PDA

View Full Version : 9800 GTS slower then 8800 GTS


Pages : [1] 2

mustrum
03-05-08, 05:53 AM
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6056&Itemid=34

Am i the only one who thinks nvidias product naming is completely nuts?

8800 GTS (G80 96 SU)
8800 GTS SSE (G80 112 SU)
8800 GTS 512 (G92 128 SU)
9800 GTS 512 (G92 128 SU)

j0j081
03-05-08, 07:13 AM
yeah I'm sure it will really be slower. wait for actual release.

Tr1cK
03-05-08, 07:20 AM
That's exactly what I have my 320 clocked at....600-1500-1800. The revised core, 32 extra SPs and more RAM would make it rock though. It looks like my 320 will still hold me off for a while unless these new cards are cheap.

CaptNKILL
03-05-08, 08:16 AM
Isn't the 9600 GT quite fast for its specs? It has significantly less shaders than the 8800GT but isn't much slower. Is it possible that the other cards will be faster than 8-series cards with the same specs?

I've been pretty pessimistic about the 9-series, but looking at the 9600 GT's performance compared to 8-series cards with much better specs, it looks like the 98xx cards could be pretty nice.

I doubt it'll be a huge leap though, which does suck...

Tr1cK
03-05-08, 08:19 AM
Cap, I think it must be optimizations made in the new core revisions. I am really anxious to see how the 9800s run. The only problem with getting one is wanting an e8400, P35 and 2gb more RAM.

Vasot02
03-05-08, 08:29 AM
The Geforce 9 series sounds like disappointment to me

Maverickman
03-05-08, 03:26 PM
I was also surprised that the 9600 GT is as fast as it is. We're talking anywhere from 8-12% slower than the 8800 GT depending on the game, despite the fact it has almost half the shaders. From what I've read, the 9-series will be based on the G94 chip, a tweaked version of the G92. On paper at least the 9-series looks to be a disappointment. However, we need to see some more confirmed benchmarks before we judge it. I need to have more than 3DMark 2006 to make a clear jdugment!

mustrum
03-06-08, 02:38 AM
I was also surprised that the 9600 GT is as fast as it is. We're talking anywhere from 8-12% slower than the 8800 GT depending on the game, despite the fact it has almost half the shaders. From what I've read, the 9-series will be based on the G94 chip, a tweaked version of the G92. On paper at least the 9-series looks to be a disappointment. However, we need to see some more confirmed benchmarks before we judge it. I need to have more than 3DMark 2006 to make a clear jdugment!
Many reviewers used motherboards with activated linkboost. They overclock the 9600 without it showing in the Rivatuner readout. Basically it's simply cheating going on to make the 9600 look better then it really is. You think that doesn't matter? It does because linkboost at 125mhz can cause currupted harddrives.
Read more about it here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47079

Mr_LoL
03-06-08, 02:55 AM
I'll be picking one up when it launches. Sold my GTX becuase I though I had given up on pc gaming but playing call of duty 4 on the ps3 online just doesn't cut it for me. 12 man servers compared to 32 for the pc :(

XxDeadlyxX
03-06-08, 03:00 AM
I just hope 9800GTX or GX2 can play Crysis at decent resolutions/settings without dipping into the teens like what we have now.

mustrum
03-06-08, 03:00 AM
I'll be picking one up when it launches. Sold my GTX becuase I though I had given up on pc gaming but playing call of duty 4 on the ps3 online just doesn't cut it for me. 12 man servers compared to 32 for the pc :(
FPS on consoles are simply not the same aren't they. ;)
@deadly: It's G92s - don't expect much.

Muppet
03-06-08, 03:05 AM
I just hope 9800GTX or GX2 can play Crysis at decent resolutions/settings without dipping into the teens like what we have now.
Same here. It will be one of the reasons, I will be looking at upgrading. Otherwise the 8800GTX's are now cheap enough, i'll just add another one.

hell_of_doom227
03-06-08, 08:10 AM
Isn't the 9600 GT quite fast for its specs? It has significantly less shaders than the 8800GT but isn't much slower. Is it possible that the other cards will be faster than 8-series cards with the same specs?

I've been pretty pessimistic about the 9-series, but looking at the 9600 GT's performance compared to 8-series cards with much better specs, it looks like the 98xx cards could be pretty nice.

I doubt it'll be a huge leap though, which does suck...

It has significantly less shaders and the performance gap is really small because there are couple reasons.

VISTA + FORCEWARE + DX10 ****ING SUCKS - simply the system is badly chocking under Vista and Forceware for vista.

I don't think we utilize more then 65% of what 8800gtx is capable of. Forceware are the biggest NVIDIA crap. We don't have decent drivers since Vista release. Maybe i shouldn't blame Nvidia, maybe Vista simply sucks.

grey_1
03-06-08, 09:34 AM
It has significantly less shaders and the performance gap is really small because there are couple reasons.

VISTA + FORCEWARE + DX10 ****ING SUCKS - simply the system is badly chocking under Vista and Forceware for vista.

I don't think we utilize more then 65% of what 8800gtx is capable of. Forceware are the biggest NVIDIA crap. We don't have decent drivers since Vista release. Maybe i shouldn't blame Nvidia, maybe Vista simply sucks.
I honestly can't remember the last post of yours I've read where you weren't complaining and bellyaching. Maybe you should walk away from computers all together.

Bman212121
03-06-08, 10:53 AM
It has significantly less shaders and the performance gap is really small because there are couple reasons.

VISTA + FORCEWARE + DX10 ****ING SUCKS - simply the system is badly chocking under Vista and Forceware for vista.

I don't think we utilize more then 65% of what 8800gtx is capable of. Forceware are the biggest NVIDIA crap. We don't have decent drivers since Vista release. Maybe i shouldn't blame Nvidia, maybe Vista simply sucks.

There's your problem.

jcrox
03-06-08, 12:06 PM
There's your problem.

LOL, a real "working without tools" situation

killahsin
03-06-08, 05:27 PM
It has significantly less shaders and the performance gap is really small because there are couple reasons.

VISTA + FORCEWARE + DX10 ****ING SUCKS - simply the system is badly chocking under Vista and Forceware for vista.

I don't think we utilize more then 65% of what 8800gtx is capable of. Forceware are the biggest NVIDIA crap. We don't have decent drivers since Vista release. Maybe i shouldn't blame Nvidia, maybe Vista simply sucks.


And what about the damn near same performance in dx9/xp apps then? Is that because vista sucks too?

Lenin
03-06-08, 05:54 PM
Many reviewers used motherboards with activated linkboost. They overclock the 9600 without it showing in the Rivatuner readout. Basically it's simply cheating going on to make the 9600 look better then it really is. You think that doesn't matter? It does because linkboost at 125mhz can cause currupted harddrives.
Read more about it here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=47079
I see... how disgusting :thumbdwn:
Now this really explains why the 9600gt *seems* to have relatively good performance - no improved core or better drivers, just some pathetic cheating done by stealthy overclocking :(
That nvidia can sink this low to resort to such cheap tricks... :barf:
They probably realized that the 9-series has fail written all over it and resorted to this cheating to at least try to rip off some more people besides ignorant n00bs and rabid fanboys :thumbdwn:

sammy sung
03-06-08, 06:56 PM
This to me looks like a bunch of bull****,idle moronic speculation.There's sofar not even ONE trustworthy test out there of any 9800 series cards yet you sit here and claim how much this and the new GTX is gonna suck :headexplode: No its not the monster 1.5gb ram 1 teraflop card we dreamed/hoped for.Will it suck ? No it wont,they will outperform their 8800 counterparts but by how much is anybodys guess.Wait with the damn moaning until the first real test if it infact performs badly there but until then just put a farking sock in it...

killahsin
03-06-08, 07:19 PM
mustrum this is bs my 9600 gt when by itself at stock msi speeds is damn near as good as a 8800gt so stop spreading lies and falsaties.

Lenin why are u contributing to spreading of lies. the 6/7 series mobos do not support link boost. God you guys will go to such extents to try to downplay a successfull card.

j0j081
03-06-08, 07:25 PM
mustrums is nothing but a troll. If you look up his previous posts pretty much all he does is bash Nvidia. just ignore anything he says he's obviously trying to stir things up like usual.

amk21
03-06-08, 07:52 PM
I was also surprised that the 9600 GT is as fast as it is. We're talking anywhere from 8-12% slower than the 8800 GT depending on the game, despite the fact it has almost half the shaders. From what I've read, the 9-series will be based on the G94 chip, a tweaked version of the G92. On paper at least the 9-series looks to be a disappointment. However, we need to see some more confirmed benchmarks before we judge it. I need to have more than 3DMark 2006 to make a clear jdugment!
No, as of raight now the only 9-series card to be based on the g-94 chip is the 9600gt. The 9800gx2 is definetly based upon g92 chip, and I am asuming that the other highend parts will be to.

I have to agree with most of you guys. The 9-series is going to be a break through, but I think it will offer decent performance gains. I hate how everytime someone reads a rumor over at fud or the inq, they post it as if it was fact. This thread, amoung others belongs in the rumor mill.

We seems to be lacking mods lately.(not to sound like a complete arse hole)

MUYA
03-06-08, 08:32 PM
No, as of raight now the only 9-series card to be based on the g-94 chip is the 9600gt. The 9800gx2 is definetly based upon g92 chip, and I am asuming that the other highend parts will be to.

I have to agree with most of you guys. The 9-series is going to be a break through, but I think it will offer decent performance gains. I hate how everytime someone reads a rumor over at fud or the inq, they post it as if it was fact. This thread, amoung others belongs in the rumor mill.

We seems to be lacking mods lately.(not to sound like a complete arse hole)
Thanks for your vote of confidence ;)

The products in question are named from multiple sources, soon to be launched and we can consider them in this section. As we did for previous launches.

The article linked by the OP is FUD material FUBAR such that it causes a SNAFU and it doesn't take too much to see it right through. As long as there is no out right flame war we can let this discussion continue

Lenin
03-07-08, 06:21 PM
Lenin why are u contributing to spreading of lies. the 6/7 series mobos do not support link boost.
nvidia's cheap trick with stealthily oc'ing the 9600gt (and possibly other 9 series) using increased pcie bus while the driver reports standard clocks clock is no lie, but the naked, ugly truth :thumbdwn:

Link boost or not, the 125mhz pcie bus clock has been confirmed also with nvidia's newest mainboards, 780i:
http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=2620554&postcount=9
NV's reference 780i has a default PCIe bus frequency of 125Mhz so a 9600GT stuffed in a PCI slot of a reference 780i is going to have a core core 25% higher than in a 100Mhz default PCIe bus frequency motherboard.

I find it hard to believe that NV didn't have that tid bit in mind when they tied the 9600GT core clock generator master reference frequency to the PCIe bus frequency!
So it's up to the manufacturers if they stay with the reference (most probably will), or if they do something of their own which *might* also include a regular pcie bus clock of 100mhz.

Here's an overview of the 9 series data (along w/ estimated prices and release dates) that has so far been avaiable on the cebit.
If those should indeed be true, it looks very bleak for the 9 series indeed.
I've included current g92 card data for comparison, along w/ cheapest newegg prices.
9800gt: ???
9800gts: 128s 256bit 600/ 900/1500 $299 25.3.
9800gtx: 128s 256bit 688/1100/1688 $399 25.3.
9800gx2: 128x2 256bit 600/1000/1500 $599 17.3.

8800gt: 256bit 600/ 900/1500 $210
8800gts 512: 256bit 650/ 972/1625 $240
8800gtx: 384bit 575/ 900/1325 $350
8800 ultra: 384bit 612/1080/1500 n/a
Newegg links:
8800gt: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133205
8800gts 512: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814143119
8800gtx: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500003

mustrum
03-08-08, 05:58 AM
mustrums is nothing but a troll. If you look up his previous posts pretty much all he does is bash Nvidia. just ignore anything he says he's obviously trying to stir things up like usual.
I have no reason to bash nvidia.
TNT
TNT 2
geforce (the original)
6800 GT
6800 Ultra
7800 GTX
8800 GTS 640
8800 GTS 512

I am a very happy nvidia user. I had many ATI cards and liked them as well. I am absulutely happy with my 8800 GTS. I think it is close to flawless.

I do however have no affiliation to any company. If i think something nvidia does looks fishy i say so.
Maybe you should go read about the link boost thing first before you come here and flame me. Overclocking a card without it showing in core clock is more then fishy if you ask me. The fact that it only happenes on some motherboards doesn't change that fact.

Edit: About the posting of a fudzilla link. Of course it is no fact. It's only fact once the cards are released and benchmarked. Every little bit of info on the net does point into that direction though wich makes it worth discussing to me. This is a discussion board after all.
I think it'S common knowlege that Inquirer and Fudzilla information allways has to be taken with a grain of salt.
About the link boost thing: Flame me all you want. It's tested and proven.