8600GT Thoughts ?

Fishface · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 17

Wonderman wrote:

> Geez... Whats the average age on this board ? 8 ?

Well there's an exaggeration, to be sure. I think it's more like fifteen.

FS X is very CPU intensive. What are your system specs and at what
resolution are you trying to run it?

From this chart:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=717&model2=855&chart=291

....you can see that the 8600GT would in fact be a decent upgrade in
this specific case, and you can also see how CPU limited the game
is, as the top GPUs don't perform significantly better at that resolution.

Click on the chart bars to get the system specs. It seems they used
an Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93 GHz. I have read that better
multithreading support has been added with the FS X Service Pack 1.

Archived from group: alt>comp>periphs>videocards>nvidia

DRS · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 234

"Wonderman" wrote in message$H05.3497@newsfe06.phx
> I was considering upgrading from an XFX 7600 GS 256 to this -
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125083
>
>
> FS X is a bit too choppy in the old card and I could use a boost in
> CAD as well. Any thoughts appreciated. BTW I'm running a nearly
> silent Sony desktop so fanless is really important.

Given the 8600GT's DX9 performance is roughly that of a 7600GT it's not much
of an upgrade from a 7600GS.

Paul · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 200

Wonderman wrote:
> Thank you for the perspective and info.
>
> I'm running a 2.8 ghz Pentium D dual core with 2 gig ram and the 7600GS
> card. The Windows Vista score is currently 4.3 and the resolution is
> 1650 x 1080. My sense of it ( despite the peanut gallery comments ) is
> that the Gigabyte fanless 8600GT would be an improvement. Currently
> this system is nearly silent and tremendously reliable.

Setting up FSX is complicated, and the article here claims the frame rate
can be capped by "Target Frame Rate".

http://web.archive.org/web/20070318024332/www.fsinsider.com/Community/News-Articles/What-is-Your-Frame-Rate.htm

The Target Frame Rate setting is shown here.

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?s=&act=Attach&type=post&id=5842
( http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=40850 )

In the Tomshardware chart, the more powerful video cards are all delivering
about the same frame rate. Could this be caused by "Target Frame Rate" ?
Or is it caused by running out of CPU power ?

More system examples here, and quoted frame rates.
http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1190754444

Paul

>
>
> "Fishface" wrote in message
> $kz3.5051@trndny03...
>> Wonderman wrote:
>>
>>> Geez... Whats the average age on this board ? 8 ?
>>
>> Well there's an exaggeration, to be sure. I think it's more like
>> fifteen.
>>
>> FS X is very CPU intensive. What are your system specs and at what
>> resolution are you trying to run it?
>>
>> From this chart:
>> http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=717&model2=855&chart=291
>>
>>
>> ...you can see that the 8600GT would in fact be a decent upgrade in
>> this specific case, and you can also see how CPU limited the game
>> is, as the top GPUs don't perform significantly better at that
>> resolution.
>>
>> Click on the chart bars to get the system specs. It seems they used
>> an Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93 GHz. I have read that better
>> multithreading support has been added with the FS X Service Pack 1.
>>
>

Wonderman · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

OK. I went to Best Buy and bought a PNY 8600GT 512K with GDDR3 memory. And
a real loud fan so its going back. The fan itself isn’t too loud but in
this case it is like a Dustbuster.
My Windows Experience score went from 4.3 to 4.7 with the card itself going
from 4.3 to 5.7. The CPU is the constraining score at 4.7 so the
speculation about FSX was correct actually. It ran a bit more smooth but it
wasn’t enough to knock you back in your chair.

In CAD rotating a 3D solid was quite a bit smother and for the sum total of
the user experience I’ll go for the fanless one form NewEgg.

My last question for the group is whether to go for the Gigabyte 8600GT with
512K of GDDR2 or the same card with 256 of GDDR3 ? Some of the comments
about the heat those cards generate were a concern as well.

"DRS" wrote in message $0$30977$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Wonderman" wrote in message
> $H05.3497@newsfe06.phx
>> I was considering upgrading from an XFX 7600 GS 256 to this -
>>
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125083
>>
>>
>> FS X is a bit too choppy in the old card and I could use a boost in
>> CAD as well. Any thoughts appreciated. BTW I'm running a nearly
>> silent Sony desktop so fanless is really important.
>
> Given the 8600GT's DX9 performance is roughly that of a 7600GT it's not
> much of an upgrade from a 7600GS.
>

