View Full Version : first 3dmark06 score of G98
expreview
11-21-2007, 08:45 AM
source: Expreview (http://www.expreview.com/news/hard/2007-11-21/1195642516d7020.html)(English Version (http://en.expreview.com/?p=45))
We have the core shot, the GPU-Z (http://en.expreview.com/?p=41) screen cap, but because of the drivers and other tools problem we can’t have it benched.
But finally we we’ve got the bench result. Let’s see:
Test bed:
Intel Celeron 460（2.4GHz）
Foxconn P35A-s
Windows Vista Ultimate
ForceWare 169.06
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071120/gpz012.jpg
default frequency,thanks to TPU’s W1zzard
Defult Frequency G98 3Dmark06 result：1236
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071121/g98-sdmark06.png
FghtinIrshNvrDi
11-21-2007, 08:46 AM
crash and burn. The low end never seems to move.
Ryan
grimREEFER
11-21-2007, 08:47 AM
how much is this supposed to cost? cause u can get an 8600gt for close to $100. and some are available for less than $90 if u count rebates.
artissco
11-21-2007, 08:49 AM
lol, old celeron and new videocard....
expreview
11-21-2007, 08:51 AM
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071121/nvpdf.png
that's what NV think about G98
That is a pretty big drop in performance between the G92 and G98.....
I'd I didn't know better, i'd say the 55nm upgrades to the HD 2400 and HD 2600 are going to clean up on the low-end
I think it is just designed to offer something to combat the 2400pro's pricing, but why bother when with 55nm ati can release something even cheaper without loosing any profits?
Probably for mobile parts I would guess....
A cheap notebook with a NVidia G98 is probably bound to sell better then the same notebook with a HD2400/RV635....simply because of better brand recognition
These budget cards are aimed solely for being able to decode Bluray/HD without needing a monster CPU imo
SKYMTL
11-21-2007, 09:04 AM
Sorry....that is no proof to me. Just looks to be a photochopped pic that nicely covers any proof that the score may come from a different card...
Shaggy
11-21-2007, 09:26 AM
Results of a video card that low are irrelevant. That thing would choke on battlefield 2.
Kai Robinson
11-21-2007, 10:04 AM
For HTPC use it'd be fine, just like the Radeon 2400 Pro. Not everyone plays games you know :D
Inteleron
11-21-2007, 10:17 AM
For HTPC use it'd be fine, just like the Radeon 2400 Pro. Not everyone plays games you know :D
This brings back memorys of playing cs source on my 7300GS :ROTF:
Jimmer411
11-21-2007, 12:57 PM
celeron? lol is this 2001?
FghtinIrshNvrDi
11-21-2007, 01:17 PM
well let's get real. it's not cpu bottlenecked.
Ryan
Frank M
11-21-2007, 01:19 PM
lol, old celeron and new videocard....
celeron? lol is this 2001?
Noobs :p:
Cel4xx is single-core Core, released this year.
Apart from that, me too, I think that testing with/using a single-core cpu is
weird, given how cheap dual-core cpus are nowadays (E21x0 or 3600-4000+ X2)
grimREEFER
11-21-2007, 01:23 PM
i just checked, this card is gonna retail for $45, what did u guys expect lol
Nanometer
11-21-2007, 01:29 PM
Why would this be interesting to anyone when they are using such a garbage CPU?
Loque
11-21-2007, 01:37 PM
and everyone thinking g98 would unleash 20k 3dmark06s
Kunaak
11-21-2007, 01:52 PM
Why would this be interesting to anyone when they are using such a garbage CPU?
the entire set up is garbage.
but it does fairly well to represent the most common CPU out there in alot of peoples homes.
old slow intels.
gotta remember, intel is the majority of the premade market for the last 10 years, and while AMD has been catching up little by little over the years, intel would still be what your most likely to find in some older PC.
anyone looking for a cheap videocard like this, probably doesnt have a top of the line PC to begin with.
Nuker_
11-21-2007, 10:06 PM
my 1.5 yr old notebook with an x1600 is much better than that. Useless gfx card.
Well, good news for HD2600... ^^
Planet
11-21-2007, 11:01 PM
GPUz shows the card running at 8x. Is that true?
strange|ife
11-21-2007, 11:14 PM
wow that is horrible.
a 7600 gt would be a better choice imo
the 8x bandwidth doesnt mean much. the 8800's dont tap out the 8x link width. 16x gives more breathing room though.
wittekakker
11-22-2007, 12:09 PM
Results of a video card that low are irrelevant. That thing would choke on battlefield 2.
In fact, it does not, you should read a review if two about the 8400GS. It is priced very low, but if you don't have more to spend this thing is not that bad. It is for sure a nice upgrade compared to onboard video, on 17" CRT (which is still very common with average pc user) it will make older games play acceptable, i.e. BF2, Far Cry, HL2, ...
I don't realt understand the new GPU thingy though, maybe it helps them to reduce price even more, power usage wasn't that big of a concern for now.
RAW-Raptor22
11-22-2007, 12:26 PM
crash and burn. The low end never seems to move.
Ryan
I have a G86 8500GT that does 670/1789/520 (core/shader/ram)
7357 3dmark05... beats 7900gs and x800xt
Can the g98 beat this?
wittekakker
11-22-2007, 12:43 PM
seriously? No...
Not enough voltage for the GPU + mem needs to get decent overclock because of the 64-bit wide bus.
RAW-Raptor22
11-22-2007, 12:44 PM
seriously? No...
Not enough voltage for the GPU + mem needs to get decent overclock because of the 64-bit wide bus.
the 8500gt is a 128bit bus... :yepp:
Trunks
11-22-2007, 01:32 PM
the 8500gt is a 128bit bus... :yepp:
he meant the G98...:yepp:
RAW-Raptor22
11-22-2007, 01:48 PM
he meant the G98...:yepp:
Ah ok... will there be a 128bit variation of G98?