[Warning Fudzilla] GeCube HD 2900XT beats 8800GTS 640MB

willhub · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:06

Tom|Nbk said:
Did you have your GTS clocked when you did those benches?

Yea at 650/2.2Ghz, at stock I get like 10200 in 06, I think thats with my CPU and ram at stock too.

Tom|Nbk · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:07

willhub said:
Yea at 650/2.2Ghz, at stock I get like 10200 in 06, I think thats with my CPU and ram at stock too.

Why on earth would you compare your clocked benches to a review which was done with stock cards :confused:

obviously you'll score higher.

This is the testbed

Motherboard:
Nforce 680i EVGA board (Supplied by EVGA)

CPU:
Intel Core 2 Duo 6800 Extreme edition (Supplied by Intel)

CPU Cooler:
Akasa EVO AK 922 Blue Athlon 64/X2/FX cooler and Intel CPU's (Akasa)

Memory:
OCZ Reaper PC2-8500 1066MHz 5-5-5-15 (Supplied by OCZ)
CL5-5-5-15-CR2T at 2.3V

Graphics card:

GeCube Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (Supplied by GeCube)

Leadtek WinFast PX8800GTS 640MB (Supplied by Leadtek)

PSU:
OCZ GameXStream 700W (Supplied by OCZ)

Hard disk:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB SATA (Supplied by Seagate)

willhub · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:12

Tom|Nbk said:
Why on earth would you compare your clocked benches to a review which was done with stock cards obviously you'll score higher.

This is the testbed

Motherboard:
Nforce 680i EVGA board (Supplied by EVGA)

CPU:
Intel Core 2 Duo 6800 Extreme edition (Supplied by Intel)

CPU Cooler:
Akasa EVO AK 922 Blue Athlon 64/X2/FX cooler and Intel CPU's (Akasa)

Memory:
OCZ Reaper PC2-8500 1066MHz 5-5-5-15 (Supplied by OCZ)
CL5-5-5-15-CR2T at 2.3V

Graphics card:

GeCube Radeon HD 2900XT 512MB GDDR3 (Supplied by GeCube)

Leadtek WinFast PX8800GTS 640MB (Supplied by Leadtek)

PSU:
OCZ GameXStream 700W (Supplied by OCZ)

Hard disk:
Seagate Barracuda 7200.9 500GB SATA (Supplied by Seagate)

Those 3DMark 06 scores are too low for that setup at stock if I get 10200 at stock...

Tom|Nbk · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:16

willhub said:
Those 3DMark 06 scores are too low for that setup at stock if I get 10200 at stock...

Nah the GTS's score around 9k @ stock, take Loadsamoney for example he has everything stock and just scores 9k.

willhub · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:18

Tom|Nbk said:
Nah the GTS's score around 9k @ stock, take Loadsamoney for example he has everything stock and just scores 9k.

Thats him though, I'm sure it was 10200, I can see it as if I took a photo of it lol, omg lol dont make me put my system at stock to proove it

TheRealDeal · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:18

47.......9,767 | V_R | INTEL E6600 @ 2400mhz | 8800GTS 640MB @ 610/900

Just took that from the 3dmark 06 thread. Thats one of the better scores and has an oc on the gfx card. His cpu is at stock though.

Tom|Nbk · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:20

Will go for it. If you put your system at stock you will have the same score as him as he has the same CPU + GPU.

TheRealDeal · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:21

All i meant by that was his gfx was oced and he was still in the 9k region so stock scores would be lower.

willhub · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:22

Jesus, I'll reply back with my results tommorow.

I'll do it all at stock then at stock with my GPU at 665/2.3

Tom|Nbk · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:24

Here we go from when I had my GTS.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1705723

GPU @ Stock CPU @ 3.4Ghz

9745

If you put your cpu to stock youd be looking at just 9k. See?. The Fudzilla results are bang on and until I see a compare URL from you stating otherwise......................

willhub · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:27

Tom|Nbk said:
Here we go from when I had my GTS.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1705723

GPU @ Stock CPU @ 3.4Ghz

9745

If you put your cpu to stock youd be looking at just 9k. See?. The Fudzilla results are bang on and until I see a compare URL from you stating otherwise.

I cant see a GPU overclock giving nearly 1700 extra 3dmarks :confused:

Meh fudzilla is all fud tbh.

Tom|Nbk · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:28

willhub said:
I cant see a GPU overclock giving nearly 1700 extra 3dmarks

Meh fudzilla is all fud tbh.

Oh they can coupled with a CPU OC. Yes Fudzilla is fud normally but this is one of the most honest truthful reviews I've seen in a long time, there known for terrible speculation though, but the firm hard truth is there this time.

TheRealDeal · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:30

Tbh fud was the one doing a lot of hd2900xt bashing when it first arrived and
even before it arrived so don't think he would be doing a big u turn
unless his results are the truth.

Tom|Nbk · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:38

Amazed to see the 2900XT beating the GTS by 20 frames :eek:

in Quake 4 (OpenGL) which 8800 cards should really shine over ATi but clearly this isn't the case unless you have the GTX but even then the improvement wouldnt be worth the outlay for a mere extra 7 frames average

.

Quake 4 High Quality FSAA 4X + Aniso 16X
1024x768
1280x960
1600x1200
2048x1536

GeCube HD 2900XT 742/1650 MHz
156.2
140.0
120.6
89.0

Leadtek WinFast PX8800GTS 640MB
151.3
124.6
100.1
69.5

helmutcheese · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:53

I now ignore all reviews, take a bit of info and make my own mind up as they have found out to be using older drivers or some crap, I aint sure if the 8800 support is even great yet as it was a sore point along with DX10 and Vista support, time will tell.

Cyber-Mav · 5 Jul 2007 at 23:53

Tom|Nbk said:
Amazed to see the 2900XT beating the GTS by 20 frames in Quake 4 (OpenGL) which 8800 cards should really shine over ATi

opengl is not like hl2 source engine which when it first came out and was purposley engineered to cripple nvidia hardware. opengl is an open platform and is not optimised in anyway for any particular hardware. its the hardware and its drivers that determine opengl performance.

you make it sound like opengl has been purposley designed to work faster on nvidia hardware than ati hardware. care to clarify this for us?

Tom|Nbk · 6 Jul 2007 at 00:43

Cyber-Mav said:
opengl is not like hl2 source engine which when it first came out and was purposley engineered to cripple nvidia hardware. opengl is an open platform and is not optimised in anyway for any particular hardware. its the hardware and its drivers that determine opengl performance.

you make it sound like opengl has been purposley designed to work faster on nvidia hardware than ati hardware. care to clarify this for us?

As always I'll enlighten you Mav, nvidia hardware has always in the past had the advantage over ATi because they simply performed better at it, due to a hardware or driver advantage im not sure which one. ATi are now leaving nvidia in the dirt with there recently improved OpenGL driver.

. The results speak for themselves the 1950XT-X is almost as fast as the GTS in various OpenGL titles.

willhub · 6 Jul 2007 at 00:52

Tom|Nbk said:
As always I'll enlighten you Mav, nvidia hardware has always in the past had the advantage over ATi because they simply performed better at it, due to a hardware or driver advantage im not sure which one. ATi are now leaving nvidia in the dirt with there recently improved OpenGL driver. . The results speak for themselves the 1950XT-X is almost as fast as the GTS in various OpenGL titles.

That means NV need to improve drivers since an X1950XT-X should not be performing better than an 8800GTS.

Tom|Nbk · 6 Jul 2007 at 00:58

willhub said:
That means NV need to improve drivers since an X1950XT-X should not be performing better than an 8800GTS.

True but the 1950XT-X still is a very nice card

, the liklihood of nvidia sorting this soon. Unlikely.

willhub · 6 Jul 2007 at 01:01

Tom|Nbk said:
True but the 1950XT-X still is a very nice card , the liklihood of nvidia sorting this soon. Unlikely.

Yea thats only because NV are crap at drivers lol, yea no question the X1950XT-X is a very nice card, at one point i nearly got the X1900XT.

But judging from recent BETA drivers from NV, they are getting there act together, for some people Dirt seems faster, lots of problems fixed etc..