Help Click This Ad =)
Showing posts with label specifications. Show all posts
Showing posts with label specifications. Show all posts

25 December 2008

GeForce GTX 285 & GTX 295 Specifications

GeForce GTX285 & GTX295 Specifications





The performance crown is back to Nvidia once again, with the introduction of GTX285 & GTX295. Built on 55nm process, GTX285 is factory clocked at 648/1475/1240Mhz (core/shader/memory respectively). Despite the higher clocks, power consumption has been reduced by almost 30%, or 53W, vis-à-vis GTX280.

The specifications of GTX295 is rather interesting. Each of the two GTX295 cards can be better described as "GTX270", somewhere in between GTX260-216 & GTX280. You will be surprised if you thought it would be just another power hungry monster. It turned out that GTX295 merely eats 53W more than the old GTX280. Lastly, it's Quad-SLI ready, MSRP is rumored to be US$499. Later we will see how it benchmark against Radeon HD 4870X2.


ProductGeForce GTX 280GeForce GTX 285GeForce GTX 295
Process65nm55nm
55nm
Core Clock
602Mhz
648Mhz
576Mhz
Shader1296Mhz
1476Mhz
1242Mhz
Shader240
240480
ROP 32
32
56
TMU80
80
160
Memory Clock
1100Mhz
1240Mhz
999Mhz
Memory Bus Width 512-bit
512-bit
2x 448-bit
Memory Size/Type 1GB GDDR3
1GB GDDR31792MB GDDR3
TDP 236W
183W
289W



30 November 2008

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Benchmark Scores

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Benchmark Result


Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


Test Resolution 9600GSO 768MB 9600GT 512MB % difference
3DMark06 v1.1.0 1024x768 11353 10910 4.1%


fps (average)
Lost Planet DX10 1280x1024 32.2 30.3 6.3%
Crysis v1.1 1280x1024 31.1 29.8 4.4%
Call of Duty 4 DX10 1280x1024 87.6 80 9.5%
Call of Juarez 1280x1024 36 32.3 11.5%
UT3 demo 1280x1024 148 134 10.4%

The 9600GSO beats 9600GT in every benchmark, an average of 6.6%!

Highlight: How to Softmod 9600GSO into 8800GTS

Despite having the advantage of an optimized G94 core with higher clocks and memory bandwidth, the 9600GT with 32 shaders less lost to the re-branded 9600GSO.

Do note that the market is flooded different flavors, result would be very different between 9600GSO of 192MB vs 384MB vs 768MB (even 1536MB), on top of different factory overclocks. Its a pity that we cannot possibly test our every version out there. Prices varies widely as well, so do take clocks, memory size, output types, warranty duration, package contents into your purchase consideration.



Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


Source: SanHaoStreet


Other popular posts:


GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Test Platform

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Test Platform


Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


Processor: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 @ 3.0Ghz
Motherboard: Asus Striker II Formula
Memory: Apacer 2x1GB DDR2-800 @ 5-5-5-15 2T
Storage: Seagate 7200.10 320GB SATA
Display: Dell 30" LCD
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate + DirectX 10
Driver: Forceware 174.88 beta

Graphics Card use in this review (Core/Shader/Memory):
Gainward 9600GSO 768MB (600/1500/1800)
Nvidia reference 9600GT 512MB (650/1650/1800)



Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Specifications Compared

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Specifications Compared





Product
8800GS
9600GSO
9600GT
CoreG92G92G94
Transistors
754million
754million505million
Core Clock
550Mhz
550Mhz650Mhz
Shader1375Mhz
1375Mhz1625Mhz
Process 65nm65nm
65nm
ROPS 1616
16
Stream Processors 96
96
64
Memory Clock
800Mhz800Mhz900Mhz
Memory Bus Width 192-bit192-bit
256-bit
Memory Size 384MB GDDR3
384MB GDDR3
512MB GDDR3





GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Introduction

GeForce 9600GSO vs 9600GT: Introduction






GeForce 8800GS was an unpopular product when it was launched. Nvidia simply injected a doze of 9-series (marketing) magic into it and, *poof!* 8800GS evolves into 9600GSO overnight. What changed? Just the name, same G92 core with 96 shaders running on 192-bit memory interface remained unchanged. But this time round, card makers are given more freedom in designing their own custom PCB, the amount of memory, as well as the clocks.

The official clocks for GeForce 9600GSO is 550/1375/1600 (core/shader/memory), which is exactly the same as 8800GS, yet slightly lower than the announced reference clocks of 580/1450/1400 earlier on. I guess this move will encourage partners to come out with more profitable overclocked editions.

Do note that Forceware 174.14 WHQL can support GeForce 9 series products as well as MCP78 chipset. The only difference is that Forceware 174.88 added in support for the 9600 GSO.




Some Pictures



8800GS





9600GSO





9600GT


Page 1: Introduction

Page 2: Specifications Compared
Page 3: Test Platform
Page 4: Benchmark Scores


27 October 2008

GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870

GeForce GTX260 vs GTX260+ vs Radeon HD4870




Initially, the GT200 based GeForce GTX280 and GTX260 were priced so high, the price/performance ratio was so bad that it didn't make any sense to pay the huge premium over the little performance gain. Of course we are comparing it against Radeon HD4800 series. To boost sales, Nvidia cut GeForce GTX280 price by 62%; GTX260 by 33%, placing the latter in the same price point with Radeon HD4870.

Things got interesting when Nvidia launched a new GTX260 version known as GeForce GTX 260+ Core 216, containing 216 shader processors as compared to the original GTX260's 192 SP. Bla bla bla.. Let's not waste anymore time on complex technical details, time to watch the triple-threat match of GeForce GTX260 192SP vs GTX260+ 216SP vs Radeon HD 4870!



Test Platform


CPUIntel Core 2 Extreme QX6850
MotherboardGIGABYTE GA-X48T-DQ6
MemoryA-DATA DDR3-1066 Extreme CL7 2x1GB
GraphicsNVIDIA GeForce GTX 260 192SP 896MB

Inno3D GeForce GTX 260 GOLD 216PS 896MB

ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
PowerGIGABYTE ODIN GT 1200W
OSWindows Vista SP1
DriverForceware 177.43

ATI Catalyst 8.8




Benchmark Result


GeForce GTX 260+
216SP 896MB
Radeon HD 4870
800SP 512MB
GeForce GTX 260
192SP 896MB
3DMark 05


16 x 10174871884017335
19 x 12169751836716712
16 x 10 8AA154151732815281
19 x 12 8AA142991623814025




3DMark 06


16 x 10142601412513948
19 x 12132461318312844
16 x 10 8AA9448106069339
19 x 12 8AA875597048607




3DMark Vantage


High (GPU)572651335321
Extreme (GPU)403036043712




Company of Hero (DX10, High)


16 x 1057.156.155.9
19 x 1254.552.952.2
16 x 10 8AA45.352.443.1
19 x 10 8AA38.948.536.1




Crysis (DX 10, High)


16 x 1041.4639.4639.21
19 x 1235.0633.0232.81
16 x 10 8AA30.5435.5429.25
19 x 10 8AA24.3329.3823.33




PT Boat (DX10, High)


16 x 1056.946.255.6
19 x 1254.343.952.8
16 x 10 8AA40.323.7 *39.1
19 x 12 8AA34.416.5 *33.2




Lost Planet (DX10, High)


16 x 1087.551.482.2
19 x 1271.142.868.1
16 x 10 8AA61.448.758.7
19 x 12 8AA49.740.948.1
*FPS drops dramatically when required vram >512MB


On average, the new GTX260 containing 216SP outperforms it's 192SP brother by around 5%.






Source: http://game.ali213.net/thread-2275669-1-1.html

26 October 2008

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part4

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part4:
CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3






Maximum quality; shader made @ DX10.

HD4830 is struggling to keep up at 1440x900, else they are pretty on par at other resolutions.







Very high settings on DX10 mode, tested using the in-game benchmark tool.








Maximum quality, again tested with in-game benchmark tool.

Clear victory for the RV770LE based card.







Maximum quality with V-sync disabled.

The result looks very inconclusive. But overall, with 20/29 benchmarks in hand, the winner is no doubt Radeon HD4830, in terms of raw performance.


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3


Source: http://diy.pconline.com.cn/graphics/reviews/0810/1452670.html

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part3

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part3:
CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2




Maximum quality, V-sync off.

Close fight between HD4830 & 9800GT.







A clear win for the Radeons. The gap is more obvious at low resolution.







Again, everything at maximum quality.

This time round, the gap is wider at higher resolution, interesting phenomenon. On average, HD4830 is 5.2% faster than 9800GT here.


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part2

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part2:
Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage


Test Platform

CPU: Intel Core2 Quad QX9770 @ 3.6Ghz
Mainboard: Asus X48
Memory: Aeneon DDR2-1066 2x1GB @ 5-5-5-15
Storage: Seagate 7200.10 500GB SATA

Graphics:
Radeon HD4850 512MB (625/1986)
Sapphire Radeon HD4830 512MB (575/1800)
GeForce 9800GT 512MB (600/1500/1800)


OS: Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 DX10
Drivers: Catalyst 8.54 RC1/ Forceware 178.13 Vista WHQL






ATI cards are traditionally weak in 3Dmark06, so no big surprise here.






3Dmark Vantage tells a very different story, so it all goes down to the real world game tests.


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3

Radeon HD 4830 512MB Review Part1

AMD (ATI) Radeon HD 4830 Review Part1:
Introduction & Specifications





Just-another-card from AMD to cover the price point vacuum between Radeon HD 4670 & HD 4850, as well as to battle with Nvidia's Geforce 9800 GT. This card is based on the RV770LE core, which has 1 cluster of shader processors (usually defective) disabled, bringing the magic number to 640. Where the fully functional RV770 (HD4850/4870) have all the 800.

An interesting to note, AMD confirmed that disabling the cluster is a hardware-cut, so chances are it is impossible for anyone to "revive" the card with a modded BIOS. Let aside the controversy surrounding its "missing shaders", let's take a look at this extracted review:


Graphics cardsHD 4830 512MB (RV770LE)HD 4850 512MB (RV770)HD 3870 512MB (RV670) 9800 GT 512MB (G92)
Core clock 575MHz 625MHz 775MHz 600MHz
Shader clock 575MHz 625MHz 775MHz 1,500MHz
Memory clock
1,800MHz 2,000MHz 2,250MHz 1,800MHz
Bus width, size, type
256-bit, 512MB, GDDR3 256-bit, 512MB, GDDR4 256-bit, 512MB, GDDR3
Memory bandwidth 57.6GB/s 64GB/s 72.8GB/s 57.6GB/s
Process 55nm 65nm/55nm
Transistor count 956mil 956mil 666mil 754mil
Die size 260mm² 260mm² 192mm² 296mm²/230mm²
Peak GFLOPS 736 1,000 496 504
ROPs 12 16 16 16
TDP
110W 110W 105W 105W


Part1: Introduction & Specifications
Part2: Test System, 3Dmark06 & Vantage
Part3: CoD4, Assassin's Creed, HL2:EP2
Part4: CoH, WIC, FEAR, UT3

25 September 2008

Intel Core i7 Specifications

Intel Core i7, also known earlier as Core 3, refers to the upcoming range of consumer class quad-core cpus based on the Nahalem marchitecture, replacing the Core 2 series.

These processor will bring the new & improved Hyper-Threading Technology as seen in the Pentium-4 days, thus allowing the quad-cores to work on up to 8 threads simultaneously.






Core i7 920Core i7 940Core i7 EE 965
Process 45nm 45nm 45nm
CodenameBloomfield
BloomfieldBloomfield
Transistors 731 million
731 million 731 million
Socket LGA1366 LGA1366 LGA1366
Core (Threads)
4 (8) 4 (8) 4 (8)
Clock Speed
2.66 GHz 2.93 GHz 3.2 GHz
L2 Cache 4x 256KB 4x 256KB 4x 256KB
L3 Cache 8 MB shared
8 MB shared
8 MB shared
QPI 4.8 GT/s 4.8 GT/s 6.4 GT/s
Memory Controller
DDR3-800/1066, Triple Ch
DDR3-800/1066, Triple Ch
DDR3-800/1066, Triple Ch
TDP 130W 130W 130W
Price (1000-unit)
$284~367 $562~720 $999~1412


Also see Intel News Release


Other popular posts:

eXTReMe Tracker