Final Words
With the past few generations of midrange $150 cards, we've come to expect that current games could more or less be played with maximum settings at lower mainstream resolutions. This is somewhat the case with the 8600 series. With some of the titles we tested, we had to dial down the settings a bit more to get a smooth experience at 1280x1024. Taken on its own, this isn't a major issue.
The new G84 based midrange solutions offer DX10, which no other midrange hardware currently supports. We also get better video decode performance with 100% decode acceleration of H.264 video. If this was where the story ended, we would be quite happy with the new hardware from NVIDIA, but there is a larger context to consider.
NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 GTS and GT simply do not perform any better than similarly priced hardware from AMD. GeForce 7 Series hardware priced at $150 and $200 also performs similarly to G84 based parts, outperforming the newcomer in some games and tying or trailing in others. Certainly NVIDIA can determine the value of their hardware as they see fit, and they have a good argument for pricing the 8600 series. Other hardware at the $150 and $200 price points perform similarly, so their new hardware is mostly worth the price.
The problem is that there is a huge performance gap between the 8600 GTS and the 8800 GTS 320MB. We also have multiple cases where NVIDIA's new offerings perform lower than similarly priced hardware from their own previous generation hardware. In almost every case, AMD's X1900 XT 256MB beats out the 8600 GTS. While this hardware is certainly being phased out, it is still available and offers much better price/performance.
The bottom line is that the 8600 really doesn't offer what we would expect from a next generation midrange part. While on its own the 8600 series is not bad hardware, NVIDIA needs to rely on more than its feature set to sell its product. This is especially true when DX10 games are not abundant and fairly few people are even running an operating system which supports DX10.
The GeForce 6600 GT outperformed the Radeon 9800 Pro in virtually every benchmark, sometimes by large margins. It managed this with prices that were at the time quite a bit lower than the previous generation's champ. GeForce 7600 GT was also typically faster than GeForce 6800 GT/GS, and it once again came with a lower price tag. The 8600 hardware on the other hand doesn't appear significantly faster or cheaper than the cards it's replacing..
Even if we can't expect new hardware at a particular price point to blow away the competition, we would at least like to see a consistently better performance than similarly priced previous generation hardware. Our follow up benchmarks confirm that we simply don't get this from the 8600 series. For users who want the highest performance for their money, the 8600 series is not the answer. If you can live without full H.264 decoding support and you still want DirectX 10, the 8800 GTS 320 is currently so much faster than the 8600 GTS that we would recommend spending the extra ~$75.
At the same time, we wouldn't recommend against the 8600 series, as it does provide best in class video decode performance that will enable more computer owners to experience HD content without dropping frames. While DX10 software isn't really available yet, we can't ignore the fact that this hardware does support DX10. Whether or not it will achieve acceptable frame rates with DX10 software remains to be seen, but if DX10 games turn out similar to Oblivion and R6: Vegas, there's still hope. Performance isn't low enough on the 8600 hardware to completely pan the product, but we are at present unimpressed.
With the past few generations of midrange $150 cards, we've come to expect that current games could more or less be played with maximum settings at lower mainstream resolutions. This is somewhat the case with the 8600 series. With some of the titles we tested, we had to dial down the settings a bit more to get a smooth experience at 1280x1024. Taken on its own, this isn't a major issue.
The new G84 based midrange solutions offer DX10, which no other midrange hardware currently supports. We also get better video decode performance with 100% decode acceleration of H.264 video. If this was where the story ended, we would be quite happy with the new hardware from NVIDIA, but there is a larger context to consider.
NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 GTS and GT simply do not perform any better than similarly priced hardware from AMD. GeForce 7 Series hardware priced at $150 and $200 also performs similarly to G84 based parts, outperforming the newcomer in some games and tying or trailing in others. Certainly NVIDIA can determine the value of their hardware as they see fit, and they have a good argument for pricing the 8600 series. Other hardware at the $150 and $200 price points perform similarly, so their new hardware is mostly worth the price.
The problem is that there is a huge performance gap between the 8600 GTS and the 8800 GTS 320MB. We also have multiple cases where NVIDIA's new offerings perform lower than similarly priced hardware from their own previous generation hardware. In almost every case, AMD's X1900 XT 256MB beats out the 8600 GTS. While this hardware is certainly being phased out, it is still available and offers much better price/performance.
The bottom line is that the 8600 really doesn't offer what we would expect from a next generation midrange part. While on its own the 8600 series is not bad hardware, NVIDIA needs to rely on more than its feature set to sell its product. This is especially true when DX10 games are not abundant and fairly few people are even running an operating system which supports DX10.
The GeForce 6600 GT outperformed the Radeon 9800 Pro in virtually every benchmark, sometimes by large margins. It managed this with prices that were at the time quite a bit lower than the previous generation's champ. GeForce 7600 GT was also typically faster than GeForce 6800 GT/GS, and it once again came with a lower price tag. The 8600 hardware on the other hand doesn't appear significantly faster or cheaper than the cards it's replacing..
Even if we can't expect new hardware at a particular price point to blow away the competition, we would at least like to see a consistently better performance than similarly priced previous generation hardware. Our follow up benchmarks confirm that we simply don't get this from the 8600 series. For users who want the highest performance for their money, the 8600 series is not the answer. If you can live without full H.264 decoding support and you still want DirectX 10, the 8800 GTS 320 is currently so much faster than the 8600 GTS that we would recommend spending the extra ~$75.
At the same time, we wouldn't recommend against the 8600 series, as it does provide best in class video decode performance that will enable more computer owners to experience HD content without dropping frames. While DX10 software isn't really available yet, we can't ignore the fact that this hardware does support DX10. Whether or not it will achieve acceptable frame rates with DX10 software remains to be seen, but if DX10 games turn out similar to Oblivion and R6: Vegas, there's still hope. Performance isn't low enough on the 8600 hardware to completely pan the product, but we are at present unimpressed.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
41 Comments
View All Comments
nullpointerus - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Methinks this would be a good time for a cynical retort, but I can't think of one ATM.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
We'll see, if the RV630 is competitive to these cards as it too has a 128Bit pCB as well from the rumors we have been hearing.yacoub - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Thank you for confirming the mediocrity of these cards. It is good to see a nice unbiased review that does not sugar-coat the pathetic results these cards are posting in some games and the so-so to just-okay results in other games.The fact remains a new generation of cards should outperform the previous generation at the same price/performance level.
The 8600GT needs to CONSISTENTLY outperform the 7600GT, the 8600GTS needs to CONSISTENTLY outperform the 7900GS/7900GT, and neither of these cards can manage that because they are cut down too far. A 256-bit bus and 64 stream processsors on the GTS for the same price point and it would have been a success and ensured NVidia victory across the board.
coldpower27 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Which would basically nullify any cost advantage to production the 8600 Line has, if you add a 256Bit PCB plus the increase to 64 SP, you have a card that costs more then the 7900 line to make. There wouldn't be any point, Nvidia would have to eat the costs and still sell at the mainstream price points and make less money in the end.yacoub - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
7900 series is going away, my friend.CalvinHobbes - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
I'd love to see some video benchmarks using CPU's that the users of these cards would most likely have. If I were building a system with an 8600 based card I would probably match it with an E4300, E4400 or 5000+.ssidbroadcast - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
I got your back. If you examine hardware surveys, IE Steam uses over a million unique samples, most people aren't using top-dollar processors or 2GB corsair RAM (pricey stuff). I realize the obvious benefits of using this kindof hardware for benching; cross-standardization being one, but most of us can't really afford these kind of systems.It'd be nice to see "modest" benchmarks on an entry-level AM2 machine, or even better, a 939 socket? Pentium equivalents as well?
A5 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
They're testing the card, not the system. If they used it with a slower CPU, it would skew the results of the better cards a little lower and make the 8600s look better than they are.Sunrise089 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The number one reason nVidia has had more success than ATI in the past few generations is their superior midrange cards. (The number 2 reason is product delays with new high-end part intorductions, but that isn't as severe, since the real high-end market segment will just buy the new cards anyways). nVidia has clearly dropped the ball here, and these new benches confirm what the last review seemed to indicate - that unless AMD is totally asleep, they can nail nVidia with the Radeon 2600 line."The problem is that there is a huge performance gap between the 8600 GTS and the 8800 GTS 320MB." - This is the essense of the problem...the much better card is just priced much to close to these parts. The overall bottom line might have actually been better if nVidia hadn't released the 320meg part at all.
"We also have multiple cases where NVIDIA's new offerings perform lower than similarly priced hardware from their own previous generation hardware." - This is when it becomes outright embarrassing. It's been a long time, if there ever was a time, when this was true for the boys in green.
I'll say it again - 64 shader part at $200 will come quickly if AMDs competing parts are any good.
SalientKing - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Ive been wondering how 2 8600GT would fair