8800GTX benchs

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-03 10:53am

Half Life 2 4xAA/16xAF 1600x1200

Radeon X1950 XTX GeForce 8800GTX

FPS 60.74 116.93

Quake 4 4xAA 1600x1200

Radeon X1950 XTX GeForce 8800GTX

FPS 34.23 65.93

Prey 4xAA/16xAF 1600x1200

Radeon X1950 XTX GeForce 8800GTX

FPS 55.53 88.87

Half Life 2: Lost Coast loves the GeForce 8800GTX. Here the GeForce 8800GTX is able to show significant performance gains over AMD’s ATI Radeon X1950 XTX—approximately 92%.

Quake 4 shows similar gains as Half Life 2: Lost Coast too, an approximate 92% improvement.

Prey is based on the same game engine as Quake 4. However, Prey shows smaller performance differences between the GeForce 8800GTX and ATI Radeon X1950 XTX, albeit its still 60%.

Power Consumption
Watts
Radeon X1950 XTX GeForce 8800GTX

Idle 184 229

Load 308 321

DailyTech previously reported NVIDIA recommends a 450-watt power supply for a single GeForce 8800GTX graphics card. This isn’t too farfetched of a recommendation. Power consumption of NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800GTX isn’t as bad as expected. When compared to AMD’s current flagship ATI Radeon X1950 XTX, the GeForce 8800GTX only consumes 24% more power at idle. The power consumption differences under load decreases to around 4%. Considering the performance differences, the GeForce 8800GTX is no worse than AMD’s ATI Radeon X1950 XTX in terms of performance-per-watt.

Expect NVIDIA’s GeForce 8800GTX and 8800GTS graphics cards to be available next week. As NVIDIA has had plenty of time to ramp up production and ship out cards, this will be a hard launch with immediate availability.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-11-03 11:03am

Looks like it really will be a new standard in graphics. And I do have to gloat for a second about the fact that I was right about the power issue and all the people buying 600 and 700 Watt units were wrong.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-03 11:08am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Looks like it really will be a new standard in graphics. And I do have to gloat for a second about the fact that I was right about the power issue and all the people buying 600 and 700 Watt units were wrong.

You were proved right when nVidia said 400W reccomended for the GTS.

This is looking very much like another complete new standard like the 6800GT/X800Pro releases.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-11-03 12:13pm

Now if we can just get benchmarks of Oblivion, NWN2 and Medieval 2...

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2006-11-03 01:17pm

Wow. It may be worth saving up to buy a whole new comp after all.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-11-03 03:32pm

Call me in a year when an affordable midrange product becomes available. The pricing on the top-of-the-line cards such as this is simply insane.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-11-03 03:45pm

Any word on the price of these things?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-11-03 04:10pm

InnocentBystander wrote:Any word on the price of these things?

Google reveals $800 smackers

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2006-11-03 04:27pm

800 bucks?!?!

Ok, I'll wait for the mid-high range cards in a year.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-11-03 04:41pm

That's just early adopter price gouging. Retail prices at launch are rumored to be $650 for the GTX and $450-$500 for the GTS. If it follows the path of the 7800 series, it might even be available for $50-75 under MSRP within a few weeks of launch, but that was an anomaly and I wouldn't expect a repeat. Availibility is a huge question mark. I don't think anyone knows for sure whether it will be a hard launch or paper launch. The last two series of cards NVidia has introduced have been hard launches, but that doesn't mean anything, as these cards have different architectures and therefore new potential manufacturing problems. Assuming that this will be a hard launch because the company's last few were also presumes that ATI didn't hard launch their last few because they didn't feel like it, rather than because of manufacturing issues.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2006-11-03 04:51pm

I still think the next computer I build will have a 6800GT... This new monstrosity is about a third what I'm budgeting for the computer.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-11-03 05:05pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:That's just early adopter price gouging. Retail prices at launch are rumored to be $650 for the GTX and $450-$500 for the GTS. If it follows the path of the 7800 series, it might even be available for $50-75 under MSRP within a few weeks of launch, but that was an anomaly and I wouldn't expect a repeat. Availibility is a huge question mark. I don't think anyone knows for sure whether it will be a hard launch or paper launch. The last two series of cards NVidia has introduced have been hard launches, but that doesn't mean anything, as these cards have different architectures and therefore new potential manufacturing problems. Assuming that this will be a hard launch because the company's last few were also presumes that ATI didn't hard launch their last few because they didn't feel like it, rather than because of manufacturing issues.

The latest I've seen from the Rumor Mill has Nvidia doing a hard launch on the 8th. The press conference is suppose to be at 11 am (I'm assuming that's US Pacific time - I've seen nothing on the time zone). The first batch of cards, which is supposed to be 40,000 cards (I've seen nothing on the GTX/GTS split), should ship in two batches - one on the 8th, and the second a week or two later. The second batch should account for most of the cards.

I'm pretty sure others have seen different rumors/numbers, but we'll find out how this plays out in five days.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-11-03 07:16pm

Sweet Zombie Jesus! Now if only AMD and Intel would start kicking out this kind of performance increases. We've stopped at 3.4Ghtz for all intents and purposes. AMD will be hitting 3.4 roughly the same time they release the 8 cpu core. And Intel's been stuck in effective 3.4Ghtz range for a year now.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2006-11-03 07:37pm

Is the AF craptacular like it was for the 7xxx series? My 7600gt has more shimmering than a trisexual donkey's penis

A 80nm launch with lower power requirements and a smaller PCB would've been better.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-11-03 08:26pm

Hamel wrote:Is the AF craptacular like it was for the 7xxx series? My 7600gt has more shimmering than a trisexual donkey's penis

The AF is supposed to be angle independent, so the shimmering problem should be history.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-11-03 11:03pm

Mr Bean wrote:Sweet Zombie Jesus! Now if only AMD and Intel would start kicking out this kind of performance increases. We've stopped at 3.4Ghtz for all intents and purposes. AMD will be hitting 3.4 roughly the same time they release the 8 cpu core. And Intel's been stuck in effective 3.4Ghtz range for a year now.

Well, a lot easier to scale up GPUs than CPUs.

Jaepheth · Post by **Jaepheth** » 2006-11-04 01:55am

Were these tests run under DX9?
If so, what will we see with DX10?

I'm wondering if this card will be worth getting (eventually) if I don't intend on upgrading to Vista (hence, no DX10)

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2006-11-04 02:11am

Jaepheth wrote:Were these tests run under DX9?
If so, what will we see with DX10?

I'm wondering if this card will be worth getting (eventually) if I don't intend on upgrading to Vista (hence, no DX10)

I don't think previous cards can be tested on DX10, so I guess the 80 series will get an infinitely higher benchmark than previous cards

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-04 03:24am

Mr Bean wrote:Sweet Zombie Jesus! Now if only AMD and Intel would start kicking out this kind of performance increases. We've stopped at 3.4Ghtz for all intents and purposes. AMD will be hitting 3.4 roughly the same time they release the 8 cpu core. And Intel's been stuck in effective 3.4Ghtz range for a year now.

Because MHZ is all that matters. Oh wait.

We're already getting better improvements then expected, with Conroe bringing very good improvements even though most of the improvements were spent in multicoring. K8L should also give us more of a boost in Integer preformance(and games are mostly integer work). The big improvement in game FPS will come as game engines go multithreaded, which they should do by early 2007 with UE3, Alan Wake and HL2 Episode two.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-11-04 09:17am

Alan Wake is the first game that will be seriously multithreaded, though. I wouldn't expect UE3 and HLE2 to be any more multithreaded than Oblivion, which shows only modest performance gains from dual core. Alan Wake probably won't be seen until well into '07, and who knows how long it will be before other games start following its example.

I tend to think that single-core people will still be fine into the early parts of '08, when it will start to become necessary to finally upgrade to multi-core.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-11-04 09:31am

Ace Pace wrote:
Mr Bean wrote:
Because MHZ is all that matters. Oh wait.

Sweet Zombie Thor! boy, did you even read my post? IE that whole 3.4 Ghtz effective part? I'm not asking for AMD to drop us a 4Ghtz proccess that preforms identical to their 3Ghtz part. AMD has been sub 3.0 for two years now yet matching the 3.0Ghtz+ Intel proccessers. What I'm ASKING for is the 20%+ preformance increase I use to be able to expect between processor generations. Right now I can shell out 900$ and get 7% more preformance than the 300$ part. (Or the 350$ VS 670$ for AMD)

Corone yes is new and impressive, and it's a step in the right direction, even if it is super expensive atm. What I'm looking for however is AMD's next great thing, which still looks a long way off.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-04 09:48am

A long way off being first half 2007 for K8L? As far as I know, thats the rough time for AMDs counter-product to Conroe. Nevermind Conroe was roughly 20% boost from previous generation.

Alan Wake is the first game that will be seriously multithreaded, though. I wouldn't expect UE3 and HLE2 to be any more multithreaded than Oblivion, which shows only modest performance gains from dual core. Alan Wake probably won't be seen until well into '07, and who knows how long it will be before other games start following its example.

I tend to think that single-core people will still be fine into the early parts of '08, when it will start to become necessary to finally upgrade to multi-core.

To the UE3 comment:

Anandtech wrote:We asked Tim to tell us a bit about what threads UT2007 will spawn, and he responded with the following:

"Currently Unreal Engine 3 runs two heavyweight threads all the time: one for gameplay and one for rendering. In addition, there are several helper threads to which we offload all of the physics (using Ageia's multithreaded PhysX library), streaming, and several other tasks.

We plan to extend the threading support further in time for the release of Unreal Tournament 2007 next year, to further exploit multi-core PC CPUs. Major opportunities for multithreaded optimization include particle systems, animation, and terrain. Also, since UT2007 uses very extensive vehicle and ragdoll physics, we expect that at peak times during gameplay that we'll have no trouble fully exploiting 4 threads at the maximum detail settings.

There are lots of other interesting prospects. I expect we'll be able to exploit as many cores and Intel and AMD are able to ship in the foreseeable future."

To HL2 comment: Read.

EDIt: sorry, lost source for the Sweeny comment, but I'm pretty sure it was in Anand.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-11-04 10:19am

Hmm, well that does sound like true multi-core support after all. Wonder if it will be unplayable on a single-core like Alan Wake is supposed to be.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2006-11-04 10:22am

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Hmm, well that does sound like true multi-core support after all. Wonder if it will be unplayable on a single-core like Alan Wake is supposed to be.

Probebly no to both. UE3 has been shown running on single core systems, probebly though with less features.

For valve? No way in hell would they just decide to ignore most of their market, they have a long history of bending over backwards to support old computers.

[size=0]Remember a Geforce 2 running HL2?[/size]

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2006-11-04 12:40pm

OK, so I was wrong about only token multi-core support until Alan Wake, but right that dual-core won't become truly necessary until sometime in '08.