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.

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