DX10 for the Masses: NVIDIA 8600 and 8500 Series Launch
by Derek Wilson on April 17, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
DirectX 10 is here, and NVIDIA has the hardware for it. Much like ATI led the way into DX9, NVIDIA has taken hold of the industry and we can expect to see developers take their DX10 cues from G80 behavior. After all, 8800 cards have been available for nearly half a year without any other DX10 alternative, so developers and consumers have both moved towards NVIDIA for now. Hopefully the robust design of DX10 will help avoid the pitfalls we saw in getting DX9 performance even across multiple GPU architectures.
Now that affordable GeForce 8 Series hardware is here, we have to weigh in on NVIDIA's implementation. While the 8600 GT improves on the performance of its spiritual predecessor the 7600 GT, we don't see significant performance improvements above hardware currently available at the target prices for the new hardware. In NVIDIA's favor, our newest and most shader intensive tests (Oblivion and Rainbow Six: Vegas) paint the 8600 hardware in a more favorable light than older tests that rely less on shader programs and more on texture, z, and color fill rates.
We are planning on looking further into this issue and will be publishing a second article on 8600 GTS/GT performance in the near future using games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Supreme Commander, and Company of Heroes. Hopefully these tests will help confirm our conclusion that near future titles that place a heavier emphasis on shader performance will benefit more from G84 based hardware than previous models.
Whatever we feel about where performance should be, we are very happy with the work NVIDIA has placed into video processing. We hope our upcoming video decoding performance update will reflect the expectations NVIDIA has set by claiming 100% H.264; VC-1 and MPEG-2 are not decoded 100% by the GPU, but at least in the case of MPEG-2 it's not nearly as CPU intensive anyway. Including two dual-link DVI ports even on $150 hardware with the capability to play HDCP protected content over a dual-link connection really makes the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT the hardware of choice for those who want HD video on their PC.
For users who own 7600 GT, 7900 GS, or X1950 Pro hardware, we can't recommend an upgrade to one of these new parts. Even though new features and higher performance in a few applications is better, there's not enough of a difference to justify the upgrade. On the other hand, those who are searching for new hardware to buy in the $150 - $200 range will certainly not be disappointed with 8600 based graphics. These cards aren't quite the silver bullet NVIDIA had with the 6600 series, but DX10 and great video processing are nothing to sneeze at. The features the 8600 series supports do add quite a bit of value where pure framerate may be lacking.
These cards are a good fit for users who have a 1280x1024 panel, though some of the newer games may need to have a couple settings turned down from the max to run smoothly. That's the classic definition of midrange, so in some ways it makes sense. At the same time, NVIDIA hasn't won the battle yet, as AMD has yet to unveil their DX10 class hardware. With midrange performance that's just on par with the old hardware occupying the various price points, NVIDIA has left themselves open this time around. We'll have to wait and see if AMD can capitalize.
DirectX 10 is here, and NVIDIA has the hardware for it. Much like ATI led the way into DX9, NVIDIA has taken hold of the industry and we can expect to see developers take their DX10 cues from G80 behavior. After all, 8800 cards have been available for nearly half a year without any other DX10 alternative, so developers and consumers have both moved towards NVIDIA for now. Hopefully the robust design of DX10 will help avoid the pitfalls we saw in getting DX9 performance even across multiple GPU architectures.
Now that affordable GeForce 8 Series hardware is here, we have to weigh in on NVIDIA's implementation. While the 8600 GT improves on the performance of its spiritual predecessor the 7600 GT, we don't see significant performance improvements above hardware currently available at the target prices for the new hardware. In NVIDIA's favor, our newest and most shader intensive tests (Oblivion and Rainbow Six: Vegas) paint the 8600 hardware in a more favorable light than older tests that rely less on shader programs and more on texture, z, and color fill rates.
We are planning on looking further into this issue and will be publishing a second article on 8600 GTS/GT performance in the near future using games like S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Supreme Commander, and Company of Heroes. Hopefully these tests will help confirm our conclusion that near future titles that place a heavier emphasis on shader performance will benefit more from G84 based hardware than previous models.
Whatever we feel about where performance should be, we are very happy with the work NVIDIA has placed into video processing. We hope our upcoming video decoding performance update will reflect the expectations NVIDIA has set by claiming 100% H.264; VC-1 and MPEG-2 are not decoded 100% by the GPU, but at least in the case of MPEG-2 it's not nearly as CPU intensive anyway. Including two dual-link DVI ports even on $150 hardware with the capability to play HDCP protected content over a dual-link connection really makes the 8600 GTS and 8600 GT the hardware of choice for those who want HD video on their PC.
For users who own 7600 GT, 7900 GS, or X1950 Pro hardware, we can't recommend an upgrade to one of these new parts. Even though new features and higher performance in a few applications is better, there's not enough of a difference to justify the upgrade. On the other hand, those who are searching for new hardware to buy in the $150 - $200 range will certainly not be disappointed with 8600 based graphics. These cards aren't quite the silver bullet NVIDIA had with the 6600 series, but DX10 and great video processing are nothing to sneeze at. The features the 8600 series supports do add quite a bit of value where pure framerate may be lacking.
These cards are a good fit for users who have a 1280x1024 panel, though some of the newer games may need to have a couple settings turned down from the max to run smoothly. That's the classic definition of midrange, so in some ways it makes sense. At the same time, NVIDIA hasn't won the battle yet, as AMD has yet to unveil their DX10 class hardware. With midrange performance that's just on par with the old hardware occupying the various price points, NVIDIA has left themselves open this time around. We'll have to wait and see if AMD can capitalize.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
60 Comments
View All Comments
erwos - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
</font>I'm wondering if I can fix the disappearing text problem.
PrinceGaz - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
Please remove or edit my above post to remove the (H) bit which caused a problem, I'd do it myself but we have no edit facility.JarredWalton - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
That should hopefully fix it - you just need to turn off highlighting using {/h} (with brackets instead of braces).
defter - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
You need to take into account that 7900GS will be soon discontinued and X1900 series will face same fate as soon as ATI releases RV630 cards.Cards based on previous high-end products like 7900 and X1900 based cards are great for consumers, but bad for ATI/NVidia since they have large die sizes and 256bit memory bus (= high board manufacturing costs).
hubajube - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
I wouldn't replace my 7800GT with these but it would be fantastic for a HTPC.PICBoy - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
I think a lot of people is waiting to see some DX10 bechmarks really bad because that's what makes G80 and G84 special.If the 8600 GTS can't run Crysis at AT LEAST 45 FPS with 1280x1024 with full details and a moderate 4xAA then it's not worth it in my own humble opinion.
Same for the 8800 GTS 320MB, if it can't run Crysis at 60 FPS with 1280x1024 with full details and full 16xCSAA then it sucks...
BTW 8800 GTS 320MB gets near double the performance at 50% higher price and when 4xAA is enabled a little over double. Think about that everyone ;-)
Staples - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
My reaction to. Do you play PC games? Very few games can be run at 60fps with full detail even with top of the line hardware. I expect the 8600GTS to get about 20fps in Crysis.PICBoy - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
The only games that I don't see get that amount of fps at 1280x1024 with current mainstream hardware (7900GS) are Black & White 2, Oblivion and of course Rainbow Six Vegas. The rest of the games get 60 or more, excepto for Splinter Cell which gets 52 but that's almost 60 to me. Only 3 games gentlemen and I'm taking this info from Anandtech. If 200$ can get me descent performance at good quality at DX10 then I don't think it's worth it and XFX 7900GS XXX would rock!DerekWilson - Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - link
The issues is still one of the direction the industry is going. Games are going to get more graphically intense in the future, and different techniques will scale better on different hardware.Rainbow Six: Vegas is very important, as it is an Unreal Engine 3 game -- and Epic usually does very well with licensing their engine ... It's possible many games could be based on this same code in the future, though we can't say for certain.
It's not only a question of DX10, but future DX9 games as well -- how will they be implemented, and whether more shader intensive DX9 code lend it self better to the G8x architecture of not.
gramboh - Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - link
Are you joking? 8800GTS 320 in Crysis with max details and 16x AA at 60+FPS?I'm not expecting more than 40fps on my system at 1920x1200 less-than-max-details no aa/af (E6600 3.4GHz, 2GB ram, 8800GTS 640MB at 600/1900)