Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

My buddies 8800gts 320mb beats my 9600gt!?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
May 24, 2008 6:05:13 PM

I recently built a whole new machine almost from scratch.

AMD 9500 Phenom quadcore @2.45ghz
9600gt oc to 760mhz
gigabyte ga-ma78gm-s2h motherboard
3gb pc6400 DDr2
Vista 64bit

The only thing that i kept from my old machine was the hard drive which is a 7200rpm sata 250gb. I forget what brand. Anyways I was pretty pleased with the way it ran (i am posting scores in 3dmark 06 of about 9400), that is until my friend bough a phenom combo from frys yesterday with one of their new 9750 processors. I helped him build it with the new MB/Processor and his old 8800GTS 320mb everything stock. He posted a score of almost 11000 right off the bat! And i know that 3d mark does not equal actual gameplay so we threw in crysis. Right from the first battle in the daylight at the ridge overlooking the water i could tell that his machine was beating mine hands down, even at much higher settings. He was running everything at HIGH 1650x1080 while i struggle to run 1280x720 on medium. I was under the impression when i bought the 9600gt that it was a faster card then the 8800, and has more on board memory.

Is it the card bottlenecking my system? Or could it be something else completely? I figure our processors are clocked almost equal. He is using a WD 74gb raptor drive, but everything ive read says that HD have no factor in the performance in gaming. Any advice?
May 24, 2008 6:11:02 PM

Welcome to the fabulous world of sensational marketing.

Hmm on second thought, could be something else... I just don't know what. I don't own a phenom.
May 24, 2008 6:17:54 PM

Ya im starting to get the feeling that ive been pretty much had with this card. So should i return it and get a 8800gt or gts?
Related resources
May 24, 2008 6:18:06 PM

it's not the GPU for sure it is the CPU that your friend has that is better and since you have a B2 Phenom which limits your cpu's full potential.
May 24, 2008 6:33:14 PM

Really? That much of a difference between the processors even though they are at the same clock?
May 24, 2008 6:38:26 PM

If that B2 bug fix is present in BIOS it could be. If not then it needs further investigation. The B3 phenom isn't magically faster at the same frequency.
May 24, 2008 6:42:36 PM

Nooooooooooooooooooooo..........

The 8800GTS IS a faster card than the 9600. It has more pipelines and a wider memory bus. It will always be faster than the 9600. You should have done more research into the cards before buying. A higher number does not necessarilty mean a better performing card. You haven't been screwed, you just didn't do enough research.

What are you doing buying a Phenom anyway? You should have known better and bought a Core 2 Quad because the Phenom is a turd....

It's okay to be a newb... You need to quit shopping at Fry's too... go to Newegg.
May 24, 2008 6:44:21 PM

I tried to tell them! But they wouldn't listen :p 
May 24, 2008 6:45:10 PM

i have an x2 6000+, 2gb ram and an 8800gt.
getting 10300 in 3dmark06 and playing crysis all settings high at 1280x1024. must be the card.
May 24, 2008 6:58:00 PM

Ha ha... someone talking about fanboys. Silly.
May 24, 2008 7:36:01 PM

Yes yes. I am aware that just because its a 9 series does not automatically mean a faster card. I gotta admit that in my ignorance i was putting more focus on the fact that the 9600gt had more ram. But after looking things over the GTS is clearly a faster card.

My CPU definitely isnt helping either.



Looks like ill be making some returns. I got a good deal on the phenom, but i shoulda known better than to settle for something i didnt really want in the first place. THX for the help guys even if u did make me feel like a complete ass.
May 24, 2008 7:47:38 PM

The 9600 GT is faster than the 8800 GTS for sure. There is no questions ask. Every benchmark provided on the web shows it as being faster.

The 8800 GTS can be compared to a stock 8800 GS thats it.

The line goes like this

8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GT > 9600 G > 8800 GTS 640/320 ~ 8800 GS (which oc like crazy)

this is addressed to the OP and halfassed lol

please look for benchmarks before you post:)  search google, they are everywhere.


I'm a user of both cards, I had 2 8800 GTS 320 and then 2 9600 GTs now 1 9800 GX2.

This all happened from AUg- March lol:p 
May 24, 2008 8:31:08 PM

I was going to say CPU, but it looks like you guys already figured it out. I didn't think that B2 vs B3 would have that big of a difference.

-mcg
May 24, 2008 8:46:27 PM

Dpwnload the AMD overdrive utility. Running with the yellow or red dot means the tlb patch is disabled. And overclocked, your CPU is about the same than your friend. And don't get sad because you get a phenom. They are good CPU. As good as Intel, not just as fast.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 8:50:21 PM

The two cards should trade blows with the 9600GT winning more than it loses.

3dmark06 is cpu limited. Your cards are close, so his higher clocked cpu should give a higher 3dmark06 score.

As far as Crysis... Your friend was not playing crysis at 16x10 all high on a 320MB 8800GTS. That card can't come close to handling those settings. Crysis made me ditch my 320MB GTS after seeing how lousy it did. Look at this link, 15 fps average and that may even be just the GPU bench, not the actual gameplay. http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=2

You are running Vista 64-bit. By chance is your buddy running Win XP? If so he is running DX9 and you DX10. From what I have seen even both on high, DX10 codepath runs slower than XP DX9.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 8:55:18 PM

8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GT > 9600 G > 8800 GTS 640/320 ~ 8800 GS (which oc like crazy), that line is BS... my 8800 gts 640 is handling crysis at 1920 by 1200 with all high... and I score 12100 in 3dmark 06... People constantly underrate the old gts series when in fact they are basically have the same exact performance... infact my 8800 gts 640 trumps my friends ultra... in everything... he scores about 11 k in 3dmark... so BOO YA!!!

anyway... its probably some driver issue... the cards basically perform identically... the only difference is OC %... i got about 30-35% more performance out of my card by overclocking it... so...

anyway... i like using lots of ....'s

anyway... what else can I say...

anyway...

anyway...


time to get flamed =D
May 24, 2008 9:09:15 PM

see now thats a load.

The 8800 GTS G80s were 30% less powerful than the 8800 GTX. The cards were flawed.

Don't show me 3Dmark its a useless tool.

As for handling crysis at 1920 all high with 1 GTS 640, I really doubt that. I've seen alot of benchmarks all of which the 8800 GTS 640 looses.

If you can't handle that, thats your problem. I'm not saying its a bad card, but it isn't to par


It drains power like crazy, and doesn't perform to par with the new 8800s G92 set.

The G94 9600 GT outperforms it by a little bit, but it does, and it drains a hell of alot less power than the G80 8800 GTS.

I had the 320 version, not to happy with it, and it matches the 640 except at higher reses.

so please no 3DMarks scores. The 3870 out performanes 1 GX2 in 3Dmark, and we all kno how it performs in real time gaming.


EDIT:

I when I had the 2 8800 GTS 320s in sli they barely handled Crysis at 1280 every thing High.
L1qu1d
May 24, 2008 9:14:57 PM

Its the Videocard not the CPU ... dont u dare to buy a 8800GT because my cousin did that and im get it more points in 3d mark that him and i have an 8800GTS 320MB ... but the difference acording to GPU-Z is that i have a 80 Gbs per second of memory band (Because is 320bits not 256bits) and he only can obtain 64 Gb/s no matter who high his shaders /clock/ and memory is all is as higher than mine and is not matter i always won ... so why u thing an old 8800 GTS 320mb tends to be more expensive that the new one ... Nvidia just figure it out a new way to limit his benchmark products better ...

When a buy a videocard no matter what i compare two and 4 me most important values millions of transistors of the core (g92 / g80) and wide band otherwise is a bottleneck ... i compare that 2 values against everyother nvidia card...

Mine is a PNY 320mb and his XFX Alphadog 512mb ...

