Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3870 vs 9600gt battle continues...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 13, 2008 9:58:49 AM

Okay, I know you guys are bored already about this kinda topic, yeah Im bored too.
But now just, lets give opinions on WHICH IS MORE FUTUREPROOF
64 stream processors is currently enough, but will it last?
what about the AMD card? will it last too?
Which will last longer?

I think the 3870 will last longer, what's ur opinions?
April 13, 2008 11:47:13 AM

Nvidia's SP and AMD SP are different architecture however 3870 does more GFLOPS than a 8800GTS 512 with 128SP. It doesn't necessarily mean more performance though or it's just untapped performance or can't make real use in games. Drivers might be bad? Who knows...

The biggest bottleneck for 3870 is it's TMU's compared to 9600gt or any other G80/G92 which makes 9600gt come even close to 3870. Will TMU make it less future proof?

What I know is that you want to buy a card that is more balanced to be more future proof. These cards both lack one way or another. One lacks SP and the other lacks Texture fillrate. Which goes first is up to the game developers. In more recent past however it came down to SP which 3870 seems to be better at. We have enough bandwidth currently to play high resolutions but more doesn't hurt it either when considering AA and pixel performance does bottleneck by bandwidth.

April 13, 2008 11:49:33 AM

come on....there is no point comparing their architexture.just buy what u can afford.both cards can last long if you can live with reduced res and quality for future demanding games......
Related resources
April 13, 2008 12:06:58 PM

area61 said:
come on....there is no point comparing their architexture.just buy what u can afford.both cards can last long if you can live with reduced res and quality for future demanding games......


Yeah but the O.P is trying to find out which would last longer. Considering 7900gs can't even play crysis @ medium unless 800x600 and 1950pro can do 1280x1024 I consider that architecture a failure.
April 13, 2008 2:32:58 PM

It is not meaningful to compare 3870 and 9600GT coz after both of them are price down, there are still USD$ 50 different and is actually in different market range. Yet 3870 will better architecture but Nvidia with better driver so 9600GT is still with better gaming performance than 3870. However I won't think any of these 2 display cards could long lasting as the middle range 9800 series and HD4870 is rolling out.
April 13, 2008 3:05:58 PM

the 9600gt will be better.

and how amd advert their card with 320 sp.but actually the number or SP is only 64SP.and because each SP for 5 individual processing units inside it.so 64x5=320 so they say they have the so called "320SP".

which personally i think they are lying to the consumers and make us thing their cardis more powerful because they have "IMPRESSIVE" 320SP compare to the 128SP in the GTS and 64SP in 9600GT.but how they word it sort of get away with it by using the word Shader and SP.

but when you look at the TMU and ROP the 9600gt become superior to the 3870with 32TMU and 165 ROP to 16TMU and 16 ROP of the 3870.

But at the end of the day we are comparing to card in different level one at mid range and the other one at high end.the 9600gt should be the direct competitor to the HD3850, and the outcome to be the 3850 is no match to 9600GT and the 9600GT end up competiting with 3870 with its performance and bargain price!
April 13, 2008 3:06:29 PM

looking into your budget seems to be the best solution.all new cards will wither out in few months.just buy what u can afford and change it when its due.
April 13, 2008 3:52:19 PM

I just bought a passive cooled 9600GT from GIGABYTE (GV-NX96T512HP) last Thursday. I picked it over a 3870 because I couldn't find a passive cooled 3870 where I live. Fan cooled 3870s are about 15EUR more expensive here (so the choice was easy).

The 9600GT outperforms the 3870 at higher resolutions (I have a 24" LCD) and was cheaper (this one is factory overclocked to 720MHz(650MHz stock)).
It idles below 45°C on the Windows XP desktop.

As for futereproofing ... In my experience cards below 200 EUR generally last about 18 months before they become obsolete. 36 months before they become useless even at reduced resolutions (my GF6600GT just did that on me).
April 13, 2008 4:06:27 PM

if you use you pc to watch movies, its save to use 3870 as ati offers better video playback quality, if you got tv in the family room, its better if you buy 9600gt.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 4:06:52 PM

in my opinion i would say the ati 3870 is more future proof because ati has new drivers every month and increase the performance of the cards unlike nvidia drivers and ati supports directX 10.1 for future supported games. So it seems to me that the ati card would be a better choice.
April 13, 2008 4:15:17 PM

iluvgillgill said:
the 9600gt will be better.

and how amd advert their card with 320 sp.but actually the number or SP is only 64SP.and because each SP for 5 individual processing units inside it.so 64x5=320 so they say they have the so called "320SP".

which personally i think they are lying to the consumers and make us thing their cardis more powerful because they have "IMPRESSIVE" 320SP compare to the 128SP in the GTS and 64SP in 9600GT.but how they word it sort of get away with it by using the word Shader and SP.

but when you look at the TMU and ROP the 9600gt become superior to the 3870with 32TMU and 165 ROP to 16TMU and 16 ROP of the 3870.

But at the end of the day we are comparing to card in different level one at mid range and the other one at high end.the 9600gt should be the direct competitor to the HD3850, and the outcome to be the 3850 is no match to 9600GT and the 9600GT end up competiting with 3870 with its performance and bargain price!


It's different architecturally but 3870 does have more powerful SP compared to 9600gt.
April 13, 2008 4:21:37 PM

3870 got 64 processors, but each of them got, like, 5 embeded ones, so it get 320.
That's why I think the 3870 is more future proof, just look at the X1900XT and the 7900GS, playing recent games like Crysis...
April 13, 2008 4:21:46 PM

the 9600 GT excels with Filtering on. But in the long run, you won't be able to play games anyway with Filtering on, so I think the 3870 will have the advantage in the future, because it outperforms with filtering off and it has DX 10.1 (pointless now, but maybe not in the future)
April 13, 2008 4:31:15 PM

Yeah, L1qu1d, you got a point
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 4:37:49 PM

I vote neither :D 

I say this because it seems that game developers and Microsoft would rather force the cardmakers optimize their hardware for the code rather than write the code for the cards. More often than not it seems "forward looking" cards are only marginally better in the long run. I'd say buy what its best at the time, especially if you are looking in the sub $200 range. By the time the new features (like DX10.1) are actually implemented, the requirements will have changed or the cards won't have enough horsepower.

As for which card is most "forward looking" my vote goes with the 3870.
April 13, 2008 4:43:04 PM

lol as always EXT64 out did himself:p  lol

The only thing I can argue is that the 9600 GT is way cheaper right now. here its about 120-140$ soo yeah:p  while the 3870 is 180:) 

April 13, 2008 4:43:38 PM

ok, i agree with you(EXT64) too. ATI cards looks more future-proof to me too
But 9600gt is by now WAY cheaper too...
It's the freaking same price with a 3850 512!
a c 130 U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 4:47:55 PM

iluvgillgill said:
the 9600gt will be better.

and how amd advert their card with 320 sp.but actually the number or SP is only 64SP.and because each SP for 5 individual processing units inside it.so 64x5=320 so they say they have the so called "320SP".

which personally i think they are lying to the consumers and make us thing their cardis more powerful because they have "IMPRESSIVE" 320SP compare to the 128SP in the GTS and 64SP in 9600GT.but how they word it sort of get away with it by using the word Shader and SP.

but when you look at the TMU and ROP the 9600gt become superior to the 3870with 32TMU and 165 ROP to 16TMU and 16 ROP of the 3870.

But at the end of the day we are comparing to card in different level one at mid range and the other one at high end.the 9600gt should be the direct competitor to the HD3850, and the outcome to be the 3850 is no match to 9600GT and the 9600GT end up competiting with 3870 with its performance and bargain price!


I really dont know where people get this from Both have SP clusters which contain ALU,s The ATI has 320 ALU's and the
Nvidia card has 128 ALU's. If its good enough for the guys at B3D and Mike Houston from Stanford then its good enough for me.
Mactronix
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 4:51:20 PM

Ja, if I were looking to buy one now it would be a really hard choice. I'd have to do more research. Though, I think I would get the 9600 just because my new rig will have a 5400+ (2.8GHz) and my old rig has an FX-60 (2.8GHz) with 2900XT (=3870) and it would be interesting to compare the two. I doubt that I'll do that, though.
April 13, 2008 5:11:32 PM

L1qu1d said:
the 9600 GT excels with Filtering on. But in the long run, you won't be able to play games anyway with Filtering on, so I think the 3870 will have the advantage in the future, because it outperforms with filtering off and it has DX 10.1 (pointless now, but maybe not in the future)


I doubt the HD 3870 will be able to run "new" games better than it does (current | a year old) games.
Mainstream cards 1 year from now (next spring) will beat it to a pulp(as they will a GF9600GT too).
The 120-140$ are also a bit easier to swallow then 180$ for "equal" current performance.
Most likely neither card will excell in games yet to come.

So for futureproofing I'd have to say I pick neither card.
I'd say save your money for an 9900GTX/HD48x0 when they come out.




April 13, 2008 5:12:14 PM

L1qu1d said:
the 9600 GT excels with Filtering on. But in the long run, you won't be able to play games anyway with Filtering on, so I think the 3870 will have the advantage in the future, because it outperforms with filtering off and it has DX 10.1 (pointless now, but maybe not in the future)

Good point.
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 5:17:43 PM

Yeah, I'm crossing my fingers for the 9900/4870 cards too. I guess we'll know in a few months.
April 13, 2008 5:24:14 PM

I hope the G200 will bring something real new and impressive.
"Happily crosses out the 9800GTX"
Wheee.....
April 13, 2008 5:45:37 PM

Dont cross it out just yet, Like I said guys dont expect so much, remember what happened with 9800 GTX. Don't raise your hopes to high, cuz you'll be disappointed if Nvidia doesn't deliver!
a c 130 U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 6:02:32 PM

EXT64 said:
Yeah, I'm crossing my fingers for the 9900/4870 cards too. I guess we'll know in a few months.


This is also where im looking for the next propper step in performance. well the ATI side of it anyway i have no idea what the Nvidia card is meant to be like.
Also i wouldnt wright off the 3870 just yet its architecture is designed to work with heavy shader loads which seems to be the way games are going.
mactronix
April 13, 2008 7:19:01 PM

marvelous211 said:
Yeah but the O.P is trying to find out which would last longer. Considering 7900gs can't even play crysis @ medium unless 800x600 and 1950pro can do 1280x1024 I consider that architecture a failure.

And somehow you think either the 9600gt or the 3870 won't both fail at future releases?

Here's how I figure; don't buy a video card for the future, it's impossible to predict even with business promisses (AMD phenom lie?). So if it's in your budget to play games at very high res, then get a decent card that will let you enjoy the game-play of future releases even if the visuals will be impaired.

My upgrade frequency for video cards is anywhere between 5 and 1 year, never less. Cirrus logic, 2x Voodoo 2 in SLI, Geforce mx or something, Geforce 4 ti4200, 7600gt, 8800gt. Never ever did I think about future releases being compatible. I bought each card based on the current games out that I wanted to play.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Planning for future proofing is impossible. Planning for delayed upgrades with some devices (gpu) is also impossible. So get the card that works best with the game you want to play now and hope it's still good in the forseable future. With my cards the Geforce 4 ti4200 overclocked and lasted me upwards of 4 or more years. The 7600gt, which I spent the same $ on as the ti4200, lasted me only a year or so. I hope the 8800gt lasts me but I'm not holding my breath. It's just great to have a card that will do most of my favorite games in 1080p when I get a 37" LCD.

edit/update: I do think that if you look at WHAT games you like, and what companies made them, then you can get a good idea so long as that relationship is still good in the future. The problem with this is simple; both NVidia and ATI are both trying to one-up the other on EVERY game out there for the pc. It's not like they say, ehhh... we at NVidia don't like EA so we won't bother trying to improve our cards performance with EA programming. It's actually a relationship that can be made OR broken by either end. EA might not like the trend of ATI so they might go NV to increase sales of the game, etc. It's a very complicated world we live in with lots of powerful computers but still no way to predict the future.
April 13, 2008 8:29:14 PM

jprevost said:
And somehow you think either the 9600gt or the 3870 won't both fail at future releases?

Here's how I figure; don't buy a video card for the future, it's impossible to predict even with business promisses (AMD phenom lie?). So if it's in your budget to play games at very high res, then get a decent card that will let you enjoy the game-play of future releases even if the visuals will be impaired.

My upgrade frequency for video cards is anywhere between 5 and 1 year, never less. Cirrus logic, 2x Voodoo 2 in SLI, Geforce mx or something, Geforce 4 ti4200, 7600gt, 8800gt. Never ever did I think about future releases being compatible. I bought each card based on the current games out that I wanted to play.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Planning for future proofing is impossible. Planning for delayed upgrades with some devices (gpu) is also impossible. So get the card that works best with the game you want to play now and hope it's still good in the forseable future. With my cards the Geforce 4 ti4200 overclocked and lasted me upwards of 4 or more years. The 7600gt, which I spent the same $ on as the ti4200, lasted me only a year or so. I hope the 8800gt lasts me but I'm not holding my breath. It's just great to have a card that will do most of my favorite games in 1080p when I get a 37" LCD.

edit/update: I do think that if you look at WHAT games you like, and what companies made them, then you can get a good idea so long as that relationship is still good in the future. The problem with this is simple; both NVidia and ATI are both trying to one-up the other on EVERY game out there for the pc. It's not like they say, ehhh... we at NVidia don't like EA so we won't bother trying to improve our cards performance with EA programming. It's actually a relationship that can be made OR broken by either end. EA might not like the trend of ATI so they might go NV to increase sales of the game, etc. It's a very complicated world we live in with lots of powerful computers but still no way to predict the future.


It's not impossible if you actually commit to knowing the products you buy.
April 13, 2008 8:34:03 PM

by commit I'm assuming u mean oc :p  lol !
a c 130 U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 8:41:58 PM

jprevost said:
And somehow you think either the 9600gt or the 3870 won't both fail at future releases?

Here's how I figure; don't buy a video card for the future, it's impossible to predict even with business promisses (AMD phenom lie?). So if it's in your budget to play games at very high res, then get a decent card that will let you enjoy the game-play of future releases even if the visuals will be impaired.

My upgrade frequency for video cards is anywhere between 5 and 1 year, never less. Cirrus logic, 2x Voodoo 2 in SLI, Geforce mx or something, Geforce 4 ti4200, 7600gt, 8800gt. Never ever did I think about future releases being compatible. I bought each card based on the current games out that I wanted to play.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this; Planning for future proofing is impossible. Planning for delayed upgrades with some devices (gpu) is also impossible. So get the card that works best with the game you want to play now and hope it's still good in the forseable future. With my cards the Geforce 4 ti4200 overclocked and lasted me upwards of 4 or more years. The 7600gt, which I spent the same $ on as the ti4200, lasted me only a year or so. I hope the 8800gt lasts me but I'm not holding my breath. It's just great to have a card that will do most of my favorite games in 1080p when I get a 37" LCD.

edit/update: I do think that if you look at WHAT games you like, and what companies made them, then you can get a good idea so long as that relationship is still good in the future. The problem with this is simple; both NVidia and ATI are both trying to one-up the other on EVERY game out there for the pc. It's not like they say, ehhh... we at NVidia don't like EA so we won't bother trying to improve our cards performance with EA programming. It's actually a relationship that can be made OR broken by either end. EA might not like the trend of ATI so they might go NV to increase sales of the game, etc. It's a very complicated world we live in with lots of powerful computers but still no way to predict the future.


While true future proofing is impossable. Like Marvelous says with some home work you can make some educated guesses. Most of the big names have a road map which while not 100% reliable can be trusted for basic tec levels. Most of what they are saying will be out in a year or so's time is acctually running in the labs already.
Buying for now is ok as a general rule but unless I was planning to update within the next year or two I would be mad to build a system that had anything but a quad in it right? Dosent make much differance now but will when more games are coded to take advantage. Thats an example of an educated attempt at future proofing.
Mactronix
April 13, 2008 9:54:26 PM

i agree with all of you who say the 3870 have more powerful GPU.but looking at the 3dmark score(which is the only software that can tell GPU power),the 3870 isnt excel the 9600GT much when you think the 3870 got 5 times more processing unit.which the score should yield 500% or at least 400% better for graphics score.but it doesn't.

so that shows how lacking the architecture AMD has.and the architecture Nvidia has is far superior!
April 13, 2008 10:11:27 PM

..wow.. that doesnt even deserve a comment
April 13, 2008 10:14:12 PM

L1qu1d said:
by commit I'm assuming u mean oc :p  lol !


That too but you also have to know your products to find out which one overclocks best for the same amount of money. :sol: 
April 13, 2008 10:17:41 PM

actually Amd's architecture is alot more sophisticated then that of the 9600 GT. Look at the 3Dmark scores again, it favors the 3870.

I really don't like 3Dmark because alot of the cards that actually do well on them tend to not do such a good job in real gaming.

take a look at the THG review on the 9600 GT.

The only difference is is that, the 9600 GT is more 3850's competitor now witht he sudden huge price drop, and it leaves the 3850 in the dust.

While slightly behind the 3870 (with Filtering off) It manages to hold it's own and is clearly the best bang for the buck

the 9600 GT is better than the 8800 GTS 320 (G80 just incase) I had both, I can comment:)  and the 8800 GTS 320 is still almost 300 (single) even now.

I think that the 9600 GT is a better buy than the 8800 GT. I mean if you would ask me before I'd say 8800 GT but now with a 60$ difference and only slight increase in performance I say the 9600 GT is big.

Benchmarks show that a 9600 GT OC matches the 8800 GT (non oc) if you check google:) 
a c 130 U Graphics card
April 13, 2008 10:22:04 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i agree with all of you who say the 3870 have more powerful GPU.but looking at the 3dmark score(which is the only software that can tell GPU power),the 3870 isnt excel the 9600GT much when you think the 3870 got 5 times more processing unit.which the score should yield 500% or at least 400% better for graphics score.but it doesn't.

so that shows how lacking the architecture AMD has.and the architecture Nvidia has is far superior!


The problem is that the way the games are coded makes a huge differance there are games out there that give a huge increase to an Nvidia card and the same goes for the ATI cards. Both camps offer specific qualities that people will either think are worth it or not. ATI cards do better with Videodecoding and the Nvidia cards work better with AA usually.
As has been said thousands of times on these forums your trying to compare apples to oranges you cant just count Shaders/rops or what have you and expect the card with the the most to be better. Both cards have such a differant archetecture.
As for using 3dm as a guide well i would use it to compare an upgrade using the same version but its real world usage that matters. Yes the ATI archetecture is greatly underperforming but then again if MS not changed the rules because Nvidia couldnt get the required standards for DX10 in place it would be a differant ball game.
Mactronix
April 13, 2008 10:34:32 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i agree with all of you who say the 3870 have more powerful GPU.but looking at the 3dmark score(which is the only software that can tell GPU power),the 3870 isnt excel the 9600GT much when you think the 3870 got 5 times more processing unit.which the score should yield 500% or at least 400% better for graphics score.but it doesn't.

so that shows how lacking the architecture AMD has.and the architecture Nvidia has is far superior!


3dmark is also 2 year old synthetic benchmark. It's scores shouldn't reflect real gaming performance however it's a tool to measure card's capability. If you look at the raw frame rates in actual games 3870 wins 8 out of 10 times a while not being limited by shader intensive games and have only 16 tmu. As why 9600gt wins in AA is because 3870 does AA through shader (dx10.1 specifications) which is slower than through ROP and not to mention the texture advantage it has over 3870.

Architecturally they are different. 9600gt is a budget card and cheap to produce because it's rather a small chip with lower transistor count. 208 GFLOPS peak shader performance will show it in the long haul.
April 13, 2008 10:41:11 PM

L1qu1d said:


Benchmarks show that a 9600 GT OC matches the 8800 GT (non oc) if you check google:) 


Maybe with AA because really the 9600gt OC versions have higher memory bandwidth. In raw frame rates it won't be able no matter how much you overclock 9600gt. Lot of these hardware sites also used older drivers for 8800gt vs 9600gt which used updated drivers which improved performance. Not everything is what it seems.
April 13, 2008 11:39:09 PM

yes but I still think its a better buy at the moment:)  and its a 9 series:)  lol consumes less power, and for some reason, even though they are just as thin, the 9600 doesn't heat as much:p 
April 14, 2008 12:15:05 AM

L1qu1d said:
and its a 9 series:)  lol


Kind of like 8800gs that is supposed to be named 9600gso. :lol: 

Consumes less watt because it's not as powerful. :D 
April 14, 2008 12:26:58 AM

Power consumption...that's debatable. The HD3K series usually has slightly higher power draw at full load, but a lot lower when idle. Personally I prefer a lower idle draw since that's where my GPU sits most of the time.
April 14, 2008 12:32:30 AM

thats also true

and yes marvelous211 I totally agree, 8800 gs would've made a better name as the 9600 GS, I dunno why they are going bak to naming it 8 series, no sense:p  from now on I dub your card 9600 GS :)  LOL!
April 14, 2008 12:57:27 AM

marvelous211 said:
Nvidia's SP and AMD SP are different architecture however 3870 does more GFLOPS than a 8800GTS 512 with 128SP. It doesn't necessarily mean more performance though or it's just untapped performance or can't make real use in games. Drivers might be bad? Who knows...

That in and of itself is excruciatingly wrong. There are three reasons why Nvidia gets so much more power for their Stream Processors than ATI gets for their Unified Shaders. One is, of course, the high shader clock speed. That should almost count twice, because in alot of cases, the shader clock speed can be overclocked quite a lot, adding even more power. The second is that Nvidia's stream processors run three instructions per clock (2 MADD + 1 MUL), while ATI's unified shaders run two (1 MADD + 1 MUL). In fact, those are why NVidia's cards have more raw power. When calculating it, the 8800 GTS G92 has 624 GFLOPS, while the ATI HD 3870 has 496 GFLOPS. However, seperate from both of those, the third reason is the fill rate. Back to the main topic between the 9600 GT and the 3870, the 3870 has a higher pixel fill rate, but the 9600 GT has that really high texture fill rate. (In fact, along with bandwidth and clock, that would also explain the lower scores on the 8800 GS, because it has higher texture than the 9600 GT, but lower pixel. Personally, I hope there is a remake of the 8800 GS. If they give it higher bandwidth, clocks, and pixel fill rate, it will kick some serious ass.)
April 14, 2008 12:59:41 AM

I think the 9600gs is not the name it fits with 8800gs since it is more powerful chip limited by bandwidth. It would be better if it they named it 9700gs or 9800gs. Raise up the clock speeds and it should beat 9600gt easily as these 8800gs are really downclocked in the first place.
April 14, 2008 1:04:51 AM

yes but remember that the 9600 GT can be oced as well. The one I have in the other computer comes stock oc at 675, 900 (1800) so remember the 9600 GT can do more as well. :p 

Anywhoo, I kinda wish the 2900 XT would've been the bomb card lol. I like Ati's naming system alot more, GT, XT, XL Pro. I dunno just sounds and gives it a better feel
:p 
April 14, 2008 1:07:16 AM

Darkness Flame said:
That in and of itself is excruciatingly wrong. There are three reasons why Nvidia gets so much more power for their Stream Processors than ATI gets for their Unified Shaders. One is, of course, the high shader clock speed. That should almost count twice, because in alot of cases, the shader clock speed can be overclocked quite a lot, adding even more power. The second is that Nvidia's stream processors run three instructions per clock (2 MADD + 1 MUL), while ATI's unified shaders run two (1 MADD + 1 MUL). In fact, those are why NVidia's cards have more raw power. When calculating it, the 8800 GTS G92 has 624 GFLOPS, while the ATI HD 3870 has 496 GFLOPS. However, seperate from both of those, the third reason is the fill rate. Back to the main topic between the 9600 GT and the 3870, the 3870 has a higher pixel fill rate, but the 9600 GT has that really high texture fill rate. (In fact, along with bandwidth and clock, that would also explain the lower scores on the 8800 GS, because it has higher texture than the 9600 GT, but lower pixel. Personally, I hope there is a remake of the 8800 GS. If they give it higher bandwidth, clocks, and pixel fill rate, it will kick some serious ass.)


Theoretically yes 624 GFLOPS but per clock it's 416 GFLOPS which is more accurate.

April 14, 2008 1:08:38 AM

L1qu1d said:
yes but remember that the 9600 GT can be oced as well. The one I have in the other computer comes stock oc at 675, 900 (1800) so remember the 9600 GT can do more as well. :p 

Anywhoo, I kinda wish the 2900 XT would've been the bomb card lol. I like Ati's naming system alot more, GT, XT, XL Pro. I dunno just sounds and gives it a better feel
:p 


You don't understand these chips are really downclocked from the G92 cores to be limited by Nvidia. It's not that these cores can't do 700mhz. They just lower it on purpose because it would be so close 8800gt.
April 14, 2008 1:10:45 AM

I don't doubt u, its just really risky to Oc it. I mean my 9800 GX2 are 2 down clocked 9800 GTXs. when I clock them up each GPU equals that of a 9800 GTX. But its pointless to stress it that much:p 
April 14, 2008 1:11:25 AM

Well, ATI's new naming system just keeps stuff in check easier. Higher number means more performance.

Still, L1qu1d, the 8800 GS really was severly limited. If put at the same clocks as the 9600 GT, given the 256-bit interface, as well as given suitable fill rates, and the core revisions of the 9-series, it would kick the 9600 GT's ass. If they make that card can keep it in the $200 - 250 range, it will be completely worth it. In fact, it could probably beat the 8800 GT, seeing as how the 9600 GT comes relatively close.
April 14, 2008 1:14:01 AM

marvelous211 said:
Theoretically yes 624 GFLOPS but per clock it's 416 GFLOPS which is more accurate.

Then the same should be true for ATI's cards. Otherwise, the 8800 GT's practical would be so far lower than the 3870's, it wouldn't make sense as to why it kicks the 3870's ass so much.
April 14, 2008 1:14:14 AM

Nvidia can easily add 4 more rops and give it a full 256bit memory but where would 8800gt fit into all this? Should it be renamed 9800gts? And 8800gs named 9800gt? :p 
April 14, 2008 1:15:22 AM

See I'm assuming its the same case like urs:



:) 
!