Bo_Fox
New Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 480 (0.09/day)
- Location
- Barack Hussein Obama-Biden's Nation
System Name | Flame Vortec Fatal1ty (rig1), UV Tourmaline Confexia (rig2) |
---|---|
Processor | 2 x Core i7's 4+Gigahertzzies |
Motherboard | BL00DR4G3 and DFI UT-X58 T3eH8 |
Cooling | Thermalright IFX-14 (better than TRUE) 2x push-push, Customized TT Big Typhoon |
Memory | 6GB OCZ DDR3-1600 CAS7-7-7-1T, 6GB for 2nd rig |
Video Card(s) | 8800GTX for "free" S3D (mtbs3d.com), 4870 1GB, HDTV Wonder (DRM-free) |
Storage | WD RE3 1TB, Caviar Black 1TB 7.2k, 500GB 7.2k, Raptor X 10k |
Display(s) | Sony GDM-FW900 24" CRT oc'ed to 2560x1600@68Hz, Dell 2405FPW 24" PVA (HDCP-free) |
Case | custom gutted-out painted black case, silver UV case, lots of aesthetics-souped stuff |
Audio Device(s) | Sonar X-Fi MB, Bernstein audio riser.. what?? |
Power Supply | OCZ Fatal1ty 700W, Iceberg 680W, Fortron Booster X3 300W for GPU |
Software | 2 partitions WinXP-32 on 2 drives per rig, 2 of Vista64 on 2 drives per rig |
Benchmark Scores | 5.9 Vista Experience Index... yay!!! What??? :) |
A quick review of today's cards to buy (768MB, 896MB, and 1GB configurations for all versions will be compared against each other):
(UPDATE: those earlier versions still good by today's standards--those that could be found on Ebay or from sellers/traders on the forums, I'll now include them in the below list, starting now:
Geforce 8800GTX : 576 MHz core, 128 1,352 MHz shaders, 32 TMU's (~ 10% less shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 24 ROP's, 86 GB/s (result: 17% faster than 9800GT overall)
Geforce 8800 Ultra : 612 MHz core, 128 1,512 MHz shaders, 32 TMU's (roughly equal shader+texel rate as 9800GT), 24 ROP's, 104 GB/s (result: 25% faster than 9800GT overall)
Geforce 8800GTS (G92) 1GB : 650 MHz core, 128 1,625 MHz shaders, 32/64 TMU's (~ 23% more shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 16 ROP's, 62 GB/s (result: 14% faster than 9800GT overall) (note, low GB/s and ROP's) (rare version for 1GB, though!)
___
Geforce 9800GT : 600 MHz core, 112 1,500 MHz shaders, 28/56 TMU's, 16 ROP's, 58 GB/s (note: bottlenecked by GB/s and ROP's too)
Geforce GTS 250: 738 MHz core, 128 1,836 MHz shaders, 32/64 TMU's (~ 40% more shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 16 ROP's, 70 GB/s (result: 31% faster than 9800GT overall) (also bottlenecked by GB/s and ROP's)
___
Geforce GTX 260: 576 MHz core, 192 1,242 MHz shaders, 32/64 TMU's (~ 30% more shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 28 ROP's, 112 GB/s (result: 45% faster than 9800GT overall)
Geforce GTX 260-216 (Core 216): Same as original GTX 260 but with 216 shaders and 36/72 TMU's (12.5% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), (result: 60% faster than 9800GT overall)
___
Geforce GTX 275: 633 MHz core, 240 1,404 MHz shaders, 40/80 TMU's (~ 40% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), 28 ROP's, 127 GB/s (result: 29% faster than GTX 260 overall)
Geforce GTX 280: 602 MHz core, 240 1,296 MHz shaders, 40/80 TMU's (~ 30% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), 32 ROP's, 142 GB/s (result: 30% faster than GTX 260 overall)
Geforce GTX 285: 648 MHz core, 240 1,476 MHz shaders, 40/80 TMU's (~ 45% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), 32 ROP's, 159 GB/s (result: 44% faster than GTX 260 overall)
___
(There are somewhat underclocked GTS 250 and 9800GT cards, so watch out for the numbers if you plan on buying one!! The GTX 295 is not detailed here, but it is ~10% faster than two GTX 260-216's in SLI. Also, a 9800GX2 would only be 5% slower than two 8800GTS-512's in SLI (the 9800GX2 would've been better with 2GB though).)
Enjoy the numbers!!!!
Try to get 55nm versions rather than 65nm versions of 9800GT or GTX 260 (including Core 216 revisions). 55nm versions are slightly newer, slightly more power efficient, and slightly more reliable/durable.
If choosing between a 9800GT and a GTS 250, it is highly recommended to go for a GTS 250 at a small additional price (of $20 or so). The performance difference is big enough to be rather noticeable in many of today's newer games.
Also, just avoid the 512MB version if you can. It hardly makes sense to buy a card with 512MB instead of 1GB if you plan on playing newer games for the next 1-2 years with the same video card (unless you will game at lower than 1680x1050). A 1GB version is usually only $20 more or so. At least 768 MB is great.
Try to avoid anything with a lower number than the 9800GT or GTS 250 (or at least a 9600GT which is about 15% slower than a 9800GT), if you plan on using the video card for more than 2 years, and still play games. Even if those cheaper video cards are newly released, they will have difficulty running some of today's demanding games at 1680x1050 resolution with normal or default settings. You would have to bother turning down the settings in Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2, Stalker Clear Sky, etc.. with anything considerably slower than a 9800GT. With cards as bad as integrated graphics, you might not even be able to play some of the newer games at all.
Hope this post is helpful for newcomers who try to decide on which card to buy this year. Merry Christmas, y'all!
(Here's a similar guide on ATI cards of 2009: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1648275 )
TPU has a wonderful performance summary (some numbers might be a bit different with 512MB versions--just add around 5% for 1GB versions):
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5750_PCS/30.html
(UPDATE: those earlier versions still good by today's standards--those that could be found on Ebay or from sellers/traders on the forums, I'll now include them in the below list, starting now:
Geforce 8800GTX : 576 MHz core, 128 1,352 MHz shaders, 32 TMU's (~ 10% less shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 24 ROP's, 86 GB/s (result: 17% faster than 9800GT overall)
Geforce 8800 Ultra : 612 MHz core, 128 1,512 MHz shaders, 32 TMU's (roughly equal shader+texel rate as 9800GT), 24 ROP's, 104 GB/s (result: 25% faster than 9800GT overall)
Geforce 8800GTS (G92) 1GB : 650 MHz core, 128 1,625 MHz shaders, 32/64 TMU's (~ 23% more shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 16 ROP's, 62 GB/s (result: 14% faster than 9800GT overall) (note, low GB/s and ROP's) (rare version for 1GB, though!)
___
Geforce 9800GT : 600 MHz core, 112 1,500 MHz shaders, 28/56 TMU's, 16 ROP's, 58 GB/s (note: bottlenecked by GB/s and ROP's too)
Geforce GTS 250: 738 MHz core, 128 1,836 MHz shaders, 32/64 TMU's (~ 40% more shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 16 ROP's, 70 GB/s (result: 31% faster than 9800GT overall) (also bottlenecked by GB/s and ROP's)
___
Geforce GTX 260: 576 MHz core, 192 1,242 MHz shaders, 32/64 TMU's (~ 30% more shader+texel rate than 9800GT), 28 ROP's, 112 GB/s (result: 45% faster than 9800GT overall)
Geforce GTX 260-216 (Core 216): Same as original GTX 260 but with 216 shaders and 36/72 TMU's (12.5% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), (result: 60% faster than 9800GT overall)
___
Geforce GTX 275: 633 MHz core, 240 1,404 MHz shaders, 40/80 TMU's (~ 40% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), 28 ROP's, 127 GB/s (result: 29% faster than GTX 260 overall)
Geforce GTX 280: 602 MHz core, 240 1,296 MHz shaders, 40/80 TMU's (~ 30% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), 32 ROP's, 142 GB/s (result: 30% faster than GTX 260 overall)
Geforce GTX 285: 648 MHz core, 240 1,476 MHz shaders, 40/80 TMU's (~ 45% more shader+texel rate than GTX 260), 32 ROP's, 159 GB/s (result: 44% faster than GTX 260 overall)
___
(There are somewhat underclocked GTS 250 and 9800GT cards, so watch out for the numbers if you plan on buying one!! The GTX 295 is not detailed here, but it is ~10% faster than two GTX 260-216's in SLI. Also, a 9800GX2 would only be 5% slower than two 8800GTS-512's in SLI (the 9800GX2 would've been better with 2GB though).)
Enjoy the numbers!!!!
Try to get 55nm versions rather than 65nm versions of 9800GT or GTX 260 (including Core 216 revisions). 55nm versions are slightly newer, slightly more power efficient, and slightly more reliable/durable.
If choosing between a 9800GT and a GTS 250, it is highly recommended to go for a GTS 250 at a small additional price (of $20 or so). The performance difference is big enough to be rather noticeable in many of today's newer games.
Also, just avoid the 512MB version if you can. It hardly makes sense to buy a card with 512MB instead of 1GB if you plan on playing newer games for the next 1-2 years with the same video card (unless you will game at lower than 1680x1050). A 1GB version is usually only $20 more or so. At least 768 MB is great.
Try to avoid anything with a lower number than the 9800GT or GTS 250 (or at least a 9600GT which is about 15% slower than a 9800GT), if you plan on using the video card for more than 2 years, and still play games. Even if those cheaper video cards are newly released, they will have difficulty running some of today's demanding games at 1680x1050 resolution with normal or default settings. You would have to bother turning down the settings in Crysis, Neverwinter Nights 2, Stalker Clear Sky, etc.. with anything considerably slower than a 9800GT. With cards as bad as integrated graphics, you might not even be able to play some of the newer games at all.
Hope this post is helpful for newcomers who try to decide on which card to buy this year. Merry Christmas, y'all!
(Here's a similar guide on ATI cards of 2009: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=1648275 )
TPU has a wonderful performance summary (some numbers might be a bit different with 512MB versions--just add around 5% for 1GB versions):
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_5750_PCS/30.html
Last edited: