My performance simulation of GeForce 9800GX2

http://i16.tinypic.com/6pg6kis.jpg
2x GeForce GTS-512, Two mobos with nForce 780i SLI - my today test rig.

http://i13.tinypic.com/6pjjw9t.png

http://i12.tinypic.com/8bhr34n.png

http://i1.tinypic.com/8c3l5qc.png

http://i3.tinypic.com/6jvwzzp.png

I am testing two GeForce 8800 GTS-512 now, during this test i can to test "supposed" future performance of GeForce 9800GX2 ... i think.

GeForce 9800GX2 is two 8800-512 PCB together, but clocks of GPU a MEMs will be lowest, because heat. I underclock GPU/MEM from 650/1940 to 550/1800 in SLI and now i am testing games with. You can see results in first game ...

Complete review in Czech language ...
http://www.pctuning.cz/index.php?opt...9959&Itemid=44

Direct link to Tests - graph dont need a translation ...
http://www.pctuning.cz/index.php?opt...1&limitstart=5

Dont get it,you post an unreal/estimated benchmark?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fatal Error

Dont get it,you post an unreal/estimated benchmark?

---

He is just running underclocked 8800GTS 512MB SLI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

He is just running underclocked 8800GTS 512MB SLI

---

Yes, it is measured score of underclocked GTS-512 SLI ...

gx2 is supposed to be 30% faster than the ultra

Indeed the GX2 is "rumored" to be 30% faster then the Ultra.

But from what your "simulations" say, Its about -30%

So Maybe they have something up their sleeve, Maybe its the G90 based and not G92.

Who knows. Why try to take guesses now. We can't do that till we have the card in hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fcry64

gx2 is supposed to be 30% faster than the ultra

---

:rofl: K10 was supposed to be 40% faster than conroe:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Simulations based on speculation based on rumors posted as news, this is getting better and better :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

Indeed the GX2 is "rumored" to be 30% faster then the Ultra.

But from what your "simulations" say, Its about -30%

So Maybe they have something up their sleeve, Maybe its the G90 based and not G92.

Who knows. Why try to take guesses now. We can't do that till we have the card in hand.

---

Score is lower only in low resolution ... look at 1920x1200 ... and Crysis game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OBR

Score is lower only in low resolution ... look at 1920x1200 ... and Crysis game!

---

uhhh? so?

I'm pretty sure Nvidia would release a 30% overall then 30% in select apps / settings.

warboy what are you talking about

g80 640mb gts beats g92 512mb gt on very high resolutions with aa/af
but the g92 gt STOMPS the g80 640mb on lower resolutions.

it has to do with vram

you forgot one thing, the 9800gx2 will have 16lanes for 2 cards, so each gpu will have 8 lanes only, so itll be even slower than that :D

So a little off center but Which 780i board do you like?
the
EVGA - Very hard to find
XFX - looks exactly like Evga and pops up every now and then
ASUS- is always available?

which board do would you get to run your dual 8800 GTS 512

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lev

warboy what are you talking about

g80 640mb gts beats g92 512mb gt on very high resolutions with aa/af
but the g92 gt STOMPS the g80 640mb on lower resolutions.

it has to do with vram

---

You clearly do not understand. That wasn't the point of topic.

We're talking about pure performance. I never said anything about the 8800GTS G80 based cards.

While it is highly speculative, I like the thought process here.

8800GTS 512 SLI slower than 8800GT SLI? :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fcry64

gx2 is supposed to be 30% faster than the ultra

---

Sli was also supposed to be almost double the performance and look where we are know.I think hardware is way ahead of software i will all depend on the drivers.

Interesting prediction, lets see what turns up in the wash.

lol, i find it somehow amusing that you put "geforce 9800gx2"-tag in these graphs. i mean, someone who just sees these pics will be like "OMFG, they benched a 9800gx2 and it sux ass!"...

could very well be mixed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

Indeed the GX2 is "rumored" to be 30% faster then the Ultra.

But from what your "simulations" say, Its about -30%

.