Scores in default 1280*1024 3d mark SM 2.0 3992 (8800GT XFX AlphaDog) / 4774 (8800 GTS PNY XLR8) ... SM 3.0 4831 (8800GT XFX AlphaDog) / 5002 (8800 GTS PNY XLR8)

So look for a minimun of 320 bit memory and return that G92 256 bit ... seek 512 / 484 bits ...etc
May 24, 2008 9:28:25 PM

never compare cards based on specs alone - You must have BENCHIES!!!!!! because there is no real way of comparing how spec will actually affect real world performance, so find me a chart, done by someone INDEPENDANT (and not tom's charts, those are fcked up), where the 8800gt is slower than an 8800gts 320 please, and then I will believe you
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 9:40:55 PM

Quote:
Its the Videocard not the CPU ... dont u dare to buy a 8800GT because my cousin did that and im get it more points in 3d mark that him and i have an 8800GTS 320MB


Sorry, but even in worthless 3dmark06, the 8800GT would beat a 320MB 8800GTS. 3dmark is very CPU bound. Overclocking a CPU can give you an easy 2,000+ points. Your overall 3dmark score could vary 5,000 points depending on the CPU used (slow single core vs 4.0GHz Core2D or Quad).

a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 9:42:15 PM

spuddyt said:
never compare cards based on specs alone - You must have BENCHIES!!!!!! because there is no real way of comparing how spec will actually affect real world performance, so find me a chart, done by someone INDEPENDANT (and not tom's charts, those are fcked up), where the 8800gt is slower than an 8800gts 320 please, and then I will believe you

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=710&p=2
This GF8 test shows the 8800GT pretty much spanks a 320MB GTS in games once you bump up the res ad eye candy. Having upgraded from 320MB GTS to GT, I can say it's a big difference. (especially Oblivion & Crysis)

May 24, 2008 9:44:58 PM

L1qu1d said:
see now thats a load.

The 8800 GTS G80s were 30% less powerful than the 8800 GTX. The cards were flawed.

Don't show me 3Dmark its a useless tool.

As for handling crysis at 1920 all high with 1 GTS 640, I really doubt that. I've seen alot of benchmarks all of which the 8800 GTS 640 looses.

If you can't handle that, thats your problem. I'm not saying its a bad card, but it isn't to par


It drains power like crazy, and doesn't perform to par with the new 8800s G92 set.

The G94 9600 GT outperforms it by a little bit, but it does, and it drains a hell of alot less power than the G80 8800 GTS.

I had the 320 version, not to happy with it, and it matches the 640 except at higher reses.

so please no 3DMarks scores. The 3870 out performanes 1 GX2 in 3Dmark, and we all kno how it performs in real time gaming.


EDIT:

I when I had the 2 8800 GTS 320s in sli they barely handled Crysis at 1280 every thing High.
L1qu1d


Your problem is that you had 320 megs, not your gpu's.

...and no 2 320 cards doesn't equal 640 in any way sli or not.
May 24, 2008 9:47:19 PM

Wolfwood0 said:
I recently built a whole new machine almost from scratch.

AMD 9500 Phenom quadcore @2.45ghz
9600gt oc to 760mhz
gigabyte ga-ma78gm-s2h motherboard
3gb pc6400 DDr2
Vista 64bit

The only thing that i kept from my old machine was the hard drive which is a 7200rpm sata 250gb. I forget what brand. Anyways I was pretty pleased with the way it ran (i am posting scores in 3dmark 06 of about 9400), that is until my friend bough a phenom combo from frys yesterday with one of their new 9750 processors. I helped him build it with the new MB/Processor and his old 8800GTS 320mb everything stock. He posted a score of almost 11000 right off the bat! And i know that 3d mark does not equal actual gameplay so we threw in crysis. Right from the first battle in the daylight at the ridge overlooking the water i could tell that his machine was beating mine hands down, even at much higher settings. He was running everything at HIGH 1650x1080 while i struggle to run 1280x720 on medium. I was under the impression when i bought the 9600gt that it was a faster card then the 8800, and has more on board memory.

Is it the card bottlenecking my system? Or could it be something else completely? I figure our processors are clocked almost equal. He is using a WD 74gb raptor drive, but everything ive read says that HD have no factor in the performance in gaming. Any advice?


His cpu is faster and that could be the difference. Go get an 8400 and smoke him...lol

May 24, 2008 9:47:27 PM

THANK YOU!!!!!!

Finally smart computer users come to rescue:) 

I'll say it again

DON'T SHOW ME 3Dmark scores:)  Worthless.

GPUZ is just a spec tool not a benchmark tool

I'll post the charts again


8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GT > 9600 GT > 8800 GTS 320/640~ 8800 GS (Stock)

those are the results.

Please if you disagree show me support, don't just say...well MINE. Because I can say that my 9800 GX2 runs 200 Fps in Crysis with AA 16 and everything Ultra High (yes I found a level of graphics higher than what the game developers put so wat:) )

:) 
May 24, 2008 9:48:28 PM

royalcrown said:
Your problem is that you had 320 megs, not your gpu's.

...and no 2 320 cards doesn't equal 640 in any way sli or not.


The 320s matches up the 640 at low res...I did state the resolution was 1280. So if my cards barely did 1280 right with SLI, how can his single do 1920 everything high ?

Thats all I'm saying.

2 320s outperform 1 640 at 1280 resolution, I dunno if at higher they do.

Anyways I'm done talking I think I made my point:) 
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 10:02:23 PM

L1qu1d said:

I'll post the charts again

8800 GTS 512 > 8800 GT > 9600 GT > 8800 GTS 320/640~ 8800 GS (Stock)

those are the results.



I don't completely agree with the order because it's not that clear cut.

The 320MB GTS and 640MB GTS are often equal, but the 640MB version can pull ahead higher res or high eye candy. All things considered the 640MB version has to be looked at as the better card and deserves a >= not a /.

The 9600GT, 8800GS, and the G80 GTS's can all trade blows depending on the game, the res, and fsaa or not. With fsaa, the 9600GT and 640MB GTS would be the better options. Without fsaa, the GS could keep up or even beat them.

look at 640MB GTS vs 9600GT here:
http://en.expreview.com/2008/04/02/g80-vs-g92-hi-end-ge...

Also note without fsaa the 8800GS 384Mb is often ahead of the 9600GT 512MB:
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/04/01/g80vsg9x/g80all....
May 24, 2008 10:13:53 PM

L1qu1d said:
The 320s matches up the 640 at low res...I did state the resolution was 1280. So if my cards barely did 1280 right with SLI, how can his single do 1920 everything high ?

Thats all I'm saying.

2 320s outperform 1 640 at 1280 resolution, I dunno if at higher they do.

Anyways I'm done talking I think I made my point:) 


Maybe it can, maybe he doesen't use AA. my single g92 gts will do very high at 1280 even with 4xAA

May 24, 2008 10:21:06 PM

well the avgs from pauld's benchmark site it shows the 8800 GTS 512 doing 1280 with 4x AA at around 26 fps in crysis. :S I couldn't play at that.

Even with my GX2 at 1280 res, I still play with out AA. Every thing very high, but AA off.

Either way they might be exchanging blows, but for all that trouble, the price, and power consumption I think it goes with out question.
May 24, 2008 10:26:08 PM

Why couldn't you ? I avg 25 and it's very playable, yes it's not 60, but I think ppl make too big of a noise over fps sometimes..it depends on the gameplay I guess as to what fps is playable.
May 24, 2008 10:33:54 PM

yeah but to me a First person should have frames of 60+ lol (72 like Counter strike)

I dunno just looks funny, I know technically its ok since the eye only need 25 or 26. But even 30 looks funny to me:|

Anywhooooooo lol

do some benchies I really wanna know how your system does:) 

I was going to go for a 8800 GTS for my other computer, it runs a athlon 5000+ BE 1 gig of ram and 250 HD.

Almost the same specs, yours is beter obvisouly but I'm curious:) 
May 24, 2008 10:53:45 PM

what benches do you want CS or Crysis ? I did bench Crysis...and it was 19 min, 30 max, avg 25 at 1024 and 1280 with 4xAA, did not seem to hurt it to go that 1 step up.

3dmark default was 9611 with AV and all running on vista.

What else do you want benched ?
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 10:55:39 PM

Crysis is hard to comment on. Framerates early on like the demo mission are not framerates later on in Paradise Lost, Assault, Core, or Reckoning. So where is the 25 fps average?

25 fps and above are very playable in Crysis IMO. But note that is 25 and above not average of 25. If it averages upper 20's in the demanding levels I mentioned and doesn't really dip below 20, that's probably quite playable for most people. I prefer a bit higher than that in single player, haven't tried multiplayer, so can't comment on multiplayer if even higher fps is needed.

This is actual gameplay in paradise lost between a single 8800GT and SLi 8800GT.

The single card averaged 23.9 fps and was playable, but too slow for my liking. The sli combo averaged 36.7 fps, but more importantly never dipped under 30 fps. I actually played the game with 2xaa though not with 0xaa like in this test. With 2xaa the single 8800GT was unplayable for sure in demanding levels.

IMO, no single GPU is really capable of Crysis in High res and high details, and also modest res and very high details.
May 24, 2008 11:06:21 PM

Well, it was the demo because I wasn't gonna pirate the game and yes I averaged 25 with everything on very high with AA on and off at 4, Prob cause it was only 1024 and 1280 and cpu limited or something.

My guess as to why it didn't make a lot of diff on the bench, on that note 8xAA was unplayable.
May 24, 2008 11:09:45 PM

I also heard the rumor that the demo was tweaked, I dunno bout that or not. Good thing I bought my CPU for SUPCOM, and my GTS to turn up fear to max...lol.

Honestly Crysis rather sucked, it was felt like farcry 2 (they should bump Farcry 2to to 3 then ;)  )
May 24, 2008 11:11:03 PM

Cmon believe it or not 256 bits limits ur gpu if u dont want to hear it fine but in the Bench my cousin has 1800 shaders / 720 core / 2000 mem ...

Mines 1512 / 630 / 2000 mem and i still bet him... my 3dmark is 10750

Depends at what resolution u play it ....at 1024*768 and all i repet all in VeryHigh Settings in Crysis in Xp dx10 Patch can get 42 FPS according to Fraps Test ... minimun 30 maximun 58 ... my cousin is taking his hair apart lol
Vista Crap 25 ...

Just return that sh... and get a decent card like the 8800GTS 512 version or 9800GtX ... i also obtain in the old Fear 105 FPS Average at 1280*960 16x and 4xAntialiasing ...

Thats what u get for an 8800GtS 512 version no GT ... but once overclocked that card surpass mine's easy (PNY 8800GTS XLR8) and 5 years Warranty ...my favorite brand so far ...
May 24, 2008 11:13:36 PM

haha, true enough

I also tried call of Jurez benchmark, thats a funny game. One day the frames are okay, and others aren't, meh weird.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 11:15:30 PM

The demo mission is not very demanding. 25 fps in the demo is 15 fps later in the game. Could be why they picked that mission for the demo. How many people would have been turned off to the slideshow had one of the even more gpu crushing levels been the demo.

Picture this. How did performance during the cutscenes like the final demo cutscene look? That was the worst fps in the demo and more like what you'd see at times later in the game.
May 24, 2008 11:22:35 PM

pauldh said:
The demo mission is not very demanding. 25 fps in the demo is 15 fps later in the game. Could be why they picked that mission for the demo. How many people would have been turned off to the slideshow had one of the even more gpu crushing levels been the demo.

Picture this. How did performance during the cutscenes like the final demo cutscene look? That was the worst fps in the demo and more like what you'd see at times later in the game.


Really, mine did not actually get choppy or anything that I recall...but if it is that tweaked and I bought it, I'd just pirate their next 2 games to make up for it...lol

It was smooth, but I think it was CHEESY...

a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 11:24:27 PM

osmd said:
Cmon believe it or not 256 bits limits ur gpu if u dont want to hear it fine but in the Bench my cousin has 1800 shaders / 720 core / 2000 mem ...

Mines 1512 / 630 / 2000 mem and i still bet him... my 3dmark is 10750

Depends at what resolution u play it ....at 1024*768 and all i repet all in VeryHigh Settings in Crysis in Xp dx10 Patch can get 42 FPS according to Fraps Test ... minimun 30 maximun 58 ... my cousin is taking his hair apart lol
Vista Crap 25 ...

Just return that sh... and get a decent card like the 8800GTS 512 version or 9800GtX ... i also obtain in the old Fear 105 FPS Average at 1280*960 16x and 4xAntialiasing ...

Thats what u get for an 8800GtS 512 version no GT ... but once overclocked that card surpass mine's easy (PNY 8800GTS XLR8) and 5 years Warranty ...my favorite brand so far ...


The 8800GT is easily better than the 640MB (or 320MB) GTS, 256-bit or not.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140&p=7
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800...
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 11:25:50 PM

If you are in the USA, Crysis is $20 at CC now. Ends today though.
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Crysis-PC-014633152661/s...

edit; replay the demo with fraps displaying fps and see the fps in the final cutscene. Don't you see lower fps there than in other parts of the demo?
May 24, 2008 11:33:14 PM

lol well makes my limited edition for 39.99 look like crap:) 
May 24, 2008 11:35:53 PM

pauldh said:
If you are in the USA, Crysis is $20 at CC now. Ends today though.
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Crysis-PC-014633152661/s...

edit; replay the demo with fraps displaying fps and see the fps in the final cutscene. Don't you see lower fps there than in other parts of the demo?


I'll try it and see what I get, didn't bench it at the end, just subjectively noticed it was ok. Plus I was only playing at the time at 1024 x 768, if I get a new LCD, I am sure I'll want a new card for it though, A new rv770 or real geforce 9, I am sure my smoothness will die at 1440 x900 or higher.

I should hook up my xp 2800 with 7600gs and try it too ;)  hehe , 1 fps.
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 11:40:37 PM

Listen to Paul, he ain't whistling dixie; the most important thing is that they trade blows, there is no clear cut winner, it depends on the situation as to which will do better. The only clear cut winner is the GF8800GT beats them all.

The other thing to consider is that sure while 256bit versus 320 bit sounds decisive and impressive at first, the GF9600GT is running it's memory faster than the GTS, 100+ Mhz faster, so it's closing the bandwidth gap, making them only 10% different at stock speeds, add the memory bug issue in the G80 series and you start to ask yourself is the benchmark run grea only for short term (will the patch flush the memory fast enoguh when you need it). And also you consider the memory size limits with many games like COD4 and Oblivion brushing up against the VRAM size limits, where 512MB would offer just enough, whereas the 320MB of the GTS is less. Not all benchmrks stress these the same way, and as we all know 3Dmark isn't the best way to compare cards of different architectures, strengths, bottlenecks.

May 24, 2008 11:43:12 PM

as a point of interest - a lot of people say that the snow mission after the alien ship is the most graphically intense; but having played through the game on a single 8800 GT twice i would say that assessment is off; but it might vary depending on your graphics card and settings quite a bit.

I still think harbour and the fight with the alien exosuit (not the alien mothership) on the carrier are the most graphically intense areas because of the huge wide open areas and tons of battle going on with tons of explosions and ****.

Right now i'm playing through with 2x 8800 GT SLI on 1680x1050 Very High and its good fps - I forget exact numbers but I think the game play benchmark I did for harbour at those settings was avg 30 some fps? I forget
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 11:45:06 PM

pauldh said:
If you are in the USA, Crysis is $20 at CC now.


Yankee Prices!! [:thegreatgrapeape:4]

Funny thing is I just picked up a second copy of UT3 collectors edition for $24.99 at WalMart because they marked down the regular model, and put the sticker on ALL of them.
Sweet, sure beats paying full price like I originally did, especially since it's a bit of a let down compared to what I hoped.

