• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

anyone else find geforce 8800 gtx pretty weak?

H

hjnhgjyhhfxdvbfdhbft

New Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2006
Messages
1 (0.00/day)
f.e.a.r like stress test max 1600x1200 x4 aa x16 af.. it's scoring like 84 fps average.. but the minimum fps is only like 30/35 fps.. my freaking x1800xt keeps like 48 fps average... and 30 fps minimum.. i was really hopping the game still wouldnt drop down into 30 fps zone with the g80.. but it still does.. yes average is better like freaking 40 fps better.. but it's still dropping to 30 fps when action heats up that sucks.
 
Yep i had the same issue its a crapper card ditched it went back to my 1900xtx ...
 
I think you are having HDD and CPU bottleneck. The minimum frames are the combination of:

1./ You PC cannot rip new textures (or sounds) off the HDD fast enough.
2./ Your CPU cannot cope with some action spots.

Remedy:

A./ Increase your RAM
B./ Get a Core 2 Duo
C./ Defrag your games partition, using O&O option "sort by folder name". PerfectDisk cannot do this unfortuntately. PLEASE DONT TELL ME YOUR GAMES ARE ON YOUR SYSTEM PARTITION!!! LOL. Move them.
D./ Get a new, large, fast, HDD. It will improve your performance
E./ Get RAID or RAPTOR if you must
F./ Stop complaining
G./ Get yourself a sensible login name
 
Actually...If the games are on the Same HD as the OS....your not getting all the performance you can get....and If they are on a Seperate partition on the OS HD....then you will have even worse performance........a seperate HD on It's own IDE/Sata channel Is the best option for max performance....games partition preferably on the Leading edge of the 2nd HD.(1st Partition)

This new Card Is no doubt going to be CPU Limited for awhile for those of us without 3+ghz CPU's.
 
So, you guys think that games are "CPU limited" in the capacities you note, as well as HDD limited as well (loadtimes on data required switches, etc.)??

Just curious on this note... you might be right here, & in the conditions noted.

:)

* I only ask because most gamers today feel that system CPU has little to do w/ gaming performance by way of comparison to the role the GPU on the vidcard has in things gaming... & I have RARELY, if ever, heard of folks stating the HDD has a role as well!

(I don't doubt either - your arguments on it make sense!)

APK

P.S.=> Ha, sometimes? I will use my Solid-State drive to carry some games & run them from it, & if seek/access matters (probably does during level loads & data switches on the fly in RAM while gaming)?? I can see your points here on that note... apk
 
Well there was a test somewhere(don't remember) where a 2.6ghz connie got 9000 in 3D mark '06 and when Oc'ed to 3.5ghz it got 1100+, with that 8800GTX.

It was something like that i don't remember it very well.

:)
 
85 Average in F.E.A.R. using those settings is not bad..
F.E.A.R. is one of the most demanding games on the PC (probably #3), just like Far Cry was 2 years ago.
Even the 7800 GTX, wich came out a year after the game was released cannot run Far Cry at those settings at more than 70 FPS.
 
wait for dx10...

its like th 7950gtx...it only performs well when you turn up the heat (ie: have everything on high @ the highest res).
 
Weak indeed
 
Uh, an X1800XT will not keep up, at all. Heck, a X1950XTX does not. Not sure where the "weak" part comes in.

fearwl6.jpg


And, what to expect with SLI, 1920x1200, all options maxed :)

2hds400.jpg
 
Last edited:
Alec§taar said:
So, you guys think that games are "CPU limited" in the capacities you note, as well as HDD limited as well (loadtimes on data required switches, etc.)??

Just curious on this note... you might be right here, & in the conditions noted.

:)

* I only ask because most gamers today feel that system CPU has little to do w/ gaming performance by way of comparison to the role the GPU on the vidcard has in things gaming... & I have RARELY, if ever, heard of folks stating the HDD has a role as well!

(I don't doubt either - your arguments on it make sense!)

APK

P.S.=> Ha, sometimes? I will use my Solid-State drive to carry some games & run them from it, & if seek/access matters (probably does during level loads & data switches on the fly in RAM while gaming)?? I can see your points here on that note... apk
Click to expand...

Yes having a better hd does make a difference in game performance
i have tried it it , i had the samsung sp160n ide before then i bought the 74 gb raptor
the performance gain was noticeable with 1 gb of ram too.. bf2was less laggy, and when i went back to the tabletop it came up faster,before it would take a few seconds to load up
 
@JNT and @Alec

Please note my comments were about issues relating to improving MINIMUM framerates which is what the original poster was complaining about. :eek:

Max framerates are usually GPU limited.
Min framerates are usually CPU and HDD related.

Just think about what is causing the lower fps and it all makes sense.

@JNT
Yes, a second HDD makes sense, but at a cost. A cheaper solution is to partition your existing HDD. AlecStaar and I have discussed elsewhere how many people have a giant c: drive with everything on it. This is suboptimal. It is much better to make sure your game files (textures and sounds) are contiguous. This is most effectively done by putting them on a separate partition and doing a defrag, organised by foldername/filename.

If you have large RAM, pagefile is not used, so performance is not decreased as you suggest by putting them on a separate partition.

If you are not convinced, follow the process, and do the benchmarks.

NOTE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MINIMUM FRAMERATES and not improving maximum fps which will require a new GPU in most cases.
 
lemonadesoda said:
@JNT and @Alec

If you have large RAM, pagefile is not used, so performance is not decreased as you suggest by putting them on a separate partition.

If you are not convinced, follow the process, and do the benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Errr..no......The further you place files away from the leading edge of the HD the less performance you get......The drive heads have to travel further to access the data.....longer access time equals less performance....I do Not have to run any tests to know that.

Although I totally agree on not placing games In with Windows....but when 100gig drives can be had for $30-$40......Alittle coin In that direction makes more sense when looking for more performance...your remedy Is good for the short term....but for the long haul and best performance?......Like I said.....Games partition On the leading edge of a 2nd HD on It's own channel will outperform a seperate games partition on the OS drive.


On another note....Lemonadesoda.....You ever play SOF2?....I used to play alot and remember a Lemonadesoda from those days. :toast:
 
I agree that the 8800whatever is kinda useless right now at like 1280*1024, but try at 25xx*19xx with EVERYTHING maxed out, and with a fatass screen and a high end (as in HIGHEND) system. Voila, there's the boost. :)
 
@JNT
LEMONADE ¦ SODA ;-)

+ think again carefully about your reply. What we are trying to achieve is a contiguous set of files relating to the "program" or "game" that you are using, so that you MINIMISE HEAD MOVEMENT which takes most time.

If you don't manage your drive carefully, over time, your files get scattered ALL OVER THE PLACE, even if "defragmented", your files for a particular program or game can be very far apart.

If you manage your drive into partitions, it is easier to manage the contiguity of files.

"The further you place files away from the leading edge of the HD the less performance you get......The drive heads have to travel further to access the data"... eh? Why are the drive heads having to travel further? Where from and where to? You must be thinking of a scenario which is rather odd and not the one i described.
 
And of course for those that play their games at 1280 x 1024 there is not really a lot of point in paying all that money because you are not gonna get full value out of an 8800GTX. Where it will really compete is in the High res, ultra high settings stakes but like some have said, only if you have a CPU powerful enuff to drive the thing, I think at the moment it really is a card for at least an overclocked Conroe to see its potential. IMO little point in spending all that money to get 14 or 15000 3D Mark 2005 points because it's so CPU bottlenecked.

However, having said that......still a damn nice card tho!

Edit: sorry frick just noticed your post above saying similar.
 
This could be some sort of driver issue. I mean the card was just released couple days ago. The latest Forceware drivers was release just last month? Either that or the card will really shine on the upcoming games. I'm not sure but if you look at some games in the recent benchmarks around the web, the X1950XTX still holds the lead over any of the nVIDIA cards. I'm just going to hold off until the R600 arrives next year Q1 or two. Now that cards is going to be a rapest!
 
Well, to back up what Frick said, I just ran 3Dmark06 at 2560 x 1600 at default settings, and the system gets about 9,400. Not bad with an old school AMD dual core. The C2D x6800 comes on Monday, so I will be able to see what this system is really capable of doing.

Also, 2560 x 1600 with 4xAA, 16xAF was about 7,000.
 
HeavyH20 said:
Well, to back up what Frick said, I just ran 3Dmark06 at 2560 x 1600 at default settings, and the system gets about 9,400. Not bad with an old school AMD dual core. The C2D x6800 comes on Monday, so I will be able to see what this system is really capable of doing.

Also, 2560 x 1600 with 4xAA, 16xAF was about 7,000.
Click to expand...

O_o.. I thought pr0n was banned on this forum! :p
 
New WR with 8800 GTX SLI is 23,000 in 06. Now, almost anyone with an air cooled SLI system can reach what a heavily volt modded and LN2 cooled system did with a basic air cooled system. I think that is pretty good.
 
Gotta say... today's processors seriously aren't up to it. Core 2 Octa will utilise this graphics card to the max... I reckon this is one of the hugest leaps in performance the GPU history.
BUT... I reckon ATI be smarter and have more performance per-clock than Nvidia's latest DX10.
Why 384 Bit?!!! Why not 512 Bit??
 
HeavyH20 said:
New WR with 8800 GTX SLI is 23,000 in 06. Now, almost anyone with an air cooled SLI system can reach what a heavily volt modded and LN2 cooled system did with a basic air cooled system. I think that is pretty good.
Click to expand...

8800GT = 1000x Radeon X1950s in processing power

Used with a prescott = as good as a normal X850
 
well today, i saw the 8800gtx in action playing bf2142, and it looks exactly the same as my x850pro stock...so i guess we have to wait for some dx10 games (and vista)...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top