8800 GTS 512 vs. 8800 GT

Despite being hardly available, the 8800 GT (512MB) is still a crowd favorite. It's fast, and even at $300 - $350 it's a good card, albeit not nearly as attractive as if you could buy it for $250. It's safe to say that the 8800 GTS 512 will retail for at least $50 more than the 512MB 8800 GT, but what will that $50 buy you?

The 8800 GTS 512 has 24% more shader processing power than the GT but just under 8% more memory bandwidth. Where the 8800 GTS 512 needs to really shine in order to distance itself from the GT is in high resolution performance, but it may not have the memory bandwidth to really do so. Let's find out whether or not that's true:

We'll start off with Quake Wars, here we see a healthy 10 - 15% performance advantage at 1600 x 1200 and up:

Turning on AA however erases the advantage as limited memory bandwidth becomes the great equalizer:

World in Conflict shows a similar but less severe pattern:

Without AA enabled, the GTS 512 shows a 7% advantage at 1600 x 1200, 10% at 1920 x 1200 and 13.5% at 2560 x 1600. With AA enabled the performance gap shrinks to 7%, 8% and 11%, respectively.

The rest of the titles show similar performance patterns, at higher resolutions the GTS 512 holds a 10 - 15% performance advantage over the 8800 GT. Turn on AA and the advantage drops to 7 - 11%.

The 8800 GTS 512 looks to be an average of 10% faster than the 8800 GT, is it worth the $50+ premium it'll command? Not really, the 512MB 8800 GT is still the sweet spot. Moving on...

8800 GTS 512 vs. 8800 Ultra 8800 GT 512MB vs. 256MB
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Lennie - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    Gotcha!! AT

    J/K :b

    Test System got DDR2 mentioned as memory but the mobo is P5E3.

    Over and out.
  • Lennie - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    Man tat was quick. Thank ya.
  • Cygnis - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    I've been reading these "benchmarks" for a while now. and the hardware is always a Intel w/ Nvidia chipsets etc.
    It's a little biased, in my opinion, to run an ATI card in those chipsets.

    It would only be fair, and more realisitic to run Both Nvidia cards and ATI cards in Two different Boxes, cross-manufacturer, to get a true idea.

    After all, you are trying to be fair in the representation of the data, no?

  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - link

    The chipset is an Intel X38. As this can run Crossfire, I'd imagine it is reasonably friendly to AMD graphics cards.
  • pilotofdoom - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    What happens when the 3850 512MB is compared to the 8800gt 256MB? Right now the 3850 512MB retails around $200, so about $20 more expensive than the 256MB version, but still $15 cheaper than the 8800GT 256MB card, assuming you find the cards in stock.
  • Viditor - Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - link

    "Right now the 3850 512MB retails around $200"

    Actually, the 3850 is retailing for $169 at NewEgg...
  • kilkennycat - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    The default fan speed on the 8800GT (512) is 29% and the speed-profile is a joke. The fan speed does not move AT ALL until the GPU reaches ~ 94 degrees C!! This is not long-term-reliability funny at all. Is TSMCs commercial silicon-process rated for military-grade applications ( >70 degrees C )? I don't think so. And the only control the user has on fan-speed without a risky video BIOS sabotage is to use the fixed-fan settings courtesy of nTune. However, these settings are not saved during a system re-boot.

    So since the physical design of the ventilation on the 8800GTS 512 has changed from that of the 8800GT, have nVidia taken any steps to change from the ridiculous fan-speed profile of the 8800GT (512) ?? Or given the user any ability to manually control the speed profile and SAVE THE SETTINGS?
  • AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - link

    No kidding! The last time I tried nTune it would also go back after every reboot. To OC I started making EXPERTOOL start on startup and then I close it manually to free the memory, and the OC stays. I don't know if Riva lets you do that.
  • jay401 - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    most owners are using RivaTuner to allow the fan speed to be dynamically adjusted by the temperature or to simply set a higher default, fixed fanspeed.
  • kilkennycat - Tuesday, December 11, 2007 - link

    Does the fan-adjust feature of RivaTuner work properly on WinXP with the latest nV drivers 169.09beta and above (req'd for Crysis etc..)?? If so, please specify the version of Rivatuner and point me in the right direction to manipulate the fan settings.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now