---

?????

all testes the 9800GX2 its faster than ULTRA , the only test i see where Ultra its faster its in Bioshock @ 1280x1024


Bioshock @ 1280x1024

Ultra = 134 FPS

8900GX2 = 124 Fps

-7%


Bioshock @ 1600x1200

Ultra = 92 Fps

9800GX2 = 102 Fps

+ 11%


Bioshock @ 1920x1200

Ultra = 86 Fps

8900GX2 = 96 Fps

+12%



Crysis @ 1920x1200

Ultra = 26 Fps

8900GX2 = 37 Fps

+ 42%


regards

Thanks for this "9800GX2" tests :]
40fps in Crysis @1920x1200.Uh..not bad I think :DBut AF and AA is 0 :{
w/e,Crysis graphics is beastly and the best now with its CryEngine2.

Nvidia is losing its edge. Hopefully ATI's dual gpu solution is much better in scailing. I think it will be.

Wait, isn't the 9800 GTX nothing more then a 8800 GTX die shrink?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBull78

Nvidia is losing its edge. Hopefully ATI's dual gpu solution is much better in scailing. I think it will be.

---

Remember, this was just a simulation, not real results. :stick:

9800gtx is a 8800gts g92 but with higher clocks afaik

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eastcoasthandle

Wait, isn't the 9800 GTX nothing more then a 8800 GTX die shrink?

---

i think its more like a 8800GS 512mb die shrink (g92) instead of (G80) die shrink. But anyways, this thing does not deserve the *98XX name series, its not new architecture, we want new chip, we want G100 or g98 whatever the hell its called..

But still, nice little "preview" but this is based on what we know, im sure nvidia has something more than a die shrink on its hands to at least have a product that deserves its place in the high end market.

Some one should compare 7950GX2 to underclocked 7900GTX SLI to see if they will follow the same pattern

Nice simulation, but I would imagine that 9800GX2 would only shine and be "30%" faster than Ultra only in AA/AF performance.

And with BioShock, I don't think it's a quality benchmark to show the performance difference since you have to test manually with FRAPs. Any possible chance to show CoH, WIC and Lost Planet with built-in benchmarks.

You can show framerate with Rivatuner.

benchmark should be calculated in timedemos so the exact same frames are being rendered by different hardware, but still overall it gives a good overview

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

You can show framerate with Rivatuner.

---

But BioShock still requires manually run of the app, it doesn't have timedemo function built in. So the results aren't exactly perfect since you have now introduced human errors in the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thephenom

But BioShock still requires manually run of the app, it doesn't have timedemo function built in. So the results aren't exactly perfect since you have now introduced human errors in the equation.

---

All you have to do is save the game at the point you which to measure performance.

Hit "Continue" and load up the game each time. Don't move, just take down the numbers. It is a very repeatable procedure, with no variables to account for unless a Splicer happens to walk on screen, which is unlikely. If that happened though, the test would be repeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnJoY

Remember, this was just a simulation, not real results. :stick:

---

Thanks for reminding me. But just like with the last gx2 the performance was less then what 2x same cards did in pure SLI mode. So this simulation is probably withing %3 of what to expect when it finally comes out. My guess it'll cost around 599 dollars and no smart buyer would even consider buying this card considering the alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedBull78

Thanks for reminding me. But just like with the last gx2 the performance was less then what 2x same cards did in pure SLI mode. So this simulation is probably withing %3 of what to expect when it finally comes out. My guess it'll cost around 599 dollars and no smart buyer would even consider buying this card considering the alternatives.

---

Which is why he underclocked both cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

All you have to do is save the game at the point you which to measure performance.

Hit "Continue" and load up the game each time. Don't move, just take down the numbers. It is a very repeatable procedure, with no variables to account for unless a Splicer happens to walk on screen, which is unlikely. If that happened though, the test would be repeated.

---

I guess that would be a test with little variant, but I personally still prefer timedemo that gives you a good average performance of the game being tested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

9800gtx is a 8800gts g92 but with higher clocks afaik

---

Only 3 things are known about the D9E(which is assumed to be the 9800GTX).

