• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

BFG 8800 GTX/GTS arriving at OcUK soon and some images for you all!!

rayb74 said:
£500 you got to be kidding.
Don`t buy them you mugs so then the price will HAVE to comedown. :p

I will wait till ATI bring out a faster card for 1/2 the price ! :eek:
Click to expand...
When ATI release the R600, the G80 will either have come down in price significantly or a new revision of it will have been released.

Ulfhedjinn said:
What?! DirectX 9 is a hell of a lot mature than DirectX 10 is, if anything this card will most likely perform better in Windows XP than in Windows Vista. In fact I'd put money on it, benchmark your system in Windows XP and then in Windows Vista RC1 (and don't pull out the "Vista isn't done yet," I know it's not, but the system requirements for Vista aren't going to magically cut themselves in half before it goes gold.)
Click to expand...
Not 100% but I'm pretty sure I read something saying that Vista will offer noticeably better performance for DX9 than XP. Benching on it now though would be futile as there are still a few bugs and the OS hasn't been 100% properly coded yet.
 
Durzel said:
CPU benchmarks in 3DMark pretty much mean nothing at all. The fact the quad core scores an extra 2000+ more than the dual core, and the dual core no doubt scores 1500+ more than a single core doesn't mean a thing. Why? Because games aren't even using dual cores at the moment, it's a totally synthetic benchmark with zero real-world value. The CPU tests aren't even a game, they're just a preset sequence of events - pretty easy to program for multiple cores.

I get more than that 8800GTX & X6800 (dual core) in 3DMark06 with my "out of date" Crossfire X1900. So what's the point you're making?

I find it a bit strange that people will make a point of saying that they get "X6800 performance for £250" by overclocking a E6600 to X6800 speeds, but they're quite happy to shell out £500+ on bits of kit that get scores that can be achieved on a 7950GX2, etc.
Click to expand...

If the card does not give me that much of a speed difference I will not be getting it... simple as... but I want vista and all the effects that come with it when it comes out so I'm getting this card...

Stelly
 
wush said:
1.21 gigawatt.
Click to expand...
ROFL! :D

naffa said:
Not 100% but I'm pretty sure I read something saying that Vista will offer noticeably better performance for DX9 than XP. Benching on it now though would be futile as there are still a few bugs and the OS hasn't been 100% properly coded yet.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, that's why I said that "I know it's only RC1, but I don't see the system requirements cutting themselves in half before it goes gold."

The whole "games will run faster on Vista in DirectX 9 mode than they will on XP in DirectX 9 mode" is marketing fluff, and I'm not sure why they said it because it's highly unlikely that they will get that to happen before launch. It's purely in Vista's nature, with its much higher system requirements, to use a lot more resources than XP and I don't see how it will be faster for gaming regardless of wether or not the card supports DirectX 10. Keep in mind Vista will also render DirectX 9 through a sort of emulation layer in software, so I can't see that being faster.

krooton said:
For the overall system, or a seperate psu for the card itself?
Click to expand...
That will be for the overall system. Someone said that as it needs two of those 6-pin connectors, which they said can handle 15a with ease, we could be looking at 360W minimum for the 8800GTX itself and that's not counting power from the PCI-E slot.
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Yeah I know, that's why I said that "I know it's only RC1, but I don't see the system requirements cutting themselves in half before it goes gold."

The whole "games will run faster on Vista in DirectX 9 mode than they will on XP in DirectX 9 mode" is marketing fluff, and I'm not sure why they said it because it's highly unlikely that they will get that to happen before launch. It's purely in Vista's nature, with its much higher system requirements, to use a lot more resources than XP and I don't see how it will be faster for gaming regardless of wether or not the card supports DirectX 10. Keep in mind Vista will also render DirectX 9 through a sort of emulation layer in software, so I can't see that being faster.
Click to expand...
Oh right, I didn't realise Vista will run DX9 via emulation... Don't see how that could be faster. :confused:
 
naffa said:
Oh right, I didn't realise Vista will run DX9 via emulation... Don't see how that could be faster. :confused:
Click to expand...
As I understand it, Vista is built from the ground-up on DX10 with a DX9 layer bolted on (DX9.0L) so I can't see it being faster myself either. Not only that but it's natural pogression; Vista is newer (XP is what, five years old now?) and uses more system resources, you only need to look at the requirements to see this.

It's no different than the switch from Windows 98/2000 to Windows XP, so how they're claiming Vista will be faster at DirectX 9 games is beyond me. I would personally love to see them keep this promise, but they just pulled RC2 because it sucked so I can't see Vista using half the system resources it does now by the time it goes gold.
 
I don't think the value for money is that bad tbh. Those benchies show it's roughly twice as fast as a x1900xt 512mb and it's twice as expensive (at least compared to the HIS version). Since the HIS card is usually considered good value for money, I don't see what people are complaing about. Plus compared to x1900xt crossfire, there are no crossfire issues to worry, you don't need a crossfire motherboard, the power requirements are far lower (if the 450watt requirement is true), it's directx 10 compliant and costs the same amount. The only disadvantage of the 8800gtx is the length of the card.

And what about the GTS, seems like it'll be a great card for the money but no one seems interested in it. I am. :(
 
A lot of people think it's not good value for money because a 7950GX2 can be had for £330 and it performs practically the same from the benchmarks we've seen. Sure you miss out on DirectX 10, but big whoop it's not like it will be used properly until 2008 anyway.
 
naffa said:
LMFAO

EDIT:

Well all the Nvidia users will be laughing at you when the revised G80 comes out for £350 and you're paying £500 for your inferior R600. :p
Click to expand...

I doubt it, im not buying the R600, DX10 is a year away yet, R600/G80 gona be ancient. ;)

While everyones moaning about having spent all that cash on G80/R600/Vista, and all they have had is foggy breath, and now need to upgrade their cards again as DX10 is finally starting to be used, and their old cards can't hack it, ill be laughing then probs. :p
 
LoadsaMoney said:
naffa said:
Well all the Nvidia users will be laughing at you when the revised G80 comes out for £350 and you're paying £500 for your inferior R600.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, im not buying the R600, DX10 is a year away yet, R600/G80 gona be ancient. ;)

While everyones moaning about having spent all that cash on G80/R600/Vista, and all they have had is foggy breath, and now need to upgrade their cards again as DX10 is finally starting to be used, and their old cards can't hack it, ill be laughing then probs. :p
Click to expand...
Yeah, more like I will be laughing at them spending £500 when I am playing all the same games in DX9 mode on my £199 X1900XT 512MB, and I will be laughing even more when the G80/R600 refreshes come out and I wait for them to drop to £199 too. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom