9700m gt

will it (9700m gt) be better then the 8600m gt?

 

it should be better than the 8700m gt

 

you managed to find one?

 

asus(g50v and g71v) and toshiba already announced them in there new laptops

 

those should be out at the end of july if i remember correctly

 

the 9700gt is around the equivalent to the 8800GTS and will run most games very wel. it blitzes the 8600 and even the 9650, which is the equivalent to the 8700gt

 

It's a little less powerful than the 8800m GTS. The 9800m GTS is the equivalent to the 8800m GTS.

 

Do you have a source for that information? If so, I'll add it into the GPU Guide.

 

Well, Nvidia lists the 9800m GTS with 64 UP's, but no clocks now. I feel like a retard. I can't find any official specs for the 9700m GT. Sorry guys, guess I'm kind of off.

Here's the link for the 9800m GTS specs- http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_9800m_gts.html

*EDIT* Nvidia pulled the specs! They were just working today! It showed the 9800m GTS with 64 UP's and the Gigaflops, but now the link is dead!

 

The 9800M GTS is a G94 so that's why. It's not a 8800M GTS (which is a G92)
The 9700M GT is a G96, and since the 9600M GT should be clocked at 600/800, it probably will be 700/900 imo.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 9800M GTS had the same clocks as the desktop 9600GT, since it's its mobile version.

 

Okay, obviously I was wrong. I guess the core has something to do with it, I just know both the 8800m GTS and the 9800m GTS have 64 UP's, but I guess that doesn't mean anything.

 

Sweet looks like it will play Crysis on high.

 

Even when you've a 9800M GTX SLI you can't play it on high.

The Crysis engine is one of the most worse engines I've seen.

 

well you can, and its very Playable, but not as much as 40+ FPS all the time, but i bet with my kidney that it will at that FPS on warhead when it comes.

 

You're right, it's playable

The problem is that i'm used to 60+ FPS

 

Umm yea, you might want to rethink that comment because a single 8800 can handle high. Did you mean very high? And the Crysis enigne is great; it's just advanced for its time.

 

Zee he meant fully playable, even a 8800GTX could dip to single digit Frame count in the Icy levels..

 

Hmm...good point. Althought I think that 9800M GTX SLI could handle it.

 

what about a nvidia 280gtx on three way SLI? Wouldnt that be able to handle it?

 

I hope...lol..because if it can't then what kind of hardware is Crytek using...lol.

 

... The Crysis engine, advanced for its time? You kidding me? Look at the game - does the way it looks seriously warrant the framerates you get on today's hardware? I beg to differ. It's not like it's photorealistic just yet.

 

If you can get Crysis to run at it's full capacity, then it does blow everything out of the water. It's just it doesn't look that impressive at medium settings. And the same PC specs that it takes to run Crysis on medium, other games like COD4 take better advantage of those specs and look much better. But if you max out Crysis and any other game, well......Crysis wins.

 

How do you know? Are you the chief engineer of nVidia? don't give me the "it is just refresh of 8800m GTX" crap, you will never know until it actually came out.

A single GT280 will run it just fine.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...force-gtx-280-1gb-superclocked-review-13.html

ps. even my single 8800m GTX can get 30fps with all high settings+2xAA, under 1680x1050.

 

This is coming from someone who can't run it, I'm guessing. I have no problem keeping a great framerate at 1280x800, all high, and it looks incredible.

I think the jealousy bug has bitten someone...

 

thats some powerful **** right there....

 

I belive so...lol. You know what, when I said that it wasn't impressive at medium, I take that back. Even at medium, some of the effects like the rain storm looked pretty darn good.

 

but even that is still unacceptable for the top card ever made and its even SUPERCLOCKED. Games that were most demanding in previous years could run perfectly on the next refresh of Video cards, its been 2 refreshes now, and still there in no card that can play very high on such resolution, or even put 4xAA, while lets say Farcry, could run Perfectly on a 7800GTX which wasnt even the top dog there.

and btw, it doesnt need a chief in Nvidia to tell the difference between the 8800GTX and 9800GTX, you can just take a peek on the desktop counterparts.

 

In case you don't know, they put "SUPERCLOCKED" for marketing, it is running at factory clocking.

umm.....I don't think so? check out FSX, it's even older and more hardware demand

I hate people saying this everytime. there are tons of card CAN play crysis high on WUXGA, 1fps-50fps. problem is, what is your target framerate? if you think 37.55fps is not acceptable, I guess you should dump your m9750 into the trash can.

sorry man, maybe you need to do some researches, 8800m GTX is not based on 8800 GTX, neither 9800m GTX and 9800 GTX.

 

Sorry dudes, but while HIGH looks nice, VERY HIGH makes justice.
Crysis is the prettiest game all around.

 

Too true! Very High with Natural Mod and Triple C pack is what should REALLY represent Crysis aesthetically !

 

name me how many cards can do it on high 37-55FPS, incase you are blind. none of the above desktop cards did 35-55 FPS

and throw my m9750 to the trash can? not before you throw yours, i'm not saying that 33.75 FPS or whatever was the number isnt acceptable, its very smooth, but thats not what people payed for to buy a GTX 280

secondly, if they dont compare to desktop counter parts, then its too bad, the 9800mGTX will be only a die shrink of 8800GTX in that case. comparing it to desktop counter parts is the MOST of difference that could be between the two cards period.



and last but not least. this thread is about 9700gt, so please dont get me started on this.

 

Ok guys, let's quit fighting.

 

Firstly you said:

and

but now:

do they even make sense?

 

it does, check the first quote. i was talking about the desktop card in here. with a GTX280 its very unacceptable, even if it plays smooth, but for my laptop, i wont expect 60 FPS in Crysis. so if it runs smooth, then its acceptable, please Nirvana dont Cut the Quotes you want to make me look like a dumb@ss because that will not work.

 

Keeping a great framerate... at 1280x800. With an 8800M GTS.

Still waiting on Alienware UK to release the m17x >_< A little overpriced, but hey. It's pretty, and mobility is absolutely necessary for me.

Not good enough to warrant the resource hogging, IMO.

Yeah, and a GTX 280 -still- can't pull optimal FPS at 1920x1200 or better.

 

8800M GTS, M GTX & 9800M GTX are G92. G92 is 8800GS, 9600GSO, 8800GT, GTS 512, 9800GTX, 9800GX2.

The 8800M GTS would be like the 8800GS/9600GSO but with a 256bits bus rather than a 192bits one.
8800M GTX has 96SPs, less than the 8800GT. I'd compare it to the GTS 320. I haven't seen benchmarks in a while so I wouldn't be sure.
9800M GTX will have 112SPs so it should be similar to the 8800GT

 

the 8800GTX is compared to Desktop 8800GTS 640mb not 320mb.

 

What kind of measure of advancement is that? A game that looks better than any game currently out or that will probably come out for a while (technically) is not advanced because it doesn't have good frames. Guess what optimizing engine and game code has nothing to do with how advanced a game or engine is from a graphical standpoint.

Crysis is technically the most advanced game in terms of visuals (I'm not talking about art).

 

soon enough it will be the most advanced in terms of Frames AND visuals when Crysis warhead is out. Unless Farcry2 is holding a surprise.

 

I can play Crysis on very high @ WUXGA on my moms go7600.

Not sure what you guys are doing wrong.

/jk

 

8800m GTX is 320bit?

 

That's how I came up with the 320MB. I haven't checked how the G80 anf G92 compare to each other clock by clock, shader per shader, but the GTS 640 would have the same number of shaders and more memory & bandwidth. The 320MB one would a bit lower on the memory than the 8800M GTX.

 

Yeah, I have to agree with you there. It's extremely hard to compare desktop and notebook counterparts.

 

First of all, I've never said or tried to make you look like a "dumb@ass", so please don't criticize yourself.
----------------------------------------------------------------
the following is the complete quote of yours:

if that's the reason you think GT280 is unacceptable; then I have to say 8800 GTX and 9800 GTX are both very disappointing cards as well because of FSX, they were also 2 refreshes after FSX's release.
----------------------------------------------------------------
here are another 2 complete quotes of yours:

If GT280 is unacceptable even if plays smooth, then what is? run 10 crysis at the same time with 100fps?

 

Please stay on topic. Some posts have been deleted.

If you want to discuss an infraction, PM me.

Thanks.

-Kdawgca
NBR Mod

 

you know what? i'm gonna shrink my brain to be at yours size, Yes , it needs to run 10 Crysis and get 100 FPS, because you are comparing my 3 Years old technology , to the whats so called newest tech.

 

3 years old technology? GT280? 9800? 8800? the only "3 years old technology" in this thread was mentioned by you sir, which is 7800 GTX.
edit: and you were the one saying GT280 should have high fps with crysis because the way of 7800 GTX and far cry were.

 

i said MY 3 years old technology.. Jesus

 

which is? ----------

 

Never mind, i havent known there are that much kids on this forum that are blind enough to look in my sig -.-.