Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

GeForce 8800GTX Benchmarked

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:31 PM
from the new-shininess dept.
Graphics Software Hardware Entertainment Games
An anonymous reader writes "The card does not launch for another week, but DailyTech already has benchmarks of the new GeForce 8800GTX on its website. The new card is the flagship GPU to replace GeForce 7900, and according to the benchmarks has no problem embarrassing the Radeon X1950 XTX either. According to the article, 'The GeForce 8800GTX used for testing is equipped with 768MB of GDDR3 video memory on a 384-bit memory bus as previously reported. Core and memory clocks are set at 575 MHz and 900 MHz respectively.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

GeForce 8800GTX Benchmarked 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Holy Cow (Score:3, Funny)

    by 0racle (667029) on Friday November 03 2006, @10:41PM (#16712581)
    equipped with 768MB of GDDR3 video memory on a 384-bit memory bus as previously reported. Core and memory clocks are set at 575 MHz and 900 MHz respectively
    Would you like some computer with your video card? Why even have a system at all, can I just get a backplane to attach a NIC and power to this card and just run everything from it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by msobkow (48369)

      That video card has 50% more memory than my development database server.

      Kinda scary, eh?

      • . . . but only 3/4 of what I've got in my cellphone . . .

        double scary

      • Imagine what you could do with a beowulf cluster of these.
      • Kinda scary, eh?

        I got more freaked out when I noticed that my Athlon64 has twice as much L1 cache that my first computer (C64) had as total memory.

        That video card has 50% more memory than my development database server.

        Oddly enough, memory size has now really outgrown what I manage to use up. Even with some huge memory drains, 2GB is more than enough memory. I don't see why the graphics card memory needs to increase either, from what I've gathered the hot thing now is shaders (data manipulation) rather than

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      equipped with 768MB
      nVidia is preparing for Windows Vista
      • I got a chuckle out of this. Incidentally, I am someone who is "lucky" enough to own a last- generation card new enough to run the latest games at acceptable framerates, and yet somehow too dumpy to run Vista in its fully tricked out form.
    • why dont they make it with a CPU kinda socket , so we can unplug the CPU and plug this GPU in its place instead? it would be more fair..
      • See, we have a GPU "socket", just it's a long socket with only two rows of pins.

        The idea of a socket purely for the GPU is a flawed concept. The memory technology used in graphics cards changes quite rapidly (notice how most graphics cards just skipped with over DDR2 and went to DDR3, now some have DDR4 while DDR2 is only now standard as system memory), different GPUs have different bus widths, and the memory speed varies. You solve this by putting the memory on-package with the GPU. Only then, you reali

  • wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by pppppppman (986720) on Friday November 03 2006, @10:42PM (#16712587)
    Wow... this thing could run like... two Vistas... maybe

  • Oh your god! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Daath (225404) <lp AT coder DOT dk> on Friday November 03 2006, @10:43PM (#16712593) Homepage Journal
    Oh your god! 92% more FPS than ATI's current flagship! Both in HL2 and in Quake 4! "Only" 54% better 3Dmark06 score though. This card is crazy ;P I wish I could afford a truck full of these. Or maybe just one. Hmm and a new CPU... And more RAM... And some huge disks in RAID-5... Damn.
      • For me it's the partial redundancy. Although the marginal performance improvement is nice, the fact that one of my drives can fail without me loosing data is great. Particularly since if you loose 2 drives at the same time in a totally redundant array, you are just as screwed as if you loose two drives at the raid-5. Being able to loose one drive without data loss and only loosing 20% in a 5 disk array to redundancy is pretty damn cool.

  • But.... (Score:3)

    by thealsir (927362) on Friday November 03 2006, @10:43PM (#16712599) Homepage
    But will the 8600 GT be in a good price range? The 8200? This will matter to a lot more people.

    More power is never, worse, though...unless you are trying to reduce power consumption...
    • Is that both the launch cards will be expensive. nVidia's usual form is to launch high end only with a new major numerical generation (this being the GeForce 8 series). The high end one will be $600 or more, the next one down probably $300-400. You'll have to wait a few months on a more midrange card to come out.

      Makes sense too, new chip and such yields are likely to be a bit low at first so you need to drop it in the expensive stuff. After you've done some work, you release some lower cards.

