EVGA 9800GX2 Unboxing and Benchmarks

Wait, I don't get it.... is he updating his CPU?









</sarcasm>
Thanks for the report.... but really, damn you for tempting me =(
 
From a few weeks ago:
http://www.incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=20374&p=5

WOOT OMG YAY! My QX9650 just arrived :) At the moment, I seriously couldn't be happier. I've been building my rig since May, and I'm just now completing it, what a relief *wipes brow* *cries* ;) ;) ;). This is one of the best systems any 16 year old could ask for, and by all means was it not easy to obtain the funds. Benchmarks will come in the next hour or so. Here's some packaging for you guys:

dsc02504lr9.jpg


dsc02505by5.jpg


*UPDATE* Initial Benchmark results
Here's my promise to all you guys: :)

Untitled-1.png

http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=6222382&compareResultType=14

18,518 ain't bad for an initial run right?
 
After reading through this fully, i think i'm going to go back and bench mine a bit more. I was able to get 15500 with SLI disabled and a q6600@ 3.6, but quad SLI just pissed me off so much that i yanked both cards and put my GT back in. I think i'll play around with a single card again and see what i can get done.
 
Hmmm, interesting. My rig (e6850 @ 3.7ghz) and stock clocked evga 9800gx2 benches @ 17,000 marks.
 
yeah I know its useless but we're playing with it in this thread, so, NEENER!!!
 
To OP: Well I have to say I'm impressed by the fact that you're 16 and have a rig like. When I was 16 I could only drool over how much better PC gaming was than console gaming (depending on the game). Your parents must either have a lot of money or you worked your ass off for that rig. If it's the latter then to you I sayood job and I hope you enjoy everybit of that system that you can.
 
Im having a problem maybe you experts can help me with:

I recently switched from a PNY 8800 Ultra Factory Overclocked to an EVGA 9800 GX2 Factory Overclocked (KO Model)

I'm not terribly impressed. The 8800 ran everything I could throw at it maxed out, with the obvious except of Crysis. I was hoping the 9800 GX2 would help out Crysis, and it did, but only by about 5 FPS.

I've had a problem with Crysis ever since I switched mobos from a 680i (Striker Extreme) to an X48 (Rampage Formula). The 680i, and 8800 Ultra, would give me about 29 FPS average using the built in Crysis_64 GPU benchmark. Then, I switch my system over to an X48 mobo (see sig), and even though 3D Mark 06 scores stay the same (within 100 points of each other), now the Crysis benchmark drops to an average of 19FPS!! I am told there is no way a motherboard swap can account for a 10FPS drop in a game (using all the same game and system settings, ram, cpu, etc as before). People have said theres a problem somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

So now, I switch to this GX2, and the Crysis benchmark goes up to 25 FPS, which is still 5 FPS LOWER than the 680i w/ the 8800 Ultra! Is there a problem with the X48 chipset/drivers/PCI-E 2.0 slots that I don't know about?? I'm using 174.74 nvidia forceware

Anyway, heres some 3D Mark 06 pics on the X48 w/ the 8800 Ultra and then the GX2. I think my scrores are low in general for my high end system, so I think theres a problem somewhere. I have uninstalled and reinstalled Vista 64 numerous times with no result.

8800 Ultra:



9800 GX2:



And a pic of the beast:



GPU-Z pic of both 9800 GPUs:

 
JM001 said:
To OP: Well I have to say I'm impressed by the fact that you're 16 and have a rig like. When I was 16 I could only drool over how much better PC gaming was than console gaming (depending on the game). Your parents must either have a lot of money or you worked your ass off for that rig. If it's the latter then to you I sayood job and I hope you enjoy everybit of that system that you can.
Click to expand...

Oh trust me, it's the latter ;) I've got a job, but it isn't easy managing finances as most of you *reasonable people* know.

As stated, I've literally been building this rig since May 2007, and....problem after problem....delay after delay...after delay, I've finally managed to build my dream rig envisioned back in February 2006. My goal back then was to eventually have a rig someday with a quad core, a GPU with 1GB of memory, and 4GB of system memory. Sure enough, my predictions were exactly correct as I find myself looking at my dream rig as I type this ;). If there's anyone who has been unfortunate enough to experience more than 14 hardware errors in his summer due strictly to manufacturing issues, that person would be me.. If there is anyone who has waited more than 9 months for a processor to be released that the average consumer wouldn't care for (Q9550) and that processor, upon release, experienced even more manufacturing delay...that person would be me. (And if a person was so blessed by God with a brand new $700 QX9650 days thereafter, that person would be me :p). The point of it all is, patience is a timeless lesson that must be preserved carefully and respectfully. Only then will one reap the benefits of it.
 
dnottis said:
Why oh why a QX???? I have a Q6600 G0 @ 3.75Ghz with 9800 GX2 getting over 20,000 3dmark 2006. I dunno why anyone would waste that much money with Q6600s being so cheap...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=6291328
Click to expand...
For some people the reson it is there is enough.
Multiplier is another so you don´t need high FSB to reach high OC.
QX is the only 45nm Quad that will do 4GHz easy and that 24/7 on air or at all is another reson.
You name it and you can find reson to get a QX over the rest of the new 45nm quads with low multiplier and Q6600 is outdated and hot bastard compare to the 45nm ones.
 
dnottis said:
Why oh why a QX???? I have a Q6600 G0 @ 3.75Ghz with 9800 GX2 getting over 20,000 3dmark 2006. I dunno why anyone would waste that much money with Q6600s being so cheap...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=6291328
Click to expand...


1) Because I got mine brand new retail for $700

2) Because I got it for only $120 more than Q9550 (which I was originally going to get)

3) Because I can set my FSB:RAM ratio to 400 x 10

4) The 45nm Penryn QX9650 has more overclocking potential due to lower power consumption (ex: 4.5GHz is very achievable on water)
 
dnottis said:
Why oh why a QX???? I have a Q6600 G0 @ 3.75Ghz with 9800 GX2 getting over 20,000 3dmark 2006. I dunno why anyone would waste that much money with Q6600s being so cheap...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=6291328
Click to expand...

Ummm I can think of two really good reasons:

1. One since he gets the 10x multiplier he can overclock his CPU higher without being as limited by RAM so he can therefore get more from his proc. w/ cheaper RAM.

2. To get a $700 QX9650 would be a dream deal, those things are supposed to be $1050.00+. So that's a hell of a deal. 30% discount is always good :).

And OP you are a pretty smart 16 year old. Not many 16 year old's have the patience you do. Like I said you deserve every bit of that system for working so hard to get it.

Annnyyywwwwaaayyyy I'm jealous :p and I'm 26 (goddamn bills I tell ya).
 
dnottis said:
Why oh why a QX???? I have a Q6600 G0 @ 3.75Ghz with 9800 GX2 getting over 20,000 3dmark 2006. I dunno why anyone would waste that much money with Q6600s being so cheap...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=6291328
Click to expand...

There's another reason, you aren't guaranteed an overclock. Period. It may work, it may not work. Everything my look fine and then one day it’s not. It adds risk, but for many the rewards are with it and sure, if you can overclock a $200 CPU to close to the performance of $1000 one why not?

Another reason for me was I already have a Q6600, so I wanted something else. I do a fair amount of encoding and you can’t overclock for SSE4 with a Q6600 at least.
 
heatlesssun said:
There's another reason, you aren't guaranteed an overclock. Period. It may work, it may not work. Everything my look fine and then one day it’s not. It adds risk, but for many the rewards are with it and sure, if you can overclock a $200 CPU to close to the performance of $1000 one why not?

Another reason for me was I already have a Q6600, so I wanted something else. I do a fair amount of encoding and you can’t overclock for SSE4 with a Q6600 at least.
Click to expand...

Pretty much nothing uses SSE4 yet, and by the time anything worth bothering with does Nehalem will have arrived and we'll need a new board and new RAM anyway. QX chips are pretty much impossible to justify right now.

If you have they money, and that's how you want to spend it, there is no stopping you... but it's entirely a 'because I can' sort of thing.
 
silent-circuit said:
If you have they money, and that's how you want to spend it, there is no stopping you... but it's entirely a 'because I can' sort of thing.
Click to expand...

in my experience, every time that someone told me something was a bad idea, and my only justification for it was "because I can", that something turned out to be a source of regret/buyer's remorse. That's just me though.
 
dont bother. the performance bumps available right now arent worth $350 and up, ie at least a q9450. i went from a q6600 to an e8400 and i have to run @ 4300 to equal the quad @ 3700. and so far the 9450/9650, etc arent showing much oc on regular type air/water cooling.
 
AuDioFreaK39 said:
Temps closely resemble the GeForce 7 series for some reason. I'm idling 65C at 45% fan RPM and getting just under 80C at load with 75% fan RPM.
Click to expand...

The 8s run about the same -- those look like G80 numbers (8800 GTX / 8800 GTS 320/640MB). That's a bit high for a G92, but considering there are two of them sandwiched together, not at all unreasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top