halfassed
Distinguished
- Aug 28, 2006
- 23
- 0
- 18,510
I have two 8800GTS 512MB that run nice and solid @740/1100. At 1920x1200 with an E6750 @ 3.6GHz with Dominator sync'd at 900MHz I get 100% smoothness even with Crysis (1.2) with 2X AA and AF. The human eye is not THAT discerning, especially when you add things like motion blur. That said, I definitely want a 30 incher to play on someday, but I'm getting to the point where the screens I buy need to be multifunctional. I need them to be PC monitors as well as TVs and new 30" stuff is too expensive when you can get awesome 1080p screens that do it all and are huge (50"). What's the point beyond that?
I wanna see a 50" screen pushing 3840x2400(or 2160 for you 16:9 fans) and some graphics cards that will push them. THAT would be a revolution. Not any configuration we can obtain now can perform in that range so discussion is really moot.
Why is this card a big deal? Yeah, it fits in one slot, but who cares if its 800 dollars when you can get two faster (650+MHz) G92s for 500? It's not even revolutionary... it's a slapped together interim solution designed to be the "top single card"; it's not even ONE GPU.
NVIDIA took a step forward switching to 65nm to boost clocks...great idea. The step backward to a 256bit bus seems RETARDED when they already had 320 and 384 in the G80. Seems like they could have just given the G80 an honest die-shrink (cheaper) and been better off. I'm no engineer but their apparent logic defies me.
The G92 should be a shrunk G80 with 128 SPs and 384bit wide buses, it's not a revolutionary product, they had it at 90nm. Who wouldn't be satisfied if they did things like Intel, alternating die-shrinks and new architectures every other year, say, about September (in time for the holidays)?
This card is a stopgap. It performs well, but not worth its cost. No one so concerned with value should consider this product, and since you can't use two (or three), no one so concerned with performance should buy it either. 8800GT/GTS (G92) are THE best bang for the buck, and you get a whole lot of bang out of them. The GTS 512s even overclock like a MOTHEREFFER due to that big HSF.
I won't be surprised if the 9800GTX has only 160 SPs, a 320 or 384 bit wide bus, and 768MB of memory. NVIDIA has no reason to be more aggressive with its design schedule. You can only use 4GB of memory anyway, 1.5GB for video and 2GB for SDRAM these days. BUT GEEZUS wouldn't it be nice to see a GPU at 65nm with 224 or 256 SPs, 512bit wide buses with 1GB of RAM ?
If I were NVIDIA, I'd pucker my sphincter and license or buy some of that 45nm business Intel has going on, give them SLI permission, and build my bada** GPUs. It makes business sense to have the best technology and the most efficient production lines. Whatever form of pride NVIDIA uses as an excuse to avoid partnering with Intel now is retarded. Oh well, I'm spent....
I wanna see a 50" screen pushing 3840x2400(or 2160 for you 16:9 fans) and some graphics cards that will push them. THAT would be a revolution. Not any configuration we can obtain now can perform in that range so discussion is really moot.
Why is this card a big deal? Yeah, it fits in one slot, but who cares if its 800 dollars when you can get two faster (650+MHz) G92s for 500? It's not even revolutionary... it's a slapped together interim solution designed to be the "top single card"; it's not even ONE GPU.
NVIDIA took a step forward switching to 65nm to boost clocks...great idea. The step backward to a 256bit bus seems RETARDED when they already had 320 and 384 in the G80. Seems like they could have just given the G80 an honest die-shrink (cheaper) and been better off. I'm no engineer but their apparent logic defies me.
The G92 should be a shrunk G80 with 128 SPs and 384bit wide buses, it's not a revolutionary product, they had it at 90nm. Who wouldn't be satisfied if they did things like Intel, alternating die-shrinks and new architectures every other year, say, about September (in time for the holidays)?
This card is a stopgap. It performs well, but not worth its cost. No one so concerned with value should consider this product, and since you can't use two (or three), no one so concerned with performance should buy it either. 8800GT/GTS (G92) are THE best bang for the buck, and you get a whole lot of bang out of them. The GTS 512s even overclock like a MOTHEREFFER due to that big HSF.
I won't be surprised if the 9800GTX has only 160 SPs, a 320 or 384 bit wide bus, and 768MB of memory. NVIDIA has no reason to be more aggressive with its design schedule. You can only use 4GB of memory anyway, 1.5GB for video and 2GB for SDRAM these days. BUT GEEZUS wouldn't it be nice to see a GPU at 65nm with 224 or 256 SPs, 512bit wide buses with 1GB of RAM ?
If I were NVIDIA, I'd pucker my sphincter and license or buy some of that 45nm business Intel has going on, give them SLI permission, and build my bada** GPUs. It makes business sense to have the best technology and the most efficient production lines. Whatever form of pride NVIDIA uses as an excuse to avoid partnering with Intel now is retarded. Oh well, I'm spent....
hughyhunter
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2007
- 865
- 0
- 18,980
@ halfassed... well done!
I dont understand Nvidia's logic either... why take that step back in bit bus? ATI did the same thing. They had the 2900 at 512bit and now they shrunk it to 256 for the HD3000 series. Although performance is better.
Nvidia has the same pride thing going that AMD did a year ago. AMD had a huge opportunity to merge with Nvidia and had a very solid relationship with them and that all fell apart due to the companies CEO pride and wanting to "do it myself" and run "things that I want to them to run".
I dont understand Nvidia's logic either... why take that step back in bit bus? ATI did the same thing. They had the 2900 at 512bit and now they shrunk it to 256 for the HD3000 series. Although performance is better.
Nvidia has the same pride thing going that AMD did a year ago. AMD had a huge opportunity to merge with Nvidia and had a very solid relationship with them and that all fell apart due to the companies CEO pride and wanting to "do it myself" and run "things that I want to them to run".
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
It was nVidias CEO that wouldnt budge. He was the cause of the non merger, or a big part of it. The same one that said he doesnt like X2 gpus . Also, quoting from Anantech :The GeForce 9600 GT, in addition to finally encroaching on ATI's naming scheme, is fabbed on a 65nm process by TSMC and sports a 256-bit memory bus. The differences between G9x and G8x are small, but even so details were light. Their compression technology has evolved to provide higher effective bandwidth between the GPU and framebuffer. We would love to provide more details on this and the other changes, but NVIDIA is still being a bit tight lipped.
Now this appears that it isnt the 256 bus width, but more likely, as seen in the benches out, the amount of ram on the card
Now this appears that it isnt the 256 bus width, but more likely, as seen in the benches out, the amount of ram on the card
pauldh
Illustrious
- Jan 1, 2004
- 11,814
- 0
- 40,810
If you enable/crank fsaa it would pull ahead from an Ultra even at 16x10 or 16x12 just like SLI G92 does. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_9800_gx2_performance_preview/page6.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_9600_gt_sli_performance/page3.asp
(edit: check out all the games, not just the first one I linked to)
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/geforce_9600_gt_sli_performance/page3.asp
(edit: check out all the games, not just the first one I linked to)
Undying89
Distinguished
- Mar 16, 2008
- 1,932
- 0
- 20,460
Indeed in Europe 2xGTS's have the same price like GX2!
And did guys read all rewiew on www.firingsquad.com? 2GTS's are not even fater than GX2...i would rather buy GX2 than two older cards...
Not everyone has an SLI motherboard though and GeForce 9800 GX2 can be clocked to run faster than the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB in SLI!
Still i'am waiting for 9800GTX(349$) GX2 is just a overkill
And did guys read all rewiew on www.firingsquad.com? 2GTS's are not even fater than GX2...i would rather buy GX2 than two older cards...
Not everyone has an SLI motherboard though and GeForce 9800 GX2 can be clocked to run faster than the GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB in SLI!
Still i'am waiting for 9800GTX(349$) GX2 is just a overkill
Maziar
Champion
- Jul 20, 2007
- 21,707
- 1
- 52,960
Thats right but in many games the difference isnt very much, lets put all the 1600x1200 scores:
FEAR:
9800GX2:114
8800ULTRA:84
COH:
9800GX2:55
8800ULTRA:47
OBLIVION:
9800GX2:64
8800ULTRA:42
HL2:EP2 :
9800GX2:98
8800ULTRA:82
LOSTPLANET:
9800GX2:60
8800ULTRA:40
COD4:
9800GX2:124
8800ULTRA:72
CRYSIS:
9800GX2:33
8800ULTRA:26
BIOSHOCK:
9800GX2:140
8800ULTRA:93
But thats when u enable both AA and AF in games and in some games it doesnt make much difference using them and thats when THG REVIEW says:
Having said this, we do not recommend buying a GeForce 9800 GX2 for those who rarely change graphic cards and want to invest in a very high end card and keep it for a long time. There are times when a card like this should excel, like when games are played at high resolutions and with demanding settings, but the 9800 GX2 is barely better than a simple GeForce 8800 Ultra. The problem, as is the case with the 3870 X2, is the relatively meager 512 MB of memory, which is incompatible with very high resolutions and when antialiasing is activated. The numbers speak for themselves: the 9800 GX2 out performs the 8800 Ultra (with 768 MB) by 29% on average and up to 41% at a resolution of 2560x1600, while activating antialiasing at this resolution shortens the gap to 13%. Yet, for many games, it's the only mode that still isn't smooth and the 9800 GX2 doesn't deliver much.
acidpython
Distinguished
- Jan 13, 2008
- 176
- 0
- 18,680
Stupid marketing ploy, 512MB effective memory 2x512mb memory. Each GPU uses 512mb memory this doesn't mean that it has 1GB just 2x512. It's the same mistake PC world told me when they bragged about a 9.6ghz processor (Q6600).
pauldh
Illustrious
- Jan 1, 2004
- 11,814
- 0
- 40,810
At 16x12 those scale 17-72 % over the 8800U. That's not bad and surely doesn't equate to it needs high resolution to beat an ultra. No Ultra owners should not upgrade to a GX2, but still not a bad victory based on FS's review IMO. What's bad is the price of both the GX2 and the Ultra; neither are worth the money over one GTSG92, or over dual 9600GT, 8800GT, 8800GTS G92.
edit: Actually, based on the numbers you posted from their review, the GX2 beats the ultra by an average of 40% at 16x12. Not bad at all IMO. Still too much $$$ though.
FEAR: 35.7%
COH: 17.0%
OBLIVION: 52.4%
HL2:EP2 : 19.5%
LOSTPLANET: 50%
COD4: 72.2%
CRYSIS: 26.9%
BIOSHOCK: 50.5%
INNOVATEK GEFORCE 9800GX2 WATER BLOCK
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-4371-view-Innovatek-Geforce-9800GX2-water-block.html
scooterlibby
Distinguished
- Mar 18, 2008
- 195
- 0
- 18,680
Long time lurker, first time poster. The release of the 9800GX2 and subsequent reviews/price clinched it for me. I ended up ordering a second GTS for $250. I'll hold on to the SLi GTS configuration for awhile, and maybe Step Up if the 9800 GTX is any good. I play at high res, so they'd have to add some RAM and expand the memory interface (not holding my breath) to make it attractive.
Florian Charpentier
Distinguished
- Oct 30, 2007
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
Granite3 > Yes you can, in fact we saw some waterblocks compliant with the 9800 GX2 earlier this month at the CeBIT. It was at the Alpha Cool booth.
V8VENOM
Distinguished
- Dec 31, 2007
- 914
- 14
- 18,995
I'm predicting the death of nVidia by 2010-2011.
1. Intel have announced they will go in direct competition with nVidia & ATI/AMD GPUs (I predicted this a year ago and it's now official)
2. 9800GX2 is not new technology
3. nVidia chipsets with 3-way sli is focused on a tiny market
4. 8800GTX was release late 2006, it's now 18 months later and nVidia are still releasing effectively the same product
5. Still a large number of game titles where SLI is of no benefit
6. 9800GX2 AA performance is a serious problem
7. WHQL driver updates are far and few between
8. Price, why would anyone spend this kinda money on a 9800GX2 when 8800GTX performs better with AA enabled?
Not sure why nVidia have decided to leave the door open, perhaps they were hoping to be bought. But there isn't anyone interested in buying them right now nor in the future.