1.) 512bit bus(this alone should make quite the difference)
2.) 32 rops(see 1). AA will be a breeze for this thing.
3.) 65nm

It's assumed to also be the 1-tflop core NVidia talked about last year.

I don't think that's a 8800GTS G92 with higher clocks. It may be based on that design, but the memory bus alone tells us it cannot be the same core.

As for the 9800GX2, I'm not thinking it's going to be the flagship from nvidia. Either that, or because NVidia doesn't fear the 3870x2 they're just sitting on the D9E for now and will release it as a 9900. Why play the ace of spades when the queen will still win the book?

nvidia loosing its touch? you got to be kidding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAR

nvidia loosing its touch? you got to be kidding.

---

They aren't, this is just the effect of a lack of competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

you forgot one thing, the 9800gx2 will have 16lanes for 2 cards, so each gpu will have 8 lanes only, so itll be even slower than that :D

---

thats what i was thinking too..

i guess 2x 8800 in 8x PCIe could simulate that

cool simulation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

you forgot one thing, the 9800gx2 will have 16lanes for 2 cards, so each gpu will have 8 lanes only, so itll be even slower than that :D

---

16x lanes PCIe 2.0 has bandwidth like t16+16 PCIe 1.1! Dont forget on PCIe 2.0! On this chipset and cards!

How Is This News?!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Only 3 things are known about the D9E(which is assumed to be the 9800GTX).

1.) 512bit bus(this alone should make quite the difference)
2.) 32 rops(see 1). AA will be a breeze for this thing.
3.) 65nm

It's assumed to also be the 1-tflop core NVidia talked about last year.

I don't think that's a 8800GTS G92 with higher clocks. It may be based on that design, but the memory bus alone tells us it cannot be the same core.

As for the 9800GX2, I'm not thinking it's going to be the flagship from nvidia. Either that, or because NVidia doesn't fear the 3870x2 they're just sitting on the D9E for now and will release it as a 9900. Why play the ace of spades when the queen will still win the book?

---

well who says g92 doesnt have more rops and a 512bit bus? :D
the yields are probabaly just not there yet, hence they started with 8800gt, then 8800gts and soon the top parts will be 8800gtx g92 and the rest will be 8800gts and gt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OBR

16x lanes PCIe 2.0 has bandwidth like t16+16 PCIe 1.1! Dont forget on PCIe 2.0! On this chipset and cards!

---

but 8800 is already pciE 2.0 isnt it?
so its still the same... the gx2 will have half the chipset/ram/cpu bandwidth of a real sli solution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

but 8800 is already pciE 2.0 isnt it?
so its still the same... the gx2 will have half the chipset/ram/cpu bandwidth of a real sli solution

---

but no effect on performance, just look at the 8800gtx, pcie1.0 and similard scaling as 8800gt in SLI ;)

pcie x8 2.0 = pciex16 1.0

i bet that the 9800gx2 will be the first card with lower performance on pcie 1.0 mobos :yepp:

I really don't understand why all the benches are without AA. I mean does anyone on here play with no AA if they could?
Cool simulation regardless. Nvidia are only competing with themselves at the moment.

benches updated ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generics_user

but no effect on performance, just look at the 8800gtx, pcie1.0 and similard scaling as 8800gt in SLI ;)

pcie x8 2.0 = pciex16 1.0

i bet that the 9800gx2 will be the first card with lower performance on pcie 1.0 mobos :yepp:

---

so you mean pciE 2.0 16 is too much bandwidth hence no scaling and pciE 2.0 8x is the same as 16x pciE 1.0 so it should be enough?

i dont think so... dont forget that the top scores with sli are with oced pciE bus to increase the b/w... so 16x pciE 1.0 is definately not enough to supply enough bw to even 1 card, let alone 2! hence 8x pciE 2.0 wont be anough for 1 card either... so 16x 2.0 wont be anough for 2.

all speculation, but thats using logic looking at results we know.
im pretty sure 9800gx2 will b slower than 2 8800gt/gts cards with the same specs and clockspeeds but each card having full 16x b/w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

all speculation, but thats using logic looking at results we know.
im pretty sure 9800gx2 will b slower than 2 8800gt/gts cards with the same specs and clockspeeds but each card having full 16x b/w

---

Yeah, because that i underclocked cards ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

so you mean pciE 2.0 16 is too much bandwidth hence no scaling and pciE 2.0 8x is the same as 16x pciE 1.0 so it should be enough?

i dont think so... dont forget that the top scores with sli are with oced pciE bus to increase the b/w... so 16x pciE 1.0 is definately not enough to supply enough bw to even 1 card, let alone 2! hence 8x pciE 2.0 wont be anough for 1 card either... so 16x 2.0 wont be anough for 2.

all speculation, but thats using logic looking at results we know.
im pretty sure 9800gx2 will b slower than 2 8800gt/gts cards with the same specs and clockspeeds but each card having full 16x b/w

---

According to several reviews, the 8x pcie 1.0 versions have plenty of bandwidth except for o/c'd Ultras and SLI configs. 16x and 16x X2 are PLENTY of bandwidth for every card under every condition possible. The best part about pcie 2.0 right now is the increase in power to the slot. Until cards start maxing out 16x bandwidth, the extra it gives is useless.

Kind of like ATI's decision to bring dx10.1 and sm4.1 in their cards now when its only a minor update......and an update that wont even be out until SP1 is officially released....and devs wont even be using these features until at least the end of 08 into 09.

Can anyone tell I HATED that ATI tried to market those features?!?!? :rofl:

Man I like the theory behind your tests, I certainly do... But I truely beleive the Card itself will have a fair amount of variation to your findings. Its not that your doing anything wrong, but i think if nvidia wanted people to get results like this, they would have just left it to people to have 2 GTS to use.

Not everyone has a SLI mobo though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devious

Not everyone has a SLI mobo though.

---

Yer thats good point... I guess I am actually hoping that this card preforms a bit better than this to be honest.

Just get good drivers, 512-bit interface (is that 256+256 for cards, no?), and 1GB of memory, underclock all you want, and leave it to the Xtreme guys to get good cooling, clock it way up.

And thats how it should be done.
Atleast, that's what she said.

ah no, actually the cards don't double their bitrate and memory amount. The card will still run at 256bit with 512mb of memory. Unfortunately with SLI you cannot double them, the specs for one card is what is used for them both when running, they are just running parallel to each other.

why would u unerclock? they reduced the size of the gpu to lower heat out put. my money is that the clocks will be the same if not a little higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cantankerous

ah no, actually the cards don't double their bitrate and memory amount. The card will still run at 256bit with 512mb of memory. Unfortunately with SLI you cannot double them, the specs for one card is what is used for them both when running, they are just running parallel to each other.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MuffinFlavored

Just get good drivers, 512-bit interface (is that 256+256 for cards, no?), and 1GB of memory, underclock all you want, and leave it to the Xtreme guys to get good cooling, clock it way up.

And thats how it should be done.
Atleast, that's what she said.

---

The Card is Rumored to have Full 512bit with 1GB of Memory, Its not shared from my understanding.

Why ppl can't wait...? :rolleyes:

9800GTX will not be a 'new' chip. It will still be a G92 but this time FULLY unlocked, probably with 144 or 160 shaders and 24 ROPs (384bit ram) + even higher default clocks.

G80 has 690Million transistors (including the 9 million in the NVIO chip)
G92 has 754Million transistors but the current 8800GTS only has 16 ROPs compared to 24 on the G80.

This makes no sense, why would NV make a chip that is basically identical to the G80 design with 64 Million extra transistors but 8 less ROPs??

Sure, the G92 has double the TMUs of G80, but if you look at the 7800GTX vs 7900GTX; they have identical chip functionality but 7800GTX is 302 million transistors vs 278 million in the 7900GTX!! Nvidia was able to shave 24 million transistors off the 7800GTX while keeping all the features. I have no doubt that they were able to pull off a similar trick with the G80 vs G92 since they had about a year to work on the design.

