The 9800s are here, Oh my!

[Yamii]

Newegg.com - Video Cards, NVIDIA Video Card, ATI Video Cards, AGP Video Cards, GeForce Video Card, Radeon Video Card

Looks like they are out with a $600 dollar price tag, not unexpected...can't wait to see the first of the benchmarks.

[Howling]

NVIDIA nForce 790i SLI Ultra and GeForce 9800 GX2 - HotHardware

Just one of the 3 reviews I've read today.. They all say the same thing basically - So I'm only posting 1

[Diablo]

They are basically 2 8800GTS 512s in SLI on "1" card. The only thing they add is the ability to have 4 or 6 way SLI and that wont be for a week or so when the new drivers are released.

They are a waste of money unless you need a new card and want SLI only using one slot.

[knite16]

A superclocked 8800 GTX is 621 MHz, while the only 9800s on NewEgg are 600 MHz.

The only notible difference other than being a pre-assembled SLI is the ability to utilize PCI-E 2.0

I've read 2.0 can transfer twice as much data, but it that alone worth a newer 2.0 compatible card?

Basically, I'm building a PC for a buddy of mine and the GTX is what we're thinking to put in it. Superclocked, its down to $400. And later down the line, when they're cheaper still, he can get another and SLI. For $200 more, we can go with a 9800 PCI-e 2.0 and of course the 780i MB to utilize 2.0 on that side.

Any thoughts?

[Yamii]

Originally Posted by knite16

I've read 2.0 can transfer twice as much data, but it that alone worth a newer 2.0 compatible card?

Any thoughts?

PCI-e 2.0 doubles the bus standard's bandwidth from 2.5 Gbit/s to 5 Gbit/s, meaning a x32 connector can transfer data at up to 16 GB/s in each direction.
So yes a 2.0 card would be better. But that being said almost all of the newer 8800s from the better named companies are already PCI-e 2.0.

[Howling]

Also, the GTS pretty much outperforms the GTX everywhere except extreme resolutions (1920x1200 and over, where the GTX extra ram comes into play)... And the GTS is cheaper...

Just a thought

[knite16]

Originally Posted by Howling

Also, the GTS pretty much outperforms the GTX everywhere except extreme resolutions (1920x1200 and over, where the GTX extra ram comes into play)... And the GTS is cheaper...

Just a thought

Really? Nothing I've read has really put the GTS in a higher league than the GTX.

Looking back over our battery of benchmark tests, there were several times when one card seemed to win out over the competition, only to be badly beaten in the next round. One thing is certain: the GeForce 8800 GTS is a no-win product at this point. Made only worse by the recent update to a 512MB and 1GB version, the price for a 256-bit memory interface is hardly worth the small performance gain. Put plainly, the old 8800 GTS was a good price point in the days where you had to choose between either a 7900 GTX/7950 GTX at the low end or an 8800 GTX/Ultra at the high end. Now there are far more graphic cards that put out better performance for less cost, and the new 8800 GTS isn't fitting in quite as well. This leaves us with a showdown between the 8800 GT and the GTX.

Until the GeForce 9800 GX launches later in February (2008), there is still a large segment of the consumer market that has to shop for the best price-to-performance product for their gaming system. As our test results have indicated, it all comes back to the 8800 GT and GTX. While 3DMark06 clearly favors the 8800 GTX, there isn't much real-world application for a benchmark suite because it's only good for testing. Crysis was dominated by the mighty 8800 GT, whereas the GTX barely outperformed the GTS in this GPU-heavy game. Cinebench only gave a very small margin back to the GT over the GTX, but when you get to games like World in Conflict the GeForce 8800 GTX still holds itself supreme. Rather confusing results if you look at them on the surface, but when you take into consideration that the future of gaming will be best benefited by memory frame buffer bandwidth you are left with only one clear-cut winner: GT.

The GT outperforms it in Crysis, but the GTX outperforms them all in World in Conflict. I guess either way I go, they're good cards, but its still kinda confusing.

My GTX seems to run everything just fine, but these reviews say the lower priced GT gives you almost 10 Frames more in Crysis.

Tough call, I guess. You can get 2 GT for the price of 1 GTX.

[Howling]

Maybe pre-G92 the GTS wasn't better than the GTX. But certainly since nVidia revamped the GT and GTS with the G92 cores the GTS is about on par, if not better in alot of places at lower res (1680x1050 and below) than the GTX.
How old is that review you quoted? Must be a long time ago as the G92s have been out for a while now...

[Sabre]

Screw the new 9800s...it's unneeded power, why waste your money, stick with 2 8800GTs or 1 GTS/GTX

[JunSakurada]

yeah its quite expensive.. omg quad sli tho XD

[Sabre]

Yeah my upgrade will definitely be including a Quad Core..those things are amazing../drool only 250 bucks now

[Ipmia]

i dont see the point of the x2, i m waiting for the single gtx only because of les s heatting and less energy consumption than the 8800 Gtx because perfs wize they are about the same.

unless you have lot of money i dont see the point on a g2 let say 2 g2.. but then again if i d have money to waste just "to have them" then i d go for a FX instead

its a useless expensive piece of craps period. by the time any game uses it at full capacitys there will be new technologies the card doesnt support.