BFGTech GeForce 9800 GTX @ [H]

the OCing headroom is really nice.. I would love to see what clocks you can get with a volt mod and some more agressive cooling. :) 900core ?? 1ghz?? that would be very impressive.. not too practical for every day use.. but anyways..
 
TerranUp16 said:
[H] already justified their use of Jericho- it's very shader intensive. Whether you play Jericho or not doesn't really matter in terms of why they're using it. They're using it to measure real world shader performance, and it definitely seems to be doing that very well.

And why would you use SoaSE to benchmark a gpu...?
Click to expand...

Your right..... (*Removes that from previous post*) I was just saying it would be better to focus on games that people play, based on the way that they show settings that work for the card and the specific resolution. Just a thought...

I still enjoy reading HardOCP's reviews and benchmarking angle as well. I was just making a comment towards the opinion of their choice of using Jerico. In reality for me, it is a minor issue.

Edit: tweaked previous post:
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032305746&postcount=160
 
O.K.,so this card isn't the giant leap everyone was hoping for.Bottom line - if someone was planning a new system,had no interest in SLI,and wasn't about to plunk down $600 for a 9800GX2,which card would be the better buy,9800GTX,8800GTX,or the 8800GTS 512mb?
 
KillerFry said:
But for someone like me, with one of the 8800 GTS with 640MB... how does it compare? Ever since the introduction of the 8800 GT I rarely see the 640MB GTS appear in the reviews, which makes me wonder where exactly do I stack up?

And since I play on my 37 inch TV, I can only go up to 1366 x 768. Heck, I can turn several of Crysis' settings to high and I still get very playable frame rates.

Yet, I wonder... would I get an advantage with a 9600? Or a 9800? *shrugs*
Click to expand...

I also have an 8800 GTS 640 and would like to replace it someday. My 1080p TV would be perfect to game on :)

It seems like the 9800GTX would have been decent but the memory amount/bus width is really holding it back. Maybe that is what the 9900GTX is supposed to have...
 
michael.pa2 said:
O.K.,so this card isn't the giant leap everyone was hoping for.Bottom line - if someone was planning a new system,had no interest in SLI,and wasn't about to plunk down $600 for a 9800GX2,which card would be the better buy,9800GTX,8800GTX,or the 8800GTS 512mb?
Click to expand...

I just bought the 8800GTX, though I am hoping that by June/July something worth an upgrade will be out and I can step-up. Though if I had waited a week to buy (since the 9800GTX just came out) I might have gone 9800GTX, but with the 8800GTX going for ~280 on Newegg it is hard to pass up.
 
michael.pa2 said:
O.K.,so this card isn't the giant leap everyone was hoping for.Bottom line - if someone was planning a new system,had no interest in SLI,and wasn't about to plunk down $600 for a 9800GX2,which card would be the better buy,9800GTX,8800GTX,or the 8800GTS 512mb?
Click to expand...

this is the exact question i'm asking myself. I may go with 9800GTX just for good fan purposes
 
TheBluePill said:
If the 9800GTX launched at 750mhz+ Core with 1gb on board, (which would have been an easy thing to do..) this would have been a totally different story.. Even with a $399 price tag it would have been an actual successor.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would make a difference. The problem isn't so much the limited RAM so much as the memory bus. If it had a 384-bit bus like the G80, with those kinds of memory clocks we would be seeing some truly outstanding high-res/AA performance. As it is though, the high memory clock is more of a half-assed compensation for the 256-bit bus.

compuguy1088 said:
I do not understand why they are using Jericho as apart of the benchmarks, the game overall got poor reviews. They should be benchmarking something more recent....like World in Conflict, Company of Heroes, Medal of Honor Airborne, or even Frontline: Fuel of War (Haven't gotten that game yet...). They need to do their benchmarks on games that are commonly played, not games that are out of that area.
Click to expand...

For the record, I think Jericho on the PC is a freakin' awesome game. I liked it better than Bioshock, Episode 2, and Call of Duty 4. Really bloody intense action, great atmosphere, awesome boss battles and some of the best graphics on any PC game.

Frontlines isn't really a graphical workhorse, at least not without AA. Medal of Honor Airborne has crap for graphics. I second World In Conflict as that game can really push a high-end system, and I wouldn't mind seeing Gears of War either since that's probably the best implementation of Unreal Engine 3 on the PC.
 
littledoc said:
For the record, I think Jericho on the PC is a freakin' awesome game. I liked it better than Bioshock, Episode 2, and Call of Duty 4. Really bloody intense action, great atmosphere, awesome boss battles and some of the best graphics on any PC game.

Frontlines isn't really a graphical workhorse, at least not without AA. Medal of Honor Airborne has crap for graphics. I second World In Conflict as that game can really push a high-end system, and I wouldn't mind seeing Gears of War either since that's probably the best implementation of Unreal Engine 3 on the PC.
Click to expand...

I just threw out a game there. Ironically, PC Gamer (US) Gave Medal of Honor Airborne a better rating than Jerico (80- MOHAA percentile, compared to high 50's-60? Jerico). The game was not that great anyway (lack of decent multiplayer, and several singleplayer gripes). I just threw out some games off the top of my head. I was just bringing the point out initally that Jerico in my mind is not a great choice, from it being outside the channel of popular/decently rated games. I cannot say or deny of its shader intensity.
 
Great review. Appears my $225 8800GTS 512 was in fact the correct purchase to go with. Hopefully the next round of cards are actually worth buying.
 
michael.pa2 said:
O.K.,so this card isn't the giant leap everyone was hoping for.Bottom line - if someone was planning a new system,had no interest in SLI,and wasn't about to plunk down $600 for a 9800GX2,which card would be the better buy,9800GTX,8800GTX,or the 8800GTS 512mb?
Click to expand...
same thing here i think i will pick 8800gtx seems that extra memory is really needed in some games i would have been glad if nvidia have used 512 bit bus instead of 256 thats kinda limiting also 1 gb ram wouldn't hurt anyone i am so disappointed :(
 
Hey Kyle thnx for the review even though I go for less than $220 parts....8800GT/S(nowadays pricing). It's good to have the info "from all bases". [H] Rùlèz.
 
littledoc said:
I don't think that would make a difference. The problem isn't so much the limited RAM so much as the memory bus. If it had a 384-bit bus like the G80, with those kinds of memory clocks we would be seeing some truly outstanding high-res/AA performance. As it is though, the high memory clock is more of a half-assed compensation for the 256-bit bus.
Click to expand...
Right. A major issue with Tri and QuadSLI is that as the frame gets more detailed, you're having to transfer more data to the next card to process the next frame. So what developers will see is that the more complex the image becomes, it will essentially become it's own bottleneck; and the only way that the developer can get by this bottleneck is to degrade the quality (not going to happen) or hope that new technology comes out with a wider memory bus.

A true next-gen multi-GPU solution could get by this problem using a interrupt chip to let the GPU's take turns in rapid succession using the same onboard memory (similar to the chip already onboard the GX2 and nforce motherboards, but on a single card with two GPU's). But this will only complicate things with SLI, unless you were to have each card process 1 frame per GPU. Two dual-GPU cards in SLI could then do frames in round robin fashion, but with less usage of the memory bus and motherboard, causing every other frame to have a probable 75% improvement over 2 to 4 single-GPU cards in SLI, and the remaining frames being identical to SLI; granting an overall 33% improved performance. This would scale better than the current SLI architecture.

A wider low-latency memory bus would be effectively trying to accomplish the same thing that I described above, but with more inherent overhead.


TheBluePill said:
A couple..

Rebel Assault
Wing Commander 3 and 4
Doom 3 (For a short time)
Oblivion
Fear (for a short time)
Click to expand...

I want to see Age of Conan on highest dx10 settings, although I highly doubt it will be as demanding as Crysis it will still be a jaw-dropping immersive experience.
 
1. Those of us that have been reading [H] since the Radeon 9700-series remember the cries of Nvidia fanboys back then when the 9800 came around and kicked the crap out of the 4 and FX series. Quite frankly, they were terrible cards (I know, I owned 3 of them) compared to ATI's offerings.

