One of the first 8600 (GTS) reviews

[mp666]

I'm sure we'll see a lot nowadays :

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1079/xfx_geforce_8600gts_xxx_nvidia_s_new_mainstream_dx 10_is_here/index.html

[jonnyGURU]

Ugh!

If I want a review of an 8600 card, I want to see a comparison against it and an 8800 card.

This guy just benched against a 7900GS and X1950XT.

I guess it doesn't matter. If a 7900GS and an X1950XT kills the 8600, then an 8800 is going to slaughter it as well.

At least now we know for sure how truly suck ass a 7600 is. :D

[mp666]

Ugh!

If I want a review of an 8600 card, I want to see a comparison against it and an 8800 card.

This guy just benched against a 7900GS and X1950XT.

I guess it doesn't matter. If a 7900GS and an X1950XT kills the 8600, then an 8800 is going to slaughter it as well.

At least now we know for sure how truly suck ass a 7600 is. :D

Ed, err, Jonny

It's not even an XT it's a GT. If this is the high end 8600, I don't think I'm going to buy one, especially at this price point. You can get a X1950XT for around $200. The only advantage for 8xxx series seems to be DX10 compatibility.

[jonnyGURU]

Right.. but these cards support DX10. ;)

I'm with you. I wouldn't buy this card for performance when better performance is available for the same price.

I think the focus of this card is that it's DX10 compatible at an affordable price.

But on the same note, ATI plans on having a number of cost effective DX10 cards as well, and they may perform better.

[Hutch]

Vr-zone has had a review up for weeks on the 8600GTS...

The 8600GTS performs better than the 7900GT and overclocks very well. The image quality is significantly better also. The 128-bit memory is what hurts the cards potential.

http://vr-zone.com/?i=4883&s=2

[Hutch]

Ooof I take that back now, vr-zone posted a new review of the cards. They are absolutely trashed by the 128-bit memory bus...

Pay the extra $50-100 and get the 8800GTS 320MB...

[Nullvoid]

The 8600gts looks to be out of its depth for its pricepoint, but the 8600gt handily dispatches the 7600gt+x1650xt without too much bother. Sure it's not giving killer performance, but then again, I doubt many people looking to buy one will be playing in such high resolutions (1280x1024 and above). That's what I'm thinking after reading the techreport review (http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/geforce-8600/index.x?pg=5) of both the 8600gts and 8600gt anyway.

[KorruptioN]

Pay the extra $50-100 and get the 8800GTS 320MB...
Truth.

[mp666]

Ooof I take that back now, vr-zone posted a new review of the cards. They are absolutely trashed by the 128-bit memory bus...

Pay the extra $50-100 and get the 8800GTS 320MB...

Yes, everything I've read so far shows that they're generally slower than 1950 Pro due to their 128-bit memory bus. And you can find 1950 Pro's for significantly lower prices.

You're right. If one wants a midrange Nvidia card that supports DX10, 8800 GTS with 320MB memory is the way to go.

Right.. but these cards support DX10. ;)

I'm with you. I wouldn't buy this card for performance when better performance is available for the same price.

I think the focus of this card is that it's DX10 compatible at an affordable price.

But on the same note, ATI plans on having a number of cost effective DX10 cards as well, and they may perform better.

I'm waiting for the new ATI cards. If they don't perform better I think I'll go for an X1950 Pro.

[mp666]

I love(d) Commodore :

http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=20227