***Official*** NV40 Benches (Updated as they go live) ANANDTECH Review Added

[fsstrike]

[/quote]Like I said, you'd be hard pressed to spend $400 for that, especially if you ran a 17-19" lcd.
I'm not saying it isn't faster, just not the leap I would have expected.

Hopefully these are all wrong or it really isn't an Ultra. I would like to see more speed.

Or in other words, I would like to plug in a video card and run every game out there smoothly.
Dipping into the 20's or 30fps doesn't cut it.[/quote]

exactly how i feel

 

[GTaudiophile]

I am hoping these are wrong...if this is all NVDA can do, it's going to be embarassing to watch R420 rip it to shreds. I actually DO want some competition here...believe it or not.

Edit: Maybe this is all another practical joke on ATI from nVidia, trying to lull them to sleep.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: shady06

Originally posted by: Dug

Originally posted by: shady06
guys, take a closer look. the 6800U is being benchmarked @ higher resolutions than the 9800XT

Not with the links that GTaudiophile put up. They were all benched at the same resolution.
The most you get is 4xAA instead of 2xAA. You'd be hard pressed to spend $400 for that.

COD, BF vietnam, and SS: PT are being ran at higher resolutions and higher AF with the 6800U

Like I said, you'd be hard pressed to spend $400 for that, especially if you ran a 17-19" lcd.
I'm not saying it isn't faster, just not the leap I would have expected.

Hopefully these are all wrong or it really isn't an Ultra. I would like to see more speed.

Or in other words, I would like to plug in a video card and run every game out there smoothly.
Dipping into the 20's or 30fps doesn't cut it.

personally, even those these numbers are little dissapointing IF THEY ARE REAL, i would still trade in my 9800 pro and $200 for a 6800U. the fact that those numbers are acheived at times when the 6800U is running at 16xAF as opposed to the 9800 XT 8x (or 8x and 0X respectively) bodes will to me.

 

[Luthien]

Yep, I cannot describe how disapointed I am if these benches are correct. If they are correct I am going to just buy a 9800pro and wont look back till the next batch of new cards. WTF was Nvidea thinking if those are real benches. OMG Heck if those are real I expect ATI will be better with fewer pipes across the board with a single molex connector lower PS requirements and single slot AGAIN! OMG Nvidea your about to go bankrupt if those are real benches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am hoping these are wrong...if this is all NVDA can do, it's going to be embarassing to watch R420 rip it to shreds. I actually DO want some competition here...believe it or not.

Edit: Maybe this is all another practical joke on ATI from nVidia, trying to lull them to sleep.

practical joke to lull them to sleep? how would that matter? R420 is already post production and ATi would be hard pressed to change performance now regardless of how well/poorly NV40 does

 

[Luthien]

OH, and if you own Nvidea stock you better go sell them NOW!

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Yep, I cannot describe how disapointed I am if these benches are correct. If they are correct I am going to just buy a 9800pro and wont look back till the next batch of new cards. WTF was Nvidea thinking if those are real benches. OMG Heck if those are real I expect ATI will be better with fewer pipes across the board with a single molex connector lower PS requirements and single slot AGAIN! OMG Nvidea your about to go bankrupt if those are real benches!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

all we can do at the moment is hope they are not real. it just like all the movies on TV where the doctor comes out and says all we can do now it wait

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

here's a vote since half the people replying aren't reading the thread or noticing that they are tested at different settings...UPDATE THE ORIGINAL POST TO REFLECT THIS

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Luthien
OH, and if you own Nvidea stock you better go sell them NOW!

or atleast wait til official benchies are released?

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am hoping these are wrong...if this is all NVDA can do, it's going to be embarassing to watch R420 rip it to shreds. I actually DO want some competition here...believe it or not.

Edit: Maybe this is all another practical joke on ATI from nVidia, trying to lull them to sleep.

Those are not bad numbers. I think you had your hopes too high and bought into Nvidia hype too much. If you think R420 is going to rip NV40 to shreds I think you have another disappointment coming.

 

[Luthien]

The specs are close enough in each game to see that the 6800U sucks if these benches are correct. The only hope is a driver issue since COD shows some true power at greatly different settings.

 

[NightRain]

Originally posted by: GtPrOjEcTX
here's a vote since half the people replying aren't reading the thread or noticing that they are tested at different settings...UPDATE THE ORIGINAL POST TO REFLECT THIS

I'm not changing the title to help out the mentally challenged.

 

[ponyo]

There seems to be lot of disappointed folks. Am I the only one who isn't?

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: Leon
I still have a strange feeling that these are fake, but here is a avg breakdown anyway.

Battlefield Vietnam

1280 1024 4x/8af GF6800U 52fps
1024 768 0x/8af 9800XT 49fps

COD

1600 1200 4x/16af 6800u 147fps
1280 1024 4x/16af 9800xt 107fps

UT2K4

1280 1024 4x/16af 6800u 46fps
1280 1024 0x/8af 9800xt 45fps

NFS4 Underground (CPU limited0

Flight Sim 04

1280 1024 4x/16af 6800u 45fos
1280 1024 2x/8af 9800xt 34fps

yes this makes no sense at all to bench at different RES , AF, and AA

 

[Luthien]

You know I dont really see any difference in quality either.

 

[Alkali]

Originally posted by: mchammer187

Originally posted by: Leon
I still have a strange feeling that these are fake, but here is a avg breakdown anyway.

Battlefield Vietnam

1280 1024 4x/8af GF6800U 52fps -->>73fps at 0xfsaa? (IE 24fps increase) (49% increase in speed)
1024 768 0x/8af 9800XT 49fps

COD

1600 1200 4x/16af 6800u 147fps -->> 200+ at 1280x1024 surely... (IE 100fps increase) (107% increase in speed)
1280 1024 4x/16af 9800xt 107fps

UT2K4

1280 1024 4x/16af 6800u 46fps -->> 65fps at 0xfsaa? IE 20fps increase (44% increase in speed)
1280 1024 0x/8af 9800xt 45fps

NFS4 Underground (CPU limited0

Flight Sim 04

1280 1024 4x/16af 6800u 45fos -->> 54fps at 2xfsaa? IE 20fps increase (60% increase in speed)
1280 1024 2x/8af 9800xt 34fps

yes this makes no sense at all to bench at different RES , AF, and AA

True... lets use some good old-fasioned guesswork... to try and get a picture here.
Lets assume a 2xfsaa setting gives the 6800 a 20% hit in fps, and a 4xfsaa setting gives a 40% hit in fps...



Seems to me those percentage increases are good....

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: Naustica
There seems to be lot of disappointed folks. Am I the only one who isn't?

gimme a break..assuming the numbers are right....R350 is an old card vs. NV40...and NV40 only *barely* better than an old ATI card.....

R420 will stomp NV40 to pieces....... enough said... you can spend $400 on NV40....i wont for obvious reasons....

--> IF THESE NUMBERS ARE TRUE <---

Otherwise: Forget what i said


Edit: dont forget the race here is R420 vc. NV40 !!! And R420 is *supposed* to be about 2.5 x - 3 x as fast as 9800 !

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: Naustica
There seems to be lot of disappointed folks. Am I the only one who isn't?

gimme a break..assuming the numbers are right....R350 is an old card vs. NV40...and NV40 only *barely* better than an old ATI card.....

R420 will stomp NV40 to pieces....... enough said... you can spend $400 on NV40....i wont for obvious reasons....

--> IF THESE NUMBERS ARE TRUE <---

Otherwise: Forget what i said

you do know that the 6800 is running at WAY higher detail than the other cards in those benchies right????

 

[Luthien]

thats cool alkali but IMO that sucks accept for COD. Another 10-15% increase in speed WOOPDEEDO. While we were promised a 100% to 800% LOL. Yeah, we do expect 100% not 800%. Very sucky.

 

[Vonkhan]

... i'm disinclined to believe these numbers, altho I'll be very happy if they are true!

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: flexy

Originally posted by: Naustica
There seems to be lot of disappointed folks. Am I the only one who isn't?

gimme a break..assuming the numbers are right....R350 is an old card vs. NV40...and NV40 only *barely* better than an old ATI card.....

R420 will stomp NV40 to pieces....... enough said... you can spend $400 on NV40....i wont for obvious reasons....

--> IF THESE NUMBERS ARE TRUE <---

Otherwise: Forget what i said

you do know that the 6800 is running at WAY higher detail than the other cards in those benchies right????

i assume you are not dissapointed if these are the real numbers?

i wouldnt be dissapointed but a little let down. i mean there were some rumors that NV40 was supposed to be 2x 9800 xt performance. even when considering the different settings, nv40 doesnt come close to doubling 9800XT performance ASSUMING THE NUMBERS ARE ACCURATE OF COURSE

lets just assume from here on any statement made about nv40 assumes the benchies are legit so we dont have to repeat ourselves

 

[Alkali]

Battlefield Vietnam

1280 1024 4x/8af GF6800U 52fps -->>73fps at 0xfsaa? (IE 24fps increase) (49% increase in speed)
1024 768 0x/8af 9800XT 49fps

COD

1600 1200 4x/16af 6800u 147fps -->> 200+ at 1280x1024 surely... (IE 100fps increase) (107% increase in speed)
1280 1024 4x/16af 9800xt 107fps

UT2K4

1280 1024 4x/16af 6800u 46fps -->> 65fps at 0xfsaa? IE 20fps increase (44% increase in speed)
1280 1024 0x/8af 9800xt 45fps

Flight Sim 04

1280 1024 4x/16af 6800u 45fos -->> 54fps at 2xfsaa? IE 20fps increase (60% increase in speed)
1280 1024 2x/8af 9800xt 34fps

Lets use some good old-fasioned guesswork... to try and get a picture here.
Lets assume a 2xfsaa setting gives the 6800 a 20% hit in fps, and a 4xfsaa setting gives a 40% hit in fps...



Seems to me those percentage increases are good....[/quote]

So basically, the 6800 Ultra seems to be between 50 and 100% faster than current top end cards according to my guestimates based on the pics.

 

[flexy]

we have a problem here....we do not KNOW why he used diff settings.

The difference is not MAJOR, except when he benched 0xAA vs. 4xAA...

I very well remember some older reviews on anandtech where they used DIFFERENT AA settings because it said something like
"2xAA on ATI is like 4xAA on Nvidia" <-- therefore they compared 2xAA to 4xAA to have similiar image quality.

It looks like (just a very ROUGH guess, i am just lazy right now) maybe NV40 25% faster than 9800. These are nice numbers, if you can crank up the resollution a notch or AA a notch: GREAT.
But again.....NV40 is FASTER than 9800 <---- UHMMM YES..noone denies that

Yes, the NV40 is faster, faster, faster...its also faster than my old PCI Riva 128.

That's not the point ...You can make SOME assumption about the results how it will compare to R420 <--- thats all we wanna know, NOT how NV40 compares to 9800..... (My $0.02....)

If NV40 is really only 25% or so faster than 9800....then i see dark times coming to Nvidia.....NV40 is/was supposed to be a totally new chip...

 

[GTaudiophile]

Wish Kyle could comment on these...

People need to keep in mind that the R350 core is essentially 1.5-2 years old!

 

[Schadenfroh]

NV40 has shown increase of performance of 5950 ultra at significant higher details settings with an uncerclocked gpu core, people are complaining because they did not bother to notice the differant settings, what kind of moron that did it was surley an ATI fanboy for they did nto run it at the same settings.

good job nvidia