Nvidia G92-based GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB The GeForce 8800 GT slipped into Nvidia’s line-up towards the top of the range by offering similar performance to the existing 8800 GTS with 320MB of memory. This was achieved with an updated version of the 'G80' chip called 'G92', which moved the fabrication process to 65nm, changed the memory controller, raised the core speed …
How about some useful quantitative measurement for the volume.
Say dBa measured at 1 metre in a quiet room with a base line of a silent graphics card in place to allow a sensible comparison.
Trying to actually find any useful measurements for the noise level of the GT and GTS is very difficult and unfortunately quite important to me.
...measuring sound levels roughly is fairly easy provided you have a meter. Measuring sound properly is far more tricky and involves, as you say, a quiet room and ideally an anechoic chamber.
That provides a noise level for the sound card in an unnatural environment which isn't much help although it might be of academic interest. To add to the hassle I, like most reviewers, test processors, motherboards, memory and graphics cards on a test bench and not built into a PC case and none of us use our PCs that way.
The upshot is that I can only offer a subjective opinion about noise levels in a quiet office but having said that both the G80 and G92 GTS cards are very, very quiet.
The verdict says :
"Nvidia's new GeForce 8800 GTS delivers a very small level of extra performance over and above the 8800 GT yet it COSTS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE. On the plus side the double-slot cooler is very efficient and quiet."
The Summary says:
"The new GeForce 8800 GTS uses the G92 chip TO CUT COSTS and... er... that’s about the lot really..."
(my CAPS).
Come on guys, you can't have it both ways
"The new GeForce 8800 GTS uses the G92 chip TO CUT COSTS and... er... that’s about the lot really..."
In this para 'costs'=production cost for the manufacturer
"Nvidia's new GeForce 8800 GTS delivers a very small level of extra performance over and above the 8800 GT yet it COSTS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE."
Here 'it costs significantly more' should be 'is priced significantly higher than the GT' i.e. the punter pays more.
In fairness to Nvidia the new GTS is good value compared to existing models of GTS but I reckon the GT is more appealing.
I bought an 8800GTS pre launch of Vista - worked a treat in XP but (after initially not having any Vista drivers for about a month after the operating system was launched) the constant stream of drivers for the 8800 are all as bad as the previous. The driver constantly crashes when playing just about any game from UT2003 to Crysis - I have tried the beta drivers as well as the "approved" drivers and it makes no difference. Starts to get annoying when a game crashes every five minutes and, after this amount of time, no solution on the horizon. I thought the problem was unique to me but a quick search online and most people are suffering from it in one way shape or form...........
Well, since you asked...
The GTS consumes 140W when idling, rising to 210W (standard clock speed) and 220W (overclocked) when running under a full load.
That compares to the tested 8800 GT, which consumed 125W (idle) and 195W (loaded) when it was running at the standard clock speed, and 130W (idle) and 200W (loaded) when overclocked.
What's the verdict, readers - should we be running this kind of data in all future graphics card reviews? Tell us what you think.
If you look at your Crysis results, it is almost certain that GPU-Z is correct and there are more shaders at work on the new 8800GTS than there are on the new 8800GT. Crysis is known to be more sensitive to shader speed than most benchmarks and the new GTS is significantly faster than the new GT in your bench even when taking clock speed into account.
Tony Smith:>> "What's the verdict, readers - should we be running this kind of data in all future graphics card reviews? Tell us what you think."
Absolutely, yes. Include energy consumption figures. I didn't read through the whole article but did read a review over at Bit-Tech and their findings pretty much match your own. It'll help environmentally conscious gamers assuage their guilt somewhat, knowing they've chosen to burn up slightly less fossil fuels whilst they embark on their next virtual killing/dying spree.
So, regarding overclocking, which card to go for? GT or GTS? And, because the GT is a single slot card would that make it the better option for a SLI configuration? Will Nvidia provide drivers that actually make SLI a worthwhile consideration for these cards? Who knows? Not me.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
