[First review]Galaxy GeForce 8800GT 256MB
PAGE ONE: Introduction
PAGE TWO: Test bed and remarks
PAGE THREE:3DMark06
PAGE FOUR: Enemy Territory: Quake War
PAGE FIVE: Half Life 2: Episode 2
PAGE SIX: F.E.A.R.:Perseus Mandate
PAGE SEVEN: Call of Duty 4
PAGE EIGHT: Unreal Tournament 3 & Bioshock
PAGE NINE: Final thoughts
Introduction:
In Oct.29, NVIDIA offcially announced Geforce 8800GT. It is NV’s first 65 nm GPU and the first to support PCIe Gen2. In NV’s site they promo the card using the word: Awesome power, Awesome price. And now NV is about to release 8800GT 256MB. Exactly the same core, but less memory.
Because 8800GT 256MB and 8800GT 512MB only have memory difference, so some manufacturers like XFX will directly unveils 256MB 8800GT with NVIDIA P393 PCB design. And some other company will design their 256MB 8800GT. Recently we received Galaxy’s first 256M 8800GT sample.
related article: first review on NVIDIA GeForce 8800GT 512MB[Chinese version]
Galaxy 8800GT 256MB using Galaxy’s self-design 6 layer PCB, and lots of solid-state chip capacitors, memory using 256MB samsung 1.2ns GDDR3. The frequency is the same as the reference 512MB 8800GT, running at 600/1500/1800MHz (core/shader/mem).
To add more value, the card even equip with Dual-BIOS and using dual PEG power connector. Now we are going to have detailed test and try to find out the difference between 256MB 8800GT and 512MB 8800GT. Of course we will also compare the card with 8600GTS，HD 3850 and HD 3870.
Related product：
Sapphire Radeon HD3850 256MB Picture
Powercolor Radeon HD3870 512MB Picture
Galaxy GeForce 8800GT 512MB Picture
Unika GeForce 8600GTS 256MB Picture
8282august_09.jpg)
November 29th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
great work guys keep up this shit!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
u are just the people/group everyone needs to satisfy their ‘unreleased technology needs’!! thumbs up and 1more!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
fabulous!
November 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Is there any possibility that we can have a SLI comparison test?
Great price/performance ratio.
Great work guys.
Metroid.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Overclock???????
November 29th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
@ bill
no, just reference frequency
and, if you are talking about OCbility:
it is a comparsion result, focus on 512M 88GT VS 256M 88GT,
so OC is not in the range
@Metroid,
we will think about that, thank you.
November 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
8800gt=96 shaders units not 112 (look GPU-Z). it’s 8800gts????
November 29th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I’m tired, 8800GT=112, 8800GTS 512=128,
November 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Why this 8800GT card has two 4pin power connectors? I don’t understand this thing…
November 29th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
To Jinada:
This 8800GT design by galaxy,not NV reference,so….who knows why need 2x 6pin PEG power connectors.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
SLi comparisons would be great. Also, possible to add World in Conflict as part of the benchmark? Just want to see how it performs in that particular game.
Also Crysis.
Great overview nonetheless
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
[...] [First review]Galaxy GeForce 8800GT 256MB __________________ [...]
November 30th, 2007 at 2:56 am
I think you must overclock it because is a different pcb design! To see if the galaxy design add something for more overclocking!I think it also have 3 phase circuit! If you can try also the galaxy 512mb!
November 30th, 2007 at 6:34 am
cod4 was the only really memory hungry game in this test. you should test crysis, wic and stalker.
November 30th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Where is CRYSIS??!!
November 30th, 2007 at 11:14 am
to Meh: SLI test is coming soon
to bill: We will try to oc it
to bbq: We will have aonther post sometime next week about some new graphic cards lateral comparison so pls keep ue tuned.
to hikekura: we cancel crysis score because 169.02 WHQL driver “cheat”
November 30th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Nvidia 169.XX drivers are being questioned in Crysis
http://www.google.cn/search?complete=1&hl=zh-CN&rlz=1B3GGGL_zh-CNCN227CN227&q=Nvidia+169.XX+drivers+are+being+questioned+in+Crysis&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=
November 30th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Good review.To be honest this is the best review site I’ve ever seen.
Infact you report EVERY resolution with and without filters.
At this way you show to be one of the few impartial review site around
the globe.Many sites review a graphcard and report only data they need to favour this or that.One more thing…in my opinion you should report data for all resolutions even with only AF16x on.A lot of people hate AA and use only AF.Infact AA is way too expensive,in terms of performance,for the benefits it gives.This would give even more value to you review.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:12 am
@ Uart: i dont think it’s needed cuz AF impact on performance is negligible. even at AF16x difference is just a few fps.
December 1st, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Uart wtf are you talking about, actually this is a piss poor review, anyone who knows a bit about PC gaming KNOWS a any of todays latest games, say Quake Wars easily uses more then 256mbs at 19 by 12 at 4x AA, hell it probably uses more then that at 1280 by 1024 4xAA.
My point is if the game eats up say 363mbs of Vram and you only have 256mbs your going to get big stutters here and there that you would not get with a 512mb card which means benchmarks like this are pretty useless without the minimum fps or better yet a time chart.
December 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pm
to bob: next report coming soon,there is more test ,like 8xAA and upcoming graphics card.
December 1st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
To bob: I would not say is a “piss poor review”, taking this personal is a foolish way to. It would be much better if you could recommend ways to bench than say something so wasteful like you said. The website is new, sometimes some tests do not make much sense but the guys are learning everyday and feedbacks are always very good but criticize like you did is just not acceptable, better you review your words before you post.
To Jeff: I have yet to make my mind, this card looks a winner for me.
First: 2 x 256 = I believe 50% performance increase than with a single 512MB.
Second: 2 x 256 will be around = £200 = $400, some shops are selling GT cards at $300 due that can not meet demand, compared to 1 512MB.
Third: $400 + 50% performance, $600 + 70%, compared to 512MB.
Anyway great review and I hope this will also be confirmed by others review soon.
I’m looking forward to seeing the SLI performance.
Metroid.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:00 am
Metroid, I donk think cards in sli share each others vram. So in the end u have 256mb vram and twice the gpu power, which makes memory shortage even more pronounced.
December 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 am
To Bob:
I agree for minimum fps benchs.
But try to look around the web and you will agree with me about the fact that reviews with benchs with all the resolutions are very rare.This is the only way to show superiority of a platform.Add to this that I was talking about the medium level of all the reviews,not only this.It makes me mad when,travelling the web, I read something like “this is far better than this” and there are only some 1600*1200 4xaa 16xaf benchs.Statements made only to make hype.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:02 am
To bbq: Thanks for the reply, I thought that too but I am still unsure about it. Hopefully the SLI test will show us something soon.
Metroid.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
There is alot of 22″ LCD now, and we are lack of time,so we decide to cancell 1600×1200 to 1680×1050.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:40 pm
to Metroid:
“some shops are selling GT cards at $300 due that can not meet demand, compared to 1 512MB.”
in Russia it’s about 450$
December 4th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
to adnreich:
in Russia it’s about 450$???
you means 8800GT or ?
December 4th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Yes he meant in Russia 8800GT is $450. Well there are many places that they overcharge it.
Metroid.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Nice review.
It is amazing that 256MB 8800GT beats 512MB Radeon HD3870 in most of the benchmarks except at the highest resolution where the memory limit comes into play.
A few points:
1. Where is the Crysis benchmark? It is the only game that matters really.
2. 169xx drivers have some Crysis specific bugs, but if you rename the executable, you will find that the FPS actually goes up strangely. So it is not really an issue.
BTW, Jeff: you need to work on your ingles por favor. Maybe use a Microsoft Word processor.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:52 am
YOUR GRAMMAR SUCKS!
December 11th, 2007 at 9:52 am
thanks Doug and Bob. my grammar still needs to improve..
answer to Doug:
1.reviewer said the crysis behaves unstable in some test so unless the first patch is out or we will drop the game
2.thanks for the heads up. will try that. Thanks a lot!
December 17th, 2007 at 7:31 am
I gather always different opinions about web 2.0 and how to market with the different mindset of the \”new\” Internet. Will social interaction and networking really make the web different? Thanks for your thoughts on this!
January 15th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Are all theese Tests going on FPS ?
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
What do you expect, they’re games! It’s measured in frames per second.
I have noticed that the 8800GT(256MB) keeps up with it’s fat brother, the 512MB version as long as AA and high resolutions don’t appear. In my country, the 256MB version costs around 100$ and the 512MB version costs around 220$. The difference between them at low resolution is non relevant. My monitor doesn’t even go past 1600, so I’m going on the 8800GT with 256MB RAM.
Best wishes!