Well, crap... 9600GSO and 9600GT

[spdfreak]

I currently have a MSI 9600GT in my main system that I do a little gaming on (HL2, COD4, etc). I just bought a EVGA 9600GSO from NE on the 36.00 deal but it is dual slot and takes up one of only 2 pci slots that I need for a tuner card. So I'm trying to figure out my options... Will the HSF from the EVGA swap with the MSI? If I have to use the GT in the HTPC, will the GSO be at least as fast as the GT in gaming (16x12, no AA, 4x AF). Or, can I SLI them in my main system and buy a ATI 4670 for the HTPC? Any suggestions or options I missed?

 

[angry hampster]

YOu can't SLI them. I'm really not sure why you bought the GSO to begin with. The GSO, overclocked, will be about 95% as fast as the GT in most games.

 

[geokilla]

The 9600GSO is better in terms of folding, but not as fast as the 9600GT in terms of games.

I can't answer your queston bout the HSF. And you can't SLI them.

You could always sell the 9600GSO

 

[AzN]

I don't think the heatsink is compatible. You can't SLI G92 and G94 together. Overclock the shit out of that GSO and you can easily be 20% faster at your desired settings. GSO just doesn't do well as 9600gt with AA. Without AA it is a bit faster.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

That would make for one hell of a dedicated PhysX card...

 

[spdfreak]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
YOu can't SLI them. I'm really not sure why you bought the GSO to begin with. The GSO, overclocked, will be about 95% as fast as the GT in most games.

I bought the GSO for the HTPC box and then realized it was a dual slot cooler and covered one of the pci slots I need. Plus, it was cheap at 36.00.
I will probably put the GT in the HTPC and use the GSO in my main system. What should I shoot for OC on this card? Stock is 550/1600.

 

[PG]

I just got one myself and cranked it up to 700 core and 1000 memory.
It's been folding for about 3 hours like this now with no problems.

edit: I forgot to say that I changed the fan speed to 70% with EVGA's Precision software and it's running at 62 degrees C.

 

[faxon]

i would just return the GSO if it isnt what you needed to start with and get an HD4550 or 4530 if you are just using it for an HTPC, since both are available passively cooled which is great for an HTPC.

 

[AzN]

You obviously didn't check my sig

Same card different name.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: faxon
i would just return the GSO if it isnt what you needed to start with and get an HD4550 or 4530 if you are just using it for an HTPC, since both are available passively cooled which is great for an HTPC.

Other than audio through HDMI there's nothing a 45xx is better compared to GSO. GSO is much faster card than 4550 or higher resolution decoding, folding, etc. With 80SP it's just not as powerful as GSO 96SP. For $36 it's a better deal than 45x0 for $50.

 

[spdfreak]

I put the GSO in my main system and will OC as high as it will go... that should get it very close to the GT or maybe even a little faster according to some reviews. I never use AA at 16x12 so that helps. The GT is in the HTPC and should be good for gaming as well as HD video. Heck I've been using an old 6800 and even it has no problems with 1080p video. My receiver is old so it does not have HDMI and the monitor (47in 1080p) is hooked up through the dvi port with audio going straight to the receiver. Works well and should be fine with blu ray which the 6800 could not handle.
Having the GSO in my main system also has lowered system temps a few degrees since it has the dual slot cooler. All in all, it worked out well for a 36.00 card!

 

[faxon]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: faxon
i would just return the GSO if it isnt what you needed to start with and get an HD4550 or 4530 if you are just using it for an HTPC, since both are available passively cooled which is great for an HTPC.

Other than audio through HDMI there's nothing a 45xx is better compared to GSO. GSO is much faster card than 4550 or higher resolution decoding, folding, etc. With 80SP it's just not as powerful as GSO 96SP. For $36 it's a better deal than 45x0 for $50.

yea but you dont NEED the extra performance for high resolution decoding is the point. you can do that with the 790GX IGP just fine if you want to. the main reason the 4550 and 4350 are better in my mind is that they use less power and come in silently cooled (stock) variations, which is a huge bonus for an HTPC. if he wanted extra performance in that price sector for gaming he might as well just get an HD4670 anyway. its like $20 more and the performance is in another league

 

[spdfreak]

The GSO at 700/1800 did 11940 3dmark06. That is on a Q6600 @ 3GHz, MSI P6N sli. I think that is slightly better than the GT did. I haven't tried pushing it any faster. but there is still a little headroom I think.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: faxon

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: faxon
i would just return the GSO if it isnt what you needed to start with and get an HD4550 or 4530 if you are just using it for an HTPC, since both are available passively cooled which is great for an HTPC.

