toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
most sites sites never reviewed the 8500gt much after release. most of the time you see a benchmark for it it was done with the awful release drivers. you cant even find any 8600gt reviews with the newer drivers. only in game reviews can you see that the 8600gt is almost twice as fast as the 7600gt. well the 8600gt had twice the sp and tmu of the 8500gt so wouldnt common sense say that the 8500gt would likely be half as fast as the 8600gt? that means it should not be much slower than the 7600gt or at least the 7600gs.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
yeah I was waiting on you to start being an ass. you already know that wasnt what i was trying to say back then. should we put the little immature pm you sent me up so people can see how you really act? grow up.
if you dont know that the Source engine was modified for Ep 2 then you dont have a clue about the HL 2 series, the Orange Box for consoles got the full engine update on all the incluede games even HL 2 which supposedly we pc users will get one day. the Black Mesa mod even had to go back and redo stuff to incorporate the newest version of Source engine since so much was improved with Ep 2 version of the engine. get off your lazy ass and look it up yourself.
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
This is the most ass backwards string of comparisions I've ever read.
First, the 8600GT, 8500GT, and 7600GT are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Second, the 8400GS's memory bandwidth limitation is going to severely hamper its performance in most games, and thus it's going to be quite a bit slower than the 8500GT. These two cards are not equals.
Third, the 6600GT should be faster than the 8400GS in most games. Hell launch articles put the 6600GT, overall, as being quite a bit faster than the 8500GT. Before you tell me about crap drivers, you better show me sufficient updated credible benchmarks stating otherwise. At best the 8500GT will be marginally faster than the 6600GT; the cards are pretty equal for the type of games and settings they will most likely be playing, but I'll recant this statement with good data showing otherwise.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
it was crap drivers at release because if you look at initial reviews of the 8600gt it was barely faster than a 7600gt. if you look at some game reviews from several months later like I posted you will see that the 8600gt got way faster and is about twice as fast as the 7600gt. I owned one from the week that they were released so i know first hand how much it changed. hell after newer drivers I doubled my framerate in many games.
I was trying to make the connection between those cards because its well known that the 6600gt was slightly faster than the 9800xt. it would be nice if all these new and older cards were directly compared somewhere but they are not so i was trying my best to make some sort of correlation there. lol
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Actually that's exactly what you said!
I know source engine wasn't modified anything. It was the exact same engine.
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...e-2-Episode-2,765.html
Notice the benches don't have 9700pro or 9800pro but we have 1600pro that is exactly the same shit as 9700pro with slightly lower memory bandwidth.
x1600pro 27.1fps
8500gt 27fps
6600gt 24.4 fps
8400gs 21.9 fps
edit: Here's rest of the games on average @ 1280x1024.
http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...rks-1280x1024,796.html
Fact is 8400GS loses to 1600pro. Only thing that gets close it 8500gt but still shy.
6600gt and 6800gt really doing terrible but again Nvidia always leave old hardware users in the dust.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
just for AZN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_%28game_engine%29
The release of Half-Life 2: Episode One and The Orange Box both introduced new versions of the engine that could not be used to run older games or mods without the developers performing upgrades to code and, in some cases, content. But both times the work required to move from the older version to the newer was significantly less than what one might have come to expect from other engines - where such an action may well not even be possible without total re-development.
The release of Half-Life 2: Episode One and The Orange Box both introduced new versions of the engine that could not be used to run older games or mods without the developers performing upgrades to code and, in some cases, content. But both times the work required to move from the older version to the newer was significantly less than what one might have come to expect from other engines - where such an action may well not even be possible without total re-development.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Yeah you are dreaming. Just because certain web sites have certain fps while another is getting 100fps does not mean that's the actual fps as setup and testing procedures are different. Also that is testing 1280x1024.
So you've been talking about the 8400gs and ion that beating 9700pro. Guess what? IT DOESN'T and we've been trying to tell you all this time.
Aren't the specs of the ion like twice the 9700 pro (twice the pixel pushing power, 16 shaders instead of 8, same clock speed), but with significantly lower memory bandwidth? (1/4 to 1/2?)
Edit:
Ok the specs compare like this:
9300 --------------------- 9700 pro
Core speed (Mhz) 450 (900 shader) 325
Pixel fill rate 3600 Mpixels/sec 2600 Mpixels/sec
Shaders 16 8
Memory bandwidth 6.4GB/s to 12.8GB/s 19.8GB/s
The ion is faster in almost anyway, so unless memory bandwidth is killing it, it should win.
The geforce 6600gt's specs are:
Core speed 500mhz
Pixel fill rate 2000 Mpixels/s /4000 Mtexels
Shaders 8?
Memory bandwidth 16GB/s
The ion looks like it should be faster than the 6600gt too.
The x800xt:
Core speed 500 mhz
Pixel fill rate 8000 Mpixels/s
Shaders 16
Memory bandwidth 32GB/s
If we want to go purely by shader power, the ion probably is close to something like the 7900 Ultra. By memory bandwidth, it's a 9600 pro. By pixel fill rate, it's an X700XT.
By transistor count, it's about a 6800Ultra, and that's about where I'd expect it's performance to lie if it's not too hampered by memory bandwidth.
Edit:
Ok the specs compare like this:
9300 --------------------- 9700 pro
Core speed (Mhz) 450 (900 shader) 325
Pixel fill rate 3600 Mpixels/sec 2600 Mpixels/sec
Shaders 16 8
Memory bandwidth 6.4GB/s to 12.8GB/s 19.8GB/s
The ion is faster in almost anyway, so unless memory bandwidth is killing it, it should win.
The geforce 6600gt's specs are:
Core speed 500mhz
Pixel fill rate 2000 Mpixels/s /4000 Mtexels
Shaders 8?
Memory bandwidth 16GB/s
The ion looks like it should be faster than the 6600gt too.
The x800xt:
Core speed 500 mhz
Pixel fill rate 8000 Mpixels/s
Shaders 16
Memory bandwidth 32GB/s
If we want to go purely by shader power, the ion probably is close to something like the 7900 Ultra. By memory bandwidth, it's a 9600 pro. By pixel fill rate, it's an X700XT.
By transistor count, it's about a 6800Ultra, and that's about where I'd expect it's performance to lie if it's not too hampered by memory bandwidth.
Everybody calm down. The only way to solve this is to somehow test each platform with an equivalent cpu. I don't think that is going to happen unless you can fit a Radeon 9700pro into a PCIE slot on a nvidia 9300 motherboard. As someone already mentioned the Ion will have shared memory of 128-bits, ddr2 800mhz And will have much higher latency than video memory.
However we can compare stats:
9700pro
19.84GB/s of memory bandwidth
Pixel Fill Rate: 2600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 2600 MTexels/sec
Texture Units: 8
Raster Operators 8
9300GS
12.8GB/s of memory bandwidth
Pixel Fill Rate: 3600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 3600 MTexels/sec
Texture Units: 8
Raster Operators 8
Edit: I adjusted the 9300gs to match the igp settings as best i could. Theoretically the igp could use ddr3 1333 which would raise the memory bandwitdth.
I would still put my money on the 9700pro
However we can compare stats:
9700pro
19.84GB/s of memory bandwidth
Pixel Fill Rate: 2600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 2600 MTexels/sec
Texture Units: 8
Raster Operators 8
9300GS
12.8GB/s of memory bandwidth
Pixel Fill Rate: 3600 MPixels/sec
Texture Fill Rate: 3600 MTexels/sec
Texture Units: 8
Raster Operators 8
Edit: I adjusted the 9300gs to match the igp settings as best i could. Theoretically the igp could use ddr3 1333 which would raise the memory bandwitdth.
I would still put my money on the 9700pro
There is a gigantic performance difference between Half Life 2 and Episode 2. Stop saying there isn't, you have obviously never played it otherwise you wouldn't be saying that.
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
I don't think driver improvements alone would result in twice the speed up.
I think at the time the 8600GT released there were just different games being played and benchmarked. I don't doubt the 8600GT is much faster than the 7600GT in newer games (with newer drivers), but in those older titles I just don't see it.
But that's besides the point. The ION and its "8400GS" is crippled from the cards you were using for comparison. As such, there's no way I would say this crippled, low-end card is "way faster" (this is what you said) than a 9700 Pro. I'd say they are pretty close in performance, and I'd give the edge to the 9700 Pro, but this can be debated.
How would you say the integrated Radeon HD3200 compares to the ION? I'm under the assumption the HD3200 is slightly faster than the integrated ION solution, but they are pretty equal overall. I ran tests comparing an X800GT to the HD3200, where the HD3200 was in a system with a much faster processor, and the X800GT spanked the HD3200 in HL2 w/AA and Crysis despite being paired with a much slower processor. Now this isn't quite comparable, as the X800GT does have higher clocks than the 9700 Pro, but otherwise they should perform similarly. I suppose I could underclock my X800GT and re-run the tests, but I don't quite have time for that right now.
My point is that the 9700 Pro and "8400GS" should be pretty equal, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 9700 Pro ended up being faster in many cases.
You wouldn't have to use the same system. I'd bet even if the 9700 Pro was paired with a slower processor than what the integrated ION uses, that it would probably win.
toyota
Lifer
- Apr 15, 2001
- 12,957
- 1
- 0
well I can promise you that some games did double in performance. if I didnt have an 8600gt then I wouldnt think that was possible myself. I was pretty disappointed in the 8600gt at first and then I noticed after a couple driver updates that many of my games were much much faster. those game reviews on gamespot certainly confirmed it in games that I owned. STALKER and other demanding games suddenly became playable on much higher settings. heck I know that FEAR went from 50 fps to nearly 90 fps on the same settings that I was using. I had screenshots of the benchmarks and it was discussed on some other forums where other 8600gt/gts owners noticed the same. in fact there was a review of the 8600gt using the release drivers that showed it barely matching the 7600gt and I asked the reviewer to use newer drivers but he refused and just ranted about how slow the 8600gt was. I even sent him my benchmarks using the identical settings as his showing how much faster it was with newer drivers. I think it was legionhardware.com but I could be mistaken about that.
anyway I still think the ION is faster overall but theres no way we will likely get a direct comparison.
as long as you refer to the IGP by its name "ION," you are implicating it with the intel atom processor, in which case, gaming performance is going to suck a lot worse than a mainstream CPU+discrete geforce 8400, totally nullifying any architectural similarities between the 8400 and 9300.
I could have a dual core K8 at 3 GHz with a radeon 9700 and it will be a bit faster in games than a 1.6 ghz atom with the 9300.
likewise, a dual K8 at 3 GHz with an 8400 will murder an ion system.
there are plenty of geforce9300 chipsets with the 775 socket that you can use to compare the 9300 IGP with 8400 GS for a given CPU. but the atom will NEVER run games well, so this whole debate is meaningless.
I could have a dual core K8 at 3 GHz with a radeon 9700 and it will be a bit faster in games than a 1.6 ghz atom with the 9300.
likewise, a dual K8 at 3 GHz with an 8400 will murder an ion system.
there are plenty of geforce9300 chipsets with the 775 socket that you can use to compare the 9300 IGP with 8400 GS for a given CPU. but the atom will NEVER run games well, so this whole debate is meaningless.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter