BFG Tech GeForce 9800 GTX OCX 512MB - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 15th May 2008, 08:59

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...tx-ocx-512mb/1

The GeForce 9800 GTX launched back at the start of April and today we look at one of the highest-clocked partner cards on the market. BFG Tech's GeForce 9800 GTX OCX comes with an impressive 755MHz core speed and a shader clock of almost 1,900MHz - is that enough for the card to win us over?

BioSniper · 15th May 2008, 09:21

How come there are no comparisons to the 8800GT?
I would have thought benching against that would be logical as it's a pretty common card.

kenco_uk · 15th May 2008, 09:32

I've recently bought a 'bog standard' 9800GTX for around the £180 mark and it clocks to 760core/2300mem, with no artifacts in ATITool.

I'd presume to get the mem as high as you did that BFG change the voltage that's supplied to the ram slightly (much like doing a 'pencil trick') which is probably why you managed to get it a little higher (2354/1177).

Cheapest 8800GTS I can see is around £150. 8800GTX is £172. 9800GTX is around £180.

Looking at the last 1920x1200 Crysis benchmark, going from 19fps minimum with the 8800GTX to 24fps minimum with the 9800GTX makes a fair amount of difference. I've noticed it's a fair bit smoother than than my old 8800GTS 640/G80 when I put some more of the graphics lubbliness on.

Silver51 · 15th May 2008, 09:48

I think I'll stick with the 8800GTS for a little while longer. To be honest, nothing in nVidia's 9xxx line-up looks to be a big enough step up to warrant upgrading. If anything I’m a little concerned about escalating power consumption on newer boards.

donnie · 15th May 2008, 10:39

Tim can i ask why the newer graphics cards arn't testing on crysis's very high setting as these are the top of the line directX 10 cards so i would like to see if they are capable of running this years argueably most ambitious game with no story.

1280x1024 2xAA 0xAF, DX10, Texture/Shadows/Physics/Shaders/Water: High; All other settings: Medium
this really isn't showing the kind of information we need, we need to see if this card can handle the full might of VERY HIGH please could you explain to me why the high settings are still used?

Tim S · 15th May 2008, 11:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie

Tim can i ask why the newer graphics cards arn't testing on crysis's very high setting as these are the top of the line directX 10 cards so i would like to see if they are capable of running this years argueably most ambitious game with no story.

1280x1024 2xAA 0xAF, DX10, Texture/Shadows/Physics/Shaders/Water: High; All other settings: Medium
this really isn't showing the kind of information we need, we need to see if this card can handle the full might of VERY HIGH please could you explain to me why the high settings are still used?

The answer is quite simple: it's because the cards can't run the game at very high at 30fps. To me, getting 12 or 13 fps at very high tells the reader absolutely nothing - apart from the fact it cannot run it. It doesn't tell you which card is faster at settings that you can play the game at. The reason we are not running very high settings in Crysis is because today's cards cannot play the game with very high settings enabled at a frame rate that you can actually play the game at.

I'm in the process of running some numbers for you to prove the point.

Tim S · 15th May 2008, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S

Quote:

Originally Posted by donnie

Tim can i ask why the newer graphics cards arn't testing on crysis's very high setting as these are the top of the line directX 10 cards so i would like to see if they are capable of running this years argueably most ambitious game with no story.

1280x1024 2xAA 0xAF, DX10, Texture/Shadows/Physics/Shaders/Water: High; All other settings: Medium
this really isn't showing the kind of information we need, we need to see if this card can handle the full might of VERY HIGH please could you explain to me why the high settings are still used?

The answer is quite simple: it's because the cards can't run the game at very high at 30fps. To me, getting 12 or 13 fps at very high tells the reader absolutely nothing - apart from the fact it cannot run it. It doesn't tell you which card is faster at settings that you can play the game at. The reason we are not running very high settings in Crysis is because today's cards cannot play the game with very high settings enabled at a frame rate that you can actually play the game at.

I'm in the process of running some numbers for you to prove the point.

I wasn't far wrong... an overclocked 3870 X2:

1280x1024 2xAA 0xAF DX10/Very High - 16.5 fps avg / 6 fps min
1680x1050 0xAA 0xAF DX10/Very High - 15.3 fps avg / 5 fps min
1920x1200 0xAA 0xAF DX10/Very High - 13.8 fps avg / 3 fps min

Unplayable.

DXR_13KE · 15th May 2008, 12:11

what is strange is that all non-pair generations of nvidia cards have been bad... or simply not up to the challenge....

p3n · 15th May 2008, 12:36

Wow the gx2 scales so well in crysis...

weak 'upgrade'

ChaosDefinesOrder · 15th May 2008, 12:38

Is there any chance of an über multi-GPU comparison review?

3-way 9800GTX
3-way 8800GTX
2 x 9800 GX2
2 x 3870 X2
4-way CrossfireX

Would be interested to see how the results turn out, especially the Quad SLi vs CrossfireX

Jipa · 15th May 2008, 12:44

I still fail to see the point of these OC-cards that use the reference cooler...

Gunsmith · 15th May 2008, 13:03

another reason to stick with the 88xx series

djDEATH · 15th May 2008, 13:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder

Is there any chance of an über multi-GPU comparison review?

3-way 9800GTX
3-way 8800GTX
2 x 9800 GX2
2 x 3870 X2
4-way CrossfireX

Would be interested to see how the results turn out, especially the Quad SLi vs CrossfireX

Yep - thats what buying these high end cards is all about, if the gx2 scales well in quad sli, then i might buy one, with the option of doubling it up later...

Tim S · 15th May 2008, 13:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChaosDefinesOrder

Is there any chance of an über multi-GPU comparison review?

3-way 9800GTX
3-way 8800GTX
2 x 9800 GX2
2 x 3870 X2
4-way CrossfireX

Would be interested to see how the results turn out, especially the Quad SLi vs CrossfireX

It's something I've been working on (and am still working on) - it's in the balance at the moment given the amount of time it's taken.

Denis_iii · 15th May 2008, 15:23

the addition of the sound passthrew so can output sound over hdmi cable is sweet, but to rich for my blood for that one bonus, would rather pick up 8800GT and if you require more performance get another and go sli

Panos · 15th May 2008, 16:03

There are few cards missing from there.
At £260 we should be able to see different combos up to that money.
I bet 2x 9600GT SLI (£170 total both) will be close to the most expensive monsters at 1680x1050.

Cupboard · 15th May 2008, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim S

It's something I've been working on (and am still working on) - it's in the balance at the moment given the amount of time it's taken.

Encouragement +1
Would be awesome to see

Brett89 · 15th May 2008, 18:27

Before I read the review, I must say that it's shiny and I want it.

donnie · 15th May 2008, 19:41

Tim cheers for explaining it to me, strangely i've seen this guy called maxishine on youtube who gets some interesting scores but on a second look you were absolutely correct but i still think that the very high test should be run if only to show how it preforms.

Crysis is an odd beast as it doesn't require 30+ frames to run smoothly and has been seen running at 20's fairly nice but i agree that is far from ideal.

Thank you again for explaining it me.

kempez · 15th May 2008, 21:54

Agreed with Tim in that running Crysis at below at least 25FPS is just not worth it, even if 'Very high' looks lush. Nothing can do it, even Tri-SLI fails and dips down

Quad SLI: I'm trying to find out, but again I am thinking no

15th May 2008, 08:59	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	BFG Tech GeForce 9800 GTX OCX 512MB http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...tx-ocx-512mb/1 The GeForce 9800 GTX launched back at the start of April and today we look at one of the highest-clocked partner cards on the market. BFG Tech's GeForce 9800 GTX OCX comes with an impressive 755MHz core speed and a shader clock of almost 1,900MHz - is that enough for the card to win us over? __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

15th May 2008, 09:21	#2
BioSniper I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere in the south Posts: 3,462	How come there are no comparisons to the 8800GT? I would have thought benching against that would be logical as it's a pretty common card. __________________ My Flickr :: Bit-tech Flickr Wii: 1792 1527 2926 7945 :: Xbox Live: BioSnipr :: PSN: Biosnipr

15th May 2008, 09:32	#3
kenco_uk I feel your presents. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bourne, Lincolnshire, UK Posts: 6,316	I've recently bought a 'bog standard' 9800GTX for around the £180 mark and it clocks to 760core/2300mem, with no artifacts in ATITool. I'd presume to get the mem as high as you did that BFG change the voltage that's supplied to the ram slightly (much like doing a 'pencil trick') which is probably why you managed to get it a little higher (2354/1177). Cheapest 8800GTS I can see is around £150. 8800GTX is £172. 9800GTX is around £180. Looking at the last 1920x1200 Crysis benchmark, going from 19fps minimum with the 8800GTX to 24fps minimum with the 9800GTX makes a fair amount of difference. I've noticed it's a fair bit smoother than than my old 8800GTS 640/G80 when I put some more of the graphics lubbliness on. __________________ MSI X58M - i7 920 4Ghz - 6GB Corsair - GTX260 648/2520 ::: Vote for bit-tech T - theevilelephant - "it sounded like bouncing around on a pogo stick, screaming in chinese while occasionally throwing a cat at a door."

15th May 2008, 10:39	#5
donnie Moddin' my way out of a paper bag Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 77	Tim can i ask why the newer graphics cards arn't testing on crysis's very high setting as these are the top of the line directX 10 cards so i would like to see if they are capable of running this years argueably most ambitious game with no story. 1280x1024 2xAA 0xAF, DX10, Texture/Shadows/Physics/Shaders/Water: High; All other settings: Medium this really isn't showing the kind of information we need, we need to see if this card can handle the full might of VERY HIGH please could you explain to me why the high settings are still used? __________________ 780i - Q6600 - EVGA 8800GTS - 3GB GEIL - LIAN LI V2100 - SWIFTECH WC KIT

15th May 2008, 12:11	#8
DXR_13KE Madeira's banana is the best!!! Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madeira ; Portugal Posts: 6,480	what is strange is that all non-pair generations of nvidia cards have been bad... or simply not up to the challenge.... __________________ RENEGADE X CONTEST! <---- CLICK if you want to win a free Command & Conquer 4 beta key!

15th May 2008, 09:48	#4
Silver51 I cast flare! Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Cornwall Posts: 1,194	I think I'll stick with the 8800GTS for a little while longer. To be honest, nothing in nVidia's 9xxx line-up looks to be a big enough step up to warrant upgrading. If anything I’m a little concerned about escalating power consumption on newer boards.

15th May 2008, 12:36	#9
p3n Hypermodder Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 737	Wow the gx2 scales so well in crysis... weak 'upgrade'

15th May 2008, 12:38	#10
ChaosDefinesOrder Vapourmodder Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 374	Is there any chance of an über multi-GPU comparison review? 3-way 9800GTX 3-way 8800GTX 2 x 9800 GX2 2 x 3870 X2 4-way CrossfireX Would be interested to see how the results turn out, especially the Quad SLi vs CrossfireX __________________ Current setup: Hiper Osiris \| Core i7 920 (Cooled by Noctua NH-U12P) \| Foxconn Renaissance \| 2x GTX280 \| Cooler Master UCP \| Corsair Dominator 3GB (soon to be 9GB) \| Creative X-Fi Titanium \| Vista Home Premium x64 \| OS Drive: WD Velociraptor 300GB. Storage: 1x 160GB, 1x 250GB, 1x 300GB, 1x500GB (incremental additions over the years! All Maxtor) \| Monitor: Dell 2709W

15th May 2008, 12:44	#11
Jipa Licenced idiot. Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 3,068	I still fail to see the point of these OC-cards that use the reference cooler... __________________ Abit IP35 - E6750 - 8800GT 1024 MB - 2 GB 800 MHz - enough HDDs - 750 W Silverstone - CM Storm Sniper Asus P5Q-VM - Q9450 - 4 GB - 400 W Silverstone - Fortress FT01 AllTheMods - MetkuMods - LedCalc

15th May 2008, 13:03	#12
Gunsmith my supersonic radar will help me! Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,432	another reason to stick with the 88xx series __________________ People who optimise code are wimps. My code knows it's awesome, so it'll take all the time it needs. You can wait in awe

15th May 2008, 15:23	#15
Denis_iii Hypermodder Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 874	the addition of the sound passthrew so can output sound over hdmi cable is sweet, but to rich for my blood for that one bonus, would rather pick up 8800GT and if you require more performance get another and go sli

15th May 2008, 16:03	#16
Panos Multimodder Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 73	There are few cards missing from there. At £260 we should be able to see different combos up to that money. I bet 2x 9600GT SLI (£170 total both) will be close to the most expensive monsters at 1680x1050.

15th May 2008, 18:27	#18
Brett89 Ultramodder Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Grand Forks ND Posts: 1,084	Before I read the review, I must say that it's shiny and I want it. __________________ C2D e6700 @ 3.25 Asus P5n-e SLi, 4GB of OCZ Platinum, Xonar D2, 320 and 160 GB Seagate, eVGA 8800 GTX and an Antec P182. C2D T7500 2.2ghz, 2GB DDR2, Quadro NVS 135M 14.1in screen

15th May 2008, 19:41	#19
donnie Moddin' my way out of a paper bag Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 77	Tim cheers for explaining it to me, strangely i've seen this guy called maxishine on youtube who gets some interesting scores but on a second look you were absolutely correct but i still think that the very high test should be run if only to show how it preforms. Crysis is an odd beast as it doesn't require 30+ frames to run smoothly and has been seen running at 20's fairly nice but i agree that is far from ideal. Thank you again for explaining it me. __________________ 780i - Q6600 - EVGA 8800GTS - 3GB GEIL - LIAN LI V2100 - SWIFTECH WC KIT

15th May 2008, 21:54	#20
kempez modding again! Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: England Posts: 1,102	Agreed with Tim in that running Crysis at below at least 25FPS is just not worth it, even if 'Very high' looks lush. Nothing can do it, even Tri-SLI fails and dips down Quad SLI: I'm trying to find out, but again I am thinking no __________________ I don't like streets of rage - make fun of me! My Main PC: Intel Q6600 D0 @ 3.6GHz \| abit IP35 Pro \| 8gb OCZ ReaperX PC6400 @ 1000MHz \| MSI 8800GTX \| OS Drive: Hitachi Deskstar 250gb \| Tagan 1100w \| Silverstone TJ09S \| Noctua NH-U12P Project Aqua Vitae Project <<\| Black3d \|>>