TheRapture
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 31, 2000
- Messages
- 6,885
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
9800GTX scores 14,000 in 3DMark 06
- Thread starter defiant007
- Start date
silent-circuit
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2005
- Messages
- 16,136
Don't you mean best work ArtX ever did?
...and via ArtX, SGI. SGI > all.
To those that are doubting these reports, it does make sense that the performance would be where it is.
If you look at the Nvidia roadmap that was posted here http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ0MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==, it indicates that the 9800GX2 will be the highest end 9 series card. The GX2 is only ~30% faster than the 8800Ultra.
Why is it so hard to believe that the 9800GTX, which WILL be a slower card than the 9800GX2, won't be a lot faster than an 8800GT?
If you look at the Nvidia roadmap that was posted here http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ0MCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==, it indicates that the 9800GX2 will be the highest end 9 series card. The GX2 is only ~30% faster than the 8800Ultra.
Why is it so hard to believe that the 9800GTX, which WILL be a slower card than the 9800GX2, won't be a lot faster than an 8800GT?
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
looks rubbish
I believe it, and acording to the roadmap makes perfect sense. Especially if the GX2 is ony 30% or so faster than an Ultra. I still am disappointed. I wanted the GTX to still be a monster.
It is now just really sinking in the GX2 was nVidia's answer to the Ultra killer, or as close as we were going to get withought the new generation of GPU's being released.
If we accept the fact that the 9800 GTX is slower than the GX2, and we have H's roadmap page telling us the GX2 is 30% or more faster than the ultra, if you want the GTX to be fast also, you really need to be hoping the GX2 is way faster than 30%. The 9800 GTX has to fit in below it somewhere....
I think the GX2 will be King until the end of the year, or whenever the next gen GPU tech gets released.
Exactly.
...
Do people even read the articles ? It's "at least" 30% faster. Not "only" 30% faster...
Which is why exactly why there's a lot of headroom for the new GTX. I'm still betting on it being 30-40% faster than the current 8800 GTX. The GX2 will be faster anyway, in most cases.
Again, "at least" 30% faster. Worst case scenario and that gives a lot of headroom for the new GTX. Remember that the old GTX was not much slower than the Ultra. Around 10-15%. I'm betting on the new GTX not being more than 20% slower than the GX2.
....
Do people even read posts?
My post never said "only 30%." It said "only ~30%," which means only approximately or around 30%. Plenty of wiggle room there.
The whole point is that the 9800GX2 will be the fastest 9 series card, at least for the foreseeable future. The 9800GTX will fall in line below the GX2 and will provide no where near double the performance we usually expect with a new generation of cards. It's entirely possible, even likely, that the leaked GPUZ screenshot is real.
As you yourself said it, the ~ means approximate value, not "at least". At least is worst case scenario and performance could reach a boost of over 50%. Not much room with ~30%, at all...
Anyway, I don't think there's any doubt that the GX2 is going to be the fastest card of the GeForce 9 series. However, the GTX will not just be an overclocked GTS 512.
Also, double the performance is not as usual as you make it. Only the 7 to 8 series, provided that performance leap clearly. From 6 series to 7 series, which was not a new architecture, provided a 60-70% boost, not double the performance.
This is the same case for the 8 to 9 series. It's not a new architecture, but a derivative of G80/G92. The GX2 should provide a close to 60-70% boost over the 8 series top card (in the best case scenario), while the new GTX should be 30-40% faster than the current 8800 GTX.
People still think that the rumors that point to a 9800 GTX powered by a G92 chip, automatically mean that the chip is exactly the same as the one used in the new GTS 512. But that might not be the case. Different revisions of the chip, enable previously disabled features and I won't say more.
And then there are some cases where the SLI will make this card offer nothing more in preformance.
Exactly.
So, I'm just wondering, and I'm going to throw this out there, with all the comments being made on how the 9800 series has "no improvements" or "doesn't expanding Nvidia's technological horizons" or whatever compared to the 8800 series. Has anyone thought that maybe, just maybe, they're resting on their laurels right now, knowing that their current offerings are better (price/performance ratio) than AMD/ATI's, and thus, rather than spending more money implementing newer technologies, they are just rehashing their "bread and butter" and spending more money on R&D for the future, when AMD/ATI releases their Golden Card? I dunno, just wondering if anyone has thought that...
The ~ still doesn't mean "only." I'm not going to argue all the possible values that "approximately or around" could be since that's subjective.
Btw, "at least 30%" is something Nvidia's marketing department tossed out. You don't have to be so gullible. Up to 50% is your own guess, if you have some real info, please post it.
You then say it "might not be the case" that we're dealing with the same G92 chip. Once again, no proof, it may be the case for all we know. If you have any info on disabled features, I beg you to post it. I'm just as curious about this card as anyone here
Once again, the point is that the leaked GPUZ screeny isn't that far fetched.
Pretty sure that's what most of us are thinking.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
at the end of the day u lot may get shafted but people like me who have an AGP system will see a MASSIVE improvement for our gaming
I'd say they're throwing that money into the corporate executive Yacht and Private Golfcourse fund
I would 4sure... i'd say screw all those gamer b*tches... all they do is whine (me inc)...who needs a 9800GX2 when ur racing yatchs sippin champs and flicking caviar at ppl in canoes...
mmm i want one of those california roll sushi thingos with the fisheggs now.....
They are rare these times. For example ComputerBase's 9600 GT SLI review had 15 games being tested; Company of Heroes DX10 with AA-enabled was only place where this happened. In all other occasions there was significant increase and thing is that Geforce 9600 GT scales better than HD3870 in dual card solutions..
The ~ still doesn't mean "only." I'm not going to argue all the possible values that "approximately or around" could be since that's subjective.
Btw, "at least 30%" is something Nvidia's marketing department tossed out. You don't have to be so gullible. Up to 50% is your own guess, if you have some real info, please post it.
You then say it "might not be the case" that we're dealing with the same G92 chip. Once again, no proof, it may be the case for all we know. If you have any info on disabled features, I beg you to post it. I'm just as curious about this card as anyone here
Once again, the point is that the leaked GPUZ screeny isn't that far fetched.
The problem is that if the "30%" figure means eg. 13 vs. 10 FPS at mega-resolution, it's meaningless...
I still don't like SLI/Crossfire and the bugs that comes with it.
Give me one powerfull CPUto rule them all...not this sandwich-crap.
The ~ still doesn't mean "only." I'm not going to argue all the possible values that "approximately or around" could be since that's subjective.
Btw, "at least 30%" is something Nvidia's marketing department tossed out. You don't have to be so gullible. Up to 50% is your own guess, if you have some real info, please post it.
You then say it "might not be the case" that we're dealing with the same G92 chip. Once again, no proof, it may be the case for all we know. If you have any info on disabled features, I beg you to post it. I'm just as curious about this card as anyone here
Once again, the point is that the leaked GPUZ screeny isn't that far fetched.
I haven't heard anything about nvidia implimenting squiggly lines into the 9800GTX...
The ~ still doesn't mean "only." I'm not going to argue all the possible values that "approximately or around" could be since that's subjective.
Btw, "at least 30%" is something Nvidia's marketing department tossed out. You don't have to be so gullible. Up to 50% is your own guess, if you have some real info, please post it.
You then say it "might not be the case" that we're dealing with the same G92 chip. Once again, no proof, it may be the case for all we know. If you have any info on disabled features, I beg you to post it. I'm just as curious about this card as anyone here
Once again, the point is that the leaked GPUZ screeny isn't that far fetched.
It's not being gullible. It's using the available articles as base, which is the same thing you're doing.
Yes, 50% is my guess, but it's under "at least" 30%, which is in the article.
As for disabled features, this gives an hint, but doesn't give much detail:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/...erformance_Mainstream_Graphics_Processor.html
These disabled features can range from a wider memory bus (back to G80's original 384 bit) to a few more Stream Processors. I'm betting on 160 right now.
Point is, there's more to the 9800 GTX than just an overclocked 8800 GTS 512. It won't be faster than the new GX2, but it won't be slower than the 8800 Ultra, which is the case of the GTS 512, at higher resolutions.
10 vs. 13 FPS comparison is meaningless..Neither are playable. When original post like 30 then new card would post at least 39 FPS and that's significant already. ..or if you are FPS freak and you aim at 60 fps then when original card goes to 48 fps then that new one would go to 60 fps.
But.. if 9600 GT SLI is already 15% faster then it would be hard to believe that 9800 GX2 would be only 30% faster..
Well 9800 GTX uses A2 so we don't have to speculate what that A3 will mean when we are talking about that card.
GPUZ could be misreading the revision.
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
i wouldnt evan call it next gen
This ain't next gen..just renaming G92-product. Next gen will arrive Q2/Q3 [G100]
We don't know which revision of the chip, the 9800 GTX uses.
For 06 to be a meaningful bench on mid high end to high end cards you really need to bench something other than 1280x with no filtering IMO. 1920x 4xAA would be a good idea.
14k is kind of disappointing if true. I tried an 8800GT in this rig set to 700|1000 1700 with a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz. With Vista, the 169.32 driver, quality driver settings in the CP, and @ default or 1280x it did 13.7K
14k is kind of disappointing if true. I tried an 8800GT in this rig set to 700|1000 1700 with a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz. With Vista, the 169.32 driver, quality driver settings in the CP, and @ default or 1280x it did 13.7K
Benchmarks are used to compare machines, what else would it be used for? Show how good 3dmark runs on them? That is what it does right now, I can't stand it when people bench it with different settings, I and many other people wouldn't be able to compare it because we havent run the test.
1280x1024 is the default in the program and is the only resolution we can use with the Basic version.
What if every State in the US had a different currency? We wouldn't be able to trade, same deal above. If you want to see some real numbers how games run on your machine... run those games and show us the results!
1280x1024 is the default in the program and is the only resolution we can use with the Basic version.
What if every State in the US had a different currency? We wouldn't be able to trade, same deal above. If you want to see some real numbers how games run on your machine... run those games and show us the results!
That still dosn't stop GPU makers from using such numbers in their presentations, like it or not.
That links show with beauty why 3Dmarks are useless...