9800GTX+ installed

[nRollo]

NVIDIA supplied me with one of their new 9800GTX+ cards, just installed it this morning in my AMD 9850BE/Asus 780a motherboard.

Will be checking out PhysX with UT3 and Vantage this weekend.

Also, I'm planning to check out the Hybrid Power, as summer has arrived in Wisconsin and the upstairs bedroom I have this PC in definitely was getting warmer with the 9800GX2s running fulltime.

More later!

 

[taltamir]

nice.
do you have an unreleased mobo for intel, or are you going to check hybrid power on an AMD CPU?

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: taltamir
nice.
do you have an unreleased mobo for intel, or are you going to check hybrid power on an AMD CPU?

Don't have the Intel Hybrid board, using the Asus M3N-HT Deluxe with an AMD 9850BE CPU / Zerotherm Nirvana HSF on it.

 

[shangshang]

will be looking forward to your review

 

[ajaidevsingh]

Do try and put the diff. between 9800 OCed and 9800+ at the same freq.

 

[biostud]

could you try out physX on a SLI setup? (doesn't have to be the 9800GTX+)

 

[SSChevy2001]

Any advice you can give with UT3 Physx would be cool. I got a 8800GTS 512 with the modified drivers 177.41 and physx. It works fine for Vantage, but it only worked once for UT3. After I tried reloading UT3 and the drivers many times, but no luck. Hopefully when Nvidia releases the physx system software version 8.06.18 it will work again.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Any advice you can give with UT3 Physx would be cool. I got a 8800GTS 512 with the modified drivers 177.41 and physx. It works fine for Vantage, but it only worked once for UT3. After I tried reloading UT3 and the drivers many times, but no luck. Hopefully when Nvidia releases the physx system software version 8.06.18 it will work again.

As of today, physx is only enabled for 9800GTX(+), GTX260 & GTX280. Shortly, Nvidia will release support for 8800 series (G80 & G92).

I'll be running some Physx benches tonight as well on the 9800GTX+.

 

[secretanchitman]

i wonder how this will compare to the GTX 260...and will there ever be a GTX 260+?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
i wonder how this will compare to the GTX 260...and will there ever be a GTX 260+?

Well, I'm sure there is the possibility that the die shrunk versions "could" be called GTX260+ and GTX280+. No definite naming scheme that I know of yet.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Well, I'm sure there is the possibility that the die shrunk versions "could" be called GTX260+ and GTX280+. No definite naming scheme that I know of yet.

When is it coming? (GT200+) *wink* *wink*

 

[vgkarthik88]

wait didnt AnandTech already do a preview of the 9800 GTX+ with game scores. it still got whooped by the 4850! the review clearly shows there is no power savings compared to the 65nm and performance is marginally better. after all their only advantage with a manufacturing process shrink is reduced heat so u can clock it higher. Quote from Anand himself : "9800 GTX+ manages to barely outperform the 4850 in a few titles, but loses by a larger margin in others, so for the most part it isn't competitive enough to justify the extra $30. " and thats compared to a $200 4850. u can get them for like $170 now!!! WHY!!! i dont get it at all! ( unless ur an NV fanboy, in which case i have nothing to say to u )

 

[SSChevy2001]

@keysplayr2003

Maybe not officially it's supported, but it does work. I just found out I needed to also replace the PhysXCore.dll in the UT3's binaries folder with Ageia 2.7.3 version and now it works fine again. Thanks anyway.

Hope your review will includes overclocking the 9800GTX+ and comparison of a overclocked 9800GTX+ vs the GTX260. Hopefully it clocks to a 900mhz core.

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: vgkarthik88
wait didnt AnandTech already do a preview of the 9800 GTX+ with game scores. it still got whooped by the 4850! the review clearly shows there is no power savings compared to the 65nm and performance is marginally better. after all their only advantage with a manufacturing process shrink is reduced heat so u can clock it higher. Quote from Anand himself : "9800 GTX+ manages to barely outperform the 4850 in a few titles, but loses by a larger margin in others, so for the most part it isn't competitive enough to justify the extra $30. " and thats compared to a $200 4850. u can get them for like $170 now!!! WHY!!! i dont get it at all! ( unless ur an NV fanboy, in which case i have nothing to say to u )

He didnt buy it mate he was SUPPLIED it from Nvidia............if i got stuff free off Nvidia id be a fanboy mate i can tell yer that for nowt!

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: vgkarthik88
wait didnt AnandTech already do a preview of the 9800 GTX+ with game scores. it still got whooped by the 4850! the review clearly shows there is no power savings compared to the 65nm and performance is marginally better. after all their only advantage with a manufacturing process shrink is reduced heat so u can clock it higher. Quote from Anand himself : "9800 GTX+ manages to barely outperform the 4850 in a few titles, but loses by a larger margin in others, so for the most part it isn't competitive enough to justify the extra $30. " and thats compared to a $200 4850. u can get them for like $170 now!!! WHY!!! i dont get it at all! ( unless ur an NV fanboy, in which case i have nothing to say to u )

Why don't you just hang on for a few there bud. Maybe things will become a little clearer. And then maybe you'll have something to say. Constructively of course.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: vgkarthik88
wait didnt AnandTech already do a preview of the 9800 GTX+ with game scores. it still got whooped by the 4850! the review clearly shows there is no power savings compared to the 65nm and performance is marginally better. after all their only advantage with a manufacturing process shrink is reduced heat so u can clock it higher. Quote from Anand himself : "9800 GTX+ manages to barely outperform the 4850 in a few titles, but loses by a larger margin in others, so for the most part it isn't competitive enough to justify the extra $30. " and thats compared to a $200 4850. u can get them for like $170 now!!! WHY!!! i dont get it at all! ( unless ur an NV fanboy, in which case i have nothing to say to u )

He didnt buy it mate he was SUPPLIED it from Nvidia............if i got stuff free off Nvidia id be a fanboy mate i can tell yer that for nowt!

I have to visit Australia before I die, sniper.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Any advice you can give with UT3 Physx would be cool. I got a 8800GTS 512 with the modified drivers 177.41 and physx. It works fine for Vantage, but it only worked once for UT3. After I tried reloading UT3 and the drivers many times, but no luck. Hopefully when Nvidia releases the physx system software version 8.06.18 it will work again.

I just played the HeatRay PhysX level twice and would say the following:

PhysX is very cool- I thought the PhysX level was much more immersive than std HeatRay, which I've played many times. (like the DarkWalker)

Having the environment get destroyed as you're playing, and the stuff in it get knocked around does indeed add a lot to the game. It pretty fun to shoot the scaffolding a guy is on and have it come tumbling down in a rain of shards. The hail is very nice, and the Gravity Wave gun is good as well. (glad to see this type of gun make it into UT3)

This stuff does come at a cost with a single 9800GTX+ at 19X12 0X16X Very High Quality I could definitely tell the game was running slower than without PhysX. It was still playable and fun, but noticeably slower than without PhysX.

Whether this is entirely the 9800GTX+'s fault, or the Phenom 9850 rig it's in is responsible for this, I don't know yet, but will look into.

I'm guessing I can't SLi my 9800GTX+ and my 9800GTX, but I'll look into that as well to see if I can up the performance that way. If not, I'll run it on my GTX280SLi and see how it does at 25X16.

In any case, take away from this is PhysX is a very nice improvement in gameplay immersion, and has apparently come a long way from the rather lackluster reviews I read of it on the first games. (seem to remember something about a car door levitating and a couple chunks of rock falling off walls)

For a $200 NVIDIA card and a $200 AMD CPU to be generating that level of chaos on the screen was pretty impressive to me, don't have to be rich to have excellent PC gaming these days.

More later.

 

[Wreckage]

How much and when?

Although right now a $60 8800GS might be all I can afford :-(

 

[SSChevy2001]

@nRollo

I know that's why I was mad when it only worked once, because it was really cool. It works now though so I'm happy. The performance I get on HeatRay isn't great, but it's more than playable with a average of about 48-49 fps @ 1080P with max settings. Without physx support I rather not even play these extra maps, it's that bad.

Get a chance though I haven't seen any 9800GTX+ overclocking benchmarks. Would be nice to see if the 55nm die clocks higher than the older 65nm.

 

[Keysplayr]

I ran the Tornado Physx level with a single 9800GTX+ on the 790i rig in my sig. Nothing overclocked, all stock speeds.
I can comment on the following so far. The level of interactive physics is pretty high. When i read about destructible environments
in reviews, I thought it would be just certain objects that can be destroyed, hurled, exploded etc. The level of interaction is much higher than I thought I would be seeing.

Examples:

Building walls, columns, ceilings are incrementally destroyable. Rail Car boxes hanging from a crane cable can be shot apart to let the boxes fall, and if you wait for a tornado, and if you time it right, you can shoot the cable and the wind will actually catch the box and let it rise into the tornado and then spew it out. The physics look pretty natural. The way it might look as if it were really happening.

Roofs being torn off by twisters. You can see the corrugated metal roofs being torn, bent, mangled under the pressure of the twisters. Debris from broken buildings, concrete block, metal beams, are picked up and hurled by twisters and blown around from intense wind.

Shoot the floor out from under an enemy and watch them fall and crash down.

About performance. I can take some screenshots and maybe even some FRAPS movies to show the level of action going on to give
this some scale. But for now, I'll just give some rudimentary numbers.

Single 9800GTX+, q6600, 790i, 177.39's, UT3 Physx Mod package.

1920x1200 0xAA. Tornado Physx Demo.

Hardware Physics "Enabled" - Avg. 27 fps (GPU driven)
Hardware Physics "Disabled" - Avg. 6.8 fps (CPU driven)

The Tornado map would of course be faster without the Physx package. But you will also have no Physx immersion.
More to come. SLI'd 9800GTX's. GTX280.

 

[Jhonka]

@nRollo

Hope to see more impressions of the card's performance.
Do you know when this card is going to be available?

 

[SSChevy2001]

@keysplayr2003

Your scores look really low for tornado. I hope your overclocking that Q6600 to make sure your scores aren't cpu bound. Here's my averages.
min max avg
34 59 43.267
35 53 44.933
39 52 45.4
39 55 47.4

177.41 drivers 1920x1080p specs in signature

All are outdoor not indoors with shooting walls and bots.

 

[Keysplayr]

Hmm. I didn't think UT3 was that CPU bound. I'll also try the 177.41's. After that, I'll give the GTX some o/c luvin.

BTW, your running a lower res than I am. 1920x1080. I'm at 1920x1200.

Still on the 177.39's
So, I o/c'd my CPU to 3150MHz (I'm on stock cooling)
O/c'd my GTX+ to 821/2036/1177(2354). (I know it can go further, but this is a starting point).
64C under load BTW.
My average went up to 33.074 fps.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Jhonka
@nRollo

Hope to see more impressions of the card's performance.
Do you know when this card is going to be available?

All I can say about that is "If I have it, you can VERY soon. Very, very soon".

I was told there's no NDA on these cards, but let me check if that includes launch date.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: SSChevy2001
Any advice you can give with UT3 Physx would be cool. I got a 8800GTS 512 with the modified drivers 177.41 and physx. It works fine for Vantage, but it only worked once for UT3. After I tried reloading UT3 and the drivers many times, but no luck. Hopefully when Nvidia releases the physx system software version 8.06.18 it will work again.

I just played the HeatRay PhysX level twice and would say the following:

PhysX is very cool- I thought the PhysX level was much more immersive than std HeatRay, which I've played many times. (like the DarkWalker)

Having the environment get destroyed as you're playing, and the stuff in it get knocked around does indeed add a lot to the game. It pretty fun to shoot the scaffolding a guy is on and have it come tumbling down in a rain of shards. The hail is very nice, and the Gravity Wave gun is good as well. (glad to see this type of gun make it into UT3)

This stuff does come at a cost with a single 9800GTX+ at 19X12 0X16X Very High Quality I could definitely tell the game was running slower than without PhysX. It was still playable and fun, but noticeably slower than without PhysX.

Whether this is entirely the 9800GTX+'s fault, or the Phenom 9850 rig it's in is responsible for this, I don't know yet, but will look into.

I'm guessing I can't SLi my 9800GTX+ and my 9800GTX, but I'll look into that as well to see if I can up the performance that way. If not, I'll run it on my GTX280SLi and see how it does at 25X16.

In any case, take away from this is PhysX is a very nice improvement in gameplay immersion, and has apparently come a long way from the rather lackluster reviews I read of it on the first games. (seem to remember something about a car door levitating and a couple chunks of rock falling off walls)

For a $200 NVIDIA card and a $200 AMD CPU to be generating that level of chaos on the screen was pretty impressive to me, don't have to be rich to have excellent PC gaming these days.

More later.

I think it makes sense it's slower. A part of the GPU does physics and graphics are not done by a full GPU. Do you know a ratio between physics/graphics allocation?