We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
[nextpage title=”Introduction”]
GeForce 8600 GTS is the fastest mid-range video card from the new GeForce 8 family from NVIDIA, targeted for users that want a performance higher than GeForce 8600 GT and are willing to pay more for this performance gain. This model from MSI, NX8600GTS-T2D256E OC, comes factory-overclocked, meaning that it will achieve a performance higher than the standard GeForce 8600 GTS, and also supports HDMI. Check it out.
Figure 1: MSI Overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS.
The main difference between GeForce 8 and GeForce 7 families is the adoption of DirectX 10 on GeForce 8 family. What this means is that they will support the next generation of games to be released starting this year. It also means that instead of using separated shader units for each kind of shader processing (pixel, vertex, physics and geometry) video cards from this family use a unified shader architecture, where the shader engines can process any one of these tasks. On our NVIDIA GeForce 8 Series Architecture article you can find a more in-depth explanation about this.
So far AMD has announced their ATI Radeon HD 2000 family – which also supports DirectX 10 and uses unified shader architecture –, however mid-range products will be only available in late June, i.e., one month from now. This leaves mid-range cards from GeForce 8 family like GeForce 8600 GTS without real direct competitors.
We can find this model from MSI costing around USD 200 and at this price range there is no mid-range video card from ATI/AMD available. We call “mid-range” all video cards that use a 128-bit memory interface and “high-end” all video cards that use a 256-bit memory interface or higher. However there are entry-level high-end video cards at this price range, like Radeon X1950 Pro. So we may somewhat consider Radeon X1950 Pro to be a competitor to GeForce 8600 GTS, as they are in the same price range, even though GeForce 8600 GTS uses a 128-bit memory interface and Radeon X1950 Pro uses a 256-bit one.
The basic difference between GeForce 8600 GTS and GeForce 8600 GT is the clock used. Thus we can consider GeForce 8600 GTS a “turbo GeForce 8600 GT”, as both cards have 32 processing engines.
The standard GeForce 8600 GTS runs at 675 MHz and accesses its 256 MB GDDR3 memory at 2 GHz (1 GHz transferring two data per clock cycle) through a 128-bit interface, so it can access its memory at a maximum transfer rate of 32 GB/s.
This model from MSI comes overclocked, with the graphics chip running at 700 MHz and its memory running at 2.1 GHz, with a maximum memory transfer rate of 33.6 GB/s. So this video card has its GPU running 3.7% faster than the standard GeForce 8600 GTS and it accesses its memory 5% faster than the standard model. So this overclocking is not that high.
Also if you install the drivers that come with this video card you will have access to D.O.T. or Dynamic Overclocking Technology, where you can overclock your video card simply checking a box on the video properties.
So this video card is a product targeted to users that want an overclocked video card to achieve a higher performance but don’t want to go through the hassle of overclocking the video card themselves.
GeForce 8600 GTS has 32 shader processors running at 1.45 GHz, the same amount used on GeForce 8600 GT (on GT they are running at 1.18 GHz, though).
For a full comparison between GeForce 8600 GTS and other chips from NVIDIA, please read our tutorial NVIDIA Chips Comparison Table. On ATI Chips Comparison Table you can compare them to competitors from ATI/AMD.
On Figures 2 and 3 you can see the reviewed card from MSI.
Figure 2: MSI overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS.
Figure 3: MSI overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS, back view.
[nextpage title=”MSI NX8600GTS-T2D256E OC”]
As you could see from the pictures posted in the previous page, this video card uses a fancy cooler that blows the hot air generated by the video card to outside the computer, thus helping to keep the computer inside cool. The side effect is that this cooler makes the video card to use two slots on the motherboard and on the case, killing the PCI or PCI Express slot right next to it.
We disassembled this cooler to take a look, see Figure 4. The base is made of copper, with a copper heat-pipe connecting the base to the aluminum fins. The aluminum heatsink touches the memory chips.
Figure 4: Cooler used on MSI overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS.
In Figure 5, you can see this video card without its cooler.
Figure 5: MSI overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS without its cooler.
This video card uses four GDDR3 512-Mbit 1.4 ns chips from Samsung (K4J52324QE-BJ1A) as you can see in Figure 6, making the 256 MB of memory this video card has. These chips can officially run up to 2 GHz (1 GHz x 2) and since on this video card the memory chips are running at 2.1 GHz they are already overclocked, running 5% above their official spec.
Figure 6: Samsung GDDR3 512-Mbit 1 ns chip.
This video card supports HDMI and it comes with one DVI-to-HDMI adapter and one HDMI cable, so you can connect it directly to your HDTV set with the best quality possible (assuming that your HDTV set has a HDMI input, of course).
This video card doesn’t come with any game. In Figure 7, you can see the video component cable, the S-Video cable, the two DVI-to-VGA adapters, the DVI-to-HDMI adapter and the HDMI cable.
Figure 7: Cables and adapters that come with this video card.
[nextpage title=”Main Specifications”]
- Graphics chip: GeForce 8600 GTS, running at 700 MHz.
- Memory: 256 MB GDDR3 memory (1 ns, 128-bit interface) from Samsung (K4J52324QE-BJ1A), running at 2.1 GHz (1050 MHz DDR).
- Bus type: PCI Express x16.
- Connectors: Two DVI and one S-Video output supporting component video and HDMI.
- Video Capture (VIVO): No.
- Number of CDs/DVDs that come with this board: One.
- Games that come with this board: None.
- Programs that come with this board: None.
- More information: https://www.msicomputer.com
- Average price in the US*: USD 200.00
* Researched at Shopping.com on the day we published this review.
[nextpage title=”How We Tested”]
During our benchmarking sessions, we used the configuration listed below. Between our benchmarking sessions the only different device was the video card being tested.
Hardware Configuration
- Motherboard: ASUS P5B (Intel P965, 0904 BIOS)
- CPU: Core 2 Extreme X6800 (dual-core, 2.93 GHz)
- CPU Cooler: Gigabyte Neon 775-BL
- Memory: 2 GB PC-1066/PC2-8500 (Corsair TWIN2X2048-8500C5 kit), configured at 1,066 MHz with 5-5-5-15 timings.
- Hard Drive: Samsung HD080HJ (80 GB, SATA-300, 8 MB buffer, 7,200 rpm)
- Power Supply: Zalman ZM-600HP
- Video Monitor: Samsung SyncMaster 1100MB
- Screen resolution: [email protected] Hz
Software Configuration
- Windows XP Professional installed using NTFS
- Service Pack 2
- Direct X 9.0c
- Intel inf driver version: 8.0.1.1002
- ATI video driver version: Catalyst 7.2
- NVIDIA video driver version: 93.71 (GeForce 6 and 7 Family)
- NVIDIA video driver version: 158.22 (GeForce 8 Family)
Used Software
- 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0
- 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10
- Battlefield 2142 1.01
- Far Cry 1.4 with HardwareOC Far Cry Benchmark 1.7
- F.E.A.R. 1.08
- Quake 4 1.3
We adopted a 3% error margin; thus, differences below 3% cannot be considered relevant. In other words, products with a performance difference below 3% should be considered as having similar performance.
[nextpage title=”3DMark03″]
3DMark03 simulates DirectX 8 and 9 games. Even though this program may be considered “old”, we ran it to see how the tested video cards perform on older games. Since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (which is considered low for today’s standards and thus providing a simulation for low resolution) and 1600×1200 (which provides a simulation for high resolution). At each resolution we simulated two scenarios, first with no image quality enhancements enabled (this scenario we called “low”) and then with anti-aliasing set at 4x and anisotropic filtering set at 4x (this scenario we called “high”). The results you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 -1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 20100 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 18236 | 10.22% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 18175 | 10.59% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 17211 | 16.79% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 15741 | 27.69% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 14487 | 38.75% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 13663 | 47.11% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 10574 | 90.09% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 10271 | 95.70% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 9557 | 110.32% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 8984 | 123.73% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 8935 | 124.96% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 8124 | 147.42% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 7359 | 173.13% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 6385 | 214.80% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 5593 | 259.38% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 4179 | 380.98% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 11393 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 11222 | 1.52% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 10538 | 8.11% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 9695 | 17.51% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 8797 | 29.51% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 8450 | 34.83% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 7556 | 50.78% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 5429 | 109.85% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 5385 | 111.57% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 5255 | 116.80% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 5086 | 124.01% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 4497 | 153.35% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 4313 | 164.15% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 4011 | 184.04% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 2915 | 290.84% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 2712 | 320.10% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 2076 | 448.80% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1024×768 – AAx4. AFx4 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 11675 | |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 11262 | 3.67% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 10742 | 8.69% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 10131 | 15.24% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 9119 | 28.03% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 7980 | 46.30% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 7602 | 53.58% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 5592 | 108.78% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 5396 | 116.36% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 4873 | 139.59% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 4844 | 141.02% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 4635 | 151.89% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 4605 | 153.53% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 3894 | 199.82% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 3376 | 245.82% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 2617 | 346.12% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 1745 | 569.05% |
| 3DMark03 Professional Edition 3.6.0 – 1600×1200 – AAx4. AFx4 | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 6472 | 6.83% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 6058 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 5612 | 7.95% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 5259 | 15.19% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 4639 | 30.59% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 4276 | 41.67% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 4110 | 47.40% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 2714 | 123.21% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 2691 | 125.12% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 2320 | 161.12% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 2237 | 170.81% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 2217 | 173.25% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 2162 | 180.20% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 1917 | 216.01% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 1212 | 399.83% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 1038 | 483.62% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 837 | 623.78% |
[nextpage title=”3DMark06″]
3DMark06 simulates DirectX 9.0c (Shader 3.0) games and it also puts HDR (High Dynamic Range) into the equation to calculate its final score. So it simulates the most high-end games available today. Since we were comparing mid-range cards, we ran this program in two resolutions, one low (1024×768) and one high (1600×1200). The results you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 1024×768 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 7248 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 7002 | 3.51% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 6198 | 16.94% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 6154 | 17.78% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 5743 | 26.21% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 4292 | 68.87% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 4192 | 72.90% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 3369 | 115.14% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 3295 | 119.97% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 2927 | 147.63% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 2860 | 153.43% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 2763 | 162.32% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 2213 | 227.52% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 2046 | 254.25% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 1920 | 277.50% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 1357 | 434.12% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 741 | 878.14% |
| 3DMark06 Professional Edition 1.10 – 1600×1200 | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 4793 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 4607 | 4.04% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 4496 | 6.61% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 4041 | 18.61% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 3707 | 29.30% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 2923 | 63.98% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 2765 | 73.35% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 2117 | 126.41% |
| Radeon X1600 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 2086 | 129.77% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 1796 | 166.87% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 1784 | 168.67% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 1781 | 169.12% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 1281 | 274.16% |
| Radeon X1300 Pro 256 MB (ATI) | 1100 | 335.73% |
[nextpage title=”Quake 4″]
Quake 4 uses the same game engine as Doom 3 and since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution), first with image quality set at “low” and then with image quality set at “high”. We upgraded this game to version 1.3 and run the id_demo001 net demo that comes with this version. Click here for more details on how to use Quake 4 to benchmark a system. The results you check below and are given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1024×768 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 123.25 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 123.21 | 0.03% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 119.93 | 2.77% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 114.53 | 7.61% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 109.14 | 12.93% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 106.73 | 15.48% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 85.44 | 44.25% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 79.65 | 54.74% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 77.86 | 58.30% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 74.81 | 64.75% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 66.54 | 85.23% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 61.90 | 99.11% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 55.69 | 121.31% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 46.40 | 165.63% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 35.03 | 251.84% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 80.55 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 77.30 | 4.20% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 67.88 | 18.67% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 67.55 | 19.25% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 65.14 | 23.66% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 61.34 | 31.32% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 44.18 | 82.32% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 41.01 | 96.42% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 39.59 | 103.46% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 37.63 | 114.06% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 33.65 | 139.38% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 29.63 | 171.85% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 28.01 | 187.58% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 23.02 | 249.91% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 16.95 | 375.22% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1024×768 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 122.21 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 120.14 | 1.72% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 117.08 | 4.38% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 112.95 | 8.20% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 110.23 | 10.87% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 100.20 | 21.97% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 78.24 | 56.20% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 75.27 | 62.36% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 71.89 | 70.00% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 70.76 | 72.71% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 60.53 | 101.90% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 58.80 | 107.84% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 49.15 | 148.65% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 42.87 | 185.07% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 32.15 | 280.12% |
| Quake 4 1.3 – 1600×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 78.95 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 75.51 | 4.56% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 65.99 | 19.64% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 63.35 | 24.63% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 62.23 | 26.87% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 59.99 | 31.61% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 41.05 | 92.33% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 39.05 | 102.18% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 37.10 | 112.80% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 35.94 | 119.67% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 30.75 | 156.75% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 28.93 | 172.90% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 25.62 | 208.16% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 21.47 | 267.72% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 15.76 | 400.95% |
[nextpage title=”F.E.A.R.”]
F.E.A.R. is a heavy game and we used its internal benchmarking module. We upgraded it to version 1.08 and since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution). We set “computer settings” to “maximum” and then ran each resolution in two scenarios, first with “graphics card” set at “low” and then with this item set at “maximum”. Let’s take a look at the results, given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1024×768 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 398 | 55.47% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 268 | 4.69% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 256 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 247 | 3.64% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 216 | 18.52% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 193 | 32.64% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 186 | 37.63% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 167 | 53.29% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 139 | 84.17% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 121 | 111.57% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 114 | 124.56% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 94 | 172.34% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 83 | 208.43% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 66 | 287.88% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 38 | 573.68% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1600×1200 – Low Quality | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 196 | 63.33% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 123 | 2.50% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 120 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 115 | 4.35% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 99 | 21.21% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 89 | 34.83% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 89 | 34.83% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 75 | 60.00% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 62 | 93.55% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 58 | 106.90% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 54 | 122.22% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 42 | 185.71% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 38 | 215.79% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 31 | 287.10% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 17 | 605.88% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1024×768 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 77 | 18.46% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 65 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 62 | 4.84% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 56 | 16.07% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 51 | 27.45% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 50 | 30.00% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 46 | 41.30% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 40 | 62.50% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 33 | 96.97% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 29 | 124.14% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 27 | 140.74% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 27 | 140.74% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 26 | 150.00% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 26 | 150.00% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 10 | 550.00% |
| F.E.A.R. 1.08 – 1600×1200 – Maximum Quality | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 37 | 37.04% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 27 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 26 | 3.85% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 24 | 12.50% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 24 | 12.50% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 23 | 17.39% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 22 | 22.73% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 17 | 58.82% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 14 | 92.86% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 13 | 107.69% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 12 | 125.00% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 12 | 125.00% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 11 | 145.45% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 11 | 145.45% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 4 | 575.00% |
[nextpage title=”Far Cry”]
Far Cry is a heavy game based on the Shader 3.0 (DirectX 9.0c) programming model. We’ve updated the game to version 1.4. To measure the performance we run four times the demo created by German magazine PC Games Hardware (PCGH) and the results presented below are an arithmetic average of the collected data. We used the HardwareOC Far Cry Benchmark 1.7 utility to help us collecting data.
Since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution). At each resolution we simulated two scenarios, first with no image quality enhancements enabled and graphics details set to “maximum” (this scenario we called “low”) and then with anti-aliasing set at 4x, anisotropic filtering set at 16x and graphics details set to “ultra” (this scenario we called “high”). On all scenarios we set the rendering engine to Shader 3.0. The results, given in frames per second, you check below. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1024×768 – Maximum Details | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 145.00 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 141.84 | 2.23% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 139.29 | 4.10% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 131.39 | 10.36% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 129.20 | 12.23% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 128.86 | 12.53% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 118.14 | 22.74% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 97.75 | 48.34% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 89.96 | 61.18% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 85.77 | 69.06% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 81.60 | 77.70% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 67.03 | 116.32% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 60.84 | 138.33% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 50.01 | 189.94% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 34.90 | 315.47% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1600×1200 – Maximum Details | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 112.29 | 37.44% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 81.70 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 78.86 | 3.60% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 75.56 | 8.13% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 71.84 | 13.72% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 68.21 | 19.78% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 61.09 | 33.74% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 49.39 | 65.42% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 46.17 | 76.95% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 45.07 | 81.27% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 40.88 | 99.85% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 34.52 | 136.67% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 30.56 | 167.34% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 25.62 | 218.89% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 17.65 | 362.89% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1024×768 – AAx4. AFx16. Ultra Details | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 109.38 | 6.23% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 102.97 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 98.33 | 4.72% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 87.83 | 17.24% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 79.72 | 29.16% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 77.96 | 32.08% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 74.08 | 39.00% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 49.96 | 106.10% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 48.93 | 110.44% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 45.34 | 127.11% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 44.59 | 130.93% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 41.31 | 149.26% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 40.86 | 152.01% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 24.88 | 313.87% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 17.97 | 473.01% |
| Far Cry 1.4 – 1600×1200 – AAx4. AFx16. Ultra Details | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 66.87 | 34.12% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 49.86 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 46.71 | 6.74% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 43.33 | 15.07% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 42.10 | 18.43% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 38.49 | 29.54% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 38.33 | 30.08% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 24.81 | 100.97% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 21.23 | 134.86% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 21.13 | 135.97% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 21.04 | 136.98% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 20.53 | 142.86% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 18.78 | 165.50% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 11.44 | 335.84% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 8.47 | 488.67% |
[nextpage title=”Battlefield 2142″]
Battlefield 2142 is the latest member of the Battlefield franchise. We updated this game to version 1.01. We created our own demo based on Sidi Power Plant map (click here to download the demo we created for this test), which provided a very consistent number of frames per second. We ran it and measured performance with FRAPS. Click here to read in details how we benchmarked using Battlefield 2142.
Since we are comparing mid-range cards, we decided to run this program in two resolutions, 1024×768 (simulating a low resolution) and 1600×1200 (simulating a high resolution). First we ran our demo with image quality set at “low” (with texture manually set at its minimum level) and then with image quality set at “high” (with anti-aliasing manually set at 4x). Below you can see the results, given in frames per second. All video cards listed below were running with the default clock rates defined by the chip manufacturer except the cards marked with “OC”, which are cards that are factory-overclocked.
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1024×768 – Low | Score | Difference |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 350.51 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 335.30 | 4.54% |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 330.39 | 6.09% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 292.06 | 20.01% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 262.63 | 33.46% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 254.29 | 37.84% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 230.79 | 51.87% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 171.15 | 104.80% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 164.71 | 112.80% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 152.17 | 130.34% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 142.72 | 145.59% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 127.20 | 175.56% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 124.62 | 181.26% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 87.63 | 299.99% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 62.96 | 456.72% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1600×1200 – Low | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 184.41 | 4.54% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 176.40 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 171.89 | 2.62% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 147.40 | 19.67% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 132.60 | 33.03% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 131.81 | 33.83% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 117.01 | 50.76% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 82.04 | 115.02% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 78.45 | 124.86% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 75.60 | 133.33% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 68.07 | 159.14% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 64.47 | 173.62% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 59.96 | 194.20% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 42.81 | 312.05% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 28.47 | 519.60% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1024×768 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 101.89 | 13.73% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 89.59 | |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 86.49 | 3.58% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 77.27 | 15.94% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 70.57 | 26.95% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 69.90 | 28.17% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 63.95 | 40.09% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 46.82 | 91.35% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 38.99 | 129.78% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 38.71 | 131.44% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 36.30 | 146.80% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 34.52 | 159.53% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 30.55 | 193.26% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 20.32 | 340.90% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 13.96 | 541.76% |
| Battlefield 2142 1.01 – 1600×1200 – High | Score | Difference |
| Radeon X1950 Pro 256 MB (PowerColor) | 55.54 | 30.71% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) | 43.22 | 1.72% |
| GeForce 8600 GTS 256 MB (MSI) OC | 42.49 | |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) OC | 39.17 | 8.48% |
| Radeon X1650 XT 256 MB (HIS) | 35.05 | 21.23% |
| GeForce 8600 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 33.63 | 26.35% |
| GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB (XFX) | 31.16 | 36.36% |
| Radeon X1650 Pro 256 MB (HIS) | 19.85 | 114.06% |
| GeForce 7600 GS 256 MB (XFX) | 17.94 | 136.85% |
| GeForce 8500 GT 256 MB (MSI) | 16.95 | 150.68% |
| GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB (NVIDIA) | 16.67 | 154.89% |
| Radeon X1300 XT 256 MB GDDR3 (HIS) | 16.47 | 157.98% |
| GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB (Zogis) | 13.98 | 203.93% |
| GeForce 6600 128 MB (Albatron) | 9.38 | 352.99% |
| GeForce 6200 128-bit 128 MB (Leadtek) | 6.49 | 554.70% |
[nextpage title=”Conclusions”]
In our review we were able to compare the overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS from MSI with a vast range of new and old mid-range PCI Express video cards, as you could see on our previous pages. We also added to our comparison Radeon X1950 Pro, which is an entry-level high-end video card that costs around the same thing as the reviewed card.
GeForce 8600 GTS is clearly targeted to users that want the fastest mid-range card in town but doesn’t want to (or doesn’t have the money to) go for a high-end model. The reviewed GeForce 8600 GTS was the fastest mid-range video card we reviewed to date. This is really impressive.
This GeForce 8600 GTS from MSI was between 8% and 35% faster than the standard GeForce 8600 GT, depending on the game and video configuration we used. It was also between 12% and 92% faster than Radeon X1650 XT (except on F.E.A.R. with no image quality settings enabled, where at 1024×768 Radeon X1650 XT was 5% faster and at 1600×1200 both cards achieved the same performance level), also depending on the game and video configuration we used.
Compared to Radeon X1950 Pro this overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS from MSI was faster in some games and simulations but on games that memory bandwidth plays a major role, Radeon X1950 Pro was a lot faster – after all we are comparing a video card with a 128-bit memory bus to a video card with a 256-bit memory bus. Just to remember, the reviewed card from MSI had a maximum theoretical memory transfer rate of 33.6 GB/s, while Radeon X1950 Pro could exchange data with its memory up to 44.16 GB/s.
Here is a breakdown. On 3DMark03 at 1024×768 overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS was 11% faster than Radeon X1950 Pro, at 1600×1200 they achieved a similar performance, at 1024×768 enabling video quality enhancements the reviewed card was 4% faster than Radeon X1950 Pro but at 1600×1200 enabling image quality enhancements Radeon X1950 Pro was 7% faster.
At 3DMark06 the reviewed GeForce 8600 GTS was between 7% and 17% faster than Radeon X1950 Pro, and at Quake 4 the reviewed card was between 15% and 25% faster.
But at F.E.A.R. Radeon X1950 Pro was between 18% and 63% faster, at Far Cry Radeon X1950 Pro was between 6% and 37% faster (except at 1024×768 with no image quality settings enabled, where our overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS was 4% faster than Radeon X1950 Pro), and at Battlefield 2142 Radeon X1950 Pro was between 4% and 31% faster (except at 1024×768 with no image quality settings enabled, where our overclocked GeForce 8600 GTS was 6% faster than Radeon X1950 Pro).
Compared to the standard GeForce 8600 GTS this overclocked model from MSI was up to 10% faster than the standard model, making it a great option if you are willing to buy a GeForce 8600 GTS.
Then comes pricing. This video card can be found around USD 200 on the market, but at Newegg.com it can found by USD 175. Radeon X1950 Pro can be also be found around USD 200, but Newegg.com is carrying a model from Sapphire for only USD 146 (with a USD 20 mail-in rebate its price goes down to USD 126), making it an unbeatable deal for the average user. Of course this Newegg.com deal is an exception, but… Wow.
Considering the standard pricing, we honestly think that for the average user GeForce 8600 GT is the best deal around, as it provides a better cost/benefit ratio than GeForce 8600 GTS. GeForce 8600 GTS is clearly targeted for users that want a performance higher than GeForce 8600 GT and can pay more, and we don’t think “pay more” is part of the average user’s dictionary.
But this deal on Radeon X1950 Pro from Sapphire for USD 126 at Newegg.com is a no-brainer, making it an unbeatable card for both performance and price.