Celestia Forums

What do you think will be a better upgrade to Celestia?
Geforce 9600 GT is faster,has more memory and is 256 bits.But Geforce 8800 GS (now Geforce 9600 GSO),which has less memory and is 192 bit, has more stream processors and texture fill rate.
Although 8800 GT is only 50 dollars more expensive;I am in my money limit and can?t spend more...
Both of this cards has limit texture of 8k?

Daniel,

Get the one you like better. You're the one who will have to live with it.

If you like having lots of large VTs and addons loaded at the same time, get the one with more memory. Swapping models and textures in and out of graphics memory will make things so much slower that you'll never notice any difference in graphics performance.

If you want faster performance, then you have to avoid loading Addons that you don't look at. That will make a much larger improvement in frame rate than the small performance differences between the cards.

danielj,

The 8800 GS has more stream processors that the 9600. Don't be fooled by the new generation of cards. In this case the newer NVidia Cards are not better than there 8000 series counterparts. Do a little more research on the cards. Tom's Hardware has a section that breaks the cards down feature by feature.

Don. Edwards

I bought the 8800 GS!

My future configuration (next week or so):
Athlon64 X2 3800
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2 GB RAM DDR400
XFX Geforce 8800 GS Alpha Dog
2XHD 160 GB Seagate Barracuda SATA 7200 rpm
DVD-RW LG 4163B
Windows XP PE SP2

danielj wrote:I bought the 8800 GS!

It depends on it's GeForce version.

8800 GS is GeForce 8 and 9800 GT is GeForce 9.

The current NVidia version is 9800 GTX.

Read:
GeForce 8 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series
GeForce 9 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series

I bought the best I could afford.
I DON?T HAVE MONEY to buy a 9800 GT or 9800 GTX!

ouch,
That is only for the high end card and all it is a 8800GTS clocked slightly higher and repackaged. Again people need to do some research. The 8800 GTS and GT are still the better choice over any 9600 card period. The 9600 cards replaced the 8600 witch replaced the 7600 witch replaced the 6600 and so on. Nvidia only did what they did because they felt consumers would naturally think the all the 9xxx series cards were better then the 8xxx series. This simply isn't true and of course it is going to drive the prices of the 8xxx series cards down and they are and will be a better and faster choice.

Reading reviews and doing a little online legg work will take you far and teach you much.

Don. Edwards

The 8800 GS is equivalent to the 6800 GS or 7900 GS.I think it is a good card and much better than a 7600 GT.

danielj,

You are right. You made a good choice. I am still running a 6800GS so I can atest ti the cards strength even after all this time. It is still quite playable. As a matter of fact Crysis plays quite well on it.

Don. Edwards

Don. Edwards wrote:As a matter of fact Crysis plays quite well on it.

I'd love to know your definition of "quite well".

Quite well means that it looks visually pleasing and maintaining a playable frame rate. Of course this means several setting are set to medium. It may bring down the visuals to the level of Far Cry set to high, but I can live with that until I get my hands on series 8xxx card. BTW I could never get the game to play under Vista, I had to play it in XP. Vista sucks for gaming. It can barely pass a working operating system as it is.

Don. Edwards

I have mixed results for perfomance with the new installed 8800 GS.
The scripts are rendered flawlessly,without slow downs or interruptions.The frame rate is between 40-60 fps most of the time.Also,the frame rate of Huyghens Titan Landing Site is higher.However,Io?s volcanoes are sluggish,with frame rate between 5-10 fps.Can?t undertand why.The driver is the more suitable for 8800 GS: 169.32.
Also,I have severe slowdown in 3D Mark 2001 SE,running Game 1-Car Chase-High Detail.I will test more,BUT FOR NOW,it is this...

New System:
Athlon64 X2 3800
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
2 GB RAM DDR400
XFX Geforce 8800 GS Alpha Dog + 384 MB GDDR3
2XHD 160 GB Seagate Barracuda SATA
DVD RW LG 4163B
PSU Thermaltake TT420 w0009
Creative PC Works 2.1
LCD 17" Samsung SyncMaster 740 B
Windows XP Professional SP2 & Windows Vista Ultimate

I am wondering if someone would be so kind as to give a brief explanation of the Nvidia card numbers, specifically the differences between the "GS", the "GT" and the "GTX." I see these card number extensions and I'm not sure what exactly they mean.

Maybe the answer to this question needs to go in the FAQ as well.
Thanks
Sky Pilot

In general, 9000 has more features than 8000 which has more features than 7000 series cards. Within a given number series, x800 is faster than x600 is faster than x200 and GTX is faster than GT is faster than GS for a given model number.

Other than that, you have to look at their detailed specifications to find out exactly what each offers. The differences vary in the different number series and sometimes the differences aren't as much as their marketing would like you to think.

I wonder if the PSU is enough. I overclocked to only 1600 MHz and the stuttering in 3DMark and Celestia just get worser.In Io?s volcanoes,I have worser frame rate ( in stock) than the 7600 GT,which doesn?t make sense.I was getting 10-15 fps with the 7600 GT and sometimes even higher.Now,even disabling nebulas and galaxies,I barely reaches 5 fps.
Which test can I do to verify this?I was thinking in ATI Tools.Anything else?

danielj,
Overclocking a video card to far can and will slow it down and cause the problems you describing. Overclocking a video is a fragile balancing act. One thing you might to try is a custom built driver set. Google for Omega drivers and download the newest set for you graphics card and OS. I have seen quite good results with these drivers.

Don. Edwards

Unfourtanetelly,it?s not that simple.I have severe issues with Io?s volcanoes even with the 8800 GS IN STOCK,or in other words,no overclocking at all.This is happening WITH both with Windows XP and Windows Vista.I also have a issue with Huyghens?s Landing Site which dropped from about 30 fps (before the upgrade) to 15-20 fps now and it was to INCREASE the perfomance.The system JUST can?t handle complex 3D models,WELL.I will try with ficctional addons like Mythica and see what I got...
Another clue...my present system have SLOW DOWNS with the "jurassic" game "Prince of Persia-The Sands of Time",a game from 2002 and some slowdown with Morrowind,a game from 2003!

Sorry,but NO ONE ARE GOING TO ANSWER?
I am really annoyed with the bad perfomace of Io?s volcanoes even under Windows XP.
What?s GOING ON IN MY SYSTEM?
I need some help...

Disabling AA,improves things a little.
Still,the perfomance is betwween 6 and 18 fps.Nothing better than that.Maybe slightly worse than with the 7600 GT.
Is Io?s volcanoes CPU bound?
I had nebulas and galaxies disabled on the menu.

Daniel,

If other programs run more slowly on the card, you should not be surprised that Celestia runs more slowly, too. There are many things which can limit the performance of a graphics. Both its internal design and how fast it allows the CPU to communicate with it over the PCI bus will affect its speed.

Newer designs are not always faster than older designs, although 8000 series cards do have more functionality than 7000 series cards.