Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Well the G92 8800 GTS 128 SP benchies are out and I was right...

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Configuration
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 29, 2007 10:08:45 AM

Here are the test results.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/nvidia_geforce_8...

I came here a month ago saying that this would be the configuration of this card. I was told I was childish, foolish and an idiot for believing anything I ever read on Fudzilla (which is where I first heard about it).

I was told by a resident uber-Guru that there was NO WAY Nvidia would release a 128 SP version of the GT this year. It was just impossible and that the new G92 had actually been designed with a maximum of 112 SP's (which I said was "nuts" at the time).

I was abused and insulted - I was told I was "just dreamin" and "needed a reality check". And yet, I was right. Of course, I will expect a full apology from said "guru". Lol, not.

Here is the final comment from the tests:

"We thought we would do a quick little overclock of the card before we wrapped things up. With a core speed of 720MHz and 2104MHz DDR on the 512MB of GDDR3 we managed to climb up and over 14,500 in 3DMark06!. It will be interesting to see what the likes of BFG and ASUS do with their OC2 and TOP models respectively.

8800GTX stock has pretty much dried up and is overpriced now. The Ultra is just an absolute sick waste of money and the 3870 really has nothing on the new G92 based variant of the 8800GTS. This means that if you%u2019re looking for a top video card this Christmas the 8800GTS 512MB is probably going to be the card you%u2019re looking at.

More about : g92 8800 gts 128 benchies

November 29, 2007 11:29:09 AM

I need more proof. Please purchase and send me a 8800GTS so I can benchmark it myself!
November 29, 2007 11:57:18 AM

Blimey, you're a little bitter aren't you?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
November 29, 2007 12:06:18 PM

Where did you say all of this. i can seem to find the thred where you got bashed? can you post a link?
November 29, 2007 12:08:13 PM



November 29, 2007 12:30:52 PM

Blimey, you're a little bitter aren't you?

EXTREMELY BITTER. I hate pontificating forum bullies who abuse people and then end up being totally wrong.

Yep, this is a pure 100% "told-you-so".

I don't want to post the thread where I was so abused because then I would be directly flaming someone. He knows who he is.

November 29, 2007 12:38:37 PM

I guess you told them.
November 29, 2007 12:51:30 PM

Good frames, but looking foward to the g92 GTX I guess..

ps. meaning i'm not totally impressed, need faster than any 8800!!
November 29, 2007 12:56:31 PM

if my 8800GTS320 went from 9500 3dmarks to 13500 after OCing, and this card starts at 14500, then I can't wait to see what I can get out of it...
November 29, 2007 1:04:14 PM

Stemmin,

I have until February before my EVGA "step-up" on this 8800 GT expires. I want to see if the rumors of a dual-gpu G92 card coming out in January are true and what it will cost before I make a move.

Honestly, every game I have except for Crysis (which I love) and WIC (which I'm bored with) play at huge FPS with everything maxed with my 8800 GT, so unless a card can crank Crysis at uber-quality DX10, I will probably hold back.

Plus, this GTS will probably be VERY hard to get before Christmas due to supply issues. I also don't want to buy the card until I know that Flextronics is making them. Price will be lower after Christmas.

Soo even if the 8800 GTS V2 us the bee's knees, I'll prolly wait.
November 29, 2007 1:05:37 PM

gan,

13,500 on 3DMark06 with an 8800 GTS 320? You must have a VERY fast CPU to get there (Q6600 or better).
November 29, 2007 1:05:54 PM

looks good. any info on pricing?
November 29, 2007 1:08:31 PM

TSI,

300-340 or so USD.
November 29, 2007 1:20:21 PM

So we have a cheaper 8800gtx, 150-200 less, same performance give or take a percentage.
November 29, 2007 1:33:08 PM

mitchellvii said:
gan,

13,500 on 3DMark06 with an 8800 GTS 320? You must have a VERY fast CPU to get there (Q6600 or better).


yeah, I have a q6600 at a cool 3.2. Actually I got the last 1k from OCing the shader clock. I think the CPU only added a few hundred to the final score. I just wish I could get the core up over 640. As soon as I hit 650+ it dies :( 

the crappy part? I get bottle necked from my hard drive. I can't wait till solid state drives get a couple hundred bucks cheaper.



oh yeah, and the new gts 512 is gunna be SWEET!
November 29, 2007 1:51:27 PM

ganpachi said:
yeah, I have a q6600 at a cool 3.2. Actually I got the last 1k from OCing the shader clock. I think the CPU only added a few hundred to the final score. I just wish I could get the core up over 640. As soon as I hit 650+ it dies :( 

the crappy part? I get bottle necked from my hard drive. I can't wait till solid state drives get a couple hundred bucks cheaper.



oh yeah, and the new gts 512 is gunna be SWEET!


upping my bfg gts 320 OC to 625core/900 boosted my 3dmark 1503 points to 11210 (from 9707), i'm sure oc'ing my q6600 would give similar results, but I only have the stock hsf..
November 29, 2007 2:00:35 PM

Yeah, I have an AMD 6000+ and although I will get FPS within "close" to a Q6600 in actual games, the Q6600 is gonna blow me away in a benchmark like 3DMark06. Most I have ever squeezed out of my GT is 11,500.

Oh well I'm still getting up to 160 FPS in COD4, lol.
a c 147 U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 2:01:59 PM

I could REALLY get used to these lower cost high performing cards. Chalk one up to die shrinks and cheaper manufacturing costs. I still think these cards will sell for a premium, they will sell out, demand will up the price for a while. Just look at the 3870's they were $220 on release and a week later were $280. This is a $300 video card. With obviously OC cards costing more. I can see them coming out at $400. I will wait until they come down to replace my x1900xtx. I runs everything GREAT, the only games i cant really run on high are Crysis(obviously), World in Conflict,& Supcom.

and can we just say I was VERY impresses with COD4, it looks so good even on my x1900xtx. I love the multiplayer. WAY better then the Crysis multiplayer... but we will biatch about that in another forum.
November 29, 2007 2:02:33 PM

Basic FPS rule of thumb:

If the game has lots of vegetation, your FPS are gonna be screwed. That's one reason why the lousy FPS on WIC never made sense to me. The engine on that must be a disaster.

COD4 is 10 times more detailed and action packed than WIC and it has 5 times better FPS.
November 29, 2007 2:04:33 PM

Regarding COD4, if there was ever a game that made me feel like I am "in" the action, that's it. I constantly find myself ducking, bobbing and weaving my head to avoid being shot, lol.

Crysis looks great, but it still feels like I am in a cartoon.
a c 147 U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 2:58:06 PM

mitchellvii said:
Basic FPS rule of thumb:

If the game has lots of vegetation, your FPS are gonna be screwed. That's one reason why the lousy FPS on WIC never made sense to me. The engine on that must be a disaster.

COD4 is 10 times more detailed and action packed than WIC and it has 5 times better FPS.


COD4 and WIC are 2 totally seperate types of games. COD4 si first person shoot and WIC is more RTS. I wouldn't put either of these in the same class.

mitchellvii said:
Regarding COD4, if there was ever a game that made me feel like I am "in" the action, that's it. I constantly find myself ducking, bobbing and weaving my head to avoid being shot, lol.

Crysis looks great, but it still feels like I am in a cartoon.


I think that is a VERY accurate statement. I did feel more like I was in the game. When you run the screen bobs up and down which was annoying at first but i understand why now. The levels have alot of detail of just simple stuff, like there is a bed but has a teddy bear on it or old pots laying in the alley of some town. And it just adds to the depth of the game. I also like how it also make it hard to see other players. Snipers blend in way more and are harder to pick off. Its a WELL engineered game.

I don't think Crysis is Cartoony, I'm enjoying the single player game. It's still fun, the multipler just sucks. I paid $50 for it so i might as well play.

Team Fortess 2 is a CARTOONY game... haha and a fun one at that.
November 29, 2007 3:27:16 PM

Well we are straying way OT here, but who cares?

Is it just me or do the graphics on Crysis MP seem to be much lamer than SP?
a c 147 U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 3:29:29 PM

mitchellvii said:

Is it just me or do the graphics on Crysis MP seem to be much lamer than SP?


They Are. I noticed this to.
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 3:40:35 PM

feel better now?

I hope the street pricing/availability hold true, but I am sceptical. Looking good, but Too bad they didn't bench it vs a GTX or Ultra.
November 29, 2007 3:54:44 PM

pauldh said:
feel better now?

I hope the street pricing/availability hold true, but I am sceptical. Looking good, but Too bad they didn't bench it vs a GTX or Ultra.


They did it in Crysis.
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 4:05:26 PM

Good job, way to stick it to the man. There are too many 'know-it-alls' on this forum that love to swell their E-penis by bashing others.....looks like you were wrong. oh what now.
November 29, 2007 4:20:30 PM

cookie?
November 29, 2007 4:22:32 PM

Here's the thing. If someone doesn't agree with my position on a matter, that is fine, especially when it comes to "sooth-saying" articles like this.

I welcome them to come here and say "I disagree with you because of this this and this".

What I don't like and is beneath this forum is the "forum bullies" that come into your thread and berate you as being "some kind of mindless numbskull for even creating the thread in the first-place".

Then when it turns out that they were actually wrong and you were right all along it is particularly juicy.

To think, this one "guru" told me with a straight face that the new G92 platform was designed to have only 112 shader pipes and that an 128 sp GTS was "just dreamin"! lol, I mean it is only common sense that they should stick with the 128 sp format.

Well I guess this un-named "guru" doesn't know what the h*** he is talking about after all does he?
November 29, 2007 4:27:39 PM

deuce271 said:
I guess you told them.





Nobody messes with Adam We
November 29, 2007 4:29:15 PM

swim with the sharks you get the teeth baby, lol.
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 4:32:04 PM

Quote:
there was NO WAY Nvidia would release a 128 SP version of the GT this year. It was just impossible and that the new G92 had actually been designed with a maximum of 112 SP's

Hey Mitch, I don't see that review mentioning it's 128 SPU's. That was the whole arguement you guys had if I recall, not performance. Can you quote what I misssed or are you assuming based on performance it's 128 SPU's?
November 29, 2007 4:40:43 PM

paul,

That same card has been all over the web and it is 128 SP's.

Other than a slight OC, what else is different about it than the GT is NOT the SP's? Same gpu, same memory, same card. Same everything (except the cooler).

It's obvious the difference is the SP's.

November 29, 2007 5:07:20 PM

Nah I am not soo sure on that. Now I am not claiming to be a know it all like the guy who flammed ya up before, but really the new GTS isn't all that far ahead of the GT in most tests....
I read the article, and just as pauldh brought up, there is no mention of the SP counts at all.
SO yeah it could be winning just because of the higher clock! You may very well be wrong about the 128 SP's! =0 Now you very well could be right, but I fell that perhaps you did your "I TOLD YOU SO" routine a tad bit prematurely if you don't really know for sure! If it turns out you are wrong this person might never let you live it down now lol.

The performance gain in most games was about 3-10fps over the GT. Sure not bad... But I think there is a chance the GT has more overclocking headroom? The temperature and wattage was quite a bit higher on the new GTS after all. So when both cards are overclocked, will the new GTS really have that much of an advantage over the much cheaper GT?
This will be interesting to watch, but looks like the GT is still the winner in my book especially if it can get back down to $230 after this release =\
We all know the new GTS will sell out fast, and be in short supply, thus have a much higher price tag then anticipated by NV.... 300-340? HAH! Try $400 if it follows the GT's lead.

a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 5:10:11 PM

AFAIK rumors of 128 SPU have been all over the net for a long time, which still may or may not be true. I don't doubt it's 128 SPU's, and I agree with you 128 SPU explains the performance, BUT aren't you being careless with being so quick to gloat, especially when providing a link that does not at all state that your side of the arguement is indeed correct and the truth? Aren't you just a bit nervous right now that you cried out in haste and this performance is not from 128 SPU? I would be. ;) 
November 29, 2007 5:17:54 PM

Geesh guys,

I am RIGHT about the 128 SP's.

Remember this part:

"We thought we would do a quick little overclock of the card before we wrapped things up. With a core speed of 720MHz and 2104MHz DDR on the 512MB of GDDR3 we managed to climb up and over 14,500 in 3DMark06!. It will be interesting to see what the likes of BFG and ASUS do with their OC2 and TOP models respectively."

So that blows away the "it's just the overclock" thing. Try OC'ing your GT to 720 x 1050 and see if you get a 14,500 3DMark06 score.

Lol, it's the SP's. Trust me.
November 29, 2007 5:18:59 PM

P.S., The author of that article doesn't mention SP's at all, which is a poorly written part of the article.
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 5:28:46 PM

It's funny how you still don't understand what I was saying in that thread, and still don't have anything more to back it up.

Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it in reviewers hands and people aren't still confusing it with a GTS-112, and when it's in retail not as 'out of stock' or 'back-order' for $300 or less.

Like I said, I don't think it's impossible, it's just improbable that it will launch at under $300 before Xmas, I doubt it will even be found for $350 in stock anywhere around launch (and definitely not on Dec 3rd when you said). If the GT was said to be $200-250 and selling at $300, then the GTS isn't likely to sell at $300 either, and until it does, there's no "I told you so" that you can say.

Second, with regards to the card itself, TweakTown still doesn't say it's a 128SPU card, and considering that it's clocked significantly faster than a GF8800Ultra, then why doesn't it outperform it significantly if it's 128SPUs, I could understand if it were memory (edit: or ROP) limited, but we're talking about low res/low AA.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/18/page_18_benchmarks_crysis/index.html

Once again it looks more like the performance you'd get from overclock of an 112SPU G92. It could be 128SPU, but like you only now notice, the author doesn't say it. And really he doesn't need to for his (p)review as he's talking about performance of the GTS, not defending someone else's statement about the SPUs. I would prefer more information, but then again I'm not jumping to conclusions based on it either, and that was my point in the last thread. Until it's a known entity, it's an unknown, and you just realized that again. It may be 128, but you still don't know that for sure.

I've seen alot of other people saying it's 128SPUs, but like Paul I don't see TweakTown saying that in their (p)review. It could be, but I'd want someone to actually show that, and not show it as an OC'ed GT, which was already beating the Ultra in some cases.

It's still a nice card Tweaktown has there, and will be nice if it sells near it's $300 price, but still none of the three things you've said have come to pass yet, and until they do, you don't have anything on which to say "I told you so".

Show me the $300 - 128SPU GTS selling in retail (not pre-order or back-order) - by Dec 3rd, and then you'd be 100% right, untill then you're simply hoping that you're not 100% wrong.
November 29, 2007 5:47:40 PM

TGGA,

"Show me the $300 - 128SPU GTS selling in retail (not pre-order or back-order) - by Dec 3rd, and then you'd be 100% right, untill then you're simply hoping that you're not 100% wrong."

Lol, so it has to go on sale by Dec 3rd or I was wrong? Lol, nice wiggle job my obnoxious friend, but it won't fly. It WILL go on sale before Christmas though and it will base price at around $300.

Anyway, eat crow my friend. I was right, and you were incredibly obnoxiously wrong.

P.S.,

"I've seen alot of other people saying it's 128SPUs"

Yep, wonder why they are saying that?
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 6:01:21 PM

Quote:
Lol, so it has to go on sale by Dec 3rd or I was wrong?


No I didn't say it has to go on sale by Dec 3rd alone, I'm simply responding to your overzealous statements, just like in the last thread.

You said you're 100% right / 'told-you-so', I'm saying that the only way you'll be 100% right is if they are selling with those features by Dec 3rd, otherwise you're downgraded to whatever percent right and whatever percent wrong, depending on what the acutal situation is.

Quote:
"I've seen alot of other people saying it's 128SPUs"

Yep, wonder why they are saying that?


Probably the same reason they said December 3rd, and said that the G92 would be 1 teraflop, or that there'd be a GF8900/9800 by November to replace the GTX/Ultra, etc. etc.

People say alot of stuff, doesn't mean it's actual fact, which is why Fudzilla and the InQ are nice reading, but I wouldn't guarantee anything based on what they say alone.

Like last time, I said until it actual sells and ships, it's still just speculation, and while you dismiss the time frame, if part of the discussion was that you say people are supposed to wait because the GTS-128 is coming out Dec 3rd guaranteed (because you have links that say so), then it is pretty revlevant to the discussion, now isn't it?
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 6:08:17 PM

I too saw the article in tweaktown and it was linked from the inquirer who said it has 128 which as it was the inquirer i looked for more reviews and found this dont know the site so i wont say its concrete but it may help clear things up.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclien...
Hope the link works its translated :) 
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 6:12:56 PM

Yeah, if you notice, Tweaktown didn't come out and say it's 128 SPU, and the INQ and Fudzilla didn't make the bold/careless assumption of adding that into their report either. They stuck to the specs as reported.
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 6:51:10 PM

I see that, but their link to tweaktown didn't mention it yesterday either. The matbe link did. But My point is, the tweaktown link he listed as proof good enough to rub in someones face(as well as the tweaktown one from yesterday), doesn't mention it's 128 SP and even the INQ and and Fuzilla didn't add that to their report today. So tweaktown hasn't confirmed 128 SP at all as far as I am concerned.
November 29, 2007 6:58:10 PM

Two thoughts I had:
1.This statement in the review
"We've received an anonymous sample of the yet to be released 8800GTS G92 based graphics card which we put to the test."
2.Gpuz screenshot or other documentation showing 128SP
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 29, 2007 7:00:22 PM

Did you look at the translated link i supplied? I said as it was the inq i was dubious which is why i looked for other reviews. Im not saying your wrong when you say the link mitch gave dosent mention it i was just trying to provide alternative info. :) 


Mactronix
November 29, 2007 7:08:21 PM

mactronix said:
Did you look at the translated link i supplied? I said as it was the inq i was dubious which is why i looked for other reviews. Im not saying your wrong when you say the link mitch gave dosent mention it i was just trying to provide alternative info. :) 


Mactronix

I was referring to the OP not you. The statement from the Tweaktown review I was quoting just made the whole article suspect (in my mind anyway).
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!