And no, this isn't a "wait for the drivers to mature" problem with AA. The core of the 9800GX2 is not fundamentally different than 8800 and writing drivers to optimize AA isn't exactly "new".
nVidia should seriously think about getting rumors out of truely "new" technology, unless of course they have a contract with Sony or Microsoft for the next console -- this is about the only thing that will save them now.
9800GX2 is the best they can do after 18 months? This is laughable, but unfortunately predictable.
1. Intel have announced they will go in direct competition with nVidia & ATI/AMD GPUs (I predicted this a year ago and it's now official)
2. 9800GX2 is not new technology
3. nVidia chipsets with 3-way sli is focused on a tiny market
4. 8800GTX was release late 2006, it's now 18 months later and nVidia are still releasing effectively the same product
5. Still a large number of game titles where SLI is of no benefit
6. 9800GX2 AA performance is a serious problem
7. WHQL driver updates are far and few between
8. Price, why would anyone spend this kinda money on a 9800GX2 when 8800GTX performs better with AA enabled?
Not sure why nVidia have decided to leave the door open, perhaps they were hoping to be bought. But there isn't anyone interested in buying them right now nor in the future.
And no, this isn't a "wait for the drivers to mature" problem with AA. The core of the 9800GX2 is not fundamentally different than 8800 and writing drivers to optimize AA isn't exactly "new".
nVidia should seriously think about getting rumors out of truely "new" technology, unless of course they have a contract with Sony or Microsoft for the next console -- this is about the only thing that will save them now.
9800GX2 is the best they can do after 18 months? This is laughable, but unfortunately predictable.
You maybe right but 2007-2008 is one hell of a swan song for them 34.4% revenue growth. I dont think they are checking down the backs of sofas for loose change right now. I want to see SLI on intel mother boards, I want to see genuine innovation, but it has to be said nvidia have really milked this GPU, and its clearly been VERY profitable for them. Maybe they are building a war chest?
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
Im thinking the new arch will be another grabber/must have. Intel has to do discrete before they do multichip to reach these levels. Thats going to cost them. This is what nVidia and ATI do for a living, and are setup for it. One question oes anyone have any info on whether Intel plans on making their own gpus, or making or retreading a plant to do so? or are they going to use tsmc like the others
oes anyone have any info on whether Intel plans on making their own gpus, or making or retreading a plant to do so? or are they going to use tsmc like the others
halfassed
Distinguished
- Aug 28, 2006
- 23
- 0
- 18,510
Right on, HughyHunter. I know that good business decisisons aren't the only thing that drives men (as CEOs, engineers, etc.). They want to be alpha-dog, which sometimes doesn't gel with a marketplace.
Yeah, they have the fastest single chips, the fastest single card, but do they have the fastest single PCB? OOOOH NO! They'd better get to work on that lest they be denied the triple-crown of GPU championships. What a tragedy that would be.
They need to be in the business of making money. The best way to do that is to create value for customers, not necessarily the highest performance all the time or the lowest prices, but MEANINGFUL differences in the products from line to line that are appropriately priced. You can look on eBay any day to see what people are willing to pay for certain functionality. Those prices are the best indicator of buyer tolerance.
When the 8800GTX was 600 bucks 18 months ago it represented a LOT of performance and only that (not value). Now you can get them for 370-400 after the 9800GX2 launch at 600. Is that value? NO WAY the 9800GX2 is 200 bucks better than an 8800GTX. And I said before, you can get 650Mhz 8800GTS G92s for 250 and run them @750 no sweat, 2 of which easily trounce this 9800. Where's the value? The first-adopter niche who WILL and MUST (psychologically) buy this card is small. Maybe that's who the card is for and quantities will reflect that, but someone else said that 8800 owners need not upgrade. I concur, this is not a meaningfully different upgrade and is surely not when price is considered.
Jaydeejohn and Maziar have the right idea; 8800+ owners (and no, the 9600GT is NOT better than any 8800) need to wait for a new architecture. V8VENOM has a valid point at the end of his diatribe, after 18 months a halfassed die shrink (and bus reduction) sandwich card is the best they have? I'm glad this GPU was profitable, that's the idea, but they ARE lacking in genuine innovation like dtq has said. They are a company caught without a defined long-term strategy, they are caught between themselves with what they want to do and how they want to grow.
Yeah, they have the fastest single chips, the fastest single card, but do they have the fastest single PCB? OOOOH NO! They'd better get to work on that lest they be denied the triple-crown of GPU championships. What a tragedy that would be.
They need to be in the business of making money. The best way to do that is to create value for customers, not necessarily the highest performance all the time or the lowest prices, but MEANINGFUL differences in the products from line to line that are appropriately priced. You can look on eBay any day to see what people are willing to pay for certain functionality. Those prices are the best indicator of buyer tolerance.
When the 8800GTX was 600 bucks 18 months ago it represented a LOT of performance and only that (not value). Now you can get them for 370-400 after the 9800GX2 launch at 600. Is that value? NO WAY the 9800GX2 is 200 bucks better than an 8800GTX. And I said before, you can get 650Mhz 8800GTS G92s for 250 and run them @750 no sweat, 2 of which easily trounce this 9800. Where's the value? The first-adopter niche who WILL and MUST (psychologically) buy this card is small. Maybe that's who the card is for and quantities will reflect that, but someone else said that 8800 owners need not upgrade. I concur, this is not a meaningfully different upgrade and is surely not when price is considered.
Jaydeejohn and Maziar have the right idea; 8800+ owners (and no, the 9600GT is NOT better than any 8800) need to wait for a new architecture. V8VENOM has a valid point at the end of his diatribe, after 18 months a halfassed die shrink (and bus reduction) sandwich card is the best they have? I'm glad this GPU was profitable, that's the idea, but they ARE lacking in genuine innovation like dtq has said. They are a company caught without a defined long-term strategy, they are caught between themselves with what they want to do and how they want to grow.
hughyhunter
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2007
- 865
- 0
- 18,980
^^ absolutely... and not only has Nvidia flooded the market but Intel is falling into the same thing. I have not quite understood why they would release 45nm with no competition. As long as it's profitable though right? I would have waited until at least a product was out that was capable of competing with 65nm. Nvidia does have good competition though. I just dont understand though why they even bothered with the 8800GT... why didnt they just wait until the 8800GTS was up and capable and release them at a great price and extremely available. I also think they should have called it the 8900GT not the 8800 series of cards. And this card would make more sense being called 8950GX2 likes it's little brother 7950GX2.
So Nvidia is doing the same thing... Now what? They need to let us sit on our products and enjoy them... and think about the customers who have bought there products and try to improve driver performance. But that's just not profitable.
Alright my rant is over!
So Nvidia is doing the same thing... Now what? They need to let us sit on our products and enjoy them... and think about the customers who have bought there products and try to improve driver performance. But that's just not profitable.
Alright my rant is over!
JAYDEEJOHN
Champion
- Aug 23, 2006
- 19,840
- 0
- 50,860
Think of it this way. It primes the pump. In Intels situation, sure they have 45nm, but theyre awfully hard to find, harder than the C2Ds when they first appeared, and most people with C2Ds wont be going to 45nm right away. Good market strategy. In nVidias situation, they came out with the 8xxx series, which is similar to the C2Ds performance/stance, almost insurmountable. BUT, they lost the crown as the fastest single slot solution. So right after their CEO comes out and almost condemns a X2 solution, here we have the GX2. Always looks good to be No. 1. They mix up their naming, do a die shrink, etc, but the only difference between the C2D scenario and the 8-9xxx series scenario is that ATI actually caught up, even if it was fleeting, they did. So whats that mean to the market? Competition. AMD has kept their prices low (competition) thus making nVidia do the same. I really wonder why people get sooo excited about an old arch? This isnt the G100/200. This is the Ultra rehashed in a different form. Wait until the new arch's are out, then well see improvements equal to the pricing
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Tried moving SSD from old PC to new one, now it won't boot from either
- Started by scyer327
- Replies: 9
-
Question why my pc dont have sound after install new Nvidia GPU Card?
- Started by sudsaviour
- Replies: 3
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 17
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram