8800gts 512 g92

[jaz]

I yanked this off the evga forum, also to consider...future drivers are going to increase in quality unleashing more of the cards potential.

 

Ok here is the tests I completed on Vista 64 Ultimate. I also re-ran XP32 3Dmark06 to have an exact comparison. Same system [email protected] 8800GTS512 @ Stock Speeds. XP 3Dmark 13944. driver 169.21Beta. Vista64 Ultimate 13337 169.21Beta and Finally Vista64 Ultimate New 169.25Beta 13387.

 

Two interesting things to note: 1. The CPU Score was a little faster by a point or two on the Vista64 System But the Game scores were a few frames slower than on the XP system. So this definitely still points to the driver. The driver IS Beta and Vista drivers are Definitely getting better but still not perfect yet. 2. As it has been stated before online.

 

If you have a fresh install of vista its performance WILL get better over time. This was a new clean Vista64 Ultimate install with all patches and updates including the memory patch you have to ask Microsoft for. My 3Dmark scores increased on average 100 pints each time I rebooted after install for about 2days, until they settled into what I have above. Vista self optimizes over time so If you have a new install of vista give it time before being frustrated.

 

This is one heck of a $359.00 card!! And I haven’t even started to tweak or Overclock Yet. Check out the scores from Futuremarks site for Vista. Our 8800GTS 512's are beating 8800GTX pretty handily. Not too shabby.

 

http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33913

 

- 13,996 - MrMX5 - Q6600@2880 - 8800GTX SLi@600/1000

- 13,835 - CCC E6600 @ 3.6 GHz - 8800GTX in SLI

- 13,804 - SWAT_BigBear - FX-74 @ 3.125GHz - 8800GTX

- 13,789 - Dragomirc - [email protected] - 8800GTX@710/2080

- 13,788 - Dellienware - Q6600 @ 3.2 GHz - 8800 GTX in SLI

- 13,784 - Badboy - E6420 @3.8ghz - MSI 8800GTX 660/2055. - aircooled. Vista Ultimate.

- 13,694 - Frosty - Q6600 @3.15GHz - 8800GTX @630/2100

- 13,511 - Crazykooter - Q6600 @ 3.7GHz - HD 3870 @ 877/1366

- 13,464 - Btdvox - [email protected], 8800Ultra@ 675/1116

- 13,451 - Rush44 E6600 @3.6 GHz - 8800 Ultra

- 13,358 - SnoopyUK - [email protected] - 2900XT@ 858/1800

- 13,258 - Darkneo Q6600 @ 3.16 GHz - 8800GTX

- 13,228 - Wotan81 - Q6600 - HD3870 CF @ stock

- 13,114 - Pirelly - E6600 @ 3,7GHz, - 8800GTX @ 648/1566/1026

[powsmowl]

im seriously thinking of getting one of these with an AM2 based system (5000 BE , 590SLI) instead of a C2D (P35, E6750) with the HD3870, what do you guys think?

[jaz]

Ya know what i wish? I wish i had gone with an intel system, cuz their cpu's are hitting 4ghz which definatly cuts any bottlenecking down or out completly, especially the quads. Don't get me wrong, I love my am2 setup, but after my war with an evga forum member, looks like a little bit of bottlenecking does take place, though i doubt you and i could notice it, as Thraxz has posted a couple posts indicating the monitor as making a hi-end amd cpu making any bottlenecking pretty much a moot point.

 

But if i had it to do over again? i would've gotten a nice quad core intel cpu (at least a q6600) and a nice mid-hi end asus mobo. They have nice copper heatpipe cooling. People are getting much higher 3dmark scores with quad core hi end cpu's than with amd. I hope amd gets off it's collective arse and starts rolling out some competition or we could be looking at some very expensive intel cpu's.

 

Right now they very inexpensive. Plus some games (and probably a lot of future games) are using muli-thread tek, and amd just can't swing it. The best they are doing is 3 cores, and i don't know much about the muli-thread tek, but i know enough that intel does it a hell of a lot better than amd. That's my 2¢

[jaz]

Just pulled this from a member that scored 17035 in 3d '06.

Wow...i can't wait to get my mitts on that card!

 

For some reason, either the site is having difficulty or his link is busted, but he hit 174xx after another try. I'll try to get a working link for proof.

[ViperJohn]

The card cost is $359. I paid $325 for my gts320mb, so it costs me about $45 to have it shipped here via the cheapest ups ground option. But i still have to pay to ship my card when i bring to the ups store, so add about $14....somewhere around $50 altogether roughly.

 

That $45 quite literally got you a card that will rope, hog tie, shoot and butcher your

old GTS 320Mb in about 10 seconds lol.

 

Viper

[jaz]

You betchum red ryder...but i doubt my score will be that high with my cpu, but it will still kick a@@ big time! But i don't plan i spending all my time running benchies. I gots a list of games i gotta slice through!

[red930]

Right now they very inexpensive. Plus some games (and probably a lot of future games) are using muli-thread tek, and amd just can't swing it. The best they are doing is 3 cores, and i don't know much about the muli-thread tek, but i know enough that intel does it a hell of a lot better than amd. That's my 2¢

 

They have quad cores now as well, and I very much doubt (m)any games are fully utilizing even dual core processors.

 

$0.02

[jaz]

As far as i know, only crysis is using multi-threading-multi-core tek, and amd's top phenom doesn't do all that well against the highly oc-able intel quad cores. Here is a pretty good comparison chart from 3dguru.

 

Note the amd's are locked. But they are planning on releasing an unlocked cpu so that can be oc'ed. Not looking too good there amd..:confused:

 

But as time goes on, more and more games will utilise the multi-cores. I can slap the phenom in my am2 board (with a bios update), plus the amd quads will be competitively priced to keep up with intels huge lead.

 

But amd is going to have to perform a miracle to make me reverse my dissapointment with my decision to not go with an intel platform and cpu.