Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345
Results 101 to 114 of 114

Thread: "8800GT effect" not with GTX 460, but with GTX 465

  1. #101
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    146
    Ok,Guys Make no mistake.Effect of 8800gt was the last Effect.no matter what nvidia can do again.AMd & ATI learned everything from Past and Will not allow to repeat event.
    CPU : Athlon X2 7850,Clock:3000 at 1.20 | Mobo : Biostar TA790GX A2+ Rev 5.1 | PSU : Green GP535A | VGA : Sapphire 5770 Clock:910,Memory:1300 | Memory : Patriot 2x2 GB DDR2 800 CL 5-5-5-15 | LCD : AOC 931Sw

  2. #102
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,750
    Quote Originally Posted by behrouz View Post
    Ok,Guys Make no mistake.Effect of 8800gt was the last Effect.no matter what nvidia can do again.AMd & ATI learned everything from Past and Will not allow to repeat event.
    the effect has nothing to do with the quality of the card, its as simple as timing it with consoles, most games run well on a 8800gt, because they were built to run on hardware half as good that were put into a ps3 and 360

  3. #103
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    244
    GTX465 die:


    Performance:
    Farcry 2 1920x1200 8x AA Max:54fps
    Crysis Warhead 1920x1200 VHQ 4x AA:19.9fps
    3Dmark Vantage:X5741
    Heaven Benchmark 2.0 1920x1200 4xAA:18.8fps

    Source:
    http://translate.google.com/translat...sl=zh-CN&tl=en

  4. #104
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    31,147
    thx for the link!

    Quote Originally Posted by mindfury View Post
    Farcry 2 1920x1200 8x AA Max:54fps
    ~10% better than a 285
    Quote Originally Posted by mindfury View Post
    Crysis Warhead 1920x1200 VHQ 4x AA:19.9fps
    ~same as gtx285
    Quote Originally Posted by mindfury View Post
    3Dmark Vantage:X5741
    ~10% slower than a 285
    Quote Originally Posted by mindfury View Post
    Heaven Benchmark 2.0 1920x1200 4xAA:18.8fps
    ~25% slower than a 5850

    sounds like its going to be a gtx275 with dx11 pretty much...
    maybe this is why nvidia EOLd gt200 cards (pretty much) cause they planned to replace them with the cut down gf100 chips...

    any infos about ocing and unlocking?
    Last edited by saaya; 05-13-2010 at 05:34 AM.

  5. #105
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Istantinople
    Posts
    1,574
    Sucks much? It looks slower than a 5830 which is already horribly overpriced but is cheaper than this?

    This should be priced at $200 max, not $250, if these are true!
    Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?
    INTEL Core i7 920 // ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 // OCZ 3G1600 6GB // POWERCOLOR HD5970 // Cooler Master HAF 932 // Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme // SAMSUNG T260 26"

  6. #106
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,207
    Quote Originally Posted by annihilat0r View Post
    Sucks much? It looks slower than a 5830 which is already horribly overpriced but is cheaper than this?

    This should be priced at $200 max, not $250, if these are true!
    Man if this is true I wondered what happened. I mean, it has close to 50% more shaders than the gtx 285, yet it performs the same. What has NV done this new generation.
    Core i7 920@ 4.66ghz(H2O)
    6gb OCZ platinum
    4870x2 + 4890 in Trifire
    2*640 WD Blacks
    750GB Seagate.

  7. #107
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    Man if this is true I wondered what happened. I mean, it has close to 50% more shaders than the gtx 285, yet it performs the same. What has NV done this new generation.

    forgot to add the magic goblin powder????

  8. #108
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Where the Cheese Heads Reside
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by RejZoR View Post
    211W TDP. Auch. HD5850 only has 151W...
    And waht did the 8800GT use? Like 135Watts max?
    -=The Gamer=-
    MSI Z68A-GD65 (G3) | i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz | 1.3875V | 28C Idle / 65C Load (LinX)
    8Gig G.Skill Ripjaw PC3-12800 9-9-9-24 @ 1600Mhz w/ 1.5V | TR Ultra eXtreme 120 w/ 2 Fans
    Sapphire 7950 VaporX 1150/1500 w/ 1.2V/1.5V | 32C Idle / 64C Load | 2x 128Gig Crucial M4 SSD's
    BitFenix Shinobi Window Case | SilverStone DA750 | Dell 2405FPW 24" Screen
    -=The Server=-
    Synology DS1511+ | Dual Core 1.8Ghz CPU | 30C Idle / 38C Load
    3 Gig PC2-6400 | 3x Samsung F4 2TB Raid5 | 2x Samsung F4 2TB
    Heat

  9. #109
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    31,147
    Quote Originally Posted by tajoh111 View Post
    Man if this is true I wondered what happened. I mean, it has close to 50% more shaders than the gtx 285, yet it performs the same. What has NV done this new generation.
    yeah, it really does seem odd, doesnt it...
    it probably has to do with how they moved the blocks around and tied them together... and ive said it before, i think texturing is what holds gf100 back, they cut down tmus too much...

    xbitlabs:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...gtx400_17.html
    If we don’t separate gaming graphics cards into single- and multi-GPU ones, the Radeon HD 5970 still remains the king of the hill. The GeForce GTX 480 cannot match it, especially at 2560x1600. Here are the numbers: the GeForce GTX 480 is an average 3% slower at 1600x900, 9% slower at 1920x1080 and as much as 22% slower at 2560x1600. The gap is even as large as 45% in certain tests. The explanation is simple: even the senior model of the new series has a main domain frequency of only 700 MHz. Besides, the number of TMUs has been reduced from 80 in the G200b to 60 in the GF100 whereas the Radeon HD 5970 has 160 TMUs up and running.
    i read somewhere that the tmus in gf100 work more efficiently, but even then... everything else got doubled up while the tmu perf remained about the same or only increased a little.
    and thats a full blown gf100, if a 465 only has 30tmus active then its actually surprising to see that it still beats a 285 with 80tmus, if only by a little...
    Compared to the previous generation, the weaker TMU subsystem only shows up in Wolfenstein OpenGL (gtx470=27%slower than a gtx285). The GeForce GTX 470 is on average 30% faster than the GeForce GTX 285.
    i disagree though, it does show in other games as well, but not as much... im sure the reason the 470 is only 1-8% faster than a gtx285 in a few games is a result of the tmus as well... just cause2, metro2033, and dirt2 for example seem to all be texturing heavy... and thats where the 470 is barely faster than a 285.

    The bottleneck of the GF100 architecture – the low main domain frequency and the cut-down TMU subsystem (the GeForce GTX 470 has only 56 TMUs) – shows up most clearly at 2560x1600. In six out of the 15 tests the GeForce GTX 470 is more than 15% slower than the Radeon HD 5870.
    the performance is still good, i wouldnt really see that as the main issue, the problem is price perf... for 200$ this would be a great card, especially if it overclocks well and can maybe even get some extra units unlocked...
    but if you can get a 470 or 5850 for around 350$, and a 5770 for 180$, then why would anybody spend 300$ on a 460?
    Last edited by saaya; 05-13-2010 at 10:52 PM.

  10. #110
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Europe/Slovenia/Ljubljana
    Posts
    1,540
    Quote Originally Posted by deathman20 View Post
    And waht did the 8800GT use? Like 135Watts max?
    It could have. But was like 3 times slower than HD5850. For a 20W difference.
    Intel Core i7 920 4 GHz | 18 GB DDR3 1600 MHz | ASUS Rampage II Gene | GIGABYTE HD7950 3GB WindForce 3X | WD Caviar Black 2TB | Creative Sound Blaster Z | Altec Lansing MX5021 | Corsair HX750 | Lian Li PC-V354
    Super silent cooling powered by (((Noiseblocker)))

  11. #111
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    244
    GTX465:
    Core 607Mhz
    352 shader 1215Mhz
    256bit GDDR5 3206MHz


    Benchmarks:
    Dirt2

    Metro2033

    S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat

    Aliens vs Predator

    3Dmark Vantage P(PhysX on)

    Crysis Warhead

    Farcry 2

    Tom Clancy's HAWX
    Last edited by mindfury; 05-19-2010 at 08:12 AM.

  12. #112
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    France - Bx
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks mindfury

    This card seems to fail really hard ...

  13. #113
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    9,060
    Quote Originally Posted by Olivon View Post
    Thanks mindfury

    This card seems to fail really hard ...
    Maybe the pricing will help it. If not - God help this card get sold, haha.
    Donate to XS forums
    Quote Originally Posted by jayhall0315 View Post
    If you are really extreme, you never let informed facts or the scientific method hold you back from your journey to the wrong answer.

  14. #114
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7,750
    i think its a good thing they didnt put a 5850 on the charts, would have scared too many people

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •