The GeForce 9 Series GPU Info Thread

[slyydrr]

Originally Posted by waynex

The 9800 series specs look fantastic on paper, but I've heard some terrible things about the actual performance benchmarks, 9800GTX specifically. The GX2 is apparently v.good. (Although I haven't seen many from reliable original sources yet).

The GTX performance must be driver related right?

I've also heard reports that the next series could be up for release in the near future. Again unreliable sources on that one.

If this is true, it would probably be worth waiting. What do you think?

In regards to the performance, I haven't read enough to be accurate so I'll just side-step that part...

However in terms of upgrading, I think all current 8-series owners might be better off waiting for the 10-series, while anyone running a 6/7-series would probably great benefit from an upgrade. I went from a 7950GT to the 9600GT and am noticing VERY noticeable gains. The 9-series is very similar to the 8, just with some minor tweaking (one of the tweaks being that the clock speeds are responsive to PCI-E bus adjustments). They also seem to handle heat/power better.

However, until we get a good chunk of people running these cards and testing the limits, we won't know. I wouldn't have thought that I'd be able to get a 15-20% OC on my 9600GT, but have done so with PLENTY of headroom. To me (and yes, this is early speculation), it seems that the 9-series is a friend of OC'ers.

[stansphat]

The 9800GX2 will probly be about 2 1/2 times more powerful than a 9600gt...i think, act as a heater and turn all the street lamps off on the street and attract a bunch of angry neighbours cos they cant watch Springer.

NVIDIA is gona be held responsible for climate change by itself and should plant 3 trees for every 9800GX2 card they make. 1 to make the box for, preferably out of OAK, as the cards gona be ridiculously expensive; 1 to power the card and 1 to suck back up all the emissions caused by using the card.

unless youve got a wappng screen (42"+) and want to run a game at a ridiculous res that your eyes couldnt possibly tell the difference between (ask your optician) then these cards are gona be overkill for most games except crysis which has rubbish coding and therefore why it runs so slow. all you need is something that runs a game at a smooth 35fps and your sorted (unless youve got milkbottle glasses). most people only move at about 35fps esp my gran, and of corse every1 experiences lag esp. after a night out.

best thing to do is to stick with a card that costs £140/$280 as the card you pay a ridiculous sum for will be pants in a few years anyway and possibly spend the money you saved on buying a lazy boy, upgrading your gf, moving from a leafy vegetarian diet to a more expensive steak diet, or even possibly buying a trumpet to pay tribute to all the soldiers that die in Battlefield/Ghost recon 2 every week.

Most games still only reqire a 6800gs/gt to play, plus most of the new games are erm graphically impressive but interestingly rubbish and games like Battlefield, URT and Diablo 2 are easily better.

In conclusion Bud Light salutes you MR 9800GX2 nvidia inventor. when conventional wisdom said no one could make a card more powerful than an 8800gtx, you dared to dream. The crowd cheared your 8800, but wait you said i can give you 9800. So make it a bud light Mr, for giving us all a bigger weiner.

[slyydrr]

Originally Posted by stansphat

The 9800GX2 will probly be about 2 1/2 times more powerful than a 9600gt...i think, act as a heater and turn all the street lamps off on the street and attract a bunch of angry neighbours cos they cant watch Springer.

NVIDIA is gona be held responsible for climate change by itself and should plant 3 trees for every 9800GX2 card they make. 1 to make the box for, preferably out of OAK, as the cards gona be ridiculously expensive; 1 to power the card and 1 to suck back up all the emissions caused by using the card.

unless youve got a wappng screen (42"+) and want to run a game at a ridiculous res that your eyes couldnt possibly tell the difference between (ask your optician) then these cards are gona be overkill for most games except crysis which has rubbish coding and therefore why it runs so slow. all you need is something that runs a game at a smooth 35fps and your sorted (unless youve got milkbottle glasses). most people only move at about 35fps esp my gran, and of corse every1 experiences lag esp. after a night out.

best thing to do is to stick with a card that costs £140/$280 as the card you pay a ridiculous sum for will be pants in a few years anyway and possibly spend the money you saved on buying a lazy boy, upgrading your gf, moving from a leafy vegetarian diet to a more expensive steak diet, or even possibly buying a trumpet to pay tribute to all the soldiers that die in Battlefield/Ghost recon 2 every week.

Most games still only reqire a 6800gs/gt to play, plus most of the new games are erm graphically impressive but interestingly rubbish and games like Battlefield, URT and Diablo 2 are easily better.

In conclusion Bud Light salutes you MR 9800GX2 nvidia inventor. when conventional wisdom said no one could make a card more powerful than an 8800gtx, you dared to dream. The crowd cheared your 8800, but wait you said i can give you 9800. So make it a bud light Mr, for giving us all a bigger weiner.

You're absolutely right in that the human eye cannot really differentiate between a constant 35fps and a constant 60fps. The problem comes with fluctuation... which is why the newer cards become more of a necessity rather than a nice-to-have. The world would plant it's own trees in a world where all cards could maintain a solid 35fps with NO fluctuation.

Sure you can use V-sync but it doesn't always do it's just perfectly (jumping back and forth between 30fps and 60fps). Now, even though the human eye can detect fluctuation, it becomes much hard to detect when that fluctuation is between 80 and 60. For instance, in Counter-Strike: Source, I fluctuate between 120fps and 250fps, and because of the fact that I'm on a higher-end fps range, it's much harder to notice the fluctuation.

I understand your point completely though. I find no way of personally justifying the cost of the 9800GX2, especially when the real-world gains aren't going to be apparent, except for in games like Crysis.

[Danman1280]

Originally Posted by slyydrr

You're absolutely right in that the human eye cannot really differentiate between a constant 35fps and a constant 60fps. The problem comes with fluctuation... which is why the newer cards become more of a necessity rather than a nice-to-have. The world would plant it's own trees in a world where all cards could maintain a solid 35fps with NO fluctuation.

Sure you can use V-sync but it doesn't always do it's just perfectly (jumping back and forth between 30fps and 60fps). Now, even though the human eye can detect fluctuation, it becomes much hard to detect when that fluctuation is between 80 and 60. For instance, in Counter-Strike: Source, I fluctuate between 120fps and 250fps, and because of the fact that I'm on a higher-end fps range, it's much harder to notice the fluctuation.

I understand your point completely though. I find no way of personally justifying the cost of the 9800GX2, especially when the real-world gains aren't going to be apparent, except for in games like Crysis.

I can i have robot eyes...

[stansphat]

so. i have a robotic hand. what you want? an applause?

o and my gf's pc wid a pentium d 820 and a 7300LE (overclcoked likea beast to a few 1000mhz-including shaders!) on futuremark scores a mighty, impressive and rather lonely 1. yes thats 1. ill source myself on this one but i think this card plays solitaire perfectly with no lag. crysis runs great 2, its just a screenshot that slowly changes with time. lol

who needs a 9800gtx/gx2 when you can get a score of 1?

[Perry]

Just power it down for good and take a score of 0. Time to part it out and do an upgrade.

[stansphat]

neh. ill try overclock it some more. i reckon i can double the score with this baby lol.

your rite

[PizzaMan]

Here are my results after spending 3 hours running 3Dmark06 over and over.

Default: 650/1625/900 w/ PCIe bus default 3Dmark06 11,250
Default: 650/1625/900 w/ PCIe bus +10 3Dmark06 11.450
Default: 650/1625/900 w/ PCIe bus +15 3Damrk06 11,487
Clocked: 750/1875/1000 w/ PCIe bus default 3Dmark06 11,574
Clocked: 750/1875/1000 w/ PCIe bus +5 and up not stable (black screen in 3Dmark06)
Clocked: 700/1750/950 w/ PCIe bus +10 3Dmark06 11,627
Clocked: 700/1750/950 w/ PCIe bus >+10 not stable
Clocked: 725/1700/900 w/ PCIe bus +5 and > not stable
Clocked: 790/1699/950 w/ PCIe bus default 3Dmark06 10,934

Increasing the bus seems to limit how much you can OC the card and keep it stable. Wierd highest core clock that I could make stable while running ATITool 0.26 gave me the worst score. My highest temp was 47c with fan at 60%.

Minimul increase in proformance. I'm hoping that new drivers will resolve this. At 47c I should be able to go farther and get better results, but it's just not happening. If the drivers don't fix this I'm might try voltmoding the BIOS.

With only a 375 point increase in score I'll just leave this thing at stock for now. It's just not worth it ATM.

This card runs Crysis just fine at very high settings with no AA at about 25 FPS(yes, I did the D10 crack for XP in Crysis config file). I'm able to play Quake Wars at max with 4xAA and 16xAF and getting 40 FPS.


I'm running Forceware 171.16 that came with the card. The 174 BETA just doesn't run my games right.

[Le0]

Originally Posted by PizzaMan

Here are my results after spending 3 hours running 3Dmark06 over and over.

Default: 650/1625/900 w/ PCIe bus default 3Dmark06 11,250
Default: 650/1625/900 w/ PCIe bus +10 3Dmark06 11.450
Default: 650/1625/900 w/ PCIe bus +15 3Damrk06 11,487
Clocked: 750/1875/1000 w/ PCIe bus default 3Dmark06 11,574
Clocked: 750/1875/1000 w/ PCIe bus +5 and up not stable (black screen in 3Dmark06)
Clocked: 700/1750/950 w/ PCIe bus +10 3Dmark06 11,627
Clocked: 700/1750/950 w/ PCIe bus >+10 not stable
Clocked: 725/1700/900 w/ PCIe bus +5 and > not stable
Clocked: 790/1699/950 w/ PCIe bus default 3Dmark06 10,934

Increasing the bus seems to limit how much you can OC the card and keep it stable. Wierd highest core clock that I could make stable while running ATITool 0.26 gave me the worst score. My highest temp was 47c with fan at 60%.

Minimul increase in proformance. I'm hoping that new drivers will resolve this. At 47c I should be able to go farther and get better results, but it's just not happening. If the drivers don't fix this I'm might try voltmoding the BIOS.

With only a 375 point increase in score I'll just leave this thing at stock for now. It's just not worth it ATM.

This card runs Crysis just fine at very high settings with no AA at about 25 FPS(yes, I did the D10 crack for XP in Crysis config file). I'm able to play Quake Wars at max with 4xAA and 16xAF and getting 40 FPS.


I'm running Forceware 171.16 that came with the card. The 174 BETA just doesn't run my games right.

I had the same problems with OC this card. If I raised the PCI bus and tried OCing I couldn't keep it stable. But if I left the bus alone I could get to 750/1900

[PizzaMan]

Originally Posted by Le0

I had the same problems with OC this card. If I raised the PCI bus and tried OCing I couldn't keep it stable. But if I left the bus alone I could get to 750/1900

What was your clocked score vs default score?