New Nvidia GeForce 8800GT Surprises

[jimmysmitty]

I'm still sad they didn't include the 1GB version HD2900. I can tell you that for Crysis it will deffinately run the game faster since it has a much faster memory clock and more memory for the big textures.

I have a HD2900Pro 1GB version and I ran Crysis at 1280x1024 with "Very High" settings in vista and got a better average framerate than they did. In fact I think I got close if not beat the 8800GTX in performance. And mine is underclocked as compared to the XT or GTX.

Other than that this card is the same as the 2900Pro. Gives you similar performance as a high end but cost about half as much. It has potential but you can't count ATI out. I have faith in ATI(not AMD though) as ATI has polished the floor with NVidia before(R200 aka 9700Pro awesome card) and can do it again. Well I hope they do cuz paying $500+ for one video card is insane.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Oh and justinmcg67, I forgot to add just one thing. When they made the switch to PCIe from AGP2.0 they had not yet fully utilized the AGP bus. There wass a lot of bandwidth that was left untapped. Yes PCIe was faster but them jumping to PCIe2.0 doesn' mean an automatic increase in performance.

And I am sure that PCIe still has a lot of bandwidth and PCIe2.0 will be able to increase the maximum bandwidth and hopefully increase the bandwidth that a card can use but still that would mean buying a new mobo/CPU/memory, reinstalling XP/Vista and so on. Plus we can't guarantee that the 8800GT will make good use of PCIe2.0 or if it will not take advantage of the speed increase. It may not change a thing. Same with the Radeon 3800. Have to wait and see.

I will be upgrading to the Yorkfield 2.66GHz but not the mobo or GPU till probably late 08/ early 09. Too much money for me to spend on a PC.

 

[syfon]

it's a shame no one has these in stock. I want one

 

[kpo6969]

it's a shame no one has these in stock. I want one

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3441351&CatId=1826

 

[Heyyou27]

Crysis doesn't run poorly, its the people that set every setting in Crysis to max Q. I remmeber when Oblivion came out, it to was stressful on current cards. You can't always expect to run newer games at max setting even with high-end hardware, its unrealistic to expect that.

Crysis isn't worth playing if it isn't at the maximum quality in my opinion. It barely looks better than Oblivion or even FartCry at these lower playable settings; I'll wait for the 9800GTX to buy Crysis.

 

[justinmcg67]

Crysis isn't worth playing if it isn't at the maximum quality in my opinion. It barely looks better than Oblivion or even FartCry at these lower playable settings; I'll wait for the 9800GTX to buy Crysis.

Perhaps it's your monitor? I know my new monitor displays Crysis BEAUTIFULLY!! It's b far the best looking game I've ever seen or played on my PC. Might be due in part to my new 2ms ViewSonic, however, the game looks stunning. Comparing to my old CRT that I had last week and this new monitor it really makes a whole world of a difference. But if you already have a nice monitor and graphics card than there isn't anything I can really say except that the game is designed to scale ahead a few years according to a few sites. For once I think the gaming community is resorted to lower resolutions. Makes me sad...

 

[systemlord]

Crysis isn't worth playing if it isn't at the maximum quality in my opinion. It barely looks better than Oblivion or even FartCry at these lower playable settings; I'll wait for the 9800GTX to buy Crysis.

If you want to turn-up all the setting to max then you'll need a 19" or smaller LCD. I just played Crysis on Windows XP @1280x1024 with the render tweaks had everything set to "very high" and got 25-35 fps. OMG was it pretty, I was drooling over my keyboard.

 

[dtq]

I dont think crysis looked that special at 1280x1024 🙁 Im used to gaming at higher resolutions.

At 2048x1536 on a 19" screen it looked amazing with everything turned up, completely unplayable FPS but a really stunning slide show non the less. That was with the very high detail hack and the edited map with extra vehicles. I dont know how much better it would have looked with very high selected under directx 10?

 

[systemlord]

I dont think crysis looked that special at 1280x1024 🙁 Im used to gaming at higher resolutions.

At 2048x1536 on a 19" screen it looked amazing with everything turned up, completely unplayable FPS but a really stunning slide show non the less. That was with the very high detail hack and the edited map with extra vehicles. I dont know how much better it would have looked with very high selected under directx 10?

I know that when gaming at very high resolutions like 1920x1200 and up it can hurt a little going back to 1280x1024. I plan on buying a new 20" because I don't like the dot pitch of 22"' inchers and 24" usually require SLI which I don't do.

 

[PGHammer]

I know that when gaming at very high resolutions like 1920x1200 and up it can hurt a little going back to 1280x1024. I plan on buying a new 20" because I don't like the dot pitch of 22"' inchers and 24" usually require SLI which I don't do.

However, if you're going to go with a 22" WS (the new midrange LCD display) a single 8800GT (or dual 8800GTs if you're going to do the SLI dance) are perfect (and even dual GTXs in SLI would be a waste of money simply because few 22" WS monitors can go beyond 1680x1050 without busting your wallet). If you're thinking of SLI'd GTXs, then realistically you're really looking at 30" (if not larger) widescreen displays (even for Crysis). The issue with LCD displays (any LCD display) is that they have an optimum resolution/refresh-rate mix: for the 22" WS display, that sweet spot is usually 1680x1050. The dilemma faced by their *owners* is that there hasn't really been an *affordable* SLI solution to drive those smaller WS displays at that sweet spot (that is, until the 8800GT came along). Now, with the 8800GT, it's only $600 to do the SLI dance at 1680x1050 (that is, amazingly enough, practically worst-case, not best-case). I don't know about you, but 1680x1050 is *plenty* tall enough if I can get a sustained 30 fps (in a FPS such as Crysis or Bioshock), and, from the numbers we've seen, SLI'd 8800GTs are certainly capable of that, even clocked stock, and that's at High (not Very High) detail on DX 10, no less.

