GeForce 8800GT (G92) Scored 10769 in 3DMark06

[mboy67]

The launch date is said to be October 29th (Tomorrow)

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/6949/8800gt2on0.jpg

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/GeForce_8800GT_%28G92%29_Scored_10769_in_3DMark06/5309.html#Scene_1

http://www.pcstats.com/NewsViewRss.cfm?NewsID=62182

This Card will be replacing the 320 GTS's This explains why the 320 GTS's prices have dropped lately.

This card is also stated to perform better then ATI's RV670 due out November 12 (time will tell on that one).

[mboy67]

http://www.expreview.com/img/topic/8800gt/3dmark_01.png

[mboy67]

http://www.expreview.com/img/topic/8800gt/3dmark_02.png

[mboy67]

http://topic.expreview.com/2007-10-23/1193114539d6255.html

http://incrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=10695

[mboy67]

http://myevilprocessor.blogspot.com/2007/10/geforce-8800-gt-512mb.html

With all the info out on the cards it looks like it will be the best bang for the buck. I hope this means more prices will be dropping on the current 320 GTS's

[mboy67]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I posted about this card in another thread so who cares about it now makes it even more OLD news.

Not much better then a 320MB card and shows that ATI sucks royal arse right now.

Exspecially those X1900 cards.
</div></div>

I care your just mad Cuz I reposted about it. So Please stop all this Childish Old news Crap and talk about this card only or better yet don't if you have no constructive information.

[mboy67]

Price wise it looks like this is the card to buy for anyone looking to upgrade.

[Killswitch]

Interesting, but how does a model which is said to fill the gap in between the 8600GTS and 8800GTS beat all but an 8800GTX?

[Madmax]

It does not beat it that is why it sucks, wait for a G100 card.

[Killswitch]

Explain how the 8800GT sucks? Your mighty wisdom should be very interesting.

[Madmax]

Simple it is not any better then the GTX and not much better then the GTS a bad move on Nvidia for making a card that is not really a good card.

They should have released a faster GTX version or a faster card then the GTX.

[mboy67]

Your missing the point the card for the price is what counts.

Sure it does not beat the gtx but at half the price you have to admit that it's a good deal. I would like to see what 2 of these card do together.

I myself am waiting for the next gen of cards before I up grade but for anyone who does not have a DX10 card and wants one for a good price I think this is the one to get. the true result of it will be out after the release and we see what users are getting and what the other reviewers have to say.

[Ultra54]

That could be my next card. The price is right and it will kick the [censored] out of my 7950 GX2. Guess my kid is getting a 7950 GX2.

[Madmax]

Ah for the price if it beats ATI X1900's and comes close to the 2900XT's right now then sure it is not bad for the price, but it sucks for its reasoning of being in the market and not worth buying, ppl should just wait until the G100 series comes out.

The 320MB SC comes close as well, but we will see how much the GT sells for in Canada.

[mboy67]

I think you are disappointed that you did not wait for it to come out as it's better and cheaper then the card you just bought.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you are disappointed that you did not wait for it to come out as it's better and cheaper then the card you just bought.</div></div>

No not at all as i got a good price and the GT is not much faster then what i have, plus the extra 6-8 frames per second i have that plus more then what they stated right now.

[Killswitch]

This card is far from sucking @$$!!!!! Not only is it at a good price point AND beating the 8800GTS and 2900XT, but it's core is made with a 65nm process. That means it'll run use less power and run cooler, hence the smaller heatsink/fan.

[Madmax]

What price where????

Beating out the GTS...... LMAO with a 3.4ghz CPU... LMAO.... 6-8 frames more..... lmao

Runs cooler.... lmao .. 2 degrees less.

1kw less power..... lmao

[Killswitch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you are disappointed that you did not wait for it to come out as it's better and cheaper then the card you just bought. </div></div>
BINGO!!!!!!! LOL

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think you are disappointed that you did not wait for it to come out as it's better and cheaper then the card you just bought. </div></div>
BINGO!!!!!!! LOL </div></div>

I guess you missed my post about that.

[Ultra54]

Sweet! I'm in. I will order tomorrow.

[Ultra54]

Please tell me that the rest of you think someone is absolutely insane? If so let me know in pm

[mboy67]

It's nice to see someone sees the relevance of this thread.

This card should not require as much power either to run maybe even allowing some people to upgrade to this without having to upgrade their power supply too. I think this was a great move on Nvidia's part.

[Madmax]

LMAO

Not at all, just was wondering about the rest of the folks in here..... is all.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's nice to see someone sees the relevance of this thread.

This card should not require as much power either to run maybe even allowing some people to upgrade to this without having to upgrade their power supply too. I think this was a great move on Nvidia's part.</div></div>

Relevance to what, outdated posted information is all i see.

Yeah wait and see if ppl need to upgrade those 350 watters and 430 watters.

[mboy67]

maybe I will buy one and review it using a small PS to find out.

Their are some good high quality power supplies of 350W to 500W out there. I have many here I can try out as well.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.expreview.com/img/topic/8800gt/3dmark_01.png </div></div>

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> http://www.expreview.com/img/topic/8800gt/3dmark_02.png </div></div>

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">maybe I will buy one and review it using a small PS to find out.

Their are some good high quality power supplies of 350W to 500W out there. I have many here I can try out as well.</div></div>

Antec maybe, buy one and smoke it, lets us know.

[mboy67]

I have 3 antec's in house a 300, 330 and a 370

The 370 is currently powering my Dual SATA II Motherboard with the CPU upgrade daughter board and a AM2 3800+ Dual core and 2 gigs of ram with power to spare.

[Killswitch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beating out the GTS...... LMAO with a 3.4ghz CPU... LMAO.... 6-8 frames more..... lmao

Runs cooler.... lmao .. 2 degrees less.

1kw less power..... lmao

</div></div>
Where'd you get this info?
6-8 frames more is a lot for a 256bit card vs. a 320bit card.
If it's true that it's only 2 degrees less, have a look at the difference in heatsink size!
1KW less power? That comment proves that any sign of intelligence is far and few between.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have 3 antec's in house a 300, 330 and a 370

The 370 is currently powering my Dual SATA II Motherboard with the CPU upgrade daughter board and a AM2 3800+ Dual core and 2 gigs of ram with power to spare.</div></div>

Try overclocking that build and see if it goes poof on ya in a month or so or even sooner.

[Ultra54]

Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I should pay more for less performance. What was I thinking?

[Ultra54]

Your good with that PS Mboy.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MadMax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Beating out the GTS...... LMAO with a 3.4ghz CPU... LMAO.... 6-8 frames more..... lmao

Runs cooler.... lmao .. 2 degrees less.

1kw less power..... lmao

</div></div>
Where'd you get this info?
6-8 frames more is a lot for a 256bit card vs. a 320bit card.
If it's true that it's only 2 degrees less, have a look at the difference in heatsink size!
1KW less power? That comment proves that any sign of intelligence is far and few between.</div></div>

LMAO

Go read as it is in this thread and out on many sites.


6-8 frames more then a regular 320MB card whoopy, i can do more than that now on this SC version.

[mboy67]

I have it overclocked to 2.4 and the mem to 800 (stock 675)

[Madmax]

Thats all, geesh oc it to 2.8ghz to 2.9ghz.

[Ultra54]

Why don't you go buy a water cooled setup and run it at 3.1?

[mboy67]

it's only my Game server not my main rig.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I should pay more for less performance. What was I thinking?</div></div>

Where do you see that as they only ran it against a normal 320MB card not a SC or a [censored] version and it is a disapointment as it is not better then a regular 640MB version.

Yeah the GT is worth maybe $50.00 less for the less performance that it gives.

Buy a 320MB SC or the [censored] version cards or maybe a GT OC card if it is better then the SC and [censored] versions of the 320MB and of course the OC versions will cost more.

[Madmax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why don't you go buy a water cooled setup and run it at 3.1?</div></div>

Yeah there is an idea Mboy67 do that spend $500.00 for a GOOD water cooling system and then maybe you can push it that high and with similar TEMPS as water cooling does not give less temps, unless it is chilled.


Oh that is a X3800 AM2 is it not that you have?

