Tuesday, November 13th 2007

XFX Announces GeForce 8800 GT 256MB

It appears that XFX will be the first manufacturer to introduce 256MB version of GeForce 8800 GT. The GeForce 8800 GT 256MB (available in standard and XXX Editions) looks identical and has all the features of its big brother 8800 GT 512MB. The only difference should appear under the cooler, where the memory chips are situated. The cards will be marking its debut as of next week, landing in retailers for an expected reseller price of 149 € excluding VAT.

Source: XFX
Add your own comment

30 Comments on XFX Announces GeForce 8800 GT 256MB

#1
FreedomEclipse
~Technological Technocrat~
sweet is this the 'newer' 8800 GT thats everyone has been talking about or is it the same old 8800 GT with lesser memory???
Posted on Reply
#2
OnBoard
by: FreedomEclipse
sweet is this the 'newer' 8800 GT thats everyone has been talking about or is it the same old 8800 GT with lesser memory???
Newer? You mean 8800GTS with 112 pipes? This is the same as current 8800GT 512MB, just 256MB. I'm hoping peeps buy these and there will be more 512MB versions available for me (the cheap ones) :p
Posted on Reply
#3
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
I would probably still get the 512mb version...
Posted on Reply
#4
Ravenas
I know 216$ isn't a lot for a graphics card, but I think this is too expensive. Although, I still am interested in buying it.
Posted on Reply
#5
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
by: PVTCaboose1337
I would probably still get the 512mb version...
Agreed, these days, with DX10 and especially with resolutions above 1280 x 1024 any 256MB card is going to struggle, but if you play in lowish res it may do the job, interesting to see how it would pitch against a similarily priced 2900GT with the 512MB memory if the GT does actually get 512MB of memory as rumoured, I only see 256MB versions at the moment.
Posted on Reply
#6
Darkrealms
by: FreedomEclipse
sweet is this the 'newer' 8800 GT thats everyone has been talking about or is it the same old 8800 GT with lesser memory???
I think your confused. There were GTS and GTX before. The GT is new. The GTS is getting revamped with more pipes like OnBoard said.
Posted on Reply
#7
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
by: Tatty_One
Agreed, these days, with DX10 and especially with resolutions above 1280 x 1024 any 256MB card is going to struggle, but if you play in lowish res it may do the job, interesting to see how it would pitch against a similarily priced 2900GT with the 512MB memory if the GT does actually get 512MB of memory as rumoured, I only see 256MB versions at the moment.
I really want to see the benchies... It seems that ram really does not matter THAT much.
Posted on Reply
#8
phanbuey
Why? Whyyyyy?

They dont even have enough g92 boards for the 512MB 8800GT, why would they SPLIT the production and take away boards from the 512 just to make useless ones with half the memory?

I hope no one else makes this, as its totally pointless at this point, 256mb or 320mb really handicaps this generation of cards... plus the 512MB GT prices are going to be dropping from 250 anyways, so this just seems like a waste of a good board that could have easily had double the memory for 30 bucks more :cry:.
Posted on Reply
#9
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
by: phanbuey
They dont even have enough g92 boards for the 512MB 8800GT, why would they SPLIT the production and take away boards from the 512 just to make useless ones with half the memory?

I hope no one else makes this, as its totally pointless at this point, 256mb or 320mb really handicaps this generation of cards... plus the 512MB GT prices are going to be dropping from 250 anyways, so this just seems like a waste of a good board that could have easily had double the memory for 30 bucks more :cry:.
So are you saying that a card with 256mb is useless?

So lets say I have an x1300 with 512mb of memory and a 8800gt with 256mb of memory... that does not mean the x1300 is better!
Posted on Reply
#10
Weer
We want 1024MB, not 256MB!
Posted on Reply
#11
phanbuey
by: PVTCaboose1337
So are you saying that a card with 256mb is useless?

So lets say I have an x1300 with 512mb of memory and a 8800gt with 256mb of memory... that does not mean the x1300 is better!
Keyword: THIS generation of cards is handicapped by 256MB! Youre right in that case, of course... but there are benches that include the 8800GTS 320MB and the 640MB, where the 320 MB one can't even RUN (i cant find it at the moment, but i do remember seeing it) certain benches/resolutions while the 640 delivers 20fps... now lop off an additional 64MB of ram to get 256 and you'll quickly notice the difference - especially with some AA enabled.

and no... adding ram to an x1300 chip will not do anything, or a 7800GT for that matter - but a huge difference for the R600/G80/G92 chips especially with AA.

