9800GTX GPU-z screen shot and 3Dmark06 score

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

02-26-2008, 01:45 PM
veilsidebr

haha, stock settings for ULTRA, easy and flat 3.0 ghz on Q6600B3.

Shame from nvidia to make a new "high-end card" which ain't better than the "old high-end model".

I have generally 3.3 ghz set up on daily-use.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6563/hahajc5.th.jpg

my score: 14047 :up:
9800GTX score: 14014:down:

My CPU Score(3.0ghz B3 Q6600): 4651 :up:
Reviewed CPU Score(3.0ghz Q9650): 4597 :down:

Ok, i use winxp 64 and he has got Vista, but i could achieve the same scores under vista 64 too. :p:

As i supposed, theres no real and TRUE advantage on changing to this new Quad-core lineup. I'd rather wait for the so-much-waited 8 core babies. ;)
02-26-2008, 01:50 PM
Tim

So why is no one waiting for game benches, and judges a card solely on specs and 3DMark?

I know it doesn't look impressive, but you never know with games, and what exactly they optimized in the chip.
02-26-2008, 01:51 PM
jaredpace

BAD 9800GTX!!! BOOooo! Bad gtx.
02-26-2008, 01:56 PM
Decami

This makes me cry.
02-26-2008, 01:58 PM
jaredpace

Quote:

Originally Posted by FischOderAal

tbh this is the first time I regret I did not buy a high-end card. this was perhaps the best deal for the past five years.

yes If i could have spent 599 on the gtx or ultra in 2006 and have it last through most of 2008 while staying near the TOP. I would have done it. It's the same as buying 150 to $200 midrange cards like 1950pros, 8800gts, etc etc, and refreshing a few times. And the benefit to the ultra/gtx is that you have the best performance from the getgo. I agree with fischoderaal.
02-26-2008, 02:01 PM
SmaKKed

Now lets sit back and think whats Nvidia upto, we need to get inside their minds...............

No I can think like that either :confused:
02-26-2008, 02:09 PM
initialised

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToTTenTranz

A 8800GT that performs better than some 8800GTSs, a 8800GTS 512Mb that performs better than a 8800GTS 640Mb and a 9800GTX that will probably have less performance than a 8800GTX.

nVidia is being a real "gentleman" for its less-informed costumers. Especially when it comes to erroneously naming it's graphics card in order to
a) emptying older cards' stocks (8800GT>8800GTS 320/640Mb)
b) getting it's clients to pay some extra $150 for a card that supposedly belongs to a new generation and in fact only has higher-clocked memory (8800GTS 512Mb = 9800GTX).

G92-GTX is higher clocked all round, but not by much. Ultra's are in short supply at the moment, as far as I can tell nVidia has stopped making them, which suggests that something is just around the corner. Given the power of the 9600GT with only 64 SPs I suspect that the Ultra will be G94 with 128 SPs and 1Gb RAM.

Nvidia's gentlemanly approach is to take the media-centre-that-can-just-about-play-games sector with the G94 as this is where ATi is winning and hold off on the high end until they need the enthusiast halo effect back again.
02-26-2008, 02:16 PM
p0tter

As said before..

Without competition from AMD, Nvidia is not going to release next gen tech to beat themselves.

We will get neutered 9800 series.
02-26-2008, 02:34 PM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by initialised

Given the power of the 9600GT with only 64 SPs I suspect that the Ultra will be G94 with 128 SPs and 1Gb RAM.

As far as compression algorithms & TMU's etc, G94 with 128SP is the G92.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._card/comments
02-26-2008, 02:42 PM
XS Janus

At least it will use less power:shrug:
02-26-2008, 02:45 PM
zerazax

My Q6600 @ 3.0 GHz w/ Ultra at 648/1728/2160 gets 14k in 3dM06 so this 9800GTX is very dissapointing.