There was absolute blood being splattered in the forums back then, and it was sworn every day that [H] favored ATI over Nvidia.

Hell, lemme go over what I've had: Geforce 2 TI, Geforce 3 TI 500, Geforce 4 4600, FX 5700 Ultra (burned up), FX 5900XT (burned up), 9800Pro overclocked above XT speeds (loved, loved, loved that card), 6800 GT (overclocked well), X850XT (decent card, but hot), 7800GTX, 7900GTX, and finally, my current 8800GTS 320MB.

What I'm trying to point out...the video card industry has gone back and forth in the past, and so have cries of favoritism on [H]'s forums. I was a die-hard AMD fan for a long, long time, and was a little suspicious of Core2 performance myself...till I actually built one.

And finally:

2. I know this post probably won't be read by any of the [H] editors, but those of you that get a 9800GTX that have a 8800GTS 320MB right now, lemme know if it's worth it. The GTS 320MB is decent since I'm not running a huge monitor (1680x1050 is max), but playing Crysis and COD4 at 4xAA....it does leave something to be desired.
 
SgtSweatySac said:
2. I know this post probably won't be read by any of the [H] editors, but those of you that get a 9800GTX that have a 8800GTS 320MB right now, lemme know if it's worth it. The GTS 320MB is decent since I'm not running a huge monitor (1680x1050 is max), but playing Crysis and COD4 at 4xAA....it does leave something to be desired.
Click to expand...


I would suggest that you would see a nice bump, but still I think I would buy that sub-$300 8800 GTX from EVGA. Once those are gone the 9800 GTX looks very nice and I think would give you a substantial quality boost in COD4 and obviously Crysis.
 
I personally know how difficult it is to write reviews that people will respect and understand. There are many times when reviewers agree with the testing style used by other sites, and occasionally we see some test methods that make us scratch our heads.

In this review Crysis was tested across the board without AA. That's a post processing effect called anti-aliasing, and Crysis allows this setting to reach 16x Q AA. The steps are 0 AA, 2x AA, 4x AA, 8x AA, 8x Q AA, 16x AA, and 16x Q AA.

It is because of the compression optimized vRAM in the G92 that allows these new cards to reacts nicely to very high AA at larger resolutions, and one of the major selling points for the new GPU. We show how much of a difference this makes here.

Essentially, the Crysis tests in this review may as well have been at 800x600 with everything on low, because increasing the resolution alone doesn't tax modern video cards the way that it would an old GeForce 2. And this real-world game play experience? Who plays their games with all of the settings turned to low?
 
My brother has an 8800gts 320 and i have the 8800gts 512.. to be honest i dont see huge differences... i.e. little to none in real world gaming... we both play COD4, CSS, UT3 and others and the framerates all all more than playable or decent at 1680x1050 as me and him. (all other specs are the same xept for the GPU_

The reason i decided to buy an 8800gts from a 7900gtx was because crysis didnt perform so well on the 320, so i was expecting the new gts would cut it... but no it doesnt... Keep the 320 and save your money, its not worth paying for what little bump 9800gtx has to offer when your 8800gts can cut all games except for maxing out aa/af (which i dont mind not being at max myself).
 
I can't believe that people still complain about the way [H] reviews video cards. For one, if you want the typical review setup (all cards at exact same settings for every resolution from 1280x1024 and up), there are plenty of sites that do just this. Second, if you look at the max playable settings shown in the [H] reviews, it doesn't take much thought to figure out how well a lesser resolution or settings will run.

Anyway...

I agree with the others who said that the 9800GTX is disappointing. At the same time, if current cards are that far ahead of software, then a big jump in performance would be great but would leave you thinking "now what?" Guess I'll hang on to my 8800GTS for a while longer...
 
Das Capitolin said:
I personally know how difficult it is to write reviews that people will respect and understand. There are many times when reviewers agree with the testing style used by other sites, and occasionally we see some test methods that make us scratch our heads.

