9600GT SLi review

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
My wallet is frowning at you apoppin.



I do have tilt and height adjustments on my 19" jobber btw. does the soyo have those?

yet you are smiling ... right now

read the actual user reviews ... some on on their 3rd one !

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2155691&enterthread=y

http://www.officemax.com/omax/...sku.jsp?skuId=21361009

unfortunately [or 'fortunately' according to Mr Wallet] you just missed the sale .. and it has been off an on quite a few times ... keep watching hot deals

wallet is now safe due to loss of job. unfortunately, it might not get much replenishment for a while... I might even have to wait on 9450 for a while!

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: nRollo
OK guys, here is the official word from NVIDIA on this, quoted verbatim:

This is no mojo going on. The GeForce 8800 GT and 9600 GT use the same stream processors.

The following are synthetic shader and fillrate tests. Note the sizable difference between 8800 GT and 9600 GT.*

What should be noted is that the 8800 GT and 9600 GT have identical bandwidth. Realworld games do not simply run a perlin noise function or fill polygons. They fetch a lot of textures, render targets and so on. These get swaped in and out of memory. With AA, bandwidth consumption goes up even more.

In general, games consume more BW than shader. This is why the GeForce 9600 GT performs 'almost' like a 8800 GT.

So there you have it, as I said, no new shaders, just new data compression in the G90s and the games using the cards similar bandwidth.

*there was a graph in the email here showing the Perlin Noise of 9600 at 59 and 8800GT at 116, and another showing the multitextured fillrate of the 9600 at 16192 and the 8800GT- both 3DMark06 at 19X12

uh oh, bfg is about to post something proving that nvidia is wrong here... I can't wait to see it...

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

This is no mojo going on. The GeForce 8800 GT and 9600 GT use the same stream processors.

The following are synthetic shader and fillrate tests. Note the sizable difference between 8800 GT and 9600 GT.*

What should be noted is that the 8800 GT and 9600 GT have identical bandwidth. Realworld games do not simply run a perlin noise function or fill polygons. They fetch a lot of textures, render targets and so on. These get swaped in and out of memory. With AA, bandwidth consumption goes up even more.

In general, games consume more BW than shader. This is why the GeForce 9600 GT performs 'almost' like a 8800 GT.

nVidia's answer is all well and good, but it ignores the following:


[*]The 9600 GT has higher core and memory clocks than the 8800 GT, and it has more than half the SPs to begin with.
[*]The 9600 GT tests were run on newer drivers than the rest of the cards.
[*]People overclocking the 8800 GT?s memory bandwidth are seeing next to no performance gain compared to overclocking the core/shader.
[*]Despite all of this, in shader intensive games the 8800 GT is 30% faster in some situations over the 9600 GT.

expreview used the new 174 whql drivers that the 9600 runs on and put them on a 8800gt (g92). It boosts the 8800Gt's preformance as well. The "mystery magical filters" are driver side, and suitable for all g92's now, possibly via a modded driver INF...

Now we?re getting somewhere, as this is quite interesting. I?d like to see an 8800 GT compared to the 9600 GT using these drivers (assuming they function correctly on a 8800 GT) and that will give us the true performance rift to work around.

As a hypothetical example, those drivers could enable the ROP compression that was thus-far inactive, hence the 8800 GT isn?t benefitting like the 9600 GT is despite having the same core.

LMFAO!!! how did I know??? If Jen-Hsun Huang told you would you believe THEN??? This is awesome!

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: 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.

can you prove this with a link, or are you just saying that.

I would like to see 8800gt or 8800gts on 169 forceware doing sli in bioshock or crysis, and then comparing that to 174.16whql.

Not that I don't trust you. You know quite a lot about graphics card technology & performance.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Do we have access to the 1.74 drivers? I'd like to see if my 8800GTS sees an increase. Also, does the compression assist with memory bandwidth? It would appear so.

If so, I wonder if the 8800GTS (G92) would defeat the 8800ULTRA with these new updated drivers, as AT determined that the Ultra defeated the 8800GTS due to memory bandwidth when things like AA/AF were turned on.

the real question is, do the new drivers also increase g80 performance, and, if so, by how much? It seems likely that nvidia would focus more on g92(4) performance right now, but what if the new drivers help g80 by, say, 15% on average?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: 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.

can you prove this with a link, or are you just saying that.

I would like to see 8800gt or 8800gts on 169 forceware doing sli in bioshock or crysis, and then comparing that to 174.16whql.

Not that I don't trust you. You know quite a lot about graphics card technology & performance.

You think Nvidia would be quite lip about g9x compression if they had 80% performance improvement? This was to test sli performance. 8800m gtx on a mobile platform is downclocked 8800gt getting 41fps in bioshock which sounds legitimate for a single 8800m gtx @ 1900x1200. Now add another card there you will get 80%.

I think I'm going to repeat this again because some people seem to think there are magic drivers and uber tweaks. There is no such thing. Tweaks and driver improvements come over time and hard work by incremental increases. Not 80% performance gain within couple months. This is obvious in the test if you know how to read numbers.

Of course I'm taking a educated guess here but you can prove me wrong like BFG hasn't done by....emailing the editor and see what he/she says about it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: nRollo
OK guys, here is the official word from NVIDIA on this, quoted verbatim:

This is no mojo going on. The GeForce 8800 GT and 9600 GT use the same stream processors.

The following are synthetic shader and fillrate tests. Note the sizable difference between 8800 GT and 9600 GT.*

What should be noted is that the 8800 GT and 9600 GT have identical bandwidth. Realworld games do not simply run a perlin noise function or fill polygons. They fetch a lot of textures, render targets and so on. These get swaped in and out of memory. With AA, bandwidth consumption goes up even more.

In general, games consume more BW than shader. This is why the GeForce 9600 GT performs 'almost' like a 8800 GT.

So there you have it, as I said, no new shaders, just new data compression in the G90s and the games using the cards similar bandwidth.

*there was a graph in the email here showing the Perlin Noise of 9600 at 59 and 8800GT at 116, and another showing the multitextured fillrate of the 9600 at 16192 and the 8800GT- both 3DMark06 at 19X12

uh oh, bfg is about to post something proving that nvidia is wrong here... I can't wait to see it...

Can't wait to see it myself but so far BFG has done no such thing however if you read 10 pages back you will see that BFG theories have been proven wrong multiple accounts. nRollo post backed up by Nvidia just confirms it even further.

 

[BFG10K]

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.

So what are you saying? Is there a difference in Crysis at 1280x1024 with 4xAA or not?

Answer the question.

Can't wait to see it myself but so far BFG has done no such thing however if you read 10 pages back you will see that BFG theories have been proven wrong multiple accounts.

Actually no, they haven't.

• I demonstrated how a shader clock reduction gave a performance loss similar to that of SP reduction. I have not heard any response or even acknowledgment from you about that benchmark.
  
• It has been proven the 17x.xx drivers provide performance gains.
  
• There are other possible factors in the 9600 GT's performance, such as the clock issue discussed in the other thread.

Factor all of these things together and you have the 9600 GT behaving more and more in line according to its SPs, not its memory bandwidth as claimed by nVidia.

Of course Azn ignores any evidence that refutes his theories and pretends it was never posted.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

So what are you saying? Is there a difference in Crysis at 1280x1024 with 4xAA or not?

Answer the question.

Can't wait to see it myself but so far BFG has done no such thing however if you read 10 pages back you will see that BFG theories have been proven wrong multiple accounts.

Actually no, they haven't.

• I demonstrated how a shader clock reduction gave a performance loss similar to that of SP reduction. I have not heard any response or even acknowledgment from you about that benchmark.
  
• It has been proven the 17x.xx drivers provide performance gains.
  
• There are other possible factors in the 9600 GT's performance, such as the clock issue discussed in the other thread.

Factor all of these things together and you have the 9600 GT behaving more and more in line according to its SPs, not its memory bandwidth as claimed by nVidia.

Of course Azn ignores any evidence that refutes his theories and pretends it was never posted.

BFG, why would nVidia lie about this?

If they re-designed the shaders and made them better, I'd think thy would advertise it rather than try to cover it up.

They are in the business of selling new tech.

I think this is more along the lines of our old FX5800 vs 9700Pro debates- while the 9700Pro did have superior memory bandwidth, if you ran settings that didn't exceed the need for it the bandwidth was a moot point. Same here- the G92 8800s have superior shader power, but until you get beyond what the 9600 can do, that isn't a factor.

In any case, I don't think the whole thing is even worth debating, including the "sneaky LinkBoost" claims. The cards are warranted, no one can produce any evidence the alleged LinkBoost has any detrimental effect, so at the end of the day if I were a buyer I wouldn't care if the 9600s were proven to each contain "one enslaved Persian genie".

The end result is all that matters.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

So what are you saying? Is there a difference in Crysis at 1280x1024 with 4xAA or not?

Answer the question.

Can't wait to see it myself but so far BFG has done no such thing however if you read 10 pages back you will see that BFG theories have been proven wrong multiple accounts.

Actually no, they haven't.

• I demonstrated how a shader clock reduction gave a performance loss similar to that of SP reduction. I have not heard any response or even acknowledgment from you about that benchmark.
  
• It has been proven the 17x.xx drivers provide performance gains.
  
• There are other possible factors in the 9600 GT's performance, such as the clock issue discussed in the other thread.

Factor all of these things together and you have the 9600 GT behaving more and more in line according to its SPs, not its memory bandwidth as claimed by nVidia.

Of course Azn ignores any evidence that refutes his theories and pretends it was never posted.

BFG, why would nVidia lie about this?

If they re-designed the shaders and made them better, I'd think thy would advertise it rather than try to cover it up.

They are in the business of selling new tech.

I think this is more along the lines of our old FX5800 vs 9700Pro debates- while the 9700Pro did have superior memory bandwidth, if you ran settings that didn't exceed the need for it the bandwidth was a moot point. Same here- the G92 8800s have superior shader power, but until you get beyond what the 9600 can do, that isn't a factor.

In any case, I don't think the whole thing is even worth debating, including the "sneaky LinkBoost" claims. The cards are warranted, no one can produce any evidence the alleged LinkBoost has any detrimental effect, so at the end of the day if I were a buyer I wouldn't care if the 9600s were proven to each contain "one enslaved Persian genie".

The end result is all that matters.

Thought you said they had the same Shaders from the Nvidia Quote?

The end result is getting better and better for the 8800gt G92 as each of these advancements of the 9600 is applied to it. What we're trying to figure out is:

Is the 9600gt more than just an overclocked 8800GT with 64SP?

I would like to see the 9600gt force to run on some 169 drivers and see if its magic AA enhancements are still there.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

So what are you saying? Is there a difference in Crysis at 1280x1024 with 4xAA or not?

Answer the question.

Can't wait to see it myself but so far BFG has done no such thing however if you read 10 pages back you will see that BFG theories have been proven wrong multiple accounts.

Actually no, they haven't.

• I demonstrated how a shader clock reduction gave a performance loss similar to that of SP reduction. I have not heard any response or even acknowledgment from you about that benchmark.
  
• It has been proven the 17x.xx drivers provide performance gains.
  
• There are other possible factors in the 9600 GT's performance, such as the clock issue discussed in the other thread.

Factor all of these things together and you have the 9600 GT behaving more and more in line according to its SPs, not its memory bandwidth as claimed by nVidia.

Of course Azn ignores any evidence that refutes his theories and pretends it was never posted.

BFG, why would nVidia lie about this?

If they re-designed the shaders and made them better, I'd think thy would advertise it rather than try to cover it up.

They are in the business of selling new tech.

I think this is more along the lines of our old FX5800 vs 9700Pro debates- while the 9700Pro did have superior memory bandwidth, if you ran settings that didn't exceed the need for it the bandwidth was a moot point. Same here- the G92 8800s have superior shader power, but until you get beyond what the 9600 can do, that isn't a factor.

In any case, I don't think the whole thing is even worth debating, including the "sneaky LinkBoost" claims. The cards are warranted, no one can produce any evidence the alleged LinkBoost has any detrimental effect, so at the end of the day if I were a buyer I wouldn't care if the 9600s were proven to each contain "one enslaved Persian genie".

The end result is all that matters.

Thought you said they had the same Shaders from the Nvidia Quote?

The end result is getting better and better for the 8800gt G92 as each of these advancements of the 9600 is applied to it. What we're trying to figure out is:

Is the 9600gt more than just an overclocked 8800GT with 64SP?

I would like to see the 9600gt force to run on some 169 drivers and see if its magic AA enhancements are still there.

He meant, when 64 shaders is no longer enough for any given game. When games require more shader power than a G94 can provide, G92 cores will have a shader power advantage in number only, not power per physical shader.

It's times like this I really hate forum posting. Meanings get lost in perception and translation.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: BFG10K

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.

So what are you saying? Is there a difference in Crysis at 1280x1024 with 4xAA or not?

Answer the question.

Can't wait to see it myself but so far BFG has done no such thing however if you read 10 pages back you will see that BFG theories have been proven wrong multiple accounts.

Actually no, they haven't.

• I demonstrated how a shader clock reduction gave a performance loss similar to that of SP reduction. I have not heard any response or even acknowledgment from you about that benchmark.
  
• It has been proven the 17x.xx drivers provide performance gains.
  
• There are other possible factors in the 9600 GT's performance, such as the clock issue discussed in the other thread.

Factor all of these things together and you have the 9600 GT behaving more and more in line according to its SPs, not its memory bandwidth as claimed by nVidia.

Of course Azn ignores any evidence that refutes his theories and pretends it was never posted.

BFG, why would nVidia lie about this?

If they re-designed the shaders and made them better, I'd think thy would advertise it rather than try to cover it up.

They are in the business of selling new tech.

I think this is more along the lines of our old FX5800 vs 9700Pro debates- while the 9700Pro did have superior memory bandwidth, if you ran settings that didn't exceed the need for it the bandwidth was a moot point. Same here- the G92 8800s have superior shader power, but until you get beyond what the 9600 can do, that isn't a factor.

In any case, I don't think the whole thing is even worth debating, including the "sneaky LinkBoost" claims. The cards are warranted, no one can produce any evidence the alleged LinkBoost has any detrimental effect, so at the end of the day if I were a buyer I wouldn't care if the 9600s were proven to each contain "one enslaved Persian genie".

The end result is all that matters.

If you don't know BFG by now. Everything is a cover up and lies so he can't be wrong when there's clear evidence from benchmarks and straight out of Nvidia acknowledging memory bandwidth limitations and why 9600gt performs the way it does. I was trying to explain this to him 4 months ago but now we can finally close this issue once and for all.

9600gt vs 8800gt don't lie. 8800gt is mostly 5-20% faster and some rare instances 30%. I would say it's more like 15% faster average if you factor in many different type of games with 40% shader reduction. Future proofing is geared with 8800gt no doubt and I've mentioned this many instances.

The thread is dead far as I'm concerned as well. BFG will always be BFG. :laugh:

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Azn


If you don't know BFG by now. Everything is a cover up and lies so he can't be wrong when there's clear evidence from benchmarks and straight out of Nvidia acknowledging memory bandwidth limitations and why 9600gt performs the way it does. I was trying to explain this to him 4 months ago but now we can finally close this issue once and for all.

if you don't cut this shit out i am going to call the senior mods and complain about YOU!! and your disrupting the forum ... i think you need a long vacation if you cannot control your hurtful words
WtF do you not understand about "NO G-D personal ATTACKS?" :|
:Q

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Azn


If you don't know BFG by now. Everything is a cover up and lies so he can't be wrong when there's clear evidence from benchmarks and straight out of Nvidia acknowledging memory bandwidth limitations and why 9600gt performs the way it does. I was trying to explain this to him 4 months ago but now we can finally close this issue once and for all.

if you don't cut this shit out i am going to call the senior mods and complain about YOU!! and your disrupting the forum ... i think you need a long vacation if you cannot control your hurtful words
WtF do you not understand about "NO G-D personal ATTACKS?" :|
:Q

Funny you say that.

Personal attacks? The first personal attack was with Keysplayr against me because I gave out my opinion on the matter. Yet you do nothing. Do as you please. You are going to do it anyway without my approval.

I will cut it out regardless but don't tell me BFG hasn't done a single thing wrong. :disgust:

Edit: Finally found the ignore button. Won't be replying to anymore to BFG. Peace.. :thumbsup:

 

[apoppin]

You are the one that KEEPS on continuing it .. you keep on holding him up for derision
- it is like you are obsessed.

If you REALLY *stop*, i will do nothing ...
- but i am sure the 'rest of us' are sick to death of this 'personal' sniping - no matter *who* does it

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

He meant, when 64 shaders is no longer enough for any given game. When games require more shader power than a G94 can provide, G92 cores will have a shader power advantage in number only, not power per physical shader.

It's times like this I really hate forum posting. Meanings get lost in perception and translation.

That is what I meant. The 8800s have over 100 shaders, the 9600s have 64- not any difference in them.

 

[CrispSandwich]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Azn


If you don't know BFG by now. Everything is a cover up and lies so he can't be wrong when there's clear evidence from benchmarks and straight out of Nvidia acknowledging memory bandwidth limitations and why 9600gt performs the way it does. I was trying to explain this to him 4 months ago but now we can finally close this issue once and for all.

if you don't cut this shit out i am going to call the senior mods and complain about YOU!! and your disrupting the forum ... i think you need a long vacation if you cannot control your hurtful words
WtF do you not understand about "NO G-D personal ATTACKS?" :|
:Q

You really should learn to practice what you preach.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok, this thread will be locked in about 3 minutes. If somebody wants to start a thread specifically dedicated to 9600GT vs 8800GT, be my guest. ONLY THIS TIME, keep it 100% civil. Everybody gets heated at one time or another, but enough is enough.

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003