Something I learned today.....

[Tweakin]

your 8800GTX is ancient for modern DX10 PC games ..

I know, and I have my other G92 EVGA 8800 GT SC 512 for sale...and when it goes I'll pick up a new card and then sell this one...thing is it still works great for the games I play.

 

[Dadofamunky]

Yeah, I "upgraded" from an e6750 to an e8600 and don't really see any major changes; but I didn't really expect to. What I really wanted was to break the 4 GHz barrier for bragging rights (that and $1,75 will buy you a grande coffee and Starbucks). But no, the clouds did not part and the Angel Gabriel did not announce Computing Nirvana to me.

No more upgrades for me for quite awhile. I certainly do not need a quad under any circumstances.

 

[chizow]

Title selection would also certainly have an impact on how much or how little difference you saw. GTA4, most UE3.0 games (Mass Effect, UT3, Gears of War, MOH:A etc), The Witcher, WiC, SupCommander (online multiplayer), WAR etc. all benefit from faster CPUs and will peg at least 2 cores near max.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dadofamunky
Yeah, I "upgraded" from an e6750 to an e8600 and don't really see any major changes; but I didn't really expect to. What I really wanted was to break the 4 GHz barrier for bragging rights (that and $1,75 will buy you a grande coffee and Starbucks). But no, the clouds did not part and the Angel Gabriel did not announce Computing Nirvana to me.

No more upgrades for me for quite awhile. I certainly do not need a quad under any circumstances.

i got the 'fire and brimstone show' when i upgraded to Q9550s at exactly 4.0ghz
:evil:


what did you do wrong?

 

[taltamir]

get chrome, set it to SAVE open windows and tabs between sessions... open a ton of tabs (say, go to wikipedia and start clicking links within articles)... now close and open it back up. The quad is amazingly faster.

It really all depends on what you do.

Also I think the reason you see no difference in games is because you are GPU bound as hell with your eVga 8800GTX

 

[rgallant]

Originally posted by: Martimus

Originally posted by: apoppin
if you play STALKER: Clear Sky .. it will become clear to you; download and run the CS benchmark which is one of the best stand alone benches ever

It took a little digging for me, but here is the link if anyone wants to download this benchmark: Stalker: Clear Sky Benchmark

-great game , but I had to turn all the settings to mid. other wise I get a error 500 in vista stating I run out of vram -and hard drive thashing had occured--leaving me at 80-100fps and I can't turn the eye candy up- lol (@1920x1200)--waiting for gt212 maybe.
-and yes a 45nm @ 4.2 and sli I do see a a big jump in fps but can't use it all with these cards.

 

[dflynchimp]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Tweakin
Starting from my base 6750@3.4Ghz, I decided to try a E8400 and shoot for the magical 4Ghz. Did I make it...sure, easy on that chip. Did I notice a difference, nope...unless I work and play with synthetic bench marks...nada...The chip also had both sensors stuck/dead/inop.

Maybe I should try a Quad...everyone loves a quad...right? Back to the egg for a 9650. I tried a 6600 awhile back and could not get it stable on my IP35-E above 3Ghz...and compared to my 6750, it was much slower in real world applications.

This jump to a 9650 also required a new board, and with it some new memory. It came, I put it together and nothing...dead chip. After RMA and replacement, up and running...3.6 stable. Again, more stuck/dead/inop sensors and no real difference after three days of multitasking. Benchmarks went through the roof...games played the same, which are HL, COD, and FarCry2 for the most part.

Even when things were running in the background, it just didn't seem like the system responded any better then my dual, especially for the price. One additional thing, I tried three different new coolers, and none of them worked as well as my old Scythe Ninja.

So, as you can see by me sig, I'm back to my original system...waiting for all my refunds, trying to sell my last parts and looking forward to a new laptop...

what did you expect?

your 6750 was already fast at 3.4Ghz .. if you are a gamer, you are already "there" with your 8800GTX

This is from my latest testing with a SYNTHETIC that show what happens with a much faster video card than yours

it's one example from 3DMark06's stock benchmark using Q9550S with GTX280

* GTX280's score at 2.83 Ghz is 14907
* GTX280's score at 3.40 Ghz is 17906
* GTX280's score at 4.00 Ghz is 18167

notice where performance levels off

well, here is a lesser Videocard 4870/1GB with Q9550S scaling from stock to 3.6 to 4.0 Ghz

* HD4870's score at 2.83 Ghz is 14411
* HD4870's score at 3.60 Ghz is 15825
* HD4870's score at 4.00 Ghz is 16067

i also have examples with e8600 from 3.33Ghz to 4.25Ghz that show much the same thing .. somewhere around 3.6Ghz you hit "diminishing returns" with your system with a normal video card. i am testing with 4870x2 and CrossfireX-3 right now - mostly at upper midrange resolutions of 16x10 and 19x12
.. the same thing seems to apply

however, where a game uses all 4 cores; your dual will come up short - in comparison - no matter what you do

if you play STALKER: Clear Sky .. it will become clear to you; download and run the CS benchmark which is one of the best stand alone benches ever

if you *really* want to see improvement in your games, toss that aging GTX and get yourself a GTX280 or GTX285 .. 8800 series is not fit for modern games anymore
- not if you use DX10 and like details

If you note the games that he plays, you can see that he doesn't need any more firepower beyond 8800GTX, which is still a great card to game with. Seriously there's nothing that ticks me off more than people trying to argue that a 30% increase in performance is worth tossing out a $300-400 card and splurging on another one.

If I had the money, sure I might do the same, but I wouldn't try and justify it by saying something as absurd as the 8800GTX being "not fit" for gaming.

This isn't a flame or angry retort, btw. I just doled out for a 4870X2, so I'm in the same boat here. But I did some benchmark hunting and the 4870X2 will at least double my 8800GTS 320's performance, which will make a difference when I'm running Far Cry and Crysis at high def. The only time I justify an upgrade is when it effects the magical 30fps threshold on my games at the resolutions I play at. If I'm already doing 50fps, I stick with where I am.

 

[alcoholbob]

8800GTX is will be good enough for a while given the AAA titles are all multiplatform. This will guarantee a mid-end PC will always be able to play most games.

Games will be more and more multithreaded as well due to the focus on consoles, which I believe is a definite benefit of the current gen of consoles.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: dflynchimp

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Tweakin
Starting from my base 6750@3.4Ghz, I decided to try a E8400 and shoot for the magical 4Ghz. Did I make it...sure, easy on that chip. Did I notice a difference, nope...unless I work and play with synthetic bench marks...nada...The chip also had both sensors stuck/dead/inop.

Maybe I should try a Quad...everyone loves a quad...right? Back to the egg for a 9650. I tried a 6600 awhile back and could not get it stable on my IP35-E above 3Ghz...and compared to my 6750, it was much slower in real world applications.

This jump to a 9650 also required a new board, and with it some new memory. It came, I put it together and nothing...dead chip. After RMA and replacement, up and running...3.6 stable. Again, more stuck/dead/inop sensors and no real difference after three days of multitasking. Benchmarks went through the roof...games played the same, which are HL, COD, and FarCry2 for the most part.

Even when things were running in the background, it just didn't seem like the system responded any better then my dual, especially for the price. One additional thing, I tried three different new coolers, and none of them worked as well as my old Scythe Ninja.

So, as you can see by me sig, I'm back to my original system...waiting for all my refunds, trying to sell my last parts and looking forward to a new laptop...

what did you expect?

your 6750 was already fast at 3.4Ghz .. if you are a gamer, you are already "there" with your 8800GTX

This is from my latest testing with a SYNTHETIC that show what happens with a much faster video card than yours

it's one example from 3DMark06's stock benchmark using Q9550S with GTX280

* GTX280's score at 2.83 Ghz is 14907
* GTX280's score at 3.40 Ghz is 17906
* GTX280's score at 4.00 Ghz is 18167

notice where performance levels off

well, here is a lesser Videocard 4870/1GB with Q9550S scaling from stock to 3.6 to 4.0 Ghz

* HD4870's score at 2.83 Ghz is 14411
* HD4870's score at 3.60 Ghz is 15825
* HD4870's score at 4.00 Ghz is 16067

i also have examples with e8600 from 3.33Ghz to 4.25Ghz that show much the same thing .. somewhere around 3.6Ghz you hit "diminishing returns" with your system with a normal video card. i am testing with 4870x2 and CrossfireX-3 right now - mostly at upper midrange resolutions of 16x10 and 19x12
.. the same thing seems to apply

however, where a game uses all 4 cores; your dual will come up short - in comparison - no matter what you do

if you play STALKER: Clear Sky .. it will become clear to you; download and run the CS benchmark which is one of the best stand alone benches ever

if you *really* want to see improvement in your games, toss that aging GTX and get yourself a GTX280 or GTX285 .. 8800 series is not fit for modern games anymore
- not if you use DX10 and like details

If you note the games that he plays, you can see that he doesn't need any more firepower beyond 8800GTX, which is still a great card to game with. Seriously there's nothing that ticks me off more than people trying to argue that a 30% increase in performance is worth tossing out a $300-400 card and splurging on another one.

If I had the money, sure I might do the same, but I wouldn't try and justify it by saying something as absurd as the 8800GTX being "not fit" for gaming.

This isn't a flame or angry retort, btw. I just doled out for a 4870X2, so I'm in the same boat here. But I did some benchmark hunting and the 4870X2 will at least double my 8800GTS 320's performance, which will make a difference when I'm running Far Cry and Crysis at high def. The only time I justify an upgrade is when it effects the magical 30fps threshold on my games at the resolutions I play at. If I'm already doing 50fps, I stick with where I am.

well, if you play '06 games in DX9 at 14x9 why bother with even dual core ?
:roll:

8800GTX is NOT a "great card to game with" .. not if you like DX10 and *details* .. at even 16x10 it simply falls flat compared to 4870 or especially GTX280/285

 

[francisA]

The op pretty much sums up what I'm trying to find now with my setup and is the main reason why I've been looking for that FSB and/or CPU Freq that will allow me to lower my voltages thus lowering temps but will not greatly affect overall system performance. With my Q9550, I went straight to 3.8G then up to 4G, then 4.16G. With my testing, I found that 3.8G is the sweet spot, needing only 1.232v actual and temps while loaded with P95 is just 55C and with IBT at 60-62C. Crysis benchmarks did not change much. The max fps is the same whether I went with 450/471/475/485 fsb, all 8.5 multi. The averages slips a tiny bit due to the min fps dropping by 1 or 2 notches. I would say not much difference in gaming. That is compared to 471fsb that requires 1.296v with temps going up accordingly.

Not sure if 3.8G is where it really should be at until I start doing more video encoding {which is the main purpose for C2Q for me}.

 

[skillyho]

8800GTX still puts out and remains completely capable. GOSH, haters.

Seriously though, that card can't out bench/FRAPS a current gen card (260/280/etc..) but it's more than capable of playing 99% of the games out there at acceptable rates with appropriate settings, and it has been for 2+ years now. *Still* a great gaming card.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: skillyho
8800GTX still puts out and remains completely capable. GOSH, haters.

Seriously though, that card can't out bench/FRAPS a current gen card (260/280/etc..) but it's more than capable of playing 99% of the games out there at acceptable rates with appropriate settings, and it has been for 2+ years now. *Still* a great gaming card.

not at even 16x10 on the DX10 pathway
- withOUT AA

i don't know about your "appropriate settings", but they must not include DX10
--new games Kill it

i have a very long long list of games it cannot run very well with maxed details
--8800GTX falls into SINGLE-DIGITS in Stalker: Clear Sky

it *was* a great gaming card the year before last .. all the way 'till last Summer
- i still have one

. . . and my GTX280 eats it alive
:moon:

 

[Provenone]

so i take it the 6750 is a good chip then? j/w because i just bought one.

 

[skillyho]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: skillyho
8800GTX still puts out and remains completely capable. GOSH, haters.

Seriously though, that card can't out bench/FRAPS a current gen card (260/280/etc..) but it's more than capable of playing 99% of the games out there at acceptable rates with appropriate settings, and it has been for 2+ years now. *Still* a great gaming card.

not at even 16x10 on the DX10 pathway
- withOUT AA

i don't know about your "appropriate settings", but they must not include DX10
--new games Kill it

i have a very long long list of games it cannot run very well with maxed details
--8800GTX falls into SINGLE-DIGITS in Stalker: Clear Sky

it *was* a great gaming card the year before last .. all the way 'till last Summer
- i still have one

. . . and my GTX280 eats it alive
:moon:

1280x1024/1440x900 ....someone picking up this card on the cheap second hand would be super pleased. I doubt anyone would jump on DX10 if their setup is more performance oriented on an DX9/XP Setup, too.

Congrats on your 280 being faster.

I am not disputing the fact that a new card is faster, but rather defending the fact that a card of that caliber can still be a great gaming card for many users.

:thumbsup:

 

[apoppin]

let's put it another way, a "great gaming card" can play new games

8800GTX cannot even play Clear Sky with maxed details on the DX10 pathway at even 14x9 or 12x10

 

[skillyho]

Originally posted by: apoppin
let's put it another way, a "great gaming card" can play new games

8800GTX cannot even play Clear Sky with maxed details on the DX10 pathway at even 14x9 or 12x10

Okay...so can it play on Medium-High in DX9? As I already said, I doubt anyone would jump on DX10 if their setup is more performance oriented on an DX9/XP Setup for minimal visual improvement.

Here's a tip...(just from me to you ) most gamers play for the gaming experience, not to simply max every in-game setting available. If one could do a broader look at people buying discrete graphics, they're doing so just to actually GAME. It's the rarer enthusiast perspective (such as yourself and most of this forum) that are the early adopters for those few extra frames....and I think that's what this thread is all about.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: skillyho

Originally posted by: apoppin
let's put it another way, a "great gaming card" can play new games

8800GTX cannot even play Clear Sky with maxed details on the DX10 pathway at even 14x9 or 12x10

Okay...so can it play on Medium-High in DX9? As I already said, I doubt anyone would jump on DX10 if their setup is more performance oriented on an DX9/XP Setup for minimal visual improvement.

Here's a tip...(just from me to you ) most gamers play for the gaming experience, not to simply max every in-game setting available. If one could do a broader look at people buying discrete graphics, they're doing so just to actually GAME. It's the rarer enthusiast perspective (such as yourself and most of this forum) that are the early adopters for those few extra frames....and I think that's what this thread is all about.

You need to realize i do not agree with the op nor his conclusions based on old games with an old videocard
- paired with a nice CPU

his conclusions are flawed - although they are true for him

so can it play on Medium-High in DX9?

.. well then it is NOT a "great gaming card", is it?
- and DX9c *blows* visually compared with DX10/10.1 now
:roll:

How do you know what most gamers play for? i am a gamer since my first PC - Atari800xl .. about '82
- and for some of us, medium details at DX9 is anything but ideal

i am not an "early adopter for those few extra frames" or i would have i7 platform and a FEW 'extra frames' by now
- penryn is tried and true and mostly reasonably priced now and oc'd q9550s is great bang for buck for the higher midrange PCs ,, you would want to match a nice video card to it .. at least a 4870 or a GTX280.
- now i do review HW for my own site but i always aim for 'bang-for-buck' in my own systema .. and i try to get it as balanced as possible for the resolution i play at - 19x12

 

[Tweakin]

Wow...

I was just commenting that I didn't find the newer technology to be any faster/snappier then my current setup...I didn't want to start any flame wars.

My point was that my current system, which costs about $300 minus the video card runs as fast, or appears faster (to me for what I do)...then any of the newer systems I was putting together.

To apoppin, I don't even know what Clear Sky is...like I said, I normally play COD, HL and Far Cry...and neither my 8800gtx or my 8800 GT SC (g92 DX10) card have any issues at 16x10.

I do find myself in need of another system, and after all that I have done, I'm not sure what I will put together now...but I can't afford to wait.

 

[skillyho]

appopin: We agree to disagree, and we're arguing about words and definitions that have different implications to each of us. I would *enjoy* a newer rig with more high end hardware, but my PC cost me around $475 shipped AR, I get 14k in 3dMark06, play every game I want to play (with some moderate compromises) and enjoy the heck out of it while doing it, so I can't complain. Arguing over the concept of a ?great gaming card? isn?t doing anything productive for this thread so I will revise my statement to be more subjective....... A great gaming card *to me* is one that debuts at the top of the charts, hold the title for well over a year and still fits the bill today with settings adjusted appropriately.

Back on topic: OP I couldn?t agree with you more. It?s not worth the investment cost for many users that already have competent rigs just for a barely perceptible difference in most daily tasks and the bragging rights associated synthetic benches. I think many users will be on Core2?s/X2?s for quite a bit longer.

 

[cubeless]

all u commie bastards hoarding your upgrade money r y we have a depression coming... it's unamerican... as a citizen of the greatest nation on earth i need that extra 1.5 fps in crysis!!!

that said i've been consolidating systems lately and both my sli 8800gt's with a q6700@3.33 and my crossfire 4850's w/c2d 6750@3.6 are pretty good runners @ 1680... but now i'm trying to decide what to build next...

 

[formulav8]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: Insomniator
What a waste of time. Testing quad vs dual in games on an 8800. What kind of multitasking? Firefox and itunes at the same time do not count.

Good thing it wasn't your time then, cause you already sound cranky...

:laugh: Yuk :laugh: Yuk :laugh: Yuk :laugh:


Jason

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
Wow...

I was just commenting that I didn't find the newer technology to be any faster/snappier then my current setup...I didn't want to start any flame wars.

My point was that my current system, which costs about $300 minus the video card runs as fast, or appears faster (to me for what I do)...then any of the newer systems I was putting together.

To apoppin, I don't even know what Clear Sky is...like I said, I normally play COD, HL and Far Cry...and neither my 8800gtx or my 8800 GT SC (g92 DX10) card have any issues at 16x10.

I do find myself in need of another system, and after all that I have done, I'm not sure what I will put together now...but I can't afford to wait.

it is not a problem for me

i just wanted to point out that your testing was narrow and designed pretty much for you and your tastes and your own PC gaming.

i am not "elitist" .. i recognize that i have a fast PC - not something i "deserved"; but it is more than a hobby for me and i work hard to get HW to review to answer my own questions no site answers. And it is by having this overview in testing much computer HW against each other with several very fast video cards, lets me compare the older gen directly with the new one

Remember i still have the HW in my sig as well as a GTX280 because it my passion to test and report on what i find; and i keep my old-faithful 8800GTX still as a older classic that rivaled r300 - 97/9800 pro for it excellent longevity in gaming. But it's day has passed and the g80 GTS in now more for budget PCs with the GTX still struggling with newer games and Vista .. i have tested 8800GTX in STALKER: Clear Sky benchmark with DX10, maxed out details and 4xAA/16x AF .. which is playable for GTX280 even though the minimums occasionally dip; however, 8800GTX averages what the new 280GTX GPU brief minimums are
- the difference between playable and a "slideshow"

you have to drop a lot of details to make it playable even at 12x10 or 14x9 with a 8800GTX compared to 280GTX or even 4870!
----here, try it for yourself ... it is a beautiful 12 minute benchmark of clear sky that can be quite educational also as it gives detailed results

http://cs.stalker-game.com/en/?page=news&item=119

appopin: We agree to disagree, and we're arguing about words and definitions that have different implications to each of us. I would *enjoy* a newer rig with more high end hardware, but my PC cost me around $475 shipped AR, I get 14k in 3dMark06, play every game I want to play (with some moderate compromises) and enjoy the heck out of it while doing it, so I can't complain. Arguing over the concept of a ?great gaming card? isn?t doing anything productive for this thread so I will revise my statement to be more subjective....... A great gaming card *to me* is one that debuts at the top of the charts, hold the title for well over a year and still fits the bill today with settings adjusted appropriately.

You are right. i am looking from a rather different viewpoint. But a Radeon 4850 is faster than the old GTX and can use AA without the performance hit of the older card, it *was* great .. i still have one [and a 2900xt ] But less than $200 upgrade to 4870 or GTX260+ will make your gaming experience MUCH more "compromise-free"
--i am not trying to sell you anything. But you could greatly improve your gaming experience [imo] by upgrading from g80.
--- and it is the ONLY way to take advantage of a fast CPU - dual or quad core.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: dflynchimp
If you note the games that he plays, you can see that he doesn't need any more firepower beyond 8800GTX, which is still a great card to game with. Seriously there's nothing that ticks me off more than people trying to argue that a 30% increase in performance is worth tossing out a $300-400 card and splurging on another one.

If I had the money, sure I might do the same, but I wouldn't try and justify it by saying something as absurd as the 8800GTX being "not fit" for gaming.

This isn't a flame or angry retort, btw. I just doled out for a 4870X2, so I'm in the same boat here. But I did some benchmark hunting and the 4870X2 will at least double my 8800GTS 320's performance, which will make a difference when I'm running Far Cry and Crysis at high def. The only time I justify an upgrade is when it effects the magical 30fps threshold on my games at the resolutions I play at. If I'm already doing 50fps, I stick with where I am.

Best post of this entire thread.

Just recently got my first LCD -- a 24incher too, and was shit scared I wouldn't be able to run native at playable frames in my 2 favorite games, COD4 and L4D, with my card. I'm happy to say it handles L4D perfectly at 19x12 with 4xAA/4xAF, no stuttering or slideshow at all. COD4 is a different story with it averaging in the mid-50s on most boards and dipping into the 30s on Overgrown using 2xAA/max everything else. Runs much better at 16x10 with max everything using vid-card upscaling.

I don't play Stalker and I certainly realize Crysis, WIC, and a few others will not be playable at 19x12 with my card. But to say an 8800GTX is not a decent card for most games today is simply absurd, since most people are okay with dialing down the eye candy a bit. Most except apoppin apparently...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: brencat

Originally posted by: dflynchimp
If you note the games that he plays, you can see that he doesn't need any more firepower beyond 8800GTX, which is still a great card to game with. Seriously there's nothing that ticks me off more than people trying to argue that a 30% increase in performance is worth tossing out a $300-400 card and splurging on another one.

If I had the money, sure I might do the same, but I wouldn't try and justify it by saying something as absurd as the 8800GTX being "not fit" for gaming.

This isn't a flame or angry retort, btw. I just doled out for a 4870X2, so I'm in the same boat here. But I did some benchmark hunting and the 4870X2 will at least double my 8800GTS 320's performance, which will make a difference when I'm running Far Cry and Crysis at high def. The only time I justify an upgrade is when it effects the magical 30fps threshold on my games at the resolutions I play at. If I'm already doing 50fps, I stick with where I am.

Best post of this entire thread.

Just recently got my first LCD -- a 24incher too, and was shit scared I wouldn't be able to run native at playable frames in my 2 favorite games, COD4 and L4D, with my card. I'm happy to say it handles L4D perfectly at 19x12 with 4xAA/4xAF, no stuttering or slideshow at all. COD4 is a different story with it averaging in the mid-50s on most boards and dipping into the 30s on Overgrown using 2xAA/max everything else. Runs much better at 16x10 with max everything using vid-card upscaling.

I don't play Stalker and I certainly realize Crysis, WIC, and a few others will not be playable at 19x12 with my card. But to say an 8800GTX is not a decent card for most games today is simply absurd, since most people are okay with dialing down the eye candy a bit. Most except apoppin apparently...

then there are those who waay over exaggerate their video card's abilities

i have the equal of your card - 2900xt - and i doubt you have ever really used FRAPS to verify your frame rates at 19x12

of course L4D is CPU bound source engine and the GTX can manage 37 FPS as a minimum according to Toms at 19x12:

http://www.pcgameshardware.com...nchmark_review/?page=2

and CoD4 IS more intensive ii believe legit reviews had it averaging 42 FPS

but what you have got to realize that there are WAAY more demanding games than these
- games that need a really fast GPU

if you want Source Engine games or only play ''07 games like CoD4, then you are right. But i have an very long list that is getting longer that shows the 8800 GTX is past it's day.

 

[brencat]

Originally posted by: apoppin
i have the equal of your card - 2900xt - and i doubt you have ever really used FRAPS to verify your frame rates at 19x12

No, never used FRAPS. The COD4 mid-50s frame claim comes from the in game stat running in the upper right corner of the game while playing (and mid-30s on Overgrown). It's a dead steady 60 FPS at 16x10 with vsync enabled.

I have to check L4D because I honestly don't know what FPS I'm getting. All I know is it runs super-smooth with the settings I indicated. And I used a 1280 x 1024 CRT for years up until 3 weeks ago so believe me I'd know if it was borderline slide-showy.

My vid-card is the special edition G80 640 with the 112sp (like the 8800gt) but has a wider 320-bit bus, FYI.