looks like the GT still owns it though..
Ryan adds
I have to agree to this. If you look close at the charts, the HD 3870 does better when in a Crossfire configuration, but when its single card against single card, the 8800GT does better most of the time. Of course, since the 8800GT is hard to get right now, at least we know that the HD 3870 is very competitive, provided its available in sufficient numbers.
---------------
Evil lurks in the databanks as it lurked in the streets of yesteryear. But it was never the streets that were evil.
"You may reduce quality to increase frame rates." or if you read the update http://iax-tech.com/video/3870/38705.htm you can screw both up without the conspiracy, and just janky drivers.
So the GT is like 15% faster? So hopfully they price the 777Mhz 3870 at least 15% cheaper with high volume release.
I don't get it, today I loaded Riva Tuner to use the Video memory usage which should show how much Vram is being used up. The highest Vram usage was 308MB @ 1280x1024 native with all settings to high except for the shader to medium, I find this hard to believe. Does someone have a reason why this is?
Message edited by systemlord on 11-14-2007 at 07:26:09 AM
---------------
Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.2GHz * Asus P5E * 2x1 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers * Raptor X * EVGA Geforce 8800GTX 768MB 651MHz/1525MHz/2100MHz * X-FI Fatal1ty Pro * Enermax Infiniti 720W PSU * Creative THX5.1 * Tuniq Tower 120
Silverstone TJ09 * Windows XP
I find it hard to believe that any part of this site is true. For a site that has only two articles, one about the 3870 and the other about the 8800gt, I find the information (if that's what you'd call it) to be total FUD. Also even after trying the site out on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://iax-tech.com/) I think the site was only made yesterday.
This would be like the time of the the site with the premature R600 benchies, this site: http://level505.com/2006/12/30/the [...] 00-test/1/ (which is now dead), but thanks to the Internet Wayback Machine: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http: [...] 00-test/1/ (The site went up at January 3, 2007 and the first article of the site was made on December 30, 2006!). It showed that the R600 above the 8800GTX, when in fact during the launch, it was nowhere near even a 8800GTS at that time. And up to now it has little to no hope of beating a 8800GTX.
P.S. After looking at the site's Contact Us. Section, this is what you'd find:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAX TECH is locating at California, Unite States.
For any question about our website or advertising
Please email us at iaxtech@iax-tech.com
Yeah the english is soo poor that it must be in asia, where the factories churning out products are. Im pretty sure theres lots of intrigue and backhanders in the asian business world, more than say in the west, soo Im pretty sure its at least possible that far eastern websites get hold of products before the US & Europe. The website doesnt make any wild performance claims, and it all seems very plausible what theyre saying, soo I'll take it all with a smaller pinch of salt than usual.
I had a 9800 pro 512MB card and now I have a BFG 7950 GT/OC 512MB and the latest drivers.
I think nvidia has come along ways on the road to better picture quality!
As far as FPS if you can sustain 30+ FPS (at the worst.) you're doing fine.
There's no one that can tell the differance between 30fps and 60fps, let alone 100fps!
These are just bragging numbers!
I had a 9800 pro 512MB card and now I have a BFG 7950 GT/OC 512MB and the latest drivers.
I think nvidia has come along ways on the road to better picture quality!
As far as FPS if you can sustain 30+ FPS (at the worst.) you're doing fine.
There's no one that can tell the differance between 30fps and 60fps, let alone 100fps!
These are just bragging numbers!
10 fps is an update in picture 10 times / sec = 0,1 sec... right..
This is about your reaction time and I bet you will say that is a slide show.
30 fps = 0,033 sec. You will need about two picture updates to react on a change and I bet if you move around with constant 30 fps you will sort of feel it is dragging behind. Sence of delay in respond..
60 fps= 0,0166 sec. At this framrate games also feel smoth to me. I can clearly sence a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps when moving and looking around in a game, considering responsiveness..
So NO. high fps is not just for having some in spare for the intesive fire fights. It is also for the feeling even you not really can't tell straight out by just looking at it.
Please enter a TV-shop and compare a 50hz TV side by side with a 100hz TV. I'm sure will sence the flickering from the 50hz Tv. And if you can notice that difference why wouldnt you notice 30 --> 60 fps?
10 fps is an update in picture 10 times / sec = 0,1 sec... right..
This is about your reaction time and I bet you will say that is a slide show.
30 fps = 0,033 sec. You will need about two picture updates to react on a change and I bet if you move around with constant 30 fps you will sort of feel it is dragging behind. Sence of delay in respond..
60 fps= 0,0166 sec. At this framrate games also feel smoth to me. I can clearly sence a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps when moving and looking around in a game, considering responsiveness..
So NO. high fps is not just for having some in spare for the intesive fire fights. It is also for the feeling even you not really can't tell straight out by just looking at it.
Please enter a TV-shop and compare a 50hz TV side by side with a 100hz TV. I'm sure will sence the flickering from the 50hz Tv. And if you can notice that difference why wouldnt you notice 30 --> 60 fps?
Try it!
I thought the slideshow point was below 24FPS? But here's another example that could be used...compare a 85Hz monitor with a 130Hz monitor...not much of a difference there.
the only ati card i have ever used was the old radeon 8500 pro. i've since owned GeForce 256, Geforce FX, and Geforce 7600gs. And there is no doubt in my mind that the depth and richness of colours on the ati were no comparison to any nvidia card i have owned. The only reason, and i repeat myself, the ONLY reason i buy Nvidia is because of better driver support.
You must own an old Nvidia card than because image quality and color richness comparison differences between ATI and Nvidia have been a thing of the past since the 8000 series?? Why ATI folks always have to dredge up that old argument all the time?
Im using the current beta drivers which are used for both the GTX and the GT. I havent seen any other reviews picking up on this minimum FPS issue. The GTX is known to most benefit over the GT at high resolutions, 1280x1024 doesnt come under that heading.
2.4 FPS is not the worst possible mathematical figure and you dont have the information available to hand to work out mathematically the minimum fps figure obtainable by turning down the graphics settings. Just because an average figure goes up by "x" amount doesnt mean that the min FPS follows the same curve! Until youve played with the graphics settings on crysis its hard to appreciate just how much difference those choices make. Crysis can kill graphics cards like no other game out there BUT with settings turned down it runs as well as any other game out there and LOW min FPS havent been reported for the 8800 GT in general, I think what you are seeing here is more of benchmark blip than a major issue with the 8800GT. Especially as its related specifically to beta drivers with some known issues, theres plenty of benchmarks being done on crysis on the 8800 GT that ARENT getting this bizarre min FPS issue!
While no other reviews I have noticed a few posts here stating choppy performance on crysis using Nvidia. 1280X1024 does come under the higher resolutions performance hit when you notice that how much graphics is packed in the 1280X1024. Does not the GTX suffer greatly at 1280X1024 at high settings on crysis as much as in other games at say 1900X1200? Its about the same issue. I have played crysis on my 8800GTS and I do appreciate how much difference it makes that the 8800GT can win FPS at those settings but is unplayable at those same settings. The 3870 being playable here is a major win for AMD/ATI and really makes it a performance threat to the GTX as it doesn't suffer extremely low FPS at higher settings.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] rysis-demo This is atleast a GT.
Its neither a benchmark blip or major issue with the hardware side of the 8800GT. Its a driver issue where the 8800GT due to memory bandwidth needs some changes unlike the GTX.
Message edited by elbert on 11-14-2007 at 05:27:49 PM
Did I miss something here? In the Catalyst Control Center the video bus was verified as being PCIe v2.0, HOWEVER to the right it showed that the card was only using x8 lanes instead of x16? And testing was done with a P35 chipset board instead of something that supports this card's new features?
I see a few things here:
(1) Four x8 video cards running on one system board
(2) A pair of dual-GPU x16 cards on one system board
(3) Losing benchmarks to nVidia
Somebody please correct me if I am wrong!
Somebody please benchmark this card with an X38-chipset board!
Am I the only one that saw the connection between the 38xx-series video matching the x38-series northbridge's new features?
IMO, this is Intel teaming up with their rivals AMD (who own ATI) to stick it to nVidia's market share. So who's got the popcorn?
EDIT: nevermind. Looks like someone already tested the 3870 on a X38 platform, and the 3870 still looses quite badly to the 8800GT.
I thought the slideshow point was below 24FPS? But here's another example that could be used...compare a 85Hz monitor with a 130Hz monitor...not much of a difference there.
I think its a question of taste, or overly refined tastes. even without fraps or something else to show fps you can tell when a game dips under 25fps cos you get that slow motion everything is swimming in treacle feeling. The difference between say 26 and 22 fps is very pronounced in a fast moving game. Above that point though I think its fairly hard to tell a difference. The difference - minimum frame rates aside - in an fps or online fps, between say 30fps and 60 fps isnt enough to give you an edge, and wont mean it'll be any easier to get points/kills. Its smoother, but not not to the untrained eye/gamer.
pogsnet