8600 GTS Benchmark and OC!

not sure if this has been posted but wtv

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4875

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4883&s=1

 

This appears to be for desktops...but good find nonetheless.

 

feel free to move it


i just thought gpu stuff should belong in gpu section

 

is this similar too what will apear on notebooks

 

What they benchmarked there was the 8600GTS or the high-end mid-range part. Usually the mobile equivalents are based on lower models. For example the Go 7600 was actually based on the desktop 7300GT, which was actually not related to the rest of the 7300s and was a 7600 with 8 pipelines instead of 12. Similarly, the Go 8600 will likely be based on the 8600GT.

It's hard to tell right now because nVidia is releasing products along a very broad spectrum. While previous initial releases were very well defined, Geforce 7300 in the low-end, 7600 in the middle, and 7800 in the high-end, this time nVidia is releasing a whole splurge of cards with a 8300, 8400, 8500, 8600, and 8800. This makes it just as likely that the "common" mid-range mobile part will be based on the desktop 8500 rather than the 8600 while a higher power consumption upper mid-range part may be based on the 8600.

It's also hard to know what to expect since the clock speeds seem to be varying widely. The 8600GTS was originally reported at 700MHz core, then 675Mhz core/1000MHz memory, now VR-Zone tested it at 745MHz core/1145MHz memory before overclocking. It's disconcerting, because all those specs came in the last month from fairly reliable sources (as reliable as it gets for unreleased products anyways), and with nVidia set to launch in 2 weeks, it's amazing the fluctuation that has gone on.

 

Nah, it's fine here...though if a notebook could hit those 3dMark06 scores I'd be amazed. Especially if it was a 15.4" notebook!

 

Well he overclocked it in the tests against the 7900gt, I heard it was originally at 675/1000 as that would be the default , no way nvidia would stock a card at 745/1140 its just such a wierd number.

Basically at stock speeds its probably more or less just slightly worse than a 7900gt i'd guess.

Meaning the 8600 for notebooks will probably be just slightly worse than a 7900gs if all goes well

 

well, imo

now we know the upper range of how powerful the 8600 will be in notebooks since desktop parts are always better then their notebook equivalents.

furthermore, since the reported temps were pretty low on vr-zone, i'd suspect that they would nicely fit in a 15.4 inch notebook

most likely, the 8600 will be a little weaker or same as the notebook version of the 7900gs

 

more benches:

http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=2231&cid=3&pg=1


seems like you should just skip the 8600 and pay a little more fore 8800gts 320mb

according to : http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6477

the 8600gts only has a 128 bit memory interface. ridiculous

 

Take the HardwareZone review with a grain of salt, their comparison is really deeply flawed.

As someone who's owned and enjoyed a GeForce 7950GT, I can tell you those benchmarks are garbage, with the 7950GT pushing numbers WELL below what it typically does. The X1950 Pro is NOT faster than the 7950GT. So if one card's benches are screwed up, chances are they all are, and there's no legitimate reason why they couldn't have underclocked the 8600GTS to what it's supposed to release at.

But you notice how ATI's cards just cream nVidia's at every resolution, barring the 8800GTS? I wouldn't trust these benches at all.

 

don't kill the messenger

 

wow BAG of salt on that hardwarezone article. When would an 8800 ever lose to a x1950 almost on a consistant basis according to that review.

 

I'm just fine with the messenger.

Message is a little flawed, but any news is welcome, even screwy news like HardwareZone's benches.

 

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38769

Well, here are some 3DMark numbers from CeBit for the 8500, 8600GT, and 8600GTS. They look to be deliberately leaked from nVidia, so you can judge for yourself whether they are pre-biased.

The results are actually very interesting. In 3DMark05, the 8600GT is only as powerful as the 7950GT. However, in 3DMark06, the 8600GT does better than a 7950GT SLI configuration, and even the 8500 is faster than the 7950GT. I guess this could point to the architecture being "optimized" for the future.

 

I'm very impressed by the 8600GTS' performance compared to the 7900GT. Although the 8600GTS was slightly overclocked by vr-zone, we can still definitely see that the 8600 will hold its ground against the more powerful cards of the previous DX9 generation...

 

A 15.4" hitting 5000 or more in 3dmark06 will be very nice. Hope it's coming.

 

This is pretty much par for the corpse for nVidia's mid-range. The 7600GT was faster than the 6800s, and the 6600GT was faster than the FX5900 (of course...in some cases the Radeon 9600XT was faster than the FX5900, so maybe it's better to point out that the 6600GT was faster than the 9800XT.)

nVidia knows what side they butter their bread on, and their mid-range has been consistently outstanding. (Again ignoring the FX generation.)

 

Err, par for the corpse?....

 

Don't be a grammar Nazi, you know what he means