Obviously, there are still some parts of the G92 chip that are still hard locked. This would also explain why there are such delays with supplying G92 chips for the 8800GT and 8800GTS because each chip is being binned so thoroughly. It also makes more sense this way because designing a new chip specifically for the 9800GTX line would be too costly especially since it's one of the ultra high end cards and volumes will be very low.

Nvidia is very smart taking this approach because it gives the highest yields possible. With the RV670 chip, if only 319 of the 320 shaders are working, then the whole chip is useless and scrapped. With the G92 chip, if all the shaders work, they bin it as a 9800GTX, if only 129 of them work: 8800GTS, if 113 of them work: 8800GT and if only 97 of them work: 8800GS! Very few wasted chips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

The Card is Rumored to have Full 512bit with 1GB of Memory, Its not shared from my understanding.

---

You are correct - that's rumors. technologicaly this is not possible with current implementation. it still remains 2x256bit and 2xwhatever-memory-amount-per-card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EnJoY

Remember, this was just a simulation, not real results. :stick:

---

You are damn right:up: . We shouldn´t throw punches over a simulation, wait until these 9800 cards to hit the retail shops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPolice

9800GTX will not be a 'new' chip. It will still be a G92 but this time FULLY unlocked, probably with 144 or 160 shaders and 24 ROPs (384bit ram) + even higher default clocks.

G80 has 690Million transistors (including the 9 million in the NVIO chip)
G92 has 754Million transistors but the current 8800GTS only has 16 ROPs compared to 24 on the G80.

This makes no sense, why would NV make a chip that is basically identical to the G80 design with 64 Million extra transistors but 8 less ROPs??

Sure, the G92 has double the TMUs of G80, but if you look at the 7800GTX vs 7900GTX; they have identical chip functionality but 7800GTX is 302 million transistors vs 278 million in the 7900GTX!! Nvidia was able to shave 24 million transistors off the 7800GTX while keeping all the features. I have no doubt that they were able to pull off a similar trick with the G80 vs G92 since they had about a year to work on the design.

Obviously, there are still some parts of the G92 chip that are still hard locked. This would also explain why there are such delays with supplying G92 chips for the 8800GT and 8800GTS because each chip is being binned so thoroughly. It also makes more sense this way because designing a new chip specifically for the 9800GTX line would be too costly especially since it's one of the ultra high end cards and volumes will be very low.

Nvidia is very smart taking this approach because it gives the highest yields possible. With the RV670 chip, if only 319 of the 320 shaders are working, then the whole chip is useless and scrapped. With the G92 chip, if all the shaders work, they bin it as a 9800GTX, if only 129 of them work: 8800GTS, if 113 of them work: 8800GT and if only 97 of them work: 8800GS! Very few wasted chips.

---

I hope that's true, and it would make sense, but I thought the G92 was 128SP's max unless they derived another chip from it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

According to several reviews, the 8x pcie 1.0 versions have plenty of bandwidth except for o/c'd Ultras and SLI configs. 16x and 16x X2 are PLENTY of bandwidth for every card under every condition possible. The best part about pcie 2.0 right now is the increase in power to the slot. Until cards start maxing out 16x bandwidth, the extra it gives is useless.

Kind of like ATI's decision to bring dx10.1 and sm4.1 in their cards now when its only a minor update......and an update that wont even be out until SP1 is officially released....and devs wont even be using these features until at least the end of 08 into 09.

Can anyone tell I HATED that ATI tried to market those features?!?!? :rofl:

---

yeah, the difference is small, but people here go nuts if they find a way to gain 0.1% extra performance... we can only guess what the difference from 2x16 2.0 and 1x 16 2.0 is for 2 cards in sli, but id say its 1-5% depending on the app. and if you use professional apps like 3dmax and catia then you DO see big differences between pciE 16 and 8 and pciE 1.0 and 2.0 afaik.

about dx10.1... afaik it only makes some features of dx10.0 mandatory... its just atis way of showing off that they support 1 or 2 features nvidia doesnt or doesnt guarantee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HKPolice

With the RV670 chip, if only 319 of the 320 shaders are working, then the whole chip is useless and scrapped.

---

that doesnt make much sense, why would ati throw away gpus? :confused:
im sure they are recycled and used as something else.
and what makes you think rv670 only has 320 shader processors after all? ;)
i wouldnt be surprised if it has 360-400 shader processors overall

about g92, i think it has more than 128 stream processors...
and H and other sources already confirmed this:

Quote:

---

256 Stream Processors Total

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

about g92, i think it has more than 128 stream processors...
and H and other sources already confirmed this:

---

I thought they meant the 9800GX2 would have 256 SP's total, which is correct if it is 2 x 8800GTS-512 (full G92) cores put together, as that's 2 x 128...

It's the same as saying there's 1GB of RAM when it's really just 2 x 512MB's, 512 for each core

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

I hope that's true, and it would make sense, but I thought the G92 was 128SP's max unless they derived another chip from it

---

Ya well everyone thought that G92 only had 112SPs when 8800GT first came out :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah, the difference is small, but people here go nuts if they find a way to gain 0.1% extra performance... we can only guess what the difference from 2x16 2.0 and 1x 16 2.0 is for 2 cards in sli, but id say its 1-5% depending on the app. and if you use professional apps like 3dmax and catia then you DO see big differences between pciE 16 and 8 and pciE 1.0 and 2.0 afaik.

about dx10.1... afaik it only makes some features of dx10.0 mandatory... its just atis way of showing off that they support 1 or 2 features nvidia doesnt or doesnt guarantee


that doesnt make much sense, why would ati throw away gpus? :confused:
im sure they are recycled and used as something else.
and what makes you think rv670 only has 320 shader processors after all? ;)
i wouldnt be surprised if it has 360-400 shader processors overall

about g92, i think it has more than 128 stream processors...
and H and other sources already confirmed this:

---

Uhhh do you even understand how chips are made? Not every single chip on a wafer of silicon is perfect. Many of them have defects so parts of the chip have to be disabled or the whole chip gets thrown away if there are too many defects.

There are no other ATi cards based on the RV670 chip that has fewer shaders than 320. Maybe they're saving up all the defective chips with less than 320 shaders and ATi might release a lower end card using these chips later, but so far there has been nothing.

H only confirmed that the 9800GX2 has 256 shaders, NOT the 9800GTX. You are confused.

Quote:

---

Ya well everyone thought that G92 only had 112SPs when 8800GT first came out

---

Uh who thought it was just 112SP? I sure as hell didn't, and most people knew that they wouldn't cut the real SP down from 128, which was what the 8800GTX had. After all, if G92 is a derivative of G80, why would they cut SP's?

And most reviewers and people who went to the unveiling knew that the architecture was mostly the same, and knew it was still 128 but had parts disabled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warboy

The Card is Rumored to have Full 512bit with 1GB of Memory, Its not shared from my understanding.

---

If it's anything like the 7950GX2, it's not shared.

Current GPU architecture and design hasn't gotten around that yet. We'll see what R700 does though, if it lives up to all its hype

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

If it's anything like the 7950GX2, it's not shared.

Current GPU architecture and design hasn't gotten around that yet. We'll see what R700 does though, if it lives up to all its hype

---

Yes I know, But If it really does have a 512bit bus, and 1GB memory. Then It will be a 8800GTX/Ultra killer.

I think, 9800GTX will still be a G92. It has 128 SP, 64 TMUs, 768MB Ram 384 bits, 24 ROPs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

8800GTS 512 SLI slower than 8800GT SLI? :eek:

---

Didn't see that ? one of us needs glasses or a bigger screen :)

Secondly I hope the driver support for the 8800X2 is better than the 7950x2 I had, as it really was slower in many games than my 7900GTX....

Do you like the Asus OBR ? might sell my Maximus and go for the P5N-T Dlx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

Didn't see that ? one of us needs glasses or a bigger screen :)

---

I was talking about the simulation, 8800GTS 512 SLI with lowered clocks to match future 9800GX2 specifications... One of us seems to need interpretation lessons :rolleyes:

First, in the simulation is slower than 8800GT SLI and 8800GTS 512 SLI. Second, NVIDIA will suck in the driver development, so maybe we will see even more perfomance hit. All of this 9800GX2 crap looks like exists only to face the 3870X2, at marketing level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bakalu

I think, 9800GTX will still be a G92. It has 128 SP, 64 TMUs, 768MB Ram 384 bits, 24 ROPs.

---

no, 512mbit ram per gpu only afaik... makes sense, to get more mem you basically have to pay 2x as much as with a normal videocard cause the mem isnt shared. so when going from 512mb to 1024mb for a single card means 50$ extra, but for a dual card it would mean 100$ extra...

but its dissapointing... i thought the gx2 is supposed to be a high end card, the fastest possible card... well for that you would expect at least 768mb per gpu to have reasonable fps at high res with high aa. a 256 vs 512 vs 1024 compare has already shown that at high res plus high aa 1024mb per g92 gpu means fps bosts of 50%+ ...

Thanks for the benches, any idea where crossfire 2900xt 512MB's will fit in there? Got them 16x16x, I can do my own benching, but config is different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR

IOne of us seems to need interpretation lessons :rolleyes:

---

Really not much to interpret from that phrase "Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR : 8800GTS 512 SLI slower than 8800GT SLI ? " :shrug: : I'm just a belgian , you know from that country where we had elections and 140 days later we still don't have a real government lol...
Just a joke mate I knew what ya ment.

On topic now : another thread came up, at Tomshardware ( reliable or not) this card is posted to hit the shelves at a retail price of 450 dollars ???? lol my 8800GTS 512 is outdated again and it didn't even reach my house looooooooooooooool

Link to that news (no review though nor performance) here :

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=172440

Could that price be real ? This card could do some heavy pounding in SLI config on the 3dmarks... if they get their drivers sorted and hopefully most games will support it... ( heavy doubts there though)

first post updated - link to complete review ...in Czech, but graphs dont need a translation ...

So this is your review on that site now...?

I thought it was other reviews of the REAL card...thats what I think everyone wants. (though thank you for testing in this manner).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jas420221

So this is your review on that site now...?

I thought it was other reviews of the REAL card...thats what I think everyone wants. (though thank you for testing in this manner).

---

Official launch date of GX2 is 14.2.2007! Nothing REAL can be published, before this day ... next week will NVIDIA officially introduce new cards in Germany ... only for some journalists ...

my test is only small prediction ...

Lets hope we see some leaked benches of the 'real' card before that time.. Thank god it comes out well before my step up is over.

Whats the rumored MSRP? If its $450, its mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah, the difference is small, but people here go nuts if they find a way to gain 0.1% extra performance... we can only guess what the difference from 2x16 2.0 and 1x 16 2.0 is for 2 cards in sli, but id say its 1-5% depending on the app. and if you use professional apps like 3dmax and catia then you DO see big differences between pciE 16 and 8 and pciE 1.0 and 2.0 afaik.

about dx10.1... afaik it only makes some features of dx10.0 mandatory... its just atis way of showing off that they support 1 or 2 features nvidia doesnt or doesnt guarantee

---

Id say its nothing...here is why I think that way.

Lets say you have a 1" diameter garden hose that allows 1 gallon /second flow through it (pcie 16x 1.0), but your spicket only can send .8 gallons /second (8800ultra). Then you go to the store and buy a 1.5" garden hose that allows 1.5 gallon /second (pcie 16x 2.0) and attach it to the same spicket that can only send .8 gallons /second. Do you think b/c its a bigger hose (bandwidth) it will somehow send more water than possible??? I dont think so. Point is, 8800U isnt tapping the bandwidth of 16x yet, sooooooo would it matter if that same slot has more bandwidth?

RE: ATI's marketing and your statement...yeah, I hate that. I know I am an educated consumer but it pisses me off that they flaunt those new features when they wont even be used until 09 likely. ATI irritated me when they had those 4 free games or w/e sold with the 2900xt. Funny thing was, only 2 of them could be played in May, the others werent unlockable until october. Sillyness!