9600GT SLi review

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: WhoBeDaPlaya

Originally posted by: Azn
Nvidia updated their purevideo but there is no evidence or any of the articles out there that g94 has an advantage over g92.
Please enlighten me if there is some actual facts about these supposed tweaks.

IINM, PureVideo HD doesn't do VC-1 motion comp whereas ATI's UVD does. G94 (and G98 - looking forward to the new 8400GS) suppossedly address this issue.

VC1 is a light enough codec to not NEED hardware acceleration... netiher does mpeg2... only 264 needs it.

The whole video acceleration for nvidia and ATI is crap anyways...
1. It has to be a HDDVD or BluRay (so... opening an MKV or AVI file would be only CPU), thus you need a drive that costs hundreds of dollars.
2. It has to be HDCP compliant monitor.
3. It only works with TWO video playback programs in the entire world.

So... 99.999999 repeating % chance you will not every see an ounce of video acceleration with your card.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
@ SickBeast: Here ya go. It worked.

screenshots before and after the disabling of shaders on my 8800GTS 640

Nice what setting in RT is it?

Under customized NVStrap tab.
At the bottom of the tab, there is a button to "Install" the feature. After you install the feature, you then use the dropdown menu to choose "custom". Then the customize button becomes available.

WARNING!!! Do not go into advanced settings!! Just stay in the shader/ROP area only.

Ok, uncheck some shader blocks. there are 16 shaders in each. Then click apply and OK. Then It will restart your machine.

 

[taltamir]

I don't have a "customized NVStrap tab"... can you be a bit more specific?

 

[Keysplayr]

Oh, here is a GPUz screen shot just to double check the shader count.

GPUz screenie

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: taltamir
I don't have a "customized NVStrap tab"... can you be a bit more specific?

Sure. Give me a few moments, and I'll post IN ORDER pics to show what is being done.

Ok here it is.

Linky

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
@ SickBeast: Here ya go. It worked.

screenshots before and after the disabling of shaders on my 8800GTS 640

Thanks. :thumbsup:

I disabled 48 of mine, and again, no difference in COD4.

This makes me wonder why the 8800GTX is faster than the GTS, and why they would even put so many shaders on these cards to begin with.

It appears as though the people suggesting that the shaders on G94 are the same as G92 are indeed correct. In a sense, we know our answer now: the cores are very similar; it's the clockspeed difference paired with a couple of minor efficiency tweaks that allows the 9600GT to keep pace with the 8800GT (and sometimes beat it). :beer:

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
@ SickBeast: Here ya go. It worked.

screenshots before and after the disabling of shaders on my 8800GTS 640

Thanks. :thumbsup:

I disabled 48 of mine, and again, no difference in COD4.

This makes me wonder why the 8800GTX is faster than the GTS, and why they would even put so many shaders on these cards to begin with.

It appears as though the people suggesting that the shaders on G94 are the same as G92 are indeed correct. In a sense, we know our answer now: the cores are very similar; it's the clockspeed difference paired with a couple of minor efficiency tweaks that allows the 9600GT to keep pace with the 8800GT (and sometimes beat it). :beer:

Try 3Dmark, and a few different games. So far, it looks as though Azn was right. Lets make sure though. And a way of doing this is to disable all but 16 shaders. If that doesn't do anything, then these shaders really aren't being disabled as indicated.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
@ SickBeast: Here ya go. It worked.

screenshots before and after the disabling of shaders on my 8800GTS 640

Thanks. :thumbsup:

I disabled 48 of mine, and again, no difference in COD4.

This makes me wonder why the 8800GTX is faster than the GTS, and why they would even put so many shaders on these cards to begin with.

It appears as though the people suggesting that the shaders on G94 are the same as G92 are indeed correct. In a sense, we know our answer now: the cores are very similar; it's the clockspeed difference paired with a couple of minor efficiency tweaks that allows the 9600GT to keep pace with the 8800GT (and sometimes beat it). :beer:

8800gtx is faster because it has bigger ROP and memory bandwidth. Games today just aren't shader bound with current GPU. It does improve but it's very minor. Only time G92GTS beats GTX is when memory bandwidth or pixel fillrate isn't an issue. Usually in the mid resolutions without AA.

The thing with these Nvidia DX10 cards are that TMU is linked to SP so having more SP also improves texture fillrate.

G94 performs the way it does because it is more balanced card while G92 is starving for more memory bandwidth with 35%? more texture fillrate that isn't even being utilized.

http://images.vnu.net/gb/inqui...-dx10-hit/fillrate.jpg

Game has to use more shader for G92 cards to flex its shader power to take substantial lead.

Just look at Geforce 7 and X1000. Remember when they were first released they were very similar in performance but as games used more shader x1000 took a bigger lead.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: Killrose
182% efficiency?

I think they need to rethink thier logic, LOL

Why?

1 x 9600GT = 100%
2 x 9600GT = 182%

That is a performance ratio. What is there to rethink?

...that's 182 out of a possible 200... Which gives you 90% efficiency, not 182%. Still very nice though.

Well, if you are really going to look at it that way, then it is 91%...but I'm not nit-picking about it...

That is still amazing because we all know you're NOT going to get 100% all the time but 91% is VERY, VERY, GOOD!!

some of their numbers showed over 100% improvement in frame rate

 

[Keysplayr]

Sickbeast, is there a built in benchmark for CoD4? I can't find it if there is one.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Sickbeast, is there a built in benchmark for CoD4? I can't find it if there is one.

There's not. I've played a ton of COD4, especially the mission I loaded up. I did not see any significant difference whatsoever.

I don't have 3DMark installed. I'll see if I can get to it.

My problem is I'm not very detail-oriented. As far as I'm concerned, disabling the 48 shaders did nothing.

 

[taltamir]

i dont know where my post went... so...

It seems like nvstrap is limited to winXP (and 2k)... vista64 is no go (or 32 for that matter)

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
@ SickBeast: Here ya go. It worked.

screenshots before and after the disabling of shaders on my 8800GTS 640

Thanks. :thumbsup:

I disabled 48 of mine, and again, no difference in COD4.

This makes me wonder why the 8800GTX is faster than the GTS, and why they would even put so many shaders on these cards to begin with.

It appears as though the people suggesting that the shaders on G94 are the same as G92 are indeed correct. In a sense, we know our answer now: the cores are very similar; it's the clockspeed difference paired with a couple of minor efficiency tweaks that allows the 9600GT to keep pace with the 8800GT (and sometimes beat it). :beer:

8800gtx is faster because it has bigger ROP and memory bandwidth. Games today just aren't shader bound with current GPU. It does improve but it's very minor. Only time G92GTS beats GTX is when memory bandwidth or pixel fillrate isn't an issue. Usually in the mid resolutions without AA.

The thing with these Nvidia DX10 cards are that TMU is linked to SP so having more SP also improves texture fillrate.

G94 performs the way it does because it is more balanced card while G92 is starving for more memory bandwidth with 35%? more texture fillrate. Game has to use more shader for G92 cards to flex its shader power to take substantial lead.

Just look at Geforce 7 and X1000. Remember when they were first released they were very similar in performance but as games used more shader x1000 took a bigger lead.

Given all you've said of the g92/g80, what is your opinion of the 9800gtx?

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
@ SickBeast: Here ya go. It worked.

screenshots before and after the disabling of shaders on my 8800GTS 640

Thanks. :thumbsup:

I disabled 48 of mine, and again, no difference in COD4.

This makes me wonder why the 8800GTX is faster than the GTS, and why they would even put so many shaders on these cards to begin with.

It appears as though the people suggesting that the shaders on G94 are the same as G92 are indeed correct. In a sense, we know our answer now: the cores are very similar; it's the clockspeed difference paired with a couple of minor efficiency tweaks that allows the 9600GT to keep pace with the 8800GT (and sometimes beat it). :beer:

8800gtx is faster because it has bigger ROP and memory bandwidth. Games today just aren't shader bound with current GPU. It does improve but it's very minor. Only time G92GTS beats GTX is when memory bandwidth or pixel fillrate isn't an issue. Usually in the mid resolutions without AA.

The thing with these Nvidia DX10 cards are that TMU is linked to SP so having more SP also improves texture fillrate.

G94 performs the way it does because it is more balanced card while G92 is starving for more memory bandwidth with 35%? more texture fillrate. Game has to use more shader for G92 cards to flex its shader power to take substantial lead.

Just look at Geforce 7 and X1000. Remember when they were first released they were very similar in performance but as games used more shader x1000 took a bigger lead.

Given all you've said of the g92/g80, what is your opinion of the 9800gtx?

It's not even released but by going rumored g92 core. It would be just higher clocked GTS.

Cookie Monster knows his stuff better than me I think. At least he will explain it better than me since my english skills aren't as good. You might want to ask him.

 

[bryanW1995]

If the 675/2200 rumors are true, then it needs a lot of AA improvments to catch up to gtx/ultra at high res. This card could be a big flop just because it's going to be so much higher than 8800gt for minimal performance increase. even rollo hasn't been bragging on it, he's been talking about the 9800gx2 instead. That should tell us that A.) the card is weak, or B.) rollo is trapped under something heavy and can't reach his keyboard. I'm going with A.

 

[Keysplayr]

Ok, I ran CoD4 with 64 shaders and got ZERO difference on my 8800GTS G80. I further disabled another 32 shaders for a grand total of 32 enabled shaders. My framerate absolutely TANKED. So, it looks like 64 shaders is enough for anybody, in CoD4 at least. A lot of these shaders, it would appear, are sitting idle.

Azn, my hat is off to you. You were right. But this is all I really wanted out of our debate. I didn't care if I was right or wrong, but just wanted to know the "true" answers. And now I think we have them. There is no special compression technology it would appear. Looks like ROP's are a much bigger factor than shaders. Oh BTW, we can disable ROP's as well in RivaTuner. That would be an interesting thing to do. Maybe disable 4 or 8 of them to see how much it affects performance.
Well, time to put my shaders back online. Be back in a few.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: taltamir
i dont know where my post went... so...

It seems like nvstrap is limited to winXP (and 2k)... vista64 is no go (or 32 for that matter)

It's working for me under Vista 64.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Ok, I ran CoD4 with 64 shaders and got ZERO difference on my 8800GTS G80. I further disabled another 32 shaders for a grand total of 32 enabled shaders. My framerate absolutely TANKED. So, it looks like 64 shaders is enough for anybody, in CoD4 at least. A lot of these shaders, it would appear, are sitting idle.

Azn, my hat is off to you. You were right. But this is all I really wanted out of our debate. I didn't care if I was right or wrong, but just wanted to know the "true" answers. And now I think we have them. There is no special compression technology it would appear. Looks like ROP's are a much bigger factor than shaders. Oh BTW, we can disable ROP's as well in RivaTuner. That would be an interesting thing to do. Maybe disable 4 or 8 of them to see how much it affects performance.
Well, time to put my shaders back online. Be back in a few.

What does this say about the 128SP in the gtx? Are we going to see more rops on the g92-420 128sp die?

 

[Keysplayr]

Well, the current G92 GTS has 16 ROP's and 128 sp's. The new GTX is reported to be 16 ROP's and 128sp's, but at 750MHz core speed. This new GTX does not appear to be a great improvement over existing G92 GTS.
I mean, people are o/c'ing their GTS's to 750 and higher as it is. Kind of disappointing. Unless Nvidia leaked false specs, I don't think the 9800GTX is going to be so spectacular.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Ok, I ran CoD4 with 64 shaders and got ZERO difference on my 8800GTS G80. I further disabled another 32 shaders for a grand total of 32 enabled shaders. My framerate absolutely TANKED. So, it looks like 64 shaders is enough for anybody, in CoD4 at least. A lot of these shaders, it would appear, are sitting idle.

Azn, my hat is off to you. You were right. But this is all I really wanted out of our debate. I didn't care if I was right or wrong, but just wanted to know the "true" answers. And now I think we have them. There is no special compression technology it would appear. Looks like ROP's are a much bigger factor than shaders. Oh BTW, we can disable ROP's as well in RivaTuner. That would be an interesting thing to do. Maybe disable 4 or 8 of them to see how much it affects performance.
Well, time to put my shaders back online. Be back in a few.

Isn't this why forums like this are here? To learn stuff from each other.

Thanks Keys I appreciate it..

 

[Rusin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, the current G92 GTS has 16 ROP's and 128 sp's. The new GTX is reported to be 16 ROP's and 128sp's, but at 750MHz core speed. This new GTX does not appear to be a great improvement over existing G92 GTS.
I mean, people are o/c'ing their GTS's to 750 and higher as it is. Kind of disappointing. Unless Nvidia leaked false specs, I don't think the 9800GTX is going to be so spectacular.

If 9800 GTX is 8800 GTS @750.. then we would be talking about 8800 ultra kind of performer..which isn't enough for $400 card..specially with 9600GTs being around. 9600 GT SLI costs like $360 and 9600 GT SLI is that much superior on performance that it could make one considering to use motherboard with Nvidia chipset ($40 saving also encourages..buy some good chipset cooler thingy + some beer)

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Rusin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, the current G92 GTS has 16 ROP's and 128 sp's. The new GTX is reported to be 16 ROP's and 128sp's, but at 750MHz core speed. This new GTX does not appear to be a great improvement over existing G92 GTS.
I mean, people are o/c'ing their GTS's to 750 and higher as it is. Kind of disappointing. Unless Nvidia leaked false specs, I don't think the 9800GTX is going to be so spectacular.

If 9800 GTX is 8800 GTS @750.. then we would be talking about 8800 ultra kind of performer..which isn't enough for $400 card..specially with 9600GTs being around. 9600 GT SLI costs like $360 and 9600 GT SLI is that much superior on performance that it could make one considering to use motherboard with Nvidia chipset ($40 saving also encourages..buy some good chipset cooler thingy + some beer)

Good point, yet sli doesn't work for every 3d game. This brings back the advantages of single gpu solutions.

 

[Rusin]

..but the intresting question is that
will 3x9800 GTX beat 2x9800GX2

Those 98 GTX GPUs would have higher clock frequencies and which will scale better 1x3 GPU solution or 2x2 GPU solution

 

[bryanW1995]

I don't know if nvidia is even going to allow to to sli the 9800gx2. Nice comment about "+ beer", btw. If everyone just bought cheaper video cards and more beer this would be a much friendlier place

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
If everyone just bought cheaper video cards and more beer this would be a much friendlier place

alcoholics are usually very unfriendly ... the next day

:headache;:beer:uke;