OC3D Review: XFX 8800GTS

I have to be honest, being still stuck in the Dx9-olution of gaming atm, it`s a strong advert for 7950 GX2 and the x1950 XTX, however I still feel these cards to be overly priced, and will see tremendous reductions just as soon as the likes of 8900/8600/8400/etc appear to be hitting the scene.

When these cards, along with Dx10, finally appear, I think the performances are meant to take off quite a bit more. But the performance vS the buck spent -- - - I dunno.

It is clear to see tho, again, that the GTS is a massive performer in the oc market, loss compared with a stock GTX being an amount of memory, but with a larger base memory that the previous contendors 512m, I don`t see it being anything of an issue.

In an advisory state, I`d still edge toward advising a budgetier to buy a 7950/x1950 when the fellow Dx10s come out, at their possibly lower prices. That is if the likes of the 8x00 new cards aren`t too far above them.

If u have a blank cheque to cash, the GTS does look great - clocked!

I dunno, each new review I see of these makes me less and less excited about them.
 
I'll get more and more excited once you can buy a card that's DX10 ready when DX10 is actually out.

Plus these 8800 cards blow anything that's available other than them right out of the water: performance + quality
 
I dunno Kemp, I look @ the fps av of FEAR & CoD2 and if u own a Gain7950 I don`t think u`d marvel the prospect atm, unless Dx10 was out and running with games based on it. I certainly wouldn`t say u`d be blown away.
 
But if you look at the difference between 8 x QAA/8 x AA and 4 x AA that the 7950 is playing with then you would appreciate the quality comparison.

Let's get this right folks: the FPS min/max/avr are with the settings used...and both the GTS and the GTX use at least 8 x AA on ALL games.
 
Kempez said:
Let's get this right folks: the FPS min/max/avr are with the settings used...and both the GTS and the GTX use at least 8 x AA on ALL games.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats what confuses me sometimes. I prefer to look at graphs than read text, but with Kemps GPU reviews, the graphs are at "best playable" settings - so you need to keep a lookout for the difference in AA/AF/Resolution settings ;)
 
This style of graph is deceptive... It's not just me that was fooled by the figures. Without meaning to come across arrogant, do you not think for the sake of consistancy and ease of comparison that the cards should be tested with the same settings?

This way the 8800's (or indeed any card) can truly demonstrate their superiority.

I know you clearly state what settings the tests are set at, knowing this I still misinterpreted this graph, scratching my head thinking how is the gx2 doing so well?

Now I know why, now my opinion of the gts has changed!

Do you think this is a fair comment?
 
Well the problem is that I don't just want to give numbers. If I did say three resolutions for each game, then it's pretty tough to choose which ones to use. Plus some of the lower end card won't even scale to that high a resolution.

I don't agree with giving a load of numbers: especially now that GPU's are so fast that numbers are meaningless to anyone who actually cares about gaming.

Hey if you want numbers check the 3DMark graphs - they'll give you an exciting insight as to which GPU gives you the biggest e-p enis :p
 
Nah I don`t think u`r reading off the same page Kemp :eh:

I can see what they`re getting at, if a graphical pictoral is being used, the playing field, relatively needs to be the same.

I mean, u`d be upset if u chose a chick out of a line up of 10, being shown their pictures from the waist up. Only to find the one u picked, that scored top marks in u`r estimations, had 4 legs and a kick-stand.
 
I don't agree. Cards differ in performance and image quality and that's the way my reviews are done.

And ur analagy doesn't work tbh ;)
 
i definitely want one of these 8800 cards, but i just can't decide whether to get a gts or a gtx cos i'm limited in resolution to 1680x1050

i'm thinking a gts, but on the other hand, as games get more complex a gtx may be a better buy... (plus i might be able to have higher levels of fx in games)

decisions, decisions :crazy:
 
Pyr0 said:
i definitely want one of these 8800 cards, but i just can't decide whether to get a gts or a gtx cos i'm limited in resolution to 1680x1050

i'm thinking a gts, but on the other hand, as games get more complex a gtx may be a better buy... (plus i might be able to have higher levels of fx in games)

decisions, decisions :crazy:
Click to expand...

Personally I get whatever my budget will allow at the time. That way i won't want to kick myself for going for the cheaper option at a later date.
 
Kempez said:
I don't agree. Cards differ in performance and image quality and that's the way my reviews are done.

And ur analagy doesn't work tbh ;)
Click to expand...

Bad analogies aside; we were trying to offer some constructive feedback (which is never easy to give or receive) in an attempt to make OC3D reviews that little bit better :rocker:

Granted this is my opinion and yes you are probably thinking 'who the hell is this
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
ing noob telling me to change the way I review god damn
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
sucker' :D but I think this is the kind of forum where growth and improvement is welcome?

I hadn't taken into account image quality and was thinking in fps... I now understand the concept of your style, it is all encapsulating, perhaps not the easiest to interpret with a quick glance.

Would you consider maybe 2 graphs in the future? One for performance and one for image quality? I think you mentioned something like 'some cards won't scale to certain settings' - I think this should be highlighted...

I won't go on about this anymore as it is an excellent review and you will undoubtedly get
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
cussing.gif
ed off if people labour the point.

P.S Don't ban me - I like it here :p
 
Do you think having something under the title of each graph saying "Best playable settings" would make the graphs any easier to understand? Possibly a * with some small text below explaining?

As always we welcome constructive feedback in order to improve our reviews and make them easier to understand - so don't feel like you have to bite your lip (of course that's always easier to say when it isn't my review ;) )
 
Nah I wasn't getting lary (hates forums as you can't express emotion), but ye I try to give people some numbers in the form of min, max, avr but my main aim is to show what you're actually getting when you buy one of these cards: what you're games play like and how well they play

I would do 2 graphs but after coming home from a long day @ work once set of results inputted into excel, graphs made pretty, images saved, images uploaded...blahblah, yep I don't really have time.

Thanks for the critique, I'll try to think up some more ways of displaying the info
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WYP
XFX RX 9060 XT Swift Review
Replies
0
Views
225
WYP
WYP
WYP
Radeon RX 9070 XT - Sapphire, ASUS and XFX Review
Replies
9
Views
466
AlienALX
AlienALX
WYP
Intel Core Ultra 200S CPU Review
Replies
0
Views
247
WYP
WYP
WYP
be quiet! Light Mount and Dark Mount Keyboard Review
Replies
0
Views
422
WYP
WYP
WYP
Palit RTX 5070 Ti GameRock OC Review
Replies
0
Views
2K
WYP
WYP
Back
Top