Other than audio through HDMI there's nothing a 45xx is better compared to GSO. GSO is much faster card than 4550 or higher resolution decoding, folding, etc. With 80SP it's just not as powerful as GSO 96SP. For $36 it's a better deal than 45x0 for $50.

yea but you dont NEED the extra performance for high resolution decoding is the point. you can do that with the 790GX IGP just fine if you want to. the main reason the 4550 and 4350 are better in my mind is that they use less power and come in silently cooled (stock) variations, which is a huge bonus for an HTPC. if he wanted extra performance in that price sector for gaming he might as well just get an HD4670 anyway. its like $20 more and the performance is in another league

Go read a review. Higher bin GPU does help in decoding higher resolutions.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: spdfreak
The GSO at 700/1800 did 11940 3dmark06. That is on a Q6600 @ 3GHz, MSI P6N sli. I think that is slightly better than the GT did. I haven't tried pushing it any faster. but there is still a little headroom I think.

You can definitely push more. The memory should be 1ns rated at 2000mhz. Easily push 2100.

 

[spdfreak]

Actually, it locked up at 700/1800 playing COD4, so I backed it down to 650/1800 and it seems OK. It's possible that these really cheap GSO's are not built to the same standards as the older ones... or I got a dog.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: spdfreak
Actually, it locked up at 700/1800 playing COD4, so I backed it down to 650/1800 and it seems OK. It's possible that these really cheap GSO's are not built to the same standards as the older ones... or I got a dog.

Don't feel bad. I got one for my friend's machine, and it wouldn't complete 3DMark01 flawlessly when OC'ed to 700 or 680. Finally downclocked to 650, but he had a freeze with a checkerboard, so it's been lowered to 600/1500/1000.

 

[spdfreak]

I'm at 650/1000 now and 3d 06 was actually better (12040) than at 700/900 (11940). So it seems that memory speed might be more important for this card than core speed.

 

[Denithor]

That's an interesting comment, because these G92 cards were overall faster than than the older G80 generation except in the area of memory bandwidth (due to the lower 256-bit interface, or in the case of these 9600GSOs 192-bit interface). So a boost in memory speed would almost certainly open these up nicely.

 

[AzN]

G92 is definitely bottleneck by memory bandwidth. Here I test both pixel and texel fillrate vs memory bandwidth. I lowered my core clocks by 24% which would reduce both my pixel and texel fillrate. My memory clocks lowered by 24% to emphasis on this test...

Crysis 1.2 ingame bench at high. 1440x900 no AA no AF

STOCK OC CLOCKS 729/1728/1040
37.55 fps

CORE REDUCTION 561/1728/1040
34.87 fps -7.2% difference

BANDWIDTH REDUCTION 729/1728/800
33.70 fps -10.1% difference

9800gtx with GDDR5 would easily match 4870 or GTX 260.

 

[spdfreak]

Well, I might have spoken too quickly about the GSO not OC well. It actually might be a driver problem that caused the lockup because when I booted the computer this morning, I got one of the MS "Your computer has recovered from a serious error" messages and MS said it was caused by a video driver error. I'm using the latest (178.13) WHQL drivers, so my question is whether anyone else has heard of any problems with these drivers?

 

[AzN]

Driver recovering does happen. It just reloads the drivers again.

 

[BenSkywalker]

If you are running Vista any issue caused by the video card, including one from overclocking, will be logged as a vid card driver issue. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a driver issue at all, just narrows it down to the component that caused it.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
If you are running Vista any issue caused by the video card, including one from overclocking, will be logged as a vid card driver issue. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a driver issue at all, just narrows it down to the component that caused it.

I don't think driver recovering has anything to do with overclocking at all.

 

[spdfreak]

I'm running xp sp3 and the card was not OCed when it happened. Then later in the day, half of my desktop was gone when it came out of screensaver and then everything was so slow it seemed like the whole system was locked up, but it would respond eventually. So I went back to 175.19 and it seems fine so far. When I googled it, it appears that other people are have the same problem, but it is not widespread.