9600MGT vs 8800GTX?

amm, are there any benches for the 9600MGT, to compare it to the 8800MGTX?
i know they are not even close, but will it be 50% of it? 70%? any real info by now?
thnx

 

i dont think there is even any specs released for the 9600MGT yet...
without that i wouldnt even like to guess.

 

There is not 9600M GT out there yet,
BUT The 9650M GS is equal to the 8700 GT, which got beaten in sli mode by ONE 8800GTX, i don't know if it worked properly though (sli mode) just search for benches 8700 vs 8800

 

It is actually rather difficult to say, because if the 9600M (something rather) gets 32 shaders like the 8600M GT or bumps up to 48 shaders (It probably wont be getting 64 as that is 8800M GTS, but who knows - i have barely seen any laptops with that card so nvidia may just drop it). The clock rates will probably be similar, and the last big question...will it bring the desktop versions 256bit bus?

My guess is that it will be a 48/32 card with 128bit bus and similar clocks (No way nvidia would do a 256bit bus on a mainstream card since it would put it within strinking distance of the 8800 series in games which are not shader intensive (and would allow you to crank up the resolution/AA on older games)

So to answer you, I would guess a difference of about 40% (in lower resolutions with med details) to 80-90%+ (high resolution with AA) depending on the game and resolution (and yes if we do 800x600 with med details they will probably be equal)

And no i'm not playing expert here. Just giving what I consider a reasonable estimate from my experince

 

8800mGTX>8800mGTS>7950GTXSli>8700mGTSli>7950GTX>8700mGT

8700 = 9650m

we do not know if there is even going to be a 9600 yet...

 

The number 50 in 96 50, what does that stand for?
I mean will the 9600m be faster or slower than the 9650m?

 

It`s a higher clocked 9600 version.
Just as the 7950gtx is a higher clocked 7900 GTX.

 

Okay thanks, that makes sense.
I wonder, can you explain the GS and GT difference too?

 

Yes.
Gt-super version
Gs-slower version
Take the 7900GTX and the 7900GS. The first is about 20-25% faster than the second.
Or take the 8800M GTX and GTS- the first one is 10-15% faster than the second one.

 

Where does the 9650 come from? It's been announced?

 

Gemstone Blue notebooks from Acer, 8920g version, will have the option for 9650m gs
http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_9650M_gs.html

 

Does anyone have any benchmarks that show the 8800m GTX performs better than the go 7950 gtx SLI? Because all i've found are benchmarks to the contrary.

 

This article http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3196&p=4 shows a comparison between the 2 cards. It looks like in older games 7950gtx sli performs better but in newer titles they are very similar or else the 8800gtx is better. In my opinion I would take the 8800gtx since although its slower in older games the FPS in these games with either card is still above 60. But in the newer games like Supreme Commander where the 8800gtx is faster you will actually notice the difference when playing since the FPS are closer to 30.

Edit: I've been reading around the forums and have seen where people bash SLI because it never works right. I've never commented on this subject since I have never owned a SLI system either desktop or laptop. But I found this article interesting since it shows SLI advantage in percentage form. http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3262&p=7

 

SLI will never give you 100% increase in performance, you`d probably have to get 2 cpus also(SLI cpus )
So the fastest single GPU, even if IT MIGHT be slower that SLI 7950GTX, WHICH IT IS NOT,would still be the smarter choice.

 

We call these "Dual Cores" in computer lingo. It really isn't the CPU forming the SLI bottleneck, it is the fact that games are not perfectly optimized for multiple GPUs.

It might *truly* be slower than 7950GTX in SLI for certain games, but a single GPU (At this point in time) will always be superior to running two less powerful GPUs in SLI.

 

I think you missed the sarcasm, but you`re right about the CPU not being the bottleneck. It was just math 1 on 1.

 

9650GS' specs on paper looks identical to 8700GT, so its probably just a die-shrinked version.

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

 

the 9600GT SLI says otherwise

 

You should take SLI results with a grain of salt, since it varies from program to program. In my testing, HL2 had the biggest benefit with SLI with a 100% performance boost. Some older games can't use SLI at all, and others are poorly optimized to use the technology.

 

75-107% increase, that's the first card that does that

 

I will take those results with a bag of salt actually, they claim some pretty big boosts over the previous generations, and very similar scores with the 8800 GT (-15%).
I will await user benches, since I have yet to read a benchmark from a non-user that is the complete truth for everyday gaming life.
Also, are they English or not? cause there`s a lot of typo`s in there.

 

Yeah, its kind of suspicious that the 9600 GT SLI really works, while the other SLI cards (i.e. 8700m GT) cannot give more than a 40% boost (average % from reviews given in this forum on different games).

 

Well, everybenchmarks have the same kind of results for it and the 8800GT

 

I wonder it the ratio will be similar to the different between the desktop version? here's a desktop of the 9600 gt: http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/21/nvidia_geforce_9600_gt/page13.html

the mobile version will obviously be slower, but will it keep a similar distance behind the higher cards as the desktop version does? (it's performance isn't that far behind the 8800gt, which is nearly as fast as the 8800gtx)