GeForce 9900 GTX & GTS Slated For July Launch

[msgclb]

but the test showing 8800gt at 4x 16x 1600x1200 in crysis and 34 fps @ high settings is a farkin joke...id say more like <20fps at those settings.

20-25 fps @1280x1024 with 4xAA roughly.

They are using the same test system to benchmark each video card. I would think you can use each group of benchmarks to judge how one card would scale to another card. There's no way you can judge those benchmarks to what we get on our systems.

I ran the following Crysis test:

EVGA 780i
Q6600 @ 3150 MHz
EVGA 8800 GT SC (2x) SLI
Crysis Benchmarking on Vista 64
Timedemo: benchmark_gpu
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15

Those setting wouldn't be playable with my system. The only component that I have in common with the Techpowerup test system is the PSU.

[Hornet331]

They are using the same test system to benchmark each video card. I would think you can use each group of benchmarks to judge how one card would scale to another card. There's no way you can judge those benchmarks to what we get on our systems.

I ran the following Crysis test:

EVGA 780i
Q6600 @ 3150 MHz
EVGA 8800 GT SC (2x) SLI
Crysis Benchmarking on Vista 64
Timedemo: benchmark_gpu
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15

Those setting wouldn't be playable with my system. The only component that I have in common with the Techpowerup test system is the PSU.

afaik wizzard also uses a custom time demo for crysis testing so higher fps then with the build in test are possible.

[Rammsteiner]

http://www.azerty.nl/8-160-80998/engtx280-htdp-1gb.html

516 Euro.
GTX 260 is 354 Euro

[perkam]

http://www.azerty.nl/8-160-80998/engtx280-htdp-1gb.html

516 Euro.

That's probably the only website with such low prices. Everywhere else its 550 Euro. Plus the POV edition with 700 on the clocks will be 600 Euro.

Also, I have NO idea wtf you guys are talking about. The GTX 280 was never meant to be 2x the 8800 Ultra or the GTX

It's a monster of a card and will only get better from here on out. ATI is in NO WAY any form of clear.

Pekram

[RPGWiZaRD]

Also, I have NO idea wtf you guys are talking about. The GTX 280 was never meant to be 2x the 8800 Ultra or the GTX

It's a monster of a card and will only get better from here on out. ATI is in NO WAY any form of clear.

Pekram

It's just for that price ($650 USD) people expect it to perform according to the pricetag, and it seems like HD4850 might put a 9800GTX run for it's money so I bet HD4870 will perform somewhere between 9800GTX and 9800GX2 depending on game it might be even very close or par with 9800GX2 and that with a pricetag of $350. Now if GTX 280 only performs about par with 9800GX2 or slightly better than it who would pay so much more money for so little extra performance?

I personally hope GTX 280 will perform not only par or slightly better than 9800GX2 but significantly better to make it worth that $650 pricetag as otherwise a pricedrop is to be expected and the INQ's $500 pricetag would sound more reasonable but yea I don't have much faith in those Techpowerup's faked or leaked numbers or whatever, so to me GTX 280 performance is still wide open mystery.

Just saying it doesn't suprise me people expect that much performance boost out of these cards.

[mascaras]

Now if GTX 280 only performs about par with 9800GX2 or slightly better than it who would pay so much more money for so little extra performance?

I personally hope GTX 280 will perform not only par or slightly better than 9800GX2 but significantly better to make it worth that $650 pricetag as otherwise a pricedrop is to be expected and the INQ's $500 pricetag would sound more reasonable but yea I don't have much faith in those Techpowerup's faked or leaked numbers or whatever, so to me GTX 280 performance is still wide open mystery.

even if is just a litle extra performance , but :


GTX280 is single GPU >> no problems/compatibility with any game , no stutering , 100&#37; "clean" & smoother in all Games !


9800GX2 also has more performance than 8800GTX/ULTRA , however we see lots of gamers choosing 8800GTX/ULTRA because is single GPU


regards

[RPGWiZaRD]

litle extra performance and :


GTX280 single GPU >> no problems in any game , no stutering , etc


regards

Yea well that alone isn't worth paying $150 for imo, rich bastards yep but in general that wouldn't cut it as we have to remember every person aren't that much aware of the stuttering or the very various results with GX2 depending on game etc.

EDIT: Yes like hipno650 explained above if taken into account all that it surely gives a benefit with the GTX 280 but NVIDIA can't expect the card to get sold for those reasons alone, many buying decisions are made up from reviews where pure performance numbers are checked, not how it behaves in reality hench why I'd expect a price drop if performance is close or par with 9800GX2 and HD 4870 comes closer than expected.

[[XC] hipno650]

people forget. yes it may have only a little faster numbers than the 9800gx2 but the 9800gx2 does have microstuddering. so ya the FPS is within 1-5FPS of each other but the real in game feel is more like 15FPS off. and at higher resolutions and AA settings the lead only grows. not to mention the drivers that will be coming out. and yes a 4850 crossfire will give similar FPS to the GTX 280 but then your limited to a X38 or X48 (maybe P45) chipset, you have microstuddering so again the GTX280 will run smoother and faster you have to deal with crossfire which IS NOT supported in all games and has some issues in other with glitches and artifacting, also some review still show crossfire in windows XP to yield low gains in games like crysis. the powerconsumption should be similar but the 4850's may be a tad more hunger, also heat goes back into your case with the 4850 stock cooler so that becomes an issue. the 4850's also do not have the features of the CUDA platform so you get no Ageia Physics support and lower support for other programs like video editing software and such. Crossfire and SLI are just not ideal solutions and when you can get similar performance from a SINGLE card as well more features. the way i see it the GTX 280 is being downplayed by the success of the 9800gx2 when the 8800gtx came out it was fantastic because the 7950gx2 was a bad card and drivers were poor. but Nivida did things allot better with the 9800gx2 and now that the GTX 280 ONLY has 100% more performance than the 8800gtx people are getting down at it?? looks to be a good card to me. another thing to remember is that most of these sites still use 3GHz Core 2 Duo's or 3.2GHZ Quads (max) and some still even use PCI-Express 1.1 mobo's. that's not fast enough and both the CPU and mobo will bottle neck the GPU and most resolutions. but put a 3.8GHZ or higher qaud with it and it will FLY.

[MrHydes]

people forget. yes it may have only a little faster numbers than the 9800gx2 but the 9800gx2 does have microstuddering. so ya the FPS is within 1-5FPS of each other but the real in game feel is more like 15FPS off. and at higher resolutions and AA settings the lead only grows. not to mention the drivers that will be coming out. and yes a 4850 crossfire will give similar FPS to the GTX 280 but then your limited to a X38 or X48 (maybe P45) chipset, you have microstuddering so again the GTX280 will run smoother and faster you have to deal with crossfire which IS NOT supported in all games and has some issues in other with glitches and artifacting, also some review still show crossfire in windows XP to yield low gains in games like crysis. the powerconsumption should be similar but the 4850's may be a tad more hunger, also heat goes back into your case with the 4850 stock cooler so that becomes an issue. the 4850's also do not have the features of the CUDA platform so you get no Ageia Physics support and lower support for other programs like video editing software and such. Crossfire and SLI are just not ideal solutions and when you can get similar performance from a SINGLE card as well more features. the way i see it the GTX 280 is being downplayed by the success of the 9800gx2 when the 8800gtx came out it was fantastic because the 7950gx2 was a bad card and drivers were poor. but Nivida did things allot better with the 9800gx2 and now that the GTX 280 ONLY has 100% more performance than the 8800gtx people are getting down at it?? looks to be a good card to me. another thing to remember is that most of these sites still use 3GHz Core 2 Duo's or 3.2GHZ Quads (max) and some still even use PCI-Express 1.1 mobo's. that's not fast enough and both the CPU and mobo will bottle neck the GPU and most resolutions. but put a 3.8GHZ or higher qaud with it and it will FLY.

nor only i agree with what this man claims,

but also i share the same feeling about it... nice speech!

have you been paid? just kiding...

[Flinch]

and some still even use PCI-Express 1.1 mobo's.

Are you insinuating 2.0 is going to give a performance boost, if so, I don't buy that theory.

If I'm misunderstanding your post, feel free to correct me.

[pest]

but the 9800gx2 does have microstuddering. so ya the FPS is within 1-5FPS of each other but the real in game feel is more like 15FPS off.

That's wrong. Microstuttering is most of the time only noticeable in the 30-40fps region. You have also stuttering when playing at 60fps but the relative time-differences are too small to be perceivable

[msgclb]

I ran the following Crysis test:

EVGA 780i
Q6600 @ 3150 MHz
EVGA 8800 GT SC (2x) SLI
Crysis Benchmarking on Vista 64
Timedemo: benchmark_gpu
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15

I was wondering why I got such terrible results with the above test. I noticed that some Vista 64 users were running DX9 and 32 bit so I decided to try it. I didn't know that the DX10 and 64 bit combination was such bad news.

DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.905

[Hornet331]

I was wondering why I got such terrible results with the above test. I noticed that some Vista 64 users were running DX9 and 32 bit so I decided to try it. I didn't know that the DX10 and 64 bit combination was such bad news.

DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.905

hmm funny that 1600x1200 is faster then 1680x1050.... especial 1600x1200 has more pixels to render then 1680x1050.

[Luka_Aveiro]

hmm funny that 1600x1200 is faster then 1680x1050.... especial 1600x1200 has more pixels to render then 1680x1050.

Could that be due to ratios?? (4:3 performs better than 16:10 O_o????)

I don't think ratios affect performance, do they???

[shadow of chaos]

When are the next gen cards coming out after the GTX 280? these ones are quite poor

[natty]

When are the next gen cards coming out after the GTX 280? these ones are quite poor

The next gen will be even poorer...

I think the first good cards come out in 2012.

[shadow of chaos]

The next gen will be even poorer...

I think the first good cards come out in 2012.

i was being serious, is it mid next year?

[mascaras]

I was wondering why I got such terrible results with the above test. I noticed that some Vista 64 users were running DX9 and 32 bit so I decided to try it. I didn't know that the DX10 and 64 bit combination was such bad news.

DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.905

try to run also 64bit but DX9 !

maybe your SLi not working properly in DX10 mode


regards

[msgclb]

try to run also 64bit but DX9 !

maybe your SLi not working properly in DX10 mode


regards

DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.905

DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 42.78
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.3

Using 64 bit DX9 it takes a very slight hit. I'll have to see if I can find any tests that I ran using one 8800 GT at these resolutions using DX10, AA=4x, 64 bit and High. Is there a know DX10 problem using SLI?

This is the closest I could find.
SLI
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
Single
DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 12.63

I've never tried DX9 32 bit or 64 bit with a single 8800 GT.

[mascaras]

so

SLI :

DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 42.78
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15


Single

DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 12.63


--------------------------------------


like i suspected its not 32bit/64bit problem , but DX10 mode @ SLI

looks like only 1 card running when in Dx10 mode @ SLI


regards

[Eastcoasthandle]

DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 43.555
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 32 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.905
DX9 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 42.78
DX9 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 33.3

Using 64 bit DX9 it takes a very slight hit. I'll have to see if I can find any tests that I ran using one 8800 GT at these resolutions using DX10, AA=4x, 64 bit and High. Is there a know DX10 problem using SLI?

This is the closest I could find.
SLI
DX10 1600x1200 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 13.15
Single
DX10 1680x1050 AA=4x, 64 bit test, Quality: High, Overall Average FPS: 12.63

I've never tried DX9 32 bit or 64 bit with a single 8800 GT.

Why are you taking a bigger hit at 1680x1050 then at 1600x1200