In this review Crysis was tested across the board without AA. That's a post processing effect called anti-aliasing, and Crysis allows this setting to reach 16x Q AA. The steps are 0 AA, 2x AA, 4x AA, 8x AA, 8x Q AA, 16x AA, and 16x Q AA.

It is because of the compression optimized vRAM in the G92 that allows these new cards to reacts nicely to very high AA at larger resolutions, and one of the major selling points for the new GPU. We show how much of a difference this makes here.

Essentially, the Crysis tests in this review may as well have been at 800x600 with everything on low, because increasing the resolution alone doesn't tax modern video cards the way that it would an old GeForce 2. And this real-world game play experience? Who plays their games with all of the settings turned to low?
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting us know your thoughts on how we should test, because obviously you have more experience in this arena than we do. To quote from your review.

Crysis offers an in-game benchmark tool, which is similar to World in Conflict. This short test does place some high amounts of stress on a graphics card, since there are so many landscape features rendered. For benchmarking purposes, Crysis can mean trouble as it places a high demand on both GPU and CPU resources.
Click to expand...

As long as you know your canned demo can "mean trouble" I think you have a handle on making your statements above. You might read this when you get a chance as well. I think it might "mean trouble" for your methods as well as your analysis.
 
trudude said:
Of course you can push anything like that, but the point is that we are looking for performance in Crysis. Our 8800 cards are already supplying plenty of power for current games. The point of a new line of cards is to provide solid performance in current games and be able to provide good performance in games yet to come. nVidia and ATi have done their jobs for the most part. But then there is Crysis. nVidia's problem is that they have now rehashed the same technology for the SECOND time. I wouldn't put it past nVidia to do ANOTHER G92 refresh @ 55nm. If that happens I will be pretty upset.
Click to expand...

Then get Crytek to optimize their codepath.
 
i would have loved to see a comparison with a BFG 8800GTX OC, or OC2, compared to the 99800GTX.
Thats the card i have. Given the higher clocks, of the OC models, its probable that there would have been even less difference between the 8800GTX and 9800GTX.
 
interested said:
i would have loved to see a comparison with a BFG 8800GTX OC, or OC2, compared to the 99800GTX.
Thats the card i have. Given the higher clocks, of the OC models, its probable that there would have been even less difference between the 8800GTX and 9800GTX.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but it wouldn't have shown anything we didn't already show with the cards we did use.


BTW, the $290 EVGA 8800 GTX is no longer.

The next best 8800 GTX deal is this XFX for $339.99 after MIR, followed by this ASUS for $344.99.

But at those prices, unless you are finishing out an SLI rig, you may as well just look at the 9800 GTX.
 
Mark_Warner said:
Possibly, but it wouldn't have shown anything we didn't already show with the cards we did use.


BTW, the $290 EVGA 8800 GTX is no longer.

The next best 8800 GTX deal is this XFX for $339.99 after MIR, followed by this ASUS for $344.99.

But at those prices, unless you are finishing out an SLI rig, you may as well just look at the 9800 GTX.
Click to expand...

Agreed..

One thing i really dont understand is the undercutting of the prices on these new 9800 gtx cards?
I understand that these new cards have less memory and thus one reason why they would be cheaper to build, but its not like they had to pass on this savings to the customer.
Why would Nvidia price them so low, you think they could just keep selling them at the 8800GTX prices, and make more money.

Dont get me wrong, I am glad to see they are more affordable. however for someone who may want to sell their 8800gtx card in the future,, these new lower prices, just removed some resale value from the older 8800gtx cards.
Thus even more reason to stick with an 8800gtx if you have one
 
interested said:
Agreed..

One thing i really dont understand is the undercutting of the prices on these new 9800 gtx cards?
I understand that these new cards have less memory and thus one reason why they would be cheaper to build, but its not like they had to pass on this savings to the customer.
Why would Nvidia price them so low, you think they could just keep selling them at the 8800GTX prices, and make more money.

Dont get me wrong, I am glad to see they are more affordable. however for someone who may want to sell their 8800gtx card in the future,, these new lower prices, just removed some resale value from the older 8800gtx cards.
Thus even more reason to stick with an 8800gtx if you have one
Click to expand...


Naw, it didn't undercut your resale value at all. Just setup your Ebay listing something like this...

SUPER DEAL!" Used 500$+ 8800 GTX for sale. Works great, bidding starting at only 350$ WITH NO RESERVE! Compare at frys for 520$ new! Click here to see the card at Frys.com Don't get fooled by the marketers, this is the fastest card out there with 256MB more ram than the so called "new" 9800GTX. Even the reviews say so <link to fud or some other "time demo" review here>.
Click to expand...

:D:D:D
 
interested said:
Dont get me wrong, I am glad to see they are more affordable. however for someone who may want to sell their 8800gtx card in the future,, these new lower prices, just removed some resale value from the older 8800gtx cards.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be too quick to think that NVIDIA cares about the resale value of your video cards.
 
vengence said:
Quote:
SUPER DEAL!" Used 500$+ 8800 GTX for sale. Works great, bidding starting at only 350$ WITH NO RESERVE! Compare at frys for 520$ new! Click here to see the card at Frys.com Don't get fooled by the marketers, this is the fastest card out there with 256MB more ram than the so called "new" 9800GTX. Even the reviews say so <link to fud or some other "time demo" review here>.
Click to expand...


LOL vengence.. N1.


Mark_Warner said:
I wouldn't be too quick to think that NVIDIA cares about the resale value of your video cards.
Click to expand...

actually you would be surprised to hear that they actually do.

well not actually my resale value but...Nvidia does take into consideration the sale value of older products still in the hands of their distributors, generally they want to allow for their distributors to sell out their older model stock so they can then buy more of the new replacement models.

So i am sure to some extent when they come up with their pricing strategies they do take in to consideration the valuation of their older products.
 
Mark_Warner said:
Possibly, but it wouldn't have shown anything we didn't already show with the cards we did use.


BTW, the $290 EVGA 8800 GTX is no longer.

The next best 8800 GTX deal is this XFX for $339.99 after MIR, followed by this ASUS for $344.99.

But at those prices, unless you are finishing out an SLI rig, you may as well just look at the 9800 GTX.
Click to expand...

FYI, Zipzoomfly has the same card for $10 less than Newegg had. http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=322843&prodlist=celebros
 
Crysis.. A single $50 Video game Title that simultaniously boosted nVidia's Sales and pissed off their entire customer base. Amazing..
 
Sharky974 said:
They are not showing "similar results" they often show the 3870X2 in a better light, and they are not using "static" tests either but gameplay and fraps.

And I'm not here to crap on this site, but Tom's shows me an actual useful thing in that review, they are benching at two common LCD sizes. Such a simple thing, but so many sites get it wrong. I have a 22" monitor 1680X1050, and whaddya know they have the exact benchmark for me. No more guessing that a 1600X1200 bench is roughly hopefully comparable to me like at most reviews, which could be a big deal in a game like Crysis that often hovers right at playable. 1600X1200 obviously tells me they're benching on a CRT, and who uses a CRT anymore?

I just think if reviews are trying to be innovative, they should focus on USEFUL innovations. I think the gameplay only thing from H is great, but not the way it's presented.

Well anyway even if it's a little faster as according to Tom's review, 3870X2 is fairly borked by this card. The 9800 is superior in almost all respects by not suffering from all the dual card issues and being cheaper, and Crysis is the only major game where performance really matters and the two are pretty even there.
Click to expand...


Your title is very well deserved !!
 
Nvidia shouldn't have even bothered to make this video card. What a waste of the "9800" name. Hopefully the 9800 Ultra.... nevermind, probably not.
 
provoko said:
Nvidia shouldn't have even bothered to make this video card. What a waste of the "9800" name. Hopefully the 9800 Ultra.... nevermind, probably not.
Click to expand...

Rumor has it that the 9900 series will be the "real deal"...or at least G92 die-shrunk to 55nm for even better clock speeds. ;) Time will tell.
 
Liu Kang said:
Am I the only guy who's happy his GTXs aren't suddenly "old" and "slow"? :)
Click to expand...

