**official** 7950gtx Vs 8700gt

Then do test on high resolutions so we can get some proof. 3D mark score here means nothing, put the card to stress at 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 and see how it performs.

 

So 3DMark means notting now? Some weeks ago not...

Because my screen is WSXGA+ my max ress is 1680x1050... so at that ressolution I play CM DiRT all max very playable, UT3 Demo all max too with very nice fps, avr 40, Half Life 2: Episode 2 all max with AA Q8x AF 16x...

On 3DMark 2006, at 1680x1050 I can make something around 5400 now with the 169.01 drivers, an thats about the same as 7950GTX at 1280x1024. Im not saying that the 8700M GT is better, I´m only saying that on 1680x1050 wich is not an low ressolution, the 8700M GT with is cripple 128bits bus may be better performer than the 7950GTX. At 1920x1200 I can not say anything because my LCD don´t let me...

Stop saying that is not true and face the reality!

 

On that "Dual-Rank" thing with the 8700M. Well i recall seeing it on the spec sheet NVIDIA displayed when they compared the 7950 side-by-side (in the slideshow) but i thought id check on the NVIDIA website to see if there is anything for download about it.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8700m.html

Dual-Rank is absent from it. Wonder if thats an oversight or...

 

3dmark benchmarks have never correlated with actual performance.

You play dirt at all max settings at 1680x1050? Please define "playable" then, because an E6700 + 8800GTS has trouble pushing out 30fps at those settings.

You get 5400 at stock clocks at 1680x1050? Please link me to your screenshot.

The reality is that I've never seen a single objective benchmark placing the 8700M-GT above the Go7950GTX at any resolution higher than 1280x1024/1440x900. If you know of such a comparison, please, do tell.

 

Well... I guess that's why the debate again now because the new drivers are just out.
Anyway, I don't care less on the previous comparison over the web as they are all old and no longer valid with the new driver.

A reality for me with the new driver is WIC at 1680x1050 at High settings DOUBLE from playing around 10-15 fps to 20-27 fps for me!

 

Here it is:
776 Core/1000 Mem

 

Ah, but he said "at stock clocks"... and 776/1000 is definitely not stock.

 

At stock clocks 5400marks no way, and you should allready know that...

 

The point is that it's not a fair comparison, and even if you tested both cards at stock clocks, 1680x1050, with 3dm06, that still wouldn't be an accurate test of each card's actual performance.

 

Yeah I play Dirt at 1440x900 which is my max res, all maxed on my 8800GTX and I can tell you one thing for sure, you don´t have 30+ fps when you are running a race with other cars that´s for sure. Dirt is a very hardware demanding game and I have a hard time to think you run Dirt smoothly maxed 1680x1050 on a 8700GT.

By the way do you run any AA and AF?

 

Ahh, you're claiming 5400 OC'd at 1680x1050. Then that' may be comparable to a stock clocked 7950GTX at 1280x1024, yes. However, what are your stock scores now at 1280x1024 and 1680x1050, and what's your OC'd score at 1280x1024? Also, please provide some screenies of DiRT with the settings you claim to play at.

 

I'd like to see that.

 

Here they are:

1680x1050
Multisampling 2x
WindEfects On
Shadows Ultra
Particle Efects Ultra
Mirrors On
Crowd High
Foliage High
Driver Models Ultra
Trees High
Refletions Ultra
Motion Blur On
Skidmarks On






Avr 22fps, most of the time stays on 22fps...

I shose that track because its the most graphical demanding. If you want another just tell...

 

get ready for some bashing, as most people will consider ur avg fps to be unplayable, even tho i do find that number rather playable myself....

 

Are you sure your textures are up all the way...or is that just how that game looks?

 

Hmm the textures doesn´t seem up to snuff. I think I know the answer on that, you don´t use any AF right? I use 16xAF on my and the textures looks far better, this on my desktop 8800GTX of course.

No bashing here, but I don´t find 22fps smooth. Playable it is, but as long as you are happy with it

 

I've tried the game and I lowered my settings to get around 30-40fps. Anything below 30fps for this game feels a bit laggy IMO and makes it harder to control the car IMO.

