Do I really need the 9800X2?

W

WhiteGuardian

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
421
I was wondering if I really need the 9800X2 for games like CoD4 at 1600x1050, and of course future upcoming games. It sounds so good but should I just get the G92 8800 GTS cause my resolution isn't that high?
 
8800 GTS 512MB will be enough for 1680x1050 for quite some time. The benefit of SLI at that resolution isn't really as big as it is at higher resolutions.
 
no, and no one can say future games or no, no one knows what may come out, sure if more Crysis games come out, no matter what you buy your screwed.


8800GT plays cod4 fine for me @ 1920 x 1200.
 
MrGuvernment said:
no, and no one can say future games or no, no one knows what may come out, sure if more Crysis games come out, no matter what you buy your screwed.


8800GT plays cod4 fine for me @ 1920 x 1200.
Click to expand...

Crysis 2, Crysis 3 :)
Farcry2
Got the funds? Just grab it and call it a year.
 
i would just stick with an 8800GT or 8800GTS, your resolution of 1680 is good for those cards. But for more "future proofing" and if you have the funds, go with the 9800GX2
 
refraxion

"and if you have the funds, go with the 9800GX2"

NVIDIA's CEO stated last month that he was convinced the GeForce 8800 GTX remained the most powerful card and that a single GPU board was the best approach, though if a dual-GPU board was the fastest in the world, it would be accepted. Is that the case with the GeForce 9800 GX2?

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 9800 GX2 isn't the best and gets worse at very high resolutions. So, the card is in the very high-end price category, but it doesn't rank very high when it comes to price-per-performance.

Bye
 
I'd say stick with the 8800GTS.Or maybe go a little higher and just get an 8800GTX,the prices seem better every day.
 
The 8800 GTS 512MB (or the upcomming 9800GTX) would be ideal at 1680x1050. There is no reason to even consider the 9800GX2 unless you're running 1920x1200 or higher.
 
if anything has been proven, its that both AMD and Nvidia are screaming ahead with their next gen cards slated for release later this year.

Right now you should update to the card that best fits your needs. At your res I would recomment the 9600gt or 8800gts (g92). forget about the 9800GX2 or 9800GTX. Waste of money at that res.

I think anyone getting a 9800GX2 is just crazy. But, that's not stopping me from getting one soon. Heh
 
does the 8800GTS offer similar performance to a 8800GTX or is worth spending abit more on the GTX one?
 
No one needs a 9800 GX2. You can want it. It would be a improvement over a single gpu. But it's not needed by any means.

I hear a lot of people saying it's needed for future gaming. Do you spend a great deal of your time playing Crysis and think its worth another 600? If not I wouldn't worry about it. Down the line there will be more games that would require it. However, the 9800 GX2 will be cheaper then. Or maybe the next GT200 or whatever it is will be out and you can get a real upgrade.

MrGuvernment said:
no, and no one can say future games or no, no one knows what may come out, sure if more Crysis games come out, no matter what you buy your screwed.


8800GT plays cod4 fine for me @ 1920 x 1200.
Click to expand...

I don't understand the drive to make a game where you cut off a large % of the market because there hardware isn't good enough. Somehow though I think it ended up working in Crysis's favor. Look at how many talk about it.
 
CrazyHeaven said:
I don't understand the drive to make a game where you cut off a large % of the market because there hardware isn't good enough. Somehow though I think it ended up working in Crysis's favor. Look at how many talk about it.
Click to expand...

And look how many play it on high :eek:
 
No one NEEDS the gx2...just like no one NEEDS a bugatti veyron or a ferrari. But if you have to means to buy it...why not?
 
veedubfreak said:
No one NEEDS the gx2...just like no one NEEDS a bugatti veyron or a ferrari. But if you have to means to buy it...why not?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why so many people on this forum tout this philosophy. The answer is: Because it's a waste of money. Just because you can afford something, it doesn't mean that it's a worthwhile expense. If you're going to see no tangible benefits, what's the point?

I would say go for the 8800GTS 512. I've got the 8800GT and thought about stepping up to the GX2, but I realized that was $300 I'd rather have in my bank account than EVGA's.
 
aethelwulf said:
I don't understand the drive to make a game where you cut off a large % of the market because there hardware isn't good enough. Somehow though I think it ended up working in Crysis's favor. Look at how many talk about it.
Click to expand...

Who says you have to play Crysis at maxed everything? Perhaps if you don't understand why a developer would make a good looking game, then you don't understand why some people should play a game at lower than the very best settings.

The point is, is that the graphics are there for those that do have those killer rigs and dream machines. The game is completely playable has not cut off very much of the entire PC gaming industry as you make it sound. It's just many gamers puss out and will play some games at nothing less than maxed out settings and Crysis is a game that you just can't do that unless you have an uber system.
 
Gutspiller said:
Who says you have to play Crysis at maxed everything? Perhaps if you don't understand why a developer would make a good looking game, then you don't understand why some people should play a game at lower than the very best settings.

The point is, is that the graphics are there for those that do have those killer rigs and dream machines. The game is completely playable has not cut off very much of the entire PC gaming industry as you make it sound. It's just many gamers puss out and will play some games at nothing less than maxed out settings and Crysis is a game that you just can't do that unless you have an uber system.
Click to expand...

not even NASA can play the game on ultra high
 
There is no point in buying a 9800GX2, it's wasteful spending. and has no benefit over the 8800GTS. and from the performance reviews I've seen it can't even hold it's own against a 2 year old 8800GTX. the Gx2 is actually taking steps backwards.

It's a flop. wait until the real new product comes from Nvidia, I have to beleive it's nearing completion soon, it's been in development for 3 years now and it's not like it needs to be that radical, just give it a minimum of 512mb memory interface and 2400+ memory and then add some more streams all on the new g92 die.... it's not very complicated to put together a new GPU that actually gives you a performance boost at the same or less heat & power draw.

Nvidia is just milking the fact that ATi still can't get up off the mat from the haymaker the 8800 series was.
 
jonneymendoza said:
not even NASA can play the game on ultra high
Click to expand...

That was a joke actually.

But more on topic. You should give the geforce 9 series a pass IMO. R700, and GT200 are coming out in the near future, and the dual GPU cards are just a cop-out to shift stock. Just get an 8800GT and tough it out at "only" all high with no AA.
 
i'l give 9 series a pass and get a GTS and wait for the true next gen card that i will be happily to spend over £300 if its double and i mean literely double the performance of an 8800ultra. for example this time next year i better be getting 60fps on crysis in everything high
 
veedubfreak said:
No one NEEDS the gx2...just like no one NEEDS a bugatti veyron or a ferrari. But if you have to means to buy it...why not?
Click to expand...

How about this - if no one buys them,Nvidia will get the message that we're tired of paying cutting edge prices for luke warm rehashes of their old cards.
 
I've got the 8800 GTS G92 and have been considering the 9800GX2. I'm getting a 30" LCD soon and want a card that can drive 2560x1600 at mid to high graphics settings. Another reason to upgrade is eVGA's step up program. A GX2 will cost me $240 through this program. The GTS price has plummeted since January when I bought mine, so resale value ain't that great and will only drop further if I wait until summer or more likely fall when Nvidia releases its next series. I haven't pulled the trigger, yet.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
I've got the 8800 GTS G92 and have been considering the 9800GX2. I'm getting a 30" LCD soon and want a card that can drive 2560x1600 at mid to high graphics settings. Another reason to upgrade is eVGA's step up program. A GX2 will cost me $240 through this program. The GTS price has plummeted since January when I bought mine, so resale value ain't that great and will only drop further if I wait until summer or more likely fall when Nvidia releases its next series. I haven't pulled the trigger, yet.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's worth $240, that's an OK deal, but not a great deal..

Why not just add another GTS as the price drops... two GTS are faster then the GX2.

btw... the Gx2 won't run 2560 x 1600 very well either.... stick with what you have in 1 GTS, or spend on a 2nd GTS, and save that money toward the real next-gen Nvidia card.
 
If Nvidia is paying attention at all... they would see that there are MANY MANY people who have caught the upgrade-flu.... we'd all love to throw hundres of $$ at a new card... but don't they realize that they havn't given us anything but a step backwards?
 
kring said:
If Nvidia is paying attention at all... they would see that there are MANY MANY people who have caught the upgrade-flu.... we'd all love to throw hundres of $$ at a new card... but don't they realize that they havn't given us anything but a step backwards?
Click to expand...
How is 30%+ over the last king 8800 Ultra a step backwards with 9800Gx2 and i am not convinced that a 256-bus and 1024MB memory on Gx2 is worse than 384-bus and 768MB memory on GTX/Ultra even at hig rez where GX2 is aimed at.
I for sure did´nt expect a leap like 7950Gx2-8800GTX this time around, perhaps in about 4 years or so we see the same leap but 16 month after the last one?
Also they don´t need to release anything better since they has no competion for the topdog position, they also need to use the G92 core a bit so they can make a profit of it after the problem in the beginning of shortage in stock and it would be bad for bussiness to kill of ATI when they just can make money of the "old" G92 core instead and tweak it.
I am not sure if GT200 will be gigant leap either if that even is a "monstercard".
 
E.R said:
How is 30%+ over the last king 8800 Ultra a step backwards with 9800Gx2 and i am not convinced that a 256-bus and 1024MB memory on Gx2 is worse than 384-bus and 768MB memory on GTX/Ultra even at hig rez where GX2 is aimed at.
I for sure did´nt expect a leap like 7950Gx2-8800GTX this time around, perhaps in about 4 years or so we see the same leap but 16 month after the last one?
Also they don´t need to release anything better since they has no competion for the topdog position, they also need to use the G92 core a bit so they can make a profit of it after the problem in the beginning of shortage in stock and it would be bad for bussiness to kill of ATI when they just can make money of the "old" G92 core instead and tweak it.
I am not sure if GT200 will be gigant leap either if that even is a "monstercard".
Click to expand...
4 years? LOL so in 4 years time thats when we will be able to play crysis fully lol give me a break, since the 5 to 6 series nvidia cards tehre has been a huuge jump
 
jonneymendoza said:
4 years? LOL so in 4 years time thats when we will be able to play crysis fully lol give me a break, since the 5 to 6 series nvidia cards tehre has been a huuge jump
Click to expand...
8800 took 4 years of development and was the leap every spoild ones now expect of 9800-series and that just 16 month after the last leap? Get real, now we only gonna se small steps a while until next true gen are ready and as i said i don´t think "GT200" are that.

If you expect to play crysis @60FPS+ on 1920x1200 under Very High then you have to wait if you not settle with playable 30FPS.
 
According to [H] the 9800GX2 gives some remarkable improvements over a single GTX. However its about the same as a pair of GTS. If you have the money and want the graphics go ahead.

OR You can stand on principal :rolleyes:
 
E.R said:
8800 took 4 years of development and was the leap every spoild ones now expect of 9800-series and that just 16 month after the last leap? Get real, now we only gonna se small steps a while until next true gen are ready and as i said i don´t think "GT200" are that..
Click to expand...

While it was developed over 4 years, you have your timelines incorrect. there are not 4 years between each generation. the GT200 or whatever the real next-get GPU is has already been in development for years. and the GT400 of whatever comes after is already in development.

Moore's law, every 18 months.... well we're at 18 months and I still stand by the opionin that the GX2 is a step backwards in terms of technology. While it may squeek out more performance on certain apps, we're droped memory lanes, they had to add 2 newer GPU's just to reach the level of performance the single 8800GTX delivered nearly 2 years ago.

And when it comes to technology, standing still is the same thing as going backwards... and by that, coming out with fractional improvements but calling it next gen, on the same GPU so really "doing nothing" it's standing still... while technology leaves you behind. The point is, there is definitly something REAL coming from Nvidia... and it's NOT 4 years away from now. it's less then 1 year.

The GX2 was just a way to buy time because Nvidia missed their chipset deadline and intel & AMD delayed their chipsets & CPU's... so Nvidia is idle.

Thinking now... didn't Nvidia come out with an internal policy to refresh their products on an even more agressive law then Moore? wasn't it like every 6 or 9 months? What happened to that law which just came into play at the 8800 launch?
 
Nvidia has traditionally used a 6-9 month refresh cycle, but that has nothing to do with Moore's Law, as that refers to increase in computational power, not specific product release cycles.
 
aethelwulf said:
I don't understand why so many people on this forum tout this philosophy. The answer is: Because it's a waste of money. Just because you can afford something, it doesn't mean that it's a worthwhile expense. If you're going to see no tangible benefits, what's the point?

I would say go for the 8800GTS 512. I've got the 8800GT and thought about stepping up to the GX2, but I realized that was $300 I'd rather have in my bank account than EVGA's.
Click to expand...

Just like the person who put 19 of those 32GB SSD's in RAID config. He had money to blow.
Same thing goes with the style of a life with tons of cash. Why do rappers have mansions with 50+ bedrooms? Because they like to showboat.- and if you have the funds, there is nothing wrong with doing that.

I tell the OP to buy whatever card he can afford, and still have money to do his daily deeds.
Nothing wrong with having more than you need.
 
Moore's law also assumes competition to keep companies going. When one company falls flat on its face and can't keep up, why should the other company bring out new stuff that will canibalize their current offerings that are high profit.
 
RockSolid said:
refraxion

"and if you have the funds, go with the 9800GX2"

NVIDIA's CEO stated last month that he was convinced the GeForce 8800 GTX remained the most powerful card and that a single GPU board was the best approach, though if a dual-GPU board was the fastest in the world, it would be accepted. Is that the case with the GeForce 9800 GX2?

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 9800 GX2 isn't the best and gets worse at very high resolutions. So, the card is in the very high-end price category, but it doesn't rank very high when it comes to price-per-performance.

Bye
Click to expand...


Meh, I said if he had the funds, he could go right ahead and get one. Also, he isnt playing at higher resolutions now is he? he's at 1680x1050, then again he could always go for one of the higher end 8800's, but hey if he's willing to, then go for it.

Later
 
I just got an e-mail from eVGA stating that my step-up process was complete and they were ready to finalize my upgrade to the 9800 GX2. I needed to provide credit card info to reserve a 9800 until eVGA received my 8800. After some reflection, I replied to cancel my upgrade. I guess it makes more sense to wait for the GT100 or GT200 or whatever it'll be called.
 
kring said:
If Nvidia is paying attention at all... they would see that there are MANY MANY people who have caught the upgrade-flu.... we'd all love to throw hundres of $$ at a new card... but don't they realize that they havn't given us anything but a step backwards?
Click to expand...

I am seeing a pattern here.... lol

Try about 40% to 60% faster than an Ultra... keep it real!

For us non-SLI boys, it's the best card to have.
 
TalonMan said:
Try about 40% to 60% faster than an Ultra... keep it real!
Click to expand...

I'm seeing a pattern with your posts too -- unrealistic numbers. Try 30%. Period. In the few situations where it's any faster than that the GTX/Ultra is already running the app so fast that it really doesn't matter anymore -- 98 to 140 FPS? Good luck telling the difference.
 
lol.... Post your numbers. I want to see them!

Using the anandtech review's numbers: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3266&p=1

Putting the 8800 Ultra against the 9800 GX2...

If my calculations are correct, and looking only at 1920 x 1200 res... (What I need)

---------------------------------------------- 8800 Ultra --------- 9800 GX2 --- %Diff
Call of Duty ---------------------------- 70FPS -------------- 110FPS --------- 57% faster
Call of Duty 4Xaa--------------------- 55.7FPS ------------- 83.1FPS ------ 49% faster
Crysis High Quality----------------- 25.8FPS -------------- 39.4FPS ------ 52% faster
Oblivion --------------------------------- 46FPS ----------------- 84.3FPS ----- 83% faster
Oblivion 4XAA ------------------------ 36.1FPS -------------- 63.9FPS ---- 77% faster
Quake Wars -------------------------- 85.2FPS ------------ 120.4FPS ---- 41% faster
Stalker ---------------------------------- 48.8FPS ------------- 73.3FPS ----- 50% faster
Word in Conflict ---------------------- 30FPS --------------- 33FPS ------- 10% faster.

On average, the GX2 is currently 52% faster than the 8800 Ultra at 1920 x 1200 res.

The 8800 Ultra is no longer the single fastest card, and nVidia hit their 30% minimum speed increase over the Ultra....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top