Still waiting for COD4 to come down in price up here, it's still $49.99 everywhere, and after just buying a Canon Lense for the GF's XSi for her B-day, not really feeling like spending full price on stuff. :( 
May 24, 2008 11:52:18 PM

yeah ive seen COD4 limited for like 59.99 ...geez.

w.e its on steam right now for 39.99, but i'll wait till I see 29.99 :) 
a b U Graphics card
May 24, 2008 11:58:44 PM

ovaltineplease said:
as a point of interest - a lot of people say that the snow mission after the alien ship is the most graphically intense; but having played through the game on a single 8800 GT twice i would say that assessment is off; but it might vary depending on your graphics card and settings quite a bit.

I still think harbour and the fight with the alien exosuit (not the alien mothership) on the carrier are the most graphically intense areas because of the huge wide open areas and tons of battle going on with tons of explosions and ****.

Right now i'm playing through with 2x 8800 GT SLI on 1680x1050 Very High and its good fps - I forget exact numbers but I think the game play benchmark I did for harbour at those settings was avg 30 some fps? I forget

There are many demanding levels from assault and on. Keep in mind, levels like the final battle have loads of AI as well as physics effects, so they are very CPU demanding too. FPS in those areas could fluctuate alot more. But Paradise Lost (ice level) in open areas hammers the GPU.

Oh, and by the cutscene comment, I did not imply demo cutscene performance = performance later. What I meant is, the custcenes seemed to give lower fps than the playing the demo, just like the full retail version of the game often gives alot lower fps than playing the demo too. So if you happened to notice the fps during the custscenes was low, be prepared for assault, core, paradise lost, and reckoning.
May 25, 2008 12:08:27 AM

U mentioned that reviews but none of them shows the 320mb edition overclocked just standard and in ur own review webpage shows this result http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800...
the Msi Overcloked 8800Gt is overclocked and gets almost exactly what i mentioned before 106 FPS 16AF 4x AA mines 105 overclocked ... but 1 BIG Difference in that test they use an Intel QuadCore x6800 way more fast that mines E2180 Dual Core processor no four cores...
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800...
And C4 memory latenciy mines 5 ... This test shows the videocard at standard speeds (320mb model) against a Overclocked version of the 8800GT and worse QuadCore ...cmon u destroy ur assumptions and this probes that i with 2 cores and a OC 320mb GTS obtain better results ...

Your Test is right and probe that im right my videocard with 2 cores is faster than the GT version...

RIP


a b U Graphics card
May 25, 2008 12:22:41 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Yankee Prices!! [:thegreatgrapeape:4]

Funny thing is I just picked up a second copy of UT3 collectors edition for $24.99 at WalMart because they marked down the regular model, and put the sticker on ALL of them.
Sweet, sure beats paying full price like I originally did, especially since it's a bit of a let down compared to what I hoped.

Still waiting for COD4 to come down in price up here, it's still $49.99 everywhere, and after just buying a Canon Lense for the GF's XSi for her B-day, not really feeling like spending full price on stuff. :( 

:D 

Hey Sweet UT3 Collectors price up there though. I wonder if our local walrmart has such brilliant price labeling? A customer/buddy gave me a sealed UT3 (plain) after I did some freebie work on his PC for him. COD4 has stayed pretty much $40 or above here too. Holding it's value better than the others it seems.

I meant to pick up an extra crysis (for a gift) but was on vacation and my local store's online inventory now says out of stock. I should have picked it up on vacation as I was in a CC to pick up a Wii fit Wed. morning for my wife (delayed mothers day gift). But after waiting in line at customer service for a wii fit I was not about to cruise the store and get in line again to pay for Crysis. They sold over 30 wii fits in the first 20 minutes the store was open. Still 10 left after I got mine, but had they actually had the 15 per store minimum advertised I would not have got one. I bet all 42 were gone within 45 minutes, and this was the farmland of Lancaster PA. I can only imagine the lines outside my local stores.

Anyway, I here ya.... it will be a while before I spend full price on game with the last weeks charges needing to be paid. :ouch:  Luckily I don't $ki anymore. I'll have to continue to rack up time in the wii fit slalom and jump. ;) 

!