9800GTX scores 14,000 in 3DMark 06

ToxicBanana said:
This is a great idea on there part.
They pretty much modded everything so there fabs had very little work on changing systems.

9600GT = Improved G94 > 8600GT > ATI 3850
9800GTX = improved G92 GTS512 > 8800GTS 512 > ATI3870
9800X2 = duh! > 8800Ultra > ATI 3870X2
Click to expand...

I don't know about improved... my 8800GTS G92 scores about that high in 3DMark06, and I'm sure I have a good amount of overclocking headroom left.
 
This makes no sense. The 'next gen' card managing the same levels of performance as technology that's a year an a half old? Something isn't right here.
 
Wolf-R1 said:
This makes no sense. The 'next gen' card managing the same levels of performance as technology that's a year an a half old? Something isn't right here.
Click to expand...
Geforce 9800 GTX ain't Nvidia's next gen. Just renamed 8800 GTS 512..which weren't new gen. Nvidia's next gen will lauanch late Q2/early Q3 to replace these cards.
 
Niceone said:
Geforce 9800 GTX ain't Nvidia's next gen. Just renamed 8800 GTS 512..which weren't new gen. Nvidia's next gen will lauanch late Q2/early Q3 to replace these cards.
Click to expand...

They better start leaking some details, otherwise everyone will be running to the escape pods on a the Nvidia ship when the 4000-series comes out from ATI.
 
Next gen or not you would believe how many are gonna buy this card just cause it says flashy 9800 gtx on the box and then realize its not as good as they thought.

false markting if you ask me.
 
Mortuus said:
Next gen or not you would believe how many are gonna buy this card just cause it says flashy 9800 gtx on the box and then realize its not as good as they thought.

false markting if you ask me.
Click to expand...
That's seems to be the reaseon for these renamings [8800 GTS -> 9800 GTX, 8800 GT -> 9800 GT].
 
ill wait for the [H] real world testing review as usual
 
well i don't think that H review will show any differences its nvidia card against nvidia card not ati if it scores 14000 then its on par with other nvidia card that scores 14000 and probably its 8800gts 512 cause specs look same
 
It's definitely not looking good but I'm reminded of how GREAT the 2900XT looked on paper. If the 9800 cards perform as their rumored spec sheets suggest; big disappointment. But maybe Nvidia has a new trick up their sleeve, some new feature they're going to turn or something. Who knows.
 
I really want to know what they're smoking at nvidia. First they confuse everyone by re-using the 8800GTS name, now they're rebadging it as a 9800GTX.

If the 9800GTX overclocks like a motherfucker then I might get one, if not they can go to hell.
 
Atech said:
Who cares about 3Dmarks...it's games that matters!
Click to expand...

The ONE advantage of 3dMark or any canned benchmark is you get a stable comparasion tool that doesn't vary from one card to another. It isn't going to tell you how the cards will play in your favorite game.

So, if this new 9800GTX gets 14000 and an 8800GTS(G92) gets 14000 then you can probably say, with a fair amount of confidence, that the 2 cards will perform at similiar levels.

So, why buy a 9800GTX if it's gonna be real close to an 8800GTS(G92).
 
Considering the naming convention its very misleading. Granted most who read here would probably know what card to choose however the average joe who wants to get into gaming will possibly be disappointed.

I was actually looking forward to the 9800GTX thinking it was a replacement for the 8800GTX. I can only imagine what the price will be for the 9800X2.
 
rodsfree said:
The ONE advantage of 3dMark or any canned benchmark is you get a stable comparasion tool that doesn't vary from one card to another. It isn't going to tell you how the cards will play in your favorite game.

So, if this new 9800GTX gets 14000 and an 8800GTS(G92) gets 14000 then you can probably say, with a fair amount of confidence, that the 2 cards will perform at similiar levels.

So, why buy a 9800GTX if it's gonna be real close to an 8800GTS(G92).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'd call 3dmark a stable comparison. It is baised vs manufactores, and that score included the CPU score which means the test platform is now included. Not to mention it's happened in the past that certin drivers have "downgraded" the actual graphics settings when it detects d3mark06 is running to boost fps and scores...
 
Hopefully prices will go down - they're cutting out stream processors and ROPs and every other damn thing, so that /should/ mean lower fab costs, which they may pass on to end users after a while. I'm certainly glad I didn't sell my 8800 GTXs for this, but I don't believe it's going to be the "ripoff" many are expecting. Nothing terribly impressive, of course, but not a step backward either.

The good news, under several layers of minor disappointment, is this: they're learning how to make fewer SPs and ROPs and all do more work. That'll translate to faster cards once they scale the numbers back up.
 
I'm looking at the 9800GTX like this: the 9600GT isn't a shabby card even though on paper it looks like a joke. Nvidia's got something going with the 9 series that isn't a "specification". The 9600GT is just a shade behind the 8800GT which is just a shade behind the 8800GTS which is just a shade behind the 8800GTX. I think the new 9800GTX is gonna be good.
 
Never base a cards performance on a 3D mark score. Look how many boasted how high 2900XT scores were on 3D mark 06. Look at there top 20 & see how many 2900XT based configurations you see up there. How did that card in real game performance? It SUCKED =P. So everyone just chill out & wait for some benchmarks before throwing fits. If the 9600 GT is a sign of anything, we may be in for quite the surprise with the 9800 GTX.

-DarkLegacy
 
Well I am gonna upgrade to a 9800GX2 now that we have this information. My 8800GTX is not cutting it in Crysis. I need a good 5-10 fps more to make Crysis smooth. I am sure the 9800GX2 will offer that. I am pretty disgusted at nVidia. I really do hope this is just a sandbagging tactic like some have already said. I have been feeling the need to upgrade for the past 6 months pretty much.
 
Wow, thats pretty crap. My GTX and Q6600 got a higher 3D06.. Ah well good job i didn't wait for the 9 series, which appears to be a pile of shit atm.
 
So what do you guys think? Do you think I will be able to get above 40fps in Crysis at 1920x1080 with everything very high with the following specs...

Asus X48 Formula Rampage
Intel Q9550 @ 3.8-4.0Ghz
8GB G.Skill PC2 8000
9800GX2

I am thinking I will, but I still wanna get your input. I am just simply using Crysis for a benchmark as far as where I want to be performance-wise.
 
No point in using Crysis as a benchmark for anything given it runs like absolute crap in comparison to literally every other title on the market today.
 
Meh, i'm still planning on rolling the dice and stepup my GTS512 SLI setup to a quad gx2 setup. The GTX's wont be out in time for my stepup anyway.
 
Niceone said:
Geforce 9800 GTX ain't Nvidia's next gen. Just renamed 8800 GTS 512..which weren't new gen. Nvidia's next gen will lauanch late Q2/early Q3 to replace these cards.
Click to expand...

That's not what the naming convention suggests. Neither does time/technology suggest it either. This dance that Nvidia is doing is a losing one. Joe Public won't stay ignorant for long when they realize they're buying old tech and their competitor is releasing newer, more robust stuff. Might take a while for the word to get out of the enthusiast camps but I guarantee you it will come out.
 
silent-circuit said:
No point in using Crysis as a benchmark for anything given it runs like absolute crap in comparison to literally every other title on the market today.
Click to expand...
That said Crysis is truly next gen. That is why I care about it as a benchmark. My 8800GTX plays EVERYTHING except Crysis well. I need something that I know will play all the best games at the highest settings on my 1080p LCD. That is why it matters.
 
it would be neat if all the guys with the gts 512 could update the bios to 9800gtx. maybe that would boost the ram voltage too?
 
trudude said:
That said Crysis is truly next gen. That is why I care about it as a benchmark. My 8800GTX plays EVERYTHING except Crysis well. I need something that I know will play all the best games at the highest settings on my 1080p LCD. That is why it matters.
Click to expand...

My machine can run Crysis and I admit it looks amazing. So far, the gameplay isn't great. I prefer Call of Duty.
 
rodsfree said:
The ONE advantage of 3dMark or any canned benchmark is you get a stable comparasion tool that doesn't vary from one card to another. It isn't going to tell you how the cards will play in your favorite game.
Click to expand...

Stable comparison tool....good one. The 8600GTS scores just under 6k in 3dmark06. M 7900GTX scored just over 6k. Guess which one sucked hard in gaming compared to the other?

silent-circuit said:
No point in using Crysis as a benchmark for anything given it runs like absolute crap in comparison to literally every other title on the market today.
Click to expand...

Runs fine for me and looks better than any other game ive ever played.
 
Wolf-R1 said:
That's not what the naming convention suggests. Neither does time/technology suggest it either. This dance that Nvidia is doing is a losing one. Joe Public won't stay ignorant for long when they realize they're buying old tech and their competitor is releasing newer, more robust stuff. Might take a while for the word to get out of the enthusiast camps but I guarantee you it will come out.
Click to expand...
You didn't give any reason why to believe that Nvidia would have delayed G100.

Naming convention: Well Nvidia is screwed up on this one already.They could call it Geforce 9900 series or pick new name; Geforce 9 being just stopping point. Time/technology: GF9000-series is basically G92-stuff, which will hit 6 months of age at March. G92-stuff will be 9-10 months old when R700 and G100 should arrive..give me reason why to believe that G100 was being delayed?
 
Snowdog said:
All leaks said all the 9800s are just 8800s with a name change. They are all G92 Chips. Nothing to see here.

NV dropped the ball after a huge lead.
Click to expand...


That would suck, that NV would release a "new" card that is the "flagship" of it's line, when in reality, it's just a juiced up G92 GTS 512....

At least for those of us that just bought G92's....we don't have to worry about a totally faster, newer card coming out...


Of course, this is all speculation since nothing is official.
 
skizzled said:
Well it looks like I can just call my 8800GTS a 9800GTX for shits and giggles.
Click to expand...


Add some better cooling maybe...over clock it, and technically, it might be FASTER than the stock "new" card.:) Hell, my new G92 GTS is already at 730/1745/1000 and I have not even tried further...
 
Are you guys forgetting that the 9600GT is beating even the HD3870 right now, when, spec-wise, it's not supposed to?

There's obviously something else with these 9 series that provide a bit more performance...
 
You know, Nvidia wouldn't be getting nearly as much flack if they had just called these the 8900 series (starting with the release of the G92 based 8800GT and 8800GTS).

That's all this new card is really, an 8900GTX.
 
Zetherin said:
Are you guys forgetting that the 9600GT is beating even the HD3870 right now, when, spec-wise, it's not supposed to?

There's obviously something else with these 9 series that provide a bit more performance...
Click to expand...

Exactly, i think Nvidia could produce a rediculous powerhouse right now if they wanted to.

But probably wont seeing how ATI's latest offering falls short of a need for it. My guess is they will delay even further the GTX, i have faith in Nvidia, they havent done a "souped up similar performance" type deal before. We'll probably just see the 9800gx2.

If they do do it they are gonna lose customers. Although not many, since the average consumer is their money maker and they'll never figure it out.
 
Zetherin said:
Are you guys forgetting that the 9600GT is beating even the HD3870 right now, when, spec-wise, it's not supposed to?

There's obviously something else with these 9 series that provide a bit more performance...
Click to expand...
9600 GT uses new G94-chip that has few G92's bugs fixed. Geforce 9800 GTX uses same G92-chips (A2-revision, bugs not fixed) as 8800 GTS 512/1024
 
Well F the GTX then, guess we will have to wait and see.
 
S3th13 said:
I don't know about improved... my 8800GTS G92 scores about that high in 3DMark06, and I'm sure I have a good amount of overclocking headroom left.
Click to expand...

While I only ran 3DMark 2006 a couple of times during stress testing, I could have sworn I had scores close to this as well. It an Evga superclocked card which I haven't pushed any farther but it would seem a little off to have my 8800GT scoring close to something which should be outperforming it by a decent margin. I'm also running an overclocked Q6600 and 4 gig of RAM but I'm not sure how much that would affect things.

I guess it doesn't really matter to me, I don't plan on getting rid of my 8800GT for a good long time. It plays everything I want for now so it's all good.

 
I am considering going for 8800GTS G92 Sli setup if all this pans out and prices drop.
 
SmokeRngs said:
I guess it doesn't really matter to me, I don't plan on getting rid of my 8800GT for a good long time. It plays everything I want for now so it's all good.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've been amazed at what I can get away with with just one single 8800GT with a modest overclock going on. I'm getting simillar numbers to yours in 3dMark.

I'm not seeing any incentive yet to consider making a move away from it anytime soon, either. I see myself staying with my 8800GT for a good, long time at this rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top