it clocks up with the PCI Express bus, unlike every other cards. The crystal on the card is set at 27MHz instead of 25MHz, so a 5MHz increase in PCI-E clock makes the card works 5MHz faster, and it ended up being faster in apps. Normally, 8800 GT is faster than 9600 GT.


----------



## Darren (May 20, 2008)

I'm getting extremely low scores benchmarking in 3D mark 2006 and scored a crappy 5440. Although my CPU is a huge bottle neck I'm sure my score should be a few hundred points higher.

I've tried everything! re-installed Nvidia's driver v175.16 twice, re-installed chipset drivers, reseated my graphics card. GPU-z states I'm getting a full PCI-E 16x @ 16x 

I found a thread where someone has a similar spec to mine (graphics card and CPU wise) and he has managed to get a full 8118 points in 3d mark 2006



Killaz said:


> Done running 3dMark06 and the result was 8118 points. Normal result? What about updating chipset drivers; have never updated them before so they are kinda out of date.....



http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=57460

----------------



tkpenalty said:


> Honestly, 8800GT vs any HD2xxx card, even though I support AMD, you CANNOT recommend the HD2900PRO over the 8800GT. The 8800GT, blows it away.





Edito said:


> 8800GT all the way, more performance, more lifetime u will not regret and will never look back...




I've already made my decision and purchased an Inno3D 9600GT Armor Edition, could you please help my fix my 3D mark 2006 issue, thank you


----------



## Edito (May 20, 2008)

8800GT all the way, more performance, more lifetime u will not regret and will never look back...


----------



## tkpenalty (May 20, 2008)

Honestly, 8800GT vs any HD2xxx card, even though I support AMD, you CANNOT recommend the HD2900PRO over the 8800GT. The 8800GT, blows it away.


----------

