ForceWare 174.74, the 9800GTX secret helper???

Ok, I tried to make the title as eye-catcher as possible to get a few people to spend a few seconds to read this.

Since yesterday's release of the 9800GTX, many threads opened about whether or not go for a 9800GTX (either for a new system or EVGA's Step-Up program) over a 8800GTS; I myself wondered if I should pay the 45$ it would cost me to step-up my 512-P3-N841-A3 (8800GTS factory clocked @ 670MHz).

Looking to various reviews, I noticed that most tests were made using the cards "official" drivers, that is 169.25 for GF8 and 174.74 for GF9. Yeah, you see where I'm going with that ... Being a numbers freak, I did a little comparison, on my own system of how the 174.74 drivers would impact my performance (got the here).

I did my tests with Crysis (Crysis benchmark Tool) on Windows Vista Ultimate x64, 5 passes for each test. These tests were made on a recent installation of Vista (2 weeks old, not much installed yet), but not in a strictly controlled environment (still had AVG, Pidgin, ... running in background). Here is a summary of the results:



I encourage anyone to try it out (even on a few resolutions) and post their findings.

For those who want to know my rig's spec, just look in my profile, it's all there.

As far as I know the 8800GTS 512 (G92) has exactly the same GPU as the 9800GTX, just with slower clocks. It has been a long time (Dec 2007) since nVidia has released a new driver for the series 8 cards. I am sure once they roll up the driver improvements found in the 174 driivers into the unified driver, all the G92 core GPU's (possibly G80 as well, depending on whether the improvements are general application improvements or architectural improvements) should see the same sort of improvements.

I ran those beta drivers with my 8800gts and saw a 3dmark improvement of about 200. I dont know if that adds anything to this topic because I cant say I understand it completely.

I can't seem to install the 64-bit Vista drivers. I get errors stating it can't detect the hardware the drivers support, and that I am trying to run a 32-bit installed on a 64-bit OS.

I downloaded the 64-bit version.

I've been running 174.20's for about 6 weeks or so now.
After installing my 2nd GTX I was getting big lock-ups in CoD4 the moment I had turned SLi on, so as recommended by pauldh (thanks! ) I tried the drivers from Guru3D. Performance was much, much better and I didn't have all the damn locking up either! I should add I was running the 169.21's prior to that, at the the time the mose up-to-date, and I was getting lock-ups, thanks Nvidia!
I'll try the 74's later I think

My point was that you could probably get 9800GTX performance from a 8800GTS (G92) simply by upgrading drivers. The 3DMark improvement might not seem like much because default 3DMark tests are rather "low-res", don't seem to use AA or AF and the driver seems to have better improvement more in the upper range.

Im still waiting for somebody to test the 9800GTX and 8800GTS with the same drivers at the same clocks. I wonder what the difference would be.

http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/03 [...] review/12/


Wow!

The 9800GTX will definately have more headroom and beat the GTS when overclocked but the GTX is a waste of time. My GTS overclocked to 820 core, I wonder how high the 9800 will go

If thats true that nvidia hasn't made a driver for G80 cards since december, then thats pretty shocking indeed. The 174 drivers inflate the 9800gtx & gx2 scores a bit against the old gtx and newer 512mb gts. The 9800gtx sooo isn't worth the premium when you could be a good brand factory oc'd gts and up the clocks a bit more.

Might be so, I don't overclock, my EVGA came factory clocked @ 670MHz. Any specific version of RivaTuner causing problem? The 2.08 version is said to support 174.XX drivers and x64 (anyone can confirm?).

I mentioned this back in the GTX review thread. It is good to see someone else bring this up. It is comparing apples to oranges when doing a vs benchmark test if you give the GTX fresh drivers. It produces a false sense of performance gains.

I am sticking with the name 8800 GTS v3.0, I refuse to recognize it as a GTX.

That's quite pathetic; I just downloaded the new drivers for my 8800GTX but have yet to run anything. It's sad how Nvidia has simply re-branded old hardware with a new naming scheme and a new set of drivers to try and pretend it's better hardware.

To their defense, they might have optimized the PCB and improved some component's quality so I consider this a bit more than simple rebranding. What I have trouble with is the price difference; to me, the value of a 9800GTX over a 8800GTS is about 25$ top.

Other than that, I would like to see how far the 9800GTX overclocks. If it can be pushed farther than 8800GTS, then it might be "worth it" (like DDR2-800+ might be for some overclockers).

Here you go,
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/sh [...] p?t=109507
This is suppsoed to be on stock cooling, I don't believe that,,
850/2160/2376

So a little better over clock yes but, I might be able to volt mod mine and get that,,,

It's called better process over time. As time pass better yields which equate to better stock clocks and overclocking ability.

8800gts have better stock clocks so it overclocks a little better than 8800gt and 9800gtx does the same with 8800gts.

9800gtx is still based on G92 chip. Maybe a little tweak or not even.

^ Probably volt mod and RAM heatsinks.

Cool, got an EVGA card too so I will cross my fingers.

So then my 1024MB GTS @ 800/2000/2200 out does an ultra and an oc'd g92 GTX? Very happy with my purchase in that case...

I stand corrected .

hmm,, don't know.