of course not. Why would you think these cards are that powerful, there actually not.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
Printable View
of course not. Why would you think these cards are that powerful, there actually not.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
A card that scores 10k in 06 is not powerful?...*sigh* are you blind or just cannot read? 3Ghz C2D is a bottleneck for them it's plainly obvious from the score being only 13K in 06 with SLI.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
Flaming :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
Or they could have SLI issues with this card, the benchmark is inconclusive.
I beg to differ. It explains why 3DMark06 gets owned by the newer quads with the same cards as 6 months ago. People were saying that the 8800's were CPU limited since they came out. Well, at least in 3DM06. And he wasn't flaming, he was pointing out valid points.Quote:
Originally Posted by halo112358
Thanks for the test CraptacularOne. I just learned that I need to run my cpu faster playing crysis. :up:
Again, I wasn't flaming. What is your obsession with thinking that I am? Do you want me to flame you?Quote:
Originally Posted by halo112358
I am trying to point out that at 3Ghz a C2D is not pushing the new 9600GT to it's limit and at that speed it has absolutely no hope what so ever for pushing SLI 9600GT's even close to their limit.
The 13k SLI score gets bottlenecked by the CPU score. If you look at the singlecard SM2 and SM3 scores and compare it to the SLI SM2 and SM3 scores, you see much less bottleneck. 3Dmark06 is just stupid, its to cpu depended.
SM2 and SM3 scores are good, but if both scores are over 5000, and the cpu score is 2600, then the scores goes down.
Look at this again, http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8...22a7fe7sp2.jpg
No bottleneck in other benchmarks.
nope, and i would choose everytime a G80 core based 8800GTS then 64su 9600GT :]Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
It might not be faster at stock speeds, but no doubt that this thing (with it's 65nm process) will oc up the ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
I agree, looks like the best midrange card ever made by nv, very different from the jump from 7600GT to 8600GT/S crap :yepp:.My next card probablyQuote:
Originally Posted by GAR
To me, it seems the 9600GT is right between the 3870 and 8800gt
Releasing it, would kill the sale of 8x00 series (especially all the pos 8x00 256MB cards)
Question:
Why the hell is the GPU shimless?!?!
dif between conroe CPU @3.0Ghz and 3.6Ghz is like 100-200 points when using an 8800GTS 640.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
so I am thinking ti's the otherway around.
If you looked at CraptacularOne's post on page 1 you'd have noticed that simply raising the CPU from 2.66 to 3.6GHz increases the SM2 & SM3 scores. It's either the CPU or the FSB holding the card back by not passing the data to it fast enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
Thanks for CPUs being way too slow compared to GPUs. Besides, 3DMark was never meant to be a "GPU bench".Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
Well... I started to think about this "CPU bottleneck"-issue more deeply. This could be proven by someone who has similar card with similar CPU speed. Raise the CPU speed by 20%, then see the difference, then do the sme to GPU, Vmem and shaders and see which gives the biggest boost. Of course the CPU speed affects SM2/SM3 scores, it always does. The other thing is how MUCH it affects.
More and more I suspect bad drivers being the problem. Though, 100% more GPU power would require 100% more CPU power, that would show the efficiency of SLI, without major bottlenecks.
Given it's high stock clocks (650) and weak cooling, I really doubt that.Quote:
Originally Posted by fragmasterMax
The 8800GT (600) and even more so the GS (575?) and the old G80-GTS (510?)
have more oc'ing headroom; the old G80 also has better cooling. G92 is also
65nm, and with their lower clocks I think they'll clock much higher in %-s.
yeah cpu is a limiting factor for sli in SOME games....or is that most games?Quote:
I am trying to point out that at 3Ghz a C2D is not pushing the new 9600GT to it's limit and at that speed it has absolutely no hope what so ever for pushing SLI 9600GT's even close to their limit.
im assuming graphics power limits crysis performance (but that is a guess, but is it also cpu bound? i dunno)
sli cards are useful when AA and AF are on and higher res just to make a generalisation....
the higher the grfx settings the less cpu bound you become.
My medieval 2 needs more cpu power :( AND graphics power...so in this case i'd say that it is grfx AND cpu bound
9600gt looks like an appealing cheapy dual card idea;any results around for tri sli with 3x 9600gt?
yes 9600gt with decent cooler will appear surely from some vendor or other i'd have thought.
...all these cards are quite capable of running majority of games at decent settings; the difference only comes in at res above 16x12 and or with higher aa and af.
2x9600gt costs a mere 100 ish aussie bucks less than an 8800gtX, and i believe, as has been proven in various threads, that the GTX is the better performer still :)
so i say false economy sli-wise(but im forgetting the 24-30inch res dudes, they probly need the gfx powa), but a nice little perfomer in a single card setup to be sure.
so, it's all just more of the same.
not even tri sli will dig you out of the crysis hole in my opinion, but i havent seen figures of that yet....well cos 3 x 9600gt's are probly roughly equal in price to 1 single ultra; someone prolly already knows which one will win in a 9600gt x 3 (...780i boardy...) vs 1 x ultra...?
IT IS NEVER ENUF....so you spend a fortune on multigpu crapola :lol:
OR IT IS TOO MUCH...and you tweak your settings and live with a cheaper grfx solution, get great fps and pretty good grfx quality;) :)