• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

9800GTX benches

J

jonneymendoza

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
6,413
Hi i dont know if this has been posted yet but here are some interesting benchmarks i found:

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1356/14/page_14_benchmarks_world_in_conflict_xp/index.html

nv98gtx_g_09.gif
 
Hmm, looks like a lot of the tests were CPU limited. Judging by the benchmarks, it makes you wonder what is the point of the 9800GX2 since the 9800GTX has practically the same performance and uses less power.
Are the GX2 drivers really that inefficient as to lose or be rivaled by a single 9800GTX?
 
@jonneymendoza

Maybe you need to read this http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-9800-gx2,review-30511-16.html

I have no interest in this useless monster. It's not better than sli and much costlier. Not deserving of 9XXX name at all. Try to fool the clueless customer in thinking they have something new and better? Just like putting 1g memory in the box, when in reality it's equivalent to 512.

Personally it won't support Shader model 4.1 or DirectX 10.1, because it is still, just two 8800 GTS 512 slapped onto one another. To suppor the new DirectX10.1, you must make a new chip, not reuse an old one
 
Niceone said:
HD3870 X2 costs 55% more
HD3870 X2 is 30% more powerful
Click to expand...

Up to 1600x1200, that's not true. The GTS 512 keeps up with the X2 in most cases, beating it in some, especially with AA on.
 
Silus said:
Up to 1600x1200, that's not true. The GTS 512 keeps up with the X2 in most cases, beating it in some, especially with AA on.
Click to expand...
Actually that difference was calculated at 1600x1200 4xAA

With 8xAA and 1280x1024 difference is 60% compared to HD3870 X2 and at 1600x1200 100%.
 
RockSolid said:
@jonneymendoza

Maybe you need to read this http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-9800-gx2,review-30511-16.html

I have no interest in this useless monster. It's not better than sli and much costlier. Not deserving of 9XXX name at all. Try to fool the clueless customer in thinking they have something new and better? Just like putting 1g memory in the box, when in reality it's equivalent to 512.

Personally it won't support Shader model 4.1 or DirectX 10.1, because it is still, just two 8800 GTS 512 slapped onto one another. To suppor the new DirectX10.1, you must make a new chip, not reuse an old one
Click to expand...

No 9 series card supports DX10.1 or SM4.1.
 
Niceone said:
Actually that difference was calculated at 1600x1200 4xAA

With 8xAA and 1280x1024 difference is 60% compared to HD3870 X2 and at 1600x1200 100%.
Click to expand...

Based on what exactly ?
The GTS 512 performs much like a GTX up to 1600x1200, even with AA on. The X2 gains territory when going up in resolution and most of the times, without AA, yet you seem to be saying that the X2 is 100% faster than the GTS 512 @ 1600x1200 with 8xAA ? You certainly did not use real-world gameplay numbers to reach that conclusion...
 
Silus said:
Based on what exactly ?
The GTS 512 performs much like a GTX up to 1600x1200, even with AA on. The X2 gains territory when going up in resolution and most of the times, without AA, yet you seem to be saying that the X2 is 100% faster than the GTS 512 @ 1600x1200 with 8xAA ? You certainly did not use real-world gameplay numbers to reach that conclusion...
Click to expand...
ComputerBase-review.

Real life benches..thh.. suprisingly real life benches and canned benches produced similar results..in [H]'s own experiment.
 
imzjustplayin said:
Hmm, looks like a lot of the tests were CPU limited. Judging by the benchmarks, it makes you wonder what is the point of the 9800GX2 since the 9800GTX has practically the same performance and uses less power.
Are the GX2 drivers really that inefficient as to lose or be rivaled by a single 9800GTX?
Click to expand...
All we know the driver really sucks, but I don't think the performance of this GX2 will increase as everybody are talking...
IMO the 9800GX2 will never be a good deal.

RockSolid said:
@jonneymendoza

Maybe you need to read this http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/nvidia-geforce-9800-gx2,review-30511-16.html

I have no interest in this useless monster. It's not better than sli and much costlier. Not deserving of 9XXX name at all. Try to fool the clueless customer in thinking they have something new and better? Just like putting 1g memory in the box, when in reality it's equivalent to 512.

Personally it won't support Shader model 4.1 or DirectX 10.1, because it is still, just two 8800 GTS 512 slapped onto one another. To suppor the new DirectX10.1, you must make a new chip, not reuse an old one
Click to expand...
Well, the thread author were talking about 9800GTX, not GX2, though, I agree with you, there's no inovation on 9XXX series, despite it seems to be a great overclocker, obviously, this isn't reason to upgrade from a 88GTS 512m.
 
Niceone said:
ComputerBase-review.

Real life benches..thh.. suprisingly real life benches and canned benches produced similar results..in [H]'s own experiment.
Click to expand...

Uh??
I don't think you read [H]'s "Benchmarking the Benchmarks" article then. It proved the exact opposite. Built-in benchmarks produce huge differences when compared to real-world gameplay numbers. Any other site that uses real-world gameplay methodology shows the same (for example bit-tech).
 
wow.. it's amazing... one batch of re-runs with a frankenstein turd and this whole video card topic has lost it's appeal...:eek: -yawn

at least i won't be compelled to undergo expensive gpu upgrade surgery:)
 
so what supports Shader model 4.1 and DirectX 10.1? so the 8800GTS is better then the x2 at 1680 res which is the res i wanna be playing at.
 
well my 8800gtx runs Crysis @ 1680x1050 / High / Vista very well.
it also runs it on Very High to a playable level.

so i'd expect the GTS to do COD4 @ 1680x1050 / max without ever skipping a beat.

jonneymendoza said:
so what supports Shader model 4.1 and DirectX 10.1?
Click to expand...
ATi
 
jonneymendoza said:
so what supports Shader model 4.1 and DirectX 10.1? so the 8800GTS is better then the x2 at 1680 res which is the res i wanna be playing at.
Click to expand...

AMD's HD 3800 series support DX10.1. Though remember that there's no advantage of having it at this point, because no game supports it. Plus, it's only a minor upgrade over DX10.

And the GTS is not better than the X2, in terms of performance, but rather an equal, up to 1600x1200. Since it's cheaper, you do the math.
 
These benches smell fishy to me. Those numbers just don't make any sense. Actually, a lot of the benches I have been seeing recently don't make a lot of sense. And the winners seem to be randomly distributed among various web sites. Each website seems to be getting completely different results. I cannot see any consensus. Driver issues maybe? I will certainly be waiting for Kyle to do some testing on the 9800 GTX before making any purchasing decisions. It seems like these days you cannot look for any consensus among hardware reviews. You have to just pick a web site as the one whose results you want to rely on to make your purchases and ignore all the others.
 
Looks like the 9800 GTX is just an 8800 GTS 512 with higher clocks and tri-SLI capability.
 
zlojack said:
Looks like the 9800 GTX is just an 8800 GTS 512 with higher clocks and tri-SLI capability.
Click to expand...

And a better power setup, better RAM. So it will overclock much better. But, yes it is essentially a 8800GTS 512 as they both use the same cores.

RockSolid said:
I have no interest in this useless monster. It's not better than sli and much costlier. Not deserving of 9XXX name at all. Try to fool the clueless customer in thinking they have something new and better?
Click to expand...

Just like ATi did with the 3800 series, there is nothing new and better there that deserves an entire new name.
 
Judging from the last few pages, the card uses up less juice and runs a bit cooler (beyond just the louder fan) this leads to a better performance envelope.
but it does seem that the 8800GTS G92 is more than holding its own. it comes down to price.

Also, these benchies are run in Vista - useless to me since i am still on XP and wont upgrade for a while, not till i overhaul my entire build.
 
This is hilarious. History repeating itself. Nvidia does the same thing over and over, and folks who are looking for the biggest bragging rights are the only ones who would buy a 9800 GX2. What is stupid is chances are, their setup will be slower than 2 GTX cards put together, let alone one, and about as efficient as 2 9600 GT's put together.
 
For many people its about your hobby , its about a few dollars over what they got for their previous card or for less than they got for thier two gtx's once sold. For many its about leavig nvidia chipsets behind and going with and elegant single slot solution that provides high perfromance with less power usage. Its about change and having something different.

Bragging rights are for children. Exploring the possiblities and in the end, knowing what sites are telling the truth and what sites are not is enjoying one's hobby. I hear where your coming from but your statements are quite frankly one dementional and only apply to a cost performance argument while completely ignoring many of the other reasons why people buy enthusiast equipment

just my .02

PS: Having spent thousands of dollars on computer components over the years and subsequently seeing for myself , I must say that HardOCP has the most credibility when it comes to performanc evaluations
 
hasoos said:
This is hilarious. History repeating itself. Nvidia does the same thing over and over, and folks who are looking for the biggest bragging rights are the only ones who would buy a 9800 GX2. What is stupid is chances are, their setup will be slower than 2 GTX cards put together, let alone one, and about as efficient as 2 9600 GT's put together.
Click to expand...
Who wants a bad 680i rev2 aka 780i? 790i is something ido wanna have but not the pricy DDR3, not yet anyway but that is the way it is heading soner or later.
You are not seeing the big picture here that you CAN use the best board out there, meaning with intelbased and still going sli aka 9800Gx2 since 3870X2 ain´t good enought for us. What is cheaper off ONE 9800Gx2 for €460 and be done with it or one780i@ €180 and 2x8800GTS 512@€200 a piece or or more for the 8800GTS OC aka 9800GTX , thats €580 for the same thing i CAN pay €460 for.
Count in 790i and the price is even higher.
For biggests braggingrights you get the card that only play 3dmark well, namely HD3870X2 and brag about you score for friends that don´t understand what that is or that it means noting at all.
One GTX is never faster than one Gx2 at same speed and to make a fair comparison you MUST have the same speed or you givíng the GTX to mutch credit for noting.
 
E.R said:
Who wants a bad 680i rev2 aka 780i? 790i is something ido wanna have but not the pricy DDR3, not yet anyway but that is the way it is heading soner or later.
You are not seeing the big picture here that you CAN use the best board out there, meaning with intelbased and still going sli aka 9800Gx2 since 3870X2 ain´t good enought for us. What is cheaper off ONE 9800Gx2 for €460 and be done with it or one780i@ €180 and 2x8800GTS 512@€200 a piece or or more for the 8800GTS OC aka 9800GTX , thats €580 for the same thing i CAN pay €460 for.
Count in 790i and the price is even higher.
For biggests braggingrights you get the card that only play 3dmark well, namely HD3870X2 and brag about you score for friends that don´t understand what that is or that it means noting at all.
One GTX is never faster than one Gx2 at same speed and to make a fair comparison you MUST have the same speed or you givíng the GTX to mutch credit for noting.
Click to expand...

Dude if you want to spend an extra 250 bucks for less than 4% improvement on performance, all the power to you! As long as you have a great time, who cares.
 
E.R said:
One GTX is never faster than one Gx2 at same speed and to make a fair comparison you MUST have the same speed or you givíng the GTX to mutch credit for noting.
Click to expand...
I don't get what your saying here but...if the GTX is clocked higher than a GX2 why isn't if valid to take advantage of that fact? If a card is capable of being clocked faster then it SHOULD be taken into consideration. It's not giving undue credit, it's giving an oppinion on the card based on what it's capable off.

a fair comparrison to me is testing it with the same system for the same app in the same manner. Beyond that feel free to overclock the hell out of either card if they are capable of it.
 
That review sucked, needed to compare the GTS 512 and 8800 GTX. Wanted to see how this card performed w/ Crysis on High under XP. Needed an OC page, and atleast a 2 way SLI page.
 
The review has now been taken down. I wonder if they are updating it or if Nvidia has gotten to them... :)

And to colinstu: When TT does these preview articles, they often have a second preview come out a day or two later with OC results. And it definitely would have been nice to have the 8800GTX in there...
 
To me, it seems that the 9xxx series is a history-repeats-itself GF-FX/NV3x. Only difference now is, nVidia can get away with this "stepping-stone" product refresh BS since they are ahead of ATI overall.
 
DejaWiz said:
To me, it seems that the 9xxx series is a history-repeats-itself GF-FX/NV3x. Only difference now is, nVidia can get away with this "stepping-stone" product refresh BS since they are ahead of ATI overall.
Click to expand...

I think comparing it to the GeForce FX is an exaggeration. The GeForce FX was getting stomped by the competition and was a bug-ridden, hot-running, poor performing peice of junk.Though if you're right and this is GeForce FX all over again, then thats awesome because that means the 6800 series all over again is next and we all remember how much that made us crap ourselves.

I still find it hard to fault Nvidia when they still have the fastest cards out. Yeah its unfortunate they decided not to release their new shit for whatever reason, whether its not ready or whatever. But really, why is everyone bitching? Theres only one game you cant max out with currently available hardware and it isn't worth playing more than once anyway. Hell, even if you go with the underdog ATI's high end solution you can still max everything short of one crappy game.

So I have to ask... what is so horribly important that they need to release their new stuff right this second?
 
NKDietrich said:
I think comparing it to the GeForce FX is an exaggeration.

I still find it hard to fault Nvidia when they still have the fastest cards out.

So I have to ask... what is so horribly important that they need to release their new stuff right this second?
Click to expand...

Of course it's an exaggeration (per se). The 98xx vs the 88xx just reminds me of the GF4 vs. the GF-FX. Nothing special (unlike the very nice leap we got going from 7xxx to 88xx).

I'm not faulting nVidia for having the fastest cards out, I'm faulting them for using past/current technology, rebadging it, and calling it "new and improved".

There is nothing so horribly important that they need to release their new stuff right now. But why not just let the market ride as is? Their 88xx products are being swept off shelved at an impressive rate and they aren't exactly incapable GPUs, so why exactly is there a need to bring out the mediocre-in-comparison 9xxx series?
 
DejaWiz said:
Of course it's an exaggeration (per se). The 98xx vs the 88xx just reminds me of the GF4 vs. the GF-FX. Nothing special (unlike the very nice leap we got going from 7xxx to 88xx).

I'm not faulting nVidia for having the fastest cards out, I'm faulting them for using past/current technology, rebadging it, and calling it "new and improved".

There is nothing so horribly important that they need to release their new stuff right now. But why not just let the market ride as is? Their 88xx products are being swept off shelved at an impressive rate and they aren't exactly incapable GPUs, so why exactly is there a need to bring out the mediocre-in-comparison 9xxx series?
Click to expand...

The reasoning seems sound to me, at least from a business standpoint. They probably saw a lull in video card sales coming and they needed something to stimulate new buyers. Remember, the people shopping around Newegg are by and large uninformed. They will see the bigger model number and assume its better, and upgrade.

Also, for people making new builds who are still stuck with 7800s or older, a newer card with a few tweaks is going to seem like a no-brainer over the older cards, especially if Nvidia keeps the price premium for the new cards reasonable. Thus Nvidia gets a few more bucks in their pocket. And so far, they have kept the prices reasonable. A 9600GT is ridiculously powerful for a sub $150 graphics card, the 9800GX2 is starting to come down closer to the $500 mark to put it on par with its performance. A pair of GTS 512s would be far more expensive to implement if you don't already have an SLI mobo and arent willing to take a risk on a 680i. As far as the 9800 GTX, we'll see. Rumors are $300-$349 to start out, and we're seeing early reports of 850MHz core / 1350MHz (2700 effective) memory clocks, on air. That would make it easily the fastest single GPU card you can get, except in one or two situations where the Ultra's memory bandwidth advantage is still too great.

Hopefully on the 1st we'll get more info.
 
DejaWiz said:
There is nothing so horribly important that they need to release their new stuff right now. But why not just let the market ride as is? Their 88xx products are being swept off shelved at an impressive rate and they aren't exactly incapable GPUs, so why exactly is there a need to bring out the mediocre-in-comparison 9xxx series?
Click to expand...

I was thinking along the same lines, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood nvidia's strategy. Its a solid business move. Basically they are marketing to the low-end market first (with the 9600) and giving casual gamers something to be happy about, an affordable card. So many complaints over the last 2 years have been than PC gaming is too expensive. Every argument as to why PC gaming is "dying" has been $600 video cards. So nvidia needs to remind people that they have sub-$200 cards that are respectable.

Secondly, they are catering to the section of the market with non 88xx series cards. I don't have an 8800 and, at this point, I would rather go with a 9800GTX just because I'm not going to set up a brand new rig with a video card that came out 2 years ago. Similarly, companies like Dell want to have a new line-up with new cards to push on this same segment of the market. Not everyone upgrades their PCs every 6 months!

The sum effect of all this is a leveling out of the playing field. Although the top-end fastest card hasn't got much faster, all the other cards have caught up to it pretty nicely. Even a $200 8800GT is pretty close to what the 8800 Ultra can do at lower resolutions. So this helps to "revive" the PC gaming market as now most people can at least afford to run the current games (COD4, UTIII, QuakeWars, etc.).

At the same time, nvidia is also coming out with Quad-SLI and new SLI functionality on the 790i series MBs so there is still something for the high-end market to buy. Overall I'd say they have their bases covered. If they came out with some super-GPU with photo-realistic graphics (and that would be cool) you know it would cost like over $1000 and only a small hardcore market would buy it. It would be a bad decision for the vast majority of the consumers and it would also further add to PC gamings decline. Nvidia knows what they are doing.
 
cybereality said:
Nvidia knows what they are doing.
Click to expand...

you entire post is right i think.
they are targeting those who they know.

the new 98xx cards will cost a premium, but some early reports show them running at 850Mhz core. (go to xtreme forums) thats a 30% increase over the previous generation.
 
Couple guys over @ XS have been getting 850 on the core with the 9800GTX. One guy got 8.1K in SM2 and 7.6K in SM3 overclocked with 06. That was 852core|1293 memory. It was tested on air with a Thermalright HR-03 Plus installed.

So it could be a great overclocker. We will see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top