8600/8500 reviews?

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.

Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?

The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.

Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?

The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.

Right but when comparing products you cant go on what the market dictated months after the fact. When nvidia launches the next round of mid ranged cards, I'd expect the 8800GTS to be a 200 dollar card as well. And like I am saying right now, the mid range card then will probably be on par or slightly slower and not a worthy upgrade of todays high end.

Which is perfectly fine because it needs to beat the 8600GTS, which it will handily if it is on par with the 8800 series.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.

Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?

The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.

Right but when comparing products you cant go on what the market dictated months after the fact. When nvidia launches the next round of mid ranged cards, I'd expect the 8800GTS to be a 200 dollar card as well. And like I am saying right now, the mid range card then will probably be on par or slightly slower and not a worthy upgrade of todays high end.

Which is perfectly fine because it needs to beat the 8600GTS, which it will handily if it is on par with the 8800 series.

So you agree that the true mid range card that will be on par with the 7900gtx will be the one that should fill the gap between the 8600gts and 8800gts? It would make sense. So say the 8600gts sells for 160 bucks and the 8800gts 320mb sells for 250.00$. It would not be a bad idea to have a 8800gs/8600ultra for 200.00$ that will on par with a 7900gtx?
That would be a better upgrade in my eyes.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: happy medium

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: yacoub
The 8600GT is the successor to the 7600GT.
Meanwhile you continue to force the 7900GT into a place it never held and trying to deny that its true successor is the 64SP 256-bit card we are all waiting for that will actually outperform it. The 8600GTS fails at what it could have been because it is neutered too much in bus bandwidth and stream processors. Time to release an 8600 Ultra or an 8700GT that actually offers the right hardware to do the job of replacing the 7900GT. End of story. Shill all you want, it's not going to change the facts as reported in the benchmarks we're seeing today.

Noway no how, the 7600GT was priced between 180 and 230 when debuted, the 8600GT is a 150 dollar card. They are in completely different brackets. The 8600GTS is the successor to the 7600GT and it blows its doors off.

Anybody who thinks the 7900GT was released as a mid range card is completely out to lunch. The card was an identical chip to the 7900GTX but ran at different clocks and memory speeds. Not to mention the price bracket it debuted in at 349. Since when is a mid ranged card 349?

The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

I think the 7900gt was released as high end card, but got bumped down to high mid range when the 7950x2,7900gto,and 7950gt were released. I believe the 7900gs before the 8800 series was released was Nvidia's true mid range card.

Right but when comparing products you cant go on what the market dictated months after the fact. When nvidia launches the next round of mid ranged cards, I'd expect the 8800GTS to be a 200 dollar card as well. And like I am saying right now, the mid range card then will probably be on par or slightly slower and not a worthy upgrade of todays high end.

Which is perfectly fine because it needs to beat the 8600GTS, which it will handily if it is on par with the 8800 series.

So you agree that the true mid range card that will be on par with the 7900gtx will be the one that should fill the gap between the 8600gts and 8800gts? It would make sense. So say the 8600gts sells for 160 bucks and the 8800gts 320mb sells for 250.00$. It would not be a bad idea to have a 8800gs/8600ultra for 200.00$ that will on par with a 7900gtx?
That would be a better upgrade in my eyes.

Today yes, however I expect Nvidia will or already has ceased production of the G71. So while today we have ample supply of 7900GTX's at mid ranged prices. That wont be a long term market situation. Nvidia knows this and will continue to market their 8600GTS while the channel flushes out the 7900 series cards. I do however expect some kind of product to cut the 8800GTS 320 and 8600GTS performance gap when AMD shows up. That gap feels too big to not address.

Ideally I'd expect a 64shader part with a 256bit memory bus. Priced 230-250, settling around 200-220 while the 8600GTS is pushed down in the 160-180 range. But that is probably months off.

 

[happy medium]

I think if history repeats itself the best mid range is on par (give or take) with the last generations highend.

ti4600 = fx5700ultra
5900 = 6600gt
6800 ultra= 7600gt
7900gtx = ?

 

[Pugnate]

Could the whole 'nerf the card but increase the clock speed' be some marketing ploy? People who don't check benchmarks will probably look at the clock speed and think WOW! My last card had a much lower clock speed! I should get this!

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Pugnate
Could the whole 'nerf the card but increase the clock speed' be some marketing ploy? People who don't check benchmarks will probably look at the clock speed and think WOW! My last card had a much lower clock speed! I should get this!