The LCD Conundrum is that gaming at the monitor's sweet spot is Der Rigeur; and at 22 inches, that almost invariably means 1680x1050. Not everybody has the $1K it still takes for the larger (30" or larger) LCD displays for really tall resolutions (and if you're spending that much on a display, you should seriously consider the 8800GTXs in SLI *anyway*, not a midrange card like the 8800GT or even the later G92-based 8800GTS R2). Because I am looking at 22 inch LCD displays, I would rather not overbuy; SLI'd 8800GTs are certainly capable enough, with performance bettering SLI'd 8800GTS R1s for less than a *single* GTX costs.

 

[systemlord]

However, if you're going to go with a 22" WS (the new midrange LCD display) a single 8800GT (or dual 8800GTs if you're going to do the SLI dance) are perfect (and even dual GTXs in SLI would be a waste of money simply because few 22" WS monitors can go beyond 1680x1050 without busting your wallet). If you're thinking of SLI'd GTXs, then realistically you're really looking at 30" (if not larger) widescreen displays (even for Crysis). The issue with LCD displays (any LCD display) is that they have an optimum resolution/refresh-rate mix: for the 22" WS display, that sweet spot is usually 1680x1050. The dilemma faced by their *owners* is that there hasn't really been an *affordable* SLI solution to drive those smaller WS displays at that sweet spot (that is, until the 8800GT came along). Now, with the 8800GT, it's only $600 to do the SLI dance at 1680x1050 (that is, amazingly enough, practically worst-case, not best-case). I don't know about you, but 1680x1050 is *plenty* tall enough if I can get a sustained 30 fps (in a FPS such as Crysis or Bioshock), and, from the numbers we've seen, SLI'd 8800GTs are certainly capable of that, even clocked stock, and that's at High (not Very High) detail on DX 10, no less.

The LCD Conundrum is that gaming at the monitor's sweet spot is Der Rigeur; and at 22 inches, that almost invariably means 1680x1050. Not everybody has the $1K it still takes for the larger (30" or larger) LCD displays for really tall resolutions (and if you're spending that much on a display, you should seriously consider the 8800GTXs in SLI *anyway*, not a midrange card like the 8800GT or even the later G92-based 8800GTS R2). Because I am looking at 22 inch LCD displays, I would rather not overbuy; SLI'd 8800GTs are certainly capable enough, with performance bettering SLI'd 8800GTS R1s for less than a *single* GTX costs.

I would rather have a single monster graphics card, because in some cases SLI doesn't scale well with all games like GRAW 1 & 2. If I wanted to play at 1920x1200 or higher then I'd rather have a larger frame buffer on the first card cause it don't work effective in SLI. Having two 8800 GTS 320's in SLI is no good cause your first card is already limited in its small frame buffer, and it only takes one 8800 GTX to beat two GTS 320's in SLI.

 

[Hatman]

Think I'm going to go with a HR-03 GT.. its quite big but if I mount it facing up, I can simply put it in my 2nd PCI-E slot on 680i lt.. has a use afterall! A nice silent expensive 20DBA fan on it and I have an astonishingly quiet graphics card 😀

 

[JCCIII]

Words about NVIDIA and its 8800GT


Dear NVIDIA,

With great pains I write this e-mail, and yet, thank you for your past excellence. These days research has become frustrating for me as I try to put together a system based on SLI and am unable to find a suitable motherboard. If NVIDIA wants to make SLI unprofitable for leading edge manufacturers like ASUS and Intel, shouldn't then the corporation be ahead of new technology. It becomes a lesson in audacious arrogance projected toward NVIDIA while trying to find a motherboard suited for its very own 8800 GT. Unfortunately, AMD/ATI does not have enough wanted advancements, yet, for me to buy from them, so I must wait for NVIDIA to figure out how to make a motherboard for its own card. For me, this attitude that NVIDIA is responsible for, has created resentment toward NVIDIA, itself, and I should not be the only consumer that feels this way.

Dear NVIDIA, please become more customer friendly or else lose profits. The only thing that the market had to provide me with to move away from NVIDIA was an AMD-Spider or similar platform with DDR3 and four lanes running PCIe 2.0, with a few PCI. And though I would not have been totally satisfied with my purchase, I would have comforted my discontentment with NVIDIA for tying up SLI, which now I currently am even more frustrated over because of having to wait, unnecessarily. Do not believe that within the human psyche these stimuli go unnoticed when making future purchases. AMD need only prove itself to be close to NVIDIA's performance in order to gather the loyalty of a cheated community of thoughtful enthusiasts.

Maybe there is a CEO that does not care about these matters because he or she has amassed a personal fortune. However and regretfully so, another company has allowed for the wrong move to be made, and people do not forget. I hope that in the future there will be no more hyper-capitalism from NVIDIA.


Sincerely,
Joseph