8600GTS 3DMK06 claim

[blacken]

http://itbbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=6864651&pageNo=1

Foreign claim to a mark of 5488. Being true, this would put the 86GTS on range with the 7900GT/GTX.

Courtesy: JayDeeJohn for the find.

 

[HaMMerHeD]

Sound about right. Mid-range cards should be about on the same performance level of of the high end cards of the previous generation.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

Yea I remember my x1900xtx @ stock speeds was about 5600

 

[Xer0_P0INT_Xer0]

sounds decent, but shouldn't the mid range card of the new gen be at least a bit faster than the flagships of the old generation?

 

[R3MF]

inquirer says performance drops off a cliff once higher resolutions/texture loads are used.

yay for the 128bit bus nvidia!

 

[Silus]

inquirer says performance drops off a cliff once higher resolutions/texture loads are used.

yay for the 128bit bus nvidia!

Mid-range cards are not "supposed" to be powerful enough to handle high-resolutions. These are perfect cards for those that game @ no more than 1280x1024, with most of the eye candy on.
But I agree that, at this point, we should be seeing all mid-range solutions with 256 bit memory bus.

 

[Varmint]

inquirer says performance drops off a cliff once higher resolutions/texture loads are used.

yay for the 128bit bus nvidia!

The 128-bit bus allows them to crank up memory clock speeds very high. It's a trade-off, so I don't think it's fair to say the card would be better with 256-bit.

It would also be more expensive - these cards will be pretty cheap.

 

[coldpower27]

We have a few more 3D Mark 2006 figures for the 8600 GTS and GT

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38346

5500 and 4800 respectively not bad I suppose.

This is about right considering the 675/2000 and 560/1400 clock rates of these cards.

 

[coldpower27]

sounds decent, but shouldn't the mid range card of the new gen be at least a bit faster than the flagships of the old generation?

That's the ballpark give or take, these figures would put the 8600 GTS on par with about the 7950 GT. Considering the MSRP of that card is $299 this is quite an accomplishment.

This card is definitely faster then the 7900 GS, which is priced at $199US, so it's good.

The last generation 7600 GT MSRP 199US beat the 6800 GS MSRP 249US, so tying the last generation $299US card is right around right.

 

[pxc]

I was hoping for a 192-bit memory bus before more details came out and crushed my dreams.

 

[Varmint]

I was hoping for a 192-bit memory bus before more details came out and crushed my dreams.

Can you really judge the bus width independent of memory speed? This card has very fast memory, doesn't that make up for the 128-bit bus?

 

[Silus]

Can you really judge the bus width independent of memory speed? This card has very fast memory, doesn't that make up for the 128-bit bus?

At high-resolutions, no. But the point of these cards is not to be used at high-resolutions, so it's not a big problem, considering the price IMHO.

 

[pxc]

Can you really judge the bus width independent of memory speed? This card has very fast memory, doesn't that make up for the 128-bit bus?

I'd rather have a 6 channel (32-bit x 6) 1.6GHz memory bus than a 128-bit (32-bit x 4) 2GHz memory bus.

 

[coldpower27]

I'd rather have a 6 channel (32-bit x 6) 1.6GHz memory bus than a 128-bit (32-bit x 4) 2GHz memory bus.

Yeah because the prior gives more overall bandwidth anyway. It depends on which is cheaper to implement, the primary reason were stick to 128Bit buses is because PCB's don't fall much in price while memory grades do.

 

[Trimlock]

At high-resolutions, no. But the point of these cards is not to be used at high-resolutions, so it's not a big problem, considering the price IMHO.

Well at some point they do need to increase in capabilities as well, seeing as how far the 8800's raised the bar on resolutions supported and speeds i'd expect the 8600 to have a fairly good reason to be good at 16x12 or 16x10

 

[Sr7]

Well at some point they do need to increase in capabilities as well, seeing as how far the 8800's raised the bar on resolutions supported and speeds i'd expect the 8600 to have a fairly good reason to be good at 16x12 or 16x10

Who would buy 8800's then, only people who wanted HD? Marketing 101. Tiered production system

 

[Caffeinated]

It still sucks for the mid-end. It's really pick your poison; only 320 MB of RAM on the affordable 8800 GTS or a crippled bus on the 8600. At least a 192-bit bus or even better, a 256-bit one with 512MB of RAM would have been nice.

The 8600 won't feel like much of an upgrade to 7900 GS owners. This is why we consumers desperately need competition between the graphics card makers.

 

[trinibwoy]

The mid-range isn't about performance. It's about performance at a specific "cost". Wider buses don't benefit from process shrinks like core functionality. A 256-bit bus is probably as expensive now as it was 3 generations ago. If you want to rock 1920x1200 with AA then you're shopping in the wrong category

I'm sure the 8600GTS will do perfectly fine at 1280x1024 and lower where it belongs.

 

[Trimlock]

Who would buy 8800's then, only people who wanted HD? Marketing 101. Tiered production system

and thats not the reason they do that now? I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to buy the 8800 for any other reason then extreme HD gaming

The mid-range isn't about performance. It's about performance at a specific "cost". Wider buses don't benefit from process shrinks like core functionality. A 256-bit bus is probably as expensive now as it was 3 generations ago. If you want to rock 1920x1200 with AA then you're shopping in the wrong category

I'm sure the 8600GTS will do perfectly fine at 1280x1024 and lower where it belongs.

I dunno, when a new midrange comes out I'd expect it to be able to perform similar to last gen's high end, not being able to do shit for 16x12/16x10 would piss me off

who wants to buy a new card only to be a little faster then the 7600GT or 7900GS when you are expecting an upgrade

 

[Sr7]

and thats not the reason they do that now? I don't know anyone who wouldn't want to buy the 8800 for any other reason then extreme HD gaming

One totally insignificant "other" reason might be the extremely high fps... lol...

 

[Trimlock]

yea, or get an all new high for bungholio marks

 

[snaggletooth]

these supposed scores make me feel pretty good about my current 7600SLI setup.

i find it ridiculous that video card companies haven't upped their perception on what they consider 'mid range' resolution capabilities though. with the number of people who claim to use 20" WS LCD monitors, one would think that 1680x1020 is the new 'run of the mill' resolution for pc gamers.

@ the price point for my 7600's though, i can easily live with the odd hitch in oblivion and a stuttery orbit in CIV 4. i guess that's more or less their point with the price/performance numbers... bastardos.

i wonder if they'll sneak some 64-bit bus parts into the low-end market like they've been known to do. FX5200 512MB edition FTW.

 

[xpsango]

I would love to see how these do in sli, and where are the 8900 and 8950's.

 

[coldpower27]

these supposed scores make me feel pretty good about my current 7600SLI setup.

i find it ridiculous that video card companies haven't upped their perception on what they consider 'mid range' resolution capabilities though. with the number of people who claim to use 20" WS LCD monitors, one would think that 1680x1020 is the new 'run of the mill' resolution for pc gamers.

@ the price point for my 7600's though, i can easily live with the odd hitch in oblivion and a stuttery orbit in CIV 4. i guess that's more or less their point with the price/performance numbers... bastardos.

i wonder if they'll sneak some 64-bit bus parts into the low-end market like they've been known to do. FX5200 512MB edition FTW.

That's exactly where the 8600 GTS is about aiming for performance equivalent to the 7950 GT to 7600 GT SLI level which is basically what the 7950 GT is. 20-22 inch LCD have only really come into their own, fairly recently. 1680x1050 shouldn't be too much harder and should be just barely ok on the 8600 GTS, just not really expected on the DX10 games, those still hold to 10x7 or so.

 

[coldpower27]

It still sucks for the mid-end. It's really pick your poison; only 320 MB of RAM on the affordable 8800 GTS or a crippled bus on the 8600. At least a 192-bit bus or even better, a 256-bit one with 512MB of RAM would have been nice.

The 8600 won't feel like much of an upgrade to 7900 GS owners. This is why we consumers desperately need competition between the graphics card makers.

And the 7600 GT was much of an upgrade for 6800 GS owners?

It would be like a maybe 20-45% boost compared to the 7900 GS, because were aiming for 7950 GT levels here. It's just a more economical version, with the same level of performance but less costly for Nvidia to produce so it can be sold at lower price points. Not to mention the image quality of the 8 Series.

 

[Martyr]

And the 7600 GT was much of an upgrade for 6800 GS owners?

It would be like a maybe 20-45% boost compared to the 7900 GS, because were aiming for 7950 GT levels here. It's just a more economical version, with the same level of performance but less costly for Nvidia to produce so it can be sold at lower price points. Not to mention the image quality of the 8 Series.

thing is, at the common ws resolution, there wont be an upgrade, due to the memory bus restrictions. essentially we would be paying just for dx10, not for an upgrade in performance.

 

[R3MF]

Mid-range cards are not "supposed" to be powerful enough to handle high-resolutions. These are perfect cards for those that game @ no more than 1280x1024, with most of the eye candy on.
But I agree that, at this point, we should be seeing all mid-range solutions with 256 bit memory bus.

but seeing as my 7950GT does run my games at 1920x1200, why would i 'upgrade' to something that cannot do likewise?

a 7950GT costs the same or less now than an 8600GTS will debut at, and comes with a 256bit bus.

 

[coldpower27]

thing is, at the common ws resolution, there wont be an upgrade, due to the memory bus restrictions. essentially we would be paying just for dx10, not for an upgrade in performance.

That's the thing, the next gen's mainstream should be ~around the level of the previous generations high end. So you can't expect a performance increase by going to mainstream from high end. As well memory bus restrictions only limit the amount of bandwidth provided partially, it is compensated partially by the increase in memory clock frequency. You also have more advanced shader technology at higher clocks to help boost performance.

If you want an upgrade in performance, you have to go last generation high end to current generation high end.

 

[coldpower27]

but seeing as my 7950GT does run my games at 1920x1200, why would i 'upgrade' to something that cannot do likewise?

a 7950GT costs the same or less now than an 8600GTS will debut at, and comes with a 256bit bus.

A 7950 GT costs only 199US? Your comparing apples to oranges here, you can't compare the current market price of older technology that has been on the market for such a long period to newer just introduced technology.

And what games can your 7950GT run at 1920x1200? And like I said before, while the 8600 GTS will likely be marginally faster, more advanced shader power. You have to go from old generation high end to new generation high end to see substantial increases in performance.

 

[PGHammer]

It still sucks for the mid-end. It's really pick your poison; only 320 MB of RAM on the affordable 8800 GTS or a crippled bus on the 8600. At least a 192-bit bus or even better, a 256-bit one with 512MB of RAM would have been nice.

The 8600 won't feel like much of an upgrade to 7900 GS owners. This is why we consumers desperately need competition between the graphics card makers.

While the 320 MB version of the 8800GTS is now at a $300 price point, how much more expensive *is* the full-boat (640 MB) 8800GTS? Surprisingly, not as much as you would think, even for SLI; in my recently drafted build design, I had originally plugged in EVGA Superclocked 320 MB 8800GTS cards in SLI (to save money), but 640 MB (also Superclocked) 8800GTS cards in SLI are a scant $200USD more. Yes, 320 MB 8800GTS cards are bringing the 8800GTS to a new low; however, there have also been price drops on the *full-boat* 8800GTS as well (which simply makes the decision even harder).

 

[R3MF]

A 7950 GT costs only 199US? Your comparing apples to oranges here, you can't compare the current market price of older technology that has been on the market for such a long period to newer just introduced technology.

And what games can your 7950GT run at 1920x1200? And like I said before, while the 8600 GTS will likely be marginally faster, more advanced shader power. You have to go from old generation high end to new generation high end to see substantial increases in performance.

right now?
Gothic3
Armed Assault

Previously?
Oblivion
Medieval: Total War 2

 

[trinibwoy]

8600GTS overclock and benchmark info with a quad-core:

http://img11.picsplace.to/img10/24/oc800.JPG - 800Mhz clock, 2333Mhz memory, 6721 3dmark06

http://img6.picsplace.to/img6/27/5938.JPG - stock, 5938 3dmark06

 

[Vengance_01]

And the 7600 GT was much of an upgrade for 6800 GS owners?

It would be like a maybe 20-45% boost compared to the 7900 GS, because were aiming for 7950 GT levels here. It's just a more economical version, with the same level of performance but less costly for Nvidia to produce so it can be sold at lower price points. Not to mention the image quality of the 8 Series.

The 7900GS is no slouch. On my XPS 1710 laptop, once my card was O/Ced to 600/800 It scored around 5400 in 06 and 9400 in 05. Granted this on a laptop with only a 2GHZ Core 2 Duo. I am betting the 8600's cores will have head room, just not what were used to seeing from last years line. It will be simular to the 8800's right now.

 

[jbscotchman]

but seeing as my 7950GT does run my games at 1920x1200, why would i 'upgrade' to something that cannot do likewise?

a 7950GT costs the same or less now than an 8600GTS will debut at, and comes with a 256bit bus.

Its simple then, don't buy one. It wouldn't make any sense anyway to ugprade from a high end card to a mid range card. The people who will be buying 8600GTS' are those like myself who are currently using mid/low range DX9 cards that want DX10 at an affordable price. if you want something thats gonna give you a significant boost from your 7950GT then your'e gonna need to look at the 8800 series.

 

[Varmint]

The people who will be buying 8600GTS' are those like myself who are currently using mid/low range DX9 cards that want DX10 at an affordable price. .

Yeah, the 8600GTS probably costs NVDA half as much as a 7950GT to make. It's designed to replace the 7900 series, not smoke it.

 

[StealthyFish]

That's the ballpark give or take, these figures would put the 8600 GTS on par with about the 7950 GT. Considering the MSRP of that card is $299 this is quite an accomplishment.

This card is definitely faster then the 7900 GS, which is priced at $199US, so it's good.

The last generation 7600 GT MSRP 199US beat the 6800 GS MSRP 249US, so tying the last generation $299US card is right around right.

I'm sorry, but that's a bogus statement. A 7600GT beat the 6800GS stock, off the lot. But a 6800GS can hit around the same performance levels as a 7600GT (both overclocked). The 7600GT has almost no headroom for overclocking, and the 6800GS can go pretty far in terms of overclocking. And you don't get the faggy lag on the 68GS (with 256-bit) as opposed to the random lagging when set at 1280x1024 and highest graphics in games like FEAR with the 7600GT (same settings for both cards). My friend has both, and I've used both cards. I've got a 76GT myself, and I have to admit, the 6800GS is the better card of the two.

 

[furyagain]

don't expect a nissan skyline GTR 2009 performance
from a 2008 3.5L altima!!!!

High end VS mid end..

if you want more... plz spend more.!

people just too used to getting low/mid end hardware then overclock them to as fast as high end stuff
( i do the same too.. E6400 overclock it)

 

[coldpower27]

I'm sorry, but that's a bogus statement. A 7600GT beat the 6800GS stock, off the lot. But a 6800GS can hit around the same performance levels as a 7600GT (both overclocked). The 7600GT has almost no headroom for overclocking, and the 6800GS can go pretty far in terms of overclocking. And you don't get the faggy lag on the 68GS (with 256-bit) as opposed to the random lagging when set at 1280x1024 and highest graphics in games like FEAR with the 7600GT (same settings for both cards). My friend has both, and I've used both cards. I've got a 76GT myself, and I have to admit, the 6800GS is the better card of the two.

And just how many people overclock their cards? Stock performance is far more important than overclocked levels.

 

[Martyr]

That's the thing, the next gen's mainstream should be ~around the level of the previous generations high end. So you can't expect a performance increase by going to mainstream from high end. As well memory bus restrictions only limit the amount of bandwidth provided partially, it is compensated partially by the increase in memory clock frequency. You also have more advanced shader technology at higher clocks to help boost performance.

If you want an upgrade in performance, you have to go last generation high end to current generation high end.

but we are going from this gen midrange to next gen midrange. i would not consider a card in th range of a 7900 gs to be high end.

 

[trinibwoy]

The 7600GT has almost no headroom for overclocking, and the 6800GS can go pretty far in terms of overclocking. And you don't get the faggy lag on the 68GS (with 256-bit) as opposed to the random lagging when set at 1280x1024 and highest graphics in games like FEAR with the 7600GT (same settings for both cards).

Maybe so but the 6800 and 7600 were very close architecturally. And it looks like any fears about 8600GTS overclocking are unwarranted based on what we've heard so far. I would be very surprised if the 8600GTS doesn't stomp all over the 7900GS at settings that are actually playable on both cards. The efficiency of the core and single-cycle 4xAA of G80 could well make up for the 128-bit bus deficit. Not to mention that the 8600GTS probably has > 2x the texture filtering power of G70 minus the texture crawling and filtering optimizations. I think you will get higher performance but you're obviously paying for the other improvements as well. There will be certain things the 7900GS just cannot do that the 8600GTS will.