Mark_Warner said:
The 8800 GTX early adopters got the deal of the century, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

revenant said:
yep.. I have been saying this for a while now.. we got a lil spoiled with them. :) I bought one on release then another about two months later.. the OCing ability of the 9800GTX looks very appealing, but I dunno.. I can already play lotro at the res I like with eye candy maxed and great fps..
Click to expand...

I was wondering if there were people like yous out there that aren't idiot consumers trying to spend money for the sake of spending money. If you are an 8800GTX owner how can you be mad at all? Most likely it's the broke-asses that DON'T own 8800GTX's saying how horrible Nvidia is for not blowing away the performance of it. Those people, they need Jesus along with Sharky and Elmer Fudd.


Pyroja said:
It's exactly the low RAM and smaller bus that'll make this card practically useless for SLI. Who cares about all that horsepower if you only have 512mb@256bit to work with?
Click to expand...

Did you ever think that the reason the 9800GTX has a lower heat envelope and power usage is BECAUSE they nerfed the memory bus and used less memory? Didja ever think about that?
 
trudude said:
Yeah honestly I could care less who provides the performance as long as the performance is solid. I haven't owned an ATi card since the 9800 series ironically. If ATi can deliver the performance I expect then I will go Crossfire even.
Click to expand...

Haha me too. I had a 9800 Pro 256mb that flashed easily to an XT card. Good old days...

compuguy1088 said:
IThe version of the 8800GT I got was slightly shorter than stock cards, which is nice. It was the minor things that they improved that made it worth moving toward.
Click to expand...

I am still happy as a peanut that I bought my EVGA 8800GT on launch and it's still swank.

Atech said:
Then get Crytek to optimize their codepath.
Click to expand...

Cool points for said user has just increased. You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you Atech.
 
XamediX said:
I was wondering if there were people like yous out there that aren't idiot consumers trying to spend money for the sake of spending money. If you are an 8800GTX owner how can you be mad at all? Most likely it's the broke-asses that DON'T own 8800GTX's saying how horrible Nvidia is for not blowing away the performance of it. Those people, they need Jesus along with Sharky and Elmer Fudd.
[snip]
Click to expand...

I never said it was bad at all.. it's a really nice card.. and at a terrific price, as these things go on release.. considering, at release, the 8800GTX was more than twice the price of this card.. but so far nothing monumentally better performing than the 8800GTX has come down the pike... I think that's what some poeple were sort of hoping for.. oh dwell. I'm actually very happy that I don't feel urged to snatch up a couple of these new cards... I can camp on my circa 2006 cards a little longer. woot!

for the record, I am not an idiot consumer.. I am a consumer for sure, but I use the hell out of the shit I buy.

er, wait.. maybe I am taking the wrong slant from your comment.. it's a little confusing.. hrm.. I do agree that the peeps who don't own these cards tend to get a little bitter in their comments.. or so far I have noticed.. but anyways..
 
XamediX said:
Did you ever think that the reason the 9800GTX has a lower heat envelope and power usage is BECAUSE they nerfed the memory bus and used less memory? Didja ever think about that?
Click to expand...

That could very well be. Or it may be related to the different core. It could be any number of things. But I didn't mention anything about temperatures.

What I did mention was that, due to the "nerfed" memory system, the 9800GTX would not be a good candidate for SLI. To form the basis for that opinion, I pointed out that it has already been shown to be, in some cases, memory starved.

However, I never mentioned temperatures. Why did you bring it up?
 
Pyroja said:
What I did mention was that, due to the "nerfed" memory system, the 9800GTX would not be a good candidate for SLI. To form the basis for that opinion, I pointed out that it has already been shown to be, in some cases, memory starved.
Click to expand...

Care to recant? :D


8800GTX Crysis 1920x1080:

1 Card: 22FPS
2 Card: 36FPS
3 Card: 46FPS

9800GTX Crysis:

1 Card: 26FPS
2 Card: 43FPS
3 Card: 57FPS

http://www.rage3d.com/previews/video/nv9800gtx/index.php?p=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top