# 8800gts vs 2900 pro all tests made by me



## cefurkan (Oct 21, 2007)

u can look the pictures directly from here

http://forum.donanimhaber.com/m_18515791/tm.htm

my friend bought saphire 512 mb 2900 pro and i made all tests at my computer

here we go

drivers ati

7.10

nvidia 163.76


well the system settings
















Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/resultanalyzer.jsp?projectType=14&XLID=0&UID=11618220

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/2889/defaultig3.jpg

Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/resultanalyzer.jsp?projectType=14&XLID=0&UID=11624540

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4418/3dmarkdefaultcr9.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/resultanalyzer.jsp?projectType=14&XLID=0&UID=11618310

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/5936/oclinc0.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/resultanalyzer.jsp?projectType=14&XLID=0&UID=11624784

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9172/3dmarkoclh8.jpg









16x af opened from windows
the settings of bioshock

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3576/bioshock200710200059263uc4.jpg



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9180/bioshock200710200101519uw1.jpg
http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/3961/bioshock200710200102036mv4.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1206/bioshock200710200102141na8.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/79/bioshock200710200102263df0.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4443,     60000,  45, 143, 74.050


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/479/bioshock200710201358504ol0.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/200/bioshock200710201359045pc6.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4835/bioshock200710201359216tg5.jpg
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4958/bioshock200710201359362re5.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4858,     60000,  47, 164, 80.967


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/6510/bioshock200710200054013tp7.jpg
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/4131/bioshock200710200054136cu3.jpg
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/530/bioshock200710200054235bh1.jpg
http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/9813/bioshock200710200059263nu9.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5739,     60000,  58, 189, 95.650



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044



http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/3285/bioshock200710201403555er6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/296/bioshock200710201404077kj7.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7319/bioshock200710201404375wq5.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5868,     60000,  58, 198, 97.800



dirt game settings

16x af both cards opened from windows

http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1186/dirt2007102001151056cw0.jpg
http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4614/dirt2007102001151448fl7.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5784/dirt2007102001165739db4.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/7613/dirt2007102001180043fj5.jpg
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6284/dirt2007102001185242ra8.jpg

1 dakikalik test fraps ile

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  1287,     60000,  16,  26, 21.450


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7703/dirt2007102014223406no1.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7739/dirt2007102014234935qd5.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6489/dirt2007102014242790xr4.jpg



1 dakikalik test fraps ile

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  1889,     60000,  25,  37, 31.483



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/8442/dirt2007102001233840ri4.jpg
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/5274/dirt2007102001241201qg3.jpg
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/2738/dirt2007102001244390pp1.jpg


1 dakikalik fraps testi

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  1683,     60000,  22,  34, 28.050


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9803/dirt2007102014282773uw0.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4999/dirt2007102014285723tj4.jpg
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/7966/dirt2007102014292965iw4.jpg

1 dakikalik fraps testi

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2196,     60000,  30,  45, 36.600




F.E.A.R  settings 
windows settings are default


http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/4185/fearad6.jpg
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/4167/fear2007102001290451jt3.jpg
http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/8979/fear2007102001291200ci3.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7495/fear2007102001291518an9.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/7225/fear2007102001292298hm1.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/4549/fear2007102001293371eu3.jpg





Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/9137/fear2007102001415871ok5.jpg
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2878/fear2007102001423492sp8.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2903/fear2007102001424653wt4.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/886/fear2007102015015568wg0.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/7004/fear2007102015024250mr6.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/6105/fear2007102015033629mq3.jpg



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/210/fear2007102001323996jk6.jpg
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9061/fear2007102001383215vt6.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8121/fear2007102001392298ei2.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1821/fear2007102015060812tq1.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7171/fear2007102015064759jo9.jpg
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/5023/fear2007102015072114ik6.jpg





Gothic 3 settings

Windows settings are default

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6617/gothic32007102001511907fe8.jpg



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/9924/gothic32007102001452184gg9.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/2360/gothic32007102001455740ln8.jpg
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/5918/gothic32007102001471289gy6.jpg
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/1001/gothic32007102001483698jx1.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg 
  2209,     60000,   0,  44, 36.817


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7025/gothic32007102015105767kk1.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5506/gothic32007102015113290io9.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7986/gothic32007102015121279ws0.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/5639/gothic32007102015124295gc0.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  3620,     60000,   9,  71, 60.333




Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/6136/gothic32007102001520939hy3.jpg
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/3079/gothic32007102001524270ci8.jpg
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9817/gothic32007102001541451ly2.jpg
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/811/gothic32007102001545362yq4.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  3014,     60000,   7,  58, 50.233



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2954/gothic32007102015155729pz7.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1249/gothic32007102015162784cx0.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4683/gothic32007102015170006yq5.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4869/gothic32007102015173204sj8.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4269,     60000,   9,  85, 71.150



Half Life 2. episode 2 settings

all windows settings default


http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4697/hl22007102001574510yj1.jpg
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/9711/hl22007102001580250fj5.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1787/hl22007102001591484mm7.jpg
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/152/hl22007102002005720qr5.jpg
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9288/hl22007102002012101yi6.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/7184/hl22007102002013923kq0.jpg



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/84/hl22007102015373834nh5.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/7146/hl22007102015381248ms5.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1918/hl22007102015382451qv3.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/5708/hl22007102015383939rm5.jpg



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4030/hl22007102002044532gp6.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/9426/hl22007102002051268oi8.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/2851/hl22007102002052401wy5.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/8759/hl22007102002053518rs2.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2689,     60000,  30,  50, 44.817


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4927/hl22007102015414859ee0.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8762/hl22007102015421431nb5.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1741/hl22007102015422328xv0.jpg
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/703/hl22007102015423304as7.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4063,     60000,  50,  78, 67.717


World in conflict settings dx9
windows settings are default

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2892/wic2007102002083282sn7.jpg



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800


http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1628/wic2007102002100065hc0.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7743/wic2007102017195790rq4.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2594/wic2007102002114953nk6.jpg



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7460/wic2007102017213234vi0.jpg




Time Shift Demo settings

since i couldnt open projected shadows at 2900 pro i didnt open at 8800gts too


http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3641/timeshift20071020022609gc0.jpg
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/7020/timeshift20071020022615sw2.jpg
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/482/timeshift20071020022619yj2.jpg



Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800


http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/5822/timeshift20071020022835wi9.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1963/timeshift20071020022849cy6.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/5662/timeshift20071020170842gl5.jpg
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1049/timeshift20071020170842ve0.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4448/timeshift20071020023430my6.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8471/timeshift20071020023435cr1.jpg
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3982/timeshift20071020023556lz4.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2587,     60000,  35,  70, 43.117



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/8950/timeshift20071020171253ad8.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1976/timeshift20071020171334vi7.jpg
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9303/timeshift20071020171417hl2.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  3940,     60000,  44,  97, 65.667



Strangle Hold Settings

windows settings not default 16x af forced at both cards


http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/7297/retailstranglehold20071ru5.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3064/retailstranglehold20071mg7.jpg
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/921/retailstranglehold20071ls6.jpg
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/8972/retailstranglehold20071km6.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5348,     60000,  64, 131, 89.133



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/4338/retailstranglehold20071pe6.jpg
http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/5066/retailstranglehold20071dq3.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1207/retailstranglehold20071nu6.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5307,     60000,  58, 144, 88.450


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7059/retailstranglehold20071dq0.jpg
http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/1896/retailstranglehold20071ch4.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1922/retailstranglehold20071fz6.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  7664,     60000,  90, 201, 127.733



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2769/retailstranglehold20071aq1.jpg
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/3765/retailstranglehold20071vu6.jpg
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/1879/retailstranglehold20071cy4.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5914,     60000,  66, 164, 98.567


Pain killer overdose settings
no af opened from windows
all settings default

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7299/overdosedemo20071020031pj3.jpg






Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/8123/overdosedemo20071020031zu7.jpg
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/4803/overdosedemo20071020032wq8.jpg
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/2696/overdosedemo20071020032oq8.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4258,     60000,  41, 148, 70.967



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2586/overdosedemo20071020163bp1.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/3069/overdosedemo20071020163vy2.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/6003/overdosedemo20071020163oc3.jpg





Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  6048,     60000,  62, 153, 100.800




Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999



http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2523/overdosedemo20071020032qt5.jpg
http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/9022/overdosedemo20071020032cj5.jpg
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/383/overdosedemo20071020032gr4.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5457,     60000,  49, 185, 90.950



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/1640/overdosedemo20071020163vp0.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/6223/overdosedemo20071020163zj6.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/5416/overdosedemo20071020163gb9.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  6303,     60000,  58, 143, 105.050



Medal of honour airborne settings
16x af opened from windows

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/3341/ayarnh5.jpg

Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5496/moha2007102003381268gx2.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9541/moha2007102003381784zx0.jpg
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7239/moha2007102003393939bw9.jpg
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/5773/moha2007102003430512nw3.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4954,     60000,  56, 112, 82.567


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8838/moha2007102016054810ir2.jpg
http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/1628/moha2007102016055153qt0.jpg
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/148/moha2007102016071510mh8.jpg
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6449/moha2007102016104693ff8.jpg

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  4924,     60000,  60, 118, 82.067


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/6581/moha2007102003302112uk3.jpg
http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/436/moha2007102003314339pa9.jpg
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1683/moha2007102003351364ea1.jpg
http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/1475/moha2007102003445807qc0.jpg


Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  6128,     60000,  62, 147, 102.133


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044



http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3366/moha2007102016174150ec9.jpg
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/9053/moha2007102016174659pb0.jpg
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/8425/moha2007102016190903qy4.jpg
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/346/moha2007102016224068tz9.jpg



Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  5757,     60000,  64, 139, 95.950



Oblivion settings

16x af opened from windows at both card

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/1815/oblivion200710200423467zr6.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3794/oblivion200710200423526iw5.jpg
http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4060/oblivion200710200423565hr3.jpg
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1514/oblivion200710200423596sr6.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800


http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1554/oblivion200710200426426yt5.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/2456/oblivion200710200433558sa3.jpg
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/8753/oblivion200710200437555ym4.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7086/oblivion200710200439203nm6.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7135/oblivion200710201627436on0.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/9697/oblivion200710201627535ed6.jpg
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7223/oblivion200710201628151jf7.jpg
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5718/oblivion200710201628230nj6.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999


http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/2060/oblivion200710200441017bw7.jpg
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1693/oblivion200710200441136km2.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7503/oblivion200710200441300qk7.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8682/oblivion200710200441416uh0.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3697/oblivion200710201625150gn4.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9930/oblivion200710201625262rg7.jpg
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/8340/oblivion200710201625505za3.jpg
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/6201/oblivion200710201626491nd4.jpg





