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
ssidbroadcast - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Actually, me too. Now that the 8000 series is on a uniquely (to PCs, anyhow) unified-shader architecture, it seems that nVidia has a chance to re-invent SLi.Imagine an SLi engine that didn't simply split workload into half-frames or every-other frame. What if it simply pooled the shader resources for each frame? DX10 seems to give programmers a high degree of freedom (threading physics to the GPU, storing entire programs on the onboard memory, etc) maybe nVidia could fashion a special version of SLi geared for DX10?
I dunno. Just an idea. I realize such engineering is much easier said than done.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Pooling the shader-resources of a pair of 8600GT/GTS cards would still only give 64 shaders in total, compared with the 96 of a single 8800GTS. No amount of improving pixel-shader efficiency in SLI is going to make a pair of 8600's faster than the 8800GTS.Sunrise089 - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Much worse than the 8800GTS it would be priced against, plus requiring a more expensive MB, showing lack of performance improvements in some games, and probably making more heat and noise. SLI is ideal for the top end, not midrange.Live - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
Good reading always nice to see a follow up. I hope Nvidia gets the message and lowers the price and don't starve the memory in the future.Sh0ckwave - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
In other words, right now these cards suck for gaming. If prices dropped considerably and dx10 content was available it might be a different story.But I get the feeling these cards might not be fast enough to run dx10 features at decent framerates anyway.
yyrkoon - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The thing I thought of was: 'wow, it took this long for nVidia to make a card that performed on par with the ATI 1950's ?'Yes, I understand the NV 8800 series is top dog, but look at the price difference right_now.
Anyhow, I would have to agree, these comparred to the older 8800's are much weaker, but there is a niche for everyone/everything, as not everyone can afford $300+ for a good video card, and these seem like they would fill the general purpose niche very well, not to mention play back HD content decently also.
After seeing how many NV 6200's have come through our shops here, I have very little doubt, that Dell/eMachine owners nation wide will be gobbling these up left and right . . .
Griswold - Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - link
I'm inclined to agree. Garbage often sells like gold. But then again, there are rumors that the Dells, Lenovos and FSC's of the world have a new lovechild with a different name.I expected more from a line-up that is the bread and butter of a company in this business.
DerekWilson - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
If we were looking at $130 - $150 and $170 - $200 I'd say that the 8600 series would look better.We will also be looking at overclocked hardware -- if we see cards with a nice healthy overclock at $150 or $200 (depending on the card) they might then be worth the price.
We'll have to test that before we can know though.
kilkennycat - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
FYI:-The MSI 8600GTS OC was in stock @$189.99 on ZipZoomFly the day of release and still available from stock. (The MSI 8500GT was also in stock at ZZF the day of release of these cards @ $99.99, but is now out of stock.)
Spoelie - Tuesday, April 24, 2007 - link
The stalker page of the article just turns up a message reading:"We apologize for the inconvenience, but you have encounted an error. The error has been logged and sent to the web master."
I hope spiderman got the message