Just looked at the XFX 512meg 7800GTX Retail box.....

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Meanwhile:

Reports show that uberhunter has finally broke 10K with a 600/1800 clocked 512mb GTX.

And this was with a 3800 X2 clocked at 2.35ghz (235x10)

11k anyone with FX-55?

Overclocked XTs have already broken 10k so while this is a nice achievement, it's certainly not unprecedented.

Overclocking is irrelevant because YMMV.

And by this I mean- "Big Deal- I can write a check, buy a phase change, and "Woot! I am the 3dmark king!" "

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Meanwhile:

Reports show that uberhunter has finally broke 10K with a 600/1800 clocked 512mb GTX.

And this was with a 3800 X2 clocked at 2.35ghz (235x10)

11k anyone with FX-55?

Overclocked XTs have already broken 10k so while this is a nice achievement, it's certainly not unprecedented.

Overclocking is irrelevant because YMMV.

Hehe. I think you will find once the 512MB GTX is announced that this XFX card actually IS overclocked. I believe that the reference speeds are goign to be lower. Overclocked by the manufacturer or by yourself is still overclocked.

Also, uberhunter had to overclock even further to get over 10k... at default it only got 9600

 

[malG]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Overclocked XTs have already broken 10k so while this is a nice achievement, it's certainly not unprecedented.

Yeah right, where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so? or are you all talk as usual?

 

[Gstanfor]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Why are you not as outraged at Gstanfor? Lets not be selective, a bad side for a mod.

Honestly? Because Gstanfor is generally pretty knowledgable. Is he biased? Absoutely, but MORPH can't even get his facts right, ever! He is a habituall thread crapper. He will argue that the sky isn't blue just because everyone believes it is true. Life is to short to piss into the wind.

So its ok for some to insult, but not others? Sorry, no. Good thing you arent a mod.

edit, the XFX 512 GTX is now listed on newegg. For $699. $100 less than mwave... still too much, but nice to see it out. *Only* $50 above the alleged $650 MSRP. It let me add 35 to cart, adding 36 says there isnt enough. So if its accurate, they have 35 as of a few mins ago. Hopefully XFX isnt the only brand to be out next week, they are my least fav, heard too many problems with them.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150119

No... That isn't what I said. The main point of my post is that someone who habitually thread craps should be banned. Gstanfor does not thread crap, therefore, he should not be banned.

Most of us regulars here have also acted poorly at times, but it isn't something consistantly happening. Sure, we all make mistakes but there is a distinct difference between a poor post and a poor poster... The poor poster can only post crap and the poor post could possibly come from a legit user, including myself, you and everyone else here.

Do not attemp to deliberately lack understanding of my post. I am pretty sure most people would agree with it. If not, well, then they need to speak their mind.

I disagree with you, Gstanfor has personally attacked me merely beacause i've raised problems with nvidia cards on several occasions [/quote]

Dug777, I never crticised because you had nVidia problems, I criticised because of the underlying attitude your posts exhibited. If you had merely wanted help with nVidia problems you could worded your posts far differwently from the way you chose to.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Meanwhile:

Reports show that uberhunter has finally broke 10K with a 600/1800 clocked 512mb GTX.

And this was with a 3800 X2 clocked at 2.35ghz (235x10)

11k anyone with FX-55?

Overclocked XTs have already broken 10k so while this is a nice achievement, it's certainly not unprecedented.

Overclocking is irrelevant because YMMV.

And by this I mean- "Big Deal- I can write a check, buy a phase change, and "Woot! I am the 3dmark king!" "

on air and stock voltage like rcabor doesn't seem to fit in with your comment Rollo

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Overclocked XTs have already broken 10k so while this is a nice achievement, it's certainly not unprecedented.

Yeah right, where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so? or are you all talk as usual?

It's been discussed. See this thread.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Lets just wait til monday shall we?

 

[malG]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: malG

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Overclocked XTs have already broken 10k so while this is a nice achievement, it's certainly not unprecedented.

