ATI X1900XTX vs Nvidia 8800 GTX results inside

Duke · 4 Aug 2007 at 21:41

After changing cpu from an E6600 to a Q6600 (@3.2 so far), I bought a 8800 GTX, as the ATI was showing its age a touch in some games, as I run 1650x1050 resolution.

Ran 3DMark on both cards, using latest drivers, both at stock settings and not overclocked.

I know 3DMark isnt always the best indication of real world performance, but I'd thought it would help others who are thinking of upgrading from the 1900 range to a 8800 or similar.

Shocky-FM · 4 Aug 2007 at 21:44

3dmark is no indication of gaming performance, period.

chaparral · 4 Aug 2007 at 22:29

Duke said:
After changing cpu from an E6600 to a Q6600 (@3.2 so far), I bought a 8800 GTX, as the ATI was showing its age a touch in some games, as I run 1650x1050 resolution.

Ran 3DMark on both cards, using latest drivers, both at stock settings and not overclocked.

But where these 3dmark tests done at your normal gaming res of 1680x1050 ???

Cyber-Mav · 4 Aug 2007 at 23:29

whoa gtx is twice as fast in 03 and 06 :eek:

willhub · 5 Aug 2007 at 00:34

Cyber-Mav said:
whoa gtx is twice as fast in 03 and 06

If it was twice as fast it would be around 14500

Those 06 results seem low considering with an E6600 at 3.2 and an 8800GTS at 650/2.2 I could hit 11400+

SS-89 · 5 Aug 2007 at 00:51

yh maybe because the 8800 isnt clocked, my q6600 clocked at 3.0 and 2900 oc gives 13300.

lay-z-boy · 5 Aug 2007 at 01:06

3D mark is the best game ever.

Azza · 5 Aug 2007 at 01:09

lay-z-boy said:
3D mark is the best game ever.

I think it would be an awesome game to play.

ins0mn1ac · 5 Aug 2007 at 01:09

Shocky-FM said:
3dmark is no indication of gaming performance, period.

Cyber-Mav · 5 Aug 2007 at 01:40

Azza said:
I think it would be an awesome game to play.

you can play it, that drone that flys around shooting things

fornowagain · 5 Aug 2007 at 02:37

willhub said:
If it was twice as fast it would be around 14500

It's getting on for twice as fast in 06, the CPU score would be quite high and the similar in both scores.

Approx:- SM2, SM3, CPU,

5200, 5200, 4750 = 12800
2700, 2700, 4750 = 7200

willhub · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:03

SS-89 said:
yh maybe because the 8800 isnt clocked, my q6600 clocked at 3.0 and 2900 oc gives 13300.

Did you notice, I has results over 11k on a dual core CPU and an 8800GTS, he has Quad core and an 8800GTX...

Duke · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:05

chaparral said:
But where these 3dmark tests done at your normal gaming res of 1680x1050 ???

Can't do that with the free copy, else I would have done. I'd look at the benchmarks at [H] as they show game benchmarks in good detail.

Cyber-Mav said:
whoa gtx is twice as fast in 03 and 06

Yep - was surprised myself when the results came in. Time to overclock I think :cool:

HangTime · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:31

willhub said:
Those 06 results seem low considering with an E6600 at 3.2 and an 8800GTS at 650/2.2 I could hit 11400+

One of the problems with using 3dmark for comparisons between users is that people benchmark in different ways. Some apply loads of tweaks in driver settings to eek out extra performance, streamlined windows setups and have heavily overclocked systems. Others are just running everything at stock on a bloated Vista install with 60+ processes running and sliders set to High Quality.

11.4k certainly isn't a standard score for a E6600/8800gts combo, a lot of people get less than that.

HangTime · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:35

Cyber-Mav said:
whoa gtx is twice as fast in 03 and 06

The 3dm03 result is the most surprising to me, as I'd have thought it would be relatively cpu-limited given that it doesn't support multicore (right?) and is fairly old now (dx8). I wasn't execting such a big difference compared to the x1900xtx.

That said I remember 3dmark03 was always regarded as being incredibly GPU limited at the time compared to 01.

willhub · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:40

The results cant be right apart from 01, in 03 I am sure I got 52,000.

SS-89 · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:54

Ok I see your point will but he is getting 12796 which is about 1300 more points than you and if the 8800gtx isnt clocked it seems about right, maybe a 100 points below what it should be, however if the card is clocked then it is definitely lower than it should be.

Im now getting 13529 after clocking my q6600 to the same speed.

willhub · 5 Aug 2007 at 09:59

SS-89 said:
Ok I see your point will but he is getting 12796 which is about 1300 more points than you and if the 8800gtx isnt clocked it seems about right, maybe a 100 points below what it should be, however if the card is clocked then it is definitely lower than it should be.

Im now getting 13529 after clocking my q6600 to the same speed.

I would be expecting more than 12796 from a GTX and quad core.

SS-89 · 5 Aug 2007 at 10:30

Ok so the gtx isnt clocked after reading the first post again lol, however duke are you running vista?

Duke · 5 Aug 2007 at 10:45

Hehe, stock - for now! Running XP with 2GB ram.