9800 GX2 Benchmark is out!

[reviewhunter]

<3DMark06>

8800 GTX: 7378
8800 Ultra: 8154
9800 GX2: 9984

http://lly316.blogspot.com/200...800-gx2-benchmark.html

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: reviewhunter
<3DMark06>

8800 GTX: 7378
8800 Ultra: 8154
9800 GX2: 9984

http://lly316.blogspot.com/200...800-gx2-benchmark.html

3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

 

[M0R0NI]

I look forward to see how 9800 GX2 would compete against AMD's HD 3870 X2.

Yea me too!

 

[Keysplayr]

Well, the GX2 performance to X2 "should" be a similar ratio of 8800GTS512 to HD3870. Depending on how well, or poorly, scaling is in SLI/Crossfire in any given game.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, the GX2 performance to X2 "should" be a similar ratio of 8800GTS512 to HD3870. Depending on how well, or poorly, scaling is in SLI/Crossfire in any given game.

What does the 9600GT get in 3D'06? i'd prefer to 'compare' those scores? ... i don't think we will get 'apples to apples' comparing a g80 to g94

the only reason the GX2 interests me is because i do not have a SLi mb .. i'd like to compare it to CrossFire .. i hope to compare it

 

[dadach]

yeah...maybe we should look exclusively at crysis benchmarks, since that game is developed with nvidias cash...then you fanboys would be happy?

 

[reviewhunter]

Originally posted by: nRollo


3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

It's 1280x768

 

[reviewhunter]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, the GX2 performance to X2 "should" be a similar ratio of 8800GTS512 to HD3870. Depending on how well, or poorly, scaling is in SLI/Crossfire in any given game.

I doubt the testers were allowed to do so in at the stage.
They have some sort of agreements with the manufacturers.

If you want to see such comparison, I think you've got to wait till it is being officially announced.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: reviewhunter
<3DMark06>

8800 GTX: 7378
8800 Ultra: 8154
9800 GX2: 9984

http://lly316.blogspot.com/200...800-gx2-benchmark.html

3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

Even looking at 3DMark you're only seeing a 25% performance jump over the gtx. Directly translated in fps (which it won't) that would bring Crysis from 30fps to 37.5. An ok boost, but not worth the cost of the upgrade from a GTX I don't think.

 

[reviewhunter]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Even looking at 3DMark you're only seeing a 25% performance jump over the gtx. Directly translated in fps (which it won't) that would bring Crysis from 30fps to 37.5. An ok boost, but not worth the cost of the upgrade from a GTX I don't think.

I believe that it will show its true power in very high resolutions,
not at this crappy 1280x768.

 

[imported_dingdong]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: reviewhunter
<3DMark06>

8800 GTX: 7378
8800 Ultra: 8154
9800 GX2: 9984

http://lly316.blogspot.com/200...800-gx2-benchmark.html

3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

3Dmark might not directly translate into performance in all games for ALL cards,
but it does give you a very clear idea about how cards scale: when you compare a 8800 UlTRA against 8800GT, or 3870 VS 3850, the difference you see in 3dmark is the difference you get in actualy games.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dingdong

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: reviewhunter
<3DMark06>

8800 GTX: 7378
8800 Ultra: 8154
9800 GX2: 9984

http://lly316.blogspot.com/200...800-gx2-benchmark.html

3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

3Dmark might not directly translate into performance in all games for ALL cards,
but it does give you a very clear idea about how cards scale: when you compare a 8800 UlTRA against 8800GT, or 3870 VS 3850, the difference you see in 3dmark is the difference you get in actualy games.

not necessarily .. your examples compare video cards of the SAME generation - which why i asked for a comparison to 9600GT ... i don't think it is valid comparing different generations of even nvidia GPUs with 3DMarkXX.

 

[reviewhunter]

Originally posted by: apoppin

not necessarily .. your examples compare video cards of the SAME generation - which why i asked for a comparison to 9600GT ... i don't think it is valid comparing different generations of even nvidia GPUs with 3DMarkXX.

Same generation?
Then they should be comparing against 8800GTS 512, since they are both based on G92.
I don't see any reason bringing in the mid-range G94-based 9600GT in.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: reviewhunter

Originally posted by: apoppin

not necessarily .. your examples compare video cards of the SAME generation - which why i asked for a comparison to 9600GT ... i don't think it is valid comparing different generations of even nvidia GPUs with 3DMarkXX.

Same generation?
Then they should be comparing against 8800GTS 512, since they are both based on G92.
I don't see any reason bringing in the mid-range G94-based 9600GT in.

OK, i will agree with that .. my point remains - they should NOT be comparing with G80

 

[bryanW1995]

Apoppin, you've heard that they're going to be $599 at launch, right? That's a LOT of money to spend just to "see" how the card works, especially at 16x10. You probably won't even notice a difference while gaming with a gx2 vs your "apoppin xfire" rig. Now, at 25x16, otoh, that's a different story altogether. THAT'S the market that 9800gx2 is after, not us small-medium monitor owners.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
Apoppin, you've heard that they're going to be $599 at launch, right? That's a LOT of money to spend just to "see" how the card works, especially at 16x10. You probably won't even notice a difference while gaming with a gx2 vs your "apoppin xfire" rig. Now, at 25x16, otoh, that's a different story altogether. THAT'S the market that 9800gx2 is after, not us small-medium monitor owners.

are you concerned about me now .. how i spend my money?
-thank-you but it is not necessary

i also game at 16x12 and i am a "details freak" .. and why should i not be interested in the GX2 vs 3870X2 ... my own mismatched CrossFire is a crude approximation of a X2 already - and it did a LOT over a single 2900xt - just on my own little small-medium monitor.

now IF there is a significant improvement, i can sell my crossfire for over $350 .. i will be paying ~$200 for significant improvement ,,, and i will KNOW about SLi .. i will have first hand experience.
... if not, i can do what Blacklash did with his X2 .. except i plan to stay up for 196 hours benchmarking on black coffee and no doze

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: reviewhunter

Originally posted by: nRollo


3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

It's 1280x768

The default resolution 3DMark06 runs in is 1280x1024.

 

[reviewhunter]

Originally posted by: apoppin

OK, i will agree with that .. my point remains - they should NOT be comparing with G80

Fair enough, I guess the G80s were there just to represent the NV's current top-of-the-line cards.

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: reviewhunter

Originally posted by: apoppin

OK, i will agree with that .. my point remains - they should NOT be comparing with G80

Fair enough, I guess the G80s were there just to represent the NV's current top-of-the-line cards.

I agree, compare the 9800 GX2 to another dual GPU card, the 3870 X2.

 

[superbooga]

It was ran with 4xAA + 16xAF, which is why you actually see a difference between the three. The difference will actually be bigger in games that scale well, and higher resolutions. >30% faster than the Ultra is a reasonable expectation.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: batmang

Originally posted by: reviewhunter

Originally posted by: nRollo


3DMark only. Given that 3DMark06 scores at 12X10 have very little to do with actual gaming performance, I wish people would stop using it in reviews. (although this really isn't a review)

It's 1280x768

The default resolution 3DMark06 runs in is 1280x1024.

I can't believe that german site has an ulta, a gtx, and a gx2, but they're using a 15 inch CRT monitor from 1994.

Speichertakt - lol, memory in German.

 

[taltamir]

i dont know, did you see the picture? anyone here knows how to tell the difference between a picture of a CRT and that of an LCD based on the artifacts?

Look a the picture, it says x768... I can set my 24 inch widescreen to 1280x768 if I wanted, it will be distorted or with black bars, but nothing prevents me from setting that resolution

 

[reviewhunter]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
I can't believe that german site has an ulta, a gtx, and a gx2, but they're using a 15 inch CRT monitor from 1994.

Speichertakt - lol, memory in German.

15" CRT, LOL!

 

[Cookie Monster]

The resolution really limits the cards performance especially dual GPU cards.

I dont really see any valuable info from 3dmark. Normally i skip those and go straight to real world performance figures.

 

[ArchAngel777]

1280 x 768 is a common widescrean resolution. Not as common as 1280 x 800, but common none the less.

Anyway, this quote interests me

Due to manufacturer's restriction, they could only run 3DMark06 at 1280x768. This resulted in a CPU-limited situation at this low resolution, thus the testers added in the 4xAA (level 7) and 16xAF to keep the card busy. Despite the limitations and their failure to get hold of a 8800GTS 512 card, the 9800GX2 managed to beat the top-of-the-line Ultra by a margin of 22.4%.

Why would the manufacturer want to limit the resolution to 1280 x 768? That doesn't make sense at all as it would put the new 9800GX2 in a very bad light. If they tested it at 1280 x 768 without AA/AF like the manufacturer had thouht they would do, the delta between all three cards would have been very minimal. I find something suspicious... Not sure what part though - yet.