Anybody else confused by all the same-number NVidia models lately?

There's the old 8800 GTX and Ultra and GTS...

and now there's also new versions of the 8800 GTS and a GT too.

Across all these "8800" models, memory values include (IIRC), 256MB, 320MB, 512MB, 768MB, and 1GB. Anybody got a good source that compares the performance of all the new/old models? I assume a new GTS beats an old GTS...how does it compare to the old GTX and Ultra? Where's the GT fit in?

This should explain the naming conventions for you:
[en.wikipedia.org]

And it even kills what's left of the spare physical addresses on any 32-bit systems this thing is stuffed into.

I would go for it, but I would rather wait until the 9 series comes out.... My 7950 card I have now though I must say is still kicking ass and taking names... Until you load Crysis.

@gattsuru: True. But I think if you're playing DX10 games and need that much memory, you'd be running 64-bit vista.

Thanks, Jackbling...I should always remember to check Wikipedia before asking questions.

The relative performance seems like it's supposed to be:
Top: Ultra
High: GTX
Middle: GT
Bottom: GTS

But, based on the chart slightly lower on the Wikipedia page, it looks like the new GTS will beat the GT, and might be able to beat the old GTX and maybe even the Ultra (based on Fill Rate and Shader Processing Power). Strange that they didn't call it an 8900 GTS or something, then.

I also wonder if a 1GB GT might be able to beat a 768MB GTX at certain conditions (high resolutions, perhaps).

@EQC:
A good source to compare the video cards you are looking for is [www.tigerdirect.com] (believe it or not)

I just happen to be looking for some specs and Tiger Direct site is awesome for that. You can check a lot of cards to compare at the same time.
Check out memory bandwith as a good indicator of performance.

:)

@SomeoneUKno: just so you are aware there is a config hack that sends the dx10 shaders to shader 3.0 and shuts down some poly generator(at the time i installed it the purpose was unknown, some conspiracy rumors around about crytek and nvidia, but nothing solid). the difference is night and day, on a ati1950 im running i can now run crysis on high settings, and frame rate jumped about 10-15fps average. it looks phenominal. Don't remmeber the link right off the top of my head but should be able to find it with five minutes and google.

I like how Asus appears to be becoming more and more prominent. If I work fast, I can claim to be one of the original Asus fanboys, before all this Eee stuff came out. *hugs his R1F*

omg...2 years ago I would have said this won't happen/be needed for another 8-10 years...now my pc is really far behind top of the line

Dear ASUS,
Please make an 8800 card that will make luv to my Mac Pro. Apple seems incapable.

Tom's Hardware does a very frequent list of video card comparisons and some reviews.

[www.tomshardware.com]

@EQC: It's probably going to end up like cars are now (and have been forever).

Asuss 8800 GTS

Toyota Celica GTS (hey! everyone uses "GT" and "GTS"!)

It's probably the same motivating factor too, they invest a lot in promoting some level of recognition in the "8800" (or whatever) model.

But but...aren't games on the 360 graphically far superior than those with a PC, even some stuffed with fancy cards like this one? Maybe?

@hisham: lol... that was a joke right?

@hisham: No.

@hisham: Not even close. Do you really think people would spend five times as much on a computer as they would on a 360, if they were going to get lower quality graphics? Think about it.

@hisham: the 360 is 1080i, the Asus card offers 1080p.

So I think, at least in terms of potential, the Asus card is superior. I have no idea about which is better in terms of software.

Also the HD-DVD player/software for the 360 is apparently ass.

@logruszed: Seriously? That has absolutely no bearing on anything in addition to being incorrect. The 8800 series in general can go to 2560x1600, which is higher than 1080p. Also nVidia has been using the GT/GTS/GTX/(GS) naming scheme for a while now so its not like its a new phenomenon.

Anywho, Ultras are just slightly more efficient overclocked GTX's. Overclocking the shader core on this would be way nice, but the increase to 1gb of memory probably wont increase performance significantly. The 320 GTS vs the 640 GTS is intistinguishable in performance. Although I think this is bad timing seeing as you still cant get your hands on a regular 8800 GT, and the 512mb GTS is comming out soon, and preliminary tests have indicated that it is ~ a GTX.
You must always remember, numbers do not equal actual performance. For example, on paper a HD 3870 looks like it would slap a GTX around when it actually performs worse or significantly worse. (Thats not the point of the card though)

@logruszed: It says on various product page that it can deliver a variety of resolutions including 1080p. I didn't say that was all it transmits, I just used the "1080" format to compare "p" against the 1080i offered by the xbox 360.

While the product details for the 360 states it's max resolution is 1080i.

And all the reviews I've read from consumers and not from Microsoft pretty much state that the HD-DVD function of the 360 drive stinks.

So what is wrong? I omitted the highest resolutions, but that wasn't "wrong".

@EQC: the 512mb 8800GT is a beast card, almost as good as the GTX (even beat the GTX in a few tests) for a hot $300 less.

I can see this card being a aa/af whore

@logruszed: Since when does the 360 only output 1080i? Mine is outputting in 1080p and has been for a while. There are no games rendered in native 1080p but that doesn't mean the 360 *couldn't*.