Printable View
X1650XT was looking good in benchies too...until we found out that on 1280x1024 with AA and AF, even crossfire couldn't help the 128-bit bus from crapping up the frame rates...Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
It has less to do with what we're expecting, and more to do with what we've seen so far with 128-bit cards.
Perkam
That....0....3....score.....
I don't get it, it's just awful. :confused:
Well, my 7600GT still shines :D, i got 14k+ in 03 with crappier CPU ( P4 3 ghz).
wtf... those 8600GT scores don't encourage me to buy one. (at least for DX9).
our friend coolaler made some tests with 8600GTS compared with 7900GTX
Quote:
System:
- Intel Core 2 QX6700 (quad-core a 2.66GHz)
- Asus Striker Extreme (Nforce 680i SLI)
- 2GB de DDR2-667:
Results
7900 GTX (CPU Default)
http://img11.picsplace.to/img10/24/79266.JPG
8600 GTS (default CPU)
http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/27/5938.JPG
7900 GTX (CPU @ 2.94GHz)
http://img11.picsplace.to/img10/24/79293.JPG
8600 GTS (CPU @ 2.94GHz)
http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/27/293.JPG
OC VGA & CPU Deafult
730MHz (core) & 2200MHz(memory)
http://img11.picsplace.to/img10/24/oc730_000.JPG
OC 800MHz core & 2332MHz memory
http://img11.picsplace.to/img10/24/oc800.JPG
:thumbsup:
^^^^ after seeing some detailed OC action , the only good thing about that card is the small single slot design
ther have been alot of cards that did wel in 3dmark and sucked at gaming and the other way around.
id love to see some reliable 8600 benches of FEAR, Oblivion and so on.
Why do people always expect the new midrange cards to stomp on last gens high end? I dont think Ive ever seen that happen.
With that said, This is about what I expected. Equal or less than yesterdays top end. FX5500 was only better than Ti4600 in DX9... Wait I take that back haha.
exactly what i saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Jimmer411
W T H ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?
Crazy stuff 0_0...However, the SM3 is still weak.
Perkam
Quote:
Nvidia G84 and G86 delayed
NVIDIA APPEARS TO need a respin both G84 and G86 to A03 silicon. Not much more to say: buggy, needs more time, and it will most likely delay the April 17 launch. If the firm does launch it on April 17, it will be a soft launch, not the usual hard variety.
Fonte:http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38500
If this is true maybe related with this older new :
Quote:
Geforce 8600 GT has a bios problem
CEBIT 2007 EXCLUSIVE: Might delay the card in stores
A well educated, talkative people have informed us that Geforce 8600GT actually have a problem. It is not that critical but G84 based Geforce 8600GT has a bios problem.
Nvidia is working to fix it and if all goes well it wont affect the launch at all. Geforce 8600 GTS are bug free and are getting ready for rock and role.
Nvidia is ready to rock and role these sub $200 cards and these ones will goes against RV630 based cards X2600 ones scheduled for May. If all goes well for Nvidia, you wont even know that the problem existed.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...d=180&Itemid=1
regrds
Well, you are bouth wrong. 7600GT was performing like a 6800GT/Ultra AND on default settings. Overclocked 7600GT overperformed old 6800<whatever> untill you up the AA levels above 2...Needless to say, upping AA levels above 2 in middle range segment is expected not to work too good :D I had bouth 6800GT (@Ultra + oc) and 7600GT and GT was faster in every aspect. Comparing FX5500 to ti4600 is not fair. Compare 5700fx to it - that's fair ! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by aintz
Personally I think 8600GTS just needs 256bit bus, nothing more, that will put it's performance up just about enough to be very it is supposed to be (in consumers opinion, not nVidia's, who obviosly has a stock pile of 79xx leftovers to sell...)
Regards ;)
Geforce 6800 Ultra had been out since April 2004 before the 7600 came out at March 2006 23 months later.Quote:
Originally Posted by gx-x
The 7900 GTX is just barely a year old, it's a bit early for a new generation mid range to be outperforming the previous generation high end given the time disreprency. The actual correct card that the 8600 GTS should be outperforming is the June 2005 7800 GTX 256 and indeed it does as the 8600 GTS has 7950 GT level performance levels.
Well, the first card that should be compared against the Ti4800/4600 is the FX 5600 Ultra, then 5600 Ultra Rev.2, then finally FX 5700 Ultra. The Ti4600 is generally stronger then the FX 5600 Ultra, but the Ti Series gets stomped easily when you apply AF/AA.
The FX 5700 Ultra is the card that finally ties the 4600 in no AA/AF scenarios and stomps it silly when AA/AF is applied, however this card has "aggressive AF optimizations" vs the pure AF the NV2x series used. :D
The Ti4600 was introduced back in February 2002, with the FX 5600 Ultra in January 2003, Rev.2 in September, finally FX 5700 Ultra in October 2003, so your talking a 20 months difference before a true successor emerged that had Ti4600 performance for $199. And generational cycles were shorter back then as opposed to now.
well, yeah, because theres 20+ month difference between 7600 / 6800... :) Also, I don't think we should bother with time distance between cards, we should look at series, price segment, and technology. I just said that 7600GT is/was better standing in its segment than 8600GTS i going to be. Why would I, as a consumer, care about that 7900GTX is barelly a year old ? I would rather say than that it was half a year too late ;)
anyway, my point WAS (and IS) that 7600GT isn't slower than 6800GT and that FX5500 isn't in segment where 6600GT was, where 7600GT is...rather it's 5700 or 5600 (thanks for mentioning it, I forggot about that one :) ). They all did a better, or at least the same job as the top of the line predecessors on default (otherwise we could compare 64mb version of ti4200 to ti4800....).
facts ARE
1. 6600GT on default worked LOT faster than prevoius gen. 5900ultra (clock ultra how much you like, 6600GT is better on default, not to mention o/c)
2. 7600GT on default is better than 6800GT on default. Clock 6800GT and clock 7600GT, 7600 is faster, not to mention PS performance in games such COD2...
Now, I was expecting to se 8600GTS on default to be as fast as 7900GTX on default, and 8600GT to be as fast as 7900GT...AT LEAST 8600GTS to be as fast as 7950GT...at least ! (default). I doubt that the card will be less than 200 euros on launch, in my country proly even ~230€, and for that money I can buy way way faster card. DX10 is not immporatant anyway since there are no games yet..blah blah...etc etc. Even if there were any, in DX10 mode with eyecandy 8600GTS would proly be useless because of 128bit bus...blah blah, blah blah. :)
edit / PS. Just one more thing: people that are mostly going to buy 8600GTS/GT ussualy can't afford (or don;t want to) core 2 duo, FX-es and ultra fast RAM. You are looking at people that have venice 3000+ or intel presscots @3.8ghz or less, 1 GB RAM etc.8600 will perform even worse on those machines. I just said so you can take into consideration. Someone with venice 3000+ would be probably better of with x1950xt 256mb or 7900GT than with 8600... Think DX10 = Vista, think 1gb @ Vista + DX10 gaming on venice3000+ and 8600GT...Sure, Worms armagedon with dx10 patch will run uber cool :D
No there isn't the 6800 Ultra was released April 2004, the 7800 GTX was released June 2005, your looking at only a 14 month difference. I have no idea where 20 month+ came from. Time difference is a very important issue, when looking at things in perspective, Nvidia had already said that they wanted to go on longer product cycles, so this is the fruit of that. You get performance upgrades over time but don't expect the mainstream to double the high end each generation. The fact that you as a consumer care nothing of the time issue, will force you to make a choice you will have to like the 8600 GTS eventually as supplies of Nvidia 7900's and ATI's X1900/X1950 hardware continue to deminish.Quote:
Originally Posted by gx-x
I already addressed the FX 5500 issue.
The 6600 GT better then the FX 5900 Series was no surprise given the NV3x known Pixel Shader 2.0 problems. So it was a little better then it should have been, if NV3x had indeed had a decent Pixel Shader 2.0 implementation things would have been different.
The time disparity between the 6800 GT and 7600 GT is massive, so a major upgrade for the mainstream was in order and long overdue.
The 8600 GTS is exactly where I expected it to be, about 1/2 the 3D Mark 2k6 score at 7950 GT levels.
There are sometimes better deals to be had from the older generation then getting a new generation card, look at the X850 Series clear out from ATi, sometimes for the time being it was better to get something based on X850 XT then the 7600 GT.
A 7950 GT may or may not be a better deal then the 8600 GTS, it has poorer image quality in the AF department, and can't do OpenEXR HDR + AA.
A X1950 Pro, maybe a decent deal compared to the 8600 GTS, we will have to see on that one.
Lower processing power won't be a big deal as you don't need as much to max out a card based on 7950 GT performance levels.
It is doubtful at best at this time that the 8600 GTS can play any DX10 game at more then 10x7 most likely. But that is expected of first generation hardware for a new API, how well can you play FarCry on a Radeon 9500 Pro/Radeon 9600 Pro? But at least you have the option of running the DX10 features, or the older DX9 pathway and the G8x hardware is quite efficient running DX9 games as you can see so far.
The 8600 GTS is designed to be a cheaper to produce variant on the 7950 GT, same performance, better marketable feature set, cheaper 128Bit PCB, lower die size, what's not to like at Nvidia corp? :D "DX10 for $199!" Benefits to Nvidia take precedence over benefits to you.
Same argument of comparing a just introduced cards price to established cards pricing, they aren't comparable as they aren't normalized, but at introduction it is entirely possible the fire sale of older hardware would provide better value then the newer hardware before normalization occurs.
I'm waiting for final benchs but things not looking good for 8600...
Why do you want to see two years old benchmark for the DX10 cards?Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
The thing that I am most concerned with is the 8600's lack of ability to scale well with added CPU peformance. Thats an indication atleast to me that it is pretty well maxed out and will do poorly with games that use heavy filtering.
Seeing what I do now Id say ATi has a real chance of putting the hurt on nVidia's midrange for the first time since the 9600 era if they can come up with a card that offers close to x1900gt type peformance ie 7k 06.
yes, if you think gamma AA is worthless, that PS3.0 is nothing more than mambo-jambo, and of course in time games like R6 Vegas and SC:DA showed up and made X850XT and X8xx series obsolite :)Quote:
Originally Posted by coldpower27
It can't physically RUN HDR+AA with decent framerate even if it could render it, so no biggy there. Same goes for 8600. It is like having a 1200cc 50hpQuote:
Originally Posted by coldpower27
car with 300km/h engraved on a dial...Means nothing, just an "eye-candy" ;)
I can see 8800GTS and GTX running them well, but I can see my radeon X1900XT oc-ed to hell producing ~30 sometimes even bellow 20 fps in R6 vegas with most settings on high, and shadows on medium (12x10 res, 8xAF). I can only imagine how 8600GTS will run it...or better yet - not run it. same goes for the games that are going to come with ever more stressing demands, and for some older games too...But, you get what you pay for. I am not planning on buying 8600GTS anyway. I was planning on getting SLi option but that was at time when rumors had it it will be 256bit bus...Quote:
But at least you have the option of running the DX10 features, or the older DX9 pathway and the G8x hardware is quite efficient running DX9 games as you can see so far.
yes, it is, and I agree with you. :) What good would be then, dx10 card in the middle segment , if it can't run 1280x1024 (new dx10 games), which is the minimum resolution used on most sites that do test and reviews ? 12x10 is some sort of "standard" these days... Again -reamins to be seen in real game tests. If it does not deliver more than it delivers in DX9 than ...well...Quote:
It is doubtful at best at this time that the 8600 GTS can play any DX10 game at more then 10x7
well, 128bit bus on 7600GT showed us that 2xAA is maximum for it. It couldn't even do 2xAA in Q4 with smooth fps all the time. I doubt you can say the 256bit bus on 7950GT and 128 bit one on 8600 can be compared on anything else than default clocks and playing with no AA at all. BUT , it stil remains to be seen in real games. Maybe 128bit bus won't choke AA as much as it did on 7600GT.Quote:
The 8600 GTS is designed to be a cheaper to produce variant on the 7950 GT, same performance,
I think I can smell something like 8800GT/LE on the way... there is too much of a gap between 8600GTS and 8800GTS...
@Nedjo:
Whats wrong with mark2005 ? It is old, but it's not like mark2006 is DX10 benchmark...
Oh wait...OMG you're so right...ty man, i'm gonna throw away ALL my dx9 games tomorrow...and dang those ET:QW and UT 2007 preorders all have to go too !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
That was such an eye opening comment :)
Perkam
From I have seen, the 8600gts is fast such my old 7800gtx 256mb (in 3d mark '06 the results are similar)
Nvidia have wrong choise with her 128bit bus. For this cards the bus ought to be 256bit for me!
Now we only have to wait for the end of april and see how all new cards from Nvidia and Ati will perform and then make a choise,right?:cool:
Chill out Perk!Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Honestly do you believe that GFX's that are coming two years after 3DM05 will deliver lower performance in comparison with the last gen that served you well in your pile of DX9 games??
;)
Eh? you make it sound like your pile of dx10 games is higher than 1/10th my pile of dx9 games...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
Perkam