Yea kind of like the marketing ploy of 512mb x1650pro's (which we all know is a waste of ram)? Mabe, but that usually happens with card manufacturers not Nvidia or Ati the chipset makers.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: munky

Features and Performance of GeForce(R) 8 Series Now Available at Lower Price Points

Marketing BS, the performance is nowhere near that of high end 8-series cards. Nv uses the same tricks over and over. I remember they used the same crap to advertise low end 7-series and 6-series, which sucked balls too.

He's right though. Low end buyers don't know what they're doing, thats why they but crap like a 256mb fx5200 because its got "dx9 and its got more megabytes so its faster". For the uninformed, the checklist on the box is what they go by.

Nvidia will probably have a decent run simply because these are the cheapest DX10 parts out there right now. And am I mistaken or did I see that only the lowest end model, the 8500 has a 512mb version? And amount of memory it likely will never be able to make use of at playable framerates? Old habits die hard!

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

Thing is that the 7600GT is in a completely different price bracket. The 8600GTS provides a gain of 35-40% over it and yet costs almost twice as much. That is the reason why reviewers across the board are knocking it performance and its value proposition.

If you look at the previous midrange offerings from Nvidia, 6600GT & 7600GT almost doubled the performance of the part they were replacing. You expect the same from in other price brackets too for example the 8800GTX almost doubled the performance over 7900GTX. If 8800GTX offered only a 35-40% over 7900GTX, then it wouldnt have been as popular as it has been, both in terms of reviews and sales numbers.

It would have been interesting to see a midrange card with 256b and 64 SPs (or) 192b and 48 SPs.

 

[Acanthus]

To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.

I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...

Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.

 

[Genx87]

a

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

Thing is that the 7600GT is in a completely different price bracket. The 8600GTS provides a gain of 35-40% over it and yet costs almost twice as much. That is the reason why reviewers across the board are knocking it performance and its value proposition.

If you look at the previous midrange offerings from Nvidia, 6600GT & 7600GT almost doubled the performance of the part they were replacing. You expect the same from in other price brackets too for example the 8800GTX almost doubled the performance over 7900GTX. If 8800GTX offered only a 35-40% over 7900GTX, then it wouldnt have been as popular as it has been, both in terms of reviews and sales numbers.

It would have been interesting to see a midrange card with 256b and 64 SPs (or) 192b and 48 SPs.

Well then I question what the reviewers were expecting. The 8600GTS is pretty close often to some 7900 models and beats the 7600GT handily. Were they expecing 8800 series performance for 200 bills?

Lets be realistic, but I agree there is a gap between 8800 and 8600 that can and should be filled.

 

[happy medium]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.

I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...

Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.

I believe the 6800gt upgrade was a 7800gt right?
The upgrade for the 7800gt was the 7900gt.
And the 7900gt upgrade is ??? The 8800gts.

Well anyway the 2nd generation upgrade for you is the 7900gt which will stomp the 6800gt.
The 8600gt is much faster then the 6800gt.

I'm not arguing

 

[yacoub]

Correct, the 7600GT's competitor is 8600GT, not 8600GTS.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: Genx87
a

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Genx87
The bottom line is, the 8600GTS shouldnt be expected to a worthy upgrade for last generations high end cards. It should be a worthy upgrade to last generations mid range cards, which it is. The thing completely destroys the card that was marketed for the price bracket(7600GT).

Thing is that the 7600GT is in a completely different price bracket. The 8600GTS provides a gain of 35-40% over it and yet costs almost twice as much. That is the reason why reviewers across the board are knocking it performance and its value proposition.

If you look at the previous midrange offerings from Nvidia, 6600GT & 7600GT almost doubled the performance of the part they were replacing. You expect the same from in other price brackets too for example the 8800GTX almost doubled the performance over 7900GTX. If 8800GTX offered only a 35-40% over 7900GTX, then it wouldnt have been as popular as it has been, both in terms of reviews and sales numbers.

It would have been interesting to see a midrange card with 256b and 64 SPs (or) 192b and 48 SPs.

Well then I question what the reviewers were expecting. The 8600GTS is pretty close often to some 7900 models and beats the 7600GT handily. Were they expecing 8800 series performance for 200 bills?

Lets be realistic, but I agree there is a gap between 8800 and 8600 that can and should be filled.

They were expecting what Nvidia delivered in the past two generations, double performance leap (or as fast as previous high-end) which wasnt too much. I guess its the shortcoming of delivering two outstanding cards (6600GT:7600GT) and then following them up with a lukewarm response. Just by itself 8600GTS looks good but when compared to others, its shine wears off.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.

I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...

Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.

And DirectX 10 functionality is very expensive, so the initial generation has to spend the transistor budget on increase functionality rather then increasing performance.

I would say overall the 8600 GTS if your average the benchmarks out is competitive to the 7900 GS/GT or X1950 GT/Pro. There are some cases of 7800 GT level performance, and some cases of 7950 GT level performance.

Yes it has been quite a long time since the 6800 GT, but keep in mind, that SKU has a die of 288mm2, with the majority of the die dedicated to pipelines rather then functionality, while the 8600 GTS is on the 80nm node which makes it 1/3 the size assuming it had the same transistor count which it doesn't, it is only 160mm2 and most of it needs to be dedicated to functionality rather then processing units.

Process generation technology is not moving quick enough to keep up with the gains Nvidia and ATI are making on the GPU front, if you haven't noticed each generation has had a larger die then the last. As long as your adding alot of fucntionality and not just straight shrinking.

130nm NV30 was 200mm2 give or take

130nm NV40 was 288mm2 give or take

110nm G70 was 333mm2 give or take

90nm G71 was 196mm2 give or take and was an oddball, transistors were removed! and it was a cost reducing generation with no functionality added.

90nm G80 480mm2 give or take

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we reached Dual Core Itanium 2's Montencito's level of 596mm2 within the next 2 generation if the continuing trend is upwards

So since process technology hasn't really been keeping pace and the die "MUST" remain between 120-175mm2 give or take this severely limits how much you can add in terms of transistor functionality and concessions have to be made.

130 nm to 90nm only allows 2x the amount of transistors in a given area more or less and transistors count has increased over 3x from NV40 to G80. So process technology is falling behind.

The 6600 GT was Nvidia spoiling people to regain their brand image for the most part, remember this card came out after the generation of the FX which Nvidia had tough times with, they need a hard winner to regain thier brand image which was weakened a lot that generation.

And if you haven't noticed compared to the 6600 GT, the 8600 GTS is vastly more powerful and feature rich. Not bad considering the die size between these 2 SKU are very similar. And comparing their process generations 110nm to 80nm you see that you can fit 2x the amount of transistors. So you would expect it to be about 2x as fast not factoring that you also need to factor in transistor budget for new features.

If you want a performance increase wait for a generation where very limited feature functionality is added like NV43 to G73. I would think something like Mid Range G9x on the 65nm process if Nvidia adds no more feature functionality will allow Nvidia to concentrate on increasing performance.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: Acanthus
To the ones arguing with me about the 6800GT upgrade.

I am aware that the GT was higher tier part, but, it has been TWO generations, memory technology and process technology alone have advanced enough to make the same friggin chip on a smaller process with more pipes that would stomp it into the ground for less money. I know I know, DX10 support...

Theres still no excuse for VERY little real gains on the mid range since the 6000 series.

And DirectX 10 functionality is very expensive, so the initial generation has to spend the transistor budget on increase functionality rather then increasing performance.

I would say overall the 8600 GTS if your average the benchmarks out is competitive to the 7900 GS/GT or X1950 GT/Pro. There are some cases of 7800 GT level performance, and some cases of 7950 GT level performance.

Yes it has been quite a long time since the 6800 GT, but keep in mind, that SKU has a die of 288mm2, with the majority of the die dedicated to pipelines rather then functionality, while the 8600 GTS is on the 80nm node which makes it 1/3 the size assuming it had the same transistor count which it doesn't, it is only 160mm2 and most of it needs to be dedicated to functionality rather then processing units.

Process generation technology is not moving quick enough to keep up with the gains Nvidia and ATI are making on the GPU front, if you haven't noticed each generation has had a larger die then the last. As long as your adding alot of fucntionality and not just straight shrinking.

130nm NV30 was 200mm2 give or take

130nm NV40 was 288mm2 give or take

110nm G70 was 333mm2 give or take

90nm G71 was 196mm2 give or take and was an oddball, transistors were removed! and it was a cost reducing generation with no functionality added.

90nm G80 480mm2 give or take

At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if we reached Dual Core Itanium 2's Montencito's level of 596mm2 within the next 2 generation if the continuing trend is upwards

So since process technology hasn't really been keeping pace and the die "MUST" remain between 120-175mm2 give or take this severely limits how much you can add in terms of transistor functionality and concessions have to be made.

130 nm to 90nm only allows 2x the amount of transistors in a given area more or less and transistors count has increased over 3x from NV40 to G80. So process technology is falling behind.

The 6600 GT was Nvidia spoiling people to regain their brand image for the most part, remember this card came out after the generation of the FX which Nvidia had tough times with, they need a hard winner to regain thier brand image which was weakened a lot that generation.

And if you haven't noticed compared to the 6600 GT, the 8600 GTS is vastly more powerful and feature rich. Not bad considering the die size between these 2 SKU are very similar. And comparing their process generations 110nm to 80nm you see that you can fit 2x the amount of transistors. So you would expect it to be about 2x as fast not factoring that you also need to factor in transistor budget for new features.

If you want a performance increase wait for a generation where very limited feature functionality is added like NV43 to G73. I would think something like Mid Range G9x on the 65nm process if Nvidia adds no more feature functionality will allow Nvidia to concentrate on increasing performance.

I really do understand the functional difference.

I just find it astonishing that the performance delta between mid range and high end continues to widen, with very little attractive options in the middle.

 

[BoberFett]

Ignoring all the bickering about what replaces what, the 8600 is underwhelming at best. As has been pointed out by many people, if you want a new Nvidia card, you're better off spending the extra $30 and buying an 8800 GTS 320. The 8600s are only for people who are on a strict budget.

 

[ra990]

Does the 8800 GTS 320 have the same PureVideo HD features that the new 8600 GTS has?? I am looking to purchase a video card for my htpc, which will be used for watching HD-DVDs (via XBOX 360's USB HD-DVD ROM) and some gaming (primarily WoW).

I really like that the 8600 has the ability to offload 100% of the HD-DVD decoding from the processor. But, I would also not mind paying like $60 more for the more powerful 8800 GTS 320, but only if it has the same PureVideo features as the 8600. So, the question I need answered is if the video processors on both the 8600 and the 8800 cards have the same features.

Anyone?

Thanks,
RA

 

[Munky]

I'd wait for review sites to test just how much better the new PV is, and I'm skeptical of any solution that claims to do 100% of the workload. This wouldn't be the first time the company made lofty promises about purevideo and didn't deliver.

 

[schneiderguy]

Hard OCP's review :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
Performance of the GTS :thumbsdown: although it's oblivion performance is pretty good
New definition to the term "hard launch" :thumbsdown::thumbsdown:
8800gts 320 @ $220 :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Now let's see if ATI can deliver with their midrange parts :Q Nvidia just handed ATI a huge oppurtunity to really dominate in the midrange -- something they've failed to do for the last two generations.

 

[bigsnyder]

Not trying to start any argument, but several of you are bashing HardOCP's review without presenting solid reasons
as to why their reviewed is flawed. Just would like some more information that back the opinions up.

C Snyder

 

[tuteja1986]

Bigsnyder your a newbie when it comes to graphic card. People in here aren't dumb ... its just that stupid editor of the website has done some horrible things in past. If you want a decent Video 7600GTS review then go check firing squad review.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Bigsnyder your a newbie when it comes to graphic card. People in here aren't dumb ... its just that stupid editor of the website has done some horrible things in past. If you want a decent Video 7600GTS review then go check firing squad review.

Wow, you have a lot of built up anger. Actually I've never been a big fan of Firing Squad so I guess you just have to take many reviews into consideration before making a decision. While I do think that Hardocp was a little over enthusiastic in their support for the 8600, I don't think the review over all was that bad.

However, Tech Report has stated that they are working on a more thorough review. I think that should give us a good idea of what these cards have to offer.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Originally posted by: bigsnyder
Not trying to start any argument, but several of you are bashing HardOCP's review without presenting solid reasons
as to why their reviewed is flawed. Just would like some more information that back the opinions up.

C Snyder

Wow, you have a lot of built up anger. Actually I've never been a big fan of Firing Squad so I guess you just have to take many reviews into consideration before making a decision. While I do think that Hardocp was a little over enthusiastic in their support for the 8600, I don't think the review over all was that bad.

Yes it was, and it was because they compare overclocked 220$ 8600 GTS models agaisnt a 130-140$ 1950 PRO... Then rave about how awesome the GTS is... W T F ?

They dont want apples to apples? Fine, but at least bench cards IN THE SAME PRICE RANGE

:thumbsdown:

As some people are saying on HOCP boards, they would have done a better job by comparing the 8600GTS vs 1950XT since those are in the same price bracket, but of course, they are paid so obviously they wouldnt do that, because then the 8600GTS would get stomped, just like it gets stomped by the 8800GTS 320... That site has long lost all its credibility to me, how people still believe their bullshit is beyond me

 

[bigsnyder]

Asking for evidence from their current review (not considering the history of past reviews alone)
doesn't make me a newbie. I feel credibility is lost when the only thing I read is that HardOCP
sucks without any information to back it up.

C Snyder

Originally posted by: tuteja1986
Bigsnyder your a newbie when it comes to graphic card. People in here aren't dumb ... its just that stupid editor of the website has done some horrible things in past. If you want a decent Video 7600GTS review then go check firing squad review.