9800 GTX Reviews Thread

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 19, 2001
20,155
23
81
Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
HardOCP had an answer for all the people complaining that they used too few games in their benchmarks. They basically said, other than Crysis, most of the $200+ cards now can max out and use AA even at high resolutions on most games out now. Right now is the first time I can think of that there isn't a game on the horizon making everyone itch to upgrade, although there is one that has been out for 4 months now that can do that. The next Id Engine doesn't look all that special. Will there be another Valve engine? Will there be another Lithtech engine?

is retarded as always they screw around with benches. Some have AA some have MSAA Some use TSAA whatever.. it's all retarded.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...w2LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

How do you compare the 8800GTS with teh 9800GTX? You can't because they use different AA. As for 25x16.. Why no AA? I know it's high enough res where AA is stupid, but otherwise you're gonna get equivalent framerates as we see?

Why does compare apples vs oranges all the time? If you can't find 1 EQUAL SETTING situation for all cards, then wtf is the point of reading their benches?
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
9800GTX is NOT faster than the ultra where it counts -- high res with FSAA and filtering on. Slightly higher max & average frame rates at the 200 fps level at low res and no FSAA are irrelevant to someone in desperate need of a * HIGH END * single GPU card today.

It is however much cheaper and less power hungry. Which makes it a decent value for comprable performance, but still a step back in absolute performance.

It's definitely no FX series, but it is still a disappointment.
 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
Originally posted by: v8envy
9800GTX is NOT faster than the ultra where it counts -- high res with FSAA and filtering on. Slightly higher max & average frame rates at the 200 fps level at low res and no FSAA are irrelevant to someone in desperate need of a * HIGH END * single GPU card today.

It is however much cheaper and less power hungry. Which makes it a decent value for comprable performance, but still a step back in absolute performance.

It's definitely no FX series, but it is still a disappointment.

Yep, the only difference is its not a leaf blower and its actually decent value, but damn, is the dual card crap really taking over? Will cards go the way of CPUS? Quad core coming soon? Pff
 

Munky

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2005
9,372
0
76
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself

For being named 9800GTX, it does even worse than the 5800FX did at the time compared to the previous gen, how can you take it seriously? Take off your green tinted glasses before posting here

Incorrect. 5800 was slow and expensive.

9800 is faster and cheaper than ultra.

The 9800gtx is slower than the ultra at settings that matter - high res with AA. If anything, at least they could have made it with 1GB of video mem, that might have helped it in some games. But as it is, this thing would hardly deserve to be called a 8900gtx, nevermind a ridiculous name that implies a whole generational leap in performance and features.
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: munky

The 9800gtx is slower than the ultra at settings that matter - high res with AA. If anything, at least they could have made it with 1GB of video mem, that might have helped it in some games. But as it is, this thing would hardly deserve to be called a 8900gtx, nevermind a ridiculous name that implies a whole generational leap in performance and features.

its only a name...

true, it really should be named 8900gtx. but it is a good price/ performance regardless, very much like 7800gtx -> 7900gtx.

to say its a 'joke' really doesn't justify its value.
 

ShadowOfMyself

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2006
4,227
2
0
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: munky

The 9800gtx is slower than the ultra at settings that matter - high res with AA. If anything, at least they could have made it with 1GB of video mem, that might have helped it in some games. But as it is, this thing would hardly deserve to be called a 8900gtx, nevermind a ridiculous name that implies a whole generational leap in performance and features.

its only a name...

true, it really should be named 8900gtx. but it is a good price/ performance regardless, very much like 7800gtx -> 7900gtx.

to say its a 'joke' really doesn't justify its value.

Not even close... 7900GTX had close to 50% performance increase in high settings, this card barely outperforms the ultra, and when it does its by 5%, wtf is that? Well yeah "thats what the GX2 is for"
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,211
50
91
Originally posted by: v8envy
Let me quote to you from Keys' benchmarking of Crysis a few posts up:


1600x1200
4xAA 0xAF
All advanced settings: High
Vsync: OFF

Minimum: 18 Average: 27.2 Maximum: 37 (FRAPS ver 2.9.

Now that's with * TWO * 9800GTX, and a 790i motherboard, at comparatively low res. And still can't handle Crysis.

If you think ~7 fps a worthy upgrade for $350 (cheapie 790 board), 2x $329 (2x 9800gtx) and $400 (4g of DDR3 ram) = over $1300, not including PSU upgrade or cost of shipping for RMAs once the nv chipset board fries itself or your ram.... more power to you. I happen to disagree.

SLI is a farce right now. It's not a good solution at high res (see: benchmarks at 25x16 with FSAA and AF enabled), and overkill for low res. The performance is higher than you can get with any single card, yes. But the cost is large in both dollars and drawbacks of the tech.

It's only one game dude. And a worse case scenario game at that. Nothing currently taxes graphics cards harder. You can't base your purchasing decision on just one game, when there are dozens and dozens of others.
Playing the first level in Crysis at 1600x1200, 0xAA I sustained an average of about 55fps. The range was 27 to 80, but mostly hovered around 55.
 

Ylurien

Member
Jul 26, 2007
74
0
0
Ok everyone keeps talking about this 9800GTX as being inferior to the Ultra and therefore not even worthy of being released. But have you seen the price of the Ultra? When it first came out, it was, according to some web sites, $829. That is, much more than even the 9800GX2 of today. What's the price of an 8800 Ultra now? I have no idea as they're not being sold new anymore, but I probably wouldn't be too off in saying about $500 or more? So I ask you, where's the problem? What's the problem with being able to spend $350, get Ultra-level performance (you ARE going to overclock your 9800GTX, aren't you?) and play all your games at a decent res. If you're bitching about there not being enough performance, then you're probably one of those crazies who bought an 8800Ultra new when it came out, and should probably have no problems with buying a 9800GX2.

So it's quite simple, both sensible people and crazy people with too much money are covered. The biggest problem remains one of there not being enough good games to warrant spending this much money on a new graphics card. I have a 2900 Pro and all of the fanciest games from the end of 2007, etc., and I'm honestly wondering what games I really want to play in a higher resolution. There are just not a whole lot of great games out there right now, in my opinion... I mean, that IS why you guys buy new graphics cards, isn't it? Isn't it?
 

Hauk

Platinum Member
Nov 22, 2001
2,806
0
0
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: v8envy
Let me quote to you from Keys' benchmarking of Crysis a few posts up:


1600x1200
4xAA 0xAF
All advanced settings: High
Vsync: OFF

Minimum: 18 Average: 27.2 Maximum: 37 (FRAPS ver 2.9.

Now that's with * TWO * 9800GTX, and a 790i motherboard, at comparatively low res. And still can't handle Crysis.

If you think ~7 fps a worthy upgrade for $350 (cheapie 790 board), 2x $329 (2x 9800gtx) and $400 (4g of DDR3 ram) = over $1300, not including PSU upgrade or cost of shipping for RMAs once the nv chipset board fries itself or your ram.... more power to you. I happen to disagree.

SLI is a farce right now. It's not a good solution at high res (see: benchmarks at 25x16 with FSAA and AF enabled), and overkill for low res. The performance is higher than you can get with any single card, yes. But the cost is large in both dollars and drawbacks of the tech.

It's only one game dude. And a worse case scenario game at that. Nothing currently taxes graphics cards harder. You can't base your purchasing decision on just one game, when there are dozens and dozens of others.
Playing the first level in Crysis at 1600x1200, 0xAA I sustained an average of about 55fps. The range was 27 to 80, but mostly hovered around 55.

We knew at its launch there was nothing, nor would there be anything that "could handle" Crysis at a level you're talking. Slap three Ultras together and you still have a game that brings a system to its knees with max settings. Unfreakin believable what's bolded above is still in circulation!!

It's pointless to support it (9800 GTX). Fire and brimstone weilding 8800 GT/GTX owners will find a fault regardless. Forget the amazing bang for the buck, forget the heat/power advantages over 8800 GTX. Forget the awful stock cooler many GT owners replaced to solve heat and noise issues. Forget the superb component quality of the 9800 GTX. Forget the core is tuned better than perhaps any to date. Forget that 80%+ SLI efficiency is now attainable among a majority of current titles.

It's pointless to support it...
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Originally posted by: ronnn
Originally posted by: Wreckage
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
April 1st was the perfect day for this, considering the card is a joke

<snip>

He's 100% right.

Yes he is right, about the sour grapes that is.

How can these ATI supporters cry about the 9800GTX when ATI has had nothing even close to the 2 year old 8800GTX? ATIs top GPU is barely even a midrange card.

So I guess this ati fanboy stuff is ok with the mods, but really a silly way to support a respin. Nice to see lower power consumption but the fancy multi-card stuff leaves me yawning.

Can't remember what I said that needed editing?
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

It's only one game dude. And a worse case scenario game at that. Nothing currently taxes graphics cards harder.

It's not the worst case scenario. Higher resolutions and enabling filtering on absolutely destroy the GTX, with or without SLI. In many titles, even older tones. Want me to quote other reiviews where this card posts *8* average frames/sec at 25x16 with 16 sample FSAA and 16x filtering? This is an enthusiast level card, the *ONLY* single GPU enthusiast level solution. There is nothing better!

Let me put it another way. Has there ever been another time in NV's history where a rational, informed consumer would question the value proposition of a 'generation' upgrade? Ok, got me with the whole FX product series. Ok, got me with the 7600GT to 8600GT too. But aside from those two corner cases which everyone will admit were not NV doing their best?

Right now 9600GTs or 8800GSes or 8800GTs or 8800GTSes or G80 8800GTXes will post the same or higher ludicrous frame rates at low res in older titles and fail just as miserably at high res in more demanding titles as the absolute best hardware an enthusiast can buy. A discontinued G80 video card (the Ultra) can do even better in some cases. I see little to no value in upgrading from my 8800GT 512 to a 9800GTX. And I'm not alone here.

That's the beef I have with the 9800GTX. It's not a bad product at its current price point on its own, but when put against the backdrop of existing 1.5+ year old competition it's utterly disappointing. The XXTtreme Xmarketing X of a mildly rehashed product as the next gen is offensive, at least to my sensibilities.

The lack of midrange graphics hardware over the last year forced even casual gamers into 'enthusiast' class cards. Now the 8800GT is a mainstream card. We demand far more than a few % higher performance out of enthusiast class hardware. As it stands, the 9800GTX is yet another mainstream gaming card of roughly the same caliber as the entire nearly identically performing 8800GS/9600GT/8800GT/8800GTS/8800GTX/8800Ultra, although with some very nice bells and whistles and a nice low price.

Yes, NV can criple previous gen performance with drivers to make the current 9 series look good. That certainly appears to be the track being taken. Which doesn't make this a great product either.

In conclusion, I blame ATI.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,211
50
91
Originally posted by: v8envy
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

It's only one game dude. And a worse case scenario game at that. Nothing currently taxes graphics cards harder.

It's not the worst case scenario. Higher resolutions and enabling filtering on absolutely destroy the GTX, with or without SLI. In many titles, even older tones. Want me to quote other reiviews where this card posts *8* average frames/sec at 25x16 with 16 sample FSAA and 16x filtering? This is an enthusiast level card, the *ONLY* single GPU enthusiast level solution. There is nothing better!

If it's not the worse case scenario, you must just be talking about the settings "I" used. Unfortunately my monitor only goes up to 16x12. But, "I" was talking about the game in general. There is no game that currently exists that is tougher on video cards.

And as for your last sentences there, Yes, it's the ONLY single GPU enthusiast solution. But, nobody said high end has to "be" a single GPU. There is the 3870X2 and the 9800GX2.

Which happen to scale nicely in Crysis over a best single GPU card. So my friend, you are not as "optionless" as you think you are. Whether or not you approve of multi GPU cards is sort of irrelevant. They offer more performance in most games out there. Or, you can Crossfire or SLI two cards if you have a mobo that supports either.

Do you remember last year, when a lot of people were complaining about the constant rising costs of video cards? The lack of affordable mid range cards, and the grotesque prices of the few top dogs? Well, now it seems a major "retooling" is, or has been underway. Performance is slightly better than last gen, but the prices are to die for.

The problem is, everyone wants everything all at once, all of the time. Well, it looks like this is a good step in the right direction for both camps. Great performance, Great pricing, Great technology. Paves a new road for the next gen parts.

EDIT: About the "I blame ATI" comment. Why do we always look for someone to blame.
Things happen. Good and bad. We deal. But nobody was asking who was to blame.
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


If it's not the worse case scenario, you must just be talking about the settings "I" used. Unfortunately my monitor only goes up to 16x12. But, "I" was talking about the game in general. There is no game that currently exists that is tougher on video cards.

Very true. But for most other games there's no need for enthusiast level video. Consumer grade cards handle those situations with aplomb. Crysis is ahead of its time, and currently there's no solution from either camp that is satisfactory. It's only a matter of time until other demanding games come out with no hardware to run them.

And as for your last sentences there, Yes, it's the ONLY single GPU enthusiast solution. But, nobody said high end has to "be" a single GPU. There is the 3870X2 and the 9800GX2.

Which happen to scale nicely in Crysis over a best single GPU card. So my friend, you are not as "optionless" as you think you are. Whether or not you approve of multi GPU cards is sort of irrelevant. They offer more performance in most games out there. Or, you can Crossfire or SLI two cards if you have a mobo that supports either.

Multi-GPU is not the answer, at least not yet. Aside from the lack of a good SLI chipset for Intel there's issues with multiple monitor support, vsync, support of 'older' (read: 2006) as well as lesser known titles, heat, noise and general software and hardware complexity. Not everyone has or wants a motherboard with support for multiple GPUs or desires the rat's nest of cables to power 2+ GPUs with 2 power connectors each. Some of us may want a smaller case that can't levitate from the dozen required fans and a micro-atx board for aesthetics and portability reasons.

The problems with sandwich cards and SLI have been hashed and rehashed a dozen times. They're great for benchmarks, not so great for minimum frame rates or higher resolutions with FSAA and aniso filtering -- exactly what's demanded from a high end GPU solution.

Do you remember last year, when a lot of people were complaining about the constant rising costs of video cards? The lack of affordable mid range cards, and the grotesque prices of the few top dogs? Well, now it seems a major "retooling" is, or has been underway. Performance is slightly better than last gen, but the prices are to die for.

The problem is, everyone wants everything all at once, all of the time. Well, it looks like this is a good step in the right direction for both camps. Great performance, Great pricing, Great technology. Paves a new road for the next gen parts.

EDIT: About the "I blame ATI" comment. Why do we always look for someone to blame.
Things happen. Good and bad. We deal. But nobody was asking who was to blame.

I'm all for choice. The problem is there isn't any. There are approximately 133,700 midrange solutions from both vendors, all with equivalent performance, features and pricepoints. I understand why -- mainstream is where the $ are at. Not having any viable mainstream products was a tremendous blunder on the side of both camps last year, a mistake both companies have now rectified.

Unfortunately there are approximately 0 single GPU enthusiast solutions. Re-labeling midrange hardware as high end and saying 'well, just throw two or more of them in and ignore the problems' isn't progress.
 

Jakeisbest

Senior member
Feb 1, 2008
377
0
0
Wow Just checked prices for 8800 GTS - was waiting for prices to go down. They went up from 6:00am est this morning. The MSI 8800GTS (G92) was $209 AR this morning and it is now $239. The eVGA 8800GTS was $229 and is now $279. Should have bought yesterday knowing that the 9800GTX was a marketing release only.

I don't know where you are looking but prices still seem really low to me.

8800gt 512 for 179!

 

bryanW1995

Lifer
May 22, 2007
11,144
32
91
the current situation is definitely ati's fault, but not how you think.

Nvidia wasn't planning to make the 8800gt the kickass world beater that it ended up being. they were planning to make it slower than the 8800gts 640 most likely, but they got wind of the 3870 and had to think fast. daamit forced nvidia to up the clocks so much on their 8800gt that now it nearly has the performance of 8800gtx/9800gtx and is DIRT CHEAP, as in $170 for the oc msi card at newegg last time I checked. today is the best time in recent memory to upgrade to midrange. for top end wait a few months.
 

v8envy

Platinum Member
Sep 7, 2002
2,720
0
0
Originally posted by: bryanW1995
the current situation is definitely ati's fault, but not how you think.

Nvidia wasn't planning to make the 8800gt the kickass world beater that it ended up being. they were planning to make it slower than the 8800gts 640 most likely, but they got wind of the 3870 and had to think fast. daamit forced nvidia to up the clocks so much on their 8800gt that now it nearly has the performance of 8800gtx/9800gtx and is DIRT CHEAP, as in $170 for the oc msi card at newegg last time I checked. today is the best time in recent memory to upgrade to midrange. for top end wait a few months.

That's one way to look at it -- a miscalculated product release.

Here's another theory. NV beancounters took a look at all their options and decided to emulate Intel in releasing a midrange product which outperforms the competitions flagship SKU, thusly limiting their competition's revenue, R&D ability and future likelyhood of competing at the high end.

In other words, cannibalize the tiny high end GPU market in order to completely dominate the midrange market today and a year or more from now, offsetting the lost high end profits with lower R&D costs.

Nope, still blaming ATI for not leapfrogging NV as they have in the past and allowing NV the opton of playing this kind of marketing game.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,211
50
91
Originally posted by: v8envy
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003


If it's not the worse case scenario, you must just be talking about the settings "I" used. Unfortunately my monitor only goes up to 16x12. But, "I" was talking about the game in general. There is no game that currently exists that is tougher on video cards.

Very true. But for most other games there's no need for enthusiast level video. Consumer grade cards handle those situations with aplomb. Crysis is ahead of its time, and currently there's no solution from either camp that is satisfactory. It's only a matter of time until other demanding games come out with no hardware to run them.


And as for your last sentences there, Yes, it's the ONLY single GPU enthusiast solution. But, nobody said high end has to "be" a single GPU. There is the 3870X2 and the 9800GX2.

Which happen to scale nicely in Crysis over a best single GPU card. So my friend, you are not as "optionless" as you think you are. Whether or not you approve of multi GPU cards is sort of irrelevant. They offer more performance in most games out there. Or, you can Crossfire or SLI two cards if you have a mobo that supports either.

Multi-GPU is not the answer, at least not yet. Aside from the lack of a good SLI chipset for Intel there's issues with multiple monitor support, vsync, support of 'older' (read: 2006) as well as lesser known titles, heat, noise and general software and hardware complexity. Not everyone has or wants a motherboard with support for multiple GPUs or desires the rat's nest of cables to power 2+ GPUs with 2 power connectors each. Some of us may want a smaller case that can't levitate from the dozen required fans and a micro-atx board for aesthetics and portability reasons.

The problems with sandwich cards and SLI have been hashed and rehashed a dozen times. They're great for benchmarks, not so great for minimum frame rates or higher resolutions with FSAA and aniso filtering -- exactly what's demanded from a high end GPU solution.

You're making these molehills into mountains, honestly. You say Multi-GPU is not the answer because you don't want it. For reasons that are your own. That is fine. But don't over glorify their shortcomings. All graphics cards have shortcomings and advantages. Why is multi-GPU any different? There are games where Xfire/SLI kick some serious bootay. And others where it's "meh". But not that many. Older games? Seriously. Who needs multicard to play older games? Why do you need an Intel based motherboard? Intel has awesome chipsets, but you don't need an Nvidia chipset mobo to run a GX2. And it's only a "rats nest if you are a sloppy PC builder . It can be very neat and organized with little effort.
For those with SFF systems, I will agree with you there.
I thought SLI produced higher minimum framerates? Higher levels of AA? and AF? What am I missing?

Do you remember last year, when a lot of people were complaining about the constant rising costs of video cards? The lack of affordable mid range cards, and the grotesque prices of the few top dogs? Well, now it seems a major "retooling" is, or has been underway. Performance is slightly better than last gen, but the prices are to die for.

The problem is, everyone wants everything all at once, all of the time. Well, it looks like this is a good step in the right direction for both camps. Great performance, Great pricing, Great technology. Paves a new road for the next gen parts.

EDIT: About the "I blame ATI" comment. Why do we always look for someone to blame.
Things happen. Good and bad. We deal. But nobody was asking who was to blame.[/quote]

I'm all for choice. The problem is there isn't any. There are approximately 133,700 midrange solutions from both vendors, all with equivalent performance, features and pricepoints. I understand why -- mainstream is where the $ are at. Not having any viable mainstream products was a tremendous blunder on the side of both camps last year, a mistake both companies have now rectified.

Unfortunately there are approximately 0 single GPU enthusiast solutions. Re-labeling midrange hardware as high end and saying 'well, just throw two or more of them in and ignore the problems' isn't progress.[/quote]

 

djnsmith7

Platinum Member
Apr 13, 2004
2,612
1
0
I have mixed feelings about the 9800GTX. I think it's a great card for someone just getting into the higher end graphics card market, meaning, if they have an older card (9800 Pro, 7900GTX, etc), then this is a great option. But for someone with a more powerful card than that (8800GT, 8800GTS, 8800GTX, etc.), who is looking for a raw performance increase, this card really is a tough decision. Hell, I'd love to Step Up to this card from my 8800GT's, & I just might do that, but I'm doing a lot of back & forth, since the performance increase isn't that high.

OTOH, it's a great price to get damn near 8800 Ultra performance, along with the option to go Tri-SLI. It really is too bad this card isn't obliterating any of the recent cards, or this would be a no-brainer. Who knows, wishful thinking I guess, but maybe some ass-kicking drivers will be released shortly & the benchmarks will see some nice improvements.
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
I had a hard time deciding to upgrade my 8800GT or not. Ended up deciding against it.

For those of you on the fence with Evgas like me.. take note-
The launch day of the 9800GTX the Evga stepup price was $330. Now it's $350. That's punishment of sorts for dilly dallying, but with this card being a Geforce 9 sticker with YA256BMI (yet another 256bit memory interface ) I decided on both counts I was refusing to hand Nvidia more of my hard earned money. I'm going back to BFG for my cards too now that they have Trade Up.

The total cost for me including the $10 shipping was $100 to go from my GT, this was before they raised the price.

In my new build I sprang for a PCIE 2.0 motherboard, so I'm looking forward to tossing in a GT200 or R700, whichever is on the market first. Going through all the work and money to rebuild now made me want to go for that considering it has improvements in the point to point data transfer protocol and its software architechure.

I've always been an Nvidia guy, yet regardless, I'm really digging the 3870 X2 and am eager to see the R700 more than I'm excited about the current and future Nvidia hardware.
Something is intriguing me with ATI's recent releases that NV just hasn't been able to put out the fire. Nvidia seems to be dropping the ball on drivers too.
Most Vista crashes.. outdated GF8 drivers on the GF9 launch? Mmmhmmmm nothing fishy there. I'll give my money to Intel for now and pass on this "Geforce 9" stuff, thanks though. Come again when you're seriously contending for our cash instead of this child's play.
 

JACKDRUID

Senior member
Nov 28, 2007
729
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadowOfMyself
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
Originally posted by: munky

The 9800gtx is slower than the ultra at settings that matter - high res with AA. If anything, at least they could have made it with 1GB of video mem, that might have helped it in some games. But as it is, this thing would hardly deserve to be called a 8900gtx, nevermind a ridiculous name that implies a whole generational leap in performance and features.

its only a name...

true, it really should be named 8900gtx. but it is a good price/ performance regardless, very much like 7800gtx -> 7900gtx.

to say its a 'joke' really doesn't justify its value.

Not even close... 7900GTX had close to 50% performance increase in high settings, this card barely outperforms the ultra, and when it does its by 5%, wtf is that? Well yeah "thats what the GX2 is for"

7900gtx has 50% increase vs 7800gtx, not 7800gtx 512mb.

9800gtx does have great performance increase over 8800gtx.

it should be called 8900gtx , but then, its priced accordingly.
 

Obsoleet

Platinum Member
Oct 2, 2007
2,181
1
0
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
7900gtx has 50% increase vs 7800gtx, not 7800gtx 512mb.

9800gtx does have great performance increase over 8800gtx.

it should be called 8900gtx , but then, its priced accordingly.

It's named the GF9 because they didn't have much to counter ATI's 3870 X2 stuff so they rushed out the best they had (G92) and decided to pull as much of one as they could on the consumer with using up the GF9 name. That'll stoppem from buying ATI.

It's a good tactic really. It's working on people at least. Nvidia might as well pull out the Geforce9 name, titles are free. They need all the propoganda they can get too to convince people to spring for this jalopy. I think in the end the move was a mistake but I understand the free publicity "Geforce 9" gets NV in consumer circles. It's a minor price to pay.
Anyone with a 8800 512MB+ card should stick with what they've got.

Originally posted by: jaredpace
Originally posted by: chronox
I have an EVGA 8800GTS 512 - Is it worth stepping-up to a 9800GTX?

no

ditto.


Any future driver updates will likely bring the GF8 series more on par with the recent GF9 results, not widen the gap. It's the GF8 that has outdated drivers most likely on purpose, but doesnt matter they are indeed outdated in comparison.
 

surfsatwerk

Lifer
Mar 6, 2008
10,110
5
81
Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: jaredpace
Originally posted by: chronox
I have an EVGA 8800GTS 512 - Is it worth stepping-up to a 9800GTX?

no

ditto.


Any future driver updates will likely bring the GF8 series more on par with the recent GF9 results, not widen the gap. It's the GF8 that has outdated drivers most likely on purpose, but doesnt matter they are indeed outdated in comparison.

If all the man has to do is pay shipping to get a better card then what the heck does that matter.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |