9800 GX2 Pictures and Specs

cannondale06 said:
that doesnt make sense because the x1950xtx and 7900gtx were basically dead even.
Click to expand...

No they weren't. I had both and ran games under them. My X1950XTX Crossfire setup ran every game I had better than my 7900GTX SLI setup did.

rahavsmt said:
According to [H]'s review the X1950XTX is as fast as 7950GX2. :rolleyes:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE0NCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

Any prove to show that the 7900GTX is as good as X1950XTX?
Click to expand...

Well in benchmark tests the 7950GX2 Quad-SLI setup was king but as I recall the X1950XTX Crossfire setup wasn't as far behind in the real world as you might think. Remember the X1950XTX drivers were pretty good out of the gate as the card wasn't that much different than the X1900XT it replaced on an architectural level. The drivers for Quad-SLI were shit. Plain and simple. The setup had FAR more potential than we ever saw and more than we see to this day no doubt. Its' just that no one cares anymore because we have 8800's which kick the shit out of the 7950GX2 anyway and a good deal of the 8800's have always costed less than the 7950GX2 did at the time of release. Let us also not forget that at the time NVIDIA image quality wasn't on par with ATI's. Things are obviously different today, but back then there was a clear difference.
 
Simpson5774 said:
8800 ultra > GTS 512 if I remember correctly, Its the memory bus that makes it outperform the GTS at high ass resolutions, not as much as the price difference reflects, but more bandwidth keeps the GPU fed.

Nvidia cards need the bandwidth more than ATi cards. With that being said, it costs more to make a larger memory bus, its not the fact that it CANT use more because obviously it can, to go from 256 to 384 bit memory bus, you need 2 more pieces of memory, you need 2 more spots to put that memory, you need circuits printed into PCBs to actuate the extra memory, and to do all of that you need to spend a bit more in R&D. It could be A, nvidia doesn't feel like pushing the envelope and it could be because the cost is high compared to a small benefit which it doesn't exactly need. These cards probably aren't going to be clocked up to 8800GTS 512 levels.
Click to expand...



If this is truly the case,why is it that the new GTS 512 stands so tall against the GTX/Ultra ?

Its not simply bandwith,it cant be,as the GTS has a lot less of it.Also why is it that the newer ATI cards have more raw bandwith then the Nvidia counterparts on the market now ? I think the G92 series has more bandwith saving abilites then the G80 did before
it.Its obviously the case.I am curious to know of the clocks on this thing (9800gx2) All this new stuff,instead of answering questions it only makes me want to ask a ton more questions...
 
rahavsmt said:
According to [H]'s review the X1950XTX is even faster than 7950GX2. :rolleyes:

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTE0NCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0

From the review:
Overall, with very few exceptions, the ATI Radeon X1950 XTX provided a noticeable and tangible improvement in the gameplay experience over the Radeon X1900 XTX. Compared to the BFGTech GeForce 7950 GX2 it even performed better than that in some games, while in others they were even. Simply put, the ATI Radeon X1950 XTX won more games and scenarios than it lost them compared to the BFGTech GeForce 7950 GX2.

Any prove to show that the 7900GTX is as good as X1950XTX?
Click to expand...
no need for the eye rolling.. here you go. http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=709&model2=723&chart=318

and in SLI the 7900gtx actually was tiny bit quicker than crossfire x1950xtx
http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=709&model2=723&chart=318



"In terms of raw performance without antialiasing or anisotropic filtering, the cards actually perform quite similarly. Both cards will produce roughly the same frame rates in most games". http://www.gamespot.com/features/6156171/index.html?type=tech&page=7
 
Manny Calavera said:
If this is truly the case,why is it that the new GTS 512 stands so tall against the GTX/Ultra ?

Its not simply bandwith,it cant be,as the GTS has a lot less of it.Also why is it that the newer ATI cards have more raw bandwith then the Nvidia counterparts on the market now ? I think the G92 series has more bandwith saving abilites then the G80 did before
it.Its obviously the case.I am curious to know of the clocks on this thing (9800gx2) All this new stuff,instead of answering questions it only makes me want to ask a ton more questions...
Click to expand...

The 8800GTX and Ultra are indeed faster under certain circumstances. Those circumstances likely take advantage of the increased amount of memory that the 8800GTX and Ultra have compared to the 8800GTS 512MB. The extra 256MB of memory likely comes in handly at 2560x1600 when AA and AF are used.
 
Dan_D said:
The 8800GTX and Ultra are indeed faster under certain circumstances. Those circumstances likely take advantage of the increased amount of memory that the 8800GTX and Ultra have compared to the 8800GTS 512MB. The extra 256MB of memory likely comes in handly at 2560x1600 when AA and AF are used.
Click to expand...


Right the extra frambuffer,not to extra bandwith per se ? It seems with the G92 and onward, Nvidia has tweaked the architecure to not need so much,or have a lot better compression of color/z/textures/etc...
 
What do you expect people. They all want us to think SLI or Quad cards are the future. If you want the power, you'll just have to sell your wife and kids for another card or 2 or 3.
 
Rattle said:
YES I CAN GO X38 NOW NO MORE SLI MOBO at least i hope you can run it on a non nvidia mobo :)
Click to expand...

I don't hink this is going to work on a X38 chipset. If it's like the 7950 GX2 it will need a NVidia mobo. Like the 680I or the new 700 serie. If it does work on a X38 chipset, I'm in and will sell my ultra.

Any info on this please?
 
posted up at engadget, neat :D Thanks for Zee scoop Kyle and crew. I dont know if i can trust it though, im skeptical of all things prerelease :D better safe than underwhelmed heheh
 
Magman said:
If it's like the 7950 GX2 it will need a NVidia mobo.
Click to expand...
That's not right...is it? I doubt I'll be floggin' the local fry's on release for one of these duallys, but then again, maybe now is a good time to move to a 24". :D
 
cannondale06 said:
the x1900xtx and 7900gtx were basically dead even.
Click to expand...

That was true when they both first launched. (X1950 was an update and held a slightly larger advantage)
But with Oblivion and the more recent shader intensive games like Bioshock, the X19xx cards walk away. The composite averages from Toms appear to be based mainly on very outdated games. (Doom3, Prey, BF2142)

That TomsHW chart doesn't have Bioshock listed. But look at Tom's #s for Oblivion. @1280x1024 it's pulling 50% more fps and the gap only increases as you go up in resolution.
[H] did comprehensive reviews of all of these cards. I remember two different people on this forum reported w/ Oblivion a single X1900XTX gave better "lowest fps" than SLI 7900GTX rigs.


The GX2 scenario for the new card doesn't surprise me. I think everyone realizes what a poor value it offers. Hopefully we won't have to wait too much longer for a "true" next gen card.
I wonder if they're flat out waiting for R700 ? That could be a long ways off. I doubt ATi is releasing a new flagship card until this summer at the earliest. :rolleyes:
 
Without reading all 11 pages I'm guessing everyone with EVGA step up is pretty pissed. Even more so then everyone else.
 
SLI = suckers love it. Very bad bang for buck ratio.

The displaycard expenses are going through the roof.
 
DaNotoriousDOM said:
Unless if ATI doesn't make a high end card in 08 then by the end of 09. :cool:
Click to expand...

so i might as well buy a 8800GT then. only thing im waiting for is the penthyn quad core mainstream cpu's to come out and im set to ditch my agp system. when will x48 boards come out?
 
Zefram0911 said:
Can I put three of these together on my 780i board? I want a 6 way gang bang of video cards.

Sexy Six
Click to expand...


Dude, that has to be the funniest post I've read in a long time...I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard....:D


On Topic: Thanks for the update Kyle. It's too bad, though, because I was hoping for a little more innovation from nVidia for their next release.
 
*pats his 8800GT*

This abbomination is not getting in my rig.

No $$$ to NVIDIA from me this round...let's see if AMD will get my $$$.

Up to 30% faster than an Ultra...with the problems associated with SLI...what a letdown!:(
 
hang on hang on.
a 30% increase over the 8800ultra?
I thought there was 2 cards in there, so 2 of the new 9800 series has only a 30% over the ultra?
that seems a bit of a rip, and let me guess there will be a bomb of a price tag to go with it :S.

Lol the only nvidia card i owned was the mx440- bless. It tried to run doom 3, honest, it did. Gawd remember when doom 3 was the crysis of its day- just think, few years time you'll be laughing becuase you can hit the 60fps with medium spec modern rigs lol
 
Looks like I might be sticking with my 8800GTX for a little while longer. It's a shame that nVidia isn't making a whole new card, but just slapping old 8800 tech together. I love nVidia, been a big fan since I upgraded from my Radeon 9200SE to their 6800GS and then when I built a whole new PC, a 7900GT and finally my now used 8800GTX (and 8600M GT in this laptop). But they know ATi isn't ever going to be on top again so they're just re-releasing old technology. Thank goodness Intel doesn't do the same just because AMD has no fight left in them.
 
evilcartman said:
Dude, that has to be the funniest post I've read in a long time...I almost spit coffee all over my keyboard....:D


On Topic: Thanks for the update Kyle. It's too bad, though, because I was hoping for a little more innovation from nVidia for their next release.
Click to expand...

yeah, but no one has an answer for my gangbang. I'm not kidding either.... sure quad Sli... but 6x sli? SEX SLI!!!!? Can I do it?
 
not really interested in this new GX2, give me a G92 GTX product and i will be happy.
 
hellknight_lizz said:
hang on hang on.
a 30% increase over the 8800ultra?
I thought there was 2 cards in there, so 2 of the new 9800 series has only a 30% over the ultra?
that seems a bit of a rip, and let me guess there will be a bomb of a price tag to go with it :S.

Lol the only nvidia card i owned was the mx440- bless. It tried to run doom 3, honest, it did. Gawd remember when doom 3 was the crysis of its day- just think, few years time you'll be laughing becuase you can hit the 60fps with medium spec modern rigs lol
Click to expand...

At "least" 30%. Real world performance will settle the doubts and that remains to be seen.
 
Manny Calavera said:
If this is truly the case,why is it that the new GTS 512 stands so tall against the GTX/Ultra ?

Its not simply bandwith,it cant be,as the GTS has a lot less of it.Also why is it that the newer ATI cards have more raw bandwith then the Nvidia counterparts on the market now ? I think the G92 series has more bandwith saving abilites then the G80 did before
it.Its obviously the case.I am curious to know of the clocks on this thing (9800gx2) All this new stuff,instead of answering questions it only makes me want to ask a ton more questions...
Click to expand...

The new GTS 512 doesn't stand tall against the GTX/Ultra. It does trail them, but at lower resolutions. At higher resolutions (> 1600x1200), the GTX and Ultra are still the cards to get.
The main difference between the new GTS 512 and a GTX/Ultra is obviously the amount of VRAM, but also the memory interface, which in the case of the GTX and Ultra, is wider than the GTS 512. This, coupled with more VRAM, means that higher resolutions and higher levels of AA, are achieved, without such a performance hit.

As for ATI cards, the HD 2900 XT had tremendous memory bandwidth specs, with its 512 bit memory interface, but this is NOT an advantage, when the GPU "under the hood", is not powerful enough to use it, which was the case.
 
My main concern is, with news that nVidia is asking manufacturers to strip layers from the base, we'll start to see heat related issues ala Xbox failures (bendy board syndrome)....especially when they are pushing how much heat can be squeezed into how little space. Only time will tell, I guess.
 
Personally, I could not care less what they call the stupid thing as long as 1.) it performs the way they say it will, and 2.) they support it properly.

If it is 30% faster than the ultra and comes out somewhere around 8800 GTX prices, I'm all for it, whatever it is. I was hoping for more than 30% from NVIDIA's next offering, but 30% is pretty much in-line with the upgrades we've seen in the past. The initial 8800 series offerings spoiled us.

The fact that it's not an entirely new GPU means nothing, and the fact that it is a dual-PCB design means nothing. I care about performance, price, and minimal heat output. If they can deliver on those points, they can call it the Sparkleberry Swirl 9800 GX2 Barbie Edition, and I'd still buy it.
 
Mark_Warner said:
Personally, I could not care less what they call the stupid thing as long as 1.) it performs the way they say it will, and 2.) they support it properly.

If it is 30% faster than the ultra and comes out somewhere around 8800 GTX prices, I'm all for it, whatever it is. I was hoping for more than 30% from NVIDIA's next offering, but 30% is pretty much in-line with the upgrades we've seen in the past. The initial 8800 series offerings spoiled us.

The fact that it's not an entirely new GPU means nothing, and the fact that it is a dual-PCB design means nothing. I care about performance, price, and minimal heat output. If they can deliver on those points, they can call it the Sparkleberry Swirl 9800 GX2 Barbie Edition, and I'd still buy it.
Click to expand...

LOL, it would actually be fun to see the naming schemes, if they advertised graphics cards, as they do with toys i.e. do it diffrently for boys and girls. I'm sure Barbie Edition would be there, with some pink PCB :)
 
Its marketing games like this that are causing people (and games, like UT3) to go to consoles.

The PC gaming video card industry is killing itself by milking their customers so much with garbage like this.

Nvidia needs to wake up. They aren't competing with ATI, they are competing with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony...and losing.
 
KingPariah777 said:
Its marketing games like this that are causing people (and games, like UT3) to go to consoles.

The PC gaming video card industry is killing itself by milking their customers so much with garbage like this.

Nvidia needs to wake up. They aren't competing with ATI, they are competing with Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony...and losing.
Click to expand...

NVIDIA developed RSX, which is the graphics chip in PS3. They are not losing a thing. They are actually taking a percentage from that market aswell.
 
I hardly doubt they're competing with them when they're using nvidia's graphics chips. :p
 
I’m very disappointed with the 9800 GX2. I kind of figured NVIDA would slow down the pace of video card development since ATI has been having issues keeping up. However, I could care less about having the biggest, baddest, rig anymore. There aren’t enough good PC titles out there to support the cost. Everything now seems to be developed with the Xbox360 in mind. Until there are more Crysis type games that take things to the next level then I might start caring about having the uber PC.
 
The fact that it's not an entirely new GPU means nothing, and the fact that it is a dual-PCB design means nothing. I care about performance, price, and minimal heat output. If they can deliver on those points, they can call it the Sparkleberry Swirl 9800 GX2 Barbie Edition, and I'd still buy it.
Click to expand...

I made the "mistake" of buying a 24" LCD. And if it can truely deliver on those points I will probably end up with one. The reality is there are two diverging markets. 1 for low res and 1 for high res. This is probably another one of those cards that is going to be tossed into the pile of "oh well at 320x200 a Ti4200 is as good". :rolleyes:
 
bpmurrGT said:
I’m very disappointed with the 9800 GX2. I kind of figured NVIDA would slow down the pace of video card development since ATI has been having issues keeping up. However, I could care less about having the biggest, baddest, rig anymore. There aren’t enough good PC titles out there to support the cost. Everything now seems to be developed with the Xbox360 in mind. Until there are more Crysis type games that take things to the next level then I might start caring about having the uber PC.
Click to expand...

And you don't need to. Never heard of a 8800 GT or HD 3870 ? Excellent performance, for a few bucks. And that's exactly where the big bucks are, for these companies. The so called performance class. Cards that actually perform great, for not much money. The 8800 GT took that to a new level, since it's almost a 8800 GTX, for $250 less.
The high-end gives reputation. The company that has the fastest, most efficient GPU out there takes points, that will mainly be harvested, in the mid-range.
 
Silus said:
NVIDIA developed RSX, which is the graphics chip in PS3. They are not losing a thing. They are actually taking a percentage from that market aswell.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well in that case I'll shut up.

I still wish it was a simple

GeForce 8 TI
GeForce 8 MX

Wouldn't that be nice?
 
KingPariah777 said:
Hmmm, well in that case I'll shut up.

I still wish it was a simple

GeForce 8 TI
GeForce 8 MX

Wouldn't that be nice?
Click to expand...

The world just isn't that simple anymore. It wasn't even that simple back then, but it is a lot less simple now.
 
KingPariah777 said:
Hmmm, well in that case I'll shut up.

I still wish it was a simple

GeForce 8 TI
GeForce 8 MX

Wouldn't that be nice?
Click to expand...

IMO, I think that what seems to be the direction in the 9 series, is a good one. They seem to have aligned everything in categories:

D9E: For enthusiast cards
D9P: For performance cards
D9M: For mainstream cards

Also IMO, in each of these categories, no more than 3 different cards should exist:

D9E: 9800 GX2, 9800 GTX, 9800 GTS
D9P: 9800 GT, 9800 GS, 9600 GT
D9M: 9600 GS, 9400 GT, 9400 GS

I think it's reasonable and it should not be confusing, for someone that doesn't really follow the graphics card market that much.
 
Now if they would made a new version of the Ultra single card that was 30% faster that would have been cool running 2 in SLI but 2 and only 30% sounds very low to me..
 
Mortuus said:
Now if they would made a new version of the Ultra single card that was 30% faster that would have been cool running 2 in SLI but 2 and only 30% sounds very low to me..
Click to expand...

Again, it's "at least 30%", not just "30%" according to the article. Also, the 9800 GTX may very well be the 30% faster card than the single 8800 Ultra. We just need to know its specs and how it actually performs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top