G80 pics - Talk about it here.

[Xion X2]

You don't know the full specs on the 8800 so you're making a big assumption there.

If you know something that we don't, then I wish you would share it. Nobody reputable to this point has even hinted that there will be multiple GPU's on the G80. No one.

[Redeemed]

That's a ridiculous statement. Oblivion anyone? What about F.E.A.R.? It still drops way down in fps many times throughout the game at high rezes and not even maxed out settings, no matter the rig. And Extraction Point will be even worse. And there's plenty more......



Please pass what you're smoking. :p


The 8800s will be awesome, but your analysis and expectations are way off.

Dude, I'm playing FEAR at 1600x1200, 2xAA and 16xAF, GC AA and TAA enabled, and every in-game option set to its maximum. Of course, SS are off as you can't run SS and AA successfully without distorting the shadows.

And it is extremely playable at those settings. I barely dip below 30fps. Mind you, this is on a s754 3400 running two 7600GTs, with 2 gigs of ram.

I'm sure if I had two 7900GTXs, I'd be playing it at 1920x1440 without a problem.

FEAR is quite playable at high settings, and you don't need an uber-rig either.

As for Oblivion, can't comment as I've never played the game- and don't intend on playing it either.

And in regards to my expectations, well... you are correct to the extint that noboyd knows just how well G80 will do with DX10 games. I realise that my previous "example" was probably a bit off. Regardless, it will be leaps ahead of any G7x gpu in DX10 from a performance standpoint. That is all that really matters.

In regards to not needing DX9 performance improvements... ONE TITLE (Oblivion) is not enough to demand nVidia to focus on DX9. Their attention is on DX10 as it should be. And I'm certain G80 will scream on most any DX10 title. Atleast for a good while it should, anyways. And that was merely my point.

[Redeemed]

One thing is most of the time and another is all of time. Yes, most of time I can run 2xAA & 8x HQAF without dropping below 30 fps, but during many heavy firefights throughout the game I drop down into the teens. If it were just once or twice in the game I wouldn't bring it up, but when it happens everytime I'm encountering four or more enemies then it's a problem. And have your tried the Extraction Point demo? With no AA I drop into the teens and low 20's a lot....and that's just one level in a demo.

Dude, I just played the demo for EP last night (and I beat it). I played it at the exact same settings that I play FEAR at... not a single problem.

And I never dip into the teens in an intense firefight... ever. Not sure what is wrong with your rig. But I'd start investigating it if I were you.

[Xion X2]

Sounds to me like something is seriously wrong with schuey's system if he/she's dropping down into the teens while playing FEAR. My system has never, EVER even come close to that, and I game at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed. The lowest I've ever seen that game drop on my machine is to about 35FPS in that big wide-open area outside the warehouse where there are tons of shadows present.

[Redeemed]

Sounds to me like something is seriously wrong with schuey's system if he/she's dropping down into the teens while playing FEAR. My system has never, EVER even come close to that, and I game at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed. The lowest I've ever seen that game drop on my machine is to about 35FPS in that big wide-open area outside the warehouse where there are tons of shadows present.

QFT man. And what makes it even more evident is that my tw 7600s are doing better than his x1900. Last I checked, the x1900XTX was quite a bit faster than two 7600s.

[schuey74]

Sounds to me like something is seriously wrong with schuey's system if he/she's dropping down into the teens while playing FEAR. My system has never, EVER even come close to that, and I game at 1680x1050 with all settings maxed. The lowest I've ever seen that game drop on my machine is to about 35FPS in that big wide-open area outside the warehouse where there are tons of shadows present.
Yea, something is seriously wrong with my system. :rolleyes:

Here's HardOCP running thru most of a level with an AMD system similar to mine and almost identical settings (16x HQAF as oppossed to my 8x HQAF). Not including the obvious drops to 0 fps during autosaves, it dropped into the teens twice and it dropped below 30 fps countless times.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE0NDcwMDkzM3J0WnRlcHpxMG9fOF80X 2wuZ2lm

Now if it drops that much in just one level, how many times do you think it drops like that throughout the game? Perhaps that's acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. And you didn't even say it was acceptable to you, you said there must be something wrong. The only thing wrong is that once again, you don't have your facts straight.

[schuey74]

Dude, I just played the demo for EP last night (and I beat it). I played it at the exact same settings that I play FEAR at... not a single problem.

And I never dip into the teens in an intense firefight... ever. Not sure what is wrong with your rig. But I'd start investigating it if I were you.
That goes against what everyone else is seeing. So you're telling me that when you walk into that bloody room your fps don't take a huge dip?

[Redeemed]

Yea, something is seriously wrong with my system. :rolleyes:

Here's HardOCP running thru most of a level with an AMD system similar to mine and almost identical settings (16x HQAF as oppossed to my 8x HQAF). Not including the obvious drops to 0 fps during autosaves, it dropped into the teens twice and it dropped below 30 fps countless times.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE0NDcwMDkzM3J0WnRlcHpxMG9fOF80X 2wuZ2lm

Now if it drops that much in just one level, how many times do you think it drops like that throughout the game? Perhaps that's acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. And you didn't even say it was acceptable to you, you said there must be something wrong. The only thing wrong is that once again, you don't have your facts straight.

Dude, I think I know what I'm getting on my system. Never does it drop below 30fps for me, and I have the settings cranked way up there.

Yeah, something is wrong.

Either that, or nVidia just kicks the $h!t out of ATi in FEAR?

Trust me, if my two 7600GTs can play FEAR at the settings I'm playing them on without dipping below 30fps, then there is either something wrong with your setup (and possibly theirs) or the X1900XTX just sucks a big one in FEAR.

You take your pick.

[Redeemed]

Okay, Schuey, if it makes you happy I'll even put up screenshots in game with fraps running.

Problem is I do not know how to take a screen shot. And once it is taken, where can I retrieve it at?

Once you tell me how to do this, I'll prove that something is either off with your system, or ATI really does suck in FEAR.

[ArrowMk84]

Okay, Schuey, if it makes you happy I'll even put up screenshots in game with fraps running.

Problem is I do not know how to take a screen shot. And once it is taken, where can I retrieve it at?

Once you tell me how to do this, I'll prove that something is either off with your system, or ATI really does suck in FEAR.

Fraps defaults to F10 for the screenshot button. In the Fraps menu, under the Screenshots tab (this with Fraps 2.8, btw), make sure you select the "Include frame rate overlay on screenshots" option. You can also set the screenshot save location from this menu as well (default is C:\Fraps).

[schuey74]

Dude, I think I know what I'm getting on my system. Never does it drop below 30fps for me, and I have the settings cranked way up there.

Yeah, something is wrong.

Either that, or nVidia just kicks the $h!t out of ATi in FEAR?

Trust me, if my two 7600GTs can play FEAR at the settings I'm playing them on without dipping below 30fps, then there is either something wrong with your setup (and possibly theirs) or the X1900XTX just sucks a big one in FEAR.

You take your pick.
So no matter how many people you see getting similar #s, it won't mean a thing to you, their system's must also be borked, right? In the same run with the X1900XTX there is a 7800 GTX 512 which can't even run the game decently @ 16x12 so they resorted to 1280x960.

So forgive me for asking questions when documented numbers differ from what you and Xion say.

Speaking of documented numbers, here's an Extraction Point preview from Xbitlabs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fear.html

Go on to the page where a single 7600GT is run and averages 22 fps and drops to a low of 10 fps @ your rez of 16x12 without AA. Last I checked the most you can get out of SLI is double the performance. And a GX2 at similar settings to the ones you claim to use in both the original and E.P. averages 32 fps and drops to 13.

So either you have miracle 7600GTs, or you just haven't really taken a close look at your fps during the game, or perhaps you need to recheck the settings you claim to play at. Because it's impossible for 7600GTs to perform better than a GX2 or 7900GTXs in SLI, especially at the settings you claim to play at.

[schuey74]

Okay, Schuey, if it makes you happy I'll even put up screenshots in game with fraps running.

Problem is I do not know how to take a screen shot. And once it is taken, where can I retrieve it at?

Once you tell me how to do this, I'll prove that something is either off with your system, or ATI really does suck in FEAR.
I too can take screenshots when the fps counter shows what I want it to show. Why not just record your entire run and honestly say where you bottomed out?

The Xbitlabs preview is pretty definite proof that you can't be getting the #s you say at the setting you claim to play at. Or are both Xbit & HardOCP using borked systems as well. Funny, everyone's system is out of whack except your super rig. :D

[Redeemed]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/FEAR2006-10-2314-53-34-04.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/FEAR2006-10-2314-53-36-21.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/FEAR2006-10-2314-53-37-95.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/FEAR2006-10-2314-53-42-18.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/FEAR2006-10-2314-53-46-12.jpg

Those are the settings I am playing FEAR at. Below are two different tests:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/2aa16afGCaaandTAAallingameoptionsma.jpg

In this test I ran it at 1024x768. Notice how I got into the teens there? Last time I ran this test at that resolution (same in game options) my lowest FPS was 23fps. I'm wondering if FRAPS is interfering some how?

Anyhow, here is that same test, ran at 1600x1200, all in game options maxed and 2xAA and 16xAF, GCAA and TAA enabled:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/Sir_Farts_A_Lot/2aa16afGCAATAAallingameoptionsmaxed.jpg

Results are a bit better, but still these are the worst results for these settings I've received yet. I'm thinking FRAPS might be causing this. I'm using the latest version of FRAPS.

I'll tinker with it some more and post back if I find anything.

My system specs are as follows:

Athlon64 3400 (s754, 2.2GHz)
Epox 8NPA SLi motherboard, latest bios and drivers
2x7600GTs, 580 core, 1500 memory
2GB G-Skill DDR500 ram, @ DDR400 CAS2
2x300GB Maxtor hard drives, 16MB Cache
Onboard sound
Viewsonic G90f 19" CRT monitor

Like I said, I'll mess around with FRAPS and FEAR some more to figure out what is up. The lowest FPS I ever got @ 1600x1200 was identical to the lowest I ever got at 1024x768- 23 fps.

And that was at 9% of the time for the test, might I add. ;)

[Redeemed]

So no matter how many people you see getting similar #s, it won't mean a thing to you, their system's must also be borked, right? In the same run with the X1900XTX there is a 7800 GTX 512 which can't even run the game decently @ 16x12 so they resorted to 1280x960.

So forgive me for asking questions when documented numbers differ from what you and Xion say.

Speaking of documented numbers, here's an Extraction Point preview from Xbitlabs.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/fear.html

Go on to the page where a single 7600GT is run and averages 22 fps and drops to a low of 10 fps @ your rez of 16x12 without AA. Last I checked the most you can get out of SLI is double the performance. And a GX2 at similar settings to the ones you claim to use in both the original and E.P. averages 32 fps and drops to 13.

So either you have miracle 7600GTs, or you just haven't really taken a close look at your fps during the game, or perhaps you need to recheck the settings you claim to play at. Because it's impossible for 7600GTs to perform better than a GX2 or 7900GTXs in SLI, especially at the settings you claim to play at.

Seems I must not have checked the fps that closely. During intense firefights it drops down to below 25 fps, but never does it dip below 20. In fact, I haven't seen it go below 23fps yet.

If I'm getting such performance on 7600GTs, then I'm sure that two 7900GTXs should be getting atleast 30fps in the same spots. We should have Xion put up some numbers if he can play atleast at 1600 x 1200. Then double that for the best two 7900GTXs can do. Seems logical, sort of. ;)

[schuey74]

Redeemed, no offense, but that built in benchmark means nothing compared to real gameplay. I can set mine to 4xAA & 16xHQAF and it would be @ 25 - 40fps for ~ 5% and the rest of the timedemo would be above 40 fps. When you actually play the game, it's a completely different story, and I'm sure you know that. Why not record a manual run of the E.P. demo to confirm Xbits' numbers?

[Redeemed]

What the??? Those screen shots for my in-game settings are totally messed up!!! I pressed F10, and it saved where it was supposed to. I then uploaded the images to my account at photobucket. Then posted them like I would any other image.

Are those pics appearing messed up to anybody else???

[Redeemed]

Redeemed, no offense, but that built in benchmark means nothing compared to real gameplay. I can set mine to 4xAA & 16xHQAF and it would be @ 25 - 40fps for ~ 5% and the rest of the timedemo would be above 40 fps. When you actually play the game, it's a completely different story, and I'm sure you know that. Why not record a manual run of the E.P. demo to confirm Xbits' numbers?

Manual run? You mean like a video capture? I think I know how to record it in FRAPS, but how would I upload it?

[schuey74]

Seems I must not have checked the fps that closely. During intense firefights it drops down to below 25 fps, but never does it dip below 20. In fact, I haven't seen it go below 23fps yet.

If I'm getting such performance on 7600GTs, then I'm sure that two 7900GTXs should be getting atleast 30fps in the same spots. We should have Xion put up some numbers if he can play atleast at 1600 x 1200. Then double that for the best two 7900GTXs can do. Seems logical, sort of. ;)
Again, if you're referring to the built in timedemo, then it means zip. I'm sure Xion's 7900GTX would get similar #s to my XTX in the timedemo, give or take a little, but that's not the point. The point is actual gameplay and during actual gameplay it's a completely different story.

[schuey74]

Manual run? You mean like a video capture? I think I know how to record it in FRAPS, but how would I upload it?
Don't need to upload man. Just do it and report back with what you saw. I think you'll be surprised at the fps' you'll see when you don't have to worry about dodging bullets and you can just watch what you played thru! :)

[Redeemed]

Again, if you're referring to the built in timedemo, then it means zip. I'm sure Xion's 7900GTX would get similar #s to my XTX in the timedemo, give or take a little, but that's not the point. The point is actual gameplay and during actual gameplay it's a completely different story.

I'm referring to in game. This will be my first time playing the game straight though with FRAPS running the entire time, but so far not once has it dipped below 23fps. Again, this is in game, and not that little benchmark.

[Redeemed]

Don't need to upload man. Just do it and report back with what you saw. I think you'll be surprised at the fps' you'll see when you don't have to worry about dodging bullets and you can just watch what you played thru! :)

Sounds fair enough. My only problem is, EP seemed to run better than FEAR. I mean that is in it "felt" more smooth than FEAR. I would naturally attribute that to higher FPS but I could be wrong.

I am in the middle of re-modeling my room right now. I've taken too long a break from it as is with this discussion of ours. :o And I have to be to work by 6. I'll play through EP and record it tomorrow morning when I get in from work. After watching it I'll be sure to report back with what I find.

Again, EP felt so "smooth" that I'll be very surprised if the fps is lower than what I am getting in FEAR. But like I said, I'll report back tomorrow morning when I get in from work.

[shadow001]

There has never been a single card like the GX2 is, with two GPU's, to come out. That should be taken into consideration. IMO, you should be comparing the G80's scores to that of the 7900GTX and 1900XT/1950XT, which if you do, show signs of about a 40% performance increase. After all, the trend from one generation to the next has been comparing a single graphics card to a single graphics card, no?


Well actually there has been dual GPU's in past cards...

Rage fury Maxx from ATI(dual rage 128 chips)
Voodoo 5 5500
voodoo 5 6000(Quad Gpu's there).


Though to tell you the truth,way down the line when i do decide to upgrade this 7950GX2,and 65 nm chip versions of the G80 are released,using far less power and lower cooling requirements,i wouldn't be too surprised if a dual G80 8950 GX2 card apeared on the scene in a year from now,even if it meant that the GPU's would have to be clocked lower for power and cooling reasons....I'd jump on that without even blinking twice if the price is reasonable(same as when the 7950GX2 was released)...

[Redeemed]

Well actually there has been dual GPU's in past cards...

Rage fury Maxx from ATI(dual rage 128 chips)
Voodoo 5 5500
voodoo 5 6000(Quad Gpu's there).


Though to tell you the truth,way down the line when i do decide to upgrade this 7950GX2,and 65 nm chip versions of the G80 are released,using far less power and lower cooling requirements,i wouldn't be too surprised if a dual G80 8950 GX2 card apeared on the scene in a year from now,even if it meant that the GPU's would have to be clocked lower for power and cooling reasons....I'd jump on that without even blinking twice if the price is reasonable(same as when the 7950GX2 was released)...

I wouldn't... simply cause my mobo can't do quad sli. :(

[schuey74]

If you know something that we don't, then I wish you would share it. Nobody reputable to this point has even hinted that there will be multiple GPU's on the G80. No one.
If I could say more, don't you think I would? And yes, more than one person on these forums and others have hinted at there being much more to the G80 than the leaked specs. Anyone who puts together all the hints laid out by various folks can at least come to the conclusion that the leak is far from complete!

If something else leaks, then I will elaborate a bit more, otherwise I'm sorry.

[shadow001]

I wouldn't... simply cause my mobo can't do quad sli. :(


Wouldn't do Quad SLi either,there isn't a CPU out there that could keep up,period...


Even with the losses due to overhead issues,the sheer amount of transistors between all 4 GPU's(2.8 billion),the overall amount of memory bandwith between all 4(320 gig/sec of memory bandwith),you'd have to run with a 30" LCD at 2500*1600 with full AA and AF and 128 bit HDR on the upcoming crysis game,and still be cpu limited with a Quad core kentsfield chip,no matter how overclocked it is....lol.


Really getting silly how much graphics cards have improved over the last few years,compared to CPU development,which has been improving no where near as fast...Not even close.