In fact, it sounds like basically an 8800GTS 512 with Tri-SLI...
02-26-2008, 03:20 PM
RPGWiZaRD

Those SM 2.0 and 3.0 scores are lower than my overclocked 8800GT (I have ~6350 SM 2.0 and ~6000 SM 3.0). :p:

But yea remember it's also Vista, I get ~500 lower 3DMark06 score in Vista SP1 compared to XP SP3.
02-26-2008, 03:25 PM
Metroid

7900 GTX = 6353

8800 GT = 10558

8800 GTX = 10660

9800 GTX = expected a jump of 40% = 14000

It sounds about right.

lol. The reality is we were expected a jump of 80%. :yepp:
02-26-2008, 03:32 PM
ghost101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metroid

7900 GTX = 6353

8800 GT = 10558

8800 GTX = 10660

9800 GTX = expected a jump of 40% = 14000

It sounds about right.

lol. The reality is we were expected a jump of 80%. :yepp:

Need to hold the cpu constant though.
02-26-2008, 03:43 PM
mr_knowitall15

*dissapointed and unimpressed* My friends q6600 OCed all noob style (mobo presets) and his 8800GT OCed put up 14k.
02-26-2008, 04:18 PM
GripS

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

So why is no one waiting for game benches, and judges a card solely on specs and 3DMark?

I know it doesn't look impressive, but you never know with games, and what exactly they optimized in the chip.

Like it or not, 3dmark scores translate to what you can expect performance wise. If a previous gen card is performing as well if not better then a next gen card that is definitely NOT a good sign.
02-26-2008, 05:13 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by veilsidebr

haha, stock settings for ULTRA, easy and flat 3.0 ghz on Q6600B3.

Shame from nvidia to make a new "high-end card" which ain't better than the "old high-end model".

I have generally 3.3 ghz set up on daily-use.

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6563/hahajc5.th.jpg

my score: 14047 :up:
9800GTX score: 14014:down:

My CPU Score(3.0ghz B3 Q6600): 4651 :up:
Reviewed CPU Score(3.0ghz Q9650): 4597 :down:

Ok, i use winxp 64 and he has got Vista, but i could achieve the same scores under vista 64 too. :p:

As i supposed, theres no real and TRUE advantage on changing to this new Quad-core lineup. I'd rather wait for the so-much-waited 8 core babies. ;)

comparing vista with wind xp...
02-26-2008, 05:44 PM
HotGore

Ugh I hope it does better in games, or the r700 turns out to be Jesus riding a river of bacon.
02-26-2008, 05:56 PM
bobbobson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_knowitall15

*dissapointed and unimpressed* My friends q6600 OCed all noob style (mobo presets) and his 8800GT OCed put up 14k.

My PC in sig breaks 14k. Very bad nvidia! :down:
02-26-2008, 05:59 PM
Jamesrt2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotGore

Ugh I hope it does better in games, or the r700 turns out to be Jesus riding a river of bacon.

LMAO :rofl:

but yea very disappointing holing off a high end build for this supposedly beast of a card guess I shouldn't have

bring on R700
02-26-2008, 06:47 PM
DeanZ

Will this out perform an ultra?...im thinking that its time to replace mine and I wanted this when it was roumered a g100 i would buy which ever is better so 9800GTX or 8800Ultra? (no matter how much we bash it i bet 1/4 of this forum will still buy it:) )
02-26-2008, 07:18 PM
Jowy Atreides

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotGore

Ugh I hope it does better in games, or the r700 turns out to be Jesus riding a river of bacon.

best statement ever

Jesus riding a river of bacon. I'm stealing this one fyi :cool:
02-26-2008, 07:33 PM
KoHaN69

Something tells me DAAMIT can't possible lose this round.

Just give us 3870X2 performance without the X2! :D
02-26-2008, 07:58 PM
GAR

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbobson

My PC in sig breaks 14k. Very bad nvidia! :down:

Can you play games at 1920x1200 with AA/AF and i dont mean games released in 2003.
02-26-2008, 08:09 PM
ether.real

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAR

Can you play games at 1920x1200 with AA/AF and i dont mean games released in 2003.

The only game I cant play at those settings is Crysis, and I doubt the new cards will either.
02-26-2008, 09:54 PM
leomax

Quote:

Originally Posted by fornowagain

As far as compression algorithms & TMU's etc, G94 with 128SP is the G92.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._card/comments

Interesting,So does that imply G94 has the perfect ratio of everything (SP,ROP et all) as far as todays games are concerned.
02-26-2008, 10:11 PM
Kain665

Well thats probably the biggest let down since the 5800s...
02-26-2008, 11:27 PM
alayashu

they could easily transpose the optimizations from 9600s over to the 9800
series, but they chose not to do so. Only makes sense if they plan to launch
a new highend card on R700's launch, or maybe if their dual card solution gives
a really good boost (close to 2x) abroad most games. I really do not believe
1.5 years passed away in such a way, having cigars and eating bacon...
02-26-2008, 11:45 PM
Der_KHAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

Welcome to the real world.

no! i refuse to accept it! :mad:

... guess i'm in the stage of denial, huh? :D
02-27-2008, 12:14 AM
Jowy Atreides

this is probably useless to you? (i'm no gpu expert)

but here is the gpu-z of the 9600gt next to the 9800

http://www.i-imagehost.com/uploads/056be55d53.jpg
02-27-2008, 12:28 AM
initialised

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanZ

Will this out perform an ultra?...im thinking that its time to replace mine and I wanted this when it was roumered a g100 i would buy which ever is better so 9800GTX or 8800Ultra? (no matter how much we bash it i bet 1/4 of this forum will still buy it:) )

Clock a G92 GTS to match it and find out.
02-27-2008, 01:00 AM
MayDay84

Quote:

Originally Posted by veilsidebr

haha, stock settings for ULTRA, easy and flat 3.0 ghz on Q6600B3.

Shame from nvidia to make a new "high-end card" which ain't better than the "old high-end model".
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6563/hahajc5.th.jpg
my score: 14047 :up:
9800GTX score: 14014:down:

My CPU Score(3.0ghz B3 Q6600): 4651 :up:
Reviewed CPU Score(3.0ghz Q9650): 4597 :down:

9800GTX did better on the SM2.0 though;)
02-27-2008, 01:10 AM
FischOderAal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der_KHAN

no! i refuse to accept it! :mad:

... guess i'm in the stage of denial, huh? :D

look at my sig :D

"I reject your reality and substitute my own." :D
02-27-2008, 01:29 AM
zerazax

My 8800 Ultra can handle every game in DX10 mode except Crysis at 2560 x 1600 just fine so I don't see why people keep saying 8800Ultra/GTX cant handle 1920 x 1200
02-27-2008, 01:36 AM
MayDay84

Quote:

Originally Posted by zerazax

My 8800 Ultra can handle every game in DX10 mode except Crysis at 2560 x 1600 just fine so I don't see why people keep saying 8800Ultra/GTX cant handle 1920 x 1200

That's true.. Ofcourse they can handle higher resos because of higher 384bit bus and large memory.. I just don't get the fact that Nvidia made 9800GTX only 256bit :down: ..I bet 512bit bus and 1GB memory would have been a great partner with high clocked G92, but no, crap it shall be..
02-27-2008, 02:54 AM
veilsidebr

Quote:

Originally Posted by MayDay84

9800GTX did better on the SM2.0 though;)

hehe indeed, but i think these are certainly shame scores expected from a new lineup-card, which should be improving over its past's child cards like 8800 and ultras, and not parking to the stand-still zero.
02-27-2008, 03:20 AM
DelaMaris

Lame...

Can't be true.
02-27-2008, 03:55 AM
bf2142lol

This is really disappointing. Lame.:down:
02-27-2008, 04:09 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by Der_KHAN

no! i refuse to accept it! :mad:

... guess i'm in the stage of denial, huh? :D

Not only you my friend, not only you... :( :D

Even ATI guys should be pissed off. Because if this card were what it was supposed to be, 3870s and 3870X2s would both lower their prices.
02-27-2008, 05:28 AM
takamishanoku

If it's true (and why not, Expreview has a very good track record) then it's dissapointing only as far as the bandwidth/ram sense. Performance is still to be seen (i think it will still be blazingly fast if the 9600is anything to go by).

I just wish Nvidia would hurry up and release the Pixel Slut 5000.
02-27-2008, 06:08 AM
gillll

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.
02-27-2008, 06:26 AM
fhpchris

I just sold two 8800GTXs and an 8800 Ultra for this.

:banana::banana::banana::banana:ing lame.

I could get that score with a 3850.
02-27-2008, 06:26 AM
Slay0r

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillll

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.

Marketing move, ati/amd are in the 3xxx zone now, so nvidia kinda had to go up one.. what puzzles me is why it is a GTX, surely GS/GT woulda suited it better. That or the 8800GTS 512 should have been 9800GS or GT to be name-fair :peace:

That aside, I have seen 9600GT put up some good numbers in games with half the shader count the 9800GTX has, I'd really like to see more than a couple games tested before i make my mind up..

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

I just sold two 8800GTXs and an 8800 Ultra for this.

:banana::banana::banana::banana:ing lame.

Ouch .
02-27-2008, 06:43 AM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by fhpchris

I just sold two 8800GTXs and an 8800 Ultra for this.

:banana::banana::banana::banana:ing lame.

I could get that score with a 3850.

That sucks.
02-27-2008, 07:03 AM
ShArKo

Really it is disappointing to know that this new graphical card does not have the performance for that we we all were waiting. As they said before, nvidia guarding his better chips to have something with which to compete when ATI extracts his R700. It is useless that nvidia throw to the market now a plate that is so top to like 8800GTX/ULTRA when there is nothing that overcomes it. I believe that until ATI is not thrown(launched) to the market by his new generation of cards of video, we are not going to see the real ones "9800". Really it is disappointing to know that this it is the possible potential of 9800GTX, as you I was waiting for some kind of many advanced mas. It makes me happy not to have waited to 9800GTX and to know that my 8800GTS (that comes in way:p) it has almost the same performance.
02-27-2008, 07:18 AM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillll

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.

Because of marketing. Why did ATI didn't call the RV670 the 2950series, but called them HD38xx series? ATI didn't want the 2950 naming because the 29xx series has a bad reputation. Nvidia on the other hand doesn't have a bad reputation problem, but the GF8 series is almost 1.5 years old. Introducing the GF9 series will be seen as bringing something completely new on the market and will boost the sales. Offcourse we won't fall for that, and call it pimped 8800 cards, but the average guy thinks its something new.
02-27-2008, 09:14 AM
gillll

hehe.........oblivious is bliss ?
02-28-2008, 05:53 PM
cookerjc

Updated a test with a QX9650@4GHz, so there are no more bottleneck..
02-28-2008, 06:44 PM
dengyong

That makes it suck that much more.
02-28-2008, 07:08 PM
safan80

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookerjc

Updated a test with a QX9650@4GHz, so there are no more bottleneck..

Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dengyong

That makes it suck that much more.

at least you know how it will do.
02-28-2008, 07:20 PM
railer

why don't you try to overclock? I want to see how high it scales.
02-28-2008, 07:38 PM
safan80

Quote:

Originally Posted by railer

why don't you try to overclock? I want to see how high it scales.

probably because any of the programs we'd use to OC with doesn't support the card yet.
02-28-2008, 08:10 PM
Neova

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookerjc

Updated a test with a QX9650@4GHz, so there are no more bottleneck..

How about a real game test, such as Crysis, for comparison?

3DMarks don't impress me as a consumer but real game tests would be valuable. Obviously you're not under NDA so go for it! :)
02-28-2008, 08:31 PM
somiao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neova

How about a real game test, such as Crysis, for comparison?

3DMarks don't impress me as a consumer but real game tests would be valuable. Obviously you're not under NDA so go for it! :)

Lol, his surely not under a NDA, haha...
Yep i'm interested in the results too, let us see some tri sli already! :)
02-28-2008, 09:33 PM
takamishanoku

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neova

How about a real game test, such as Crysis, for comparison?

3DMarks don't impress me as a consumer but real game tests would be valuable. Obviously you're not under NDA so go for it! :)

True that. 3dmarks are meaningless, just look at the 2900 .
As i said i'm only dissapointed with the bandwidth and mem so far if it's real. When i see real gaming performance then i'll make my judgement.
02-29-2008, 01:48 AM
cowie

this new 98 is going to kick ass!!
lower power faster and cheaper
and guys when nv does put out the next all new card that doubles todays highend performance i hope i dont hear cry'in that its close to 1000$
02-29-2008, 02:04 AM
KoHaN69

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowie

this new 98 is going to kick ass!!
lower power faster and cheaper
and guys when nv does put out the next all new card that doubles todays highend performance i hope i dont hear cry'in that its close to 1000$

Your optimism makes me question your sanity.
02-29-2008, 03:06 AM
largon

Quote:

Originally Posted by gillll

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.

More like 8700GTX.
Or 8800GTX-Lite.
:p:
02-29-2008, 03:27 AM
cowie

Quote:

Originally Posted by KoHaN69

Your optimism makes me question your sanity.

well i was trying the double reverse jinx:D
02-29-2008, 03:41 AM
Evi

I hope nobody buys this card and nVidia loses a lot of money from this. The fact that they would even think about releasing this card as the flagship of the 9-series is disgusting. 512 MB VRAM? Did we go back in time to the year 2005, when specs like this were considered acceptable?
02-29-2008, 03:55 AM
NotFred

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people will buy one as soon as they can regardless, so its going to be a success (its rather amusing reading comments on another forum watching them all cry fake at anything that doesnt claim it will have 2Gb GDDR4, 256SPs and cure cancer). Still, they are in for an upset when they realise what they've spent all thier money on...

The thing that confuses me though is... why is everyone so convinced that Nvidia have some insane chip hidden somewhere that they are refusing to release?
02-29-2008, 04:11 AM
Slay0r

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotFred

The thing that confuses me though is... why is everyone so convinced that Nvidia have some insane chip hidden somewhere that they are refusing to release?

Because frankly it's been 2 years ish the G80 serie has been out. You're telling me in 2 years they didn't have time to develop a stronger product, G92 aside? Of course they did. (and 99% so did ATI) Maybe not insane, but stronger indeed. But why would they want to release it if they can still milk cash with their older process?

Unfortunately this very sector of the market is not very competitional, thus the companies are in no rush to show the very best they have as soon as they have it. If it was so, the growth in performance between one product and its successor would be esponential, whereas we have to settle with 10 to 25% faster products at a time, if all is well.

9800gtx seems not to meet the above percentual at all, therefore im not surprised many enthusiasts are upping the middle finger.

That said... i'd still like to grab one even only for a while and see how the shader and SLI optimisation the 9600gt was given reflects on double the shaders, or rather if it does at all.
02-29-2008, 04:25 AM
Evi

Quote:

Originally Posted by NotFred

Unfortunately, I think a lot of people will buy one as soon as they can regardless, so its going to be a success (its rather amusing reading comments on another forum watching them all cry fake at anything that doesnt claim it will have 2Gb GDDR4, 256SPs and cure cancer). Still, they are in for an upset when they realise what they've spent all thier money on...

The thing that confuses me though is... why is everyone so convinced that Nvidia have some insane chip hidden somewhere that they are refusing to release?

Because technology gets better over time, not worse. GDDR4 is out there and nVidia is not using it, and with the 8-series already having 768 vRAM, we should be seeing at least a gig in the 9-series. We've been waiting for this card for two years, and all we're seeing here is the same exact technology we've been using since the damn 7-series.
02-29-2008, 04:48 AM
adamsleath

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1203998283
i think this supposed 9800GTX could be marketed as a 9800GT, or something else...just not 9800GTX

because a 9800gts or a 9800gtX should be a LOT better than this imo.

but im guessing that the true next gen will drop this 7x00, 8x00, 9x00 naming scheme anyway.

calling this G92 thing a GTX is truly an insult to the venerable 8800GTX :D

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:00 AM.

XtremeSystems