Yeah right, where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so? or are you all talk as usual?

It's been discussed. See this thread.

I don't see any conclusive proof, again where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so?

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Why are you not as outraged at Gstanfor? Lets not be selective, a bad side for a mod.

Honestly? Because Gstanfor is generally pretty knowledgable. Is he biased? Absoutely, but MORPH can't even get his facts right, ever! He is a habituall thread crapper. He will argue that the sky isn't blue just because everyone believes it is true. Life is to short to piss into the wind.

So its ok for some to insult, but not others? Sorry, no. Good thing you arent a mod.

edit, the XFX 512 GTX is now listed on newegg. For $699. $100 less than mwave... still too much, but nice to see it out. *Only* $50 above the alleged $650 MSRP. It let me add 35 to cart, adding 36 says there isnt enough. So if its accurate, they have 35 as of a few mins ago. Hopefully XFX isnt the only brand to be out next week, they are my least fav, heard too many problems with them.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150119

No... That isn't what I said. The main point of my post is that someone who habitually thread craps should be banned. Gstanfor does not thread crap, therefore, he should not be banned.

Most of us regulars here have also acted poorly at times, but it isn't something consistantly happening. Sure, we all make mistakes but there is a distinct difference between a poor post and a poor poster... The poor poster can only post crap and the poor post could possibly come from a legit user, including myself, you and everyone else here.

Do not attemp to deliberately lack understanding of my post. I am pretty sure most people would agree with it. If not, well, then they need to speak their mind.

I disagree with you, Gstanfor has personally attacked me merely beacause i've raised problems with nvidia cards on several occasions

Dug777, I never crticised because you had nVidia problems, I criticised because of the underlying attitude your posts exhibited. If you had merely wanted help with nVidia problems you could worded your posts far differwently from the way you chose to.[/quote]

My first post (on the driver problems i was having) was pretty angry and anti-nvidia i'll admit, frustration does that to a bloke...but since then i've retreated a long way from that, my question as to why nvidia (and ati if you noticed the title) didn't just offer a 'no shimmering' setting in the drivers wasn't at all rabid or uncalled for, i was just asking a question as far as i can see...and my farcry shadow issues thread is 100% fair dinkum, there's a obvious problem, i want it fixed, and nvidia have blatantly ignored it so far

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: malG

I don't see any conclusive proof, again where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76485&page=1

Try looking a little harder next time.

 

[malG]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: malG

I don't see any conclusive proof, again where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so?

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=76485&page=1

Try looking a little harder next time.

Still nothing there, AGAIN where's the official 3dmark05 comparison linky showing so?

 

[M0RPH]

The screenshots are there. You can choose not to believe it if you want. A bunch of people have broken 10k with the XT, including someone in this forum I believe. It's no big deal. Overclocked 256MB GTXs have broken 10K as well.

 

[malG]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
The screenshots are there. You can choose not to believe it if you want. A bunch of people have broken 10k with the XT, including someone in this forum I believe. It's no big deal. Overclocked 256MB GTXs have broken 10K as well.

Those overclocked 7800GTX in SLI are officially recognized in the Hall of Fame: http://www.futuremark.com/community/halloffame/

Too bad those X1800XT overclock results are unofficial and unrecognized, what a waste

 

[Gstanfor]

Farcry has suffered a number of issues throughout its history widely attibutred to nVidia's drivers by ATi supporters when in fact none of them were, and the problems were resolved by patches to the program.

I'm fairly confident your shadow issue will turn out to be another example of this.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: Pete
NP, Rollo.

5150Joker, your benchmark showed that Uberhunter's GTX was likely NOT running at 275MHz. There we agree. We disagree over his actual clocks.

1) His RAM is only (max.) clocked 28% higher than yours, so it's not possible for him to score 42% more off that alone. (512MB doesn't boost 3DM scores much. Heck, even going from 128 to 256MB doesn't mean much.)

2) A regular, 430/1200 GTX scores 7700 and a 486/1350 GTX scores 8500 in 3DM05 on a 2.4GHz 4000+. That's a 9% 3DM increase for a 13% core and RAM clock bump, so we're seeing less than 1:1 clock:3DM scaling. Now, let's say Uberhunter's GTX hit 9100 while clocked at 580/1730. That's an 18% 3DM increase over stock for a 35%/44% boost, so, yeah, it looks like he's not getting everything out of his card ... but he's got a slower CPU, we've seen early GTX reviews show its 3DM05 score climb with faster CPUs, and whose to say that at 580/1730 3DM05 starts to become noticably CPU limited?

If you want to say that his 2D mode has higher clocks than yours, OK, let's see. Using the above Xbit 3DM05 numbers, we see 3DM05 doesn't scale 1:1 with clocks. Seeing as his card scored 42% higher than yours, that means that something in his 2D mode is clocked >42% higher. It isn't his RAM, as 1730MHz is just 23% faster than 1.400MHz. It's possible RAM speed isn't as much of a factor at 10x7, so his higher score could be entirely due to a higher core clock. You think his card is clocked >42% higher in 2D mode? That's about 400MHz. Not likely, and 42% is IMO "much higher."

And yet both you and Ronin "confirm" that 2D mode means 275MHz core. You post that a leaked XFX BIOS shows 2D mode as 275MHz, you "didn't doubt" that Uber was running 2D mode, yet you think his card is going to scale from yours using just faster RAM and on a relatively pokey 3800+?

And this is all at 1024x768! Why are we bickering over what a $600+, 550+MHz @ 24 pipe, 512MB @ 1700+MHz RAM card scores at frickin' 1024x768 with no AA and 4xAF?!

So, yeah, that's an elaboration on my "thinking first" comment. And check it out, I made a whole post without gratuitous name-calling!

Edit: I know, let's see what Uberhunter scores when he installs the 81.89s and runs 3DM "perfect" at 580/1730: 9616!

I guess M0rph wasn't stooping as low as some of you thought, and sometimes selective reading pays.

Keep in mind uberhunter's CPU is faster than mine (I have a winchester 3000+) and I run 2 GB of ram at a latency that isn't very good (3-4-4-8). I realize it's still not enough to obtain a 9100 score in 2D mode but it probably makes some difference. I can admit to making a mistake in assuming it was near 2D core clocks but my point still stands - nobody knows what possible tweaks were done to this card yet. Furthermore, Morph was wrong, he assumed 9100 would be close to stock though the actual score was > 700 points higher.

P.S. your gtx numbers are off. At 490/1300 my gtx scores ~8800. Others have scored 9000+ with better cpus.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Gstanfor
Farcry has suffered a number of issues throughout its history widely attibutres to nVidia's by ATi supporters when in fact none of them were, and the problems were resolved by patches to the program.

I'm fairly confident your shadow issue will turn out to be another example of this.

It is very strange that the problem exists when you fall back to the same shader level as ati cards tho...believe me we've fiddled with every user accessible setting in farcry and it hasn't come close to solving the problem. I hope you're right, since nvidia isn't interested, and a new patch is due reasonably soon (will add HDR+AA, as well as fixing some HDR bugs iirc)...

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: dug777
I hope you're right, since nvidia isn't interested, and a new patch is due reasonably soon (will add HDR+AA, as well as fixing some HDR bugs iirc)...

If HDR+AA was coming, we would have already heard about it.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Meanwhile:

Reports show that uberhunter has finally broke 10K with a 600/1800 clocked 512mb GTX.

And this was with a 3800 X2 clocked at 2.35ghz (235x10)

11k anyone with FX-55?

Or me with an FX57 @ 3.2GHz. In the hands of a true system (where this card really belongs, not to knock his box at all), this card will easily break 10k.

Anyone using the 9700 score on his system saying it didn't get 10k isn't taking a lot of things into consideration. Put a 3800+ @ 2.35GHz and an X1800XT together, and see what they score. The answer, actually is quite a bit less.

ATi folks, you took it in the chops, plain and simple. nVidia played it right, and they are by no means through with ATi. Do NOT misunderstand me. The X1800XT is a formidable card, and an excellent performer, and in some cases, will still most likely best the 512MB GTX, but I have a feeling, come Monday, you're going to see a whole host of ass whuppin.

Uberhunter (I'm not scrolling back up to check your name here), thanks for spending the time to run the tests. You proved a lot to a lot of people, and it's appreciated.

 

[Elfear]

I will give Nvidia props for coming out with that beast of a card. It is definetely the 3DMark05 king at default speeds. I still think that once both cards are oced the gap will close between the two flagship cards. I just don't see the 512MB 7800GTX's having a whole lot of headroom, but than again I didn't think the X1800XT's would have a lot of headroom either and I was proven wrong.

What's kind of funny to me is that a bunch of people were saying that the 256MB 7800GTX and the X1800XT were basically equal, even though there is quite a gap in 3Dmark05 scores with a stock 7800GTX scoring ~7800 , a factory oced 7800GTX at ~8300, and an X1800XT hitting ~9100. Difference of 800-1300.

Yet now the same guys are saying the 512MB 7800GTX "wipes the floor" with the X1800XT even though, at least from the few scores I've seen, the difference is like 600-700 points (taken from Uberman's score of 9800 and Quaddamages's claims of 9700). Just kind of cracks me up.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Elfear
I will give Nvidia props for coming out with that beast of a card. It is definetely the 3DMark05 king at default speeds. I still think that once both cards are oced the gap will close between the two flagship cards. I just don't see the 512MB 7800GTX's having a whole lot of headroom, but than again I didn't think the X1800XT's would have a lot of headroom either and I was proven wrong.

What's kind of funny to me is that a bunch of people were saying that the 256MB 7800GTX and the X1800XT were basically equal, even though there is quite a gap in 3Dmark05 scores with a stock 7800GTX scoring ~7800 , a factory oced 7800GTX at ~8300, and an X1800XT hitting ~9100. Difference of 800-1300.

Yet now the same guys are saying the 512MB 7800GTX "wipes the floor" with the X1800XT even though, at least from the few scores I've seen, the difference is like 600-700 points (taken from Uberman's score of 9800 and Quaddamages's claims of 9700). Just kind of cracks me up.

3dmark05 means nothing. However we are only considering this because a 7800GTX which can score 7800ish is about 5% slower than the X1800XT which scores around 9000ish. Think about how a 512mb GTX can perform when it can score a 3dmark of 10k at default settings?

ATi generally has a large lead in 3dmark, however real life benches tell you a whole new different story. (X1600XT for example).

 

[RobertR1]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: Elfear
I will give Nvidia props for coming out with that beast of a card. It is definetely the 3DMark05 king at default speeds. I still think that once both cards are oced the gap will close between the two flagship cards. I just don't see the 512MB 7800GTX's having a whole lot of headroom, but than again I didn't think the X1800XT's would have a lot of headroom either and I was proven wrong.

What's kind of funny to me is that a bunch of people were saying that the 256MB 7800GTX and the X1800XT were basically equal, even though there is quite a gap in 3Dmark05 scores with a stock 7800GTX scoring ~7800 , a factory oced 7800GTX at ~8300, and an X1800XT hitting ~9100. Difference of 800-1300.

Yet now the same guys are saying the 512MB 7800GTX "wipes the floor" with the X1800XT even though, at least from the few scores I've seen, the difference is like 600-700 points (taken from Uberman's score of 9800 and Quaddamages's claims of 9700). Just kind of cracks me up.

3dmark05 means nothing. However we are only considering this because a 7800GTX which can score 7800ish is about 5% slower than the X1800XT which scores around 9000ish. Think about how a 512mb GTX can perform when it can score a 3dmark of 10k at default settings?

ATi generally has a large lead in 3dmark, however real life benches tell you a whole new different story. (X1600XT for example).

Posts like this that start looking at facts and giving good information will be the end of message boards as we know it

I'm surprised no one has picked up on that part. Look at the performance increase from a stock 256MB card to the 512MB. Let's say that with a FX5x Cpu the stock card hits ~8k where as this XFX will likely hit ~10K. That's a 20% increase. If you look at the results of the various games without AA/AF (taking away bandwidth restrictions) the 7800GTX 256MB card was rigth there with the x1800xt, ahead at times, behind at others. Now throw a ~20% pure speed increase to the 7800GTX 512MB and I don't reallly see how the x1800xt (stock) will keep up.

With 512MB of fast RAM the 7800GTX will likely take a smaller hit with AA and AF turned up, in comparison to x1800xt. I'm a Fanboy of my wallet and come Monday if had pick between a $599 x1800xt or a $649 7800GTX 512MB, I wouldn't need to think twice. The 7800 is the card for me. Otherwise, I'd pick the x1800xt over 7800GTX 256MB all day.

 

[Pete]

Joker, I just picked those numbers off of Xbit's latest review. They used a stock 4000+. No doubt OCed CPUs will do better. FYI, Xbit's X1800XT scored 8900 with the same system. So it looks like the 512MB GTX will leapfrog the XT by close to 1k.

Is it usual for 3DM to fluctuate by a few hundred pts b/w runs? I'm trying to figure out why Uber's score would change with the same system and drivers. Yeah, it didn't change by much, but I thought 3DM was pretty repeatable.

Heh, turns out Uber uses the same RAM timings as you do.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

3dmark05 means nothing. However we are only considering this because a 7800GTX which can score 7800ish is about 5% slower than the X1800XT which scores around 9000ish. Think about how a 512mb GTX can perform when it can score a 3dmark of 10k at default settings?

ATi generally has a large lead in 3dmark, however real life benches tell you a whole new different story. (X1600XT for example).

I agree that 3DMark takes second place to real games but it is indicative of a cards overall performance in relation to real games. Once just for fun, I compiled the results of about 10 games from a review site that tested the X850XT PE against the 7800GTX and guess what? The difference in 3DMark05 scores was almost exactly the same as the difference in the 10 games averaged out.

As to the 5% slower statement, I invite you to look at a range of review sites who tested the two cards. I love my 7800GTX but I readily admit it's not within 5% of the X1800XT.

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: malG
ATI cards comes out 1-2 months after their paper launch

NVIDIA ones come out 1 week before they?re announced

Lets try to stick to facts, ok? The XL was available 2 days after the release date. And was availale in a retail store chain. (Frys) Thats not months after.

The XT was available 3 days before the release date. And available in a retail store (CompUSA) the day of release.

Originally posted by: the Chase
Newegg doesn't even have the x1800xt model listed on their website anymore.

Yes they do. They never took it off.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102624

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: malG
ATI cards comes out 1-2 months after their paper launch

NVIDIA ones come out 1 week before they?re announced

Lets try to stick to facts, ok? The XL was available 2 days after the release date. And was availale in a retail store chain. (Frys) Thats not months after.

The XT was available 3 days before the release date. And available in a retail store (CompUSA) the day of release.

Originally posted by: the Chase
Newegg doesn't even have the x1800xt model listed on their website anymore.

Yes they do. They never took it off.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814102624

Alright lets get the facts straight. Do you call one or two cards in stock a hard launch?
How about 1 or 2 X1800 XLs? This is almost worse as a paper launch.

Difference is that Nvidia has about 30ish in stock from all sorts of retailers, and have them OUTSIDE of America.

Very big difference to me. Last time ive heard Mwave (or Newegg?) had 21 512mb GTXs in stock.