Tweaktown g92 gts review and benchmarks

yo thnx for the link. been waitin for this... was too lazy (or drunk) to dig. :rolleyes:
 
doesnt seem to run that much cooler even with the dual slot setup. so whats going on with the 65 and 55nm chips running so much hotter?? the 8800 Ultra is a 90nm chip with almost the same core speed yet runs cooler. also the 2900xt is 80nm and runs cooler than the 3850 and 3870 cards. :confused:
 
It's not a huge upgrade from the 8800GT. I think the people who already have a 8800GT won't be too dissapointed, but the people who didn't buy the 8800GT might just buy the 8800GTS when it comes out, for the extra boost.

Wheres the 8800GTX? I'm very curious why they didn't include it, but I think the new 8800GTS is on par with or beats the GTX if only slightly, cause I remember the 8800GT is in most cases within 10% of the GTX and in some tests the new 8800GTS is 20FPS faster than the 8800GT.
 
lets see a GT is almost on par with a GTX, so this new GTS if it beats the GT you can assume is is likely the same as a GTX
 
gtx is much faster than gt i think new gts is on par with gtx don't know about price we can see another gt situation here
 
MrGuvernment said:
lets see a GT is almost on par with a GTX, so this new GTS if it beats the GT you can assume is is likely the same as a GTX
Click to expand...

Sounds right to me. When the new 8800GTS is released I bet we'll start hearing about the next gen cards for 08. I want to keep my 8800GT for as long as I can stand, I really like this card.
 
page 18 has Crysis benchies with a GTX and Ultra.

G92 GTS is fractionally faster than a G80 GTX on high settings at 1920x1200.

Hooray! :D
 
Thanks for the link to the article.

The GTS will be priced around the £250 mark here in the UK but if supply is as poor as the GT then prices will go up to around £300. The GT is also currently seriously overpriced. As the article mentions it's important that Nvidia get the supply right. £300 for this card will be way too much.

I game at 1280 x 1024 (max on monitor) and the 8800GT outperforms the GTS in Crysis and World in Conflict at this resolution. Zero reason for me to upgrade again, so pretty happy with that

Love the dual slot cooler that exhausts the hot air though, much better than the crappo cooler on the GT.

.
 
can somebody clock their 8800GT at 720 and give some results here.... I'm seeing that GTS is clocked at 720, I wonder how GT will stack up when clocked the same.

and why the hell would you bench crysis in dx9?
 
I need to run some benchmarks on my new 8800GT SSC... But it looks like I might be selling it or stepping up to a G92 8800 GTS in order to OC the hell out of it :-o
 
R3MF said:
page 18 has Crysis benchies with a GTX and Ultra.

G92 GTS is fractionally faster than a G80 GTX on high settings at 1920x1200.

Hooray! :D
Click to expand...

I think its safe to say that OC versions of the GTS will beat the GTXultra

Finally nvidia released the best card for gaming at 1920x1200
 
bazylik said:
can somebody clock their 8800GT at 720 and give some results here.... I'm seeing that GTS is clocked at 720, I wonder how GT will stack up when clocked the same.

and why the hell would you bench crysis in dx9?
Click to expand...

from TweakTown
That 512MB comes clocked in at 1940MHz DDR while the core and shader clocks come in at 650MHz and 1625MHz respectively.

Where do you get the 720mhz from?
 
Stoly said:
from TweakTown
That 512MB comes clocked in at 1940MHz DDR while the core and shader clocks come in at 650MHz and 1625MHz respectively.

Where do you get the 720mhz from?
Click to expand...

On page 17 they did talk about OC'ing to 720
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/17/page_17_final_thoughts/index.html
With a core speed of 720MHz and 2104MHz DDR on the 512MB of GDDR3 we managed to climb up and over 14,500 in 3DMark06. It will be interesting to see what the likes of BFG and ASUS do with their OC2 and TOP models respectively.
Click to expand...
 
Not much improvement over the 8800GT, only a few frames here and there. Makes 8800GT a better choice for the price (especially if you can find it at around $200).
 
The MSI 8800GT used on the Crysis benchmark is clocked at 660MHz, which makes for a good comparison. The extra shaders over the 8800GT don't seem to make that much of a difference.
 
NowhereMan said:
Not much improvement over the 8800GT, only a few frames here and there. Makes 8800GT a better choice for the price (especially if you can find it at around $200).
Click to expand...

The only place you are going to find it for "around $200" is the Dell deal that is going on. People are now reporting ship dates of 02/08/08 when they order. If you feel like waiting around that long for a "deal" more power to you. Otherwise you can expect to pay $250+ since the $200 MSRP everyone seems to have stuck in their head was for a 256MB version of the 8800GT.
 
FurBurglar said:
The only place you are going to find it for "around $200" is the Dell deal that is going on. People are now reporting ship dates of 02/08/08 when they order. If you feel like waiting around that long for a "deal" more power to you. Otherwise you can expect to pay $250+ since the $200 MSRP everyone seems to have stuck in their head was for a 256MB version of the 8800GT.
Click to expand...

It was stuck in people's head because the actual MSRP of the GT's are $199-249. That range is for both the 512 and upcoming 256mb version. So it is not inconceivable to try to find a $200 8800GT especially since Dell is offering an MSI version at $207. The $199 price point is not JUST for the 256mb version, it's seems to just be the upper limit on the pricing of them, like $249 is the upper limit of the 512mb's.(sans the current price raping).

Has anyone even seen a 256mb 8800GT out in the wild yet?
 
No, actually those MSRPs were released by Nvidia as the pricing for stock cards with the 256MB falling at $200 and the 512MB at $250. The versions that most people are seeing are OCed versions hence the higher MSRPs like $280, $290, etc. If you look on EVGA's site the stock 512 has an MSRP of $250 exactly inline with Nvidia's statements.

See the chart in this link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140&p=3
 
FurBurglar said:
No, actually those MSRPs were released by Nvidia as the pricing for stock cards with the 256MB falling at $200 and the 512MB at $250. The versions that most people are seeing are OCed versions hence the higher MSRPs like $280, $290, etc. If you look on EVGA's site the stock 512 has an MSRP of $250 exactly inline with Nvidia's statements.

See the chart in this link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140&p=3
Click to expand...
that was older news and Nvidia did change that to 199-249 for 8800gt 512 and 179-199 for 8800gt 256mb.

» NVIDIA provides more details on the GeForce 8800 GT 256MB

With the release of AMD's upcoming RV670 GPU imminent, NVIDIA has provided more guidance on their 256MB GeForce 8800 GT SKU, releasing the following FAQ on the 256MB board:

Question: When will we see the GeForce 8800 GT 256 MB?
Answer: GeForce 8800 GT 256 MB boards from major add-in card partners are arriving in the next two weeks and should be priced in the $179-$199 range. To find out exact ship dates and pricing, we encourage you to contact each add-in card partner.

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=18304

NVIDIA's recommendation is to hop on a pre-order list if you want one, as new cards are coming in regularly and pre-orders are filled first. We don't know how the 256MB variants will perform, but NVIDIA claims that they will arrive at $179 - $199.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3151&p=5
 
Well then, there you have it. Thanks cannondale for clearing that up, with sources to boot!

With so many people being able to hit 700/2000 on the 8800GT's I wonder how it scales with those clockspeeds. Does / Can it beat the GTX / new GTS with those settings?
 
"Some" of the performance gains over the stock GT are simply because of the higher clock rates. They both max overclock to about the same level as they are effectively the same card with the GTS having 128SP.

The new GTS is definitely benefiting for the extra SP, but it is lonly 5-10% faster than a GT clocked to the same level.

I see the GT still being the top seller once all the dust settles and the GT drops to around $220 and the New GTS is $300. The performance really doesn't justify the cost difference.
 
The biggest selling point of the new GTS will be the dual slot cooler. A friend was lucky to get a evga ssc model at launch and has to clock it down to have stable game play. So his choice is to either live with it or put the fan on scream mode. I'd rather spend a little more money, get better performance and not have a underpowered/loud cooling system.
 
tpfaff said:
serisouly...so stupid
Click to expand...

"Why didn't they test the GTX?!" Did you or Newster even bother to READ the review or did you just look at pretty graphs?! :rolleyes:

Quoted directly:

"We don’t have an 8800GTX on hand in the lab at the moment and hunting one down has become next to impossible with no one having any stock of the card.

I guess that explains why you only linked to the conclusion. I was even drunk last night when i read it and caught that! :eek:
 
Now, after TweakTown added a OC review of GTS we can see that GTS 512MB OC’ed to 720MHz is pretty the same as Ultra in Crysis at 1920x1200. - Almost 29fps, where Ultra had 29,5. It is still higher than GTX and even OC’ed GT. Pretty nice, I say. I also think that 720MHz is not that much, I’m sure they could push it to at least 750-770MHz. Maybe with WC it could hit 800MHz. SOmeone did it with GT so why not with GTS??? Than GTS could hit more that 30FPS in Crysis at 1920x1200!! And that would keep me alive till new GF9xxx comes out…
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/12...dx9/index.html

 
phinix said:
Now, after TweakTown added a OC review of GTS we can see that GTS 512MB OC’ed to 720MHz is pretty the same as Ultra in Crysis at 1920x1200. - Almost 29fps, where Ultra had 29,5. It is still higher than GTX and even OC’ed GT. Pretty nice, I say. I also think that 720MHz is not that much, I’m sure they could push it to at least 750-770MHz. Maybe with WC it could hit 800MHz. SOmeone did it with GT so why not with GTS??? Than GTS could hit more that 30FPS in Crysis at 1920x1200!! And that would keep me alive till new GF9xxx comes out…
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/12...dx9/index.html
Click to expand...

fixed link: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1237/nvidia_g92_overclocked_gt_vs_gts_512/index.html

nice find phinix...i hadn't seen this yet. :)
 
phinix said:
Now, after TweakTown added a OC review of GTS we can see that GTS 512MB OC’ed to 720MHz is pretty the same as Ultra in Crysis at 1920x1200. - Almost 29fps, where Ultra had 29,5. It is still higher than GTX and even OC’ed GT. Pretty nice, I say. I also think that 720MHz is not that much, I’m sure they could push it to at least 750-770MHz. Maybe with WC it could hit 800MHz. SOmeone did it with GT so why not with GTS??? Than GTS could hit more that 30FPS in Crysis at 1920x1200!! And that would keep me alive till new GF9xxx comes out…
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/12...dx9/index.html
Click to expand...

I was looking at this review yesterday. You do realise the OC GT is only 10% ish behind the OC GTS?
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1237/9/page_9_benchmarks_crysis_dx9/index.html


In Summary people will be paying $70-150 for a mediocre 10% increase in performance over a GT assuming the dust settles with prices. This performance increase will seldom allow for higher resolutions or quality over a GT, ie another 3FPS in Crysis.

The G92 GTS has a better cooler but its still not great. People are better off buying a GT, and replacing the cooler with a much better $40 aftermarket cooler thats better than both if it concerns them.
 
Battleneter2 said:
I was looking at this review yesterday. You do realise the OC GT is only 10% ish behind the OC GTS?
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1237/9/page_9_benchmarks_crysis_dx9/index.html


In Summary people will be paying $70-150 for a mediocre 10% increase in performance over a GT assuming the dust settles with prices. This performance increase will seldom allow for higher resolutions or quality over a GT, ie another 3FPS in Crysis.

The G92 GTS has a better cooler but its still not great. People are better off buying a GT, and replacing the cooler with a much better $40 aftermarket cooler thats better than both if it concerns them.
Click to expand...

Well, I think Gt is good for lower resolutions, not 1920x1200. In this case GTS i a lot better - they OC'ed it only 70MHz higher - I OC'ed my old 64MB GTS 140MHz. You still have a lot of power to OC from this new GTS. It could be 20% difference between GT and GTS. And for me - 3-6FPS in Crysis is better than GT... casue when these 3-6 fps are on the edge for game being playble, then it means a lot - but this is only my opinion...
 
phinix said:
Well, I think Gt is good for lower resolutions, not 1920x1200. In this case GTS i a lot better - they OC'ed it only 70MHz higher - I OC'ed my old 64MB GTS 140MHz. You still have a lot of power to OC from this new GTS. It could be 20% difference between GT and GTS. And for me - 3-6FPS in Crysis is better than GT... casue when these 3-6 fps are on the edge for game being playble, then it means a lot - but this is only my opinion...
Click to expand...

Did you even read that article? The max OC performance difference of BOTH cards was 10% ish (can't be bothered using a calculator so I am being generous)

You are NOT going to be able to do better resolutions with a G92 GTS over a GT. I agree in Crysis ever bit helps, so 3fps is still 3fps to be fair.

Take Crysis 1920x1200. The O/C GT is doing 27FPS and the O/C GTS is averaging 28.7FPS, thats hardly allowing for the higher resolution or even quality lol.

Both cards are pretty much equal for playable quality realistically!

the statement "I think Gt is good for lower resolutions" is a myth, best let it die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top