[1lacca]

PsychoCoder, on 22 Apr, 2008 - 07:30 AM, said:

I sure hope someone can help me understand this, as Im baffled;

I upgraded to the NVIDIA GeForce 9600GT 1GB card, but noticed a somewhat slower response time than my 8800GTS, Ive read from a few people on gaming forums that they thought the 8800GTS had better performance than the 9600GT, so I can now verify that it is true (for some strange reason). I decided to put my 8800GTS back in, and it actually raised my Vista Rating Index.

Does anyone know why:

• The 8800GTS performs better than the 9600GT?
  
• The 8800GTS gives me a better index than the 9600GT?

Strange if you ask me?

Well, this a long story of benchmarketing. Many people believe that if they buy something that has a bigger number in it's name, it will be better/faster. So marketing people will utilize it over and over again. (like video cards with 1GB of RAM, you'll see probably no difference compared to the same with 512MB, just in some really special)
Back to the actual case. There were 2 kinds of 8800GTS cards around. The original shipped with 320 and 640MB RAM, the new with 512. You can dig up the details, but the main difference was that the new GTS is based on a slightly more advanced core, and it has more "stream processors": 128 vs 96, but the memory data width is less: 256 vs 320bit.
The 9600 is the same marchitecture as the new 8800, but with some minor tweaks (it can be shut down dynamically if integrated graphics is present, but the chipset has to support it as well). However it has only 64 stream processors, so performance is halved! (all other parameters like memory and clock speed are roughly the same).
Finally, as I wrote earlier, the 1G RAM does not hold and real life advantage over the 512M, since it is only used when massive antialiasing and filtering is used, but due to the small number of processing units, it would not make any sense at all.
Nvidia is blamed quite a lot for the 9xxx series, as they are just a small iteration over the 8xxx, and the new model numbers are simply not justified by the improvements.

[MorphiusFaydal]

1lacca, on 22 Apr, 2008 - 09:31 AM, said:

Nvidia is blamed quite a lot for the 9xxx series, as they are just a small iteration over the 8xxx, and the new model numbers are simply not justified by the improvements.

What a lot of people don't understand though, is Nvidia's policy (well... "habit" would probably be a better word..) on new technology and releasing new model lines.

The trick is: They only release the "big" new technology on alternate lines. For example;

The GeForce 3 series was a big shift from the GeForce 2, whereas the GeForce 4 series was an improved 3-series.

The FX (5-series) cards were another big jump from 4-series. Here's where they don't follow... The 6-series was a major jump away from the FX/5 series... Probably because FX cards got stomped by Radeon 9-series cards from ATi.

So, 7 was an improved 6, and the 8-series are another jump in performance and technology. The 9-series is the evolution of that technology. So it's not going to be a massive performance increase, but it's going to be large enough, and the technology involved has been updated slightly, to warrant a new model line.

And as to the rest of 1lacca's post, yeah.. People are idiots. Bigger does not always mean better. (I'm not calling PsychoCoder an idiot, but he got sucked in by Nvidia's marketing... Happens to everyone. I'm personally to the point that I don't buy s**t until I've read at least two complete reviews on a product, and they have to compare the product to at least 2 similar products, so I can see where everything stands.

Sorry if this is kinda... Disjointed. I'm still sleepy.

[1lacca]

MorphiusFaydal, on 22 Apr, 2008 - 04:51 PM, said:

The trick is: They only release the "big" new technology on alternate lines.

True, and the public took it usually well. However these cycles took 6 months. In case of the 8xxx to 9xxx transition, it was 1 year, and it raised quite high expectations. However maybe because of no competition from ATI at the high end, or no games that would require more power (OK, maybe 2) this update was quite disappointing. Earlier every refresh showed clearly a speed bump, even if no technical improvements were introduced (only a die shrink, etc.), but right now there was simply no real speed difference. Add to this the 8800GT that introduced half of the improvements into the 8xxx line and it gets really confusing.
It feels like the whole refresh was aimed at the mainstream, and there was no candy for the enthusiasts/gamers here (OK GX2, was there to save the day, but I didn't feel it would be the real deal)

[PsychoCoder]

Well I learned my lesson, I'm keeping the 8800GTS in my system for now, which means I have a 9600GT just lying around. As for the 1GB over 512MB argument, when playing games like HellGate, Doom III, Half Life 2 I can see a huge improvement between the 512MB and the 1GB cards, but for everyday computing I really don't see that big of a difference.

This is gonna be fun, my son is going to spend every day trying to get that 9600GT from me LOL

[MorphiusFaydal]

1lacca, on 22 Apr, 2008 - 10:39 AM, said:

MorphiusFaydal, on 22 Apr, 2008 - 04:51 PM, said:

The trick is: They only release the "big" new technology on alternate lines.

True, and the public took it usually well. However these cycles took 6 months. In case of the 8xxx to 9xxx transition, it was 1 year, and it raised quite high expectations. However maybe because of no competition from ATI at the high end, or no games that would require more power (OK, maybe 2) this update was quite disappointing. Earlier every refresh showed clearly a speed bump, even if no technical improvements were introduced (only a die shrink, etc.), but right now there was simply no real speed difference. Add to this the 8800GT that introduced half of the improvements into the 8xxx line and it gets really confusing.
It feels like the whole refresh was aimed at the mainstream, and there was no candy for the enthusiasts/gamers here (OK GX2, was there to save the day, but I didn't feel it would be the real deal)

They do also do mid-life refreshes most of the time... The addition of new postfixes, or the incrementing the numbers by 50.

The problem with this refresh, as I see it, is that will all the cards being based off of G92-series chips, there's no real difference between the refreshed 8-series cards that everyone's been buying.

And, to close, I don't exactly have a problem that the focus thus far has been mainstream... I tend to buy mainstream products, and to recommend to people mainstream products.

[aj32]

PsychoCoder, on 22 Apr, 2008 - 01:20 PM, said:

This is gonna be fun, my son is going to spend every day trying to get that 9600GT from me LOL

Well.... You could just *cough* ship it to me *cough*, and take care of your problems.... lol!

[The Mulliganator]

When i last had VISTA on my computer (hate vista)
Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.9
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.9
Primary HD: 5.7
Total Cost of computer £594.
Not bad for a phenom 9850 computer,dont you think?

[1lacca]

MorphiusFaydal, on 23 Apr, 2008 - 12:52 AM, said:

And, to close, I don't exactly have a problem that the focus thus far has been mainstream... I tend to buy mainstream products, and to recommend to people mainstream products.

I had this feeling from your answers I only buy high-end products if I have a good reason to do so (either a good deal, or it has some real advantage), otherwise I usually stick with upper mainstream.

[Sonic88]

Vista can suck it! I really wanted to like it so I took the plunge. I had a 5.1 rating(due to CPU, the next lowest was 5.6 I think on my RAM) but it was just one compatibility problem after another, and I enjoy trying lots of different software and most (especially smaller apps dont support this flop OS. Anyways I nuked it the other days and put XP Pro on. Much better. I can cold boot in about 10 or less seconds. Very fast and clean. I can actually use my machines power for apps and not pretty windows. Although I do miss the gadget sidebar, Ive found a couple for XP but the ones I tried were quite glitchy.

This post has been edited by Sonic88: 24 April 2008 - 08:39 AM

[MorphiusFaydal]

1lacca, on 24 Apr, 2008 - 10:22 AM, said:

MorphiusFaydal, on 23 Apr, 2008 - 12:52 AM, said:

And, to close, I don't exactly have a problem that the focus thus far has been mainstream... I tend to buy mainstream products, and to recommend to people mainstream products.

I had this feeling from your answers I only buy high-end products if I have a good reason to do so (either a good deal, or it has some real advantage), otherwise I usually stick with upper mainstream.

I'm usually not playing the absolute latest games, so I only need a mid-range card.

Although I'm thinking about replacing my 8600GT with an 9600GT... Although if I get a new job, I might buy one of the 9800's.

[born2c0de]

If it makes anyone happy, the rating index is stored in XML files in the C:\Windows\Performance\WinSAT\DataStore\ directory.
Tweak it, and you can have a 9.9

[1lacca]

MorphiusFaydal, on 24 Apr, 2008 - 05:48 PM, said:

I'm usually not playing the absolute latest games, so I only need a mid-range card.

Although I'm thinking about replacing my 8600GT with an 9600GT... Although if I get a new job, I might buy one of the 9800's.

You speak from my heart. I recently got only into the mood to buy a 8800GTX (factory oc'd to Ultra speed) and it was funny to see all the new games in full detail, just to have a sense of the present state of the industry, however usually if a game is fun, setting the details one notch down won't hurt the enjoyment a bit, and a mainstream card will work with it just as well. Actually, I've just seen some benchmarks today, and even the most aggressively factory overclocked 9800GTX was head to head with a standard 8800 Ultra so it might be a good idea to look for deals - unless you are dying for hybrid power or triple SLI.