Hel gate london settings

no af opened from windows
windows settings are default

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/2691/hellgatedemospdx9x86200rc9.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800


http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9918/hellgatedemospdx9x86200fe1.jpg
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1987/hellgatedemospdx9x86200bq1.jpg
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/399/hellgatedemospdx9x86200ag8.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/7066/hellgatedemospdx9x86200ll2.jpg



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7879/hellgatedemospdx9x86200bi3.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1401/hellgatedemospdx9x86200mj0.jpg
http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/4512/hellgatedemospdx9x86200td2.jpg
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/3397/hellgatedemospdx9x86200zw9.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/2889/hellgatedemospdx9x86200rk5.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/4237/hellgatedemospdx9x86200ex7.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4480/hellgatedemospdx9x86200cv0.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1584/hellgatedemospdx9x86200ty0.jpg



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044


http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/2631/hellgatedemospdx9x86200tz5.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4845/hellgatedemospdx9x86200oz7.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/9163/hellgatedemospdx9x86200it0.jpg
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/402/hellgatedemospdx9x86200en8.jpg


Lost planet settings

all windows settings are default

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/2779/lostplanetdx92007102015qp1.jpg
http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/2346/lostplanetdx92007102015ch7.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800



http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7861/lostplanetdx92007102004hu7.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850


http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/3269/lostplanetdx92007102015ls4.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1486/lostplanetdx92007102005yl4.jpg


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6466/lostplanetdx92007102016bm6.jpg


Call of Duty 4 settings

all windows settings are default

http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5758/iw3sp2007102005200446zv2.jpg
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1003/iw3sp2007102005200667el4.jpg


Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @600/800


http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4936/iw3sp2007102005155631cb0.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/6241/iw3sp2007102005172614xn5.jpg
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1694/iw3sp2007102005173690kg9.jpg

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  1885,     60000,  27,  38, 31.417


Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 575/1350/850

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9425/iw3sp2007102100462832ge1.jpg
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5486/iw3sp2007102100470257rn4.jpg
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2163/iw3sp2007102100472557af5.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2468,     60000,  34,  60, 41.133

Saphire 512 mb 2900 pro @800/999

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5664/iw3sp2007102005202465wf0.jpg
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2323/iw3sp2007102005210695sy3.jpg
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4627/iw3sp2007102005215781pg9.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2341,     60000,  32,  47, 39.017



Msi 8800 gts oc  edition 320mb @ 648/1620/1044

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3315/iw3sp2007102100372146ln2.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7238/iw3sp2007102100374703lz0.jpg
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/9827/iw3sp2007102100381978fq0.jpg




Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
  2741,     60000,  38,  77, 45.683



best mmorpg online Pokemon Game PokemonCraft

first complete all region Pokedex


----------



## Agility (Oct 21, 2007)

Using that processor really bottlenekcs the gpu though but it really shows the difference of the two cards. Nice.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 21, 2007)

Agility said:


> Using that processor really bottlenekcs the gpu though but it really shows the difference of the two cards. Nice.



what cpu should i use

it is faster than all dual core cpus at the market(of course default values)

3195 mhz

and i dont thinks so higher values make much difference expect 3d mark tests


----------



## Ketxxx (Oct 21, 2007)

Use the highest possible stable FSB, that will reduce bottlenecks to a minimum.


----------



## Micro (Oct 21, 2007)

Was there a reason for not testing the ATI card at same higher CPU core speed as the Nvidia card (as shown in your first set of pics)?


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 21, 2007)

Micro said:


> Was there a reason for not testing the ATI card at same higher CPU core speed as the Nvidia card (as shown in your first set of pics)?



well cpu get the idle mod at that moment

but if u look the 3d mark scores u see the cpu scores same


----------



## nflesher87 (Oct 21, 2007)

doesn't matter that the cpu scored the same, that was solely on the cpu tests, it was still most likely bottlenecking at least at times during the graphics tests

the first thing I noticed with this test as well was the processor, the reason to use a very high end processor in comparisons such as these is to attempt to make the test as objective as possible, reducing the possibility of a cpu bottleneck to as close to nil as possible

therefore using a highly overclocked quad core for a comparison like this would've been the most favorable choice


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 21, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> doesn't matter that the cpu scored the same, that was solely on the cpu tests, it was still most likely bottlenecking at least at times during the graphics tests
> 
> the first thing I noticed with this test as well was the processor, the reason to use a very high end processor in comparisons such as these is to attempt to make the test as objective as possible, reducing the possibility of a cpu bottleneck to as close to nil as possible
> 
> therefore using a highly overclocked quad core for a comparison like this would've been the most favorable choice



well i am not totaly agree with you

i dont think so it wont make much more difference

beacuse most of the games cant use quad core very well


----------



## SK-1 (Oct 21, 2007)

He has a point


----------



## nflesher87 (Oct 21, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> well i am not totaly agree with you
> 
> i dont think so it wont make much more difference
> 
> beacuse most of the games cant use quad core very well



doesn't matter, it takes the guesswork out of it and makes the comparison as objective as can be


----------



## Blacklash (Oct 21, 2007)

Interesting and good work.

I've been asking for a comparison akin to this for the HD 2900XT and the GTS 640Mb for sometime. There are plenty of reviews out there that compare the two cards and *not* at their max air OC.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 21, 2007)

those tests made at stok coolings


----------



## Behemoko (Oct 21, 2007)

Thank you, I've been waiting for this type of benchmark. 

And, to all the bashers, what the hell..  He said "made by me", and this does reflect a real world test at least, so what is with all the hate?  It shows that with this processor at these settings, this is what you can expect, and that the 8800 GTS oc outperforms the 2900 pro at least at this level.


----------



## Airbrushkid (Oct 21, 2007)

You misread something.. His 8800 GTS is not a 640 mb card. It's the 320 mb card. So the 8800 GTS OC 320 mb card has a disadvantage, less memory on the card.






Blacklash said:


> Interesting and good work.
> 
> I've been asking for a comparison akin to this for the HD 2900XT and the GTS 640Mb for sometime. There are plenty of reviews out there that compare the two cards and *not* at their max air OC.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 21, 2007)

The HD2900 Pro Is being majorly bottelnecked, the higher the clock of the cpu, the better the performance of the HD2900 Pro. Also you can overclock the HD2900 Pro a lot more depending on the clock speed of your CPU.  So although I am glad the two are being compared, I don't think its fair having the HD2900 Pro running with a 1.8Ghz(2) processor.


----------



## b1lk1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Very nice effort, I truely mean that.  But the higher the CPU overclock, the better the benchmark scores, period.  I also agree that these cards are not meant for low end CPU's and just get faster and faster with higher clocks.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 22, 2007)

*Here is a bench for you can your 8800 gts 320 match this.*












just kidding of course This just goes to show you how much a GPU depends on the CPU My gpu was at 870/2380 stable 24/7


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

Ignore most of these people, this is a very useful and thorough comparison.

For all of you complaining about the CPU, you're all full of shit! A 3.2ghz C2D will not "bottleneck" these upper-mid-range cards. This comparison is completely valid and very useful.

Thanks for your contribution cefurkan!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 22, 2007)

Man I'm just confused why he has his CPU at 3.1ghz with the Nvidia and with the ATI he has 2.1ghz. Unless I am reading those pics wrong I don't get that. Also don't get me wrong I am not trying to dis this guy or anyone else, just that I want it to be accurate thats all.


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

AphexDreamer said:


> Man I'm just confused why he has his CPU at 3.1ghz with the Nvidia and with the ATI he has 2.1ghz. Unless I am reading those pics wrong I don't get that. Also don't get me wrong I am not trying to dis this guy or anyone else, just that I want it to be accurate thats all.



He explained (he tried at least, and I understood from experience). He has SpeedStep turned on. His PC was idling when he took that shot, so the multi on the CPU was dropped by three, hence the lower core speed. As soon as he kicked into the game tests the CPU would have gone back to 9x355...


----------



## JC316 (Oct 22, 2007)

v-zero said:


> Ignore most of these people, this is a very useful and thorough comparison.
> 
> For all of you complaining about the CPU, you're all full of shit! A 3.2ghz C2D will not "bottleneck" these upper-mid-range cards. This comparison is completely valid and very useful.
> 
> Thanks for your contribution cefurkan!



Oh, I beg to differ that point ALOT. There was a HUGE difference in 3.3 and 3.4GHZ for me. Like a near 500 point increase in 05 and 06, not to mention a nice boost in frame rate.


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

JC316 said:


> Oh, I beg to differ that point ALOT. There was a HUGE difference in 3.3 and 3.4GHZ for me. Like a near 500 point increase in 05 and 06, not to mention a nice boost in frame rate.



I don't care. At this point the change is linear for both, hence fair test.


----------



## JC316 (Oct 22, 2007)

v-zero said:


> I don't care. At this point the change is linear for both, hence fair test.



But it's obvious that the 8800GTS wins with a lesser powered CPU, but when you get higher clock speeds, then the 2900 pro wins out.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 22, 2007)

JC316 said:


> But it's obvious that the 8800GTS wins with a lesser powered CPU, but when you get higher clock speeds, then the 2900 pro wins out.



Thank you for finaly saying it.


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

JC316 said:


> But it's obvious that the 8800GTS wins with a lesser powered CPU, but when you get higher clock speeds, then the 2900 pro wins out.



Yes, the 8800 does have special CPU enhancing powers akin to a Jedi in GPU form, in that it saps this extra power from "the force" when on a low-end CPU, but as soon as it gets to a high-end part it says to itself "fuck this shit, I'm gonna lay back and let you do the work now". Whereas the 2900 is essentially vampiric, able immediately to cripple a low-end CPU with it's massive metaphorical fangs, but when faced with a high-end CPU it suddenly stops attempting to kill its compatriot and plays super-GPU.


That, by the by, was sarcasm. What are you on?


----------



## JC316 (Oct 22, 2007)

AphexDreamer said:


> Thank you for finaly saying it.



Lol, I can say it, because I am not a fan boy. I am not a brand loyalist, I choose the best price/performance ratio and go with it. 

It's also true that I gave less for my pro than I would have buying an 8800. On top of that, I have the added RAM so when the big boys come out, I will have the ram and bandwidth to play it.

I think that V-Zero is a tad touchy on this subject.


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

JC316 said:


> I think that V-Zero is a tad touchy on this subject.



Sadly that is not the case. Currently I do not own a 2900 or 8800 series part. I have built systems around them, and quite like both - I have no brand loyalty because I'm not an idiot.

What I don't like is when people who are wrong keep contradicting me, which you are making a habit of.


----------



## JC316 (Oct 22, 2007)

v-zero said:


> Sadly that is not the case. Currently I do not own a 2900 or 8800 series part. I have built systems around them, and quite like both - I have no brand loyalty because I'm not an idiot.
> 
> What I don't like is when people who are wrong keep contradicting me, which you are making a habit of.



Well, you are going to have to deal with it, because I am stating a fact. The 8800GTS 320mb can't keep up when the CPU speed rises.


----------



## Behemoko (Oct 22, 2007)

JC316 said:


> But it's obvious that the 8800GTS wins with a lesser powered CPU, but when you get higher clock speeds, then the 2900 pro wins out.



So then, where is this bench you speak of, I didn't see him switch out the CPU to show a bench in favor of the 2900 pro.

And, so you don't call me fanboy also, you should know that I currently run a system consisting of AMD and ATI.   I go with the market flow, and as things stand, my next system will be Intel/Nvidia.


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

JC316 said:


> Well, you are going to have to deal with it, because I am stating a fact. The 8800GTS 320mb can't keep up when the CPU speed rises.



And you are going to have to deal with the fact that you are full of shit.


----------



## JC316 (Oct 22, 2007)

Ok, F.E.A.R.

Stock speeds, CPU@ 3285MHZ







Now, thats not that much further ahead of his CPU and the only thing that out scores me is the min FPS, otherwise I bash. TRT shows that in 06 it outscores it big time.

Let me see if I can come up with more examples.


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

From where I'm standing, let's call it the Enlightened Pedestall or EP for short, I can see two things. There's a battery of evidence that suggests the 8800gts is a damn good match for the 2900pro on one side, and on the other side there is a man - apparently made mostly from faeces - who claims the 8800 to be performing magic at lower CPU speeds. 
I just happen to choose the side that doesn't involve magic and poo.

Now, because it's past 3am in the UK, I'm going to bed. If I find upon waking that you have supplied sufficient evidence to support your alternative hypothesis then I will have to give this more thought.

I hope you understand that this is all meant in good humour, and that I don't actually think you are made from, or full of shit.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 22, 2007)

This is actually one of the better reviews I've seen, very thourough, and enlightening. you've all forgotten that the 8800gts was the competitor for the 2900xt and the pro seems to be doing pretty well against a stock oced 320mb. the 2900pro is cheaper than the 8800gts and actually beats the gts in several tests. overall pretty good. now the reall event will be the 8800gt and new gts vs the 2950/3870/fricken off the wall naming scheme by amd card. lol


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 22, 2007)

so many ppl claimed that the 3.2 ghz core 2 duo cpu is not enough for this 2900 pro

but u are totaly wrong

while cpu increase both card scores increase not only the 2900 pro

if i had a quad core 4 ghz of course my 8800gts would take around 14 k scores at 3d mark 2006


like this one took

http://img.techpowerup.org/071021/3dmark06.jpg


and u think that quad core would boost up alot 2900 pro

i know how many game could u use quad core very well

atm i can say very few of them

since almost  none of the games, still cant use my dual core cpu more than %90 ^^


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 22, 2007)

Nah, were just saying that the higher you CPU clock, the Higher you can overclock the HD2900 Pro.


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 22, 2007)

AphexDreamer said:


> Nah, were just saying that the higher you CPU clock, the Higher you can overclock the HD2900 Pro.



Yes... u right man.... I got nice boost at 3.8Ghz on HD2900 X-Fire Mode.... It's help me to Max my HD2900 OC.... Over All.... HD2900 is nice card when u have nice OC CPU...


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 22, 2007)

ccleorina said:


> Yes... u right man.... I got nice boost at 3.8Ghz on HD2900 X-Fire Mode.... I help me to Max my HD2900 OC.... Over All.... HD2900 is nice card when u have nice OC CPU...



Thank you


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> so many ppl claimed that the 3.2 ghz core 2 duo cpu is not enough for this 2900 pro
> 
> but u are totaly wrong
> 
> ...




I will say game start in 2008 will use 4 core... The Future Games will use Quad or what ever the core are... Like Crysis...


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 22, 2007)

AphexDreamer said:


> Thank you



Welcome man...


----------



## nflesher87 (Oct 22, 2007)

v-zero, I'd love to take a ride on your horse with you, but I'm afraid I can't reach that high 


and how can overclocking your cpu have any effect on how far of an overclock you can reach on your video card?!


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 22, 2007)

From what i know... ATI King of the Gaming Image Quality and Nvidia King of the Gaming Performance.... two of them are nice GPU.... Just make sure u have Good CPU, Mobo, RAM and PSU....


----------



## v-zero (Oct 22, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> v-zero, I'd love to take a ride on your horse with you, but I'm afraid I can't reach that high
> 
> 
> and how can overclocking your cpu have any effect on how far of an overclock you can reach on your video card?!



Exactly! And as for my tall horse, well I think it's fun so I stay there.


----------



## vexen (Oct 22, 2007)

my god, all the time reading this i tough this was a 2900XT, i was like, what kind of garbage i'm going to buy, getting shifted by a 8800GTS 320! phew!


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 22, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> v-zero, I'd love to take a ride on your horse with you, but I'm afraid I can't reach that high
> 
> 
> and how can overclocking your cpu have any effect on how far of an overclock you can reach on your video card?!



he talks noneselsly

because there is no connection between cpu and graphic card mhz 

but they claim that while higher cpu increase 2900 pro scores ,8800gts scores doesnt increase or increase very low

but they dont have any proof about this and i dont belive it


----------



## trt740 (Oct 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> so many ppl claimed that the 3.2 ghz core 2 duo cpu is not enough for this 2900 pro
> 
> but u are totaly wrong
> 
> ...




If you had a 8800 gtx and a quad you might break 14000 but not a 8800 gts you might just reach 13000. I know Ive owned a 8800 gts 320, 8800 gts 640,  a 8800 gtx 768, and now a 2900 xt 1 gig. With driver revisions a 8800 gts 640 cannot match a 2900 xtand  a 2900 xt can almost match a 8800 gtx. Also I found that the Gpu start to bottle neck for the 8800 gtx and 2900 xt at around 4.021ghz with intel quad cores, so yes, at 3.4, even a C2D does hold back a 8800 gtx or 2900xt. However, nothing out yet can truely unbottle neck them yet even my quad cannot do it because it can only bench at 4.021ghz and is not 24/7 stable.You might not notice it in current games but you can see it in benchmarks. There was a point that no matter what I did even at 877/1198 my 2900 xt would not increase it's frame rate at that point it was all CPU I think it was at about 4.021ghz. Oh and the score you post was my 2900xt not a 8800 gts this is my new score and if you look most 8800 gtx cannot break 14000 even with a quad so certainly your 8800 gts 640 couldn't.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 22, 2007)

trt740 said:


> If you had a 8800 gtx and a quad you might break 14000 but not a 8800 gts you might just reach 13000. I know Ive owned a 8800 gts 320, 8800 gts 640,  a 8800 gtx 768, and now a 2900 xt 1 gig. With driver revisions a 8800 gts 640 cannot match a 2900 xtand  a 2900 xt can almost match a 8800 gtx. Also I found that the Gpu start to bottle neck for the 8800 gtx and 2900 xt at around 4.021ghz with intel quad cores, so yes, at 3.4, even a C2D does hold back a 8800 gtx or 2900xt. However, nothing out yet can truely unbottle neck them yet even my quad cannot do it because it can only bench at 4.021ghz and is not 24/7 stable.You might not notice it in current games but you can see it in benchmarks. There was a point that no matter what I did even at 877/1198 my 2900 xt would not increase it's frame rate at that point it was all CPU I think it was at about 4.021ghz. Oh and the score you post was my 2900xt not a 8800 gts this is my new score and if you look most 8800 gtx casnnot break 14000 even with a quad so certainly your 88000 gts 640 couldn't.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 22, 2007)

i made 11910 score with e4300

and u say me u cant break 14 k with quad core 4 ghz lol

look what i have taken with e4300

i think upper than 13500 wouldnt be hard for me with quad core cpu at 4 ghz or more

u think that 2900xt is ultra super at 3d mark
but it is not as u see above

2900 pro @800 mhz takes 11.5k
8800gts @648 mhz takes 11.4k


and here is the best score ever that i took (but this doesnt mean i wont take more ^^)


http://www.image-tr.com/gallery.php?entry=images/Guest0wky3wtyzhytgqunyjq1.jpg


----------



## trt740 (Oct 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> i made 11910 score with e4300
> 
> and u say me u cant break 14 k with quad core 4 ghz lol
> 
> ...



*You have  lost your mind show me how you think a 8800 gts can do 14000 when only two 2900 xt and 8800 gts including ultras can do it show me. It cannot be done.* I *mean we are only talking over 2500 points which is a giant amount.*
Ti Scores - Single Card Setup's Average Score = 7255

