8900GTX - 25% more shaders!

We heard that the card will be announced just in time to spoil the ATI's fun with R600 launch. Quel surprise, n'est ce pas? µ
Click to expand...

:eek: :runaway:

But its reported by Fuad, but he usually seems to hate nVidia so........think I'll just take a wait and see. :hmm:
 
ShaidarHaran said:
Certainly not impossible, nor even improbable.

Still not going to beat R600 @ high res though :evil:
Click to expand...

But how high? I mean will it be some crazy insane rez that only 15 people in the whole country can afford or what? :p
I think I will make a forum wide poll asking your native rez.
 
Jack & Coke said:
So far (with 18 votes) no one needs more than a GTS 320mb. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah thats my point....so what if the R600 can whip the snot out of the G80 at higher resolutions if no one has the monitor that can run it! I personally only know of one person here that has a monitor that can do 2560 x 1600, and he runs two 8800GTX's in SLi and I know for a fact this guys not going to go ATi anytime soon. :lol:
I have an eVGA 8800GTS 320 on the way. It shipped today, I can't wait to see how it does on my monitor. ;)
And against my BFG. But hell at my native rez and with this 3700+ CPU I'll bet it holds its own nicly against the BFG.
Other benchmarks I have read the 640MB card doesn't score any better than the 320MB one does until you get past the 1600x1200/1680x1050 screen rez.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to buy an R600 (or two) and a big-ass monitor to go along with it.

If someone has a monitor that isn't matched to the rendering power of their system, that's their fault.

Also, l'Inq has the 320MB cards starting to lose performance @ 1600x1200 (w/AA) in F.E.A.R. here

Just to re-iterate: I'm not bashing this card. It is an *excellent* value @ $300, and I wish ATI had something to compete.
 
ShaidarHaran said:
I'm going to buy an R600 (or two) and a big-ass monitor to go along with it.

If someone has a monitor that isn't matched to the rendering power of their system, that's their fault.

Also, l'Inq has the 320MB cards starting to lose performance @ 1600x1200 (w/AA) in F.E.A.R. here

Just to re-iterate: I'm not bashing this card. It is an *excellent* value @ $300, and I wish ATI had something to compete.
Click to expand...

Not a bad review at all.....and Fuad did it. :eek:

And he made my point for me......

If you are playing at 1280x1024 this might be the perfect card for you, at least for the time being. µ
Click to expand...

And even in the Fear bench's the 640MB card @ 1600x1200 gets 62fps and the 320MB card gets 46fps. I assume thats an average score. Isn't 46fps playable?

ShaidarHaran said:
Just to re-iterate: I'm not bashing this card. It is an *excellent* value @ $300, and I wish ATI had something to compete.
Click to expand...

I know your not. ;)
 
Vengeance said:
Not a bad review at all.....and Fuad did it. :eek:

And he made my point for me......
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing that 1280x1024 is an excellent resolution for a monitor to pair up with this card.

Vengeance said:
And even in the Fear bench's the 640MB card @ 1600x1200 gets 62fps and the 320MB card gets 46fps. I assume thats an average score. Isn't 46fps playable?
Click to expand...

It's hard to say without having the min. fps numbers as well, but with that much of a dropoff in avg. fps it is certainly an indication that things might be bumpy at times. I doubt it would be a slide show, but it might not be the smoothest experience ever.

It is, at the very least, strong supporting evidence for my supposition that 320MB may not be enough to maintain the performance of today's games in the games of tomorrow.

Vengeance said:
I know your not. ;)
Click to expand...

I know you know, but many NV fans think I'm only here to troll :nag:
 
I'm getting the this or the R600 depending on which is faster overall. I don't think I'm going to even bother with dual cards again for a while, so ATI is in the running for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top