nvidia "D8E" High End solution, what can we expect in 2008?

That 19k score is thanks to a 4.5GHz QX9650. With a 4GHz E8400 he pulls off 16,444. Futuremark really screwed up their score tabulation with the CPU score. Clearly a 4.5GHz quad Yorksfield isn't going to significantly outperform a 4GHz dual Wolfdale in many games.
 
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=247591

Some 9800GTX benchmarking results.

11.jpg
 
8xQ is a bit silly, the 256bit Bus of the 9800GTX wouldn't stand a chance. 6 more FPS at 1280x1024 is impressive (i guess). The 9600GT in SLI makes me wonder what a 128 SP, 32 ROP, 512Bit bus nVidia GPU would be able to achieve...
 
Looks like I may be sticking with my plan to purchase 2-Radeon HD 3870x2 cards. I'm not really seeing anything within a reasonable price range beyond that right now ;(.

I was hoping there would be a new generation this year by Nvidia or ATI, and the 9800 GX2 certainly isn't it.
 
I'm still bummed that somebody made 4xAA king and forgot to test in the other AA mode. These cards are supposed to run at 8/16AA/AF. Sure, that dents the GX2 a lot more, but hey, you would be using that instead.
 
Tchock said:
I'm still bummed that somebody made 4xAA king and forgot to test in the other AA mode. These cards are supposed to run at 8/16AA/AF. Sure, that dents the GX2 a lot more, but hey, you would be using that instead.
Click to expand...

If the cards are barely breaking 60fps and often run slower than that with only 4xAA how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that they are supposed to run with even higher AA levels? :?:
 
trinibwoy said:
If the cards are barely breaking 60fps and often run slower than that with only 4xAA how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that they are supposed to run with even higher AA levels? :?:
Click to expand...

Ok, but is it unreasonable to assume that many will run lower resolution with higher AA? Why did 4xAA become the standard. Personally, I prefer to play my games at a little lower resolution with my monitor, so I can see what the heck is going on! And the arguement of "people who can afford high end video cards useually have top end monitors" is no longer valid with the low price of top end vid cards these days. Thats my take anyway. Hard to find reviews any more that don't exclusively use 4xAA for some reason. I'm curious why that is.
 
trinibwoy said:
If the cards are barely breaking 60fps and often run slower than that with only 4xAA how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that they are supposed to run with even higher AA levels? :?:
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised to see what the 3870X2 does in some titles...precisely that, running better with higher AA or AF levels-oddly. Don't really have an explanation for it though(yet:) ).
 
The scores look pretty good to me. At least for what it is anyway.

Looks like this card should be able to handle Crysis at very high and a reasonable resolution.
 
XMAN26 said:
I'd wager its either not doing that higher lvl AA or its a hack to make you think its running the higher AA.
Click to expand...

Why would you make that wager without actually having the card?Why would you wager that I'd report that behavior if something as trivial to notice as what you're suggesting was going on?Why not add another alternative, like 2X being unoptimized(it's generally 2X being a bit slower than 4X in a few titles, BTW)?

Why is does it always have to be some dark mysterious conspiracy theory, spawned from the depths of the diabolical minds of the IHV that opposes ones favourite IHV(so this works interchangeably with ATi and nV, depending on brand allegiance, with the recent nV conspiracy being the one related to clockgen on 9600GT cards)?Not that it isn't fun, but still, can't we at least attempt to look beyond...erm, 3D?:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top