DarksaberTheINQ has a 8800GTS already and is willing to show us what it looks like before everyone else. The card looks quite similar to the 8800GTS 640MB. It has only 10 memory chips, each 32MB large. They are hynix hy5as573225a. It scores a solid 8800 points in 3DMark06


Source: TheINQ

It has "only" 10 memory chips:p
The benchmarks again proves that the 640MB and 768MB on the 8800 are simply useless and is a waste of cash.

is there any set release date for these cards yet?

NDA is lifted tomorrow afaik. and they are being sold already for 200 UKP in England.

£200 for an extra 3300 points in 3dmark, thats not bad, if anything i would consider getting one just for a top end dx9 card

ZubasaIt has "only" 10 memory chips:p
The benchmarks again proves that the 640MB and 768MB on the 8800 are simply useless and is a waste of cash.

Not really i would have to disagree a little, I know where you are coming from.....but, firstly in DX10 games (although I appreciate there are none at the moment!), on average, more memory is supposidly going to be used (more detail to be processed with SM4 and the like)as well as the fact that currently in High resolutions 256MB cards require a lot of system swapping which slows the game a little and can cause the "jutters".

To reinforce that, GRAW will not allow max settings and resolutions above 1280 x 1024 without 512MB of on board GDDR memory, also in FEAR for example, at just 1600 x 1200 resolutions a 256MB card at any given time is also having to swap and use up to 205MB of system memory on max quality, that means this 320MB card would still be swapping memory, the questions is, and may be more your point, "what effect does that have on gaming performance" well that varies, in some games very little, in some modern arithmatic or shader heavy games perhaps as much as 5-10FPS, more if you game at even higher resolutions.

mullered07£200 for an extra 3300 points in 3dmark, thats not bad, if anything i would consider getting one just for a top end dx9 card

After all... That's what it is! :roll:

So its a card for ppl who want even less futureproofing? Its only 10% less expensive than 640MB card, and if ur spending over 400$ for a card, whats the point of saving 50$?

in the uk its actually about £60 cheaper than the 640mb which is £260 and £60=100$ so definately worth the saving, i reckon theres not going to be too much performance loss even at high res with 320mb over 620mb give it a month or 2 for prices to drop and thats probably going to be the first choice mid/high end budget card, when it drops to £150 i think ill consider getting one, just for DX9 as i said and maybe next year get a mid 2nd gen DX10 card

DarksaberIt scores a solid 8800 points in 3DMark06

Okay. I would like to see that, considering that is what a normal GTS w/ 640mb of memory scores.

I thought it was supposed to be $300?

1StriveOkay. I would like to see that, considering that is what a normal GTS w/ 640mb of memory scores.

It's because 3dMark 06 doesn't need 640MB of ram at it's stock settings. It probably doesn't even need the 320MB, tbh.

Wile EIt's because 3dMark 06 doesn't need 640MB of ram at it's stock settings. It probably doesn't even need the 320MB, tbh.

Correct it is optimised for 256MB so there should be no difference in performance between a 256 and a 512MB card.....supposidly. Apart from that it runs the tests at a resolution of 1280 x 1024 and you dont really see any performance difference between 256 and 512 until you hit 16XX x 12XX resolutions.

Tatty_OneCorrect it is optimised for 256MB so there should be no difference in performance between a 256 and a 512MB card.....supposidly. Apart from that it runs the tests at a resolution of 1280 x 1024 and you dont really see any performance difference between 256 and 512 until you hit 16XX x 12XX resolutions.

Now I see. Thanks for the clearing that up for me. No Problem. I bet that running CRYSIS at 1680x1050 and higher w/ all the options all the way up is going to be a problem w/ only 340mb. I am glad I got the GTS w/ 640mb and if that ain't enough for CRYSIS then I will just have to get anouther and run 'em in SLI.

1STRIVE Out:pimp:

1StriveNow I see. Thanks for the clearing that up for me. No Problem. I bet that running CRYSIS at 1680x1050 and higher w/ all the options all the way up is going to be a problem w/ only 340mb. I am glad I got the GTS w/ 640mb and if that ain't enough for CRYSIS then I will just have to get anouther and run 'em in SLI.

1STRIVE Out:pimp:

I think your probably right, even FEAR for example on a 256MB card at 1680 x 1200 will use an additional 205MB of system memory to compensate with everything maxed, what that sysyem memory "swapping" actually means in performance terms varies I think but anyone would lose a few FPS, thereview below suggests up to 12FPS loss 256 > 512!! at a guess and the higher the res goes, the more swapping so the more lost FPS, take a look at the attached graph to get an idea, the graph is followed by the following comments:


"Now we are reaching the same levels of memory usage as HL2 in 2048x1536 with everything maxed out. Though the results show huge performance differences they simply cannot fully describe what I felt while playing the game. With 256Mb it was absolutely unplayable with stuttering at every turn, sometimes the screen would not refresh for half a second. This was blatant cache thrashing in action. In comparison the 512Mb card was behaving as it should, no stuttering at all. The average frame rate was low and it wasn’t very enjoyable, but it was a thousand times better than with the 256Mb card. The average frame rates for both cards are as follows:

256MB: 12.9 fps
512MB: 24.6 fps

That’s a 90.7% increase! F.E.A.R has shown itself to be the most demanding game for memory requirements out of all the games here. Add to this the intense use of pixel shader operations and you can easily see why it brings even the most high end machines to their knees.

Overall these results give us indications that we are no more than at the beginning of the transition from relying heavily on texture operations to arithmetic operations. We can’t all breathe a sigh of relief that ALU operations will mean we never need see a 1GB GPU, we will. But it does show that memory requirements might slow down and only increase when they are really needed thanks to pixel shaders. The future for video memory seems to be one of efficiency, but for the next few years I think we’ll see memory requirements continue as they always have done".

They might be too expensive now, but give it 2-3 months and this 340MB card will be a kickass upgrade for people on 256MB X1K or 7x00 cards.

Finally nvidia does something I like T_T.

Well, what can I say? This is a wise desicion compared to the fact that they are going to release the 8900 probably needing a 1kilo TEC Unit, thinking about it, they might even have to supply support struts!!!

Is it just me or is it that the 8800 series when shipped, after removing the cooler looks second hand already.

They might be too expensive now, but give it 2-3 months and this 340MB card will be a kickass upgrade for people on 256MB X1K or 7x00 cards.

If you look at this review, not only is the 8800GTS(320) NOT a kickass upgrade from X1K, an X1900XT(256) actually beats the 8800GTS in a significant number of the games tested.

Spiffy, now, lets see the price and some benches on it.

desertjediIf you look at this review, not only is the 8800GTS(320) NOT a kickass upgrade from X1K, an X1900XT(256) actually beats the 8800GTS in a significant number of the games tested.

Yes....good point but the 8800 series cards are designed for DX10 so when a DX10 game finally appears the 1900 wont get close which to be fair just reinforces my beleive that it's best IMO to wait for DX10 games to get here b4 upgrading.