backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by kmmatney.. on Jan 22 at 2:36 PM


Nvidia's G94 Graphics Processor  (Source: PCOnline.com.cn)

The 9600GT uncovered  (Source: PCOnline.com.cn)
NVIDIA's upcoming 9600GT graphics card lives up to the company's performance claims

Earlier this month DailyTech reported details of the next generation of GPUs from NVIDIA -- specifically the mid-range GPU codenamed D9x. Recently, the GeForce 9600GT was spotted in the open and Chinese review site PC Online was able to put the new reference card to the test to see what it's made of.

As far as the technical specifications are concerned, little has changed from our report earlier this month. The 9600GT will come factory configured with a core clock speed of 650 MHz, a unified shader clock speed of 1625 MHz, and an 1800 MHz memory clock.

From the photographs it looks like 512MB of GDDR3 1000 MHz memory is connected to the GPU by way of a 256-bit bus with a memory bandwidth of 57.6 GB/s. The G94 chip will also offer 64 unified stream processors; double the number on the 8600GT and half the number on the 8800 series.

The photographs show a smaller GPU die size than the G92 chips but slightly larger than the G84 die.

Additional details of the 9600GT include PCIe 2.0 and support for the Quantum Effects physics processing engine.

PC Online was able to measure the performance of the 9600GT and the results confirmed NVIDIA's claims of a 100% performance increase over the 8600 series for the most part. The 9600GT reached an overall score of 10813 while the 8600GTS and 8800GS had scores of 6251 and 10391, respectively.

Additionally, the 9600GT scored higher than the 8800GTS in many of the tests including 3DMark06 and games such as Crysis, BioShock, and Unreal Tournament 3. The 9600GT came up just a little short behind the 8800GS in only a few games such as Need for Speed: ProStreet and Colin McRae Rally (coincidentally, both being auto-racing titles).

Testing of the 9600GT was performed using Beta drivers so we may see additional performance squeezed out of this card and variants from NVIDIA's partners upon official release of a final product and drivers.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

close...but
By Jeffree on 1/19/2008 2:18:23 PM , Rating: 3
double the performance would not be a 200% increase, it would be a 100% increase. Other than that, good stuff. Looking forward to seeing 9800 series soon.




RE: close...but
By Jeffree on 1/19/2008 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 1
Also, how can it outperform the 8800GTS but then turn around and lose to a 8800GS?? That doesn't make sense...Perhaps the '8800GTS' was supposed to read '8800GS'.


RE: close...but
By Spuke on 1/19/2008 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
Umm....I didn't see the 8800GTS in those benchmarks. Is there another website with those comparisons?


RE: close...but
By pattycake0147 on 1/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: close...but
By amanojaku on 1/19/2008 2:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 9600GT reached an overall score of 10813 while the 8600GTS and 8800GS had scores of 6251 and 10391, respectively.


RE: close...but
By SirLucius on 1/19/2008 2:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Additionally, the 9600GT scored higher than the 8800 GTS in many of the tests...


RE: close...but
By Spuke on 1/19/2008 3:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
I know what the article said but in link to the actual benchmarks there is NO 8800GTS mentioned.


RE: close...but
By ZoZo on 1/19/2008 5:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
What they meant was 8600 GTS instead of 8800 GTS. Even the G80 8800 GTS would beat that 9600 GT easily.


RE: close...but
By Spuke on 1/19/2008 7:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, it does say 8600GTS. I don't know where they got 8800GTS from. I'll guess I'll be waiting for the official benchmarks.


RE: close...but
By ImSpartacus on 1/19/2008 2:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
There is no 8800 GS (at least at this time). It's most likely a typo, albeit an unlucky one.


RE: close...but
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/19/2008 2:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
There was to be an 8800 GS. It's just the G80 die. I doubt it will ever see the light of day though.


RE: close...but
By toyota on 1/20/2008 2:24:38 PM , Rating: 1
sometimes I wonder if you guys even keep up with what is going on at all. there is an 8800gs. its g92 based and 192bit memory. are you guys really that much out of the loop?


RE: close...but
By Cygni on 1/20/2008 7:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you are pretty testy for someone who is yourself wrong.

The name '8800 GS' was recycled. It was originally intended to be a G80 part, launched along side the 8800 Ultra, that would slot in slightly above the 8600. But Nvidia and its partners decided that it didnt have a place in the market and it never made its way to a release. The name has now been reused for a lightly crippled G92 part.


RE: close...but
By toyota on 1/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: close...but
By homerdog on 1/20/2008 8:11:35 PM , Rating: 2
I thought so too, but I can't find one for sale.


RE: close...but
By formulav8 on 1/21/2008 12:07:57 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the 8800GS is currently a OEM part.

Jason


RE: close...but
By PlasmaBomb on 1/21/2008 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Correct -

GeForce 8800GS 384MiB - The card is basically a 192-bit G92 with only 12 ROPs, and it will be primarily aimed at OEMs. There are claims board manufacturers are also planning to sell it in retail for $149-179.


RE: close...but
By Cygni on 1/21/2008 7:27:27 PM , Rating: 1
No, you are not correct. You were attempting to prove Kristopher wrong. But he isnt. The 8800 GS was originally a G80 part. The name was recycled when there wasnt enough partner interest. The fact that some partners have reused the 8800 GS name for a low volume part only being shipped to Europe currently doesnt erase the previous 8800 GS.

In effect, you both have half the puzzle.

Also, in the future, try not to be such a self righteous douche.


RE: close...but
By toyota on 1/21/2008 7:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, you are not correct. You were attempting to prove Kristopher wrong. But he isnt. The 8800 GS was originally a G80 part. The name was recycled when there wasnt enough partner interest. The fact that some partners have reused the 8800 GS name for a low volume part only being shipped to Europe currently doesnt erase the previous 8800 GS.
and what are you being besides an asshole? Kristopher seems to be clueless that there is even an 8800gs based on the g92. i dont care what the 8800gs was "going to be" in the past because the fact remains that it IS a g92 based part NOW. that g92 based 8800gs was the one that was used in that comparison so end of story.


RE: close...but
By kmmatney on 1/22/2008 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares...you can't really buy the part anyways.


RE: close...but
By feraltoad on 1/21/2008 2:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like the sun is coming out. Poor ATi :( Just when the HD38xx seem to be working for them.

http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=9692&...

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/4284/

Sweet Jebus, how many G80 cores do they have laying around? I expect to see 8800 keychains and cuff links soon.


RE: close...but
By faiakes on 1/19/2008 2:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely it means the G80 GTS (320MB or even 640MB)


RE: close...but
By Jedi2155 on 1/19/2008 6:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely. My completely stock system of a E6600 + 8800 GTS 640 MB + 680i scored about 10,155, less than that of the 9600 GT.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=209802...


RE: close...but
By MrDiSante on 1/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: close...but
By InternetGeek on 1/19/2008 4:03:17 PM , Rating: 5
Next thing MS will release a new Leopard, and IBM their new Core 2.


RE: close...but
By Moose1309 on 1/19/2008 5:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!! I know, whenever I read "nVidia 9800 GT" I get two seconds of cognitive dissonance.

So, what's the verdict: 8800 GT/S or wait for 9600 GT? In percentage points, how much faster would these cards be than a X1950 XT?


RE: close...but
By Alpha4 on 1/20/2008 2:08:06 PM , Rating: 4
The verdict is buy a Radeon HD 3850 and put it all behind you ;)


RE: close...but
By Zensphere on 1/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: close...but
By Mojo the Monkey on 1/21/2008 1:37:54 PM , Rating: 1
no, saying 100% performance increase is correct when used this way. While not "mathematically correct" as a multiplication value, its commonly used this way as an arithmetic measure.

Example: you can say something is 50% better, and that is still correct terminology when making reference to a value that has gone from 1 to 1.5 Yes, by ratio you would say %150, but we're not talking about a multiplication factor.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki