Nvidia GeForce 9 Series to be Released February 21st!!!!!

S

sarakoth

Uncool
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
187
Featuring a return to Quad SLI . . .

Improved Directx 10 . . .

and a steep price drop for the 8 series.
 
I'd also like to see the source for this, as I generally watch the hardware industry like a hawk and haven't seen any official news on the subject.
 
I am especially interested in the price. :rolleyes:

The two computers I use are just so old, and I need to build a new one!
 
Now that there out, I won't have to hunt down the rumour sights I found the information on! Yay!

Anyways, the Geforce 9600 GT is a steal in my opinion.
 
The 9600GT is a brilliant deal.

But you know that, if you had the money, you'd go for two of the 9800GX2's. *drool*

Dual core, 1gb of memory, from 25%-50% faster than the 8800 GTX Ultra with games. Only £434. :rolleyes: Imagine two of them in SLi, along with your 1500W PSU. :p
 
sarakoth said:
Now that there out, I won't have to hunt down the rumour sights I found the information on! Yay!

Anyways, the Geforce 9600 GT is a steal in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well, it's also a month later than what you originally stated...
 
For those of us who don't have a 1000w+ PSU, the 9600 GT only requires a 400w if one is running it with some crazy core 2 Quad q6600 (also an incredible deal) and two gigs of DDR2 RAM.
 
I've only got a 550W, sadly. But come the re-build, I'm hoping to to least triple that. I've got big plans for my next computer, and two 9800GX2's are forcing the two 8800 GTX Ultra's out into the street. :p
 
Lenny said:
I've only got a 550W, sadly. But come the re-build, I'm hoping to to least triple that. I've got big plans for my next computer, and two 9800GX2's are forcing the two 8800 GTX Ultra's out into the street. :p
Click to expand...

That'll actually make you a profit because the Ultras are waaay overpriced :eek:

By the way, you can support two Ultras with a 550w PSU? That must be really strectching it.
 
I don't know. I wouldn't risk it with less than a 700W.

At the moment I've got a 550W with an 8800GTS 640mb happily ticking over to itself. Before the 9-series came out I was thinking of two Ultras (sorry if there was any confusion - I've not actually got two Ultras, if you thought I had), but now the 9800's have caught my eye.
 
Lenny said:
I don't know. I wouldn't risk it with less than a 700W.

At the moment I've got a 550W with an 8800GTS 640mb happily ticking over to itself. Before the 9-series came out I was thinking of two Ultras (sorry if there was any confusion - I've not actually got two Ultras, if you thought I had), but now the 9800's have caught my eye.
Click to expand...

Have fun running two instances of Crysis, maxed out, on four screens!
 
I've got a Q6600 moderately overclocked, two overclocked 8800 GT's in SLI and extremely high-performance ram with great timings and Crysis still kicks my machine's ass. Not even God is running Crysis with playable framerates at a decent resolution.
 
Commonmind said:
I've got a Q6600 moderately overclocked, two overclocked 8800 GT's in SLI and extremely high-performance ram with great timings and Crysis still kicks my machine's ass. Not even God is running Crysis with playable framerates at a decent resolution.
Click to expand...

You can probably max out Crysis at a lower resolution.
 
I'm very familiar with my PC's performance. Even at lower resolutions (both vanilla and the current iteration of) Crysis is still far too resource heavy to be "maxed out" while remaining enjoyable (in my particular case; I don't find fluctuating between 16 and 24 FPS to be a good time). But, this isn't really surprising or upsetting; the developers stated many times that the hardware needed to run Crysis at the highest settings at tolerable resolutions while maintaining playable frame-rates was still several generations away - likely two to three years from launch. In two or three years there will be games pushing beyond the bar Crysis has set (visually) and so I'll likely never experience the game in its full glory as I'll be occupied with something else :)

In my original comment I was merely remarking on how ridiculous a notion it was to be running two iterations of Crysis at the highest settings on several displays - in case you misunderstood.
 
Commonmind said:
I'm very familiar with my PC's performance. Even at lower resolutions (both vanilla and the current iteration of) Crysis is still far too resource heavy to be "maxed out" while remaining enjoyable (in my particular case; I don't find fluctuating between 16 and 24 FPS to be a good time). But, this isn't really surprising or upsetting; the developers stated many times that the hardware needed to run Crysis at the highest settings at tolerable resolutions while maintaining playable frame-rates was still several generations away - likely two to three years from launch. In two or three years there will be games pushing beyond the bar Crysis has set (visually) and so I'll likely never experience the game in its full glory as I'll be occupied with something else :)

In my original comment I was merely remarking on how ridiculous a notion it was to be running two iterations of Crysis at the highest settings on several displays - in case you misunderstood.
Click to expand...

I was just being sarcastic. Besides, with a good LCD monitor with good frame to frame transition, 24 fps looks pretty smooth.
 
It's very hard to divulge tone from text alone; you may want to throw in the accustomed /winky so that we don't misconstrue your meaning. The way I took it was that you had a lack of understanding of both what the hardware was capable of and how demanding Crysis was on current technology.

And I have a fantastic monitor, one of the best on the market. Every individual's experience is subjective, of course, and like I stated I don't find 24 FPS to be tolerable at the resolution I was playing at, especially considering that 24 FPS was more the exception than the rule. What's smooth for you may not be for me; different strokes for different folks, and all that. I've been building PC's for 15 years and been a hardware enthusiast for longer than that; I have a higher standard for performance than most folks and although I don't fault Crysis for being a resource hog, I have to admit that my experience with the game was definitely hampered by the presence of the pig.
 
Commonmind said:
It's very hard to divulge tone from text alone; you may want to throw in the accustomed /winky so that we don't misconstrue your meaning. The way I took it was that you had a lack of understanding of both what the hardware was capable of and how demanding Crysis was on current technology.

And I have a fantastic monitor, one of the best on the market. Every individual's experience is subjective, of course, and like I stated I don't find 24 FPS to be tolerable at the resolution I was playing at, especially considering that 24 FPS was more the exception than the rule. What's smooth for you may not be for me; different strokes for different folks, and all that. I've been building PC's for 15 years and been a hardware enthusiast for longer than that; I have a higher standard for performance than most folks and although I don't fault Crysis for being a resource hog, I have to admit that my experience with the game was definitely hampered by the presence of the pig.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm . . . Maybe I underestimated Crysis. You meet the recommended requirements with flying colors (your specs are more than double that of the recommended requirements) yet you claim to be getting 15 - 24 fps. Usually, when one meets the recommended requirements, one can run a game at a tolerable resolution with very high setting at a fine frame rate.
 
Not only are they double, but I've spent countless hours optimizing and tweaking, both on the 32 and 64bit Vista platforms, running several iterations of Crysis with many different drivers - no matter how much work I did to achieve a steady frame-rate at maximum settings, the result was relatively the same.

Over a certain resolution the hardware simply doesn't cut it (and the very "suspect" SLI support isn't helping matters at all).

Despite Crytek's claims to the opposite, they have in fact developed the most impressive tech-demo ever conceived.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Foxbat ARM to Nvidia Technology 5

Similar threads


Back
Top