NVIDIA 8600GT and 8600GTS Pictured

[perkam]

Judging by the 7600GT's performance, I have high hopes for the 8600GT/GTS, if only because I know Nvidia's consistency will further deter ATI from disappointing fans of the radeon series that want to see a competitive product (x1600xt fiasco).

Perkam

[squilliam]

Ignoring the fact that the 8600 is a DX10 card right

If I stick a sticker on my last poop that says "DX10" on it, would you buy it?
If not, I'd say "Oi! Mate! but it says DX10 on it, so why not?"

[perkam]

If I stick a sticker on my last poop that says "DX10" on it, would you buy it?
If not, I'd say "Oi! Mate! but it says DX10 on it, so why not?"

If the 8600GT is a successor to the 7600GT, as the 7600 was to the 6600, then we'll be expecting at least a ~8-10 fps increase in 1280x1024 and lower resolutions, which is quite substantial when you factor in the ability to render dx10 effects.

We'll be expecting 7900GT/X1950Pro performance from both the 8600GT and the X2600XT...so its going to be far from calling it poop.

Perkam

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

I figure with DX10 being some estimated 40% more efficient by cutting out most of the middleman software, the cuts on performance should be made in the core, not the memory or memory bandwidth. After all, we're still dealing with textures and such of the same magnitude.

Ryan

[Timmay]

If I stick a sticker on my last poop that says "DX10" on it, would you buy it?
If not, I'd say "Oi! Mate! but it says DX10 on it, so why not?"

So your saying that there will be no performance difference between a 6600 and a 8600 other then DX10

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

no, I think he was exagerrating his point in an attempt to remove the 'blur' of his point.

Ryan

[Timmay]

no, I think he was exagerrating his point in an attempt to remove the 'blur' of his point.

Ryan

It's like comparing a 1940's 1.8L 4Cyl car to a brand new 1.8l Honda VTEC, just because its the same size doesn't mean it hasn't been improved a lot.

[black_edition]

GeForce 8600 GTS & GT; Plain Outside But Lethal Inside




8600 GTS


8600 GT



Looks Plain On The Outside But Lethal Inside

NVIDIA DX10 offerings for the mainstream market are definitely not to be missed and we will be seeing them on display over at the CeBIT in 2 days time. NVIDIA is still right on schedule for G84 launch on April 17th thus beat ATi to deliver DX10 mainstream products. We took an early look on G84 in Feb and we saw some changes on the core clock when we revealed the specs earlier.

Now, the final core clock of 8600 GTS is at 675MHz while 8600 GT is at 540MHz, both lowered from the earlier specs we have seen. The memory clock for 8600 GTS stood at 1GHz using 1ns 256MB GDDR3 memories while memory clock for 8600 GT stood at 700MHz using 1.4ns GDDR3 memories. GeForce 8600 GTS has 8 layers PCB based on P401 design kit while 8600 GT has 6 layers PCB based on P402 design kit. 8600 GTS requires an additional power with the TDP at ~71W while 8600 GT which doesn't requires external power is rated at ~43W TDP.


As promised, we will provide you some glimpse on the performance of the upcoming GeForce 8600 GTS and 8600 GT graphics cards. On a Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor, GeForce 8600 GTS scored a pretty impressive 5,7xx pts in 3DMark06 which is slightly faster than the 7950GTwhile 8600 GT churned out 4,7xx pts in 3DMark06 overshadowing a 7900GS. It seems that a 128-bit memory interface is not stopping 8600 series from churning out some nice performance.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4775

[perkam]

Ty Black.

ATI, Nvidia has shown their hand, and the GTS is a full house as far as your x16xx series was concerned, pls do not dissappoint.

How other cards perform with X6800 Setup:



6k with small oc in 06 will be INSANE !!!

Perkam

[squilliam]

I was pointing to the fact that people were comparing the 6600 to the 8600.

I wanted to get it across to you that there is no comparison. Of course the 8600 isn't a crap card, but I'd like to see some evolution in the 2nd generation from the 6xxx series.

I wanted a bigger interface and a bigger amount of memory. i just think it is crap that they are trying to cut some corners by sticking us with something that could be better.

Alas, that is how things work in the world...

[perkam]

I was pointing to the fact that people were comparing the 6600 to the 8600.

I wanted to get it across to you that there is no comparison. Of course the 8600 isn't a crap card, but I'd like to see some evolution in the 2nd generation from the 6xxx series.

I wanted a bigger interface and a bigger amount of memory. i just think it is crap that they are trying to cut some corners by sticking us with something that could be better.

Alas, that is how things work in the world...

Then i guess you'd want the GDDR4 X2600XT

Perkam

[zakelwe]

If you want wider bandwidth for memory then get the 8800GTS, that's not that expensive now. These cards should be pretty cheap so you have to make sacrifices somewhere. As games go more shader based rather than textures then it would pay to concentrate on the gpu, but there will always be a trade off.

We need to see the benchmarks before saying the 128bit bus is a bad mistake for a midrange card.

Having said all that I am in no hurry to upgrade from 7900GS to one of these at the moment.

Regards
Andy

[kemo]

5.7K is almost 2.2-2.3K in both SM2 and SM3 just a hair behind 7900GS overclocked on air , so the question is how high will it go ?

[xlink]

Judging by the 7600GT's performance, I have high hopes for the 8600GT/GTS, if only because I know Nvidia's consistency will further deter ATI from disappointing fans of the radeon series that want to see a competitive product (x1600xt fiasco).

Perkam

uhh the x1600XT was somewhat decent...

it had 8 pipelines unlike the rest of the x1600s which had 4.

x1600XT and x1650XT both outperform the 7600GT

[xlink]

If you want wider bandwidth for memory then get the 8800GTS, that's not that expensive now. These cards should be pretty cheap so you have to make sacrifices somewhere. As games go more shader based rather than textures then it would pay to concentrate on the gpu, but there will always be a trade off.

We need to see the benchmarks before saying the 128bit bus is a bad mistake for a midrange card.

Having said all that I am in no hurry to upgrade from 7900GS to one of these at the moment.

Regards
Andy

by 6month agos standards, its a highend card though and there IS a diference

[XS2K]

Well the line-up is looking nice,and although in 3DMARK 06 a 8600GTS scores slightly higher than 7950GT in games that will require heavy shading power it will be over or ~ the same as 7900GTX since we know that the last Nvidia line-up didn't excel in that area.

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

what do stock clocked 8800gts and 8800gtx ring up?

Ryan

[perkam]

uhh the x1600XT was somewhat decent...

it had 8 pipelines unlike the rest of the x1600s which had 4.

x1600XT and x1650XT both outperform the 7600GT

xlink, consider yourself poked with one of these:



I had been waiting for ATI for 3 years now to come up with a mainstream solution as good as the X800GT, the x1600xt was utter crap and had 4 pipelines, the X1650XT had 8 yet still fell behind the 7600GT, and performance fell into unplayability even in crossfire when AA and AF was turned on, and it came out a year after the 7600GT, at which point in time the 1950pro was out, making it a worthless pos. I'm not going to ask you where you saw the x1600xt outperforming the 7600GT, because it was the biggest dissappointment from ATI in a LONG time, from the a company that gave us the 9600, a card to this day is better than the 7300.

Please don't talk to me about ATI's mainstream offerings in last two years, they've all sucked bar none.

Perkam

[Starscream]

uhh the x1600XT was somewhat decent...

it had 8 pipelines unlike the rest of the x1600s which had 4.

x1600XT and x1650XT both outperform the 7600GT

you shure about that?
i thought that the x1600XT had 4 pixel pipes with 3 shaders per pipe.
the diffrence being higher clocks and GDDR3.

and that only the X1650XT has 8 pixel pipes.

a further problem at launch being that several partners were kind of slow with launching the Xts and ofc the fact that at launch the X1600pro was barely faster then a 6600GT but cost way more in price.


anyway the last 2 gens ATi launched pretty bad mid-range cards (X700 and X1600) wich were beaten by Nvidias mid-range cards in price and performence.
months afterwarts ATi had good cards in the mid-range (X800GTO and X1650xt and X1900gt) but that was mostly to late for alot of customers.

so i also hope that this time around they do a good job from the start.

@perkam
ive never seena review but i kind of doubt that a 9600 can beat a 128bit 7300.

[perkam]

so i also hope that this time around they do a good job from the start.

Well with ATI now in AMD's hands, they'll have less opportunity pass off cards with that many defective pipes as a serious mainstream contender...Hector Ruiz pwnz Dave Orton when it comes to quality control.

Perkam

[XSAlliN]

That depends on many aspects, there still are people out there, that don't have 20+ Monitors and still go with a CRT, at 800x600 (32 Bit) most games (if not all) look more then decent and move alike with a X1600 (I own one so I talk about facts), now it's true that a GF7600 GT was better at that time, but some developers like Palit released an Hybrid like X1600 Pro with GDDR3 at 170$ wile a GF7600GT was 250$ (same as XT) - at that time 7600GS from Gainward wasn't available and the versions with GDDR2 weren't very promising - I made a comparison between this two - and even with 4 pipes the GDDR3 looked more promising, among 7600GS based on GDDR2 (at same price).

x1600XT and x1650XT both outperform the 7600GT

This is wrong, GF 7600GT was sometimes 20% - 30% better in FPS then the alternatives from ATi, but all depends on peoples needs and obsessions, cause I Honestly can't understand the people that like to play games at 1600x1200 with all at max, as an ex professional gamer (still am gamer, but not professional) I say 800x600 and 1024x768 at 32 bit is more then enough for a decent play if you own a CRT, on LCD-s 1280x1024 would be a native resolution and that's another point of view but 1600x1200 is insane, an obsession for max resolutions.

[CedricFP]

A slight OC will give you X1900XT power. Not bad at all.

[perkam]

I say 800x600 and 1024x768 at 32 bit is more then enough for a decent play if you own a CRT,

I dunno, now that futuremark will no longer honor those resolutions, as reviewers follow suit save for ones like firingsquad that still cover them, its pretty hard to avoid viewing 1280x1024 as the new minimum satisfactory resolution.

Not to mention that if one is looking for 30fps+ playability, he/she'll look at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf benchies at most when buying new hardware, even if on a budget, seeing as playability below that is irrelevant to most.

Perkam

[Cupcake]

Hopefully they will OC like the 7600s did

[FghtinIrshNvrDi]

yeah, I'm still at 1024x768... it's really a great gaming res for performance and price. Looks sharp on a 15" LCD.

Ryan