Point of View 9800GTX : Intro /Review

Nico_Joey · 28 Mar 2008 at 15:49

Stumbled on this review this morning, looks legit enough. Has some nice benches of the card using the X2 , GX2 Ultra and GTX in SLI to compare

Link Clicky

helmutcheese · 28 Mar 2008 at 15:53

LOL, the old tech Ultra still the fastest Single card ? (hard to tell there)

jigger · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:29

I dont understand why they test crysis at high res when its so clear that the card hasn't the grunt to run the game at high settings. whats wrong with testing with playable( realistic ) settings instead of quoting unplayable frame rates and giving a % of the speed differance last time i checked 50% of **** all is errm...still **** all!.

Crysis

1680x1050- 0X AA/AF @18 fps

1680x1050- 4X AA/16X AF @12 fps

1920x1200- 0X AA/AF @14 fps

jonislost · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:30

jigger said:
I dont understand why they test crysis at high res when its so clear that the card hasn't the grunt to run the game at high settings. whats wrong with testing with playable( realistic ) settings instead of quoting unplayable frame rates and giving a % of the speed differance last time i checked 50% of **** all is errm...still **** all!.

Crysis

1680x1050- 0X AA/AF @18 fps

1680x1050- 4X AA/16X AF @12 fps

1920x1200- 0X AA/AF @14 fps

They're not exactly unrealistic res's though, are they? Most people game at 168x1050 i reckon and quite a lot at 1900x1200...

helmutcheese · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:31

Because they want to try see what card can get the extra FPS out it, most play at 1600's or 1920's today.

The newer GPU's will try show there full potential at higher RES's and may not differ much at 1280's, some models only pull ahead of their siblings at 1600's or 1900's.

I see your point though.

Roll on more patches lol.

Darkwave · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:31

As expected.

Still waiting for legitimate benchmarks that haven't broken NDA though.

balls · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:33

Most it out performs the ultra is 4% and most it is outperformed is by 58% by the ultra....

helmutcheese · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:34

balls said:
Most it out performs the ultra is 4% and most it is outperformed is by 24% by the ultra....

Thanks, my head was spinning reading it all (got real sore head today).

eyetrip · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:39

Sorry, either they don't say or I am blind, but what settings did they use for Crysis tests? High or very high?

jonislost · 28 Mar 2008 at 16:41

ffallic said:
Sorry, either they don't say or I am blind, but what settings did they use for Crysis tests? High or very high?

I assume very high due to the cards all being dx10. Plus it would be futile to test in high to get the clearest representation.

jigger · 28 Mar 2008 at 17:18

jonislost said:
They're not exactly unrealistic res's though, are they? Most people game at 168x1050 i reckon and quite a lot at 1900x1200...

You sort of missed my point

and that is playable frame rate, res then eye candy. So if say 1440x1050 = playable frame rate you can then give a fair represention of the differential between the cards in the group test.
I have a 24" dell 1920x1200 but to play a game at that res then it has to run at a playable frame rate (33fps) or it's unrealistic.
I dont have a problem with pushing a card to unrealistic settings as a part of the test but to draw any conlusions (or all in this case) on such a flaky test procedure is just plain wrong, its quite clear that the cards are not ment to play this game at such high settings and working the differance out of how poorly they performe on a % basis is... well worst than wrong, its misleading.

steve258 · 28 Mar 2008 at 17:26

But when you spend this kind of cash on a "next gen" card you'll expect it to play crysis at 1680x1050+ though..

A pointless upgrade for GTX and ultra users then.

chaparral · 28 Mar 2008 at 17:43

World in Conflict (1920x1200- 4X AA/16X AF)
8800gtx = 28fps
9800gtx = 23 fps

Lost Planet: XC (1920x1200- 4X AA/16X AF

ASUS EN9800GX2 = 59.40fps
nVidia 8800GT SLI = 54.70fps
nVidia 8800 Ultra = 44.80fps
nVidia 8800GTX- 768MB = 37.85fps
ASUS EAH3870 X2-1GB = 36.05fps
PoV GeForce 9800GTX = 28.35fps

LOL

LoadsaMoney · 28 Mar 2008 at 17:47

Of course the GTX and Ultra are faster than a slightly clocked 8800 GTS 512mb, once you crank the res up and slap the AA/AF on, the GTS gets left behind as its got a smaller bus, its only a 256bit, GTX/Ultra are 384bit, this is nothing new, we saw it the first time around when these cards were released on December 11th, and Nvidia even stated the GTS would fall in below the GTX/Ultra, it was not replacing them.

chaparral · 28 Mar 2008 at 17:50

LoadsaMoney said:
Of course the GTX and Ultra are faster than a slightly clocked 8800 GTS 512mb, as you can see once you crank the res up and slap the AA/AF on, the GTS gets left behind as its got a smaller bus, its only a 256bit, GTX/Ultra are 384bit.

Ok then....

why it come last in the UT3 test even with no AA & no AF at 1650x1050

Unreal Tournament 3 (1680x1050- 0X AF)
ASUS EN9800GX2 199.70fps
ASUS EAH3870 X2-1GB 179.50fps
nVidia 8800 Ultra 178.60fps
nVidia 8800GTX- 768MB 156.70fps
nVidia 8800GT SLI 150.60fps
PoV GeForce 9800GTX 132.50fps

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=grfx&id=595&pagenumber=10

LoadsaMoney · 28 Mar 2008 at 17:53

Could be games that use more texturing also take a hit because of the 256bit bus, i dunno.

Lightnix · 28 Mar 2008 at 18:01

Would've thought that'd be offset by G92's superior texture compression ratio and extra TMUs, though...

LoadsaMoney · 28 Mar 2008 at 18:04

Lightnix said:
Would've thought that'd be offset by G92's superior texture compression ratio and extra TMUs, though...

Forgot about that, dunno why its worse with no AA/AF in UT3 then.

willhub · 28 Mar 2008 at 18:06

jigger said:
I dont understand why they test crysis at high res when its so clear that the card hasn't the grunt to run the game at high settings. whats wrong with testing with playable( realistic ) settings instead of quoting unplayable frame rates and giving a % of the speed differance last time i checked 50% of **** all is errm...still **** all!.

Crysis

1680x1050- 0X AA/AF @18 fps

1680x1050- 4X AA/16X AF @12 fps

1920x1200- 0X AA/AF @14 fps

1680x1050 results are off, 1680x1050 DX10 very high it should be higher than that for all cards.

TheGamingGeneral · 28 Mar 2008 at 18:08

They could atleast try to salvage some pride by giving us a HDMI on board like the GX2. SOMETHING to make parting with the cash that bit more appealing.

Martyn