Weer is right :toast:... they need a 1gb version. They have a 2900XT in 1GB, why not this? theyre in the same class performance wise.
Posted on Reply
#12
PVTCaboose1337
Graphical Hacker
I say we don't really need 1gb YET. 512mb is sufficient for now...
Posted on Reply
#13
erocker
by: PVTCaboose1337
I say we don't really need 1gb YET. 512mb is sufficient for now...
If you intend to play some newer games with a resolution over 1280x1024, I would say 512mb is insufficient.
Posted on Reply
#14
DarkMatter
by: phanbuey
Keyword: THIS generation of cards is handicapped by 256MB! Youre right in that case, of course... but there are benches that include the 8800GTS 320MB and the 640MB, where the 320 MB one can't even RUN (i cant find it at the moment, but i do remember seeing it) certain benches/resolutions while the 640 delivers 20fps... now lop off an additional 64MB of ram to get 256 and you'll quickly notice the difference - especially with some AA enabled.

and no... adding ram to an x1300 chip will not do anything, or a 7800GT for that matter - but a huge difference for the R600/G80/G92 chips especially with AA.

Weer is right :toast:... they need a 1gb version. They have a 2900XT in 1GB, why not this? theyre in the same class performance wise.
8800gts 320 runs just like the 640 one on most games on low resolution (1280x1024 and lower) and AA, and there are some that can be played even at high res. Of course there are some that won't run. It will be the same for this card. But don't forget we are talking about a 150 card (price is the same in euros and dollars, forget about exchange) against 250 of the other one. There is a lot of people with 1440x900 (for example) and lower resolution panels out there. Or like me with high quality CRTs that don't mind to game on 1280x960 2xAA on some games if they can save some bucks. This card is for them, let's wait for benchies before making assumptions. No one cared about 320 GTS before it came out.
Posted on Reply
#15
DarkMatter
Have a look at this article and decide how much memory is needed nowadays.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/

Take into account that the graphs show how much memory is been used and not the minimum that you need in order to play. If the card had less memory than what is shown there it will start streaming and there is going to be some performance loss, but not all that much. Also note how resolution doesn't have an impact as pronounced as AA. If you can live up without it, then memory isn't an issue for you.
My conclusion after reading that is that 8800GT 256 could be an excelent performer. Of course it won't run as fast as the 512, but I'm sure it is going to perform above 8800GTS 320 levels, and again we are talking about 150 bucks, it's mainstream guys. You can't expect more from a card that cheap!! Sure as hell it will leave 8600GTS in the dust.

GDDR3 is expensive!! That is why lesser vram models are a lot cheaper and if you get performance levels close to the big one, then welcome. But yeah I'm going to buy the 512 one, because I love some AA and high res. But remember many out there don't.
Posted on Reply
#16
newconroer
In regards to the amount of VRAM needed, yes, unfortunatley it's still a factor.

There was an interview a while back where John Carmack said that something has to give in the way of development of games and 3d applications in regards to textures and required memory.

It's still a very relevant variable in the performance equation, but it seems Crysis, and games to follow (which, will still be memory intensive) will be more dependant on shader operations.

That would explain why the GT out does the GTS 640 quite noticeably in Crysis. The native shader clock frequency, and the extra SP pump out over fourty thousand (roughly) more operations per second. Even at a matched shader clock of 1500, the GTS is still behind in that department by twenty thousand (roughly) operations per second. Those four extra vertex pipes come in handy!

However, an equally over clocked 320 GTS IS affected by the lack of VRAM as well.

The extra shader power of the GT will be a bigger factor than the lesser VRAM for the 256 version, especially as the GT has over twice texture filling rate of a GTS (640 or 320). Though I'm confident it won't perform AS well as the 512 version.

I think the GT is a great card, to usher people in to the next generation of games, and packs a serious punch for the price. Yet the hype has pushed people to go pretty wild, even to the point of replacing a GTX for a sole GT.

Come another six months and we may see some games that chew into the GT pretty harshly, and maybe the GTX /Ultra as well, where 112 and 128 SP could be cutting it close.
Posted on Reply
#17
phanbuey
[quote="phanbuey, post: 532023"][quote="DarkMatter, post: 531654"]Have a look at this article and decide how much memory is needed nowadays.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/

great link, right on - Thanks! Especially the 32bit vs 64bit scenario at the end. :rockout:... but with the exception of oblivion and bioshock (WTF is sega revo), all those games use roughly 300MB of memory even at minimum resolutions and AA, Crysis and Stalker(400mb vram @ 800x600) bein the worst...

I wouldnt buy this even at $150, bc i would like to be able to RUN stalker and crysis without data swapping(even at 800x600 :laugh: look at the graph!)... I'm not saying the performance will be horrid; I'm saying that its a crap product because it has such a miniscule target market... and it comes at a time when there are no 8800GT's with 512MB to be found... and at a time when all future games are almost guaranteed to need more than 256.

