News Headlines
- Wed, May 22
- Mortal Kombat coming to PC on July 3, Komplete Edition packages up all characters and skins
- Crytek's gladiator epic Ryse confirmed as an Xbox One exclusive, more information at E3
- Tue, May 21
- Microsoft's Next-Generation Xbox Reveal: Liveblog and Discussion
- Xbox One officially announced, here are the facts
- EA teasing a new Need for Speed with image of a police supercar
New Articles
Related Articles

The Gigabyte GT does require a bit less juice then all the other cards -- not too surprising, considering it is a GT card; but even against the XFX GT it compares well. You might reason that the Gigabyte GT requires less power because it does not have a fan, but that should not make a big impact on it's overall power consumption (only a watt or two st the most).
As for the GTS cards, the MSI NX8600 GTS seems able to get by with just a little less power than the others.
In overall comparison however, the power consumption readings for all of these 8600 cards are quite low, thus making them a very economical choice for low power systems. Case in point would be HTPC (Home Theater PC) applications. No one wants a growling fan drowning out their favorite movie. Another consideration might be for office use, where only the basics of a computer are required.
Article Index
|
|
I'm reading it now. =D
Oh, and FIRST!
whoever wrote it.... thanks and now to read..
but its a good review. however i would never consider a 8600 when the 8800GTS 320mb doubles it for just a bit more. and thats what gamers want is power(i am a gamer) for an office machine or the occasional gamer though, hte 8600 would be great.
I haven't read much on AMDs plans, only that their R600 struggled against the 8800 series.
Also, you do not state wht drivers are being used for the test. Are they manufacturer's(possibly tweaked) or reference Nvidia(version) drivers? This leads me to a question. Why do the '3D Mark Simple Shader Performance' scores seem skewed against the other 3D Mark scores in the test, based on GPU and memory speeds?
Finally, why was the CoH DX10 patch chosen not to be used for scoring these DX10 cards?
Thank you in advance for any insight into these questions.
To finish, are the G84 GPU's overclockable with any third party utilities?
1- The chart info for the XFX 8600 gts was incorrect, and has been fixed. The info on the XFX page is correct: I had the PVT84GUDD3 model. (730/2260).
2-Sorry for not stating the drivers used; that info will always be in my forthcoming articles. I used the standard, latest Forceware drivers (158.22) dl'ed from nvidia.com
3-As for the simple shader performance question, I'm not exactly sure what you are wondering here -- are you curios as to why the XFX GT did so much better than the Gigabyte GT ?
4- Ideally we would have liked to include the Coh DX10 patch numbers. However, primarily due to time constraints, we decided not to throw those in. However, in my next article, which will not be out too long the road (might be finished by next Friday -- don't quote on that though) we'll be looking at some DirectX 10 numbers, and included will be 8600 GTS or GT (or both) benchmarks for CoH w/the patch.
5- My article's conclusion will not be changed. The XFX chart numbers was a typo; and I have not done any first-hand benching of their DirectX 10 performance so I can not say anything about how well they'll do at this point.
Finally, 6, I have not overclocked these cards myself, but you can do so with RivaTuner, (and perhaps some other programs.)
Sincere thanks for your comments LoneRangers. Criticisms like this sharpen my ability to deliver high quality articles for you guys.
Welcome to Neoseeker Jet-A...