8800 320mb GTS Feb 12th.

Tute · 8 Feb 2007 at 12:57

deadkomodo said:
LMAO

ROLF

Not just my res, but quite a few res's up to the point hardly nobody plays at i.e 2560 by 1600.

Please max out the GTX on R6 VEGAS (then for the killer add AA) or on any demanding new game and you will see GPU limited, RES is only 1 factor.

Even on FEAR at that res 16XAA 16XAF you will not be CPU limited

You're really making my head hurt with this rubbish.

In terms of raw GPU power, X1950XTX CF will give you more power than one 8800GTX.

It's not much, and certainly NOT enough to warrant spending the extra, as it requires Crossfire, and in some cases a bigger PSU.

It's simple. As the resolution gets higher (i.e we go from CPU limited to GPU limited), the GTX drops frames faster than the X1950XTX CF does. Therefore it would be fair to assume that for those who run two 24" screens (some do!) it would give them more power.

I can get my rig CPU limited with ONE X1950XTX, at both 1280x1024 (which is what I game at) and at 1600x1200. The only real "territory" it can't stand is above and beyond this, i.e 24" and greater.

mattpj · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:12

Its a shame for me personally, If I knew these were coming around the corner I would have waited.... curses!

mattpj · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:15

Another question, my x1950 pro just about fits into the case, i take it the GTS is bigger and i would need a new case?

Kmodo · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:18

Tute said:
You're really making my head hurt with this rubbish.

You claimed that the benchies are CPU limited in games such as FEAR at 1680 by 1050

BULL!!!!!

Max out FEAR at 1680 by 1050 then run the benchmark at 3ghz then run it at 3.6ghz, with your theory your frames should increase but wait.....they wont!!!

Going from 2.6ghz AMD to 3.6ghz C2D FEAR benched identical and I have a post dating back months of me stating so.

I never said the 8800gtx had more 'raw power' :confused:

but the fact is at the resolutions that MOST people play at on nearly all the game benchmarks the GTX is FASTER.

For me minimum frame rate is VERY important, I had the opertunity to get the master card but when playing FEAR my minimum frame rate whilst hardly budged (went from high teens to low 20's, gtx min was 40's). The fact is the GTX gave a more consistent frame rate, played far smoother with minimum frame rate doubling!

Tute · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:30

I'm going to refer you to this page again.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8729265#post8729265

With the latest 1.08 patch, F.E.A.R. has gained multi-core support, potentially using even up to quad core CPUs in order to deliver improved performance. We were able to confirm a performance increase with Core 2 Duo, and we will try to take a look at whether or not Core 2 Quad helps in the near future. Either way, this means that we should now be completely GPU limited in F.E.A.R. testing.

Note: TOTALLY GPU limited.

1600x1200 - XTX CF leads by 10fps.
1920x1440 - XTX CF leads by 14fps.
2560x1600 - XTX CF leads by 15fps.

Kmodo · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:37

Tute said:
I'm going to refer you to this page again.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8729265#post8729265

Note: TOTALLY GPU limited.

1600x1200 - XTX CF leads by 10fps.
1920x1440 - XTX CF leads by 14fps.
2560x1600 - XTX CF leads by 15fps.

I have not benched FEAR since that patch.

BUT try pull those numbers from MANY other games

FEAR is well known to benifit FAR more than most games with DUAL CARD configs.

Of course if every game hugely benifited with dual card config then it would be far more tempting for the average gamer but the facts are it does not.

I know people upgrading from 7900gtx SLI to 8800GTX (which therotically if you actually got double the performance should beat a 8800gtx :confused:

) they upgraded because the 8800GTX is faster, achieves better and more consistent frame rates in most games at most resoultions.

I have a crossfire mobo and powerfull PSU but would NEVER trade my 8800GTX for 1950xtx crossfire!!! (unless I could sell em and make a profit to buy the GTX again)

Tute · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:45

I'm just proving this statement wrong -

Even if you doubled the XTX in XFire you would not get close to the consistent performance of a GTX.

I did that by giving you a totally GPU limited situation (firstly by increasing the resolution, which I think you'll agree is a pretty standard method, secondly by using a dual-core enabled game) and showing you the performance of the XTX Crossfire against the GTX.

I don't need to pull them from other games - many, such as Quake 4, Doom 3, or Half-Life 2, fare better on one make than the other. That doesn't mean that either is rubbish though.

And I know that both Crossfire and SLi aren't cost-effective at all, in fact they're a pretty poor option. But when they do work, they give very nice boosts.

[Edit] Can I also just add that we should probably stop now, the rest of the graphics forum, as well as Gibbo, are probably sat there with popcorn laughing at us...

Jabbs · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:50

Tute said:
I'm going to refer you to this page again.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8729265#post8729265

Note: TOTALLY GPU limited.

1600x1200 - XTX CF leads by 10fps.
1920x1440 - XTX CF leads by 14fps.
2560x1600 - XTX CF leads by 15fps.

What about the superior image quality of the 8800 series, and the fact you can sli them later if you want. No one in there right mind would buy 2 x1950xtx cards now, who wants old tech.

Kmodo · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:51

Even if you doubled the XTX in XFire you would not get close (okay far point then it is close) to the consistent performance (but I do not accept the XFIRE is consistent

) of a GTX

Tute said:
Tute said:

Can I also just add that we should probably stop now, the rest of the graphics forum, as well as Gibbo, are probably sat there with popcorn laughing at us...

Click to expand...

LOL far enough buddy I see your point

Tute · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:54

Jabbs said:
What about the superior image quality of the 8800 series, and the fact you can sli them later if you want. No one in there right mind would buy 2 x1950xtx cards now, who wants old tech.

100% agreed.

Actually, what if someone offered them to you for a fiver?

Kmodo · 8 Feb 2007 at 13:59

Tute said:
100% agreed.

Actually, what if someone offered them to you for a fiver?

I'd take em and split them up (shed's a tear....of joy

) and exchange them for free with my 'poorer' mates x1600's/7600gt's putting them to good use in serperate rigs

(where both will be 100% utilised)

Gibbo · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:00

Dark_Angel said:
Gibbo, I am not sure if you are able to say this or not, see feel free to just say NDA to me, but I was wondering, will the 320MB cards be fine on games like Quake 4 and the new Command and COnquer at 1680x1050? or havent you had time to try them out yet?

Hi there

It won't even break a sweat.

This 320MB version believe it or not is hardly any slower than the 640MB version.

In fact in some games and at lower resolutions the BFG 320MB is quicker than some reference 640MB cards.

I believe the 320MB GTS will handle the latest games even at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 with relative ease.

jrodga2k5 · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:05

Thought so.....

Another Question Gibbo when is the NDA being lifted? I.e what time on monday will we be able to place orders? Will you be working round the clock to get them out that day too

Dark_Angel · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:24

Gibbo said:
Hi there

It won't even break a sweat.

This 320MB version believe it or not is hardly any slower than the 640MB version.

In fact in some games and at lower resolutions the BFG 320MB is quicker than some reference 640MB cards.

I believe the 320MB GTS will handle the latest games even at 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 with relative ease.

Well sir, you can consider that one sale... I imagine I will see a awesome increase from my "awesome" 6200 LE Turbo Cache 128MB, which is great for comedy value. Throw a smoke Grenade in Counter strike, and watch the FPS go to like 8 LOL. Before that I was using an X800XT, so the 6200 is a "get my new system up and running" card.

Hopefully Quake 4, Half Life 2 Ep 2 and so on should run at 60FPS plus with a bit of AA/AF

zytok · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:36

LoadsaMoney said:
Ahh thanks for that, so same length as the x1900's then.

So just to check, how do these cards compare size wise to a X1800? Need to know cos one needs to fit in my Arctic Cooling T1 case. What about power requirements, is it gonna need more power or dual 12V rails or anything?

jrodga2k5 · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:46

zytok said:
So just to check, how do these cards compare size wise to a X1800? Need to know cos one needs to fit in my Arctic Cooling T1 case. What about power requirements, is it gonna need more power or dual 12V rails or anything?

I asked about size earlier, about the same as the x19xx series, looking at 9inches

zytok · 8 Feb 2007 at 14:47

jrodga2k5 said:
I asked about size earlier, about the same as the x19xx series, looking at 9inches

but how does the x1800 compare to the 1900 (size wise)?

LoadsaMoney · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:03

x1800's are the same size as the x1900's.

zytok · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:05

LoadsaMoney said:
x1800's are the same size as the x1900's.

Thanks for that, what about power requirements? Is my Seasonic 350W gonna cope or not?

Dark_Angel · 8 Feb 2007 at 15:06

zytok said:
Thanks for that, what about power requirements? Is my Seasonic 350W gonna cope or not?

It may, but if I were you, I would be aiming at a 450W PSU at least...