Tuesday, February 26th 2008
NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX Scores 14K in 3DMark06
After taking some screenshots with a special version of our GPU-Z utility, the guys over at Expreview have decided to take their GeForce 9800 GTX sample and give it a try at Futuremark 3DMark06. Using Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 3GHz, 2GB of DDR2 memory, ASUS Maximus Formula X38 and a single GeForce 9800 GTX @ 675/1688/1100MHz the result is 14014 marks.
Source:
Expreview
114 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX Scores 14K in 3DMark06
Trog above pretty much nailed what happened.. the G9x chip was Nvidia's next gen chip. ATI had two good cards coming out within the 38x0s. As a pre-emptive strike Nvidia rushed out some versions of the G92 cards (remember how stock supply was such a problem for them? That was probably b/c of the rush job) as 8x00 series cards. The GT and GTS should have been 9800 cards, but for one reason or another (most likely they didn't want to introduce them as the new gen when they may not have been completely ready and the other variants were also not ready yet) they were solds as 8800s. It's less that Nv is trying to rebrand an old card as much as they improperly branded a new card. But one way or another though don't expect too much of a gain on any of the 9x00 series cards over what we saw of G92 chips among the 8x00 series b/c the changes will mostly be tweaks.While there's some truth to what you're saying that's probably not completely fair... first of all if you remember ATI did originally plan on releasing those cards as 2x00 series cards. In the end given all the changes (die shrink, consequently lowering power consumption, consequently fixing the considerable heat and noise issues with the original 2k series cards, and other changes that let them sell the cards considerably cheaper), and the fact that those changes represented a lot of the major problems with the 2k series cards it's hard to blame them for the name change (if I remember correctly they did state that they specifically wanted to distance the new cards from the 2k s).
That just made me laugh... I mean really really made me laugh. They have a top end rig with this new 9800 card and only get 14k!!!!
Why in gods name is the card so friggin huge if it can only grab 14k, and why is it called 9800!!!
I remember nvidia saying that the 9600GT was supposed to be twice the performance of the previous gen 8600GT and it pretty much is so what the hell happened here!!!! Its barely 1.2 times the performance.
I will be a little surprised if there isn;t some issue with drivers or something with this card atm... I was expecting 18k AT LEAST on this new nvidia Monster.. especially with that setup they are using @ expreview....
There wouldn't be much difference between "nearly 13K" as in my case and "barely 14K" as is the case with the 9800GTX on a more powerful proc and prolly faster ram. If that's supposed to be the next gen high end, nvidia should have definitely put much much more of an effort. :ohwell:
I'm definitely disappointed. The 'new' 9800GTX apparently is on the same shelf as the old 8800GTX?
As a call to Nvidia, please don't release new stuff unless it can be qualified as better than the stuff already present on the market.
Drunkenmafia: I don't know what they mucked up with the 9600GT. All I can say is that the 8800GT is like 3 times as much better than the 8600GTS (I had and benchmarked both cards).
I'd have expected a 96XX series to be at least twice as much more powerful than the 86XX series. But then look at the history: Is a 7600 twice as much powerful than a 6600?
And what about the ATI counterparts?
Something like 500 million years on the planet is no small feat!
I personally like a single card solution, so I do not care one way or the other.
8800GT and 8800GTS should become very short lived, kinda like x1900 vs x1950.
lol? service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5219305
(Though I have to admit that I had been planning that by the end of this year I'd hand down my pc to my daughter and hence have a nice good excuse to get a quad core with a 64 bit OS, 4GB RAM, a solid state HDD if they get cheaper and a ... 9800GTX ...)
Dream got shot now. :ohwell:
If this is the actual card then there are serious driver issues. I could also believe that this isnt the card and what expreview got a hold of was perhaps the 9800GT... Esp. because of those numbers: they are nearly the same as the 8800GTS 512MB.
If this is the card and its correct specs and numbers then shame on you, nvidia. That is pitiful. I understand this is simply a revision, but 14000 is barely an improvement over an 8800 Ultra/GTX (which this card is meant to replace). And 14000 is definitely no reason to get this over a 8800GTS 512MB; which is only about $280 by now.
I would laugh so hard if:
A) This is all BS or innaccurate and you all are giving nvidia a hard time over nothing
or
B) This card overclocks like a beast
If this card really is this bad then I'll prolly find myself continuing my tradition of wanting an nvidia card but then buying an ATI card in the end for whatever reason. If I don't go with an ATI card then I'll probably get an 9800GX2 just as long as I can get one for well under the MSRP ($600).
Lets just keep our fingers crossed...
-Indybird
Maybe both companies really haven't got anything faster atm. :)
BUT... At least ATI are not releasing newer model cards with more or less the same performance, that is just rediculous...
If I went out a bought a HD3870 and it performed only 5% better than a X1950 I would be pissed.... I think the same things goes for nvidia..
Many people here say that they do +14000 but either they have the CPU at +3,6Ghz or the card at +750Mhz. Of course they will be faster that way!!
That being said Nvidia screwed up with the naming again **. But remember this is not GT200, and this one will come Q3 this year IIRC. This cards are no more than a Tri SLI capable refresh until GT200 comes out. I don't think that nobody bought a X1950 if they allready owned a X1900, right? And so?
*Indeed if you take CPU score out of the equation:
13000 - 4600 = 8400
14000 - 4600 = 9400
9400/8400 = 1,19
So basically, we could say that 9800GTX is 19% faster than 8800GTS, and without launch drivers. Granted is not 2x as powerful as 8800, but I think it's not that bad for a refresh. And as many refreshes in history are not meant to replace your beloved 8800 on your rig but on the market. You don't have to buy it if you don't want to, do you?
** Anyway about the naming, it's possible that they didn't have any other chance than change it. Don't know there, but I know many non techie guys that think that Ati is a step ahead because they released HD3000 series. And since 8800 was in competition with HD2000 series they trully believe HD3000 series is almost double as fast as HD2000, following the tradition. Until I corrected them, of course. Nvidia is just playing the same game. A game that nobody wants but...