Geforce 9600GT Some Close Pics. & SLI Results

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7930/12224006wp3.jpg

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/1457/2225c804ay1.jpg

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/1328/52252c8fii8.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8434/3225154ehk3.jpg


Test System:
CPU: Intel C2D E6850 3.0GHz
- Mobo:nForce 680i SLI
- Ram: DDR2 800 1G*2
- Grap. Card : Geforce 9600GT*2
- OS: Windows Vista EN
- Drivers :171.16 beta

Tests:

3Dmark： 3Dmark03/05/06（1024*768 & 1280*1024）

-Game：

COH DX10/
COJ DX10/
PT DX10/
Bioshock DX10/
UT3 DX9/
NFS11 DX9/
COD 4 DX9 All games@(1280*1024）

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8...2268857jf2.jpg

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8...226eef0zo7.jpg

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/1244/21227f4f6cb5.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6...228e206iw6.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/1...229d455ac6.jpg

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8...22a7fe7sp2.jpg


One pic. is a bit blurry,sorry...

Looks like a great card, if priced well. Im wondering why is that card so damn long? Though, I doubt that the retail version will remain the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

Looks like a great card, if priced well. Im wondering why is that card so damn long? Though, I doubt that the retail version will remain the same.

---

Yes it's as long as the 8800GT.Strange for a midrange card.(it also uses aux. power)
The 8600GT was much smaller.

such a card already exists for some time.... ati 3850 now lets see what price range and power consumption this will be

I thought it was on a 128bit bandwidth...

this is a situation where tri-sli becomes interesting. whats 3x9600gt gonna cost, a little under $600?

Except it does not heve 2 SLI connectors, so max cards in SLI = 2
And so far SLI scales terribly bad, 10k vs 13k in 3dm06? thats like 30%? I guess its a driver problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xoqolatl

Except it does not heve 2 SLI connectors, so max cards in SLI = 2
And so far SLI scales terribly bad, 10k vs 13k in 3dm06? thats like 30%? I guess its a driver problem.

---

I guess CPU bottleneck, early drivers and overall bad design of SLI. :shrug:

This is looking good!

Cheers Absolut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calmatory

I guess CPU bottleneck, early drivers and overall bad design of SLI. :shrug:

---

Nope,the CPU is not a bottleneck,it's the way how the final mar06 score is calculated.SLI scales pretty good(but i think the CF with RV670 is still a little better in that department).

That single 06 score looks high considering it has 64sp rather than 128 of the 8800U. Maybe it is a misprint, hence why the SLi is 13k?

Regards

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Nope,the CPU is not a bottleneck,it's the way how the final mar06 score is calculated.SLI scales pretty good(but i think the CF with RV670 is still a little better in that department).

---

The CPU at 3Ghz is most certainly a bottleneck.

not for the 9600GT. If this Nvidia's new Architecture each shader might give better performance vs the old 8 series. The 10K in 06 does look a bit fishy. Core and shader clocks could be super high thus giving it a better scores at lower resolutions. Crank the res up and watch the score fall off quite a bit as raw shader power can not save the card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ..::ABSOLUT::..

Yes it's as long as the 8800GT.Strange for a midrange card.(it also uses aux. power)
The 8600GT was much smaller.

---

I guess PCI-e2 can deliver enough power for this card without extra PCI-E connector. But that the PCI-E connector is purely there to make shure that there is OC room and to make shure its Compatible with PCI-e boards.

And i guess the SLI scores suck cause of driver issues?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vengance_01

not for the 9600GT. If this Nvidia's new Architecture each shader might give better performance vs the old 8 series. The 10K in 06 does look a bit fishy. Core and shader clocks could be super high thus giving it a better scores at lower resolutions. Crank the res up and watch the score fall off quite a bit as raw shader power can not save the card.

---

Having 2 9600GT in SLI, a 3Ghz C2D is most certainly a bottleneck :rolleyes:

I hope the difference between the 9800s and the 9600s is the same as from 8800 to 8600

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

Having 2 9600GT in SLI, a 3Ghz C2D is most certainly a bottleneck :rolleyes:

---

prove it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xlink

I hope the difference between the 9800s and the 9600s is the same as from 8800 to 8600

---

Ha no way!! Then there GF9800 must be about 70-90% faster than GF8800:) Is it possible?? I don`t think so. IMO probably G100 will bring us such a big performance boost over G80.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halo112358

prove it.

---

*sigh*....as if the numbers for the SLI run weren't enough...... Seriously, if you think a 3Ghz C2D is enough to push the cards in SLI to their limit in 3Dmark...you have a LOT to learn about benchmarking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraptacularOne

*sigh*....as if the numbers for the SLI run weren't enough...... Seriously, if you think a 3Ghz C2D is enough to push the cards in SLI to their limit in 3Dmark...you have a LOT to learn about benchmarking.

---

I'm not asking for you to flame me, I'm asking for you to prove your statement.

Here's the deal, a single c2d running at 2.66ghz is fast enough that an 8800GTX is GPU bound. A single 9600GT is similar in speed to an 8800GTX, which means that a 9600GT should also be GPU bound.

I'm not as familiar with SLI setups and that's why I asked you to prove your statement, I want to know also.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by halo112358

I'm not asking for you to flame me, I'm asking for you to prove your statement.

Here's the deal, a single c2d running at 2.66ghz is fast enough that an 8800GTX is GPU bound. A single 9600GT is similar in speed to an 8800GTX, which means that a 9600GT should also be GPU bound.

I'm not as familiar with SLI setups and that's why I asked you to prove your statement, I want to know also.

---

I'm not flaming you, I'm educating you. And no a 2.66Ghz C2D is NOT enough to remove the CPU bottleneck from a 8800GTX. In the resolution that 3Dmark06 benches in (1280x1024) you will need a lot more CPU speed to realize the potential of a single 8800GTX.

Here is a simple test I did for you. One run at 2.66Ghz and another at 3.6Ghz. The 8800GTX remained at the same speed for both tests. Look at the difference in SM2 and SM3 scores. In the test with the higher speed CPU you'll notice that there is quite a difference. Why? because @ 2.66Ghz the CPU cannot feed the GPU enough data to have it run at full potential.

2.66Ghz
http://xs223.xs.to/xs223/08053/2.66ghz420.jpg.xs.jpg

3.6Ghz
http://xs223.xs.to/xs223/08053/3.6ghz630.jpg.xs.jpg

having a good cpu helps in 3dmark06, cause that is like a cpu bench nowadays, it cant really compare graphics cards anymore

VERY nice card, but it better be priced better than the 3850

do u guys think its faster than the 8800gts 320?
i think it just might be

nice benches craptacular one. Now I wonder if you have crysis installed, can you do the same tests using fraps or maybe the built in benchmark? :p: