Comments on: [First review]Galaxy GeForce 8800GT 256MB

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:23:05 +0000

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!

By: John

John — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:26:20 +0000

Are all theese Tests going on FPS ?

By: Call Of Duty 2 Web Page

Call Of Duty 2 Web Page — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:31:36 +0000

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!

By: jeff

jeff — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:52:29 +0000

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!

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:52:37 +0000

YOUR GRAMMAR SUCKS!

By: Doug Friedman

Doug Friedman — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:08:38 +0000

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.

By: Metroid

Metroid — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:45:56 +0000

Yes he meant in Russia 8800GT is $450. Well there are many places that they overcharge it.

Metroid.

By: philip

philip — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 07:15:15 +0000

to adnreich:

in Russia it’s about 450$???

you means 8800GT or ?

By: andreich

andreich — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:40:26 +0000

to Metroid:
“some shops are selling GT cards at $300 due that can not meet demand, compared to 1 512MB.”
in Russia it’s about 450$

By: philip

philip — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 03:14:11 +0000

There is alot of 22″ LCD now, and we are lack of time,so we decide to cancell 1600×1200 to 1680×1050.

By: Metroid

Metroid — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:02:25 +0000

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.

By: Uart

Uart — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 21:57:11 +0000

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.

By: bbq

bbq — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 18:00:23 +0000

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.

By: Metroid

Metroid — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:07:46 +0000

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.

By: philip

philip — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:37:42 +0000

to bob: next report coming soon,there is more test ,like 8xAA and upcoming graphics card.

By: bob

bob — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:32:40 +0000

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.

By: bbq

bbq — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:12:16 +0000

@ Uart: i dont think it’s needed cuz AF impact on performance is negligible. even at AF16x difference is just a few fps.

By: Uart

Uart — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:05:10 +0000

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.