      If you want a m
    • But it should push down the prices for the 7000 line, which is nice since I don't pay more than $100 for a video card (7600GS is the best at the moment).
  • That looks... expensive.

  • Of course the real question is (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday November 03 2006, @11:02PM (#16712681)
    Does it do DirectX 10? If so, how well? I mean the target market here is the high end gamer thus the interest is going to be on having something that supports the latest, greatest. The game development community seems to be going bonkers over DX10 so it's something to consider before you get a card.

    I'm planning on getting a high-end graphics card here soon but I'm going to hold off until Vista is out and running for a bit to evaluate and make sure I get one with good DX10 support. No sense in spending money on a new generation of hardware if it doesn't support the new generation of software fully.
    • Does it do DirectX 10? If so, how well?

      Umm, of course. The point of G80 and R600 (ATI's next) are that they're the DX10 generation chips. However how well it does DX10 is somewhat of a pointless question. As you point out Vista won't be out for "a few months", and no games using DX10 will be out untill a bit after that. By the time that DX10 performance actually matters an incremental spin of the 8800 (psychic, I'm guessing it'll be called the 8850) will be out.
      • I think you're missing his point.

        Damn good point it is too, I forgot that entirely.

        Sure the card might be good at DX9, this is obvious but how good is it at DX10?
        The ATI offering may be substantially faster, or this thing may only do the basics of DX10 but be unable to do certain DX10 functions in a single pass, where the competition can.

        Who knows? I can say that in the past, sometimes the 2 companies offering, 1 of them has been designed slightly differently which has led to performance hits in certain modes (iirc ATI's competitor to the GF3 was fairly ho-hum, but don't quote me on that)

        So to summarise, it might be a nice DX9 card but until we see what DX10 demands and both DX10 cards can do - we can only be sure of it's current gen performance, not next gen.

  • I'm no hardware techie, but I do so enjoy playing a good game --- "when I have time" (yeah...).

    Everytime Microsoft releases a new version of DirectX it has some new sweet feature that everyone wants but none of the current cards on the market support it.

    Microsoft has also said DirectX 10 and Vista will not be backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX. (Or has this changed, as I recall Vista wouldn't support applications built for previous OS's too - seems they changed their tune on that one. The
    • I could be missing something and maybe the card does support DX10

      It does indeed support DX10. As the first ever DX10 card, however, it probably will be put to shame by something else in 4-6 months regardless ;)
      • No way! Remember the FX serie of card? They had -amazingly- Direct X9 and Pixel Shader 2.0 support even though it was new!

        ::grumbles at his FX 5900 Ultra that can't play most DX9 at an acceptable frame rate...::

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by westlake (615356)
      Microsoft has also said DirectX 10 and Vista will not be backward compatible with previous versions of DirectX.

      "Windows Vista continues to support the same Direct3D and DirectDraw interfaces as Windows XP, back to version 3 of DirectX (with the exception of Direct3D's Retained Mode, which has been removed). Just as with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, 64-bit native applications on Windows Vista are limited to Direct3D9, DirectDraw7, or newer interfaces. High-performance applications should make use

      • Yes, I misspoke, or miss-wrote... Whatever-have-you.

        What I meant was that DX10 wouldn't be backward compatible. I have read Vista will be backwards compatible but read it was some sort of software emulation.

        What I was getting at was that according to the articles I have read DX10 will simply not work on a card not designed for it - and DX10 itself was not going to be backward compatible. Basically, if you don't have a card built for it you simply can't use it at all.

        When DX9 came out - my 6800GT didn't supp
        • No, you have it wrong.

          DX10 will not be available for any Windows version prior to Vista because the driver model in Vista has changed substantially, so drivers for XP et al wont work. If your card has a Vista compatable driver, then it will work under DX10 - and because Nvidia roll all their cards drivers up into one neat package, once they release a Vista driver for one, chances are it will work for their entire range.

          Your older card will work fine under Vista and DX10 once the drivers are available
  • Now to get things straight, I'm not bashing Nvidia here or criticizing AMD ATI as I own products from both and am very impressed.

    Ok, on to the meat of the topic. I read about this card on Tom's Hardware about a month ago and was very impressed. The specs Nvidia gave Tom's for the 8800GTX was 768mb of GDDR4 memory, 128 pixle pipelines, dual 384 bit memory busses (768 bit total), 4 RAMDAC cores at 450mhz and 2 G80 cores at 550 mhz with the memory at 1000mhz (2000mhz for DDR). The card probably won't have a

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by tonyray (215820)
      Who knows what these guys have in store for us

      From what I've been reading, come late 2008, AMD will have one or more GPU's built into their multi-core processors using a new modular technology which allows them to quickly create application targetted processors. One processor for games, another for database servers, still another for scientific applications requiring parallel processing, and so on. This is AMD's much reported "Fusion" technology.
    • I'm sorry, but does your post have a point? You ramble between Nvidia, ATI, and AMD randomly.

      Also check your basic facts. It's not dual core. What on earth is a dual 384-bit bus? 75nm production doesn't exist except for one DRAM (90, 80, 60, and 45 are the current and future logic steps).
  • ...until they reach the 5 digit numbers. My guess is BFG is already drooling over what's just over the horizon.

    BFG 10K, anyone?

  • Somewhat confused (Score:3, Funny)

    by ET_Fleshy (829048) <lespeaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday November 04 2006, @12:03AM (#16712979)
    Where are the remaining 27 pages of the article?

    And where are the adds?

    Did I time travel 4 years in the past? What year is it!
  • too bad the cooler looks like may aunt's hair dryer.
  • Even if you underclocked this thing you'd have enough performance to load two copies of Half Life 2 at once and still have enough memory left over to play Solitaire!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by William_Lee (834197)
      Here are the full specs on the card...As mentioned it offers DirectX10 support and is also HDCP complaint for those who care.

      http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=444 1

    • You must be new to the world of PCs :p

      Kidding aside, your system was outdated even before you placed an order on those parts. It's one of those bitter pills to swallow when building or purchasing a computer. That is to say...you will NEVER have the fastest machine.
    • I'll take it off your hands, for free! :)
    • My computer is 2 months old with a 7900GT. I was going to get a second one for SLI, now I wonder if I should put that money towards a 8800GTS when they come out.
      Or be sane and wait until there is a game I want to play that actually stresses out my computer.... but that... would be... exercising... so much restraint...
    • Who (besides high end gamers and developers)
      If they even WANTED non-high end gamers and developers to buy this, the lower ends models wouldn't exist. Not only is this thing pointless, its probably even sold at a loss (or no profit), and is just there to keep a brand name going :)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by scott_evil (266713)
      What impressed me most is the fact that a review site didn't feel the need to lay out 20 pages of crap to give an overall idea of how the card ran. Two thumbs up for that alone...
    • Yes, it is crazy. Pacman, Donkey Kong, Space Invaders, galaxian, Tempest, Defender, and PC favorites like MULE, Tetris, etc. all ran on machines with less than 1/10 of 1% the processing capability of this card.

      It feels like it's all been done, because for the most part, that's true. Adding 37% more shiny crap to the same old game doesn't make it better, it just means it has more shiny crap and you are going to spend a fortune on new hardware just to play the same old game concept.

      I wish the industry would l
      • Amen to that. At this point in time, you're right - adding 37% more graphical glitz is just that, glitz. I think right now, if this tech is gonna go anywhere, it's offloading physics processing so the CPU can spend more time doing decent AI. HL2 isn't photo realistic, but it's a damn better game than it's nearest neighbour, Doom 3, which used all it's graphical prowess to render several thousand miles of poorly-lit corridor.
        Right now I'm playing Cave Story and Bontago, both freeware games, while waiting on
        • I don't upgrade my graphics haardware until something *realy* worth having it turns up, and that's rare.

          It seems to me that the current corporate games industry has one simple model for game developement:

          1: create or more often buy new game concept.
          2: release version after version with tiny improvements and graphical tweaks to re-sell the same game again and again until people get sick of it.
          3: goto 1

          And they can spend years stuck on (2)

          Whereas ID software, to name one good example, produce wonders each tim
    • Honestly, I wonder how well they underclock.. would *love* to have something that does as well as a formerly midrange 7?00 card, but without the heat, and power requirements... I like my SFF (now going on 3 years old, and getting ready for a current generation setup), but I can't stand the noise, I want decent gaming, and a *QUIET* computer
    • If you're not going to overclock the card, it should run fine with both power inputs connected to a splitter. For extra stability while overclocking, the thing needs to be connected to two of the power supply's 12V rails. The 6800 Ultra had two power connectors for the same reason.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.