Tech-Hounds.com

GeForce 8600 Series Round Up

PCI Express x16 graphics cards
Chipset GeForce 8600GTS/GT 256 MB, 128 bit

After looking at the performance, or rather, lack of performance from the GeForce 8600GTS and GT in our last article, we had to ask ourselves: Is this the fate for many mainstream gamers? True, the GeForce 8600GT is more affordable than last generation high end cards. Even the premium GeForce 8600GTS have started to come down in price, particularly with the introduction of AMD Radeon HD2400 and 2600 series. From the many reviews and comparisons around the web, it would seem that both AMD and NVIDIA have pretty much the same idea for mainstream cards.

They basically suck.

Okay, that's the short version. The long version is that these cards definitely won't be the choice for games who play with details maxed out, running with AA and AF enabled. In our experience, gamers would prefer to max out details first, then turn on graphical features such as AA and AF if the frame rates they got is high enough. Resolutions depends on the monitors they use. Even the premium GeForce 8600GTS is not fast enough to provide high frame rates above 30 fps with 4x AA at 1024 x 768 at all times. At least, not with the current (and future), graphically advanced crop of games. You basically have to play games without AA or at least drop down to 2x AA to get comfortable frame rates. Sometimes, you even have to throttle down the detail settings to get more playable frame rates. A little consolation does exist - you can push 16x AF with minimal performance penalty. Plus, HDR seems to be less of a burden on these cards compared to the GeForce 7 series.

This is our main 'beef' with these mainstream cards. Both AMD and NVIDIA argue that performance is not the only influencing factor for the mainstream market. Both touts video acceleration features as the 'must have' feature for mainstream gamers. The reasoning - mainstream gamers typically don't use high end processors, so offloading the burden to the graphics card is 'better value for money' for them. It's also the reason why we don't see full UVD on high end cards or at least, not on the level present on these mainstream cards. The transistor is spent elsewhere to improve graphics performance.

We beg to differ. We think mainstream gamers focus more on price / performance of graphics cards. Performance as in 'graphics performance' and since we're talking about gamers, that means gaming performance. Gamers in general don't care about additional features like UVD, video inputs and the lot. They're nice to have, but if the cards don't have the performance to begin with, why bother with them at all. Plus, having more performance means you likely don't have to buy a new card every year or every 6 months - and that's value to the consumer. In our last article, we either recommend you to stay with your current card or upgrade to at least a GeForce 8800GTS 320 MB if you want performance. As for price, when we talk about price / performance, that means you get very good performance with an affordable card - not the other way around which is you get lousy performance from a cheap card.

So, why are we doiing this round up? That's certainly not an easy question to answer. After much debate, we realize that there IS a market for these cards. 'Mainstream is the new low end'. So unlike our usual comparison test, we decided to deprioritize performance for this round up. After all, this seems to be inline with what AMD and NVIDIA with these cards. In so doing, we do find these GeForce 8600 cards a bargain - but we still won't recommend it if you're serious about playing games.

Now, that we got that out of the way, let's take a look at these mainstream cards.

Overview - GeForce 8600GTS

ASUS EN8600GTS

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GTS, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 675 / 1458 MHz
Memory Clock : 504 MHz (1008 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 82.5 points

For this comparison, ASUS sent us a sample of their passively cooled GeForce 8600GTS and GT. The most obvious difference between them is the additional heatsink over the top of the board as you can see on the picture above. The second difference is the amount of heatpipes used to transfer heat from the core to the heatsinks. Two heatpipes connects the main heatsink to the base, while another connects the additional heatsink on the top of the board. You'll undoubtedly notice the space between the heatsink and the board - this card will take two slots, though the cooling is decidedly still a single slot cooler. You'll also notice ASUS didn't use this opportunity to attach heat sinks to the memory chips. We think this design should be able to accomodate heat sinks on the memory and too bad ASUS didn't feel the need for it.


Inside the box, you'll find the standard accesories like a single DVI-to-analog dongle, an HDTV cable, two CDS for the drivers and electronic version of the manual. ASUS still bundles a CD case with their cards and the ASUS EN8600GTS is no exception. You'll find no other software for DVD playback or game bundles - this should bring the cost a bit, which is usually an important factor for buyers of mainstream cards. One think that may irk some users is the absence of a 6 pin ATX converter - make sure your power supply has one or buy yone when you get this card. Overall, after looking at the package we get the sense that the only differentiating factor with this card (and indeed, the 8600GT card) is passive cooling.

Since we're using an open case test platform, it's hardly ideal to test a passively cooled graphics card or any other component for that matter. In a closed case, air flow will likely be more 'concentrated' than with an open case environment. So, we decided to run test on two configurations - with and without a fan. For this purpose, we use a slow, 8 cm fan rated at 0.22A which spins at around 1200 rpm. First, let's look at test results without a fan. 



Well, 78 ° Celsius with an ambient temperature between 40 to 43 ° Celsius is pretty high, so you'll likely have to make sure you have very good air circulation and flow inside your case if you want to use this card. Now, let's see how the situation improves with a little bit of air blowing on the heatsink.



62° Celsius on full loads is quite acceptable, but you'll likely also notice the ambient temperature also went down as well (37 - 38° Celsius)  That's around 24° Celsius difference betweenn core and ambient temperature. If you look back at the previous results, you'll see the difference between core and ambient teperature is around 35° Celsius. So, in a closed case, you'll likely get something between that range, depending on the fan and how good the airflow is inside the case.

So, what do we think of the silent, passively cooled ASUS EN8600GTS? Well, with it sparse bundle, the only factor going for this card is passive cooling. We do think ASUS could've done better in this regard (RAM sinks), so we have to rely on the heatsink's thermal performance. That means the ASUS EN8600GTS face a tough component, the Gigabyte GeForce 8600GTS.

Gigabyte GeForce 8600GTS

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GTS, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 675 / 1458 MHz
Memory Clock : 504 MHz (1008 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 87.5 points

The word 'industrial strength' comes to our mind when we looked at this card for the first time. It certainly mean looking enough, but look closer and you'll see how much effort Gigabyte have put into this card. Like many silent, passively cooled graphics cards, the Silent Pipe 3 cooler on the Gigabyte NX8600GTS is a dual slot cooling solution. This means it has more heat dissipation area than your average single slot coolers, a necessity because there is no fan. Although the biggest part of the cooler is the one that draws most attention, its actually the second part that's interesting. On the image above, you can see the aluminum fins actually stick out to the back of your case. That means the heatsink uses both air inside and outside the case.

if there's is a downside to this design, it's likely the lack of any contact with the memory chips. However, this might not be a disadvantage as we originally think. Because the heatsink is passively cooled, it's very likely be very warm, even hot - hotter than the memory chips themselves. So, instead of taking heat away from the memory chips, it will likely transfer heat from the core to the chip.

You might be wondering how Gigabyte manage to fit such a large heatsink on this card. Well, if you look closer, you'll notice this card uses a different board layout than the reference based cards. It does not feature the standard 6 pin ATX power connector. Though this is a plus for some people, this is likely why the card have a much lower overclocking 'ceiling' than reference based cards.



Now, just to clarify things, Gigabyte actually has three flavors of GeForce 8600GTS. One is based on the reference design, the one we're testing here and also another one, using the same heatsink, but clocked higher - their TurboForce line. Unfortunately, we weren't able to test that card. So, this card runs on standard clocks. The bundle on both offering is actually the same. You'll find the usual standard accesories - a DVI-to-analog dongle, an HDTV dongle / cable. No 6 pin ATX converters, but that's OK since you don't need it anyway. You'll also find a driver CD, complete with Gigabyte's usual utility - V-Tuner - to overclock the card and a full version of Supreme Commander. This bundle alone distinguish itself from ASUS EN8600GTS Silent.

Now, let see how good Silent Pipe 3 is. Below is a snapshot of RivaTuner's hardware monitoring applet showing test results without a fan.



63° Celsius at full load. Now to put things on perspective, that's about the same as the ASUS EN8600GTS did with a fan. Unfortunately, due to the use of a different board design, RivaTuner is unable to measure ambient temperature. However, it's pretty likely the ambient temperature is lower too. Next, we'll see how a little bit of air can do.



We're down to 50° Celsius or basically 13° Celsius lower. We say the Silent Pipe 3 does it job very well. So, if you're in the market for a passively cooled, mainstream stream card and doesn't mind the dual slot cooling, you should definitely check out this card (or the factory overclocked version). With more in term of bundle and thermal performance, it's easy to recommend this card for those who want a silent rig.

MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GTS, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 688 / 1458 MHz
Memory Clock : 526 MHz (1053 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 90 points

The MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition is the first card based on the reference design in this round up. Now, the OC Edition moniker might fool you into thinking this card is faster, but if you look at the core and memory clock, you'll see MSI only raise the clock slightly. So, we doubt there is any tangible difference in performance between this card and your standard GeForce 8600GTS.

The use of the standard, reference cooling doesn't translate into a disadvantage. On the contrary, using reference cooling means both the core and memory are actively cooled. MSI (or basically every other manufacturer for that matter) still uses thermal pads to help transfer heat between the memory and the heat sink, serious overclockers will likely get more mileage from the memory by using more efficient thermal paste.



Now, the bundle. The bundle accompanying the MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition is very similar to the NX8800GTS we tested several weeks ago. You'll find a complete bundle of standard accesories - two DVI-to-analog dongle, an HDTV dongle, an S-Video cable you can use to extend the HDTV dongle, and a 6 pin ATX power connector / converter. You'll also find a driver CD and a full version of Company of Heroes. Again, we think MSI did a great job with the bundle. This makes the NX8600GTS OC Edition not just an attractive package for some gamers, but also very affordable in regards to value.

A look at RivaTuner's System Tweak's fan tab shows the fan is set to its lowest setting. So, for less hardcore overclockers, you can still turn up the fan speed to compensate for any temperature rise you get from overclocking the card.





70° Celsius is a bit high than we'd like and is a bit strange since the card is still very close to standard clocks. We actually git lower full load temperature from the passively cooled Gigabyte NX8600GTS Silent Pipe 3.

Clearly, MSI want to provide value with their GeForce 8600GTS offering. The included bundle allows you to fully utilize the GeForce 8600GTS potential and the game bundle doesn't hurt either. Company of Heroes is essentially one of the first games able to take advantage of the new DirectX 10 API (and does so with noticeable graphical improvements). However, don't be fooled by the OC Edition moniker - the increase in clock is not substantial enough to differentiate it from standard, reference clocked cards.

Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GTS, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 702 / 1728 MHz
Memory Clock : 504 MHz (1008 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 90 points

If the MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition is focused more on value, than the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme is focused on the other end of the spectrum - performance. From the official specification, you'll quickly notice this card is clocked higher - but only for the core. Pretty strange, since most reviews agree the GeForce 8600GTS is very limited by its bandwidth. The card itself is not that different from your garden variety, standard card based on the reference design. The bundle is also very 'standard' - one DVI to analog dongle and an HDTV cable. There's no 6 pin ATX cable / converter, so you'll have to get one yourself if your power supply doesn't have one. In addition to the driver CD, you'll get a full version of Joint Task Force. Overall, a pretty standard bundle, pretty much similar to the Gigabyte NX8600GTS Silent Pipe 3.



A look at RivaTuner's System Tweak applet confirms our suspicion - the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH is pretty much a factory overclocked, standard, reference based card. All right, lets see how much hot this card can go.



We're seeing basically the same 70° Celsius temperature at full load as we did with the MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition, however we can now see the ambient temperature. So, looks like Leadtek went the extram mile to add ambient sensor on their card.

With a pretty noticeable, substantial overclock, we'll have to see later if the premium you pay for the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme is worth it. According to our experience, factory overclocked cards does offer about 10 percent higher average frame rates than reference clocked cards.

Overview - 8600GT

ASUS EN8600GT

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 540 / 1188 MHz
Memory Clock : 351 MHz (702 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 80 points

As we said before, the are notable differences between the ASUS EN8600GTS and EN8600GT. First and foremost is the absence of the additional heatsink on the top of the card. Second is the number of heatpipes connecting the base of the heatsink (making contact with the core) and the heatsink itself. Then of course, there's the absence of a 6 pin ATX power connector, which is the norm for GeForce 8600GT cards. As you can see below, there's also no heat sinks for the memory chips. The heatsink used also take up space from the slot next to your PCI-E x16 slot of choice on your motherboard.



Just like the ASUS EN8600GTS, the bundle is also quite 'sparse', consisting of a DVI-to-analog dongle, an HDTV cable, a CD case and two CDs for drivers and manual. So again, ASUS is betting on the silent aspects of this card. We've seen what the beefed up ASUS EN8600GTS can do, so of course we're slightly skeptical about this card's thermal performance. It is after all uses the same basic design, but lets see how it makes out.



It is cooler at 76° Celsius with very little airflow. The absence of an ambient temperature sensor is unfortunate, but it shouldn't be that different to the level we saw with the GeForce 8600GTS cards. In retrospect, we think the heatsink should've done better, since the GeForce 8600GT core runs at much lower frequencies. Now, lets see how it does with a little bit airflow.



62° Celsius - pretty much on the level we saw with the ASUS EN8600GTS. We expected something lower, with the same level of ambient temperature. So, tis very likely actual temperature within a case with good airflow will be something between these two results. Much like the ASUS EN8600GTS, we think ASUS could've done something extra with the bundle and / or thermal performance of the heatsink. Though silence is gold, relying on silent cooling alone won't be enough.

Gigabyte GeForce 8600GT

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 594 / 1188 MHz
Memory Clock : 360 MHz (720 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 85 points

The Gigabyte NX6800GTS Silent Pipe II is a good compromise between value, performance, space and silence. Unlike its more advanced sibling, the heatsink is actually pretty simple, made up of one part which basically covers most of the card (and some). It's a single slot solution, which makes it very attractive for HTPC setups in very small cases. The use of a single slot cooling also means it still relies on air inside the case, unlike the newer Silent Pipe 3. Looking under the heatsink, we can also see Gigabyte also chose not to cool the memory with the heatsink, as you can see below.



The bundle included with the card is pretty similar to the Gigabyte NX8600GTS Silent Pipe 3 - a DVI-to-analog dongle, an HDTV cable / dongle, a driver CD and a full version of Supreme Commander. So again, from a bundle perspective it offers more value than the ASUS EN8600GT Silent, which also relies on passive cooling. Now, let's see whether or not Silent Pipe II can also push the advantage in Gigabyte's favor.



Hmm. It is cooler but not by much, merely 2 ° Celsius lower than the ASUS EN8600GT Silent. Let's see whether or not some air will help.



61° Celsius or merely 1° Celsius cooler than the ASUS EN8600GT Silent. Thermal performance wise, the two cards is pretty much the same. However, do remember the Gigabyte card takes less space inside your case, so that is a plus. Overall, we think the Gigabyte NX8600GT Silent Pipe II does very well for a single slot, passively cooled card and should be a great alternative for those silent HTPC boxes

Leadtek PX8600GT TDH

NVIDIA GeForce 8600GT, 256 MB GDDR3
Core / Shader Clock : 540 / 1188 MHz
Memory Clock : 351 MHz (702 MHz GDDR3)



Overall Score: 90 points

The Leadtek PX8600GT TDH uses the reference cooling solution. Now, unlike the pretty good reference cooling on the GeForce 8600GTS, this solution does emit a slightly noticeable noise when the fan spins at full speed. You can also see below, the default fan control settings are higher than it is on the GeForce 8600GTS. However, this is not Leadtek's fult - at least not entirely.



The good news is that this cooling solution again cools both the core and memory chips. That makes it very attractive for gamers /  overclockers who want more 'oomph' but aren't willing to replace the cooling with something more 'hard core'. However, since this is a GeForce 8600GT, it is very likely you won't get much overclocking mileage due to the lack of a 6 pin ATX power connector.

The bundle included with this card is the standard Leadtek bundle - a DVI-to-analog dongle, an HDTV cable plus a driver CD and a full version of Joint Task Force. Pretty standard, so we won't go over them in detail. Let's see how effective the reference cooling solution is.



At 63° Celsius full load, the Leadtek PX8800GTS is actually slightly hotter than both the ASUS EN8600GT Silent and Gigabyte NX8600GT Silent Pipe II when actively cooled. In real life situations inside the case, the Leadtek card probably fares better since the fan should help air moving along. And of course, there's also a plus point since both core and memory chip gets cooled.

Leadtek kept everything very simple with this card. A simple bundle, the use of reference cooling solution. So, for consumers, the real differentiating factor this card offer compared to other reference cooled cards are price, support and warranty - which likely varies greatly depending on where you live.

Performance

We ran our benchmarks with our usual test settings.  Graphical settings for these games are set to their highest possible values. Notable differences are F.E.A.R where we disable "Soft Shadows", Quake 4 where we use High Quality - not Ultra Quality - anisotropic filtering was set to "1" for default tests and "16" for AA / AF tests. We used Serious Sam II built in "Maximum" quality preset then change resolution and AA / AF settings accordingly. All of these settings can be seen here. Our TES IV: Oblivion settings are as close as we can get to well, basically maxed out details - you can see our test settings here. For Need for Speed: Carbon, we used the game's "Maximum" video quality preset, but change the filtering to "Trilinear" for default tests - AA AF tests are run with "4x" and "Anistropic". NFS: Carbon test were done with the Sprint Race on Lincoln Boulevard.

We'd like to thank Tagan for supplying the additional power supply and Gigabyte for supplying the Gigabyte P965-DS3P for this article. 

Our test setup
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 socket LGA-775 (running at 7 x 400 MHz)
4 x 512 MB A-DATA 5-5-5-18 PC6400 DDR2-SDRAM
Gigabyte P965-DS3P Intel P965 motherboard
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9 80 GBs Serial ATA 8 MB buffer
LiteOn 1673S DVD-RW
Tagan TG530-U15 530 watts ATX/BTX power supply

Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 2 installed
NVIDIA Forceware 158.19 BETA reference driver
Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility 8.1.0.1006
DirectX 9.0c
all respected games used for benchmarks have been updated to their latest, final builds.

The graphs are pretty self explanatory, but in case you can't see the text, they're arranged in groups of three colors: green for minimum fps,  blue for average fps and red for maximum fps. The first group of graphs are results taken with default settings - AA and AF is not enabled. The second group of results are results with 4x AA and 16x AF.

The results - GeForce 8600GTS:

Based oun our look at the standard GeForce 8600GTS and 8600GT last month, we now know not to expect performance with AA, particularly above 1024 x 768. If you enable AA and AF, you'll likely only be able to get playable frame rates at 1024 x 768 and below. Even at 1024 x 768, there would be times when frame rates will drop to around 30 fps or below. Forsake AA, and you can get very playable frame rates up to 1280 x 960.

Naturally, the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme stands out. It's able to offer the same level of frame rate at 1600 x 1200 and 1024 x 768 with AA and AF. With very little clock increase, the MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition performs basically the same as the standard clocked ASUS EN8600GTS Silent and Gigabyte NX8600GTS Silent Pipe 3. There is that 2 fps difference at 1600 x 1200, but honestly, you don't want to play FEAR at that resolution with this card.

The results seem to point out that the slightly overclocked Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme is in the lead here, but as we noted that doesn't mean much. If you want fluid frame rates in F.E.A.R, you'll want to keep minimum frame rates above 35 fps and average frame rates above 45 if you can. That sweet spot for the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme is at 1280 x 960 without AA and AF, along with the other GeForce 8600GTS cards.


Quake 4 is a much 'forgiving' game graphically compared to F.E.A.R, so here we're seeing much higher frame rates. Because of this, we can actually turn 4x MSAA on and 'absorb' the performance penalty up to 1280 x 1024. This is the point where these cards is still able to provide minimum frame rates above 30 fps. Please note that because the game has a frame rate cap of 60 fps, you'll likely don't see these levels of frame rates when you're actually playing the game. However, this is not true for minimum frame rates.

Back to our comparison, how do each card fare? Well, the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme once again offer higher average frame rates both at 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 1024 with AA and AF enabled.  However, you'll only get higher minimum frame rates at 1024 x 768 with AA and AF. If you are willing to forsake AA or need to play at 1600 x 1200, all these cards are fast enough. Again, because of the core and shader clock advantage, the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme is able to offer around 10 percent higher frame rate overall.

To put things into perspective once again, while the Leadtek card is prove to be faster, it's simply faster in settings where your standard clocked GeForce 8600GTS is fast enough. Don't expect the addtional clock increase to offer any significant gains in frame rates. You notice that it still is not able to push high enough frame rates at 1600 x 1200 with AA and AF. Of course, you can always overclock the card, but then again, you could overclock all of these cards here.


Right off the bat, the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme provides higher average frame rates than the other GeForce 8600GTS card. It still offer the same level of minimum frame rates, but we expected that. So how far can we push Serious Sam II with maximum details on these cards? Well, looking at the results, looks like we're limited to 1280 x 960 with AA and AF. If you need higher resolutions such as 1600 x 1200,, you'll need to turn down AA to 2x or disable it completely. At this setting, the Leadtek prove to be as fast (or as slow, depending on how you look at it) as the other GeForce 8600GTS cards.


Like F.E.A.R, you basically are limited to 1024 x 768, but this time without AA and AF if you're using the any GeForce 8600GTS with our test settings. Nice to know the Leadtek card has what it takes to offer higher average frame rates, but as we noted earlier, so does the other GeForce 8600GTS card. Now, don't get us wrong. We like the additional frame rates, however we like the increase to be on both average and minimum frame rates. Although the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme is faster, it's still unable to break from the other GeForce 8600GTS in this regard.


Looks like this game still has some performance issues with the GeForce 8 series of cards, particularly at 1024 x 768 without AA and AF. We should be seeing higher frame rates on the Leadtek card, but we didn't. OK, let's chalk this up as normal variations between runs, since the difference is not really noticeable anyway in real world situations. Moving on, the additional core and shader clock on the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme pays dividends at 1600 x 1200 without AA and AF. It offer about 10 percent higher minimum frame rates and around 13 percent average frame rates. If we enable AA and AF, frame rates does take a hit and you're basically limited to 1280 x 1024 if you want fluid frame rates. Just like before, in this setting the Leadtek card is no different than standard clocked GeForce 8600GGTS.


Just like in our previous article, you're basically limited to 1024 x 768 without AA here. It is very likely you can still get away with 16x AF, just to give image quality an extra nudge. Now, this is interesting. At that setting, the Leadtek PX8600GTS prove to be about 10 to 15 percent faster than the other GeForce 8600GTS, including the meagerly overclocked MSI NX8600GTS OC Edition. So, it looks like the additional core and shader clock comes to play only in shader limited situations. In fillrate situations, the Leadtek card wasn't able to gain any advantage. The most likely explanation is memory clock - remember, the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme's memory is still clocked at standard clocks - 504 MHZ (1008 MHZz effective). Leadtek seem to overlook that fact, but you don't have to - from experience and reviews around the web, you can actually overclock the memory to around 600 MHz (1200 MHz effective).

Next, we're going to discuss the GeForce 8600GT cards. For those of you who want to skip over to the conclusion, click here.

The results - GeForce 8600GT:

Since the GeForce 8600GT have to with lower clocks, the performance it has is only enough at 1024 x 768 and 1280 x 960 without AA and AF. We recommend using 1024 x 768 with 8x AF, just to be on the safe side. Note that these GeForce 8600GT cards uses about the same core, shader and memory clocks. The Gigabyte NX8600GT Silent Pipe II may use slightly higher core and memory, but just like with the Leadtek PX8600GTS TDH Extreme, we really don't see a significant difference between it and the other GeForce 8600GT cards. In fact, minimum frame rates at 1280 x 960 without AA and AF is somewhat lower, though average frame rates is about the same. Putting these results in perspective, the GeForce 8600GT actually fares very well compared to its faster sibling, the GeForce 8600GTS. These cards are basically limited to 1280 x 960 without AA, so for budget limited gamers, the GeForce 8600GT is a better buy. As to which GeForce 8600GT we recommend, let's look at the other benchmarks first.


In Quake 4, we see the Leadtek PX8600GT pulss slightly ahead of the other cards. The difference is negligible to the point you don't notice in-game, but it is there - around 5 percent. Of course, that difference can be attributed to slight variations between runs, but the general trend persist.

Comparing these results to GeForce 8600GTS results, we can see the GeForce 8600GTs are unable to provide high enough frame rates at 1280 x 1024 with AA and AF. It is slightly slower at 1600 x 1200 without AA and AF, but frame rates are high enough for comfortable gameplay. You might even try to push 8x or 16x AF and still get minimum frame rates above 30 fps. So, the difference between the GeForce 8600GTS and GT? The performance to run 4x MSAA and 16x AF at 1280 x 1024 in this benchmark.


These results shows no difference between the three GeForce 8600GT cards. Each one of them is good enough to play Serious Sam II at the maximum settings without AA and AF up to 1600 x 1200 and up to 1024 x 768 with AA and AF. Just like with Quake 4, if you opt for the faster GeForce 8600GTS, you'll get the ability to play at 1280 x 960 with AA and AF.


Oblivion may be the best reason NOT to get the GeForce 8600GT. These cards don't have enough processing power to push Oblivion with our settings at 1024 x 768 without AA and AF. The ASUS EN8600GT is a bit slower, but none of the GeForce 8600GT offer comfortable frame rates in this benchmark.