8800gts vs 2900 pro all tests made by me

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by trt740

Yes I saw that thats a 8800 gtx not at 8800 gts and it is overclocked to ultra speeds plus has over 130 mb more memory and 25 percent more shaders. Your 8800 gts will not do it your wrong. Your acting like they are the same card they aren't even similar the only thing they share really is a number 8800 but physically they are different big time. If you had my chip running at 4.2ghz , my motherboard and a 8800 gtx ultra 768 mb oced you might be able to break 14700 but thats pushing it and you would need water or a Thermailright Hr03 air cooler to do it. Thats is possible but what your saying is not your just being unrealistic. You also changed what you were saying and and lowered it from 14000 to 13500 which is a giant amount and still thats not possible. If you had water and could get a quad to bench at 4.3ghz and water on a 8800 gts 640 and the best systems ram made DDR2 1200 or DDR3 you might break 13000, maybe 13100 but no way 13500.

u still ignore the facts


at 1800 mhz i get 7k score
at 3.2 ghz i get 12k score almost

and u say me that 4 ghz quad core i cant take 13.5k

it is a baby job taking 13.5 k at 4ghz quad core

u think u know everything

but u dont know any thing

check this one

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

my gpu is only less 45 mhz
my rams faster
and this is 3.6ghz quad core only

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

he talks noneselsly

because there is no connection between cpu and graphic card mhz

but they claim that while higher cpu increase 2900 pro scores ,8800gts scores doesnt increase or increase very low

but they dont have any proof about this and i dont belive it

No, I claim that higher CPU allows for more of an overclock on an HD2900Pro!! I can't dare to overclock my GPU like someone who has a 3.2ghz CPU, it just won't work.

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by AphexDreamer

No, I claim that higher CPU allows for more of an overclock on an HD2900Pro!! I can't dare to overclock my GPU like someone who has a 3.2ghz CPU, it just won't work.

lol u say higher cpu overclock allows

higher gpu overclock

[AphexDreamer]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

lol u say higher cpu overclock allows

higher gpu overclock

Indeed.

[lemonadesoda]

Friendly tips:
1./ I see your memory is in slots 2 and 3, not 1 and 2 or 1 and 3 or 2 and 4. Check different locations for your DDR that might improve performance.
2./ Your specs say DDR but I think your timings are DDR2. Which is true?
PS. Nice review. Very thorough.

[yogurt_21]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

u still ignore the facts


at 1800 mhz i get 7k score
at 3.2 ghz i get 12k score almost

and u say me that 4 ghz quad core i cant take 13.5k

it is a baby job taking 13.5 k at 4ghz quad core

u think u know everything

but u dont know any thing

check this one

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

my gpu is only less 45 mhz
my rams faster
and this is 3.6ghz quad core only

lol one example of someone doing it doesn't negate the fact that it is improbable. in the end you could just as easily ln2 your 2900 to get the same results and don't fool your self if you think the guy was on air. lol

[{JNT}Raptor]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

lol u say higher cpu overclock allows

higher gpu overclock

What are you ?....Like 12yrs old or something.....He means by running a higher CPU clock he can then take his Video overclock higher without the bottle neck he would have at the original CPU speed.


And If you do manage to pull off the magic 14,000....then post It......but stop talking Sh** until you do.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by nflesher87

doesn't matter that the cpu scored the same, that was solely on the cpu tests, it was still most likely bottlenecking at least at times during the graphics tests

the first thing I noticed with this test as well was the processor, the reason to use a very high end processor in comparisons such as these is to attempt to make the test as objective as possible, reducing the possibility of a cpu bottleneck to as close to nil as possible

therefore using a highly overclocked quad core for a comparison like this would've been the most favorable choice

In this case I would have to disagree with you, using a stock C2D would be the ideal testing choice for the most accurate review as 90% of CPU owners do not overclock, of course we want to see what these cards will do in our systems with max cpu overclocks but in GPU performance terms it's relative, having said that, we all know that in order for the 2900 to be as good as we know it can be, it demands CPU Mhz, more so than the GTS, I spose the thing about these reviews is that you cant give everyone everything

There are a number of points/preferences in any case in this review, which is a good review but we would all spot some things, for example why put the pro against the 320MB version of the 8800GTS, by my maths 640 is numerically closer to 512 than 320 is? If it's because of pricing, that makes sense.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by JC316

Well, you are going to have to deal with it, because I am stating a fact. The 8800GTS 320mb can't keep up when the CPU speed rises.

I agree with your point completely and undersdtand it as I mentioned above but what you are actually saying therefore is that to 90% of CPU owners the 2900Pro is not as good as the 8800GTS320MB because they dont overclock?

And now we are saying that running a review at stock CPU speeds un - fairly disadvantages the 2900Pro? I can understand that but to make a fair comparison stock is the only true way, we all get different variables out of our overcklocking, the only constant is stock, some NVidia fanboi's (to which I dont belong!) would say therefore that if you increased the CPU speed as some have indicated that would be an unfair advantage to the 2900, just as not doing so is supposidly an advantage to the GTS?????? You cant have it both ways.

[Xaser04]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

u still ignore the facts


at 1800 mhz i get 7k score
at 3.2 ghz i get 12k score almost

and u say me that 4 ghz quad core i cant take 13.5k

it is a baby job taking 13.5 k at 4ghz quad core

u think u know everything

but u dont know any thing

check this one

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

my gpu is only less 45 mhz
my rams faster
and this is 3.6ghz quad core only

Instead of badgering on and on about how you think it is possible to get your 8800GTS to break 14k why don't you just do it?

Whilst it is possible it is also quite difficult to achieve as there is more to a high score than just CPU clock speed.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by Xaser04

Instead of badgering on and on about how you think it is possible to get your 8800GTS to break 14k why don't you just do it?

Whilst it is possible it is also quite difficult to achieve as there is more to a high score than just CPU clock speed.

Yup, and personally, I dont think its possible, I have a pretty quick CPU, a voltmodded 640MB GTS with a really good modded BIOS and I can just about hit 12,500.....but hey I am just probably a crap overclocker.

[trt740]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Yup, and personally, I dont think its possible, I have a pretty quick CPU, a voltmodded 640MB GTS with a really good modded BIOS and I can just about hit 12,500.....but hey I am just probably a crap overclocker.

your e6850 at 4.2ghz is about 300 to 400 point slower than a quad at 4.2ghz in this bench and your doing 12500. With that in mind a quad with your volt modded 8800 gts 640mb would hit 12900 to 13200 max. Even my old e6850 at 4.3ghz with a 2900 xt 1 gig ddr4 overclocked to hell and back only did 13200.

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by trt740

your e6850 at 4.2ghz is about 300 to 400 point slower than a quad at 4.2ghz in this bench and your doing 12500. With that in mind a quad with your volt modded 8800 gts 640mb would hit 12900 to 13200 max. Even my old e6850 at 4.3ghz with a 2900 xt 1 gig ddr4 overclocked to hell and back only did 13200.

Yup.....so there aint no way that a GTS today is gonna hit 14000+

[cefurkan]

are u blind

what is this ?

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

he hit 14 k with 3.6 quad core

and i say it is easy to hit 14k with

4 ghz quad core

at

675/1728/1107 mhz

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

are u blind

what is this ?

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

he hit 14 k with 3.6 quad core

and i say it is easy to hit 14k with

4 ghz quad core

at

675/1728/1107 mhz

That 8800GTS 320MB has a shader clock of 1836????? I dont think so, the clock cannot physically go that high, not even with friggin liquid nitrogen, apart from that......nice score though, if you would like to see what a 4Gig Q6600 can do, look no further than Trt above who currently holds the highest single card score here with a 2900XT.

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

That 8800GTS 320MB has a shader clock of 1836????? I dont think so, the clock cannot physically go that high, not even with friggin liquid nitrogen, apart from that......nice score though, if you would like to see what a 4Gig Q6600 can do, look no further than Trt above who currently holds the highest single card score here with a 2900XT.

it can go even with stok fan if u vmod and make good air flow

i go 1728 with stok fan without vmod of course

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

it can go even with stok fan if u vmod and make good air flow

i go 1728 with stok fan without vmod of course

Strange, I just put mine on 1750, opened ATi artifact scanner and it crashed immediatly!

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by Tatty_One

Strange, I just put mine on 1750, opened ATi artifact scanner and it crashed immediatly!

well it changes cards to card

and i didnt say it is totaly stable

i could only take 3d mark score

but at games mine crash too

[Tatty_One]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

well it changes cards to card

and i didnt say it is totaly stable

i could only take 3d mark score

but at games mine crash too

Lol totally stable, it crashed within 3 seconds, thats not even totally unstable, thats like disaster and my card is voltmodded and it was not temps, the temps didnt get chance to go beyond 53C!! so that leads me to beleive if that guy really did get over 14000 on a 320MB GTS he must have had some pretty elaborate cooling with a shader clock of 1836

[trt740]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

are u blind

what is this ?

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

he hit 14 k with 3.6 quad core

and i say it is easy to hit 14k with

4 ghz quad core

at

675/1728/1107 mhz

That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . A 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I'm not blind but you just being XXXXXCXXXCCC!!!!!! nevermind you have to be like 14.

[trt740]

Originally Posted by trt740

That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . It a 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I not blind you need to stop hitting the pipe.

Here is an example of my card against what looks like a single 8800 gts 640 but there is no way it is, it's sli and you won't know it unless the person benching it lets you know http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2987467> so are you going to tell me a single 8800 gts can hit 19000 plus just because it is listed that way doesn't make it correct. If you want the best card for they money at the top end it's a 8800 gtx non ultra or if you wait a 8800 gt but underneath that it is neck and neck. I was thinking of selling my 2900 xt 1 gig ddr4 at one time but I can't tell any difference from it to my old 8800gtx or 8800 gts really. It would be kinda like trading a piece of chocolate cake for the same cake with sprinkles. Who know everyone has his price and the 2900 series is said to be at only 80 percent of it's potential. I don't know but for now i'm going to keep it. If you have a 8800 gts 640 mb it would be plain stupid to get a 2900 xt, a 8800 gtx would be more like it. If you can get a 2900 pro cheaper than a 8800 gts 640 buy it but don't ever buy a 8800 gts 320 thinking it is better than any of the cards above it. It is not but it is still very very good. It will play everything out almost maxed. here are the best deals I could find http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102707 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814122022 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814122018. I have to say for the price ?performance the 8800 gts 320 is the best then the PRO. However the 2900 pro when overclocked will kill it.

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by trt740

That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . A 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I'm not blind but you just being XXXXXCXXXCCC!!!!!! nevermind you have to be like 14.

it is not sli

it is approved result at www.hwbot.org

it is single

i can find much more effective sli results for u

but since u dont know anything about graphic cards u say it is sli lol

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by trt740

That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . A 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I'm not blind but you just being XXXXXCXXXCCC!!!!!! nevermind you have to be like 14.

here is a sli result

and card is at daily usage mhz

648/1044

i hope u get this one

but i dont think so u arent enough mature to understand this


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2689061

[trt740]

Originally Posted by cefurkan

it is not sli

it is approved result at www.hwbot.org

it is single

i can find much more effective sli results for u

but since u dont know anything about graphic cards u say it is sli lol

So your saying thats is one 8800 gts 640 mb scored 19000 in 3dmark06. Okay I'm done don't you have to go to elementary school now.

[cefurkan]

Originally Posted by trt740

So your saying thats is one 8800 gts 640 mb scored 19000 in 3dmark06. Okay I'm done don't you have to go to elementary school now.

i think u are retarded

u called 14k score sli

but it was single card score

than i put real sli score

19 k

but since u are a retard

u cant understand these scores