XFX 8500GT or 8600GT ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

skurken

Posts: 6   +0
Hi

I'm just wondering which one I should buy? The XFX 8500GT with 512 mb memory but a bit slower on all these Mhz:s :D

Or the XFX 8600GT which has "only" 256 mb but is a bit faster on the Mhz:s

And the weirdest thing is that the 8600GT is cheaper than the 8500GT, that really confuses me.

Have a look:

8500GT: http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product...ce™+8500&productConfigurationId=1115051

8600GT: I can't find any link with this specific card, but the name is XFX 8600GT 256MB DDR2 PCI-E Dual DVI + TV-out and it has a GPU-speed of 540 Mhz, RAM: 1400 Mhz, Memory: 256 MB 1400 Mhz 128-bit

That's all I got, it's a difficult choice for me, but hopefully you guys can give a little help in this matter.

Thanks in advance

Skurken
 
How come the 7-series are better than the 8-series(except the 8800). And I've decided to stay away from ATI, cause I bought a while ago a X1600 Pro which gave me some serious problems. Now I have my Geforce 6200 installed and it works just fine, so I've decided to stay with Geforce.

And how come these(8500-8600) aren't good for gaming, isn't the DirectX 10 and Pixel Shader 4.0 support necessary for the newest games?

And does it make a great difference if the card has 128-bit or 256-bit? And are the Mhz:s important?
 
DX10 is only used by Windows Vista... since most of the games are still coming out for DX9, the DX10 cards dont have much impact on game performance..
128bit and 256bit - this relates to the memory bandwidth, the higher the better (the easy way to explain it :))
and yes i would have to agree with Rage_3K_Moiz that the 7900GS is the better choice .....
 
Okay, well I checked around a bit and the 7900GS seems quite good. For example the memory bandwidth(???:D) is almost the double, which sounds quite nice. And overall it looks quite fast and powerful, so I think I found my new graphics card. Thanks guys !
 
if i were you i would just goo for a 8800 GTS if your tight on cash save up some becasue its not worth buyin a 8600 unless all your goin to play is checkers because if you try playin a new game thats coming out like crysis or bioshock your system will fall to its knees with a 8600
 
i'd agree with compfeak and Rage on that. Bioshock was such a graphics shredding machine that it ruined hundreds of xbox 360s. one guy had to send his in to micro$oft 12 times because of bioshock constantly frying his xbox processor. and he made the news because of it.

if you plan on playing the latest games, you need the x1950 pro 512 mb, or the latest and greatest gpus available. 2900hd, or 8800. a friend of mine is running two 7600 cards in sli to run bioshock, and even so he only gets decent performance. its therefore reasonable to assume that the 7600 and 7900, while they're still decent cards, will only leave you wanting for more. you'll wish you had gone with a better card.

you may want to think about investing in an extra tidbit of RAM for your system too. more never hurts. and with games like crysis and bioshock, you'll be running things too sluggishly to play. gpu and cpu are only half the battle. RAM is equally as important.

save up massively. i'm choosing to wait 4 whole months just to get the money i need to buy bioshock and the system of my choice. it's a hell of a commitment. but its worth every minute. i'm CERTAINLY never going to even get past the bioshock logo with the heap i'm working with.

279.99, with 512mb as compared to 8800 320mb for the same price. i'd get the 2900hd. =D. newegg finally has some in stock. get em while they're hot.
 
^Even with less VRAM the 8800 still uses to the 2900hd to clean between its cheeks after it uses the bathroom :p

The 8800 is hands down the best card on the market right now, and yes to play bioshock all pretty you will need one. but you can play it on a 7900GS you just won't be able to have everything turned on.
 
not entirely true.

the 8800 and the 2900hd were both tested head to head, and the 2900 come out ahead on 3 out of 5 games. and the other 2 games had minimal performance differences. both parts are pretty well matched, but for the price and the performance not just on bioshock but for other games, the 2900 hd will probably end up being the better buy. i think that review might actually be on these forums somewhere...here it is.
https://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/

in every benchmark, 2900hd 512mb versus 8800 320mb, except for ONE single resolution on one game, the 2900 wipe ITS cheeks with the 8800. it outperformed it just about everywhere except for that one spot in every single game.

even if you got a 768 mb of the 8800, the 2900 still beats it 3 out of 5 for the most part. and as i said, the performance differences are slim at best on everything else. not to mention the 768mb version of the 8800 is bloody expensive. as much of a fan of the 8800 that i am, i think i'd rather stick with the 2900 because for the same price, you get a shat load of performance over the 8800.

as for the 7900 gs, you're right. you can use it. but if you're a real PC and game enthusiast, you'll want everything you can possibly turn on to be turned on to the max. so stick with a high end card if you're gonna play something like bioshock or crysis and still want decent framerates, as well as an excellent gaming experience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Shawn Knight
It's possible to overclock SSDs, but you probably shouldn't
Replies
4
Views
170
oasked
O
Shawn Knight
This handheld packs an Intel 386 CPU for true retro PC gaming
Replies
6
Views
466
LetTheWookieWin
L
midian182
The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is now 35% under MSRP in Germany
Replies
17
Views
2K
NightAntilli
N

Latest posts

Back