New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

8800GT stuff - Page 2  

post #21 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarqHelmet View Post


Get the Ultra so you can get Rockin all hot and bothered.

I'll be sure to pick up an *EVGA* Ultra just to piss him off
post #22 of 261


I can hear it now...
post #23 of 261
Thread Starter 
Foxconn pulled everything.

Damnit.
post #24 of 261
haha.
post #25 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by nissanztt90 View Post
Foxconn pulled everything. Damnit.
wow a vaproware *poof* right in front of our eyes lol. someone is getting their ass chewed right now lol for posting that.
post #26 of 261
Thread Starter 
w00t. More rumors. Well, more definitive rumors.

http://www.lavalys.com/products/what...?ps=CE&lang=en
post #27 of 261
Curious Nissan, why does IT and Security Management have that kinda info posted...Hrrrrm more Rumors, Fake screen shots, I dunno....
post #28 of 261
banwidth of 56.3GB, guess I was right It falls right below the 8800GTS. Sorry for those of you that were thinking a single slot GTX replacement lol
post #29 of 261
LOL, thats funny!
post #30 of 261
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockinfella2k View Post
Curious Nissan, why does IT and Security Management have that kinda info posted...Hrrrrm more Rumors, Fake screen shots, I dunno....
I dont have a damn clue. I thought it was odd this would be burried on this site too, but at the same time it makes me wonder, why would this site make something up? Either way, i dont really care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
banwidth of 56.3GB, guess I was right It falls right below the 8800GTS. Sorry for those of you that were thinking a single slot GTX replacement lol
While i agree i dont think its a single slot GTX replacement, the memory bandwidth is only 1 aspect of several, and its the least important. There is no way to be certain that G80 even needed the memory bandwidth. Just because you have the bandwidth, doesnt mean you need it. Look at R600, hd2900 whatever, 512bit interface, GDDR4, had well over 100GB/s of memory throughput, and look how badly the GTX stomps on it with i think something like 86GB/s of throughput IIRC. Even the GTS with 64ish something GB/s beats, or is even with the R600.
post #31 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolApathy View Post
banwidth of 56.3GB, guess I was right It falls right below the 8800GTS. Sorry for those of you that were thinking a single slot GTX replacement lol





Theres your single slot replacement.
post #32 of 261
errr...That is at 1280x1024 lol, that is not exactly what I call a true test. Let me see it keep up with the GTX @ 1600x1200+

So I think I think you should hold your "single slot GTX replacement" until some realistic benches come out... not to mention that I just ran UT3 at 612/2160 and ran my CPU at stock & pulled 162FPS, so I don't know where they are getting those numbers lol...
post #33 of 261
Alot of variables could come into play as to why you scored higher, graphical settings one, rez two, your system is just that 1337.

here is a banchmark you provided for your argument that your dual core was better than quad core.



Notice the Rez, remember your overclocked gtx (ultra) is a year old, it will be slower soon..
real soon.
post #34 of 261
Thread Starter 
I saw those benches in another thread, and pointed this out...

The Ultra is within ~1% of the GTX, the 2900xt loses to the GTS in its favored engine when even no AA is used, and the 8600GTS and 2600 beat the 7950GX2.

Seems a little fishy to me.
post #35 of 261
Yeah the 320 mb GTS scores .62 fps lower than the 640 GTS

heres another link to GTX vs GT

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=474&card2=544
post #36 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBrilliantQ View Post
Notice the Rez, remember your overclocked gtx (ultra) is a year old, it will be slower soon.. real soon.
yep it's a year old, what's yor point lol. You have something personal against the 8800 GTX/Ultra ? I chose the ultra because I knew there was a much greater possibility of attaining higher clocks then just running with a stock GTX. It ended up paying off w/ my stable 713 core @ stock voltages. I also have the shader OC'ed as well to 1.65GHz. (BTW I can't see the pic you posted) I understand there is always something faster & better around the corner. I decided I wanted a card that was mature & would satisfy my needs for quite some time. I nearly replicated their benchmark tests by running verything at the speeds & resolutions they were. Nothing accounts for the 30FPS difference except for a flawed test on ther part, not to mention the numbers on the other tests just don't make sense.
post #37 of 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by GBrilliantQ View Post
Yeah the 320 mb GTS scores .62 fps lower than the 640 GTS

heres another link to GTX vs GT

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards....=474&card2=544



like I said the test seems weird, but who cares, this card along with the new 8800 gts will be on par with the gtx and ultra.

I'm just waiting.

* grilling ribeye *

how do you like yours sol?
post #38 of 261
mmm put one on there for me!
post #39 of 261
lol you think that card will be on par with the GTX & Ultra, eh? Dont't eat too much because you are going to be eating your words when it comes to high res benches.
post #40 of 261
I think the 8800 GT will be on par with the GTX, the new sku 8800 GTS will be on par with the Ultra. I remember when I bought my 6800 GT, I was also looking at the 150 dollar more Ultra. I changed the GT's bios to an ultra's and overclocked it way way way past an Ultra.

I know stock vs stock the GTX and Ultra will be alittle better, but I'm all about overclocking to get a cheaper card to run better.

oh and my words (steak tonight) was amazing.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Desktop and Hardware Discussion
This thread is locked