10 Geforce 8800 GTS 320Mb Video Cards Compared

Videocards/VGA Reviews by geoffrey @ 2007-04-30

We continue our Geforce 8800 320Mb tests with the additional of models from Asus, Albatron, Leadtek and the TEC cooled Calibre, comparing gaming performance, overclocking potential and cooling capability with the previous tested cards. This roundup will help you decide what card to get; read on if you´re in the market for a higher end VGA upgrade.

  • prev
  • next

8800GTS Likenesses & differences

8800GTS Likenesses & differences

Madshrimps (c)


The cards we reviewed are all based on NVIDIA's reference design. This means they are all build on the A01 board revision, and they all use the dual slot active cooled heat piped aluminum heatsink. The G80 GPU is fed with 1,3V, while the memory on all cards is being fed with 1,91V. This makes sense since all our cards use Hynix HY5RS 1,1ns GDDR3 memory. This type of SDRAM is made for 1,8V supply voltage and should do its work up to 900MHz (1800MHz effective). With the good overclockable GPU and overvolted GDDR3 RAM NVIDIA left quite some performance in their 8800GTS cards. And that's exactly where the differences are to be found, here is a line-up of all our tested cards: (note: highest value in yellow)

GPU CORE CLOCK

Manufacturer
Box label clock
Realtime clock
Sparkle
500
513
Zotac
570
567
XFX
580
576
Gainward
550
540
PNY
500
513
Twintech
550
540
ASUS
500
513
Albatron
500
513
Leadtek
500
513
Calibre
580
576


During our review we noticed that the real time core clock Rivatuner showed us did not always match the numbers we saw on the boxes. Therefore it is most important to include those in our review. With the memory clock we noticed the same thing:

MEMORY CLOCK

Manufacturer
Box label clock
Realtime clock
Sparkle
800
792
Zotac
900
900
XFX
900
900
Gainward
880
891
PNY
800
792
Twintech
900
900
ASUS
800
792
Albatron
800
792
Leadtek
800
792
Calibre
890
891


Finally we like to mention the shader clock too. In our previous 8800 GTS 320 vs 640Mb review we learned that the 8800GTS cards come with 96 unified shader processors being clocked at 1200MHz. At least, that's how NVIDIA clocked them in their reference design. During our overclocking tests we saw that the shader clock is bound to the core clock in some way. The perfect example of what we noticed is how NVIDIA clocked their GTX. The GTX is clocked at 575MHz, right? Now notice how the shaders are also clocked at a higher speed compared to the 8800GTS: 1350MHz. With all those different core clocks we are being faced with in this review, it is good to have a close up on how all those manufacturers reacted on the above statement. Here is a line-up:

GPU SHADER CLOCK


Manufacturer
Box label clock
Realtime clock
Sparkle
1200
1188
Zotac
1200
1188
XFX
1500
1512
Gainward
1200
1188
PNY
1200
1188
Twintech
none
1296
ASUS
1200
1188
Albatron
1200
1188
Leadtek
1200
1188
Calibre
none
1350


It seems like most manufacturers stick with the reference clock speed (1200MHz), even those with overclocked GPU's. At first I thought that the XFX card was creating an error in the readout somehow, though XFX's Europe marketing manager informed us that it is complete normal that the shaders are clocked that high. Later on more manufacturers confirmed that the shaders indeed can be increased and that it can be used to extract extra performance. We will see the impact of those high clocked shaders in our game tests.

Cooling

9 out of the 10 samples we tested use an identical heatsink design. For those cards only different GPU speeds will determine different GPU temperatures, but even those were extremely closely to each other; for reference I’m including what you can expect cooling/performance wise with the standard heatsink design. Calibre's 8800GTS sample included the MACS M-Sorceress II MA-8280-2 aftermarket heatsink which we heared would offer great performance. We logged temperatures over a period of time with Rivatuner while running Futuremark 3DMark05 in loop to stress the GPU. The ambient room temperature is logged with a GTH 175/Pt Digital Thermometer

To insure that the heatsink is capable of keeping the 8800GTS at a decent temperature, we tried to measure how it performs inside our test housing:

Madshrimps (c)
The Antec Nine Hundred series, read our review here.


Here are the results:

Madshrimps (c)


Amazing how much heat these cards generate, you can actually feel warm air leaving the dual slot heatsink at the back of your pc enclosure. The heatsink/fan combination keeps the temperature well within specs. The fan is being temperature controlled; it will spin faster when core temperature increases to prevent overheating damage. With a duty cycle of only 70% at heavy load there is much cooling power left. As we tricked the fan speed to 100% with help of nTune, we saw how a high speed fan reduces the GPU temperatures with quite some margin.

Looking at our Calibre sample: Heatpipes... double 8cm fans... thermo electric cooling... it has it all! And just look at how it lowers the GPU temperature by more then 15°C on heavy load. It even manages to beat that stock cooler running its fan at 100% duty cycle!

Another fact is that the hot air is expelled outside the case with both heatsink designs, so thermal impact on overall case temperature is minimal.

Noise

Noise level was recorded with a SmartSensor AR824. The sensor was placed ~50cm away from the side view window of our Antec housing we mentioned above. The CPU fan was turned off to reduce noise and concentrate on the reading from the VGA cards.

Madshrimps (c)


The use of a big aluminum heatsink in combination with a heat pipe and a 7cm fan has proved successful to keep the 8800 GTS core temperature well within specs. Noise wise you can see that even at 70% fan speed the HSF remains quite silent, though I don't recommend tricking the fan speed to 100% for extra cooling in daily use, the added noise will certainly be noticed even if your average PC noise is already quite high. For Calibre's card we see that MACS has made the perfect balance between noise and performance. While in real life it didn't really sound noisier then other 8800GTS cards, it did offer us quite some lower GPU temperatures.

->
  • prev
  • next
Comment from Sidney @ 2007/04/30
Nicely done review
Comment from sandstorm @ 2007/05/02
yes idd, great stuff!

I'm anciously awaiting a 8800GTX with a fanless design cooler. I know it's asking a lot but there are vga-coolers out there that are up for the challenge if you ask me. Placing one for myselfs is out of the question, I don't want to wreck a 500 euro graphicscard and lose my warranty.

Keep up the good reviewing!
Comment from jmke @ 2007/05/03
HR-03 Plus should be able to do the job if you have decent case cooling
Comment from jim8 @ 2007/12/18
OK........I have the Albatron 8800 gts 320mb that you guys tested, and I see that nobody is testing any card with the new Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Why is that??? I mean....everyone says that this game is quite heavy...and with the albatron card, this game (I watched the game's frame rate counter) gave me 2 to 5 frames on some missions with intense environments (1280x1024 and low in game settings). With less intense environments, and with low settings on the Nvidia control panel, it reached 25 "maybe" 30 fps max, and that happened "sometimes". And I'm using the new Beta drivers from Nvidia 169.17. With those drivers, the same "tough" mission got a maximum of 10 frames. I tampered with the nvidia control panel and pushed up the AA and Anisotropic filters, and the filters of the game, and the frames average between 6 and 13-14. Is that normal??? or am I doing something wrong??? or could it be because of the monitor??? (lol)....I'm planing to play around with the overclocking and see what frames I'll get......is it possible for you to run a test with the FSX and see what numbers you can get????

my system:
Gigabyte GA 965P-S3 (Rev. 3.3) mainboard
Intel Pentium 4, (540) 3.2 Ghz 800 FSB
2 GB memory, 667MHz
HD 500 GB sata II westernd digital
LG 1735 17" TFT VGA monitor
Comment from Rutar @ 2007/12/18
I wonder how long it takes until you find Madshrimps in the excyclopedia when you look under "roundup" =P
Comment from jmke @ 2007/12/18
This test was finished back in June, the cards are no longer in our possession :/
Comment from geoffrey @ 2007/12/18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim8 View Post
OK........I have the Albatron 8800 gts 320mb that you guys tested, and I see that nobody is testing any card with the new Microsoft Flight Simulator X. Why is that??? I mean....everyone says that this game is quite heavy...and with the albatron card, this game (I watched the game's frame rate counter) gave me 2 to 5 frames on some missions with intense environments (1280x1024 and low in game settings). With less intense environments, and with low settings on the Nvidia control panel, it reached 25 "maybe" 30 fps max, and that happened "sometimes". And I'm using the new Beta drivers from Nvidia 169.17. With those drivers, the same "tough" mission got a maximum of 10 frames. I tampered with the nvidia control panel and pushed up the AA and Anisotropic filters, and the filters of the game, and the frames average between 6 and 13-14. Is that normal??? or am I doing something wrong??? or could it be because of the monitor??? (lol)....I'm planing to play around with the overclocking and see what frames I'll get......is it possible for you to run a test with the FSX and see what numbers you can get????

my system:
Gigabyte GA 945P-S3 (Rev. 3.3) mainboard
Intel Pentium 4, (540) 3.2 Ghz 800 FSB
2 GB memory
HD 500 GB sataII westernd digital
LG 1735 17" TFT monitor, VGA only........lol, no DVI input
I don't own that game, and besides that it would take just too long for me to test every card in every available game. Therefore we test only the most popular games, or those that make most sense. Concerning your setup, that Pentium 4 540 is not really the fastest CPU those days, maybe you gain some performance when pushing it past 4GHz, I'm quite sure your CPU can do that air cooled.
Comment from jim8 @ 2007/12/19
hhhmmm yes!!!!!........I've been told that before....about the Pentium 4, and I was suggested a Core 2 duo, prefferably one with more than 2GHz. could it be the cpu that limits the frames after all???..........I've tried lower rezolusions too and didn't have any improvement on the frames.........as if something is blocking the card from giving more frames. But anyway, do you know if fsx is actualy that heavy??? .....I've read some reviews of the game and they said that it's for next generation cards.
Comment from jmke @ 2007/12/19
FSX is a huge resource hog, it will require a lot of RAM, raw CPU power and high end VGA card to run half decent, running it under Vista will further degrade performance;
Comment from jim8 @ 2007/12/19
Daaaaaaaammmnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!......
Comment from jim8 @ 2007/12/22
hey hey hey.........guess what..........overclocking solved my problems eventualy.......even with no overclocking of the CPU, a small overclocking of the GPU and memory, with RivaTuner, to run from 513/1188/792 to 540/1242/810 gave me at least a playable frame rate (7 to 10 fps minimum on "heavy" scinery conditions). Your overclocking guide was most helpful, thanks

 

reply