NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX Specs

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,577
Looks as though NVIDIA's single core 9800 GTX is due to launch March 25th. (Launch has been pushed back.) Here is the breakdown:
  • Shader Units: 128
  • Core Clock: 675MHz
  • Shader Clock: 1688MHz
  • Memory Clock: 1100MHz
  • Memory Buffer: 512MB GDDR3
  • Memory Interface: 256-bit
  • Outputs: 2 X Dual-Link DVI & HDTV
  • HD 1080p display support & HDCP
  • PCIe 2.0
 
I'm extremely disappointed with this. I speculated the specs of the 9800 GTX and at the very least, it would be a die shrink of the 8800 GTX, with the 384 bit memory interface, 768 MB of VRAM and hardware decoding capabilities.
This 9800 GTX is nothing close to that. This card is a downgrade in many cases, when compared to the original GTX...

Seems that the 9 series product line, is only interesting in the mid-range, with the 9600 GT. I have no idea what NVIDIA is thinking in releasing a card like this.
 
Thats about what we were expecting.. Its a shame that there was no real advancement this time around.. Maybe June/July will hold some excitement.
 
I'm still wondering why people would have thought otherwise Rofl? There really wasn't anything that suggested that it would imo. It's just a series refresh.
 
Yeah... but generally you expect the product lines to take a step forward... and not back. Refresh or not.
 
Silus said:
I'm extremely disappointed with this. I speculated the specs of the 9800 GTX and at the very least, it would be a die shrink of the 8800 GTX, with the 384 bit memory interface, 768 MB of VRAM and hardware decoding capabilities.
This 9800 GTX is nothing close to that. This card is a downgrade in many cases, when compared to the original GTX...

Seems that the 9 series product line, is only interesting in the mid-range, with the 9600 GT. I have no idea what NVIDIA is thinking in releasing a card like this.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly..Not sure if the sheer clock speed can overcome the step backwards in the interface and less ram..
 
g1xx3r said:
I agree wholeheartedly..Not sure if the sheer clock speed can overcome the step backwards in the interface and less ram..
Click to expand...

Doubt it. It can match it, but I doubt it will surpass it. And if you overclock a 8800 GTX and compare it to this card, the 9800 GTX will most likely lose, even if not by much.

The only real advantages are less power consumption, less heat generation and hardware decoding capabilities. But in everything else, this card provides no appealing reason to get it..

It's truly a very poor product line, apart from the 9600 GT, as I mentioned before. I'm not even thinking of the GX2, because cards like those do not interest me, even when it most likely will surpass the 8800 Ultra and HD 3870 X2.

Not sure what NVIDIA is doing. Either G100/GT200 is as good as G80 was, or they just threw the advantage they had over ATI out of the window, since they are giving them time to catch up. It really doesn't make sense.
 
So since I have a month left on my step-up until expiration, do you think it will be wise to use it to step up from an 8800GT to the 9800GTX? Or will it be nothing significant?
 
Weren't these card supposed to be available on the 11th, then the 18th, now the 25th? I mean, I can wait for something that'll blow the doors off of current hardware. But this is just frustrating... *sigh*
 
Maybe this is all nVidia had in them, and they didn't do it on purpose. The price point on these products is very low, but then again so are ATIs. All I like to see is how cheap everything is compared to old school cards that were 900 dollars.
 
I wasn't expecting these specs. I always thought the GTX line would always have 768MB of memory. It looks like the 9 series will not really be that much of an improvement over the current 8 series.
 
"So since I have a month left on my step-up until expiration, do you think it will be wise to use it to step up from an 8800GT to the 9800GTX? Or will it be nothing significant?"

why not just buy another 8800gt and run it in sli?
 
Urraca said:
So since I have a month left on my step-up until expiration, do you think it will be wise to use it to step up from an 8800GT to the 9800GTX? Or will it be nothing significant?
Click to expand...

IMHO - it's going to be a wash. This is basically a G92 die-shrink, so unless it's one hell of an oc'er then you wouldn't gain much.
 
rodsfree said:
IMHO - it's going to be a wash. This is basically a G92 die-shrink, so unless it's one hell of an oc'er then you wouldn't gain much.
Click to expand...

It's not even a G92 die-shrink...G92 is 65 nm and the chip powering the 9800 GTX, seems to be exactly the same.
 
Daedalus_AI said:
Maybe this is all nVidia had in them, and they didn't do it on purpose. The price point on these products is very low, but then again so are ATIs. All I like to see is how cheap everything is compared to old school cards that were 900 dollars.
Click to expand...
exactly what i like cheap high end cards :D
 
Urraca said:
So since I have a month left on my step-up until expiration, do you think it will be wise to use it to step up from an 8800GT to the 9800GTX? Or will it be nothing significant?
Click to expand...

We haven't seen real-world gameplay numbers, but given the known specs, add 5 fps over the GTS 512 numbers and that should be roughly what this 9800 GTX will get. That means on par or a bit faster than the 8800 GTX up to 1600x1200, which also means a 10 or so fps difference, when compared to the 8800 GT. Honestly, not worth it at all.
 
A few questions:

1) Wouldn't the drop in memory only affect you if you are running higher than 1900x1200?

2) Is the drop to 256 bit a bigger deal than the drop to 512?

3) Do you think going to 65nm will let you overclock it better?

4) When will [H] run this thing up agianst a 8800GTX and GX2 :D
 
nvidiageforce9800gtxs17fi6.jpg
this thing is really big :D
 
bw31 said:
How is this anything other than a factory O/C 8800GTS?
Click to expand...

It isn't. Other than the PCB layout. It has more components in the power supply section of the card, and requires two connectors. There must be some reason for this, as it increases the cost of manufacturing. Perhaps it OCs more, thats what Im waiting to find out.
 
Perfect opportunity for AMD/ATI to take the lead again when nvidia just shot themselves in the foot.

And I think going to a 256-bit memory interface is worse than from 768 -> 512 MB ram. All that extra memory doesnt do squat when your memory interface cant take advantage, as evidenced by the 8800 GT 1 GB cards.
 
TxRydawg said:
"So since I have a month left on my step-up until expiration, do you think it will be wise to use it to step up from an 8800GT to the 9800GTX? Or will it be nothing significant?"

why not just buy another 8800gt and run it in sli?
Click to expand...

Because that would require me to buy a pricey SLI mobo, when my current single slot one is already awesome, and a second 8800gt. But for less than 50 bucks with the step up program, I can get the 9800gtx.
 
Urraca said:
Because that would require me to buy a pricey SLI mobo, when my current single slot one is already awesome, and a second 8800gt. But for less than 50 bucks with the step up program, I can get the 9800gtx.
Click to expand...


for Less than $50, I would make that step-up.
 
I am gonna stick with my 8800 GTX's running in SLI for another spell. With further driver refinements, i think they can squeeze another year out of them. I will def not be getting the 9800GTX's
 
Specs on the 9800 kind of make you go hmmmm... Maybe NVIDIA is looking for ATI to close the gap?:confused: They need ATI to get the competition going again between the two companies. When they are both neck in neck performance wise it creates a natural buzz in the pc community. That equals to free $$$$ that both companies don't need to spend on marketing. Just an opinion. I was putting off buying 2x 8800GTS for a new build but after seeing the specs my decision was just made for me.
 
One question I must pose: Other than "for the hell of it", (which is a perfectly valid reason, though.), why do we _want_ faster cards than what is available now? There is only one game out there (Crysis) that even taxes current top end cards at 1920x1200, and its not even a very good game. Do we really need 200fps in COD4 instead of 130? Heh. Obviously we always want better and faster stuff, but what reason does Nvidia or ATI have to accelerate the launch of their next product? Not much.

Out of curiosity what performance problems are people running into (non-Crysis) on their 8800 GTX/Ultra/GTS512? I'm still running a 7800 GTX so I've been running into all kinds of problems, but the framerates I'm seeing for every game out there except Crysis seem to be more than playable maxed out at 1920x1200 on current cards.
 
this is a disappointing GTX card.

if the core clock was closer to 750MHz than 650MHz
if the memory was clocked at 2400MHz
if the card packed a GB of memory

then it would be tempting......................... but it doesn't, so it had better be cheap!
 
This is me LOLing at everybody cursing all those rumor sites for "making shit up" when they posted this information ages ago.
 
Silus said:
It's not even a G92 die-shrink...G92 is 65 nm and the chip powering the 9800 GTX, seems to be exactly the same.
Click to expand...


I was under the impression that the 9xxx cards were based on 55nm technology. IIRC the 9600 is, so it would make sense for the 9800 to be also.
 
So we wait 1.5 years for a card that's no faster/cheaper than one can buy an 8800GTX?
 
8800GTX price at release: $650
9800GTX price at release: $349

I'm not sure why nobody considers this progress. Cutting the price of top-end performance by nearly half in 18 months.

Things are alway too expensive, too hot, too big, or too slow. Whenever a manufacturer addresses one (or even several) of these factors, everyone just decides to focus on a different one and continue the whining.
 
I was hoping to upgrade my 8800 GTS 640 this spring but I may be waiting a while it seems. I got a 50inch DLP that is just begging for some 1080p PC gaming. Maybe this will be a super overclocker? Or maybe the beefy power supply components are for an Ultra varient with the bigger memory bus and more VRAM?

Any word on the price?
 
Meh. They could have at least been honest and called it the "8900GTX," instead they're implying it's some major leap forward. Unless there's something hidden in there that NVIDIA has been somehow able to keep off the intarwebs, that card disappoints. 256-bit w/512MB GDDR3? At 1100MHz no less? My 7900GTX memory is clocked higher than that... You'd think they'd at least use GDDR4 or something. This is what happens when there's no competition. My only consolation is that maybe the price will be lower this time around (instead of a $500 card, maybe $349 or something since IMO it isn't worth $500...)
 
Hurin said:
8800GTX price at release: $650
9800GTX price at release: $349

I'm not sure why nobody considers this progress. Cutting the price of top-end performance by nearly half in 18 months.

Things are alway too expensive, too hot, too big, or too slow. Whenever a manufacturer addresses one (or even several) of these factors, everyone just decides to focus on a different one and continue the whining.
Click to expand...


Thats a good point, Price will half OR Performance will double every 18 months, guess we got the former.
 
Can this one card output to all 3 displays at once (2 monitors + tv) or with all the power available to do you still need 2 cards for 3 displays?

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top