![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Nvidia 9000 series GPU's
- Thread starter Draziom
- Start date
for now, the 9800GX2, although its basically two underclocked 8800GTS 512's slapped together. it is about on par with a 3870X2.
the 9800GTX is just an overclocked 8800GTS 512.
if you were looking for something more powerful than last year's 8800Ultra you would be disappointed by the 9 series. whatever generation comes after that is where NVIDIA is likely unleash the "big guns". the 9 series is just a sneaky reuse of the G92 core which itself was a refresh of 2006's G80 core.
the 9800GTX is just an overclocked 8800GTS 512.
if you were looking for something more powerful than last year's 8800Ultra you would be disappointed by the 9 series. whatever generation comes after that is where NVIDIA is likely unleash the "big guns". the 9 series is just a sneaky reuse of the G92 core which itself was a refresh of 2006's G80 core.
SeegsElite
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,105
you have to remember this isn't really a "new" generation. It's basically the same gpu's as the 8000 series. The G92 to be more specific.. Nvidia just plopped the 9000x logo on these cards to sell them like they were something completely new. Wait till around xmas time to see what nvidia really has to offer for its real next gen.
is this card more powerful than the 8800 ultra? and if it is, is this single card as powerful as 2 8800 ultras in SLI mode?
No the 9800GX2 is not a G92 core. It as a new G98 core. Check it out http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/03/05/nvidia_geforce_9800_gx2_caught_on_camera/1
"We have been told (by no one in particular) that it is built on a new G98, as opposed to the G92 core used in the current GeForce 8800 GT and GeForce GTS 512."
incorrect, the 8800GTX, a pretty monumental generational leap, was released in november '06.
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
You on drugs? It says right in your article its a G92. This has been known for some time. There is no G98.
yes and no. it might be more powerful than 1 ultra in some games (ones that scale well with 2+ GPUs), but certainly not 2. in games with poor or no multi-GPU support the Ultra will mop the floor with the 9800GX2. the Ultra should also hold up better under high AA/resolution levels.
That article was a typo because the morning i read it it said it was a G98. I'll look into this.
Miscommunication
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 631
ROFL. You've been found out
. Seriously though, it's G92. It's a die shrink, end of story, this is why you won't see "next-gen performance". That's what G100 is for. TBH it's all just business economics.NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
We've seen the physical pictures of the chip, it says G92 right on it.
The 9600GT isn't meant to replace the 8800GTX, nor is it as fast as an 8800GTX. The 9600GT sits right behind the 8800GT in performance. The 9800GTX, on the other hand, is an over clocked 8800GTS G92 and should be just a bit faster than the 8800GTX. The 8800GTX is also a G80, not a G92.
Why did they do that? Because they suck, thats why.
thanks for the clarity bro, but what about the 9800GX2? is that more powerful than the 8800 Ultra or is it the same card?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The first reply answered this. They are definitely not the same card.
As for whether it's going to be more powerful than an 8800Ultra that is kind of a loaded question because an Ultra is a single GPU card while the GX2 is two GPUs in a sort of integrated SLI, and as such there are many differences when comparing a single powerful GPU vs. two weaker GPU's in SLI.
But one can assume that the GX2 will be faster in some games/resolutions and slower in others.
Required reading:
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1331/nvidia_s_geforce_9800_gx2_early_test/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce_8_series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_9_Series
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Link_Interface
I think what you are asking is really "what is NVIDIA's most powerful Geforce 9-series card?" The answer to that is simple: the 9800GX2.
I disagree. Since the Radeon 3780X2 isn't that much faster than the 8800Ultra under the best circumstances, the 9800GX2 should mop the floor with it. This is even evidenced by your own statements. An 8800GTS SLI configuration is faster than a single 3870X2. Therefore there is no way the 9800GX2 will just be "on par" with the 3870X2.
The card should be more powerful than the 8800Ultra. NVIDIA claims it will be at least 30% faster. So far information on the net is sketchy, but it always seems to be at least 13% faster than the Ultra at all times and quite a bit faster 40%+ in some games. Crysis being one of those games. However it is highly unlikely that the 9800GX2 will ever match the performance of a 8800Ultra SLI setup. You'll need two cards in Quad-SLI for that.
The 9600GT is NOT an 8800GTX. I don't know where you get that from. The 8800GTX uses the G80 core and the 9600GT is based on G92. The G92 core is a bit different than G80. The performance of the 9600GT is actually closer to that of the 8800GT which does NOT match the 8800GTX.
I agree with the first part of the statement. As for the second part I have to ask WTF are you bitching about? Has the Geforce 8-Sereies spoiled everyone THAT much? Upgrades from one generation to the next are more often incremental and don't usually offer double your performance over last generation. The 6800's and 8800's did, but those are only two examples out of the many cards released between those two generations. The 7800GTX was a pretty large jump over the 6800Ultra, but it wasn't double the performance of it. Each 7-series card that was released was only slightly faster. No one whined like bitches about the performance gap created by each card that was released. If anything everyone either made the decision to buy those cards or they kept what they had without whining because the performance increase didn't warrant the cost of the upgrade.
The same was true of the 8800Ultra. You either took your 10% or so increase in performance or you kept the 8800GTX. (Assuming you bought into the high end at all.)
So what the fuck is this whining about the 9800GX2 and 9800GTX not being fast enough?
It is not the same card. The 9800GX2 should be dual G92 GPUs on two seperate PCB's sandwiched together in single card form. The 8800Ultra is a revised G80 GPU on a single board. Essentially it is little more than an overclocked 8800GTX. The 9800GX2 is quite different.
Dan I think I just instaposted you
anyways, according to Tweaktown's early benches, the 3870X2 and the 9800 GX2 are pretty close in performance, that's where my claim came from.
I don't know how that could be. The 3870X2 is only slightly faster than the 8800Ultra in most cases. Now since we've seen some data that shows the 9800GX2 is only upwards of 13% or so faster than the 8800 Ultra than it stands to reason that in some cases the 3870X2 will be closer to the 9800GX2 but I'd be surprised if the 9800GX2 didn't show a huge gain over the 8800Ultra or 3870X2 in at least a few tests. Overall I suspect the 3870X2 will come out at least 20% slower than the 9800GX2.
you are totally wrong and make no sense.
i agree with you. well said.
Uhm okay? I provide you the answers to your questions as well as relevant reading material and I am "totally wrong"?
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
You're the one who came in here asking extremely innane questions. In other sub-forums I have seen you post the same thread asking the the same question 3 or 4 times. That guy tries to help you and you say this bizarre shit? Come on dude.
The problem with all this data we're getting is that its all so dependent on drivers and games playing nice with SLI and Crossfire. God multi-GPU frustrates me.
It seems to me like this guy is borderline trolling. He asks a question, argues with the people trying to answer him, finally admits that the people answering him know more about graphics cards than he does, then procedes to argue some more with them.
It's kinda difficult to argue against facts though.
It's kinda difficult to argue against facts though.
NKDietrich
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 5,442
He was doing the same in the Displays subforum a couple weeks ago. I don't know what his problem is. He asks a question claiming he doesn't know anything, gets some good advice, then he starts arguing with the person and tells them they don't know what they are talking about.
For example he would run asking what type of LCD panel to get, then go picking fights saying that there was no such thing as input lag. But at the same time it didn't seem quite intentional. I've cut him some slack in the past and defended him against people bashing him because I suspected he may be somewhat mentally handicapped, but now I'm leaning towards thinking he's just a troll.
It was more supposed to be sarcasm but I forgot to add the smiley
I don't have an 8 series, so I clearly can't be spoiled by one
I've still got a 7950GT, but I'm waiting for the first card that can do Crysis 1280x1024 @ "Very High" DX10 w/ 2-4xAA and costs under $300 (I don't have the money for incremental upgrades, so I skip generations). I'm hoping the next gen is up to the task, so I'm kind of anxious for it to come out already... :/hardnewbie
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 339
Question then form the experts ( no sarcasm intended). I have a BFG 9600GT OC the core is plainly marked G94 not G92 so what is the difference? I was under the impression from the past few post is was G92, so what gives? Thanks in advance.
The chip in the 9600 GT IS the G94. G92 powers only the 8800 GT and the new 8800 GTS 512 and it seems it will also power the new 9800 GTX and 9800 GX2.
hardnewbie
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 339
Thanks, from the above mentioned they were saying G92, I thought maybe wow I got a good one!. Anyway any real differences in the two? I know it runs very cool under load and has fewer shaders. One question I have not had answered is exactly what a shader clock is and how is the clock rate determined? Does it also create more heat when oc'ing?
The shader clock is how fast the shader units run. Shaders are responsible for everything from vertex manipulation to lighting to special effects -- newer games like Crysis are heavily shader-dependent and often you will see the most benefit from overclocking the shader clock rather than core or memory. Normally the shader clock is linked to the core/ROP clock but using Rivatuner it can be unlinked and increased/decreased independent of the core clock. And yes overclocking the shader units will increase power/heat consumption although to what degree is for you to find out.
hardnewbie
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 339
Thanks guys!