9800GTX GPU-z screen shot and 3Dmark06 score

[leomax]

As far as compression algorithms & TMU's etc, G94 with 128SP is the G92.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._card/comments

Interesting,So does that imply G94 has the perfect ratio of everything (SP,ROP et all) as far as todays games are concerned.

[Kain665]

Well thats probably the biggest let down since the 5800s...

[alayashu]

they could easily transpose the optimizations from 9600s over to the 9800
series, but they chose not to do so. Only makes sense if they plan to launch
a new highend card on R700's launch, or maybe if their dual card solution gives
a really good boost (close to 2x) abroad most games. I really do not believe
1.5 years passed away in such a way, having cigars and eating bacon...

[Der_KHAN]

Welcome to the real world.

no! i refuse to accept it!

... guess i'm in the stage of denial, huh?

[Jowy Atreides]

this is probably useless to you? (i'm no gpu expert)

but here is the gpu-z of the 9600gt next to the 9800

[initialised]

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 )

Clock a G92 GTS to match it and find out.

[MayDay84]

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".

my score: 14047
9800GTX score: 14014

My CPU Score(3.0ghz B3 Q6600): 4651
Reviewed CPU Score(3.0ghz Q9650): 4597

9800GTX did better on the SM2.0 though

[FischOderAal]

no! i refuse to accept it!

... guess i'm in the stage of denial, huh?

look at my sig

"I reject your reality and substitute my own."

[zerazax]

My 8800 Ultra can handle every game in DX10 mode except Crysis at 2560 x 1600 just fine so I don't see why people keep saying 8800Ultra/GTX cant handle 1920 x 1200

[MayDay84]

My 8800 Ultra can handle every game in DX10 mode except Crysis at 2560 x 1600 just fine so I don't see why people keep saying 8800Ultra/GTX cant handle 1920 x 1200

That's true.. Ofcourse they can handle higher resos because of higher 384bit bus and large memory.. I just don't get the fact that Nvidia made 9800GTX only 256bit ..I bet 512bit bus and 1GB memory would have been a great partner with high clocked G92, but no, crap it shall be..

[veilsidebr]

9800GTX did better on the SM2.0 though

hehe indeed, but i think these are certainly shame scores expected from a new lineup-card, which should be improving over its past's child cards like 8800 and ultras, and not parking to the stand-still zero.

[DelaMaris]

Lame...

Can't be true.

[bf2142lol]

This is really disappointing. Lame.

[STaRGaZeR]

no! i refuse to accept it!

... guess i'm in the stage of denial, huh?

Not only you my friend, not only you...

Even ATI guys should be pissed off. Because if this card were what it was supposed to be, 3870s and 3870X2s would both lower their prices.

[takamishanoku]

If it's true (and why not, Expreview has a very good track record) then it's dissapointing only as far as the bandwidth/ram sense. Performance is still to be seen (i think it will still be blazingly fast if the 9600is anything to go by).

I just wish Nvidia would hurry up and release the Pixel Slut 5000.

[gillll]

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.

[fhpchris]

I just sold two 8800GTXs and an 8800 Ultra for this.

ing lame.

I could get that score with a 3850.

[Slay0r]

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.

Marketing move, ati/amd are in the 3xxx zone now, so nvidia kinda had to go up one.. what puzzles me is why it is a GTX, surely GS/GT woulda suited it better. That or the 8800GTS 512 should have been 9800GS or GT to be name-fair

That aside, I have seen 9600GT put up some good numbers in games with half the shader count the 9800GTX has, I'd really like to see more than a couple games tested before i make my mind up..

I just sold two 8800GTXs and an 8800 Ultra for this.

ing lame.

Ouch .

[STaRGaZeR]

I just sold two 8800GTXs and an 8800 Ultra for this.

ing lame.

I could get that score with a 3850.

That sucks.

[ShArKo]

Really it is disappointing to know that this new graphical card does not have the performance for that we we all were waiting. As they said before, nvidia guarding his better chips to have something with which to compete when ATI extracts his R700. It is useless that nvidia throw to the market now a plate that is so top to like 8800GTX/ULTRA when there is nothing that overcomes it. I believe that until ATI is not thrown(launched) to the market by his new generation of cards of video, we are not going to see the real ones "9800". Really it is disappointing to know that this it is the possible potential of 9800GTX, as you I was waiting for some kind of many advanced mas. It makes me happy not to have waited to 9800GTX and to know that my 8800GTS (that comes in way:p) it has almost the same performance.

[ownage]

i was wondering why nvidia named it 9800gtx and not 8900gtx.

8900gtx suits it much better.

Because of marketing. Why did ATI didn't call the RV670 the 2950series, but called them HD38xx series? ATI didn't want the 2950 naming because the 29xx series has a bad reputation. Nvidia on the other hand doesn't have a bad reputation problem, but the GF8 series is almost 1.5 years old. Introducing the GF9 series will be seen as bringing something completely new on the market and will boost the sales. Offcourse we won't fall for that, and call it pimped 8800 cards, but the average guy thinks its something new.

[gillll]

hehe.........oblivious is bliss ?

[cookerjc]

Updated a test with a QX9650@4GHz, so there are no more bottleneck..

[dengyong]

That makes it suck that much more.

[safan80]

Updated a test with a QX9650@4GHz, so there are no more bottleneck..

Thanks!

That makes it suck that much more.

at least you know how it will do.