Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Setting RAM timing/overclocking


  • Please log in to reply

#16
SOORENA

SOORENA

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 974 posts

One 8800gt will out perform two 8600gts's by a large margin.


I kinda doubt it......My board is 32x sli........not to mention I can get 2 8600gt's for under $200. The cheapest 8800 is $300. The 8800 will only have 320mb ram where as with 2 8600's Ill have 1024. Both are GDDR3.

Maybe if I got a $500+ card it might outperform the 2 8600's. [bleep], I have 2 6800's right now I can run MOST games at full settings. They ran crysis smoothly, everything on high except for shadows. Quake wars is totally smooth. The only game that was choppy was the Jericho demo off of Steam.
-P.


An 8800GT is the cheapest and it has 512Mb of memory, it also out performs the 320Mb and 2 x 8600 combined. And I highly doubt you can run everything smoothly with 2 6800s maybe on low resolutions yeah but on high resolutions I doubt it.

Soorena

Edited by SOORENA, 17 December 2007 - 07:21 PM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#17
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
First off, there is no such thing as x32 SLI. I think you might be thinking that since your mobo has two PCI-E x16 slots, this equals x32. But it doesn't. Each slot will still only run at x16 (or on some motherboards, the speed is reduced to x8 when running SLI).

Anyways, I think 2 8600GTs might be a step down from 2 6800s. The x800 is a high-end card and the x600 is a mid-range card (x being a wildcard). Despite the 2 generation difference, I wouldn't be surprised if the 6800s are faster (especially when considering that the 8600s are actually slower than the 7600s).

The 8800gt 512mb can be had for as little as $260. It will provide performance comparable to a 8800gtx (the $500+ card you were mentioning) at low to medium resolutions, and still be relatively close to it in higher ones.

The 8800gt 256mb can be found for even less, about $210. It too will provide great performance at low resolutions, though at medium-high resolutions, the lack of memory can become an issue. However, it is obvious that you are playing on very low resolutions if your 6800s can play Crysis on high settings.

Nevertheless, I can guarantee to you that either of these cards will outperform 2 8600GTs at any resolution. There honestly isn't even any comparison, as the 8800gt is in a whole different league than the 8600gt. It's like comparing a major leaguer to a T-Ball player. Even the two greatest T-Ball players will never be as good as one major leaguer. (Pardon the baseball simile if you are from a country where they don't play baseball. :))
  • 0

#18
p-zero

p-zero

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

Well, if you cannot see the setting, to me that a clear indication that your motherboard cannot run at a 1T command rate.
Get this card
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814150254
if your resolution is small then get this one
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16814150263

Two 8600`s are not good performers. The cardsmentioned above will beat them.
James



I still doubt it....how can one 256mb card do better than two 512mb cards. Just doesnt make sense. THe only reason Im even switching to an 8 series card is DirectX10. I guess Id have to see some benchmarks.
-P.
  • 0

#19
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
What resolution are you playing at? Video RAM doesn`t have as significant of an impact on gaming as you think, though it`s going to become increasingly important over time as textures in games increase.
I highly suggest you look into some benchmarks, take a look here, Tomshardware recently updated theirs.
http://www23.tomshar...phics_2007.html
Then for a SLI/crossfire setup
http://www23.tomshar...cs_sli2007.html
James
  • 0

#20
p-zero

p-zero

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

First off, there is no such thing as x32 SLI. I think you might be thinking that since your mobo has two PCI-E x16 slots, this equals x32. But it doesn't. Each slot will still only run at x16 (or on some motherboards, the speed is reduced to x8 when running SLI).

Anyways, I think 2 8600GTs might be a step down from 2 6800s. The x800 is a high-end card and the x600 is a mid-range card (x being a wildcard). Despite the 2 generation difference, I wouldn't be surprised if the 6800s are faster (especially when considering that the 8600s are actually slower than the 7600s).

The 8800gt 512mb can be had for as little as $260. It will provide performance comparable to a 8800gtx (the $500+ card you were mentioning) at low to medium resolutions, and still be relatively close to it in higher ones.

The 8800gt 256mb can be found for even less, about $210. It too will provide great performance at low resolutions, though at medium-high resolutions, the lack of memory can become an issue. However, it is obvious that you are playing on very low resolutions if your 6800s can play Crysis on high settings.

Nevertheless, I can guarantee to you that either of these cards will outperform 2 8600GTs at any resolution. There honestly isn't even any comparison, as the 8800gt is in a whole different league than the 8600gt. It's like comparing a major leaguer to a T-Ball player. Even the two greatest T-Ball players will never be as good as one major leaguer. (Pardon the baseball simile if you are from a country where they don't play baseball. :))




Um...What?? The video cards I have are the bare minimum to even run SLi. Theyre not GS or GT or even OC'd (other than what the smart overclocker in the BIOS does automatically). I think doubling the ram with a better type of ram would give a perfomrance boost. The 6800's are just DDR where as the 8600"s are GDDR3. Other than the 6800's are 256 bit and the 8600's are 128 bit, I still think I'd see an improvement.

At any rate here my board http://usa.asus.com/...amp;modelmenu=1
True dual 16X pci-e.
-P.

Edited by p-zero, 17 December 2007 - 11:16 PM.

  • 0

#21
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
You need to update your CPU before anything.
Yes two 8600 would outperform two 6800 by about a scale of 2:1. But the RAM differences are not the principle reason for the performance differences.
Again, a single 8800GT or HD3870 is a better purchase.
James

Edited by james_8970, 17 December 2007 - 11:06 PM.

  • 0

#22
p-zero

p-zero

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

You need to update your CPU before anything.
Yes two 8600 would outperform two 6800 by about a scale of 2:1. But the RAM differences are not the principle reason for the performance differences.
Again, a single 8800GT or HD3870 is a better purchase.
James


My opty works just fine :) . And If I feel like it I can OC easily to 2.2 If I so choose. But there is really no performance gain to be had. Just higher temps. Ill be gettin an FX60 and the video cards thats another reason I wanna stay with the 8600's is price mainly.
-P.

Edited by p-zero, 17 December 2007 - 11:20 PM.

  • 0

#23
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
I am sure it is working fine, but it will become a bottleneck once you get a higher end card.
I suggest this CPU.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103767

Now just to make this clear, a 8600GT has 256mb of RAM, a 8600GTS has 512mb of RAM.
I still recommend you purchase a single 8800GT card, I strongly urge you to do so.
James
  • 0

#24
p-zero

p-zero

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

I am sure it is working fine, but it will become a bottleneck once you get a higher end card.
I suggest this CPU.
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103767

Now just to make this clear, a 8600GT has 256mb of RAM, a 8600GTS has 512mb of RAM.
I still recommend you purchase a single 8800GT card, I strongly urge you to do so.
James


Unfortunately, I have the 939 socket so I need
http://www.newegg.co...N82E16819103002

But Im not going to get that one. I want the FX 60. THe Opteron's only have a 9x FSB multiplier where as the Athalon's have a 10X FSB.
-P.
PS: I think Im going ot stick with the 6800's. And see what happens.
  • 0

#25
james_8970

james_8970

    Trusted Tech

  • Retired Staff
  • 5,084 posts
Alright sounds good. Sorry about that mistake, I am doing to many things at one.
James

Edited by james_8970, 18 December 2007 - 12:05 AM.

  • 0

Advertisements


#26
p-zero

p-zero

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

What resolution are you playing at? Video RAM doesn`t have as significant of an impact on gaming as you think, though it`s going to become increasingly important over time as textures in games increase.
I highly suggest you look into some benchmarks, take a look here, Tomshardware recently updated theirs.
http://www23.tomshar...phics_2007.html
Then for a SLI/crossfire setup
http://www23.tomshar...cs_sli2007.html
James


I can run it at 1152x864 totally smooth. Anything higher than that my frame rate drops dramatically. And all the settings are on high excecpt for shadows. (BTW, AA is totally off).
-P.
  • 0

#27
p-zero

p-zero

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts

Then for a SLI/crossfire setup
http://www23.tomshar...cs_sli2007.html
James

Thanx for the link. Even with going to "just" 8600's I would have an improvemnt. This is taken directly from tom hardware - Relative difference between 6800 GT SLI and 8600 GTS SLI: 94.47 %
And mind you my cards arent GT's. Just plain old 6800's.
While th lowest relative difference was still 55%. And it was the difference between a playable framerate (40 with all the bells and whistles @ 1600x1200) and a non playable framerate (19 with the same settings).
-P.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP