Today we put the GeForce 8800 GT to the test, the SLI test that is to determine whether or not two heads are really better than one. The 8800 GT has already assumed a dominate position in the sub $300 US market eliminating not only the competition but also a number of Nvidia’s own top dogs! But the real question still remains, should you buy two 8800 GT graphics cards to stick with the tried and true GTX version?

So after having tested the GeForce 8800 GT in both single and SLI modes against a single 8800 GTX graphics card, one question remains; which configuration offers gamers the most bang for their buck? While there are quite a number of different factors that need to be considered, such as price, operating temperatures, and noise levels, we must first establish if SLI 8800 GT graphics cards are a viable solution in terms of performance. Having tested with a total of nine games, some new and some not so new, we can now put all of this into perspective. The following table shows the percentage gain achieved by the SLI 8800 GT graphics cards in each game under Windows XP at 1920x1200...

Today, we take a more in-depth look at the GeForce 8800 GT in a wide range of games. Previously we featured this graphics card in our Crysis demo performance analysis article where it faired very well. This time we are going to run the ASUS Extreme N8800GT through a wide range of gaming titles to get an even better idea of what it is capable of.

The GeForce 8800 GT is a truly remarkable product, offering GTX-like performance for less than a 320MB GTS. Actually the Nvidia naming scheme here is a little strange because when we think of what an 8800 GT should be like, it is certainly nothing like what we have here. We imagine an 8800 GT being slightly slower than an 8800 GTS, with a price tag that sits somewhere between the 8600 GTS and 8800 GTS. Rather we have a graphics card that is cheaper than the 8800 GTS (320MB) and nearly as fast as the 8800 GTX, go figure. So while many gamers out there might actually think the GeForce 8800 GT is slower than the GTS, this could not be further from the truth.

When we first reviewed the GeForce 8600 GTS all those months ago there were a few things that became apparent right away! First and foremost the 8600 GTS lacked real performance and at $200 US plus it was hardly cheap given what it offered. Another serious blow to the 8600 GTS was the Nvidia reference design that featured a little heatsink and fan combo that made more noise than a light air-craft. Thankfully today we have a new Gigabyte version of the GeForce 8600 GTS that addresses these issues.

Those in the market for a GeForce 8600 GTS graphics card now have quite a range of decent options to choose from, and the Gigabyte GeForce 8600 GTS Silent-Pipe III is certainly one of the better examples. Prior to reviewing this graphics card, our favourite GeForce 8600 GTS graphics card was the ASUS Extreme N8600GTS Silent, which we have reviewed. While we would not go as far as to say this Gigabyte version is better, we would suggest that it is every bit as good.

Inno3D has been flogging their elite line of iChiLL series graphics cards for a while now and today we took the time to check out the iChiLL 8600 GT XStriker3, which as the name suggests is built around the affordable GeForce 8600 GT core. However, unlike your run of the mill GeForce 8600 GT graphics cards, this iChiLL version comes with a modified cooler allowing Inno3D to fine tune the core and memory frequencies.

The advantage that the iChiLL 8600 GT XStriker3 does have is that the large cooler did provide superior results when compared to the standard Nvidia reference cooler. That said, very few GeForce 8600 GT graphics cards still come with the Nvidia reference cooler and many of the $120 US or cheaper cards can be found featuring cooling solutions that deliver similar performance. So those that want something slightly faster than a GeForce 8600 GT, but cheaper than the 8600 GTS, may find the iChiLL 8600 GT XStriker3 to be a viable option. For the rest of us, and those like myself, buying a cheaper 8600 GT graphics card and overclocking it yourself is a far more appealing option.

Today we are taking a look at the current generation mid-range graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia. This article features the GeForce 8600 GT/GTS while the Radeon HD 2600XT/Pro will also be included. These affordable graphics cards will be tested in a wide variety of games as we are looking for which solution offers gamers the best bang for their buck.

Performance wise the results did play in favour of the GeForce 8600 series for the most part, while 30% of the results were too close to call, the GeForce 8600 series did clearly win at least 40% of the tests. As we found when comparing the GeForce 8800 series to the Radeon HD 2900XT, the performance of the Radeon was quite good at times, yet it did tend to fluctuate quite a lot, which often placed the Radeon in a bad position. The GeForce graphics cards on the other hand delivered quite consistent performance, which meant that when they did suffer a loss to the Radeons, the margins were never all that great.

Using the latest official drivers we put the GeForce 8800 series head to head with the Radeon HD 2900XT in titles such as Bioshock, World in Conflict, Medal of Honour: Airborne and a number of other popular games. This will be our final comparison between these high-end graphics cards, as we eagerly await the next generation of ATI and Nvidia graphics cards.

For the majority of the testing the Radeon HD 2900XT and the GeForce 8800 GTS (640MB) were neck and neck. First up we had Bioshock which was a game that the Radeon HD 2900XT did particularly well in. The GeForce 8800 GTS was the slowest of the three graphics cards in this game as the Radeon HD 2900XT was 25.9% faster while the GeForce 8800 GTX was another 10.6% faster. This puts the Radeon HD 2900XT in a relatively good position as it costs roughly the same amount as the GeForce 8800 GTS yet it was found to be 26% faster, so a win then to the Radeon HD 2900XT in terms of value.

Today we have a GeForce 8600 GT review for you, but unlike the wave of generic and boring 8600 series graphics cards we have exposed you to over the past few months, this one is a little different. The new ASUS Extreme N8600GT OC Gear comes fitted with a nice little heatsink and fan combo, as well as an interesting overclocking module called OC Gear!

However given that the GeForce 8600 GT graphics cards have fallen significantly in value over the past few months, they are now a more viable option. With the average GeForce 7900 GS graphics card costing upwards of $165 US, the 8600 GT does hold some value at just $130 US. Games such as Company of Heroes also proved that through overclocking the 8600 GT can in fact match the performance of a 7900 GS, though keep in mind the 7900 GS is an exceptional overclocker as well.

When we first reviewed the GeForce 8600 GTS two months ago there were a few things that became apparent almost right away! First and foremost the 8600 GTS lacked real performance and at $200 US it was hardly cheap given what it offered. Another serious blow to the 8600 GTS was the Nvidia reference design that featured a little heatsink and fan combo that makes more noise than a light air-craft. Thankfully today we have a new ASUS version of the GeForce 8600 GTS that at least addresses this issue.

If you are in the market for a GeForce 8600 GTS graphics card then the ASUS Extreme N8600 GTS Silent should be at the top of your list. Currently there are only a few passively cooled GeForce 8600 GTS graphics cards available. The Extreme N8600 GTS Silent is priced competitively at $200 US, which is surprisingly cheap given the majority of the reference design cards sell for slightly more. Furthermore the availability of this new ASUS graphics card appears to be very good, which means finding one of these passively cooled 8600 GTS cards should not be all that difficult.

Just about every gamer aims to own a high-end graphics card, but unfortunately very few can afford to. However, those that can are still faced with a few difficult decisions and at the moment many are wondering if they should bother with the cheaper Radeon HD 2900XT. If you are happy to spend GTX money, should you? Or is it best to save the $100+ by settling for the Radeon HD 2900XT? We endeavour to try and find out...

Performance wise the Radeon HD 2900XT is fairly competitive with the GeForce 8800 GTX, particularly when pricing is taken into account. The most expensive Radeon HD 2900XT is over 20% cheaper than the cheapest GeForce 8800 GTX at the moment. This is impressive considering most games only saw the Radeon HD 2900XT loose by a small margin. Games such as Lost Planet, S.T.A.L.K.E.R and Far Cry all saw the Radeon HD 2900XT perform within a 10% margin of the GeForce 8800 GTX.

While the Radeon HD 2900XT is not the monster we had hoped for, it’s also not priced like a monster graphics card. Rather, at $400 US the new Radeon HD 2900XT fills the price segment nicely, as we found it more than capable of taking on the GeForce 8800 GTS (640MB) graphics card in a number of gaming titles. Unfortunately, the Radeon HD 2900XT does have a number of draw backs which we discuss in this article...

The Radeon HD 2900XT has been called a lot of things over the past few days and to be honest we were expecting a complete dud, but it just isn’t! Yes the Radeon HD 2900XT is not as powerful as we were expecting, the drivers probably are not as polished as they would be and the card runs hot as hell but... for $400 US this product is quite good value. While we found the performance to be a bit up and down, there was one thing that remained fairly constant and that was the Radeon HD 2900XT’s lead over the GeForce 8800 GTS graphics cards.

Even with its Direct X10 support we would have a hard time purchasing a GeForce 8600 GTS over a 7900 GS. Actually we would probably spend an extra $75 US and pickup an 8800 GTS (320MB) graphics card instead. However those looking to spend $200 US or less have a few options and they of course include the 8600 GTS and 7900 GS. When it comes to the bang for your buck factor overclocking generally plays a huge roll. Therefore we decided to put the 8600 GTS and 7900 GS head to head in a good old fashion overclocking battle!

Without any physical modifications to the card our 7900 GS can easily achieve a 38% core overclock along with a 22% memory frequency boost. The 8600 GTS on the other had managed to bump up the core frequency by just 8% with a 17% memory overclock. Given that the 8600 GTS was already slower in most of the games tested, overclocking both these graphics cards just gave the 7900 GS a greater advantage. Games such as Prey saw the standard 7900 GS defeat the 8600 GTS by a decent margin. However once overclocked the 7900 GS walked all over the 8600 GTS!

Inno3D has recently begun to develop some of the coolest graphics cards on the market and while today’s review item is not their greatest achievement it is based on the new Nvidia GeForce 8600 GTS. This particular version is not focused on features but rather price, something all 8600 GTS cards really need to do given the GPU’s lack of performance. Sadly the Inno3D GeForce 7900 GS graphics card that we reviewed last year seems to be a much better buy than the newer and more expensive 8600 GTS.

Despite the fact that with maximum in game quality settings the 8600 GTS delivered playable performance in X3: Reunion, Far Cry, Supreme Commander and Prey at 1920x1200, it was still slow compared to the competition. It is important to keep in mind that the 8600 GTS currently costs 20% more than the 7900 GS, because in many of our tests we found the 7900 GS to be faster. However, the real problem surfaces when you consider that the 8800 GTS (320MB) graphics cards cost just $75 US more, making them about 35% more expensive. This sounds fine until you put the 8600 GTS head to head with the 8800 GTS (320MB); needless to say the latter is significantly faster!

Now that the new GeForce 8600 GT graphics cards are out and about at just $170 US are you considering upgrading? For those with GeForce 7600 GT graphics cards the idea of an 8600 GT sounds like an excellent excuse to upgrade, but is it worth your time? We find out...

The 8600 GT is a joke in my opinion and does not deserve to be part of the x600 GT series. If anything, what we have see here today should have been performance delivered by the 8500 GT, not the 8600 GT. The results really spoke for themselves, as the GeForce 8600 GT was 12% slower in Far Cry, 17% slower in F.E.A.R, 7% slower in X3: Reunion and 19.5% slower in Company of Heroes. The only two games that the 8600 GT came out on top in was Prey (15.5%) and Supreme Commander (27.5%), making a two out of six effort very poor indeed.

Today we have prepared a review on the new ASUS Extreme N8600GTS TOP for you. This graphics card sports the recently released GeForce 8600 GTS graphics processing unit with 256MB of GDDR3 memory. ASUS has overclocked this version, boosting the core by 10% and the memory by 15%, but even with this overclock the 8600 GTS failed to impress!

The wait is finally over! We have waited patiently for the mainstream GeForce 8 series graphics cards and now we have them! It has been over a year since the mid-range GeForce 7 products, such as the GeForce 7600 GT, were released. Now April 2007 we have the GeForce 8500 GT, 8600 GT and the fastest of them all the 8600 GTS. It has been a wait there is no doubt about that, but was the wait worth it? Will these new Direct X10 mainstream products live up to all the hype? Well today we are going to find out.

Okay, so the cheaper 320MB GeForce 8800 GTS alternative has been out in force for a little over a month now and at just $300 US it is a great buy. Realistically in this price bracket the GeForce 8800 GTS (320MB) runs somewhat unopposed, though the Radeon X1950XT cards are now very cheap. However, those looking at purchasing a GeForce 8800 GTS graphics card have to make the tough decision to spend either $300 US or $400 US. Of course if you are limited to a $300 US budget then the 320MB version of the 8800 GTS becomes an obvious choice.

Okay, so there you have it; the GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB vs. 320MB graphics card comparison! The 640MB version is of course faster, but it is also more expensive. In fact the 640MB version is 33% more expensive on average, so on average how much faster was it? Well at 1920x1200 with the AA/AF settings disabled (application preference) the 640MB graphics card was on average just 15% faster. Now if you take into consideration that the only games showing an actual difference in performance here were Company of Heroes and F.E.A.R, both of which used Anti-aliasing in game, the 640MB card did not do all that well.

Ever considered purchasing an Inno3D brand graphics card for your next upgrade? Chances are most of you probably have your sights set on a new ASUS, BFG or Gigabyte graphics card instead. This is because these manufacturers offer more exciting and much more unique graphics cards. However, Inno3D are now targeting enthusiasts with their range of iChill graphics cards featuring Arctic-Cooling and Zalman coolers!

The iChill 7900GS is an impressive product and Inno3D seemed determined to get as much performance out of this graphics card as they could. With a core frequency increase of 22%, this GeForce 7900GS was able to deliver 7000GT like performance. When you consider that we only tested the iChill 7900GS using its factory overclocked settings, this is a very impressive result. When it boils down to it, the 7900GS is really just a 7900GT with 4 pixel pipelines disabled. On the other hand, the 7950GT is just an overclocked 7900GT with 512MB of onboard memory. So realistically, if you were to overclock the Inno3D iChill 7900GS graphics card further, you would be looking at 7950GT performance.

Next month ATI will release another and possibly their final graphics core based on the R500 architecture. The ATI Radeon X1950 GT, which is a variation of the original Radeon X1950 Pro with a lower core and memory frequency, should prove to be the best sub $200 US graphics card money can buy!

The ATI R500 series will be getting a new member next month, as the Radeon X1950 GT will be introduced in February. Typically when ATI releases a “GT” version of something, it is going to be slower than the “Pro” or “XT” version for example. Well this is the case with the X1950 GT as it will be slower than the X1950 Pro, featuring a slower core and memory frequency. While the X1950 Pro operates at 575MHz (core) and 1.38GHz (memory), the new X1950 GT will feature a core frequency of just 500MHz and a memory frequency of 1200MHz.

If you are in the market for a mid-range performance graphics card the Radeon X1650XT is probably your best bet at the moment, unless of course you can afford to spend that little bit extra on the X1950 Pro. However, if your budget is $150 US the X1650XT should be the product of choice and today’s review item from MSI is one of the best examples available.

Currently, the most common LCD size being purchased for gaming would have to be the 19”, as it offers plenty of viewable area at an affordable price. Furthermore, most standard 19” LCD’s use a native resolution of 1280x1024 and retail for under $200 US. When limited to a resolution of 1280x1024, graphics cards such as the GeForce 8800 GTX are unnecessary at the moment and would be complete overkill. Currently, a Radeon X1950 Pro or GeForce 7900GT are better options for those using 19” LCD monitors. However, you can save even more money by purchasing a Radeon X1650XT or GeForce 7600GT. While the X1950 Pro will set you back just $200, the X1650XT is even cheaper at $150 US or less.

HIS has released yet another Radeon graphics card using their IceQ heatsink which is designed and manufactured by Arctic-Cooling. Built around the new Radeon X1650XT GPU the performance of this new graphics card is very good, though we did run into a few small issues. While the Radeon X1650XT is blistering fast for a mid-range contender HIS decided to make their version even faster by boosting the core by 55MHz, but did they go too far and compromise stability.

Although the Radeon X1650XT IceQ Turbo could pass as any other mid-range HIS graphics card sporting the IceQ cooler, it’s by far their most impressive model yet. Even so, the Radeon X1650XT is nothing to write home about. In fact, far from it at this stage, with this HIS version costing $170 US. Sure it features the IceQ heatsink and fan combo along with factory overclocking, but at this price I feel most will just turn to the more affordable and readily available GeForce 7600GT. The 7600GT has been around for what seems like forever now and there are examples online selling for just $110 US.

Currently the best value graphics card in the $200 US price bracket is the ATI Radeon X1950 Pro. While today’s review item is currently retailing for a little over $200 US it does sport a number of unique features. The list includes features such as the Zalman cooler and a DVD copy of “Call of Juarez”. For all the details be sure to check out the review...

The Radeon X1950 Pro is an excellent buy at $200 US as it offers a level of performance never seen in this price bracket before. Without a substantial boost in frequency the GeForce 7900GS stands little chance against the Radeon X1950 Pro. The only thing keeping the 7900GS alive is its terrific overclocking abilities. The Gigabyte Radeon X1950 Pro overclocked about as well as every other X1950 Pro we currently have our hands on. While the overclocking performance was not pathetic, it wasn’t great either, achieving just a 4% rise in core clock frequency.

The Radeon X1650XT is here and it is supposed to be on sale right now, though you won’t find any at newegg.com or any listed on pricewatch.com but they are supposed to be out there! Anyway, the X1650XT should be here in numbers by this time next month so if you happened to be in the market for a $150 US graphics card is the X1650XT worth your time? Or should you stick with the old faithful, the 7600GT!

The availability of the Radeon X1650XT is quite a worry given that samples were available last month when the product was launched, yet retail versions are still hard to come by. Furthermore, ATI has slapped a MSRP of $150 US on the X1650XT, though it is said that for at least the first few weeks the X1650XT will not meet this price tag. If this is to be the case then it certainly is a matter of too little too late from ATI, particularly given the fact that the X1650XT is not a DirectX 10 compliant graphics card.

The Radeon X1950 Pro has just recently been released by ATI, based on similar specifications to that of the X1900GT the X1950 Pro it is basically a souped-up version of the GT. That said, the X1900GT has also recently gone through some specification changes. All X1900GT cards shipping at the moment differ from the original X1900GT in the sense that they feature slower cores. This is all good and well, but ATI are not informing the consumer of these changes. So you could be paying the same amount for a slightly crippled X1900GT and be none the wiser.

Well there you have it, the second revision of the X1900GT is in fact slower than the original. ATI did make an effort to cover up the weaker core of this second revision, which they did by using faster memory. However, the 63MHz slower core was not properly compensated for by the 120MHz faster memory, which resulted in any where from a 3~9% performance loss at 1600x1200. Some of you probably might not think much of this and while it’s not the end of the world, it is more the principal of the thing.

ATI are working hard to control the mainstream market with a range of new products. Just today ATI announced the new Radeon X1950 Pro, a sub $200 US graphics card designed to compete with the GeForce 7600GS. However, a bigger battle is taking place around the $100 US price mark, a battle Nvidia has been doing well out of with their 7600GS and 7600GT graphics cores. The latest ATI weapon to take on the two mainstream Nvidia parts is the Radeon X1650 Pro and today we look at a Gigabyte graphics card using this core!

Gigabyte has provided a very competitive, very unique Radeon X1650 Pro graphics card. The Gigabyte Radeon X1650 Pro Silent-Pipe II is undoubtedly going to be one of the most impressive looking Radeon X1650 Pro solutions on the market. Although Gigabyte has followed the ATI reference board design, their product is far from generic. The card features a highly modified cooling setup for the GPU, which is constructed from copper and aluminum. Not only does this cooling setup do an exceptional job at keeping the graphics card cool, it looks great too.

Recently we received to shiny new ASUS Extreme N7900GS TOP graphics cards. As we have found in the past, the ASUS TOP Performance graphics cards are usually a little more special. Special in the sense that they feature upgraded cooling solutions and increased core and memory frequencies. After testing the N7900GS TOP graphics cards, we were shocked by how well these $200 US graphics cards performed in SLI. For all the results be sure to give the review the once over!

The GeForce 7950GT graphics cards are priced around the $300 US mark, where as the 7900GS cards retail for just $200 US. With such a large price discrepancy you have to ask yourself what Nvidia has done to cripple the 7900GS in order to make it so much cheaper. The answer to that question is not a lot, as the 7900GS it pretty much just a 7900GT minus 4 pixel pipelines. The 7900GS features 256MB of onboard GDDR3 memory, a core clock of 450MHz and a memory frequency of 1.32GHz. This allows for a memory bandwidth of 42.2GB/s which is equal to that of the 7900GT.

$120 US will buy you a decent graphics card these days, with the two best options at the moment being either the new ATI Radeon X1650 Pro or the Nvidia GeForce 7600GS. The 7600GS is slightly cheaper, but which of the two delivers the most performance? Read on to find out...

On paper the GeForce 7600GS and the Radeon X1650 Pro are an odd match up, though when put to the test they delivered similar performance in a number of games. Although some of the real-world gaming performance was much the same, there were a few titles that seemed to slightly favor a particular card. Obviously Quake 4 was never going to favor the X1650 Pro and the results strongly favored the 7600GS. This was also the case with UT2004, and to be honest this was quite surprising, as I expected to see the X1650 Pro take the lead here.