What is there that needs such urgent sorting? At least nvidia doesn't have to release a new driver for every major game release to make it work properly...
I feel you won't be saying that in a few years time. I was pretty shocked too but that was with both the 8800gt for GFX and the 8500GT set for PhysX when I got that score. I realise it's not the last word in benchmarking tools but it does help when trying to get the most out of an old system by overclocking by giving you a quick score. As to waiting, I could wait forever the rate things are going and the increase in performance between series just doesn't cut it too my mind. As I think you know my G92 8800GT performs almost as well as a 9 series so I didn't bother upgrading last year. @DragunovHUN Don't want to get your hopes up as I usually use my old hardware to upgrade the families PC's but I'll PM you first within a couple of weeks if I do decide to sell.
That is because it's same same GPU, LOL! Like really. It's just a tweaked model. Nvidia noticed, that for some reason, the G9x architecture is an amazing overclocker. Where you can overclock the **** out of it, with minimum heat increase. In fact, my laptop which features a Quadro based on the same architecture, I double the speed of the shader and core clock, just busing Nvidia System tool (nTunes). My GPU has no heat issue, despite being in a laptop (85C under heavy load, and it uses 1 shared heatsink for the northbridge and CPU). What blocks me in reaching an even greater performance is the lack of any heatsink on the GPU memory as it's not a gaming laptop.
Low GPU usage and low FPS in some games need sorting. I had great performance in the games with low FPS with my GTX280 but as soon as I started using my GTX470's the games performance went down. They are far from sorted. The Nvidia website has lots of people just like me with low GPU usage in lots of games. Also some games play like crap with my GTX470's wether SLI is enabled or disabled.
Word. The one thing that bugs me about ATI cards is the fact they optimise the drivers for specific games and benchmarking tools just to get a good review. nVidia updates usually add at least 5% increase in performance on every game and app.
Exactly. I must add that my cards are both OC'd along with the PCIE slots they're on. That may be contributing to the good score they got.
Well at least it's not like Intel, where if the game is not on the list, high chances that it will crash at startup.
LOLZ. True. I think they should call it "our 'just good enough to draw the mouse pointer moving' intergrated GFX chipset"
You should of just goten a GTX 465 from POV and unlocked to a 470 much cheaper and same performance. :/
I will because going by ATI/AMD's release timeline they'll take the lead massively so Havok will take off in a big way, which as MASSIVELY better than PhysX...
^^Something tells me there's a bug in that line of code. For one why would a company buy a GPU at an expensive price just to cripple it? My logic tells me they bought a cheap batch of chips and it's a gamble if you can unlock the one you buy.
The two cards are based on the same GPU, one is not more expensive than the other. A 465 should unlock if it has the appropriate memory layout. The gamble is wether the card you buy is one of those with the layout that matches the 470's. Can i PM you about that 8500?
It's Nvidia that sells them. About the cripple comment, it's really both. Processors are designed to allow some of it's component to be removed and still be functional. Basically, a lower end chips are chis that are: - Broken. - Unable to reach the quality of the manufacture expect. - Unable to reach the specs of the manufacture (let's say for the case of a processor, one of the processor is slower than the other, for wtv reason). - Or simply crippled high-end model to fit the needs. (The time they come to such point, the production of the higher end GPU is far better, and less broken model are made, and the company has already received, if not, near that, all the money that went into investing on working on the chip). The low end chips have less features (and clocked slower), to make cheaper chips, so allow some people that would otherwise not have the funds to acquire the high end one, be able to get something. It's not much money received by the chip manufacture (Nvidia, in this case), but at least it's something and better than nothing. 3DFX was only producing high end GPU, no lower end models, in result, few people were able to afford them, and the company were unable to have enough money to pay the research on their next GPU, result in getting in dept. Hence why every processor manufacture follow this method. Remember that making hardware is not cheap at all. Easy 200-1000 engineers can work on a processor depending if it's an update previous version of something completely new form the ground up. Each engineer has a real nice salary. Plus you need to pay the building, supplies, maintenance, taxes, test team, board engineers, testers and administration staff, just to name a few things.
Ah! I assumed from shadow19935's post that the 465 was much cheaper thus used cheaper grade GPU chips. Coarse you can Pm me bud. Not sure if I can remember how to read em' but I'll give it a go.
