9600GT SLi review

[AzN]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Ok, when I came home this evening I sat down and benched my system with 169.21 driver set. I had tested 3 games and recorded the exact settings... After I upgraded to 174.16 and ran the same tests... The difference? Sadly, there was no measurable difference. All tests ran within 1% of each other.

Settings I used were

1680 x 1050 - 4X/16X/TSAA/HQ forcd in the CP to overide any setting. Vsync DISABLED - For those wondering, I was only able to test the following:

F.E.A.R.
3DMark06
HL: Lost Coast

There was no gain at all with the settings that I used.

I was hoping it would improve my score for the settings I use, but it didn't. I didn't test with any other resolution or non-AA, because I don't play at those settings.

There you have it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

You think all fps gains are same % even when dealing with different cards, settings and setup?

Except we aren't dealing with different cards or different settings so you clearly didn't read or comprehend the example I provided you.

Only if that was true. It just doesn't work that way. Until tests show it could be >=< 2fps.

I see little point in continuing this discussion tangent with you until such time as you gain sufficient understanding about percentages.

Anyways there is clear evidence from the benchmarks and direct from Nvidia that what I've been saying is true all along since GDDR5 thread and many other threads which you were quick to point out I was proven wrong

Not quite. We have benchmarks where I demonstrated a 1:2 ratio from increased shader power that carried over to SP increases which meant TMUs were a minor factor.

That and we know the 17x.xx drivers provide gains for the 9600 GT, and now we also know the 9600 GT secretly overclocks itself in certain situations, again narrowing the rift between it and the 8800 GT (no response from nVidia on that issue I might add).

I understand how percentage works but I'm smart enough to know real world doesn't work that way with different settings, setup, cards. Archangel is further proof enough.

Not quite as in BFG right Nvidia and benchmarks wrong. :disgust:

There's no point discussing anything with you further. You just play the cat & mouse game bait tactics when there's clear evidence to argue about nothing. :music:

 

[Tempered81]

What was your f.e.a.r. before/after?

my cod4 feels faster with AA on my 8400 GS.


how would you explain this:
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/02/28/17416_test.png

Archangle... sorry no large difference.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
What was your f.e.a.r. before/after?

my cod4 feels faster with AA on my 8400 GS.


how would you explain this:
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/02/28/17416_test.png

try benchmarking with fraps. You are using AA with 8400gs? :Q

 

[Tempered81]

yeah 2xAA at 800x600 scaled 16:10 in cod4 on a laptop.

It plays pretty well, but its got a big overclock:
http://picasaweb.google.com/ja...singT7100RamHDDAndWifi

 

[AzN]

You are using too much bandwidth especially with AA. If I were you I would use that bandwidth to play in higher resolution like 1280x800.

I have 8600gts with 3.5ghz core 2 duo and I get away with max settings 1440x900 16xAF 0xAA with COD4. About 50fps average.

 

[Tempered81]

For some reason at low res's "depth of field" gives me wierd contrast issues if a minimum 2xAA is not enabled. I would rather have the eyecandy at low res. I'm also running 8xAF and it stays around 40ish, dips to 30 highs are in the 60's.

The gpu now says 98C midgame, which is substantially higher than 88-90C with my old 169 drivers. I also was under the first impression that the AA didn't look as good when I installed 174 drivers.

So card is hotter, Image Qual seems crappier, but Frames feel faster.

I used to run this game at 1280 x 1024 with 16xAA and 16xAF forced under nvidia control panel on xp sp2. It stayed over 70FPS full time. I maxed out all image quality settings, but that was on a E8400 and 8800GT both overclocked.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace


So card is hotter, Image Qual seems crappier, but Frames feel faster.

LOL

 

[Tempered81]

yah, throw that in your sig.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
yah, throw that in your sig.

Maybe. :laugh:

 

[BFG10K]

There you have it.

Have what? Are you denying the performance gain from the 17xx drivers observed by other websites?

I don?t think you understand that a negative can?t be used to prove something doesn?t exist, but it takes only one positive to prove something does exist.

I understand how percentage works but I'm smart enough to know real world doesn't work that way with different settings, setup, cards.

Uh huh, so tells us, how will it work?

Not quite as in BFG right Nvidia and benchmarks wrong.

But my benchmarks prove you wrong.

And remember, nVidia also told us it wasn't possible to get TrAA working on the GF 6xxx series because of "architectural limitations" but we all know how that turned out.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

There you have it.

Have what? Are you denying the performance gain from the 17xx drivers observed by other websites?

I don?t think you understand that a negative can?t be used to prove something doesn?t exist, but it takes only one positive to prove something does exist.

What don't you understand?

I understand how percentage works but I'm smart enough to know real world doesn't work that way with different settings, setup, cards.

Uh huh, so tells us, how will it work?

Repeating the same cycle where Archangel brought proof which you don't even want any part of. :disgust:

Not quite as in BFG right Nvidia and benchmarks wrong.

But my benchmarks prove you wrong.

And remember, nVidia also told us it wasn't possible to get TrAA working on the GF 6xxx series because of "architectural limitations" but we all know how that turned out.

What benchmarks. There you go with the proving wrong crap again. you haven't proven anything except bfg right everyone else wrong including Nvidia and benchmarks.

I don't know about you but I believe Nvidia about their tech over BFG.

 

[BFG10K]

What don't you understand?

What you're talking about.

Repeating the same cycle where Archangel brought proof which you don't even want any part of.

You mean the Expreview results that demonstrated a performance gain?

The same ones you dismissed as ?only 2 FPS? because you clearly don?t understand the concept of a percentage?

What benchmarks.

The benchmarks I posted several pages back.

 

[BFG10K]

I don't know about you but I believe Nvidia about their tech over BFG.

Sure thing, and I suppose you also believe them when they state the 9600 GT uses a 25 MHz clock crystal. :roll:

 

[AzN]

You only remember what you say but don't remember what we were talking about earlier or constantly change the subject. typical troll tactics to make someone flame you so you can go tell a mod and feel like you won the argument. It's quite pathetic don't you think?

Is there a ignore button on this site?

 

[Tempered81]

I am going to agree with BFG on this, Azn. There are websites showing reviews of the new drivers on older cards. And they get a boost. Also, as rollo said in his statement taken from nvidia, "the shaders are identical in the g92 and g94". There are too many obvious signs that point directly at this.

the percentage works like this: if you have bench that gets a 10% improvement by going from 20 fps to 22 fps, when you run that bench on a card that originally gets 60 fps, the 10% linear increase is not still going to be 2 fps. It will be 6, and the new performance would be 66 fps. (theoretically)

So we have sites showing a substantial improvement and archangel777 saying he saw only a 1% improvement. Given all the other information I would wait for more testing, or just make a direct statement as to what your theory is on g92 vs. g94

I think they are the same, and agree with BFG, Rollo & his statement, and the Expreview 169 vs. 174 benchmarks.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I am going to agree with BFG on this, Azn. There are websites showing reviews of the new drivers on older cards. And they get a boost. Also, as rollo said in his statement taken from nvidia, "the shaders are identical in the g92 and g94". There are too many obvious signs that point directly at this.

the percentage works like this: if you have bench that gets a 10% improvement by going from 20 fps to 22 fps, when you run that bench on a card that originally gets 60 fps, the 10% linear increase is not still going to be 2 fps. It will be 6, and the new performance would be 66 fps. (theoretically)

So we have sites showing a substantial improvement and archangel777 saying he saw only a 1% improvement. Given all the other information I would wait for more testing, or just make a direct statement as to what your theory is on g92 vs. g94

I think they are the same, and agree with BFG, Rollo & his statement, and the Expreview 169 vs. 174 benchmarks.

jared. Archangel tested 174 drivers with his 8800gt with no difference. My point is that all gains are not the same with different cards, setup, settings, etc.. I never said there was no gains.

I already mentioned I understand how percentage works. You don't need to explain to me. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Tempered81]

So whats your opinion on g92 vs. g94 and the 9600's performance?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
So whats your opinion on g92 vs. g94 and the 9600's performance?

Just read this whole thread. You will know how I feel about it.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: jaredpace
So whats your opinion on g92 vs. g94 and the 9600's performance?

Just read this whole thread. You will know how I feel about it.

sounds like you cannot make a direct statement...

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: jaredpace
So whats your opinion on g92 vs. g94 and the 9600's performance?

Just read this whole thread. You will know how I feel about it.

sounds like you cannot make a direct statement...

Sounds like Jared is turning into a BFG. :laugh: I think I already mentioned many times if you followed up with this thread.

Here it is again for you guilty pleasure.

9600gt is doing well now but I'm not sure about as longevity vs 8800gt. Having more shader would come in handy for the future.

Let's look at 7900gs vs 1950pro for a second. When these 2 cards came out they performed about same but as time progressed 1950pro took a bigger lead because it had 36 fragmented pipes and doubling the shader power 7900gs.

Shader will eventually catch up just like 1950pro and 7900gs. It's only a matter of time.

Tell me what you think about it.

 

[Tempered81]

so 8800gt has a longer lifespan than 9600gt? I agree with that.

more power and better performance currently.

I think that there has been a lot of cutting corners going on with the new geforce 9 launch. "taking the cheapest route possible"

I also think nvidia is sitting on more advanced technology (gt200 etc) with the intent on releasing it to compete directly with ati's next-gen launch. this could be released now under 9800gtx name, but isnt, and my guess is this was the original plan. ( i cant understand why they cut rops, bandwidth, mem bus, vmem, SP's etc.)

I think g92/94/98/100 whatever has a 1000mhz max core speed. Also i bet we see gddr5 on nvidia cards in summertime.

I will not buy a 9 series card in the next 2 months, and wouldn't recommend it - unless the specualtion is false and real in-game benchmarks prove it all wrong.

Also I bet nvidia is very concerned with profit, market share, and capitalizing on their chipsets and motherboards SLI excusivity moreso than producing ground-breaking technology.

thats my opinon.

 

[AzN]

You are getting way ahead of yourself. I asked you what I think about 9600gt vs 8800gt.

Far as I know 9800gtx is a higher clocked G92GTS. There's many threads about this.

Next for Nvidia is GX2 and 9800gtx. GT200 is supposed to be in the 3rd quarter or even later. Before then we have AMD's 4000 series coming.

I agree though I wouldn't buy these cards because they can't play Crysis @ max detail. Until that day comes I'm not upgrading but currently it's great time to buy right now because of the sub-$200 price video cards performing well against with the best single gpu currently.

I don't think GT200 will be some magic card. I wish Nvidia make something like 8800gtx with a wider bus and bigger rops and enough shader power to play Crysis @ max detail.

 

[Tempered81]

8800gt wins.

Also, in regards to archangels fear test, check out this anand article. He is using 169 vs. 174 drivers for a sli setup in a laptop. check out the performance differences. Particularly in bioshock and crysis, just by switching to the newer driver the sli rig obtained a magical 80% performance increase.

Just drivers, go figure, eh?

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3242&p=7


edit: coinciding with Archangel's Fear test, anands review shows only a 3% increase in fear. That is similar to the 1% that Archangel reported. Would like to see him do a test in bioshock or crysis. Bet its more than just 1 or 3 percent.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
8800gt wins.

Also, in regards to archangels fear test, check out this anand article. He is using 169 vs. 174 drivers for a sli setup in a laptop. check out the performance differences. Particularly in bioshock and crysis, just by switching to the newer driver the sli rig obtained a magical 80% performance increase.

Just drivers, go figure, eh?

http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3242&p=7


edit: coinciding with Archangel's Fear test, anands review shows only a 3% increase in fear. That is similar to the 1% that Archangel reported. Would like to see him do a test in bioshock or crysis. Bet its more than just 1 or 3 percent.

Is that sli laptop? I didn't understand the configuration. It says...

1 x NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT 512MB
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 8700M GT 512MB
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 8800M GTX 512MB

It probably is sli improvements where SLI didn't work prior to the drivers.

Edit: just as expected. they are testing SLI which didn't work prior. It's not because of G9x compression methods.