You better look at those again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
Printable View
You better look at those again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmad
At some point long ago, it seemed like I would never see 60fps in 3DMark2006 in my lifetime. That little old 9800pro of mine could barely run half of it. 6800GT much better but still small score.
12000+ is absolutely incredible. And, I'm sure everybody is eager to find out what the crossfire version is capable of.
crossfire version?
i want to see these pupies well maddogs in quadfather quad sli
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt Twitchy
that means that the Geforce 8 has the same diagonal between the drillings as the 6800/7800/7900/7950 series?
Yeah I was about to say I almost think this 8800 GTX will be like the 7800 GTX.........then the big guns follow. I can almost smell that 8950 GX2 around the corner. Considering they say the 8800 GTX already beats the 7950 GX2 I can only imagine what that will be like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gag3
Considering C2D and now this stuff has arrived I wonder when the games catch up? Heck I would think this 8800 GTX already could handle Oblivion single handedly.
I was going to jump on one at release now I think I am going to let prices drop. Heck the GT version may prove to OC well and give almost the same performance for much less cash. Time will tell.
Well, ok - I'm sure you know what you're doing. FYI, historically, you know that prices take long time to errode, and often even increase after initial release. No significant price shakeup typically happens till there's an update to the product line... and let me get this out loud and clear - "8900" will only come after many many (re >6) months.Quote:
Originally Posted by malficar
For reference lookup time differences:
7800->7900
5800->6800
GF3->GF4 etc...
please dont assume just because X1800->X1900 come in rapid succession (big exception in normal trend) that all of a sudden all video card companies will do that... if anything, as designs increase in complexity, they have been calling for longer design times/intervals.
does the fact that its 10/31 and no one knows what the hell a 8800gt is seem a little disconcerting?
i mean, we know what the 8800gtx and gts is going to be...
I do remember the card cycles. I remember folks paying near 600usd for a 7800 GTX on release and overclocked 7800 GTs following not far behind for 399usd. They eventually further dropped in price.
I've seen this sort of behavior with the 6800s, 7800s, and 7900s. An uber flagship card is released and not too far down the road a card right below said card in power releases for a much better price. That is price vs performance. You could certainly contrast the 7900 GTX with the 7900 GTO.
The mid high cards often overclock as well as the flagship and deliver darn near the same performance. Yes 7900 GTX SLi is faster than 7900 GT SLi and often the provided FPS is superfluous. Particularly in the case of resolutions @ or below 1600x.
If you are wondering about VISTA I am going to wait for that to be released and patched for a bit. Right now I don't need a new buggy OS.
If I couldn't run my current demanding games at the resolution I wished with filtering I'd certainly snatch up an 8800 GTX on release. As is, I am going to let prices settle and see how they compare to the mid high cards, 8800 GTS was it?
Not that big difference coz it is only 2k between core 2 quad and FX62 and at low resolution it is usually cpu dependentQuote:
Originally Posted by Gnome
________
free drupal themes
Dude, its "3Dmark06".. CPU tests are included into the score. If the results were any different I would be shocked and horrified. Yet, this tells you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about how well G80 scales in games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnome
1. You're using general statement "CPU-dependent".. since in computer system CPU is master, and video card slave... video card is ALWAYS CPU dependent.
2. You're using 3DMark2006.. actual results in various games across broad spectrum of genres will vary drastically.
3. Even if the game tests in 3DMark2006 actually mimiced some game, you're using total score distored by CPU tests. You're not comparing g1 to g1 with low vs high clocked cpu.
4. And even if you actually had real world games mimicing 3DMark2006 AND you were carefuling comparing the scores... you're testing at 1280x1024. I highly doubt people will pull out life savings on 8800GTX to play at that resolution.
5. And ofcourse all this tells us absolutely nothing about AA or AF performance (especially new techniques and higher modes)
6. Or how well G80 can perform more challenging techniques that are not included in 3DMark2006, but which developers will surely highlight as the next big thing...
7. Or what we can expect from DX10 titles for that matter (since 3DMark2006 is dx9c)
...
Oh and by all means I'm not bashing specifically at Futuremark and their software.. just reminding folks here not to let their imagination run crazy attempting to "extrapolate" and sensationalize.
IMHO:
I'll give you advice weeks in advance before you get your 8800's... if you're "cpu-limited" and not "scaling" well... you're not running high enough resultion and settings.. 24" LCD is your friend ;)
I'm just waiting for the final release. Although these may be really close to the release ones, that we can purchase, I would still rather wait and see the truth. So far, Nvidia is winning. They have two cards that out-perform the bet ATI has toi offer, as of the release date of the 8800GTX. Possibly 3.
Victor was that bench done with driver defaults, aka quality or high performance?Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorWang
People are comparing benches with other cards to this and many bench high performance driver settings with massively OCed cards then compare this to the 8800 @ stock using quality settings in 06. Doesn't seem sensical to me because the 8800s performance can be inflated in the same manner.
For the record, 06 with both driver and application @ default using various graphics cards supported by a X6800 @ stock:
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/6...all1280ke7.gif
Source:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4...o/index.x?pg=9