is almost 400$ difference worth 8600gt up to 8700gt

i can configure 2 different systems the one and only difference being one has the 8600gt card the other has the 8700gt card with about a 400$ (just over 380$) being the only difference they are 2 diferent model systems from 2 different companies configured identical excpet the gpu..

i am not a hardcore gamer. i like to play and play what i want when i want to but this is not being bought to play games only it is a everyday use system with gaming as a plus, so would you given my situation spend the 400$ more for just the gpu??? thanks in advance im so torn over this.. its driving me nuts..

 

For general use, the 8600GT is more than adequate, so you can save that $400 for something else

 

i dont think so. for $400 u could get a wii and 3 extra games, or a 360 plus a game, etc

save your money. the 8600m gt is still a decent card (even the ddr2 version)

 

what am i missing out on by not going to the 8700gt.. i mean what cant i play.. this is the 512mb card so yes its ddr2.. i just feel like im going to kick myself for not going with the 8700 or the 9750 which is another 100$ more over the 8600gt so that would be 500$ more.. thanks

also this system only will be "needed" for around a year.. it will then go home from my office to replace the aging desktop we have at home ( i have 2... one in my home office which is where this will eventually go and a full all out gaming rig i built about a year ago as well in the family room) then i will by a gaming specific notebook system, i just dont want to buy the 8600gt and then go to play something then get pissed when i can simply play it.. know what i mean??

 

What can it not play? Nothing at all. It can play every game you up it up to. Keep in mind you may need to lower the settings in some games but if you only need it for a year you'll be doing fine. Like bizkel said go buy you a wii and some games!

I've been playing the ET:QW demo and I can play it on all high settings with an average of I think 25 fps. It's a pretty intense game graphics wise so that's pretty good .

Go with the 8600M I don't think you'll regret it.

 

If you ever do feel unsatisfied with the 8600 GT then OC it and youve got an 8700

 

Although the 8700 is better, it is not $400 better. Is it worth that money, probably not - is that extra bit of performance worth it to you personally - only you can answer that.

 

yup, like everyone else on this board, i give my vote to 8600. u can always share that extra 400-500 withe me lol jk seriously though, 8600 is a decent mid-range card and is doing what it is supposed to. so far, every game i've been playing, the card handled very well.

 

no.



(woohoo shortest post ever )

 

yes ;p i love my 8700

 

The above statement is false especially in this case.

No amount of overclocking will allow an 8600GT DDR2 to perform anywhere near an 8700GT.


That being said, if you are well aware of the fact its going to be slower and two ranks of GPUs are not worth the price difference to you, then the 8600GT DDR2 is not a bad choice by any means.

In your case, especially considering that you do not put an emphasis on games, you may be better off with the cheaper GPU.

 

i def want to be able to play anything i decide on playing though.. i dont want to all of a sudden say in a month go get a game and then load it and say arghh it plays like crap.. thats my main concern.. but no i def do not play very much and this will be more for everyday use but as i said i do get on and play at times and want it to handle anything i could ask of it..

 

It will play any modern and future game for a while, but some may need to be low-med settings (ie: crysis)

 

It all depends on what you consider "plays like crap" to mean. The DDR2 8600M-GT will be able to play any game released in the next year, pretty much guaranteed. However on bleeding edge games a year from now you might have to lower the resolution to 1280x800 or 1024x768 and play on low-mid settings.

 

But it's not worth $400 over the 8600M GT except to people with more money than sense.

 

nicely said! i mean, if u got the money up the ass, then why not, but then u might as well go for xps 1730....

 

false false false false false false false false
This is a common misconception: The 8700 runs two 128 bit busses (not as good as one 256, but better than the crippling 128 bit bus on the 8600, so the 8700 performs much better in games) You won't get 8700 performance by overclocking an 8600 - even a DDR3.

EDIT: Someone beat me to it. Anyways, it is also my opinion that the 8700 is not worth another four hundred dollars. I am extremely pleased with my 8600, though on high settings it can chug a bit.

 

At stock, the 8600m in my Vostro 1500 was about a 3300 3DMark06 score. I was able to achieve about 4100 with O/C. But still a far cry from the stock clocked 8700m with 4600+ score.

However, I agree that $400 can be better spent on other things like a faster CPU, bigger hard drive, more memory, or higher res screen. I don't think that the 8700m GT at least at stock clock will do a whole lot better in real world gaming than an o/c'd 8600m GT. Maybe a few fps increase in most games.

The 8700m is also for 17" or bigger notebook PC's, which usually weigh more, generate more heat, and have decreased battery life.

Due to the 128-bit bus, both the 8700m and 8600m will struggle with higher resolutions. But running at 1280x800 or 1440x900 isn't such a big deal IMHO.

I am very pleased with my Vostro 1500 with 8600m (O/C'd) and 2.2GHz CPU. It manages everything I've thrown at it so far, in some instances with slight tuning to game detail options, and reducing resolution to 1280x800 or 1440x900. The scaling is perfectly fine so far too, no issues.

 

No, the reason why the 8700M-GT is better than the 8600M-GT is because it's tested to higher clock speeds. As far as anyone knows the "dual-rank" 128-bit bus is just a marketing gimmick, it doesn't appear to add anything to the performance.

Keep in mind your scores are not at default resolution, if you want to compare them to the 8700M-GT scores, you have to take off several hundred points.

 

Uh...

The 8700M runs a single 128-bit bus, at least as far as nVidia's site and GPUReview are concerned. That said, the "single 128-bit bus" isn't even 100% correct; it's aggregate 128-bit but actually comprised of multiple 64-bit buses just like pretty much every other 8 series GPU. Or really any other modern GPU.

 

Wow...Where do you read that 8700m GT runs on two 128-bit bus? any links?

Well, if oc'ed 8600m GT can approach 8700m GT level..., that NVidia must really get bad consumer press for marketing so outright an old oc'ed 8600m GT as a new enthusiastic-level DX10 card without any REAL features improvement!

 

That statement is based on nVidia's official specs page (to lazy to link right now, sorry ) which states it as a "Dual Rank 128-bit" bus width I believe. However it does seem to be a marketing gimmick, yes. The 8700M-GT has no real feature improvement over the 8600M-GT, it's similar to the desktop 8600GT and 8600GTS cards.

 

^^^ bit it is significantly faster ... or maybe thats mainly due to it having the ddr3 ram???

 

It's significantly faster because of the clock speeds. Just looking at synthetic benchmarks a GDDR3 8600M-GT can get up to 4500-5000 3dmark06 if overclocked.

 

what about at simply standard clocks no overclocking of them??

 

a standard gddr3 8600gt score is around 4200

 

ok i see looks like a ddr2 card is about 3200 or so from what ive seen

 

Standard ddr2 is a bit under 3k to near 3200. Gddr3 standard is anywhere from 3600-3800.

 

At standard clocks the 8700 has a 32% faster core and 14% more memory bandwith than the (GDDR3) 8600M-GT. (It has 100% more memory bandwith than the DDR2 8600M-GT). It performs usually about 27% better than the GDDR3 8600M-GT and 62% better than the DDR2 8600M-GT at mid-range resolutions (1440x900 or so). At higher resolutions the advantage of the 8700M-GT is markedly higher.

 

I think if you're looking at performance-value, you'll be happier with a desktop. If you absolutley need a laptop and have a budget, the 8600m is a solid card.

For $400 you can probably find an 8800GTX And actually you said $400 more so what's the total cost of an 8700m anyway? Not sure it's worth buying an 8700m over a GTX or Ultra haha.

 

no i need to get a notebook no desktops.. the 8700 system would cost me aroun 1700$ where the 8600gt (ddr2) would be under 1300 around 1280 those are both fully loaded t7500, 250gb hdd, 4gb ram, wsxga, cd/dvd burner, only difference here being brand and 8600gt (ddr2) vs 8700gt..

 

Have you considered the physical dimensions of the laptops? One is likely to be larger than the other. Also what about battery life?

 

well battery like is supposed to be better on the 8600 equipped system.. i only need it to last around 2 hours or so while doing simple tasks anyway, i know for gaming purposes it will drain fast..

physical size they are close to the same.. i dont mine 7-9 lbs.. anything more and i think id pass.. it really just comes down to im torn between the gpu's and am thinking im going to kick myself later on for not getting the 8700 or higher

 

there going to be nearly the same, the only difference is the clocks which dont draw tons more power.