1, allen337 - Sapphire HD2900XT @ 833/981 - 13923 - Q6600 @ 3555.2Mhz - 395FSB
2, trt740 - ATi HD2900XT @ 848/1140 - 13551 - Q6600 @ 3249.8Mhz - 406.2FSB
3, lane - Sapphire HD2900XT @ 880/999 - 13335 - E6700 @ 4120Mhz - 412FSB
4, trt740 - ATi HD2900XT @ 875/1190 - 13289 - E6850 @ 4140.3Mhz - 460FSB
5, trt740 - ATi HD2900XT @ 843/1150 - 13185 - E2160 @ 3690Mhz - 410FSB 
6, Oliver - ATi HD2900XT @ 848/1050 - 12601 - E6700 @ 3447.7Mhz - 383.1FSB
7, Lt JWS - Sapphire HD2900XT @ 850/1000 - 12221 - E6750 @ 3607Mhz - 450.9FSB
8, binormalkilla - HIS HD2900XT @ 860/1050 - 11656 - E6600 @ 3005.7Mhz - 334FSB
9, Agility - Asustek HD2900XT @ 850/900 - 11572 - E6420 @ 3200Mhz - 400FSB
10, yogurt_21 - ATi HD2900XT @ 928/980 - 11568 - A64 FX-62 @ 3406.4Mhz - 262FSB
11, JC316 - HIS HD2900Pro @ 800/855 - 11399 - E4300 @ 3285.3Mhz - 365FSB
12, Wile E - Powercolor HD2900XT @ 847/999 - 11041 - A64 X2 6000+ @ 3427.2Mhz - 285.6FSB
13, Exceededgoku - Sapphire HD2900XT @ 750/828 - 10316 - E6600 @ 3200Mhz - 400FSB
14, mandelore - ATi HD2900XT @ 850/1100 - 10280 - Opty 185 @ 2969.8Mhz - 270FSB
15, DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E - HIS X1950XT @ 756/1062 - 7583 - E6400 @ 3760Mhz - 470FSB
16, Dr. Spankenstein - HIS X1950XT @ 716/990 - 7372 - E6600 @ 3577.9Mhz - 397.5FSB
17, DaMulta - Connect3D X1950XTX @ 762/1071 - 7128 - A64 FX-62 @ 3222.3Mhz - 214.8FSB
18, renozi - Sapphire X1900XT @ 688/792 - 7048 - E6700 @ 3504.2Mhz - 350.4FSB
19, Na'Roon - ATi X1900XT @ 662/846 - 7025 - E6600 @ 3411.2Mhz - 379FSB
20, Boneface - Sapphire X1950XT @ 689/999 - 6843 - E6400 @ 3200.2Mhz - 400FSB
21, DaMulta - Connect3D X1950XTX @ 736/1071 - 6752 - A64 X2 3600+ @ 2784.7Mhz - 293.1FSB
22, Exceededgoku - Sapphire X1900XTX @ 689/805 - 6664 - E6600 @ 3199.9Mhz - 400FSB
23, jpierce55 - ATi X1900XTX @ 668/855 - 6355 - A64 X2 3600+ @ 2693.3Mhz - 283.5FSB
24, technicks - Sapphire X1950XT @ 675/945 - 6225 - A64 X2 4000+ @ 2982.2Mhz - 284FSB
25, Ketxxx - Xpertvision X1950Pro @ 662/803 - 6154 - E4400 @ 3420.3Mhz - 380FSB
26, Uncle Vinnie - ATi X1900XTX @ 688/792 - 6102 - A64 X2 4600+ @ 2604.2Mhz - 217FSB
27, tigger69 - Sapphire X1950Pro @ 648/769 - 6087 - E6750 @ 3600Mhz - 450FSB
28, Alcpone - Sapphire X1950Pro @ 648/817 - 5874 - E6300 @ 3360.2Mhz - 480FSB
29, yogurt_21 - ATi X1800XT @ 780/936 - 5825 - A64 FX-62 @ 3294.6Mhz - 205.9FSB
30, theonetruewill - HIS X1900GT @ 715/810 - 5793 - A64 X2 4600+ @ 2841.8Mhz - 258.3FSB
31, 0elemental0 - Powercolor X1950XT @ 628/801 - 5733 - A64 X2 4800+ @ 2387.9Mhz - 199FSB
32, Maju - Sapphire X1950XTX @ 709/1098 - 5731 - A64 3700+ @ 2801.6Mhz - 254.7FSB
33, SpookyWillow - HIS X1900Pro @ 675/817 - 5598 - A64 3800+ @ 2573Mhz - 257.3FSB
34, ace80 - HIS X1800GTO @ 729/810 - 5522 - E6420 @ 3199.9Mhz - 400FSB
35, Kursah - PowerColor X1950Pro Extreme @ 628/770 - 5513 - E6300 @ 3360Mhz - 480FSB
36, mitchy24 - MSI X1950Pro @ 621/790 - 5432 - A64 X2 4200+ @ 2805.7Mhz - 255.1FSB
37, Garb3 - MSI X1950Pro @ 621/790 - 5322 - A64 X2 5200+ @ 3059Mhz - 278.1FSB
38, Sovereign - MSI HD2600XT @ 850/1150 - 5318 - A64 X2 4200+ @ 2860.8Mhz - 260.1FSB
39, zCexVe - Sapphire X1950XT @ 682/963 - 5283 - A64 3200+ @ 2703Mhz - 300.3FSB
40, pt - Xpertvision HD2600XT @ 857/999 - 5267 - E2160 @ 3004Mhz - 333.8FSB
41, Wile E - Sapphire X1800XT @ 715/873 - 5204 - A64 X2 3800+ @ 2800Mhz - 280FSB
42, HookeyStreet - Sapphire X1950GT @ 581/702 - 5200 - E6420 @ 2667.9Mhz - 333.5FSB 
43, Formula350 - Sapphire X1950Pro @ 634/800 - 5153 - A64 3200+ @ 2700.1Mhz - 270.1FSB
44, erocker - HIS X1950Pro @ 638/763 - 5014 - A64 3800+ @ 2850.2Mhz - 285FSB
45, dashsmashed - Sapphire X1950Pro @ 631/749 - 4826 - A64 3700+ @ 3126.4Mhz - 284.2FSB
46, mitchy24 - MSI X1950Pro @ 621/786 - 4761 - A64 4000+ @ 3001Mhz - 250.1FSB
47, imperialreign - ATi X1950Pro @ 614/762 - 4616 - P4 524 @ 3802.3Mhz - 165.3FSB
48, warlock - HIS X1950Pro @ 641/749 - 4405 - P4 Prescott @ 3601.4Mhz - 225.1FSB
49, theonetruewill - ATi X800XT @ 560/564 - 2462 - A64 X2 4600+ @ 2761.1Mhz - 230.1FSB
50, disarmedmeteor - ATi X800GTO @ 513/550 - 2284 - E6300 @ 1996.6Mhz - 285.3FSB
51, newtekie1 - HIS X1650Pro @ 600/400 - 2059 - Celeron 352 @ 4437.7Mhz - 184.9FSB
52, Jimmy 2004 - Sapphire X800GTO @ 407/511 - 1796 - Sempron 3000+ @ 2529Mhz - 281FSB
53,
54,
55,
56,
57,
58,
59,
60,

ATi Scores - X-Fire Setup's Average Score = 10271


1, deagle - Sapphire HD2900XT X-Fire @ 743/828 - 19777 - Q6700 @ 4031.9Mhz - 447.9FSB
2, Urlyin - ATi / Powercolor X1900 X-Fire @ 742/850 - 11357 - Opty 185 @ 3194.6Mhz - 266.2FSB
3, DaMulta - Connect3D / MSI X1950XTX X-Fire @ 675/999 - 10380 - A64 FX-62 @ 3012Mhz - 200.8FSB
4, mitsirfishi - HIS /Asus X1950Pro X-Fire @ 641/823 - 9334 - A64 X2 6000+ @ 3444Mhz - 287FSB
5, binormalkilla - HIS X1950Pro X-Fire @ 580/700 - 8482 - A64 X2 3800+ @ 2699.9Mhz - 300FSB
6, ace80 - HIS X1800GTO X-Fire @ 627/729 - 6662 - E6420 @ 3191.4Mhz - 398.9FSB
7, DrunkenMafia - PowerColor X1800GTO X-Fire @ 500/500 - 5908 - Opty 165 @ 2970.4Mhz - 330FSB
8,
9,
10,


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


nVidia Scores - Single Card Setup's Average Score = 9852


1, orion23 - XFX 8800GTX @ 655/955 - 14446 - Q6600 @ 3897.3Mhz - 433FSB
2, HookeyStreet - BFG 8800GTXOC @ 610/950 - 13546 - Q6600 @ 3402.3Mhz - 378FSB
3, Live Or Die - XFX 8800Ultra @ 675/1150 - 13493 - E6850 @ 3975.1Mhz - 441.7FSB
4, thebeephaha - eVGA 8800GTX @ 626/1000 - 13328 - Q6600 @ 3000.1Mhz - 333.3FSB
5, trt740 - eVGA 8800GTX @ 660/1044 - 13283 - E6600 @ 3903.7Mhz - 433.7FSB
6, Jadawin - Gainward Bliss 8800GTX @ 650/1000 - 13118 - Q6600 @ 3300Mhz - 368FSB
7, ADV4NCED - BFG 8800GTXOC @ 641/980 - 12912 - E6600 @ 3775.1Mhz - 419.4FSB
8, cowie - eVGA 8800GTS @ 726/998 - 12428 - E6600 @ 3746Mhz - 416.2FSB
9, trt740 - nVidia 8800GTS @ 689/1100 - 12342 - E6600 @ 3881.3Mhz - 431.3FSB
10, Tatty_One - Gainward 8800GTS @ 684/1060 - 12305 - E6850 @ 4049.8Mhz - 450FSB
11, infrared - eVGA 8800GTS @ 700/1070 - 12251 - E6400 @ 3760.1Mhz - 470FSB
12, thebeephaha - eVGA 8800GTX @ 621/1000 - 12192 - E4300 @ 3299.8Mhz - 366.6FSB
13, HookeyStreet - BFG 8800GTX @ 600/900 - 12064 - E6700 @ 3334.6Mhz - 333.5FSB
14, renozi - eVGA 8800GTS @ 693/1100 - 12051 - E6700 @ 3604.3Mhz - 360.5FSB
15, Lt_JWS - eVGA 8800GTS @ 701/1000 - 11907 - E6600 @ 3401.1Mhz - 377.9FSB 
16, jjnissanpatfan - eVGA 8800GTS @ 670/1050 - 11766 - E6300 @ 3472Mhz - 496FSB
17, JUDAS3 - BFG 8800GTS @ 665/1000 - 11693 - E6600 @ 3833.6Mhz - 426FSB
18, strick94u - eVGA 8800GTS @ 660/1024 - 11661 - E6600 @ 3401.2Mhz - 377.9FSB
19, Mussels - Albatron 8800GTX @ 629/960 - 11636 - E6600 @ 3401Mhz - 425.1FSB
20, Atnevon - eVGA 8800GTX @ 575/900 - 11620 - Q6600 @ 2400.5Mhz - 266.7FSB
21, trt740 - Foxconn 8800GTS @ 660/979 - 11506 - E6600 @ 3760Mhz - 470FSB
22, Boneface - MSI 8800GTS @ 664/1010 - 11300 - E6400 @ 3919.9Mhz - 490FSB
23, Live OR Die - XFX 8800GTSXXX @ 630/1023 - 11243 - E6600 @ 3286.9Mhz - 365.2FSB
24, Alcpone - Palit 8800GTS @ 648/1100 - 11200 - E6300 @ 3360.8Mhz - 480.1FSB
25, trt740 - Foxconn 8800GTS @ 674/982 - 11111 - A64 X2 6000+ @ 3504.1Mhz - 292FSB
26, driver66 - eVGA 8800GTS @ 673/999 - 11100 - E6300 @ 3002.9Mhz - 429FSB
27, pbmaster - eVGA 8800GTS @ 701/930 - 11010 - A64 X2 6000+ @ 3240Mhz - 270FSB
28, Judas - BFG 8800GTSOC @ 666/1042 - 10834 - A64 X2 5600+ @ 3199.9Mhz - 320FSB
29, Dano 00TA- eVGA 8800GTS @ 635/950 - 10648 - E4300 @ 3237.9Mhz - 359.8FSB
30, D007 - eVGA 8800GTS @ 660/920 - 10612 - E6400 @ 3410Mhz - 426.3FSB
31, Exeodus - eVGA 8800GTX @ 600/950 - 10486 - A64 X2 5600+ @ 3024Mhz - 216FSB
32, BigD6997 - eVGA 8800GTS @ 645/1000 - 10452 - Opty 170 @ 3000.1Mhz - 300.1FSB
33, trt740 - Foxconn 8800GTS @ 678/982 - 10314 - A64 X2 3600+ @ 3042.1Mhz - 338FSB
34, erocker - eVGA 8800GTS @ 645/950 - 10135 - Opty 170 @ 3010.1Mhz - 301FSB
35, r3skyline - eVGA 8800GTS @ 681/1031 - 10127 - A64 FX-60 @ 2889.9Mhz - 222.3FSB
36, gerrynicol - BFG 8800GTS @ 630/950 - 10026 - E6320 @ 2501Mhz - 357.3FSB 
37, technicks - Asus 8800GTS @ 629/1003 - 9942 - A64 X2 4000+ @ 3003.3Mhz - 286FSB
38, Grings - BFG 8800GTS @ 630/925 - 9713 - Opty 165 @ 2806.5Mhz - 311.8FSB
39, pcgolfer85 - MSI 8800GTSOC @ 629/945 - 9679 - A64 X2 6000+ @ 3013.8Mhz - 200.9FSB
40, savillm - BFG 8800GTSOC @ 550/792 - 8955 - E6600 @ 2400Mhz - 266.7FSB
41, the1andonlyatk - BFG 8800GTSOC2 @ 580/850 - 8887 - A64 X2 5600+ @ 2916.2Mhz - 243FSB
42, gerrynicol - BFG 8800GTS @ 630/950 - 8804 - A64 X2 3800+ @ 2599.4Mhz - 259.9FSB
43, trt740 - MSI 8600GTSOC @ 792/1197 - 6747 - E6600 @ 3881.2Mhz - 431.2FSB
44, JC316 - MSI 8600GTSOC @ 700/1170 - 6496 - E4300 @ 3285.2Mhz - 365FSB 
45, savillm - BFG 8800GTSOC @ 550/792 - 6367 - A64 4000+ @ 2412.5Mhz - 201FSB
46, JC316 - MSI 8600GTSOC @ 775/1145 - 6156 - A64 X2 3600+ @ 2853.1Mhz - 300.3FSB 
47, Black Panther - Point of View 8600GTS @ 754/1126 - 5934 - E4300 @ 2997Mhz - 333FSB
48, pbmaster - eVGA 7900GTOC @ 600/800 - 5835 A64 6000+ @ 3014.1Mhz - 200.9FSB
49, HookeyStreet - BFG 7950GTOC @ 577/748 - 5696 - E6420 @ 2667.9Mhz - 333.5FSB
50, strick94u - PNY 7900GS @ 564/665 - 5267 - E6300 @ 3045Mhz - 435FSB
51, baztop3 - Inno3D 7900GTX @ 675/800 - 5171 - P4 @ 3667.7Mhz - 203.8FSB
52, strick94u - PNY 7900GS @ 561/698 - 5017 - A64 X2 5200+ @ 2797.6Mhz - 215.2FSB
53, Xtant25 - eVGA 7600GT @ 753/778 - 4937 - E2160 @ 3294Mhz - 366FSB
54, theonetruewill - Inno3D 7600GT @ 655/850 - 4309 - A64 X2 4600+ @ 2790.3Mhz - 232.5FSB
55, blacktruckryder - eVGA 7600GT @ 651/722 - 3396 - A64 3200+ @ 2651.5Mhz - 265.1FSB
56, JrRacinFan - eVGA 7600GS @ 448/451 - 2293 - Celeron 347 @ 3066.7Mhz - 133.3FSB
57,
58,
59,
60,

nVidia Scores - SLI Setup's Average Score = 11421

1, HeavyH20 - eVGA 8800GTX SLI @ 675/1000 - 21060 - QX6700 @ 4400Mhz - 293FSB
2, cowie - eVGA 8800GTS SLI @ 656/994 - 16120 - E6700 @ 3749.9Mhz - 375FSB
3, hv43082 - eVGA / XFX 8800GTX SLI @ 575/900 - 15138 - E6400 @ 3599.9Mhz - 450FSB
4, Lt_JWS - eVGA 8800GTS SLI @ 600/900 - 14179 - E6600 @ 3204Mhz - 356FSB
5, Grandpa - XFX 8800GTS SLI @ 678/1100 - 12135 - A64 FX-60 @ 3198.5Mhz - 246FSB
6, trt740 - MSI 8600GTS SLI @ 725/1138 - 10351 - E6600 @ 3802.2Mhz - 422.5FSB
7, newtekie1 - eVGA 7900GT SLI @ 621/796 - 10249 - E6600 @ 3600.1Mhz - 400FSB
8, levi__ - eVGA / Leadtek 7800GTX SLI @ 485/693 - 8878 - E6300 @ 3500Mhz - 500FSB
9, strick94u - PNY 7900GS SLI @ 565/685 - 8818 - E6300 @ 3000Mhz - 426FSB
10, psychomage343 - eVGA 7900GT SLI @ 600/800 - 7198 - A64 4000+ @ 3100Mhz - 310FSB
11, sneekypeet - XFX 7600GT XXX SLI @ 700/900 - 6872 - Opty 170 @ 3001Mhz - 300.1FSB
12, cowie - Leadtek 6800 SLI @ 540/882 - 6060 - E6600 @ 3736Mhz - 415FSB
13,
14,
15,


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 22, 2007)

we are talkin about here 4k quad core

not less

do u see this one

1, orion23 - XFX 8800GTX @ 655/955 - 14446 - Q6600 @ 3897.3Mhz - 433FSB

it is below 4 k quad core

also at which driver did it take we dont know

and my card mhz is much more(of course i have less 32 unite)

675/1728/1107

and i can guarantee that with 4 k quad core i take at least 13500+


----------



## trt740 (Oct 22, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> we are talkin about here 4k quad core
> 
> not less
> 
> ...



Yes I saw that thats a 8800 gtx not at 8800 gts and it is overclocked to ultra speeds plus has over 130 mb more memory and 25 percent more shaders. Your 8800 gts will not do it your wrong.  Your acting like they are the same card they aren't even similar the only thing they share really is a number 8800 but physically they are different big time. If you had my chip running at 4.2ghz , my motherboard and a 8800 gtx ultra 768 mb oced you might be able to break 14700 but thats pushing it and you would need water or a Thermailright Hr03 air cooler to do it. Thats is possible but what your saying is not your just being unrealistic. You also changed what you were saying and and lowered it from 14000 to 13500 which is a giant amount and still thats not possible. If you had water and could get a quad to bench at 4.3ghz and water on a 8800 gts 640  and the best systems ram made DDR2 1200 or DDR3 you might break 13000, maybe 13100 but no way 13500.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 23, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Yes I saw that thats a 8800 gtx not at 8800 gts and it is overclocked to ultra speeds plus has over 130 mb more memory and 25 percent more shaders. Your 8800 gts will not do it your wrong.  Your acting like they are the same card they aren't even similar the only thing they share really is a number 8800 but physically they are different big time. If you had my chip running at 4.2ghz , my motherboard and a 8800 gtx ultra 768 mb oced you might be able to break 14700 but thats pushing it and you would need water or a Thermailright Hr03 air cooler to do it. Thats is possible but what your saying is not your just being unrealistic. You also changed what you were saying and and lowered it from 14000 to 13500 which is a giant amount and still thats not possible. If you had water and could get a quad to bench at 4.3ghz and water on a 8800 gts 640  and the best systems ram made DDR2 1200 or DDR3 you might break 13000, maybe 13100 but no way 13500.



u still ignore the facts


at 1800 mhz i get 7k score
at 3.2 ghz i get 12k score almost

and u say me that 4 ghz quad core i cant take 13.5k 

it is a baby job taking 13.5 k at 4ghz quad core

u think u know everything

but u dont know any thing

check this one

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

my gpu is only less 45 mhz
my rams faster
and this is 3.6ghz quad core only


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 23, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> he talks noneselsly
> 
> because there is no connection between cpu and graphic card mhz
> 
> ...



No, I claim that higher CPU allows for more of an overclock on an HD2900Pro!! I can't dare to overclock my GPU like someone who has a 3.2ghz CPU, it just won't work.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 23, 2007)

AphexDreamer said:


> No, I claim that higher CPU allows for more of an overclock on an HD2900Pro!! I can't dare to overclock my GPU like someone who has a 3.2ghz CPU, it just won't work.



lol u say higher cpu overclock allows

higher gpu overclock


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 23, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> lol u say higher cpu overclock allows
> 
> higher gpu overclock



Indeed.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Oct 23, 2007)

Friendly tips:
1./ I see your memory is in slots 2 and 3, not 1 and 2 or 1 and 3 or 2 and 4. Check different locations for your DDR that might improve performance.
2./ Your specs say DDR but I think your timings are DDR2. Which is true?
PS. Nice review. Very thorough.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 23, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> u still ignore the facts
> 
> 
> at 1800 mhz i get 7k score
> ...



lol one example of someone doing it doesn't negate the fact that it is improbable. in the end you could just as easily ln2 your 2900 to get the same results and don't fool your self if you think the guy was on air. lol


----------



## {JNT}Raptor (Oct 23, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> lol u say higher cpu overclock allows
> 
> higher gpu overclock




What are you ?....Like 12yrs old or something.....He means by running a higher CPU clock he can then take his Video overclock higher without the bottle neck he would have at the original CPU speed. 


And If you do manage to pull off the magic 14,000....then post It......but stop talking Sh** until you do.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2007)

nflesher87 said:


> doesn't matter that the cpu scored the same, that was solely on the cpu tests, it was still most likely bottlenecking at least at times during the graphics tests
> 
> the first thing I noticed with this test as well was the processor, the reason to use a very high end processor in comparisons such as these is to attempt to make the test as objective as possible, reducing the possibility of a cpu bottleneck to as close to nil as possible
> 
> therefore using a highly overclocked quad core for a comparison like this would've been the most favorable choice




In this case I would have to disagree with you, using a stock C2D would be the ideal testing choice for the most accurate review as 90% of CPU owners do not overclock, of course we want to see what these cards will do in our systems with max cpu overclocks but in GPU performance terms it's relative, having said that, we all know that in order for the 2900 to be as good as we know it can be, it demands CPU Mhz, more so than the GTS, I spose the thing about these reviews is that you cant give everyone everything 

There are a number of points/preferences in any case in this review, which is a good review but we would all spot some things, for example why put the pro against the 320MB version of the 8800GTS, by my maths 640 is numerically closer to 512 than 320 is?  If it's because of pricing, that makes sense.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2007)

JC316 said:


> Well, you are going to have to deal with it, because I am stating a fact. The 8800GTS 320mb can't keep up when the CPU speed rises.



I agree with your point completely and undersdtand it as I mentioned above but what you are actually saying therefore is that to 90% of CPU owners the 2900Pro is not as good as the 8800GTS320MB because they dont overclock?

And now we are saying that running a review at stock CPU speeds un - fairly disadvantages the 2900Pro?  I can understand that but to make a fair comparison stock is the only true way, we all get different variables out of our overcklocking, the only constant is stock, some NVidia fanboi's (to which  I dont belong!) would say therefore that if you increased the CPU speed as some have indicated that would be an unfair advantage to the 2900, just as not doing so is supposidly an advantage to the GTS??????  You cant have it both ways.


----------



## Xaser04 (Oct 23, 2007)

cefurkan said:
			
		

> u still ignore the facts
> 
> 
> at 1800 mhz i get 7k score
> ...



Instead of badgering on and on about how you think it is possible to get your 8800GTS to break 14k why don't you just do it?

Whilst it is possible it is also quite difficult to achieve as there is more to a high score than just CPU clock speed.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2007)

Xaser04 said:


> Instead of badgering on and on about how you think it is possible to get your 8800GTS to break 14k why don't you just do it?
> 
> Whilst it is possible it is also quite difficult to achieve as there is more to a high score than just CPU clock speed.



Yup, and personally, I dont think its possible, I have a pretty quick CPU, a voltmodded 640MB GTS with a really good modded BIOS and I can just about hit 12,500.....but hey I am just probably a crap overclocker.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 23, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Yup, and personally, I dont think its possible, I have a pretty quick CPU, a voltmodded 640MB GTS with a really good modded BIOS and I can just about hit 12,500.....but hey I am just probably a crap overclocker.



your e6850 at 4.2ghz is about 300 to 400 point slower than a quad at 4.2ghz in this bench and your doing 12500. With that in mind a quad with your volt modded 8800 gts 640mb would hit 12900 to 13200 max. Even my old e6850 at 4.3ghz with a 2900 xt 1 gig ddr4 overclocked to hell and back only did 13200.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2007)

trt740 said:


> your e6850 at 4.2ghz is about 300 to 400 point slower than a quad at 4.2ghz in this bench and your doing 12500. With that in mind a quad with your volt modded 8800 gts 640mb would hit 12900 to 13200 max. Even my old e6850 at 4.3ghz with a 2900 xt 1 gig ddr4 overclocked to hell and back only did 13200.



Yup.....so there aint no way that a GTS today is gonna hit 14000+


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 23, 2007)

are u blind

what is this ?

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3129754

he hit 14 k with 3.6 quad core

and i say it is easy to hit 14k with

4 ghz quad core

at

675/1728/1107 mhz


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 23, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> are u blind
> 
> what is this ?
> 
> ...




That 8800GTS 320MB has a shader clock of 1836????? I dont think so, the clock cannot physically go that high, not even with friggin liquid nitrogen, apart from that......nice score though, if you would like to see what a 4Gig Q6600 can do, look no further than Trt above who currently holds the highest single card score here with a 2900XT.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> That 8800GTS 320MB has a shader clock of 1836????? I dont think so, the clock cannot physically go that high, not even with friggin liquid nitrogen, apart from that......nice score though, if you would like to see what a 4Gig Q6600 can do, look no further than Trt above who currently holds the highest single card score here with a 2900XT.



it can go  even with stok fan if u vmod and make good air flow

i go 1728 with stok fan  without vmod of course


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> it can go  even with stok fan if u vmod and make good air flow
> 
> i go 1728 with stok fan  without vmod of course



Strange, I just put mine on 1750, opened ATi artifact scanner and it crashed immediatly!


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Strange, I just put mine on 1750, opened ATi artifact scanner and it crashed immediatly!



well it changes cards to card

and i didnt say it is totaly stable

i could only take 3d mark score

but at games mine crash too


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> well it changes cards to card
> 
> and i didnt say it is totaly stable
> 
> ...



Lol totally stable, it crashed within 3 seconds, thats not even totally unstable, thats like disaster and my card is voltmodded and it was not temps, the temps didnt get chance to go beyond 53C!!  so that leads me to beleive if that guy really did get over 14000 on a 320MB GTS he must have had some pretty elaborate cooling with a shader clock of 1836


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> are u blind
> 
> what is this ?
> 
> ...



That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . A 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I'm not blind but you just being XXXXXCXXXCCC!!!!!! nevermind you have to be like 14.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . It a 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I not blind you need to stop hitting the pipe.



Here is an example of my card against what looks like a single 8800 gts 640 but there is no way it is, it's sli and you won't know it unless the person benching it lets you know http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2987467> so are you going to tell me a single 8800 gts can hit 19000 plus just because it is listed that way doesn't make it correct. If you want the best card for they money at the top end it's a 8800 gtx non ultra or if you wait a 8800 gt but underneath that it is neck and neck. I was thinking of selling my 2900 xt 1 gig ddr4 at one time but I can't tell any difference from it to my old 8800gtx or 8800 gts really. It would be kinda like trading a piece of chocolate cake for the same cake with sprinkles. Who know everyone has his price and the 2900 series is said to be at only 80 percent of it's potential. I don't know but for now i'm going to keep it. If you have a 8800 gts 640 mb it would be plain stupid to get a 2900 xt, a 8800 gtx would be more like it. If you can get a 2900 pro cheaper than a 8800 gts 640 buy it but don't ever buy a 8800 gts 320 thinking it is better than any of the cards above it. It is not but it is still very very good. It will play everything out almost maxed. here are the best deals I could find  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102707 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814122022 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814122018. I have to say for the price ?performance the 8800 gts 320 is the best then the PRO. However the 2900 pro when overclocked will kill it.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . A 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I'm not blind but you just being XXXXXCXXXCCC!!!!!! nevermind you have to be like 14.



it is not sli

it is approved result at www.hwbot.org

it is single

i can find much more effective sli results for u

but since u dont know anything about graphic cards u say it is sli lol


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> That must be a sli set up and it won't report it as sli unless you post it no way is that a single 8800 gts . A 8800 gtx ultra can barely do that at 3.6ghz max oced. I'm not blind but you just being XXXXXCXXXCCC!!!!!! nevermind you have to be like 14.



here is a sli result

and card is at daily usage mhz

648/1044

i hope u get this one

but i dont think so u arent enough mature to understand this


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2689061


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> it is not sli
> 
> it is approved result at www.hwbot.org
> 
> ...



So your saying thats is one 8800 gts 640 mb scored 19000 in 3dmark06. Okay I'm done don't you have to go to elementary school now.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> So your saying thats is one 8800 gts 640 mb scored 19000 in 3dmark06. Okay I'm done don't you have to go to elementary school now.



i think u are retarded

u called 14k score sli

but it was single card score

than i put real sli score

19 k

but since u are a retard

u cant understand these scores


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 24, 2007)

Wow.... What a WAR Nvidia VS ATI.... All i can say is my ATI HD2900XT CrossFire can kill 8800GTS 640 in SLI...


----------



## Wile E (Oct 24, 2007)

Holy crap. Can I get a thread summary? lol


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 24, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Holy crap. Can I get a thread summary? lol



Ok, you asked for it. So basicly the dude posted up some benchies comparing the 8800gts with 2900Pro. People were commenting on it with postive thoughts and then other people were analyzing it further and thought that the CPU was just not cutting it for the overclocked HD2900Pro. People were like it can do better and overclock higher if only it had a higher clocked CPU and then others were like yall full of shit and know nothing so shut up. But the people were brave and defended what they thought was right and so did the others, in result the storm slowly brewed and now has been unleashed. I think that some what somes it up, I'll come back and edit this later when its not 6:00 A.M.


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 24, 2007)

Holy crap... This thread is out of the topic...... Can any one here stop it.... HD2900 did need higher CPU clock to OC higher clock speed... I did get good OC on my HD2900 with OC my CPU.... What the point WAR here....? Try your self.... I can sure about it....

U are right AphexDreamer


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

There is no need to start a flame war here between the 2 of you, we are all entitled to our opinions, in this case one thinks that the futuremark score is a single card and legitimate, the other does not, I happen to go with Trt on this one, not because of anything else but the following FACTS that I will post, the supposed futuremark link you posted, you beleive to be a single card setup and had the core clock running at 720Mhz with a shader clock of 1832, on a Q6600 at 3.6Gig, now I do not beleive that a 14000+ score can be acheived on a 320MB GTS single card setup for these reasons........

The 8800GTS unofficial world record for 3D Mark 2006 stands (or stood), as at September 2007 by a guy known as "Youngpro" from Australia at *15,053 *and that was with a 640MB 8800GTS on a Quad extreme QX6700 at 4.550Gig! the 8800GTS was on liquid nitro I beleive and clocked 803 Mhz on the core! by my maths that made the shaders come in at around 1860, now compare those clock speeds and CPU setup with the link you provided and that cannot be a single card score.....simple as that.  The difference in the Quad core speeds alone (3.6Gig in your link to 4.550Gig in mine) would practically account for the records 800 points increase let alone the extra 83Mhz on the core of the GTS, never mind the fact that it was a 640.

Post 41......   http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=163000&page=2

Just my thoughts, of course I could be wrong, incidentially, the world record before that was just 130 points higher than the futermark link you posted, that was on a 320MB GTS but with a core speed of 836Mhz!  and a Q6700 at 4Gig, you can see from those specs alone in comparison to your fututremark link that it seems at least unlikely that a 720Mhz core 320 with just 3.6Gig is going to get near that?  Like I said, we are all entitled to our opinions but there is no need to start with insults because another does not agree, I liked your origional review.....thank you!


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

14 k sli skor is nothing

he get 14 k with single card and it is possible

if u dont know these cards dont make such comments

i can take 12 k with e4300
with 4k quad core it is so easy to hit 14 k with last drivers

stiil such ignorants claims that u cant take 14k with single card

lol

here is the single card scores of hwbot

http://www.hwbot.org/searchResults....nCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=

max is 15601

and here is sli scores

http://www.hwbot.org/searchResults....nCpuFreq=&maxCpuFreq=&system=&minTotalPoints=


max 20921


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> *i think u are retarded*
> 
> u called 14k score sli
> 
> ...



Please I preferr specials needs.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 24, 2007)

cefurkan said:


> i think u are retarded
> 
> u called 14k score sli
> 
> ...



in my PC a GTX gets 19-19.5K, while a GTS 640 gets around 13.5K

so yes, i beleive your single card score.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

Firstly, I will make such comments as I like (remember you are the one who has insulted other members of this forum, not me ), thats what these forums are about... opinion, you may feel you are in a position to tell people what they can or cant say......but your not!, secondly, I was actually referring to the link you made to futuremark and the score there, unless VRZone and Australia's Atomic PC are lying about just over a 15000 world record, how do you explain how that fairly basic setup you linked managed to get fairly close to an "extreme" setup that cracks the world record?  We could argue all day about 14000, I dont care about that, it's clear that with extreme systems, 15000 scores can be acheived, what you posted was nowhere near those systems, all I am concerned with is the accuracy of the link you provided is all, all along I have not questioned the "extreme" potential of these cards, damn many cards have that kind of potential with a 4.55Gig Quadcore backing them up, some serious over volting and liquid nitrogen to back them up, a Q6600 at 3.6Gig and a 320MB GTS at 720core is not one of those extreme systems.

Look, bottom line is this, people agree and disagree, have different opinions, so what? no biggy.....live with it.  I am happy that you are so confident that you can crack more than 12000 with your rig (I can with my rig) but thats not the point, now if you said you could crack 13000 I would sit up and listen because that would mean that with a Q6600 @ 3.6Gig you might get close to 14000.  I am off to lie down in a dark room


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

Mussels said:


> in my PC a GTX gets 19-19.5K, while a GTS 640 gets around 13.5K
> 
> so yes, i beleive your single card score.



19-19.5?  we are talking single cards here, he is talking a single 320mb getting over 14000 from a Q6600 @ 3.6Gig, I am not saying that 14000+ scores cant be acheived, they clearly can, just dont think an "everyday" system they are, damn check the 3D Mark 2006 thread, there are GTX's on quads getting nowhere near 14000.  In fact the 2nd highest score is a GTX, well overclocked on a Q6600 at 3.8Gig and thats got just over 14000!!!  i rest my case.

I will say no more on the subject.....I am getting bored now 

Edit: Taken from HWbot, 14,197, these are the rig specs:

 Processor: Core 2 Q6600 (2.4Gh... @ 3800mhz no image 
 Videocard: GeForce 8800 GTS 32... @ 783/1026mhz 
 Global Rank: 261st - 5.3 points 
 Hardware Rank: 7th GeForce 8800 GTS 320 Mb - 5.6 points 
 Description 

Compare that with the futuremark link provided in his post on page 3 showing a 14000+ score, then see that the specs of that rig are not close to the specs here, damn look at the differences in core and memory speed nevermind the 200Mhz on the Quad.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 24, 2007)

I see a lot of "Since I can't get that high it's impossible to reach there" mentality. 
It's because of this that I have to agree with cefurcan, although I don't like his manners (there are better ways to communicate than flaming each other).
He is showing lots of links that prove his point, something that others don't. 
In regards to your last link Tatty: as I see it, if at 4 core@4.5Ghz you reach 15000, it's more than feasible to reach 14000 at 3.6Ghz. 8800gts 320 performance is pretty close to that of the 640 version, even closer on low res, low AA/AF, shader intensive scenarios. Also I would say 320 is easier to overclock due to smaller memory densities: same interface+half memory = half density per chip => less heat => more stability). 
And final but not least, most people are overlooking the shader power. I don't see any info about the shader clock they are using, wich is the most important thing. In modern games and apps shader power is what drives performance figures and I will never get tired of saying this. Just look at how performs the 8800GT even thogh it has less rops.


----------



## Lekamies (Oct 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> There is no need to start a flame war here between the 2 of you, we are all entitled to our opinions, in this case one thinks that the futuremark score is a single card and legitimate, the other does not, I happen to go with Trt on this one, not because of anything else but the following FACTS that I will post, the supposed futuremark link you posted, you beleive to be a single card setup and had the core clock running at 720Mhz with a shader clock of 1832, on a Q6600 at 3.6Gig, now I do not beleive that a 14000+ score can be acheived on a 320MB GTS single card setup for these reasons........


My 3d mark'06 score @
Q6600@3,6ghz club 3d  8800gts 320MB | gpu:720mhz | shader: 1836mhz | mem: 1080mhz
14094


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 24, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Edit: Taken from HWbot, 14,197, these are the rig specs:
> 
> Processor: Core 2 Q6600 (2.4Gh... @ 3800mhz no image
> Videocard: GeForce 8800 GTS 32... @ 783/1026mhz
> ...




Are you asking how can a lower Core/Memory clocked card win the other? 
OK... I will say it AGAIN. SHADER POWER. (Btw Shader Power as Stream Procesor count x Shader Clock x Efficiency).


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 24, 2007)

Lekamies said:


> My 3d mark'06 score @
> Q6600@3,6ghz club 3d  8800gts 320MB | gpu:720mhz | shader: 1836mhz | mem: 1080mhz
> 14094



here is the living expample

so dont bother urself if u cant understand these cards capasity and how much they dependet on cpu mhz also ram timings and ram mhz


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

OK I am old enuff and bold enuff (although I have plenty of hair) to be the first to stand corrected and eat humble pie   But if I may comment on a couple of points raised, firstly.....Darkmatter, I have just skipped through the thread and I cannot find anyone who is saying that they cannot hit 14000 so it cannot be possible, if you look, all my comments were geared towards the 14000 futuremark link,  I dont think based on the very threads that you are refering to (but most importantly you didnt look at the one in my post, 5 above this) that showed a HWBot rig Q6600 @ 3.8Gig with a 320MB GTS clocked at a core of 783Mhz (both CPU and core considerably higher than lekamies) that it was unreasonable of me to deduct that at 3.6Gig on a quad with considerably lower clocks that it was not valid??? that rig with those specs only scored 14,1 and something, I know different now but as I said, I think it was a reasonable deduction based on facts.

Yes I understand about Shader clocks, beleive it or not, I have my card shader overclocked as well as core overclocked with the shader not in sync with the core, as you will probably be aware, that is easy now within the latest edition of Rivatuner.  My point was, with a core clock of 783Mhz on the rig example I showed, without any further "shader tweaking" the shader clocks are not going to be significantly lower and I would imagine someone who has such a good 3D Mark 2006 score as the example I gave would have enuff knowledge to overclock his shaders seperetly in any case.  In any case, we are talking 3D Mark 2006 here which is not particularily shader intensive.

I was never interested in whether the card could acheive scores over 14000, it was quite obvious from the research I did that it was capable (because earlier I did state I could be wrong.....and I was!), I just found it difficult to beleive that those clocks on a Q6600 and the GTS could acheive them, I only really came in because there was a flame war about to start between cefurkan and Trt that was un-necessary, right or wrong, as I said earlier, there is no need to insult people, to be fair he did not insult me but thats not the point.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

Mussels said:


> in my PC a GTX gets 19-19.5K, while a GTS 640 gets around 13.5K
> 
> so yes, i beleive your single card score.



Okay prove it bench 3dmarks 06 and show me, no way you can do it I owned a gtx it had the second fastest core clock here and the fastest ram clock.  Plus I had a Thermalright h03 air cooler which matches water cooling.Do it then, with a single card and prove it.  6000 point difference no way. Then post it. I do ,however, stand corrected on the 8800 gts it appears it can break 14000+ must have dry Ice strapped to it and a blessing or holy water in it's cooling system, but what do I know. I want to be proven wrong again post that 19000 gtx with the actual screen shots of rivia, cpuz etc and the score. Mussel if you can do then show me. You said your card can do it so lets see it.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> Here is mine again the top card on this forum so beat post it just like this and your my hero. I have no doubt a 8800 gtx can beat this score but not 19000+. I could care less about futuremarks web site show it to me here and now just like this.




remember this is no average overclock my quad is at  4.041 ghz my card is at 877/2394 and my PICE slot is overclocked from 100mghz to 130 mghz. This is on air.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

*Here is the top gtx on this forum with my cpu he could do 14600  but not*

19000 so prove it. Hes at 3.9ghz so about 50 mghz slower than my cpu


----------



## strick94u (Oct 24, 2007)

As my specs show I have a 8800 gts 640 SC oced SLI and decent hardware to back it up and I would have to agree that 19000 is not going to happen even with quad core. so I call bullshi^


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

Hey it is on future marks it has to be true even without any screenies to back up  like the ones I just posted.


----------



## bigboi86 (Oct 24, 2007)

AphexDreamer said:


> Indeed.



You're wrong about that though. There is no connection between GPU and CPU speeds.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

*Here is my old 8800 gtx oced to heck with a e6600 at 3.9ghz*



strick94u said:


> As my specs show I have a 8800 gts 640 SC oced SLI and decent hardware to back it up and I would have to agree that 19000 is not going to happen even with quad core. so I call bullshi^


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 24, 2007)

3DMark is not shader intensive? Cmon... How can then a less pixel fillrate, less texel fillrate, but much more shader powered HD 2900s be ahead of their respective competitors on this benchmark if they are just behind them on most games and benchies?

As for the other thing I was only trying to point out that on those conditions 14000 were not improbable at all, granted you believe the others at 15000. It's not that a big difference. You even mention on your post that only the CPU clock increase to 4.5Ghz can account for 800 points increase. In the same post you assume (based on core/memory) the shaders are running at 1860Mhz, but who knows? That is what I was trying to explain, I didn't say anywhere you didn't know nothing about shaders, but you oversaw the fact that they could be using a lower shader clock, and automatically you say it's imposible for a single GTS to achieve 14000 at those speeds. I was basically responding to that post on your part.
The "Since I can't reach..." was about other people, not you. That is why I said that first and then I talked to you. Should I have made 2 posts? Maybe. Still there are lots of post saying that they barely reach 14k with their GTX and thus 14k on the GTS is impossible, my first sentence was 4 them.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

bigboi86 said:


> You're wrong about that though. There is no connection between GPU and CPU speeds.



In this bench it does because part of the bench is cpu performance . Regardless your wrong a slow cpu can hold back a gpu it's called bottle necking.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> In this bench it does because part of the bench is cpu performance . Regardless your wrong a slow cpu can hold back a gpu it's called bottle necking.



There's a big missunderstanding between the camps on this subject. One camp says that you can push both clock frequencies independently, without one keeping the other from going higher. 
The other camp says that you can't, when they really want to say that you shouldn't, or that there is a point where past it it doesn't make sense to put one higher without pushing the other at the same time.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> 3DMark is not shader intensive? Cmon... How can then a less pixel fillrate, less texel fillrate, but much more shader powered HD 2900s be ahead of their respective competitors on this benchmark if they are just behind them on most games and benchies?
> 
> As for the other thing I was only trying to point out that on those conditions 14000 were not improbable at all, granted you believe the others at 15000. It's not that a big difference. You even mention on your post that only the CPU clock increase to 4.5Ghz can account for 800 points increase. In the same post you assume (based on core/memory) the shaders are running at 1860Mhz, but who knows? That is what I was trying to explain, I didn't say anywhere you didn't know nothing about shaders, but you oversaw the fact that they could be using a lower shader clock, and automatically you say it's imposible for a single GTS to achieve 14000 at those speeds. I was basically responding to that post on your part.
> The "Since I can't reach..." was about other people, not you. That is why I said that first and then I talked to you. Should I have made 2 posts? Maybe. Still there are lots of post saying that they barely reach 14k with their GTX and thus 14k on the GTS is impossible, my first sentence was 4 them.
> ...



Okey dokey, we'll call it a day!  but we do disagree on one point, 2006 is not particularily shader intensive and actually the 2900XT beats (since cat 7.8) even a GTX in a number of real world gaming scenario's....but thats another story!  Just as  a matter of interest, with no additional shader clocking, just leaving it in "sync" a core speed of 783Mhz auto clocks the shaders to 1761mhz which is pretty significant in itself!


----------



## Lekamies (Oct 24, 2007)

trt740 said:


> I do ,however, stand corrected on the 8800 gts it appears it can break 14000+ must have dry Ice strapped to it and a blessing or holy water in it's cooling system...



Warm water is enough to cool down for breaking that barrier.
Here is pic after 3d mark'03 run include rivatuners hardware monitor.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 24, 2007)

I have heard and read lot of people claiming big performance boosts out of shader overclocking alone, so I will keep my thoughts.

The fact that new cat 7.8 makes 2900 perform better only corroborates my point. Shader power is what performance is asking for. And if there's something that Radeons have is shader power. Better said they have as much as 2x the theoretical peak shader power of Nvidia counterparts.

I didn't know how shaders overclock when overclocking the core, I assumed they did rise their clock but I doubt they do it in a linear fashion. Now I know it's not linear. Nevertheless you have to agree that 1860 (or 1836 for that matter) is higher than 1761, don't you? 

Now if you want you can join me in the "more shader power, more performance" club, wich BTW is backed up by the 8800GT and many 3dmark records, for example lekamies case.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

Lekamies said:


> Warm water is enough to cool down for breaking that barrier.
> Here is pic after 3d mark'03 run include rivatuners hardware monitor.



I'm not impressed.  THAT RESOLUTION NO WONDER!!!! and in a 4 1/2 year old bench. Lets see 3dmark06. As a matter of fact why don't you bench it to show me just how wrong I am.


----------



## trt740 (Oct 24, 2007)

Lekamies said:


> Warm water is enough to cool down for breaking that barrier.
> Here is pic after 3d mark'03 run include rivatuners hardware monitor.



I'm gonna stop now because what your say is total garbage good luck. one more thing I still don't see a 3dmark06 19000 score with full screens cpuz, gpu clock etc.  or for that matter a 8800 gts hitting 14000 with screen shot to back that up other than future marks. Future marks by it'self means zero. I want to see a completed test screen and all the other required screens I bet I won't see them.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 24, 2007)

DarkMatter said:


> I have heard and read lot of people claiming big performance boosts out of shader overclocking alone, so I will keep my thoughts.
> 
> The fact that new cat 7.8 makes 2900 perform better only corroborates my point. Shader power is what performance is asking for. And if there's something that Radeons have is shader power. Better said they have as much as 2x the theoretical peak shader power of Nvidia counterparts.
> 
> ...



I agree completely with the shader power, I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say regarding the 1761.  The 1761 is not independantly overclocked, unlike the R600 series (where the shader clock is locked and fixed at a lower speed than Nvidia) on the G80, as you increase the core clock the shader clock automatically increases with it so, when a user sets his 8800GTS core speed to 863 Mhz he already has a shader clock speed of 1761, then he can go into rivatuner and overclock the shader clock seperatly (he has probably hit his core max already at 863mhz) without touching the core, so my point was the chances are his shaders are well beyond 1761 if he knows what he is doing, and to acheive that score on an 8800GTS suggest he does.....make sense?  So I am saying the minimum it can be is 1761 and is likely to be much higher.....but of course we dont know, what we do know is though that you would have to expect it to be a lot LOWER because the difference in CPU speed and Core clocks is a lot and the faster (perhaps not the best terminology ) is actually the slower.


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 25, 2007)

I just want to ask... Is ATI HD2900 have shader clock??? I cant see in GPUZ?

If the shader clock is locked? So what is the real shader clock?

Thanks.....


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 25, 2007)

I think it's tied to the stock core clock, and from what I've heard it doesnt change. even when you oc the core.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 25, 2007)

yogurt_21 said:


> I think it's tied to the stock core clock, and from what I've heard it doesnt change. even when you oc the core.


I wish somebody would make a good BIOS editor for R600.


----------



## cefurkan (Oct 25, 2007)

ccleorina said:


> I just want to ask... Is ATI HD2900 have shader clock??? I cant see in GPUZ?
> 
> If the shader clock is locked? So what is the real shader clock?
> 
> Thanks.....



shader and gpu clock is same at ati


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 25, 2007)

ccleorina said:


> I just want to ask... Is ATI HD2900 have shader clock??? I cant see in GPUZ?
> 
> If the shader clock is locked? So what is the real shader clock?
> 
> Thanks.....



Yes it is locked and does not increase with core overclocking, the 8800GTS stock shader clock is at 1185mhz and will increase with core overclocks, it can also now be increase independantly in rivetuner   the 2900XT shader clock runs at 800Mhz and stays there, one of the reasons why it has so many SP's, to compensate (although thats not the specific reason).

Just to bore you though Technically tho for practical purposes, although the 2900XT has 320SP's it actually  has 64 groups of 5 shaders. Each group of 5 shaders can only run 1 thread each while each single shader in the 8800 can run 1. This means that the 8800GTX runs 128 shaders per clock and the 2900 runs 64. BUT! Each thread is worked on by 5 shaders and hypothetically can have 5 instructions ran per thread per clock. This equates to 320 intructions per clock versus the GTX's 128. While it is easy to divide the threads to all 64 groups of shaders, it is very difficult to keep all 5 shaders in each group working. This means that on a best case senario (all 5 shaders per group working to max) the 2900 does 2.5x's the work per clock than the 8800GTX and on a worse case senario it does half the work per clock than the 8800GTX. This means that the perfromance of the 2900XT GREATLY relys on the ability of the driver to distribute the instructions of the game being played. This is why we see poorish performance in some games and spectacular performance in others with the 2900XT. Future drivers can help this greatly.


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 25, 2007)

I understood your point of shader clocks been locked. And I understand why you assume it is even higher, it makes sense after all. Happens that I don't, but maybe I'm biased in this respect. I used to frequent a local forum of overclockers who's only goal was to achieve the higher clocks possible, or better said the higher conbined clocks they could reach, of course being it stable 100%, and they used to say it was common in their circles. The problem is that higher clocks not always translate into better performance. At some point there are current leakages, sinc problems between modules, etc. When this happens nobody knows what could happen and one posibility is that higher speeds give worse results, even if it's (or seems to be) totally stable. Ok, we all know this and I am talking about CPU overcloking for the most part, but the same applies to GPU, more in this case where core and shaders are asinc'ed. And although you have 3DMark to try the performance as you increase clocks, not everybody benches all speeds, they use only stability tests instead.

Another thing that I take into acount when doing my assumptions is this: the whole 8800 line is the same chip when manufacturing it, and then they choose wich one is wich model based on yields or demand. This is nothing new, we all know, but I don't see anyone paying attention to this as much as I think we should. There's a big difference between the models, as much that it could have been called a different chip. For example a chip that has been chosen as GTS because a defective ROP alone, is going to overclock a lot better than one that has been chosen because it couldn't reach GTX speeds as well as Nvidia wanted. This isn't new to anyone either, but I don't see anyone giving it the importance it deserves.

So my point about the thing was: 
first, do we know for sure they are overclocking in a proper manner, so they get better performance? or on the contrary they are aiming for higher clocks only? (ok I didn't read the whole link, I just looked at screenies and little more so...) There are so many records or record claims out there with higher scores, but still lower clocks than those on your link, that I know where my two cents are going to stay by now.
second, can a *specific* 8800gts perform better at 720/1850 (core/shader) than other(s) at 860/1750? From my point of view it can.

Wow! That was a long post! I hope it explains my point of view. I will admit that I don't have personal experience with new cards, both Nividia 8 or HDs, since I'm out of this bussiness right now, but I do have some knowledge and I read a lot. So yeah I speak out of theory for the most part, and I have to rely on others experiences, and so I have to believe them. But I have learnt something on technology: Impossible is nothing (or was it adidas?)


----------



## DarkMatter (Oct 25, 2007)

About the HD 2900 5 instructions per clock... I remember that when I saw all the specs and diagrams, my guess was that despite AMD's claims it was more likely that the chip wouldn't be able to effectively use both scalar and vectorial units at the same time. Can't remember why though, and from that day until now I look at the HD SPs as 4 ops/cycle units.

I'm too lazy to go back on reading all the stuff, so I would love your opinion. So please everybody share your thoughts on this.


----------



## bigboi86 (Oct 25, 2007)

trt740 said:


> In this bench it does because part of the bench is cpu performance . Regardless your wrong a slow cpu can hold back a gpu it's called bottle necking.



That doesn't mean that the CPU will cause the graphics card not to overclock as much. They are completely different subsystems.

I am not wrong.

This has nothing to do with benchmarking.


----------



## Lekamies (Oct 25, 2007)

trt740 said:


> ...or for that matter a 8800 gts hitting 14000 with screen shot to back that up other than future marks. Future marks by it'self means zero. I want to see a completed test screen and all the other required screens I bet I won't see them.



I had only this orb link to proof my 3d mark'06 score.

So i run it again at same clocks and take screenshot it for you.
Here


----------



## trt740 (Oct 25, 2007)

Lekamies said:


> I had only this orb link to proof my 3d mark'06 score.
> 
> So i run it again at same clocks and take screenshot it for you.
> Here



Oh I already said i believe this I want to see the GTX doing 19000. Nice bench


----------



## ccleorina (Oct 26, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Yes it is locked and does not increase with core overclocking, the 8800GTS stock shader clock is at 1185mhz and will increase with core overclocks, it can also now be increase independantly in rivetuner   the 2900XT shader clock runs at 800Mhz and stays there, one of the reasons why it has so many SP's, to compensate (although thats not the specific reason).
> 
> Just to bore you though Technically tho for practical purposes, although the 2900XT has 320SP's it actually  has 64 groups of 5 shaders. Each group of 5 shaders can only run 1 thread each while each single shader in the 8800 can run 1. This means that the 8800GTX runs 128 shaders per clock and the 2900 runs 64. BUT! Each thread is worked on by 5 shaders and hypothetically can have 5 instructions ran per thread per clock. This equates to 320 intructions per clock versus the GTX's 128. While it is easy to divide the threads to all 64 groups of shaders, it is very difficult to keep all 5 shaders in each group working. This means that on a best case senario (all 5 shaders per group working to max) the 2900 does 2.5x's the work per clock than the 8800GTX and on a worse case senario it does half the work per clock than the 8800GTX. This means that the perfromance of the 2900XT GREATLY relys on the ability of the driver to distribute the instructions of the game being played. This is why we see poorish performance in some games and spectacular performance in others with the 2900XT. Future drivers can help this greatly.



Thanks for nice info....


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 26, 2007)

ccleorina said:


> Thanks for nice info....



Always glad to help!


----------



## cefurkan (Nov 16, 2007)

well i am upping this topic for 

IQ compare

already both card are meaningless since

8800gt and 3870 on market


----------



## Lionheart (Jun 2, 2008)

nvidia fanboyism to the max


----------



## vega22 (Jun 2, 2008)

dead thread res to the max


----------

