8800GT BenchMarks done.......

[Chewy]

m3nf you see one of theses gt's with a black pbc? thats all that will push me to buy one to much trouble for me to sell my gts atm.. though the gt rocks! I could use less power drainage for my system soon I'll be adding 2 500gb drives and some more stuffs

I heard they prob wont have a black pbc though, since Nv is making the cards.. I wish they did though.. Im updating my rig bigtime.

 

[144 and UP]

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...p/B000XIZUSG 8800gt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=uk

 

[Tatty_Two]

It's amazing! OMFG I never been so wowed! The 320-bit doesn't really help all that much I guess in the GTS. The GT still outshines it with a 256-bit bus.. I'm telling my bro about this, he'll be pissed.

Can't the GT run with a GTS in SLI though? I heard that somewhere.

Should not think so......G80.......G92........

 

[Tatty_Two]

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...p/B000XIZUSG 8800gt&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=uk

Lol just tried to order one of them, they dont exist!

 

[pmrdij]

I think in this case then you (and I) will probably be "non too happy", future 640MB 8800GTS customers will be looked after a little as they will also get 112 SP's to give the 8800 a boost in performance as the model is being upgraded... to open a little gap between the GT and GTS, it seems highly likely that the 320MB GTS will be dropped sometime soon. Whichever way you look at it, this is a mid priced card that appears to perform in the mid high sector which has gotta be good for us, it uses less power, produces less heat and is much better bang for buck from the green camp, it would appear that NVidia can learn something from ATi! it remains to be seen how this card performs against the forthcoming 2950pro but my guess is it will at least be a match for it, as I said, just a guess, if that is the case, pricing here is the key.

indeed i have an appreciation for this card coming to the market as it is good for those in the channel to upgrade. at the same time, being an owner of a 640MB GTS, i remain irked having long seen the "GT" naming convention being used for a part that competitively speaking did not surpass the "GTS" or "GTX" parts in anything.

i am back with Team Green after spending the last five years with Team Red (modded 9500np, 9800np and MR9700 Pro) but this does some damage to that rekindled relationship.

- Robert (PmR)DeathInJune

 

[Tatty_Two]

indeed i have an appreciation for this card coming to the market as it is good for those in the channel to upgrade. at the same time, being an owner of a 640MB GTS, i remain irked having long seen the "GT" naming convention being used for a part that competitively speaking did not surpass the "GTS" or "GTX" parts in anything.

i am back with Team Green after spending the last five years with Team Red (modded 9500np, 9800np and MR9700 Pro) but this does some damage to that rekindled relationship.

- Robert (PmR)DeathInJune

I hear what you are saying and agree to a certain extent, it's a good job I got my 640 for the price of a 320! But these 2 cards are now technically different generations so it is not necessarily uncommon for a next gen GT to be faster than a previous gen GTS.....but where in previous generations has GTS been used by NVidia to make that statement?.......7 series for example GT......GTO......GTX. 6 series.........XL........XT.........Vanilla.........GS.........GT.......Ultra.

 

[pmrdij]

I hear what you are saying and agree to a certain extent, it's a good job I got my 640 for the price of a 320! But these 2 cards are now technically different generations so it is not necessarily uncommon for a next gen GT to be faster than a previous gen GTS.....but where in previous generations has GTS been used by NVidia to make that statement?.......7 series for example GT......GTO......GTX. 6 series.........XL........XT.........Vanilla.........GS.........GT.......Ultra.

to me it would be next gen if the family was a notch up like 8850 or 8900 but it is still an 8800 (that's the product of five years with Team Red right there). last time we saw the "GTS" name it was in the GeForce 2 days (Ultra > TI > Pro > GTS > MX) so obviously my comment about the "GT" not surpassing the "GTS" was flawed. please pardon that. i guess it is my expectation, driven by watching the naming conventions, that the "GT" would perform at a lesser ability than the card released before it based on the 7/6 series pattern.. either way this is a great product at the cost its expected to retail for.

- Robert (PmR)DeathInJune

 

[KoD]

If this is true, count me in as an 8800GT buyer as well. I'm overdue for a new card. From:

VooDoo3 2000 16MB > GeForce2 GTS 32MB > 9500NP Softmod 128MB > X800 128MB to:

8800GT 512MB

 

[m3nf]

The new GTS is gonna have 128 shaders? I thought it was only gonna have 112, just with 320mb or 640mb of ram and a 320-bit bus.

Yep the new GTS will have 128 shaders not the thought 112

 

[m3nf]

m3nf you see one of theses gt's with a black pbc? thats all that will push me to buy one to much trouble for me to sell my gts atm.. though the gt rocks! I could use less power drainage for my system soon I'll be adding 2 500gb drives and some more stuffs

I heard they prob wont have a black pbc though, since Nv is making the cards.. I wish they did though.. Im updating my rig bigtime.

Yep

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=192488

Shows a nice black board

 

[m3nf]

Lol just tried to order one of them, they dont exist!

Same here wanted 2 at them prices, 2 for the price of a GTX Nice

 

[Xolair]

Heh, must admit that if Nvidia proves to be better, I might get a 8800 GT instead... but who knows, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[GrapeApe]

Yep the new GTS will have 128 shaders not the thought 112

I'll believe it when I see it.
Notice the source is expreview again.

With 128 SPUs and 65nm core, nV's just asking for a GF8800GTS to walk all over a GF8800GTX & Ultra for 1/2 the price for the majority of users.

For all the complaints about confusing numbering schemes before, this would be the most ridiculous yet having an existing name swap positions so dramatically. At the very least should be something closer to GF8850 or a different suffix.

Sounds more like the GF8600Ultra rumours prior to the GF8600GTS' launch.

 

[mandelore]

i take it they removed the cap on quake wars yes? as its all locked to 30fps

 

[Krafter]

Meant to be released 29th this month ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series#8800_GT

 

[Tatty_Two]

I'll believe it when I see it.
Notice the source is expreview again.

With 128 SPUs and 65nm core, nV's just asking for a GF8800GTS to walk all over a GF8800GTX & Ultra for 1/2 the price for the majority of users.

For all the complaints about confusing numbering schemes before, this would be the most ridiculous yet having an existing name swap positions so dramatically. At the very least should be something closer to GF8850 or a different suffix.

Sounds more like the GF8600Ultra rumours prior to the GF8600GTS' launch.

Thats the general idea! They want the 8800GTS to walk all over the GTX/Ultra, they are raising the anti in preperation for the 9800 or whatever it's called that is supposed to be (not my words) 75% quicker than a GTX.

 

[DarkMatter]

Thats the general idea! They want the 8800GTS to walk all over the GTX/Ultra, they are raising the anti in preperation for the 9800 or whatever it's called that is supposed to be (not my words) 75% quicker than a GTX.

Agreed. But I think that what bothers most people here is the naming convention nvidia is following this time around. It would make more sense to just name it 8900GT or maybe 8850GT if they plan to release another one later on.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Agreed. But I think that what bothers most people here is the naming convention nvidia is following this time around. It would make more sense to just name it 8900GT or maybe 8850GT if they plan to release another one later on.

And I agree also!

 

[DarkMatter]

Hmm. I didn't want to appear as I was contradicting you. I agree 100%.

Aside from that. Can you post a link where you saw the 75% higher thingy? I've seen claims of it being 2x, even 3x times faster, something that I don't really believe. Yours is easier to digest.

 

[Frick]

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,6911.html

Maybe not RL-speed, but if it's true it will be a monster indeed.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Hmm. I didn't want to appear as I was contradicting you. I agree 100%.

Aside from that. Can you post a link where you saw the 75% higher thingy? I've seen claims of it being 2x, even 3x times faster, something that I don't really believe. Yours is easier to digest.

I have not got it, it was from a thread posted on these forums though, called something like "Nvidia 9800 first looks",or maybe "specs released" your right tho, there have been a few posted even here on the subject and some have said 2x, this one did seem more realistic to me.

 

[DarkMatter]

I have thought about it again, and the more I look at 8800GT benchmarks, the more I think 3x peak performance is possible. When I first heard of the 8800gt, rumors where it would be 64SP part at 600/1800 speeds and a 256bits interface. Based on this it was obvious it would have 16ROPs and TMUs. So I thought it would be a good performer as a high mainstream card, that is at low res and AA/AF. When I knew later it would be 112SP at 1500Mhz, being the rest the same, my first thought was "OMG this card is going to be so unbalanced, it's going to be close to GTX at low res but I'm sure as hell it will suffer on high settings". I was so wrong. Basically I forgot my first law (SPs and TMUs are everything, ROPs are nothing) and followed the mass. The 8800gt also proves that we don't need 512 bit, 384bit or even 320bit interfaces yet.
Of course 3x GTX performer would need more than that (I suppose, I thougt the same about the GT...), but I don't think it needs more than 384bit.
A rumor that can help understand a 3x(8800 GTX) 9800, is that the 8800GT could have been released at higher clock speeds and that they didn't because otherwise they would surpass old 8800s. This rumor is beliavable to me as Ati is well beyond 800Mhz. Also I heard rumors that the 9800 will be 55nm, but even if it is 65nm (most likely), you can reach 800-900Mhz easily and 1800 on the shaders.
This fabrication process also accounts for the number of logic you can put on your chip. If they want to go the big way, they can put on it as much as 256SPs wich is overkill and combined with clock increases could lead to those 3x performance numbers.
If they want to go big, as they did with the 8800, they can do it, as long as they don't try to go big on memory interface and ROPs also. Too complicated and not necessary IMO.

 

[Darkmind]

Try going for 192SP, 16ROPs and TMUs, 256-bit interface 512MB-1GB GDDR4, 750mhz core clock speed, 2400mhz memory, and 1850mhz shader processor speed. I don't know how that'll translate to TFLOPS though. Go all out... 256SP, 24ROPs, 512-bit interface with GDDR4.. maybe even GDDR5 (doubt that though), 65nm with 800mhz core, 2400mhz memory, 1850mhz shader clock. YIKES.

Seems 16ROPs, and a 256-bit memory is all you really need though.

 

[DarkMatter]

Try going for 192SP, 16ROPs and TMUs, 256-bit interface 512MB-1GB GDDR4, 750mhz core clock speed, 2400mhz memory, and 1850mhz shader processor speed. I don't know how that'll translate to TFLOPS though. Go all out... 256SP, 24ROPs, 512-bit interface with GDDR4.. maybe even GDDR5 (doubt that though), 65nm with 800mhz core, 2400mhz memory, 1850mhz shader clock. YIKES.

Seems 16ROPs, and a 256-bit memory is all you really need though.

I wouldn't bet for 256bit interface on the next gen. Not only because of the performance, but because they already use 384 on their 8800s and for marketing purposes, primarily because is tied to memory amount. It wouldn't be easy to sell to the masses the new one if its numbers are lower than the old ones, is that simple. If I were Nvidia I would use the same scheme as in 8 series, they allready have it, it works well and it is somewhere inbetween 256 (not enough?) and 512 (too many). IMO since in Nvidia 8 series ROPs are tied to memory interface and this to memory amount, only for this reason they will go with 512bit on the next one, at least if they don't change the architecture. From the performance side (and value in that matter) I don't see the point for going 512bit/1024MB, but they could go that way. Most likely they will.

Edir: I forgot to say that if they end up using embedded ram for free AA, we won't need more than 768MB, even 512MB in the next 2 years. This is only my guess though.

Since ROPs are related to the interface, it will have 16 (256), 24(378) or 32(512). Of course I'm assuming they won't change the architecture, but since they use to make 2 gens out of the same one, and that they can improve performance from the advantages of 65nm process alone, I don't see why they would change it. 16 seems few to me, even running on 800-900Mhz, but who knows?

TMUs are related to SPs, indeed NV 8 series is made of clusters each of one has 16SP, 4 texture address units and 8 texture filtering units, commonly seen as 4 TMUs per cluster. This could change though, but it's something that I wouldn't change either. It works so well.

About clocks, I can see it being well above 800Mhz and 1800 on shaders. And about memory speed: GDDR4, GDDR5, who knows? They can even use the good old GDDR3 at say 2200Mhz.

 

[largon]

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=192488

Shows a nice black board

That is either a photochop or the work of a retard w/ spray paint.