Maybe they'll plaster a sticker of jonathan wendel's face on it to make it sell. But as of right now I couldn't imagine many people buying this card.
Posted on Reply
#18
niko084
256mb cards are pretty much dead in the water these days with a decent card...

PS- Phanbuey....

Even a 8800GT in 256mb will let you play Crysis at 1280x1024 EASY medium/high settings with good fps..

Heck my 2600xt gddr4 lets me play Crysis at 1280x1024 medium/high settings at 35-40 fps...
Posted on Reply
#19
Xaser04
It should be interesting to see benchmarks of this card against the 512mb model and also the 320/640 GTS. (along with the ATI counterparts)

If the performance is right then the card could be a relative bargin in comparison to the 512mb model (in the UK its £150ish for the 256 model and £180ish for the 512mb model (including postage))
Posted on Reply
#20
OnBoard
by: phanbuey
Have a look at this article and decide how much memory is needed nowadays.

http://www.yougamers.com/articles/13801_video_ram_-_how_much_do_you_really_need/
And everyone should remember while reading that that those games are run every setting on HIGH. If you drop textures to medium it would propably already drop it to 256MB. It's a bit misleading as most cards don't have the power to run everything high, you have to lower some settings and in the same time you lower your memory usage.
8800GT is just so fast that you could run most settings high at least in older games and then you might run out.
Posted on Reply
#21
niko084
by: OnBoard
And everyone should remember while reading that that those games are run every setting on HIGH. If you drop textures to medium it would propably already drop it to 256MB. It's a bit misleading as most cards don't have the power to run everything high, you have to lower some settings and in the same time you lower your memory usage.
8800GT is just so fast that you could run most settings high at least in older games and then you might run out.
Even Rainbow 6 Vegas is too much for a 256mb card realistically...
So taking that into consideration...

Higher midrange cards should have 256bit bus and 512mb of ram if you plan on running any type of res above 1280x1024 and hope to get some performance.
Posted on Reply
#22
niko084
by: OnBoard
And everyone should remember while reading that that those games are run every setting on HIGH. If you drop textures to medium it would propably already drop it to 256MB. It's a bit misleading as most cards don't have the power to run everything high, you have to lower some settings and in the same time you lower your memory usage.
8800GT is just so fast that you could run most settings high at least in older games and then you might run out.
Even Rainbow 6 Vegas is too much for a 256mb card realistically...
So taking that into consideration...

Higher midrange cards should have 256bit bus and 512mb of ram if you plan on running any type of res above 1280x1024 and hope to get some performance.

What that card is going to do it give the 256mb HD3850 a solid competitor.
Because the 8600GTS doesn't stand a chance.
Posted on Reply
#23
Tatty_One
Senior Moderator
by: PVTCaboose1337
I really want to see the benchies... It seems that ram really does not matter THAT much.
Well you say that but in some DX10 games the difference between 256MB and 512MB will be playable frame rates where you have any resolution above 1280 x 1024 or even below if you want high detail. At 16xx x 10xx in any DX10 game where you want decent quality settings I dont think you will get playable framerates without the memory.
Posted on Reply
#24
nguyenpeter76
heheh any mb will be fine with me cause i have a nvidia riva tnt2 32mb which is like 5-6 years old
Posted on Reply
#25
DarkMatter
I can't believe what I am reading in this post!! Sorry but I have to LOL really hard on you guys.
Since when a card at 150-200 price point is been able to play newer games on highest settings?
Let's learn some recent Nvidia history right? (Ati had similar cards as you all know.)

May 2003 - 5900 Ultra released - Price: 450+ if I remember well.

April 2004 - 6800 Ultra released - Price: 500+ - Perfromance 2x 5950 Ultra

Nov 2004 (18 months later than 5900) - 6600GT realeased - Price: 200+ - Performance: Slightly above 5950 Ultra, can play Doom 3 on highest at 1024x768 4x AA (the card itself is marketed as this)

June 2005 - 7800GTX released -Price: 500+ - Performance: 1,6x 6800 Ultra

March 2006 (23 months later than 6800) - 7600GT released - Price: 200+ - Performance: Same as 6800 Ultra

November 2006 - 8800GTX released - Price: 600+ - Performance: Above 2x 7800GTX

October 2007 (11 Months later) - 8800GT 512 released - Price 250 - Performance - 0,8x-0,9x 8800GTX

Novenber 2007 - 8800GT 256 released - Price 150-200 - Performance: Unknown, 0,7x-0,9x 8800GTX reallistically expected. Still the card should have 1024 MB, run at 800Mhz, play Crysis on Very High at 1920x1200 16xAA 16XAF and still come out at a 50 price point. Otherwise this card is shit. Period. :slap:

Come back to earth guys! Your mom is missing you...

See you! :toast:
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment