NVIDIA G92 : Pre-review bits and pieces
- Thread starter Rys
- Start date
96 shaders but called GTX, huh? Crazy marketing chumps.
In the mobile world thats their fastest 88xx product, so yes.
I dont have an idea of how much more power the chip would consume if all the TCPs are enabled.
http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3155&p=3
... or how NV already started to sell Hybrid-SLI to desktop-users.
New 8800 GTS has to be targeted at the price point between old GTS 320 and old GTS 640. Hopefully a new part is on the way to take the price point of the old GTS, or even better - a price drop on the GTX.
UniversalTruth
Veteran
Retro-overclock.
157314 3DMark 2001 SE marks with GeForce 9800 GX2 -102.0 degrees °C under load at 957/1242MHz
CPU
Model: Intel Core i5 4670K 'Haswell' @ 6,400MHz
Cooling: Liquid Nitrogen
http://hwbot.org/submission/2538774_moose83_3dmark2001_se_geforce_9800_gx2_157314_marks/
157314 3DMark 2001 SE marks with GeForce 9800 GX2 -102.0 degrees °C under load at 957/1242MHz
CPU
Model: Intel Core i5 4670K 'Haswell' @ 6,400MHz
Cooling: Liquid Nitrogen
http://hwbot.org/submission/2538774_moose83_3dmark2001_se_geforce_9800_gx2_157314_marks/
Blazkowicz
Legend
3D Mark 2001 was the only 3D Mark ever where I could relate to what the points total would mean.
To me, 10 000 points means you have a fast machine and GPU
I miss Quake 3 benchmarks in reviews. For years after the game was out it was still a good test to see if the fillrate and texelrate actually worked, or if the GPU kept up with AA and AF. A good benchmark, no bullshit, no worry about the shader compiler and ALUs or whatever, and oh let's see if you at least have a basic working OpenGL implementation.
Today I would like to see Quake 3 benchmarks in 4K.. Have an idea what the GPUs can do, which is the slowest that can reach 150 fps average there in good old timedemo (w/ forced MSAA and AF), finally know if supersampling can be made to work (such as 8x sparse grid). Heck can a card handle triple 4K. Quake 3 gave up kind of a ceiling number for framerates.
I had a quick look at it on a contempory powerful PC, at 1080p. Set cg_drawfps to 1.. It showed "999 FPS". Had run out of digits to display the framerate
To me, 10 000 points means you have a fast machine and GPU
I miss Quake 3 benchmarks in reviews. For years after the game was out it was still a good test to see if the fillrate and texelrate actually worked, or if the GPU kept up with AA and AF. A good benchmark, no bullshit, no worry about the shader compiler and ALUs or whatever, and oh let's see if you at least have a basic working OpenGL implementation.
Today I would like to see Quake 3 benchmarks in 4K.. Have an idea what the GPUs can do, which is the slowest that can reach 150 fps average there in good old timedemo (w/ forced MSAA and AF), finally know if supersampling can be made to work (such as 8x sparse grid). Heck can a card handle triple 4K
. Quake 3 gave up kind of a ceiling number for framerates.I had a quick look at it on a contempory powerful PC, at 1080p. Set cg_drawfps to 1.. It showed "999 FPS". Had run out of digits to display the framerate
UniversalTruth
Veteran
It is just pure sadness that 3DMark 2001 and its results is the only one clear to reviewers. Over time it is getting worse, yeah, I know.Two or three years ago I tried on my machine to run it but there was somehow a problem and I didn't get the result, so, I saw how high the framerate was, but in the end no result was displayed.
I also like Quake3, the game is amazing. Maybe you need to display a 4-digit number and in that case the 999 won't be a bottleneck.
DavidGraham
Veteran
What about fraps? I think it should work with the game and display the correct number ..I had a quick look at it on a contempory powerful PC, at 1080p. Set cg_drawfps to 1.. It showed "999 FPS". Had run out of digits to display the framerate
Similar threads
- Deleted member 2197
- Architecture and Products
