100% true! My 7900GS @ 645/1680 can do 5600 Score in 3DMark06Quote:
Geforce 8600 is no faster than the 7900GS
100% true! My 7900GS @ 645/1680 can do 5600 Score in 3DMark06Quote:
Geforce 8600 is no faster than the 7900GS
And nobody knows what an 8600 does, especially not an OC'ed one... So all these posts are completely irrelevant until we see some hard numbers on the cards :stick: :slapass: :fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by HamidFULL
Best Regards :toast:
Agreed. I want to see some scores on the cards before I go buying. I definitely want something with more than 256mb. It just isn't cutting it anymore. It looks
like if there is a 512mb 8600, then it will be a tos-up between that and the 8800gts640. Money is a big factor, so I would like to save If I can.
I'd go for the 8900GTX, or the 8950GX2
~Mike
But where's your DX10 support? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by HamidFULL
NiCKE's got a point. 7900GS is great for DX9, but it's not futureproofed. That's where the value of the 8600s comes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by NiCKE^
Passed on the 8800gtx. If it turns out true, the 8900gtx is more what I was willing to pay for.
Did you remember first shader model 3.0 GPU? it was 6800 Ultra but how was 6800 Ultra in real SM3.0 games like Age of empires 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by NiCKE^
you can play 1024x768 + 16AF nothing more!! but with G70-G71 you can play 1600x1200 + 16AF
repeating history!
G80 is very Great for DX9 and if you want full support of DirectX10 you should wait until G90
G90 can run Crysis with 1600x1200 16AA 16AF not 8800GTX :D :fact:
You are Rich! :slobber:Quote:
Originally Posted by arisythila
tons of us dont have money for 8950GX2!! :stick: :cool:
am I like the only one who has seen this....
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/755/755284p1.html
You would be the last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvie
Amen to that!.......Quote:
Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier
...pun intended:D
I must be the last to see it considering how many posts are made about playing crysis on 8800 cards..swell point.
I just hope if 8900GTX turns out a lot better than 8800GTX, I won't lose too much money upgrading as I bought my 8800GTX last week (and I still haven't installed it).
I just wonder, how come 8900GTS with ~7.7% lower theoretical bandwidth, ~17% less memory and only ~4.3% increase in clock speed compared to the 8800GTX is supposed to carry a $50 higher price tag. I mean WTF? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If this is true, this 80nm process better bring something nice. Or is GDDR4 that superior to GDDR3 clock-for-clock (latency wise)?
None else thought of this?
At least I'm slightly relieved it doesn't seem like the new 8900GTX has 32 extra secret SPs, as that'd have pissed me off big time. Either way either this new 89GTX or R600 seems to be the thing.
~ Kris
Why is everyone drooling over the 8900GS?
8800GTS 320mb > 8900GS
And by the time the GS is out, the GTS 320 will probably be the same price.
ya thats what ive been thinking too.. im so confused, i just want to see the benchmarks already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Cuz it's 80nm with 10% higher core clocks, has 512MB VRAM while, if the information is correct, still being priced ~$100 lower than the 320MB 88GTS version. (From 88GTS 640MB @ $400+ remove ~$50 for 320MB. 89GS 512MB is $250 and 256MB is $200.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
Now that's a very good deal seeing the only drawback compared to the 88GTS 320 is "only" -20% peak theoretical bandwidth. As the 89GS 512MB offers 60% more memory, 10% higher core clocks, ~30% lower price, hopefully runs cooler and overclocks better due to 80nm, you gotta admit it's a fine bargain. You could even put two of these in SLI (if nVidia ever gets it's driver act together, which it should've by the time 8950GX2 comes around) and get some nice, relatively cheap performance for the price of a single 89GTS.
~ Kris
You are forgetting that the GTS is 320-bit and the GS is only 256-bit. That is why the memory is in multiples of 256, 512 instead of 320, 640.
The EVGA "Superclocked" 8800GTS 320mb is $299 right now. It is clocked at 576/1700 with a 1350 shader clock. I don't see the 8900GS beating it price/performance wise, especially considering the expected release price is the same, at $299 at which time the 8800GTS will be cheaper. We will have to see what happens.
Come on people what Nvidia is doing?
Do they really think can still be the market leader?
The G8 specs are a joke.....
Care to explain why you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
I just was expecting Nvidia would make front to ATI and face it. What I see is that they are standing back. Don't you see it? Check both numbers again and see what both are offering to its customers, so doing that you will see what is the black sheep. Yeah right got it.
GPUs and chipsets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Metroid
They don't think! They are.Quote:
Do they really think can still be the market leader?
:rolleyes: What do you mean?Quote:
The G8 specs are a joke.....
Chips that have no competition and are performing more than 500 gigaflops are a joke?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gOJDO
You really did not understand anything. There is no reply to you.
....
Who was this directed at? If it's at me, now that's the sort of comment that upsets as I clearly did NOT forget about that fact, if you had actually read my post. Now, try to go read it this time. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
You are quite right here about prices, MSRP for 88GTS 320MB is $20-$50 lower than I thought (MSRP is indeed $329-$299, not $350 as I claimed ... on a side note, I'm not sure why the MSRP is specified as a price range?). My bad.Quote:
The EVGA "Superclocked" 8800GTS 320mb is $299 right now. It is clocked at 576/1700 with a 1350 shader clock. I don't see the 8900GS beating it price/performance wise, especially considering the expected release price is the same, at $299 at which time the 8800GTS will be cheaper. We will have to see what happens.
As for "Superclocked" (factory/stock overclocked) versions, you really didn't notice how they've managed to show up for every other card in the 8xxx series as well? Just like always? I bet a cookie there'll be at least one stock overclocked version of 89GS (be it eVGA, XFX, BFG or whatever), want part of that action? :p:
Anything G80 @ 90nm can do, 80nm should do better. (Of course this could turn out wrong, if nVidia or TSMC screws up something with the 80nm process, but why then release 89GTX and 8950GX2 with 80nm cores?)
At the end of the day, it'll probably end up at whether you wanna pay $50 more for a lower clocked, hotter-running core (surely you agree this makes sense), with 37.5% less memory ironically providing 25% extra bandwidth.
Where the extra 192MB memory isn't being utilized, the 88GTS 320MB will certainly shine as the better card. (Unless 80nm process turns out to be really something.) However, as last gen's cards offered 512MB and this gen offers 768MB already, and is even set for 1024MB (R600XTX), 320MB probably won't be enough in all scenarios (i.e. newer games with high-res textures, or modern games with some eye-candy applied). On the other hand, nVidia's cards have traditionally been much better than ATI's at handling on-board memory-limitations. So it may be that 88GTS 320MB is better even here, and although I doubt it, only future will tell.
Either way, I still think 89GS value is just excellent.
Sorry for the long post.
Metroid, lol, that's one problem with attitude you got there man.
~ Kris
Price/performance ratio...8900GS is a winner, if specs are correct.
Exactly! also 8900GS is 80nm and have very better OC ability + so many cooler than 8800GTSQuote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dower