Phil Weldon · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 119

'Wonderman' wrote:
| OK. I went to Best Buy and bought a PNY 8600GT 512K with GDDR3 memory.
And
| a real loud fan so its going back. The fan itself isn’t too loud but in
| this case it is like a Dustbuster.
| My Windows Experience score went from 4.3 to 4.7 with the card itself
going
| from 4.3 to 5.7. The CPU is the constraining score at 4.7 so the
| speculation about FSX was correct actually. It ran a bit more smooth but
it
| wasn’t enough to knock you back in your chair.
|
| In CAD rotating a 3D solid was quite a bit smother and for the sum total
of
| the user experience I’ll go for the fanless one form NewEgg.
|
| My last question for the group is whether to go for the Gigabyte 8600GT
with
| 512K of GDDR2 or the same card with 256 of GDDR3 ? Some of the comments
| about the heat those cards generate were a concern as well.
_____

Clearly you need a better performing CPU, as that is the weak link indicated
by the fairly useless 'Windows Experience' test. My T7200 2.0 GHz X 4 MB L2
cache Dell Inspiron notebook with a 8600M GT beats your CPU score and the
low power (low clock speed) 8600M GT comes in at 4.6, just below your 8600
GT at 4.7. I certainly would not call my notebook a serious gaming system;
the 3DMark06 score is ~ 3800 unless I overclock the video card (which quite
easily will handle a 30% clock rate increase.)

A noticeable improvement for your system is going to require more than going
from last generation's midrange video card to a current generation midrange
video card.

But evidently you don't want to hear that.

Phil Weldon

"Wonderman" wrote in message $n42.10510@newsfe08.phx...
| OK. I went to Best Buy and bought a PNY 8600GT 512K with GDDR3 memory.
And
| a real loud fan so its going back. The fan itself isn’t too loud but in
| this case it is like a Dustbuster.
| My Windows Experience score went from 4.3 to 4.7 with the card itself
going
| from 4.3 to 5.7. The CPU is the constraining score at 4.7 so the
| speculation about FSX was correct actually. It ran a bit more smooth but
it
| wasn’t enough to knock you back in your chair.
|
| In CAD rotating a 3D solid was quite a bit smother and for the sum total
of
| the user experience I’ll go for the fanless one form NewEgg.
|
| My last question for the group is whether to go for the Gigabyte 8600GT
with
| 512K of GDDR2 or the same card with 256 of GDDR3 ? Some of the comments
| about the heat those cards generate were a concern as well.
|
|
| "DRS" wrote in message
| $0$30977$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
| > "Wonderman" wrote in message
| > $H05.3497@newsfe06.phx
| >> I was considering upgrading from an XFX 7600 GS 256 to this -
| >>
| >> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125083
| >>
| >>
| >> FS X is a bit too choppy in the old card and I could use a boost in
| >> CAD as well. Any thoughts appreciated. BTW I'm running a nearly
| >> silent Sony desktop so fanless is really important.
| >
| > Given the 8600GT's DX9 performance is roughly that of a 7600GT it's not
| > much of an upgrade from a 7600GS.
| >
|

johns · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 30

I have 11 of the 8600 GTs in a CAD lab .. running CATIA,
Solidworks, etc. Put them in P35 chipset mobos, and
Aquamark3 scored 140,000 ... highest I have ever seen.
They are cool and quiet, and they don't overheat like
all of the 8800s do. I really don't think passive cooling
would work with an 8800 .. or you would still have to
run an external fan with plenty of venting. Still don't
underpower the 8600. Those commercial desktops
tend to be underpowered. Check that.

johns

Wonderman · Joined: 25 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

I have a 945P chipset & a 365 watt PS so no issues there. I also run
Solidworks as well. I'll probably go for the gddr3 . 256mb board. Are you
running the same exact Gigabyte board ?

"johns" wrote in message @d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I have 11 of the 8600 GTs in a CAD lab .. running CATIA,
> Solidworks, etc. Put them in P35 chipset mobos, and
> Aquamark3 scored 140,000 ... highest I have ever seen.
> They are cool and quiet, and they don't overheat like
> all of the 8800s do. I really don't think passive cooling
> would work with an 8800 .. or you would still have to
> run an external fan with plenty of venting. Still don't
> underpower the 8600. Those commercial desktops
> tend to be underpowered. Check that.
>
> johns

mangyrat · Joined: 22 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

Get a 8800GT the fan can be set to a slower or faster speed with rivatuner
or the nvida control panel
the XFX8800 GT is so silent at stock setting you cant hear it only when I
set the fan to 75% or more can I hear it and I only do that when I OC the
card.

your CPU will hold the card back but look at it this way your going to
upgrade that system sooner or later you may as well have a good video card
for when you do upgrade
or you can waste your $ on a 8600 that is not that good of a upgrade.

"Wonderman" wrote in message $H05.3497@newsfe06.phx...
>I was considering upgrading from an XFX 7600 GS 256 to this -
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125083
>
>
> FS X is a bit too choppy in the old card and I could use a boost in CAD as
> well. Any thoughts appreciated. BTW I'm running a nearly silent Sony
> desktop so fanless is really important.