[Ultra54]

Interesting (http://forum.ncix.com/forums/index.php?mode=showthread&forum=215&threadid=1466364&pagenumber=4&msgcount=97&subpage=1)

[mboy67]

yes I have been following that thread on there forum too.

[mboy67]

EVGA E-GEFORCE 8800GT Superclocked 650MHZ 512MB DDR3 PCI-E Dual DVI-I HDTV Out DIRECTX10 Video Card $259.99 Canadian


Get a FREE GIFT when you buy this product (web orders only)!
1. Hitman Blood Money (PC Game) (a $25 value!)
2. NVIDIA - The Way It is Meant to Be Played Mouse Pad (a $20 value!)


Not a Bad deal I say.

[Killswitch]

Here's a review comparing it too a 2900XT 512Mb and an 8800GTS 320Mb. There's also a Crysis SP Demo comparison in there.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...ion-review.html (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3073-evga-8800gt-512mb-superclocked-edition-review.html)

More evidence that this card rocks.

[filthy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mboy67</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EVGA E-GEFORCE 8800GT Superclocked 650MHZ 512MB DDR3 PCI-E Dual DVI-I HDTV Out DIRECTX10 Video Card $259.99 Canadian


Get a FREE GIFT when you buy this product (web orders only)!
1. Hitman Blood Money (PC Game) (a $25 value!)
2. NVIDIA - The Way It is Meant to Be Played Mouse Pad (a $20 value!)


Not a Bad deal I say. </div></div>

What site is this on?

[filthy]

Nevermind, found it. My OC'd 8800 GTS 640MB edge out the 2900XT in that review.

[Ultra54]

I just ordered from NCIX.
EVGA E-GEFORCE 8800GT Superclocked 650MHZ 512MB DDR3 PCI-E Dual DVI-I HDTV Out DIRECTX10 Video Card (http://ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=26778)
http://source.ncix.com/lp2/nv88gt/img/tag1.jpg

[filthy]

Good choice my friend...Nvidia has excellent driver support and works great in XP or Vista, 32bit or 64bit. You will be pleased with it's performance for that price.

p.s. can I have the mousepad? ....lol

[Hans]

I stick with my 1900XTX for now, and am going to skip the 8800 and 2900 series. Same way as I skipped the X2 and Intel duo cycle.

[filthy]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Hans</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Same way as I skipped the X2 and Intel duo cycle.</div></div>

You are skipping, but you haven't skipped the X2 and Core 2 Duo's yet, as they are the top going right now these days and for awhile yet. Your card though will still push good gaming for now.

[Ultra54]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I may as well just come out and say it: what we have here is the pinnacle of modern graphics card design and ingenuity. Nvidia has released a product that is absolutely stunning in every meaning of the word and with the 8800GT Superclocked Edition, EVGA has done nothing but improve on it every step of the way. What they have done is made an excellent graphics card even better by overclocking it while maintaining their Lifetime Warranty and adding a pretty good software package to boot. The frame rates this card put out are like nothing I have ever seen in at this price point and to make matters even better for Nvidia, ATI is still weeks away from releasing their own renewed assault on the enthusiast market. Nvidia has really hit the nail on the head with this one. If their board partners like EVGA can keep the retail channel stocked with parts, this is the start of a money-making bonanza for everyone involved because the consumers will but these cards in droves. Even as I write this, forums are ablaze with people who want to buy this card so this is a good start.

I can’t say that I am completely happy with this card though. It isn’t because of a lack of performance but rather I despair for everyone who bought an 8800GTS 320MB card within the last few weeks. Unfortunately, the 8800GT utterly destroys it in every game and benchmark we ran. </div></div>
Review (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3073-evga-8800gt-512mb-superclocked-edition-review.html) Quite a different take than someone around here.

[Killswitch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Review (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3073-evga-8800gt-512mb-superclocked-edition-review.html) Quite a different take than someone around here. </div></div>
I linked that one in my last post. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Killswitch]

Has anyone else wondered what's going on here? Something sure isn't right. It seems like one of those "super-wonder-gadgets for three easy payments of whatever ninty-nine" commercials. On paper ATI's 2900XT should be destroying anything Nvidia has to offer. Especially this card which only has a 256-bit memory bus which is HALF of the 2900XT/Pro's 512-bit bus, but yet it's winning all the marbles!!!! What makes it tick? What makes any of Nvidia's cards tick? The 2900XT should be spanking the 8800GTX as well.... but it's far from it. Is it the drivers? Is there something else they're building into the hardware that they aren't telling us?

Personally I think it's the drivers and ATI better haul out their cheque book and start paying some software engineers who know what they're doing. Nvidia might look ridiculous for coming out with a new driver every other week lol, but at least you can see there is some development going on there and it's obviously paying off!

[filthy]

What's wrong with ATI?

They sold out to AMD.

End of story.

They used to kick a$$.

[Maryms]

Interesting reviews out there as many are using a stock 500mhz 320mb card against the stock factory GT cards. I am not sure why they don't use a SC version of any of the cards to show a clock per clock difference as it makes many wonder about such review sites as being worthy at all to do such reviews based upon a 500mhz card. I also do know of many ppl who have such cards as the SC versions that run past the Ultra speeds in which out perform or equal to these GT cards.

[filthy]

Hey Max...err...I mean Bartho....lol.

[Maryms]

To further add to my previous post:

I happen to get 28-30 frames in Crysis running at 1600 x 1200 no AA and no AF and running 163.75 drivers, windows XP and i set the settings in the Nvidia profile for Crysis.exe and used the High Quality setting too just like that Tom's Hardware review of that GT against a 320MB (mo) the (mo) card is a 500mhz card. The GT was a 600mhz card and got 26 FPS at 1600x1200 no AA and no AF and having the High Quality setting enabled too in windows XP.

Just before i forget, i got 45-55 frames when dropping the resolution to 1280x1024. So much for the reviews out there that use a stock 500mhz 320mb card.

Edit:

Tom's Hardware was running a Quad-Core X6850 and i only have a mere little AMD dual core cpu.

[Hans]

All I can say is I am waiting for DX10.1 to officially come out. I hope I am wrong, but I see something that tells me not all cards are going to be DX 10.1 compatible...

[Maryms]

DX10.1 which ATI and Nvidia have stated the next generation cards will support. The problem is developers have stated they will not be intergrating DX10.1 into games for quite sometime maybe even a year or two.

The DX10 cards that are out right now will support some of the features that DX10.1 has but not all of them. ATI and Nvidia have stated that DX10.1 is a marginal gain and not much of a performance or visual difference over DX10 only that there is some features that will allow for a marginal increase in image quality over DX10.

[Ultra54]

Max, the overclock factor adds very little to the final score.My 7950 GX2 overclocks quite easily yet the final outcome for a given bench changes very little.

[Maryms]

Well my OCed 8800GTS 320mb scored about 2700 points more in 3dmark 06 going from a stock CPU and Video Card. In games it has increased at least 10-15 frames more all just from going from 576mhz to 650mhz on the core and from 1700 to 1874 on the memory and from 1350 to 1450 on the shaders core. The card can go higher, but i need better cooling the 8800's run hot no matter what version of it you purchase.

I have a dual core Cpu and the Quad-Core 2.4ghz-3.0ghz scores about 1500 points in 3dmark 2006, remember that is just a score which frame rate is about 2-5 frames more is all from a Dual Core to a Quad-Core and that all depends on the game.

[Ultra54]

Here's an article (http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/amd_hd_3800_to_support_dx_10/) for you Max.

[filthy]

I agree with Max...omfg the world is gonna end...lol. Honestly this DX 10.1 stuff is hoohay. Dx9 shader 3 cards run fine in Vista, even though they can't push dx10, gaming is still pretty good.

People want to wait for 10.1 and say hah! I waited a year or more to get a few more frames while we've been gaming all along on dx10 which Crysis and UT3 have already justified for me...and then some.

That 8800GT is the perfect card at the perfect time if someone was looking to upgrade, if you don't see that then your a paranoid nerd who needs to come out of the basement.

aaaaahhhhh!!! the sun is burning me!!

lmao

[Maryms]

Just reading the article Ultra54 posted and it is nothing that has not been posted in here already. DX10.1 is no big deal and developers will not utilize it for a year or so.

The multi GPU system ATI is talking about is a 2-4 way card system, but the R700 GPU's are suppose to be 2-4 on one single PCB board.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SaneSam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with Max...omfg the world is gonna end...lol. Honestly this DX 10.1 stuff is hoohay. Dx9 shader 3 cards run fine in Vista, even though they can't push dx10, gaming is still pretty good.

People want to wait for 10.1 and say hah! I waited a year or more to get a few more frames while we've been gaming all along on dx10 which Crysis and UT3 have already justified for me...and then some.

That 8800GT is the perfect card at the perfect time if someone was looking to upgrade, if you don't see that then your a paranoid nerd who needs to come out of the basement.

aaaaahhhhh!!! the sun is burning me!!

lmao</div></div>

I agree about the GT like some posted before about. If a person has a low-end card 7900 and below. Then it is worth while to get the 700mhz GT from EVGA as it will be a little bit faster then say what i have for an OCed 320MB card.

[Ultra54]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I despair for everyone who bought an 8800GTS 320MB card within the last few weeks. Unfortunately, the 8800GT utterly destroys it in every game and benchmark we ran. </div></div>
I found this interesting review on Guru3d (http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/468/1) . Of interest is the benches showing the difference between the OC GT 512 and the vanialla version. Often times there is but one frame difference. Also note that the difference is significant between the GTS and the 320 in particular.At 1920 x 1200 which I often play at there is a 100% increase in certain games,namely World in Conflict DX10. I however am not suggesting that someone upgrade from a 8800GTS to a GT 512.You have to wonder who would buy a GTS 320 today if it is the same price as the 512. I guess Nvidia must be eliminating it. I also hear of major upgrades to the new GTS versions.

[filthy]

Well I achieved over 11,000 in 3Dmark06 with my 8800 GTS 640MB, and after cooling it down, I've now reached 650/1500/2000 and it's bandwidth is 78.5GB/s. That is very similar to the GTX and Ultra. I would not suggest anyone to upgrade unless you have the lower models of the 2600 / 8600 or lower, especially shader 3 cards.

My card is benchmarking better than the 8800 GT, and I'm already halfway to SLi...lol.

As for waiting for Dx 10.1...bah. ATI is pushing it but how much faith can you have in them when their current gen cards are bunk.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I despair for everyone who bought an 8800GTS 320MB card within the last few weeks. Unfortunately, the 8800GT utterly destroys it in every game and benchmark we ran. </div></div>
I found this interesting review on Guru3d (http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/468/1) . Of interest is the benches showing the difference between the OC GT 512 and the vanialla version. Often times there is but one frame difference. Also note that the difference is significant between the GTS and the 320 in particular.At 1920 x 1200 which I often play at there is a 100% increase in certain games,namely World in Conflict DX10. I however am not suggesting that someone upgrade from a 8800GTS to a GT 512.You have to wonder who would buy a GTS 320 today if it is the same price as the 512. I guess Nvidia must be eliminating it. I also hear of major upgrades to the new GTS versions.</div></div>

Again they used a 500mhz GTS 320mb and 500mhz 640MB GTS in that review against a 600mhz GT, look on this page (link Below) of the review to see what else they used.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/468/2/

I don't know why they don't use a [censored] or a SC version of the 320MB card to compare which would be nice to see. They also used a 8800 GT OC card in the review, but why not a 640MB SC or a 320MB SC.

-----------------------------------------------------

Just to compare my 320MB SC at stock is 576mhz and in FEAR it scores around 65 frames Average at 1600x1200 4AA 8AF and that is with both Shadow Options enabled.

I was set at MAXIMUM settings on CPU and on the video card, but went into the configuration to change AF to 8x and the resolution to 1600x1200.

When OCed which it is at 650mhz on the core i score around 74 frames average.

My card OCed is faster then a 8800 GTX Ultra Stock speed card. The Ultra which is the 768MB GTX they used in their review which is 612mhz stock.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now look on this page (Link Below) of their review for FEAR:

It is nice to use fear as a benchmark as it takes out the CPU in the configuration and that is why i use it most often to compare.

You will see at 1600x1200 the 320MB 500mhz card scored 56 frames average and the BFG 8800 GT OC 512MB card scored 67 frames. The non OC GT 512MB scored 66 frames in their review.


Quoted from reveiw:

"Again 4xAA and 16xAF was applied here. All settings to high, no soft shadows though."

Now in their first tests in fear they used Maximum settings for CPU and High for Graphics, then changed resolution to 1600x1200 4 AA/8AF and had soft shadows enabled.

They did not have Soft Shadows Enabled for SLI setup only.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/468/14/

Now the nice thing is they did use a Core 2 Duo X6800 Extreme (Dual Core) processor for their tests instead of a Quad Core, but again (like I noted) in Fear the GHZ on the CPU does not help in the Frame Rate.

-------------------------------------------------

My conclusion about this review they did is like others. The review is Fudded as they did not test the SC or [censored] versions of the 320MB GTS and/or a 640MB GTS and/or 768MB GTS cards.

The problem is that when ppl see these types of reviews they automatically think the GT womps a 320MB card, yes it does do that to a 500mhz 320MB card, but not a SC or [censored] version of the 320MB card, but in fact the GT's are very similar in scores and if your really look at it the 320MB SC verson (like mine at stock = 576mhz) compares to a 600mhz GT in many games. Now that i am OCed to 650mhz i out beat many of those scores they showed in the review.

So the greatness of a GT versus a 500mhz 320mb and a 500mhz 640MB in that review is nothing more then what it should be.

[Maryms]

Ok

I just ran a test in FEAR at the settings they used which is MAXIMUM on CPU (i am guessing), HIGH for Graphics which then turns to Custom once you go in and set the Resolution to 1600x1200 and make sure soft shadows is disabled, I used NOAA/8AF.

I was using the 163.75 drivers in windows XP.

I scored 104 frames average which 19 frames higher then the Ultra GTX in their review which scored 85 frames using 4AAand used soft shadows enabled in that test for 85 frames.

Remember from my above post i only got 74 frames with soft shadows enabled and settings of MAXIMUM they used HIGH. That is a 30 FPS decrease when at MAXIMUM settings and soft shadows enabled for my 320MB card (remember they used HIGH settings to acheive 85 frames for the Ultra GTX), but 74 frames all Maximum settings out is awesome for FEAR.

Here is the screenshot of the result:

This is a good comparison (of my 1 x 8800GTS 320MB OCed card @650mhz) to their SLI setup of 2x 8800 GT 512MB (NON OC) cards, which they scored 127 FPS in FEAR Which They Claimed at 1600x1200 4aa/16af no soft shadows enabled.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9418/fear1600x1200onhighsettgr6.jpg

[Killswitch]

They used 16xAF in that test, not 8xAF. I don't know how much of a difference that will make with your particular card. Try again and see. Nice average though.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They used 16xAF in that test, not 8xAF. I don't know how much of a difference that will make with your particular card. Try again and see. Nice average though.</div></div>

Yes i edited my post to show 16AF on their sli setup, plus i used NOAA for the 104 score... hehehe ... to prove something.

I will now run NOAA/16AF.

I scored 98 frames.

Now with 4AA/16AF and set to high 1600x1200, i scored 74 frames.
That was the same score as when i ran 4AA/8AF at 1600 x 1200.


The thing about FEAR is you can run it three times back to back on same settings and get a difference of about 5-8 either way.

Now i think their review is fudded for 127 frames. I must email them to find out exactly as the NON OC GT got 66 frames with 4AA/8AF all by itself with soft shadows enabled. There is no way it will jump to 127 frames in fear with two cards with the settings they claimed they used in the SLI setup.

[Maryms]

Ok to further prove their 127 frames at the settings they stated is fud here it is.

Look at the Average in the review I provided http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1024&pageID=2907 for 1 x 8800 GTX with 4aa/8af 1600x1200, Fear patch 108, Soft Shadows Disabled. They ran Maximum Settings (not High). Then look at the average for 2 x 8800 GTX's.

Now here is a little secret the difference between MAXIMUM and HIGH for CPU and GPU is not much of a difference no matter what card you run.

You will see 84 frames for 1 x 8800 GTX and 111 frames for 2 x 8800 GTX's a difference of 27 frames.

There is no way in heck 2 x 600mhz GT's will have a 61 frame difference from 1 x 8800 GT = 66 frames to 2 x 8800 GT's = 127 frames at the settings Guru3d provided.

That would be saying the GT's will get 16 more frames then 2 x 8800 GTX's in FEAR with the similar settings a WHOPPING 98% SLI increase for the GT's in SLI mode, compared to 1 x 8800 GT.

Ok to further add to this i got 74 frames all maxed out 4aa/8af, but with AAoff i jumped to 104 frames that is a 30 FPS increase.

The only way Guru3D could have got a 61 Frame Increase (over 1 x 8800 GT) with 2 x 8800 GT's (SLI MODE) is with AAoff, because it would have been around 92-94 FPS if 4AA was on and not 127 FPS like they stated.

[Ultra54]

Your conclusions are based on one game Fear..lol? Ironicly the one game that almost all the cards no matter what scored the same. Your conclusions as usual are inconclusive to say the least. The only conclusion I come to from your ranting is that you might be insane. Imagine, MadMAx disputes a reputable website......oh the humanity!

[Maryms]

OMG you of all ppl like usual have no idea what that score means and have no idea about what fear does on these cards and on SLI or Crossfire cards. These frames in fear will also conclude more frames in other games. For example if you looked at the Crysis FPS my card gets you will know from certain drivers it obtain 10-12 more frames in FEAR which concluded around 10-12 frames in crysis.

Now if you can 100% prove the 127 frames is with 2 x 8800 600mhz GT's by GAWD prove it. Otherwise don't post until you can provided 100% proof it was with 4AA/16AF in which the links i provided show that it is impossible to be true and based upon my scores as well, but of course you never take anything i say seriously and have Floundered in the past because of your arogant stubborness of not reading properly and testing properly. Instead you wish to MOCK and discredit anything i say or post for results on here and you will think whatever the heck you wish to do so anyways.

FEAR is one of the better FPS in game tests as it takes the CPU out of the equation. Oh but of course you state it is based upon one game, DID you infact read all my threads and posts about the other games i tested on for the past 5 years and recently with supreme commander and lost plant on XP and in Vista.


If your machine has the BALLS which you seem to think:

I say to you provide us your scores for FEAR based upon the similar test results they did and i did. Oh and also post it with a GT card and that 7950 GTX.

[Ultra54]

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/fear.jpg
Here is my lowly 7950 at the exact settings. You mentioned your settings as high, I don't see "high" but I used maximum on everything at 1600X1200.

[Maryms]

No it is not at the exact same settings i posted for instance the computer you have set to custom.

Set it to MAXIMUM.

Then set the GRAPHICS one to MAXIMUM.

Then go in and change the resolution to 1600x1200 4AA/8AF and make sure soft shadows is enabled and the other shadows option is enabled.

Then run the test.

[Ultra54]

Now take your time and spin your tangled web to try and explain your way out of this one.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now take your time and spin your tangled web to try and explain your way out of this one. </div></div>

Did you read my post above.

[Ultra54]

Funny that your graphics card screen says custom too...lol.

[Maryms]

Yes it says custom....did you read all my above posts cause if you did you would have seen that i posted once after setting it to MAXIMUM and then going in manually to set the resolution and the AF to 8AF and make sure shadows is enabled. It will show custom in the picture as you changed the settings.

The CPU will stay at MAXIMUM in the picture.

[Maryms]

Well i am still waiting for you results and the 7950 GX2 is a DUAL GPU card in which i looked at some results which show a stock 7950 GX2 only gets around 69 frames at 1600x1200 4AA/16AF at maximum detail settings, with softshadows are disabled in FEAR.

A OC'ed factory 7950 GX2 got around 81 frames with same settings as above.

Not sure what it gets with soft shadows enabled, but i can look into it more if need to be.

This means that for you to go to a GT card would be pointless as your getting similar performance as a GT and a OC'ed 320MB/640MB/768MB card. Unless your severely getting DING on FPS with soft shadows enabled and low FPS in Crysis as opposed to such cards i just stated. I posted my Crysis FPS in another thread.

The results i found were from June 4, 2006 and drivers have made cards go up or down since then in FPS.

[Ultra54]

You mean pointless if the only game I ever played was Fear. It isn't a GTX it's a GX2.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You mean pointless if the only game I ever played was Fear. It isn't a GTX it's a GX2.</div></div>

Thks for pointing the typo out. The results i posted are for the 7950 GX2 card. I had GTX on my mind when typing.

------------------------------------------

No it is pointless based upon other game tests as well, including CRYSIS. I asked you what are you getting in Crysis.

I tried to call you, but i suppose your downstairs can't hear the phone or ignoring me again cause your PISSY right now... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Now in CRYSIS hit the tilde key and type in r_displayinfo = 1 then hit enter, then hit the tilde key again. You will see your frame rate in the upper right corner.

Now you can't just say oh i get 30 frames if you see it once or twice, run around or walk around and drive a truck and see what you get on a average. I willing to bet at 1600x1200 no AA at HIGH settings on everything except one stays at Medium (Objects), but it can be changed if need to be once you go back into the advanced tab again, but i never did.

Now i bet it will be around 22-35 MAX. If you do what i stated and if so, you have no need to get a GT as i get that FPS i stated about with those settings. The GT's are not much better then a 320MB SC 576mhz card or a 640MB SC card.

If your hoping for 60FPS at 1600x1200 all high settings in Crysis with 1 x 8800 GT or HECK even 2 x 8800 GT's then your hopes will be dimished as it will not do that. Maybe 2 x 8800 GT's or even 320MB GTS SC cards will get 40-50 FPS in fear at those settings, but one card 25-30 frames is very very playable.

[Ultra54]

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/fear.jpg
You were right. This is with the same settings as you.

[Ultra54]

So what is your arguement based on? Is it that you think that I waisted money because my old card is so good or that my old card sucks? I wanted to simply point out that Fear didn't show much difference no matter what card was used. There was 5 more games that you never mentioned like World in Conflicy or GRAW where the difference is much more pronounced. When presented this, as usual, you immediately begin your "fudded" web site tirade. Aren't you banned again or what?

[Maryms]

Still the computer setting is at Custom, not sure, but you need to click it to MAXIMUM.

The Graphics will set to Custom after changing what i mentioned. Now that score of 117 is what a OC'ed GX2 with NOAA/8AF at 1600X1200?

I can see it being 117 as it is a Dual GPU card with no AA, just like those 2 x 8800 GT's GURU3D claimed was using 4AA..... IMPOSSIBLE.

Edit:

I said it was at custom cause you had the other picture up still... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

And now you changed to the 80 FPS score which shows Maximum which is what i asked for.

[Ultra54]

There isn't a card as the article states that can play Crysis anywhere near maxxed out and probably not even the next gen from ATI or Nvidia. Now the whole world is extatic about this incredible deal of a card that is almost as good as a GTX for 260 bucks but you Maxxy. You are a strange bird. Where does it say custom? It says Maximum

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> So what is your arguement based on? Is it that you think that I waisted money because my old card is so good or that my old card sucks? I wanted to simply point out that Fear didn't show much difference no matter what card was used. There was 5 more games that you never mentioned like World in Conflicy or GRAW where the difference is much more pronounced. When presented this, as usual, you immediately begin your "fudded" web site tirade. Aren't you banned again or what?</div></div>

No i never said your card sucks, i said the GT's is not going to be much better then it and i also stated they are using a 320MB (500mhz) card not a SC - Superclocked Version in those reviews. I read at least 4 reviews now that used a 320MB (500mhz) card.

I provided my info based upon a 576mhz 320MB SC card and yes what it had then at stock and now at 650MHZ.

[Ultra54]

I had previously stated that oc or not, it makes little dif.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> There isn't a card as the article states that can play Crysis anywhere near maxxed out and probably not even the next gen from ATI or Nvidia. Now the whole world is extatic about this incredible deal of a card that is almost as good as a GTX for 260 bucks but you Maxxy. You are a strange bird. Where does it say custom? It says Maximum</div></div>

I payed around $294.00 for my 320MB SC 576mhz card plus shipping and tax after my rebate. Why would i be crazy to say the GT's are not much better in which right now they are not.

Now i did state anyone who has a 7900 or lower not meaning a 7950 GX2 would be worth upgrading to a GT or GTS which ever is cheaper and better for OCing if wished to do so.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I had previously stated that oc or not, it makes little dif.</div></div>

Well in that case OC for me makes a big difference in my results, if that 7950 GX2 is close to what i get in FEAR and Crysis it will be close to it in all the other games i tested, making it pointless for you to upgrade to a GT is all if your getting similar results with your 7950 GX2 card.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/fear.jpg
You were right. This is with the same settings as you.</div></div>

Now that is good as i get 74 frames, so that dual GPU card you have is a little better at is Speed whether OC'ed right now or not, i don't care, but 80 frames in FEAR is good.

Now test CRYSIS for me, did you read on how to do so, if not here it is again.

"Now in CRYSIS hit the tilde key and type in r_displayinfo = 1 then hit enter, then hit the tilde key again. You will see your frame rate in the upper right corner."

[Ultra54]

My card is so old that they never include it in benches anymore but the few I saw it was beaten handily by your or the 640 GTS. Now that I can pay 260 bucks with Quakewars and get an even faster card I feel justified in purchasing it. I paid 600 + for the 7950 and to get this performance for under 300 is like stealing to me. Now I must descide, my sons comp will get the 7950 ,therefore a new mobo cpu/mem config, Intel Core Duo so I have to look at mobos again. Do I give my kid my "old" mobo and get a SLI and pick up 2 of these cards for less than I paid for the 7950?

[Maryms]

Well in that case can ya test CRYSIS for me to see what that 7950 GX2 gets anyway.... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Now hmm i am not sure what to say as 2 x 8800 GT's like i said for Crysis maybe at 1600X1200 on High will hit 50-60 FPS MAX.

But you know as well as i do, the next gen cards 1 X those cards may out perform 2 x 8000 GT's or come close to them for a similar price.

Also at 1280 x 1024 on high settings with my card i get 45-55 frames in crysis so do we need to run 1600x1200 not really, but it is so nice and 26-30 frames is very very playable.

[Maryms]

Now one more example i wish to point out (in case) some are wondering why FEAR is a popular test program for me and many sites. Fear is only one game test that really does not take the CPU into consideration.

Lets see if i can explain this the first time around.

A similar build like my machine that is running 1 x X1900 XT gets about half of what i get in Crysis.

That X1900 XT also only gets 49-52 FPS in FEAR at the settings i use. That is about 24 FPS less in FEAR and about 15-24 FPS less in Crysis then what i get.

I have been doing this to long to know what cards and hardware should be getting in certain games.

So if you test Crysis with your 7950 GX2 you should be getting close to what i am getting. I am OCed more then my card was at factory OCed, but u should be close to me with that 7950 GX2.

If not .. then the only reason i can come up with is that the 7950 GX2 may not be fully rendering on both GPU's in certain games.

[Ultra54]

At the settings you describe I get between 7-10 fps consistantly.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> At the settings you describe I get between 7-10 fps consistantly.</div></div>

Hmm that tells me that the two GPU's are not fully rendering in Crysis probably cause Crysis was not made to accept your dual GPU card. It sounds like only one is doing so, kinda running like that X1900 XT. It would be similar to a 7900 GTX card as well.

That was at 1600x1200 no AA and all settings to high, except that one setting right which is set to Medium?

Try 1280 X 1024 with what i mentioned above you should see 22-24 FPS. If not then set to MEDIUM settings which will be nice as well 25-28 maybe for that card.

You can do this while still in the game, no need to shut down, just hit ESCAPE and change the settings.

[Killswitch]

If I may interrupt the mayhem here.... this is what I get in the FEAR benchmark all maxed out, 4xAA, 16xAF, all the shadow options on, blah blah blah, and 1440x900 resolution. Print screen was just giving me a big black box in paint for some reason so I have to type them out.

FPS:
Minimum: 11
Average: 46
Maximum: 294

FPS Distribution:
1% below 25 FPS
9% between 25 and 40 FPS
90% above 40 FPS

Once again I'm getting a massive range in performance here. I'd like to know why it dips down to 11 FPS and blisters up to 294..... weird.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Killswitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I may interrupt the mayhem here.... this is what I get all maxed out, 4xAA, 16xAF, all the shadow options on, blah blah blah, and 1440x900 resolution. Print screen was just giving me a big black box in paint for some reason so I have to type them out.

FPS:
Minimum: 11
Average: 46
Maximum: 294

FPS Distribution:
1% below 25 FPS
9% between 25 and 40 FPS
90% above 40 FPS</div></div>

Is that in crossfire mode?

One thing ATI cards get hit big when enabling soft shadows in Fear. Try it for me with it OFF.

If that is CF mode then in Crysis you should see 22-28 with 1280 X 1024 no AA at Medium settings.


Oh the Min - MAX in fear means.... you hit some frames 1 or a few at the MAX and same as for the minimum.

Your average of course is what the card(s) are hitting consistantly at those settings and is a truer FPS in the game play.

[Maryms]

I forgot to mention the Crysis Demo which some of you know (killswitch) does not SUPPORT SLI or Crossfire. Even though it shows MPU in the console of the game. It sees it, but does not utilize SLI or CF mode.

So Ultra54 that 7950 GX2 is really a Multi-GPU, therefore i believe we now may know why it is running a low FPS in Crysis Demo.

Nvidia and ATI have stated SLI and Crossfire will work when the game is released.

[Ultra54]

Firing Squad (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/) has a complete preview up. There finding support 3dguru's. According to them I will be able to play UT3 at my monitors native res with 4xAA and 16t with descent frames.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/images/aaut1920.gif

[Maryms]

Yes again i hate it they did not use a 320MB SC card in the review even for Crysis here.

Point is i will be like the GT is 600mhz-650mhz cards and the 576-580 320MB SC or [censored] will be close to what a 600mhz GT is.


WITHOUT AA AND AF

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/page16.asp


WITH AA AND AF

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/page17.asp


Notice (1600x1200) like i stated the GT gets 26 without AA or AF and so do i, well i get 26-30 max.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I hate to see ppl sell off there 320MB SC or X X X cards based upon reviews using a 500mhz 320MB card.

But if someone is selling there evga SC 320MB card let me know.... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Maryms]

Here is the FEAR one.

The GT got 72 FPS and i get 74 FPS.

The 320MB (500mhz) i am guessing as they don't state it is a SC or [censored] version they used got 60 FPS on the nvidia 169.01 drivers.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/page5.asp

[Maryms]

UT3 will be nice on a 600-650 GT or a OC GT or a GTS SC or [censored] card.

Man they have to take X X X out of the soonet filter... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Killswitch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BaRtHo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Is that in crossfire mode?

One thing ATI cards get hit big when enabling soft shadows in Fear. Try it for me with it OFF.

If that is CF mode then in Crysis you should see 22-28 with 1280 X 1024 no AA at Medium settings.


Oh the Min - MAX in fear means.... you hit some frames 1 or a few at the MAX and same as for the minimum.

Your average of course is what the card(s) are hitting consistantly at those settings and is a truer FPS in the game play.

</div></div>

Yeah that's in CF mode.

You want me to try it with CF off or soft shadows off?

In the Crysis GPU benchmark I get an average of 18 FPS on medium at 1440x900, which is the native resolution for my 19" widescreen lcd. Oh, and obviously that's with one card. So running in crossfire when the full game is released should run a tad over 30 FPS on medium.

BTW Max, I know what the minimum, maximum and average FPS values mean. I took a three electronics course at Sault College and I work with computers every day. This isn't the first day I've ran a benchmark. What I'm wondering is why is this system performing like that? Why aren't the FPS staying consistant?

[Maryms]

Oh for the min-max ... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

You can run the test a few times in a row and get 5-10 frame difference. It depends on what is running in to ram and such at the time of running the test. Kinda like Everest benchmarks if you run them a few times in a row you will get a different score, but only by about 200mb's.

Also like i stated 11-200 FPS min to MAX is what some frames only hit in the test and will also do so in the game, so when running around a corner maybe it hits 11 frames, then running straight out in a corridor maybe hits 200, then averages 46 elsewhere in the maps.


No i wanted you to try with Soft Shadows off in Fear not CF off.

[Killswitch]

With soft shadows off.....

FPS:
Minimum: 10
Average: 45
Maximum: 346

FPS Distribution:
3% below 25 FPS
5% between 25 and 40 FPS
92% above 40 FPS

Also it's a known fact that filtering is like kryptonite to the HD2000 series.

[Ultra54]

Wow, what a spread man! That is strange.

[Killswitch]

With soft shadows but no AA and 16xAF.

FPS:
Minimum: 39
Average: 91
Maximum: 285

FPS Distribution:
0% below 25 FPS
4% between 25 and 40 FPS
96% above 40 FPS

[filthy]

AA really kills a gfx cards' FPS. Adding AA filtering to a game is like asking a mule to carry an elephant.

[Ultra54]

Ya, I always went with a higher res instead of using AA.

[filthy]

I'm running Crysis @ 1440x900, Very High settings with 16xQ AA and I get 25 FPS. Turn off AA and I'm 35+ FPS. I am getting my last cooling part tomorrow and will OC my system up so that will help.

After seeing that when the only thing running on my PC is Crysis, then opening the task manager, I see that I'm in the neighborhood of 1.7GB of memory usage, I ordered another matching set of 2x1GB Mushkin DDR2 800MHz which will obviously get me to 4GB of DDR2 800MHz in dual channel, overclocked to the 888MHz range. This I hope will get me a smoother Crysis experience, cause my only other option would be SLi, which I was hoping to avoid till next year.

Getting more RAM and overclocking should be fine, considering Crysis will have a patch(s), Microsoft will have Vista and Dx10 updates....and most importantly Nvidia is continuing to optimize their drivers.

The game is not even out yet so, the big red panic button still has the glass cover intact...for now...lol.

[filthy]

p.s. I spent some time optimizing Vista with what services are starting up, running on auto, manual or disabled ect. and have lowered my "at desktop" memory usage from 900MB ish to 700MB ish range.

[Killswitch]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SaneSam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">p.s. I spent some time optimizing Vista with what services are starting up, running on auto, manual or disabled ect. and have lowered my "at desktop" memory usage from 900MB ish to 700MB ish range. </div></div>
I tweaked Vista last night with the same info you sent me last night and I get about the same memory usage (700MB ish) after fulling booting and sitting at the desktop.

As for your performance in Crysis, I'll bet that quad core has a lot to do with it. As most know, Crysis is optimized for multiple cores and is very CPU dependant. It'd be interesting to see your systems performance with a dual core. You should try plopping the one in from you son's machine just to see.

[filthy]

Yes when you open the console it says...

number of logiclal cores 4
number of available cores 4

[Maryms]

Quad-Core does not get much more FPS in Crysis then a Dual-Core, maybe 2-5 frames. The nice thing about Quad-Core is that 3 cores are used to help render the game Not 4 as the developers only can utilize 3 cores right now, but this does not create any significant game performance increase = FPS. It only allows for a little bit faster loading of the games visual effects and enhancements.

Where a Dual-core may load 20 secs slower then a Quad-Core in a map loading sequence it will have similar FPS in the game based upon similar machine setups.

So the guys with a Quad should in essenace in MP be able to load the map a little faster then a Dual-Core making them a little bit better at seeing you before you see them, but we are only talking about seconds here, but to a good gamer every seconds counts and to the average joe gamer it counts even more if they have a chance to kill a good gamer before the good gamer sees them.

[\m/ Rich \m/]

wow... sure looks like i missed quite the thread here!

iwas just looking at the specs on the 8800GT... 1.625GHz Shader Clock, 112 Stream Processors... i like!

Looks like it'll be a solid card for the price vs performance ratio.

[Maryms]

Bah another air-head believes so..... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sure more then a Regular 640Mb and a 320Mb card.

But not what yours, mine and SaneSams can do.

[filthy]

Hey Rich have you seen my backside VGA cooler thread, this will give you a better OC I can assure you. It takes 5 degrees off the GPU diode, and of course a lot more on load, up to 15 degrees from my results. I have been able to attain 700 Core!

[Maryms]

Whats your Shaders at SaneSame?

I don't think my 320MB SC can go much higher then 1450mhz. I never tried it yet, but i will sometime.


I may try that backside cooler as well, if i don't go with water cooling.

[Maryms]

Oh i have a opportunity to use the EVGA Step-Up Program. I have 26 days left.. hmmm

What shall i do...they only offer me a 8000 GT 512MB 600mhz, but i can get a 8800 Ultra 768MB 612mhz card.... hmmmm

[\m/ Rich \m/]

Sane, thats Awesome... thats a pretty nice OC for sure.. how much did it run you for the cooler?

[filthy]

I ordered from NCIX using a price match from Direct Canada. Ended up costing me $28 shipped, is of great quality and works very well. Super easy to install and you can mount it with the sink to the front, back or side.

[filthy]

My shader clock is at 1600MHz Max...

[Maryms]

Ok i shall try 700mhz/1500/2000 first (If 1500 shader is good i will try 1600), once i get that cooler or water cooling. I am still debating if i want to go water cooling or not.


I have it OCed to 650/1450/1874 for the past few weeks and is good.


As for the step up program i hoping they will offer me more cards in the GT range, i will call them up.


If i can get a GT 700mhz card for 45.00 shipping and similar price as i paid for my card, that would be cool.

[filthy]

Are you overclocking the shader separately from the GPU? I just leave em linked.

[cybolynx]

bahhh .... nvidia is junk ... lmao


just crank it over to 900mhz .... if those cards cant do that then there junk


kiddin of course ... lmao

[\m/ Rich \m/]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SaneSam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you overclocking the shader separately from the GPU? I just leave em linked. </div></div>

Mine were done seperately. i flashed to the Superclocked bios first, then I played around with coolbits to find optimal settings, then used a program that lets you alter each of the 3 clock speeds in the ROM, sperately. Then i flashed the new ROM to keep em permanent.

Vista wouldnt let me save my settings and i got tired of having to redo them everytime i rebooted or formatted... thats why i looked into the flashing method. Set em' and forget em!

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SaneSam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you overclocking the shader separately from the GPU? I just leave em linked.</div></div>

Yes i did separately as sometime if you go to high on shader you will get artifacts. I can redo it if need to be or is it better doing them together then Flash it ... either way it will work.

I flashed mine to the stetings i wanted using a program first to make the bios and save orginal.

[\m/ Rich \m/]

sounds like you did it the same way i did basically, except yours was already an SC model :P

[Maryms]

Yeah i used ATI tools to get what i wanted and tested (for about and hour with ATI tools test program). Then i used a program i (forget its name right now) to save the bios. Then i opened the bios and set to what i wanted. Then saved it in another name, burned original and modded bios to DVD, then i flashed it NP's.

[filthy]

Coolbits was awesome , just one click and it finds optimal frequencies, it doesn't work for me on Vista though, do you have the optimal button on Vista Rich?

[\m/ Rich \m/]

im not running vista, and as i recall, even with ntune or whatever, it wouldnt find correct optimal settings.

[\m/ Rich \m/]

man... the more i look at this goddamn card, the more i want it... check out the numbers on the SSC edition.

# 256-bit GeForce 8800 GT (700MHz clock)
# 512MB 256-bit 1ns GDDR3 Memory (1000MHz clock - 2.0GHz effective)
# 1.75GHz Shader Clock

man oh freakin man... that would put this card at 700/1750/2000, with still more headroom for us who have the balls to clock the snot out of our cards /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Im thinkin its time to sell off my 640mb 8800GTS....

[filthy]

Well I just achieved 11,630 in 3Dmark06. Setup is in signature.

[\m/ Rich \m/]

interesting... can you post what each score was in the 3 categories?

reason i ask is that with my opty at 3ghz and my card OC'd to whats in my sig, i ended up with 10,600 on my best run

[filthy]

Photobucket is giving me balls right now, will post 3DMark06 screen later.

SM2: 4869
HDR/SM3: 4768
CPU: 3855

CPU was @ 2.7GHz, 8800 was 650/1500/2000 and RAM was stock 800MHz for this test. Next test will be;

Quad @ 3.0GHz
4GB RAM @ 900MHz
8800 @ 700/1600/2200

I have just primed this new setup stable. I'm hoping/estimating breaking the 12,000 barrier with this setup which will be my final OC. Temps are great as I have just upgraded to the best air coolers around.

[Maryms]

Why not bring the CPU to 3.2-3.5ghz for your final OC?

[AmdWolfman]

should clean up firstformat with a clean machine.

[\m/ Rich \m/]

thats what i was thinkin, lol... from what i've read, most of those quads will hit 3.4-3.56 without breaking a sweat on air.

[AmdWolfman]

wow. in five yerars these pc's will be junk. i can't imagine what the next 5 year brings.

[filthy]

I have already formatted just a couple days ago. A 3.0GHz Quad core is plenty of power, SRL has given it a PR of 11 GHz. This is all at 32*C idle, minimal voltage increase (1.375V) and on air, I see no need to go any higher at this point. Here is the 3DMark06 screen from the previous setup (2.7GHz, 4GB 800 and 650/2000 on the 8800 GTS 640MB). I will be testing the new setup sometime soon, but stupid work is interfering with my PC time, although work pays for my upgrades...oh the dilemna! lol.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e19/mchutch/3dmark06.jpg

[filthy]

Apparently my 8800 GTS can achieve 112 Shaders, as they are just disabled. EVGA is releasing a 8800GTS 640MB with 112 shaders soon, wish there was a way to mod mine to enable more shaders.

[Killswitch]

After some research I found out how to get the cores of my gpu's over 860Mhz! So after finding the artifact-free clocks of 900/1000 and bumping the CPU up to 3GHz for testing only, I just hammered out 8821 with my setup in 3DMark06. Not too bad for a pair of "low-end" cards and running Vista lol.

[filthy]

I wouldn't say they're low end, more middle enthusiast. Nice score though.

[Ultra54]

My card came in on Friday and I was at work so I will pick it up Monday and run my rig with it in running at 3.2, which I run all the time.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/nnn.jpg
Just put it in an ran it, no playin around.

[Ultra54]

There is something weird in that I have my cpu clocked at 3.2 G and it shows 3.6 in the results.

[Killswitch]

Wow.... that's a nice score!

[filthy]

Your Quad core is @ 3.6GHz? You should set both windows side by side so we can see everything. What's the rest of your setup? I am impressed with that score. I think now I may go SLI with 2x 8800GT's....

[Ultra54]

No, I run mine at 3.2 which I did that test at. Here is the new score with cpu z running.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/nnn-1.jpg

[\m/ Rich \m/]

sick! i think its definitely time to get rid of my card... those shader scores are 1000 points above what i can get my 8800 to hit.

[filthy]

I'll take your card Rich....
Well depends on price...lol

[\m/ Rich \m/]

im thinkin 300

[filthy]

meh...I paid $375 for mine brand new. $300 is too high...you've had yours longer than I've had mine. You'll have a hard time selling a card for $300 when that would pay for the better card your trying to buy...no?....lol

[\m/ Rich \m/]

depends... my card is also an evga and has the lifetime warranty. these cards are selling for 400 on ncix right now, so i think 300 is fair. Not to mention it's a pre-overclocked card, flashed with my optimal speeds to the superclocked bios.

[Scabtacular]

Before 9500 128meg $300 eons ago....
Now 8800GT 512meg $200

8500 points 3dmark06 on crappy HP Pavilion 6300 1.8Ghz!

How's that for humbling?

Also, sold 9500 for $30 to cover the tax from $200
Anybody want a 8800GT for $20 so I can upgrade to
G1000 core 9900GT years from now?? LOL!!

[Scabtacular]

BTW, you should know that the fan is UNDERCLOCKED as mine was only at 29% and 60C! Thanks to rivatuner (and other simular software out there) I was able to bring it up to 100% and 45C!! Now completely stable at Superclock speeds of 700/2000 from 600/950!!!

[Scabtacular]

Overclockboy: Do not try and overclock. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Overclockboy: There is no video card.
Neo: There is no video card?
Overclockboy: Then you'll see, that it is not the videocard that overclocks, it is only yourself.

;-)

[\m/ Rich \m/]

so you're running a GT yourself, scab?
saw your other thread.. (x1950)
did you actually get the card yet?

[Scabtacular]

Yep, that's why I'm selling the x1950.
Who wouldn't (8800GT) for only $200!!!

[Ultra54]

The greatest mystery of all time is how and why retailers are selling the 8800 gts for near 400 bucks when the "lesser" GT handily beats its [censored] at a price of 260 bucks. I was figuring my 600 dollar 7950 GX2 might be worth 100 bucks, better yet I will keep it and make another computer.There is no such thing as resale "value" in the computer industry. Your card should fetch you a whopping 200 bucks if you find a sucker. Sorry, don't shoot the messanger.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
No, I run mine at 3.2 which I did that test at. Here is the new score with cpu z running.
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/nnn-1.jpg</div></div>

That is a Nice score Based Upon the Build and it is about in line of what it should be with a CPU OCed at 3.2ghz-3.6ghz whether it is a Intel Quad-Core or a Intel Core Duo Dual-Core it will be fairly similar scores except a Quad will add about another 1000-1200 points to the CPU score. Where a Core Duo Dual-Core at 3.2ghz of course will be about 1000-1200 points less.

Now i want to see FPS in Fear at the settings i run. I am willing to bet it is around 74-89 FPS at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF and everything set to Maximum including the Computer setting and make sure BOTH shadow options are enabled.

I get around 74 FPS at those settings and that is with my little Opteron build at 2.8ghz.

Remember Synthetic Benchmarks like 3dmarks are just that (Synthentic) not real game environment scores.

Weird that 3dmark states 3.6ghz for you CPU.

[Maryms]

This fella below got this score out of 2 x 8800 ultra cards at default speeds and with a Quad-Core Q6600 OC'ed.

Q6600 @ 3ghz, 2x1gig OCZ 1066mhz @ 1066mhz, 2x 8800ultra's (EVGA) @ 612mhz/1080mhz

15258 3dmark06 @ defaults

---------------------------------------------

This guy here was running a 8800 GTS 640MB card and a Quad Q6600 @ 3363mhz

His score with a 640mb GTS was 13145 in 3Dmark06. The GTS was @ 710/1534/1050

3dmark 06 and CPU-Z reported the same GHZ for him and the above fella.

Something is not correct with your 3dmark 06 Ultra54 or you OCed higher for that score .. Really weird.

--------------------------------------------

[filthy]

I wouldn't say that a 8800GT beats a 8800GTS "handily". There are situations where the GTS comes out on top. Your right though in saying that a the GTS is overpriced now, unless it is a SSC edition that has the same 112 Shaders, but has 320bit interface instead of the 256bit the GT has and of course 128MB more RAM.

These cards are pretty close, but I read a lot that their single slot coolers are insufficient and the cards life will be shortened. Due to the fact that they are pumping those clock speeds up, I think the cards cooling is garbage. I may still go SLI with 2x 8800GT....but I would definitely get after market coolers.

[Maryms]

Oh well this thread will me crap in about 2-3 months time when/if the NEW GX100 cards are out... i can't wait and for the R700 Multi-GPU cards.

Now that being said the GT does not whoop the GTS's butt, but it does pretty good towards it. The refresh GTS versions that are soon to be out will be even better then the GT. I wonder how much more they will be.

Thats Synthetic Benchmarks,,, /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Now i want to see FPS in FEAR and other games, which i already have read at places and ya know what i am right the GT's are not much better then a Evga 320 SC 8800 GTS that is OCed and/or a GTS 640MB and or a 8800 Ultra card.

No doubt for the price i suppose the low-end users will gobble them up.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Until the GTS's the new ones come out, then they will be saying.... shXXXT i should have waited for the REFRESH GTS cards... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Either way your 3dmark 06 score Ultra54 was in no way at 3.2ghz, unless you OC'ed the card, but 3dmark 06 does not lie.... you were at 3.6ghz for that test, shame on you for stating otherwise... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I hate cheaters and liers and ppl who falsify things to try and make them look good.

[filthy]

The 8800GTS 640MB SSC w/ 112 SP's are out now. EVGA's is actually cheaper than the regular 8800GTS 640MB w/ 96 SP's in some places.

I am waiting for the 8800GTS 640MB w/ 112 SP's to get out and about. Then I'm hoping to flash my card with that BIOS to see if it can unlock 16 more SP's. Hardware Canucks is actually testing that theory right now.

*crosses fingers*

[Maryms]

Well i just did some more tweaking on my card and scored 9896 in 3dmark 06, this is with somethings running in background and after running ATI artifact tool for 48min. I did not reboot PC, just ran 3dmark 06 program and i am still at 2.8ghz on my Opti dual-core 170 thusfar.

Here is a picture of my test so far.

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/7850/newscore2fy0.png

[Ultra54]

Right on, you are right that the new GTS's should best the GT for sure. I feel a new release of the GTX is around the corner too. I will say that compared to the card I had, especially in Crysis, the difference is huge. I can play at 1680 x 1050 at high settings with a few slow downs but still playable. I also max out UT3 demo at 1920 x 1200 and it plays perfectly, along with Bioshock.

[Maryms]

What FPS are you getting is Crysis Demo..

do the r_displayinfo = 1 using the command line.

I get right now about another 4-6 frames more at the settings i have my card at now.

so that takes it to 28-35 frames instead of 25-30 frames. Not bad for a little 320MB card.

This is on a fresh install of the demo, no tweaks or anything as if i did i'd get higher.

Also at 1600x1200 and under advanced setting everything was set to HIGH except the one setting that is set at Medium. I just let the application set it to HIGH.

Now you may get a litter higher as your resolution is a little lower, but you should be around similar FPS.

[filthy]

I am running the full retail game and I'm getting about 40 FPS on 1440x900, high settings and no AA. Very high gets me about 20 FPS on same resolution, add 16xAA on very high and 1440x900 and I'm getting a whopping 10 FPS...lol.

[Maryms]

Here is a recent FEAR benchmark REVIEW of the 640 GTS SSC and a 512MB GT and a normal stocked GTS 640, plus a GTX and a Ultra Card.

Note i get 77FPS in fear at my settings (1600x1200 4AA/8AF Shadows Enabled and Soft Shadows as well) All other Graphics and CPU settings were set to MAXIMUM. This is on my 320MB card and i got 74FPS prior to my video cards new OC settings.

They ran a Quad-Core QX6800 @ stock 2.93ghz and i am running 2.8ghz opteron 170, Note like i said before Fear does not take the CPU into consideration (or Cores) and that is why i like it for a benchmark.

Look at the 1600x1200 benchmark.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800_gts_ssc_review/page4.asp

[Maryms]

Also look at the Crysis DX9 benchmark 1600x1200 no AA of AF.

I get 25-30 max on my card settings, 320mb card.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800_gts_ssc_review/page14.asp

And here is it again with 2AA/8AF i never tried running AA or AF as it looks so pretty without it.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

As you can see the FPS does not drop that much with those AA and AF settings.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_8800_gts_ssc_review/page15.asp


**Note**

Crysis is very playable at 22-25 frames or better.

[filthy]

I get 124 FPS on FEAR with 1440x900 MAX SETTINGS.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SaneSam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I get 124 FPS on FEAR with 1440x900 MAX SETTINGS.</div></div>

That can't be your average unless you have 2 cards or maybe it is cause of the resolution you may get that as an average, but i can't see that unless your OCed too 1200/1150.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[filthy]

Here's the screen Max...You can see that computer and graphics are at MAXIMUM.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e19/mchutch/FEARMAX.jpg

[Maryms]

Oh ok... i see what is wrong..... LOL

Sure... go look at the resolution..... as it is not at 1440x900.

It will be at 1024x768 as that is the STOCK setting when you click making the Graphics setting to Maximum.


You stated you got that with a resolution of 1440x900 which can not be the case.

You have to click that setting to maximum. Then go into the advanced video card options and setup your Resolution to what you want.

And of course AA/AF if you want to change the default 4AA/16AF like i do to 4AA/8AF make sure Enable Shadows and Soft Shadows in ON as that is what i run.

You will notice that after you do all this that MAXIMUM setting you see in your PIC and in the program will READ... Custom as you customized the resolution and AA/AF and what not.


Edit:

At the Maximum settings like you did i get... 128 FPS average... lol

I post pic as soon as imageshack hosts it.

[Maryms]

Here is that pic i mentioned about in my above post at the settings you used.

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/108/fear1024x768maximumsettbo6.png

[filthy]

No it is at 1440x900, that's what my resolution is at for everything. AA and AF are MAXED.

[Ultra54]

Good article.The 8800GT is going to be remembered as one of the best bang for the buck cards ever produced, at least thus far. Sam should go SLI with 2 GT's for only 100 more than the single 640 ssc. If one gives it a run for the money then 2 will wild. On second thought, you don't even have to upgrade anyway, wait for the next gen.

[Ultra54]

What dam res and everything do you want me to run Max?

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SaneSam</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it is at 1440x900, that's what my resolution is at for everything. AA and AF are MAXED.</div></div>

It can't be, no way it can be at that resolution.

Your doing something incorrect ... cause if that card is getting those FPS's in fear at that resolution and AA/AF as you stated. I'll give ya $2000.00 for it, cause there is NO card to DATE that can do that FPS at those settings you stated.

/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> What dam res and everything do you want me to run Max?</div></div>

It would be best if i called you or you called me and i explain what i run at, as it appears when trying to post it here several times in the past and present, ppl seem to not do it correctly.

Maybe soon i do a video tutorial.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I call u soon.

[Ultra54]

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/nnn.jpg
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o257/Ultra54/nnn-2.jpg

[Maryms]

I am glad we talked on phone about what settings i use and review sites.

It is great too finally see a proper comparison to my settngs and the review sites..... right on.

thks for your post

Great program GPU-Z... eh?

[Maryms]

Now check this site out, running a Quad-Core Q6000 @ 3.5ghz.

They scored 13333 on 3dmark 06 with a Superclocked GT like yours. Just for my sake and many others /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif check your settings again and make sure you were running at 3.2ghz for your 3dmark 06 score.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/har...ion-review.html (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3073-evga-8800gt-512mb-superclocked-edition-review.html)

[Maryms]

I tried looking everywhere for all the specs of the EVGA GT's and i found this on a site.

So for reference only here it is and yes some cards may default to more or less then what is actually stock out of the box:

eVGA 8800GT: 600 MHz core, 1800 MHz RAM, 1500 MHz shader
eVGA 8800GT Superclock: 650 MHz core, 1900MHz RAM, 1620 MHz shader
eVGA 8800GT KO: 675 MHz, 1950 MHz RAM, 1674 MHz shader
eVGA 8800GT SSC: 700 MHz, 2000 MHz core, 1728 MHz shader

[Ultra54]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eVGA 8800GT Superclock: 650 MHz core, 1900MHz RAM, 1620 MHz shader
</div></div>
This is the one except it says 1620 and mine is 1625.

[Maryms]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ultra54</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eVGA 8800GT Superclock: 650 MHz core, 1900MHz RAM, 1620 MHz shader
</div></div>
This is the one except it says 1620 and mine is 1625.</div></div>

Yes i was looking into that and some will be higher or lower out of the box, depends on the card, plus it is a bonus more you get the better and 5mhz more is cool.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

[filthy]

I might wait for the Dx 10.1 cards, but if this BIOS flash works and I'm using 112 SP's I'll go SLI later with true 8800GTS 640MB SSC and be just fine. I'm in no rush to do anything at all though, I love my build, started from scratch, and just finished upgrading to the best air coolers for my CPU, NB, SB, GTS and case itself. This puppy makes me very happy and is OC'd while still very cool. I just got a bunch of new games in front of me, with many more to come in the very near future. This rig can push any game at great settings and wicked frames...except Crysis which no consumer PC in the free world can run at very high, 1600x1200 with 16xAA, as the frames would be unplayable.