 

put up the specs with some time graph or something to prove those are the tru settings

 

Yeah those textures look awfully bland.

 

no kidding, hold on a sec while i get my crayons and draw a better texture.

 

c'mon now guys...remember some guy posted far cry screens and they looked pretty bad too, because of the conversion, etc? might be just the screens look bad, plus i don't see why he would make this up, even tho i do remember a user getting banned for posting his at 9xxx running bioshock on high settings lol

 

you can see just as well as we can, and those are not very high set textures, they are just bland.

 

check this out http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=154347&page=11

look at his far cry screens

 

I'd like to see a forested track. I still can't believe the results because an 8800GTX can only get ~30-35FPS average at Ultra settings.

 

Tell how I do that and will gladly show you the pics...


On driver settings:







If I save it on .bmp the quality of the printscreens just equal of what I see on the screen... but 5MBs each...

On .jpg the quality is lowered a bit, by its compression...


If you not believe, is not my problem... just don´t tell that the others are liars because you think otherwise... all you have to do is just don´t buy an 8700M GT... buy an 7950GTX.

Good luck for you!
Cumps

 

my fx2500 matches 2 8700s in sli in bioshock / graw2 / oblivion benchmarks.

8700 is a "Mid-Range" Card.

 

Wow.. Audigy, that's very nice graphics already!
I do believe that on a actual native screen, it will look even more brilliant.

 

Come on, if single fx2500 can match 2 x 8700 SLI...
then nVidia is going to be out of business lol, their top gaming card in SLi can't even beat a biz card at gaming...
everyone go buy fx2500m instead of the latest SLI 8700m.

 

seriously
2007-10-20 14:05:48 - Bioshock
Frames: 1878 - Time: 47321ms - Avg: 39.686 - Min: 27 - Max: 61
1900x1200 max everything in bioshock.

tell anyone who has an m1730 to do the same test.

it will be even.

we did a bunch of bench's over at nbf and concluded the same thing.

no sh it

the latest sli8700 sux ass.

single 7950 matches it. in high res.

what people have been trying to empha-"size" is that the 8700's should do way better than match the 7950's / 7900's .

but they don't . and there is benchmarks to prove it.

not Bulls hit 3dmark.

 

Actually the one above was the lowest....this was the highest

Frames Time (ms) Min Max Avg m1730- bioshock.

1921 60000 14 63 32.017


XPS M1730,2.2ghz,2 x 160gb7200in RAID0,8700M GT SLI,2gig ram,XP pro

Vostro 1500,2.0ghz,2 gig ram,160gig toshiba,SXGA,8600gt,XP pro

that is from this thread.


mine was higher.
http://www.notebookforums.com/thread205804-3.html

read through. and see that the m1730 just matches my rig.

 

I say still Dirt at 20fps is a slideshow, I know it since I have played it on my laptop with 25fps.

An Ultra should be able to push out at least 35+. My 8800GTX overclocked to 630/2000 pushes out 43+ fps at ULTRA settings and at 1440x900 with the newest beta drivers 169.01.

But what drags the performance down most is shadows. If I had a 8700m GT I either lower the settings or lower resolution to at least get 30+ fps in DIRT. It´s a huge difference playing this game smoothly compared to playing it jerky like 20fps is.

 

I know, I agree that it´s slow, but it´s perfectly playable...

Remember, this is a card with a cripple bus, and being able to play DiRT on 1680x1050 ress is very very good.

At 1280x800 I can play DiRT 30+ with no probs...

 

Hey,

Bit of a newbie to this forum, but I'm hopefully to get some info.

I recently (last week), bought the M1730 with 8700M (256+256) (thinking it was high-end) and since came across this forum with everyone illustrating the fact that its only a marginal improvement over the 7950 GTX, and hence a middle'ish card. A little disappointed to hear that I'll soon be overtaken by the 8800M GTX so soon, but alias I guess that's how it goes.

I contacted Dell, and the cards (8700M --> 8800M GTX) are upgradeable. And its a service they will offer when the card comes out (albeit very expensive I can imagine.)

They're both (8700M & 8800M GTX) MXM Type III, also which is the good news! So compatibility shouldn't be an issue. (I found this out on this website I think.)

So what I'm looking for is info on the following;

1) Is there a website where I can buy MXM cards / the 8800M cards (or whatever is highest at the time) in circa 12 months, or whenever I plan to upgrade. I've looked (googled/forums) and there seems to be nothing there! Weird I think. (- Also I'm in Ireland, so handier if they were closer). So if anyone has a website of a reputable dealer I would be most indebted as won't have to overpay at Dell!

2) Dunno if this can be answered given they're not released yet, but any ideas on how much a pair of cards would set me back? Something like 8800 GTX 1024Mb (512+512) - I've heard these will be the first available. Hopeful that dey would be cheaper that Dell.

3) Unlikely that its been done yet... but anywhere I could find a "How-To" guide on upgrading the cards of a M1730? I've never ventured into a laptop bowels before! -And it would save me paying Dell!


Many thanks in advance,

72oo

 

Agree with you Audigy that the game does indeed look very good and especially at native rez.

Hmm how do the 8700GT play Oblivion, World in Conflict DX10, Bioshock DX10, Medal of Honor Airborne.

I have thought of getting me one myself with a 8700GT, so I would appreciate if anyone could fill in settings, well screens preferably and fps counter on more games with a 8700GT.

Oh that Dell update will cost a fortune, believe me when they´re offering two 8800GTX in SLI, they will cost a fortune for sure. Now on the other hand if one would wait until they release the 8800M I wonder if the price will go up considerly if you get the XPS M1730 with 8800M in SLI.

If two 8800M in SLI can play Crysis in DX10 with high settings and at least some settings very high I would say that laptop is good to go for a few years to come.

 

I'm going to have to dissappoint you: the Dell solution for SLI in the 1730 is to put chips on 1 card; Obviously, you won't be able to buy 2 new cards to replace the old one: you'll have to go through Dell to get the right solution.

 

You mean its better to wait & buy Laptop which will have the 8800 cards when available than Now
so we wont have these problems, tho dell does say it will upgrade
But they will say that now cos they want to make a sale i guess

 

They will probable offer an upgrade.
I'm happy I won't be the one paying for that upgrade though

 

Oh... that's going hurt the wallet...

Ah well I think I'll hold off on that for the next 12months or so, something to look forward to in time!

EDIT: Out curiosity how do you know its two chips on the one card? I was flicking through the engadget pic's and thought it looked like 2 cards?

 

I'm pretty sure I can take this higher by boosting memory further, I just stopped at where I felt it was still safe.

Core/Shader/Memory (mHz): 750/1500/1000 -- I have read on someone who had 1.2Ghz memory.

I'm also pretty sure that this is better than the farthest that the 7950 can be OC'd to. So I say, technically, 8700m > 7950GTX.

 

Where your card wins is at shader intensive games, games played at high resolutions like 1920x1200 the 8700GT fails miserably behind in performance compared to a 7950GTX. So I would still say 7950GTX -> 8700GT.

You can´t just look at clock by clock, you have to be aware that the bus is still a 128-bit which makes the card tough to deliever AA and AF.

 

Raiser: which driver and which tool did you use for OCing?

 

Ok! First, your NOT telling the whole story, you ran the test with extremely noticable artifacting and you know it! Believe me, I ran at those EXACT same settings, in multiple different drivers, and there's artifacting in everything, such as in numerous games, the polygons being streatched off, or to the center of the screen, which means it's the memory.


Magnus, EVERYTHING I've run shows no sign that the card is limited by it's memory bus, and thus making it slow down dramatically at high resolutions.

the simple fact is that it DOESN'T. running in 740x480 vs 1920x1200 is only a difference of the actual pixel percentage to performance. 6.48* increase in pixels makes it (about) 6.48* less FPS, there's no strait DROP after getting to a certain resolution, so it seems like the card isn't bottenecked by any part of it, other than it's own raw performance.

 

Sounds good Unknown thanks for the info. Finally someone who could answer my beliefs for real. 8700GT sounds like a good card after all, I might get a new laptop with 8700GT.

 

farther than the 7950?

my fx2500 gets 6014+ with moderate OC. and I can play with temps going below 80. AS5. no artifacting.

give it up.

the 7950/7900 kills the 8700m

it's like comparing a riced out civic to a stock tt supra.

throw some 1900x1200 oblivion cranked FRAPS benchmarks and BIOshock!

as I posted before. my fx2500 beats and matches the 8700 stock sli m1730 in FRAPS.

 

it is limited by the bus, and it is guarenteed that your running games at low settings on WUXGA. and the SIMPLE FACT which you do not seem to be grasping is that the resolution does affect performance. 740x480 is 355 200 pixels. 1920x1200 is 2 304 000 pixels. That is almost 6.5 TIMES MORE PIXELS! it has to do that much more work!

If your a farmer and you plant in an area 100' by 200' you dont have to plant as much. In an area 6 times that 1200' by 600' then you have to do MORE WORK! ITS COMMON SENSE!! im sick of explaining this argument to any one who feels this card is not limited by its bus. READ THE REVIEW it speakes for its self. and look at those benchmarks! it will not make a dramatic difference if they are new drivers like anyone who has a 8700gt claims. I may not have one, but i have enough common sense/ knowledge to make an educated answer on the subject, to know that it is limited.

 

Wow. Some odd reactions.

First of all, no, I ran the test with ZERO artifacts. The only artifacts to be found EVER were when I cranked the clocks up to 755 I think and my memory was still 958. About a couple hours in CS:S there was some.

I play Bioshock at 1920x1200 max DX10 settings.

I play STALKER at 1920x1200 max settings WITH the latest Float32 visual tweaks.

Same goes for Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, all HL2 games (with 8x CSAA), MoA:A and actually every game I have on this computer EXCEPT for Crysis, which I run at all high settings at 1440x900.

The truth is, when you're running something at 1920x1200, I can't even tell the difference between AA on or off, except in the Source engine for some reason. So, frankly, I don't care about whether or not AA is taken into consideration at higher resolutions compared with the 7950GTX. You're nit-picking and you all know it. I always play with AF at max, however (or at least enabled; none of that trillionaire/billionaire garbage). In the majority of scenarios, this OCed 8700GT > 7950GTX.

:edit: I'm on the 169.04 drivers and I'm using RivaTuner.

:editx2: I should mention that before I got my current laptop that you see in my signature, I was using a Dell XPS 1710 with a T7300 and a 7950GTX, which now belongs to a family member. I know what I'm talking about.

 

ok, screens with fraps then. AF barely hits performance by the way. AA is what hits peformance. id like to see these screens so you can atleast prove what your saying is true.

 

*sigh*... Fine, dammit. I shouldn't have to go so far out of my way just to convince someone I'm never going to meet, but I'll get FRAPS and play... iunno... Bioshock at 1920x1200 max settings. Capiche?

I played through that game all the way though at that resolution before the 169 drivers and before I even overclocked this card. Not a huge deal to achieve those results but I'll show you anyways.

:edit: How do I post images at 1920x1200 btw? My Photobucket scales them down to lower res. Or can you take my word that it's at 1920x1200?

 

aren't you contradicting yourself over there?
you're constantly screaming it's limited by its bus, and now you're saying it's about the work it can do
I think you're better off comparing it with 2 farmers, who have to plough a field 1600x1200. 1 farmer has got a machine with a width of 100, and the other a machine with a width of 50. Obviously, the one with the width of 100 is going to be finished much faster. Not because he has a faster machine, but because his machine is twice as wide

 

i dont care if your never going to meet me, but if your spreading false hope for people then thats not right and it quite irritating. i dont know how to do any of that stuff with the pictures...and no i wont take your word for it..