9800 GTX OFFICIAL SPECS

[Hauk]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: andrei3333
true say ^

its still not an investment though as prices seem to drop like oce every two months on top end cards, but yeah its worth it to enjoy games to the max for another year to year and a half instead of saving like 50 bucks... think about it, a year and a half ago if you saved 50 bucks would it help you today ?

OK, but what happens when it doesn't last for even a year?

You nailed it. The graphics card is the worst hardware investment in terms of depreciation. Six month product cycles certainly don't help. If any card came close to having actual return on investment, it's the G80. But there is no return on investment with this stuff. Keeping pace is a luxury. There's nothing smart about it.

On the developer side, we see them struggling with single gpu powerhouses due to cost, but trying hard to return to the lucrative six month product cycle with 1+1 offerings. It's all a waste of money regardless if you're buying low, mid, or high end. If you're buying new product you're wasting money. I have the cash so I waste my fifty at the high end instead of the low end. The 9600 GT buyer is not saving money where I am wasting it.

 

[chizow]

Wow, cheaper than I expected if true. I'm certainly interested in where it falls into line performance-wise as there are some changes to the design noted in this thread that would help to alleviate some of the bottlenecks seen on other G92 parts (faster memory, 12-layer pcb, higher core/shader clocks etc). Still has only 16 ROPs which is still the biggest bottleneck on G92 parts imo; I doubt we'll see any significant gains in performance the likes of G80 over previous gen until the next generation packs more ROPs into a single core.

But the 9800GTX at $350 is definitely appealing in a number of ways:

1) Should be highest performing single-slot single-gpu solution. I'm expecting it to edge the Ultra in all but the lofty 2560 res with AA where 512MB frame buffer and 256-bit bus start holding it back. Should also run a little bit cooler and draw less power than a G80 GTX/Ultra.

2) 9800GTX SLI for $700 should outperform the 9800GX2 proportionate to the difference in price. Should outperform any other 2-GPU solution and may even come to close or surpass 2x 3870X2.

3) 9800GTX Tri-SLI for ~$1000 will probably be the fastest multi-GPU solution out there, even faster than 9800GX2 in XP (with 3 frame buffer limit) and possibly even in Vista (where a 4th GPU shows minimal gains with 2x 3870X2). It'll still be cheaper than 2x9800GX2 and will be about the same price as 2x3870X2.

But anyways, in the end its just another speed-bump and product option in NV's growing arsenal, but at a very reasonable price imo. There's still going to be a few that complain about the price, but these are going to be the same people who thought previous flagships and new releases were too expensive and didn't buy them. Personally I'll probably just wait for GT200 or go for SLI G80 GTX on the cheap.

 

[Hauk]

Yea, what he said. :thumbsup:

As always, a dead-on logical, articulate contribution from Chizow.

Thank you sir...

 

[lopri]

Well, my honest opinion on this specific SKU is that NV has massively overclocked G92 in order to avoid the embarassing situation where 8800 GTX > 9800 GTX. Unfortunately it looks like there still will be some embarassing situations, regardless. NV can try to raise the clockspeed higher, but they can't make up the extra 256MB out of nothing.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: lopri
Well, my honest opinion on this specific SKU is that NV has massively overclocked G92 in order to avoid the embarassing situation where 8800 GTX > 9800 GTX. Unfortunately it looks like there still will be some embarassing situations, regardless. NV can try to raise the clockspeed higher, but they can't make up the extra 256MB out of nothing.

Huh? There is already a 1GB 8800GTS on the market ($370 at newegg). But that isn't what really limits these cards, it's the bandwidth-choking 256-bit memory interface. A memory boost from 1900MHz up to 2200-2400MHz would help some.

If you read January's review of the 3870X2 (here) you would know that in 95% or more cases the G92 8800GTS 512MB beats or at least matches the G80 8800GTX 768MB at resolutions up to 1920x1200 (even in Crysis). It's only in a few cases when AA/AF is enabled at this resolution that the G92 card falls slightly behind because of bandwidth constraints.

 

[krnmastersgt]

So if 9800 GTX = $350 the 8800 GTX and Ultra shouldn't be more expensive, older cards, hopefully less performance, and the defining feature that kept them expensive to this day, the Tri-SLI is also implemented on the 9800. So what's the new cost gonna be, $200? $150? I might Tri-SLI the 8800 Ultras if they fall enough in price. Of course this isn't taking into account the price gouging that is sure to go on the moment they're released.

 

[lopri]

Umm.. of course I thought the 384-bit was taken for granted for 768MB? Anyway, thanks for the clarification. But that's what I was getting at to begin with.

 

[Denithor]

Sorry, I deal with too many people who think that 768MB > 512MB > 256MB just because of a bigger number, not taking the architectural differences into account at all (they would rather have a 512MB 8600GT than a 384MB 8800GS just because the 8600GT has more memory).

 

[slugg]

9800GTX is awesome!

APRIL FOOLS!!!!!1111oneone







^ not to be taken seriously

 

[Gaurav Duggal]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Sorry, I deal with too many people who think that 768MB > 512MB > 256MB just because of a bigger number, not taking the architectural differences into account at all (they would rather have a 512MB 8600GT than a 384MB 8800GS just because the 8600GT has more memory).

Most system builders here in India think the same way. I was actually recommended an 8500GT 1GB over a 7300GT 256MB (the 8500Gt was twice as expensive as the 7300GT)!!! Thank god I researched myself thoroughly with help from anandtech members before buying the 7300GT (whose fan failed subsequently and was replaced on warranty with my current 7300GT which sadly doesn't overclock to 600mhz core and 500mhz memory as the 256MB one did).

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Gaurav Duggal

Originally posted by: Denithor
Sorry, I deal with too many people who think that 768MB > 512MB > 256MB just because of a bigger number, not taking the architectural differences into account at all (they would rather have a 512MB 8600GT than a 384MB 8800GS just because the 8600GT has more memory).

Most system builders here in India think the same way. I was actually recommended an 8500GT 1GB over a 7300GT 256MB (the 8500Gt was twice as expensive as the 7300GT)!!! Thank god I researched myself thoroughly with help from anandtech members before buying the 7300GT (whose fan failed subsequently and was replaced on warranty with my current 7300GT which sadly doesn't overclock to 600mhz core and 500mhz memory as the 256MB one did).

well they were right because the 8500gt is better than the 7300gt especially in newer games. of course having 1gig or even 512mb on the 8500gt is useless but the card itself IS better. it probably wasnt worth the the extra cost though.

 

[Piuc2020]

I think we are getting sidetracked with the memory issue.

I wonder what upgrades the 9800GT will have? 0.8ns memory would be amazing but I guess a big advantage of the 9800GT will be resale value, even though it and the 8800GT will be practically the same, the former will be much easier to sell because of the 9 moniker.

 

[Gaurav Duggal]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Gaurav Duggal

Originally posted by: Denithor
Sorry, I deal with too many people who think that 768MB > 512MB > 256MB just because of a bigger number, not taking the architectural differences into account at all (they would rather have a 512MB 8600GT than a 384MB 8800GS just because the 8600GT has more memory).

Most system builders here in India think the same way. I was actually recommended an 8500GT 1GB over a 7300GT 256MB (the 8500Gt was twice as expensive as the 7300GT)!!! Thank god I researched myself thoroughly with help from anandtech members before buying the 7300GT (whose fan failed subsequently and was replaced on warranty with my current 7300GT which sadly doesn't overclock to 600mhz core and 500mhz memory as the 256MB one did).

well they were right because the 8500gt is better than the 7300gt especially in newer games. of course having 1gig or even 512mb on the 8500gt is useless but the card itself IS better. it probably wasnt worth the the extra cost though.

Just a little clarification:
In the Futuremark ORB the average oc'd 8500GT scores 1000 in sm2 1000 in sm3 on a similar system while my oc'd 7300GT used to get 1800sm2 1600sm3

Anyways lets revert back to the topic.

I'd say the 9800GT has to be at least 25% faster than the 8800Ultra otherwise why would Nvidia release them. I just hope the 4000 series from Amd can run Crysis on very high at 2560 x 1600, then Amd will be back to be competitive with Nvidia and the consumers will benefit.

 

[Lord Banshee]

well hopefully it is better than 25% faster

8800Ultra was 2x faster than 7900GTX
7900GTX was 2x faster than 6800Ultra
6800Ultra was >2x faster than 5900Ultra

2x = 200% faster

But i am with most of you the 9xxx is really 89xx series so if you look at the 78xx to 79xx series than the 9800GT = 8800GTX, if this is true than maybe ATI/AMD has something in the works that will out perform the sleeping giant.

 

[Piuc2020]

Well you are not getting 2x the performance but you get 0.5x the price (and even less in some cases) so that means you can SLI them for 1x the price and get 2x the performance? Happy now?

Does anyone else not realize how incredibly inexpensive these cards are? It's amazing, if you need the extra horsepower, just SLI 9600GTs for $300!, these more accessible prices to SLI make it feel like a new generation altogether, while a 8800Ultra cost you 600-700 when it was released, a pair of SLI 8800GTs will run you around $400 and offer MUCH better performance. SLI 8800 Ultras were 1200 or so when they released, for $1200 you can now get Quad 9800GX2 which again, has much better performance (well potentially at least). $300 used to get you a 8800GTS 320MB, now for $300 you can get SLI 9600GTs. There is your 2x the performance for the same price.

I really FAIL to see where the drop in performance is, these generation has been one of my favorite, excellent cards for cheap prices that can run everything out there and have excellent variety in multi-gpu configurations.

Now I hope ATI releases R700 and it's really a worthwhile part (ATI just seems to have dropped the ball on everything nowadays) so that we get even better Single-GPU performance and prices go down even further. This is a good time to be a PC gamer.

 

[Lord Banshee]

No i am not happy

1/2 the price is nice but after 1+ year that should be a accepted in the technology world, but because nvidia has held the top performance crown for so long they might not see it that way any more (Seems very similar to intel with the p4).

Also i am an anti-sli /crossfire person. The technology just seems a cheap way to get money for the companies. You have 2x the heat, 2x the noise, 2x the power, 2x the price, and only get 1.8 at most speed increase. And last time i checked the way these techs work the specific application has to be programed in the drivers which means not even fully 2x acceleration in all application just the ones the driver makers thinks will sell. (please correct any mistakes i have assumed about SLi/Crossfire).

If intel and amd would stop increasing the IPC for their CPU and just added more cores would you be happy? I wouldn't as not all application are multi-threaded. But unlike CPUs, GPUs hardware and tasks are still very parallel so it is easy to use this SLI/Crossfire tech. But the GPUs it self still can have more shaders and such to make one unit twice as fast and have no need for the second GPU. Seems like Nvidia is taking the easy way out.

Only single GPU's for me thanks

*edit*
but if the 9800GTX is = 8800Ultra and is only $350 i will buy one as it is still much faster than my current card.

 

[ghost recon88]

+1 to the above. I'm starting to hate these lazy-assed video card makers for putting dual-GPUs on a single PCB instead of making a faster single-GPU for a PCB.

 

[GundamSonicZeroX]

Originally posted by: ghost recon88
+1 to the above. I'm starting to hate these lazy-assed video card makers for putting dual-GPUs on a single PCB instead of making a faster single-GPU for a PCB.

++;

If the video card companies keep doing this, they could at least write the drivers better so that we experience better performance. It's pretty bad that in some situations, there's better performance with one card (ie. 8800U) than there is with one of those hybrid cards (ie. 9800 GX2).

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: TC91

Originally posted by: SteelSix

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
All indications so far on the cards performance would say that $350 is too much. If that Han review holds, it's a $299 card tops.

Considering the GX2 is not a card to be considering at all, the GTX being a slightly overpriced dog of a card makes it not worth considering either.

The G92 8800s have plenty of performance, most people out there besides video card company shills will wait for something truly worth purchasing.
Go get a girlfriend instead or take the dog to the park, it's getting nice outside.

No offense to anyone on a budget, but it never ceases to amaze me how far some people will go to save $50 on a graphics card. Why settle?

Add up how much you piss away each month on fast food lunches, lattes, alcohol, or whatever your vice is and then tell me it's fifty bucks wasted...

IMO i think it is ok to skimp a little on the cpu/gpu since they will likely be replaced a year or two, maybe 3, so saving 50bucks might be pretty good. a thing i wouldnt settle on would be a monitor/speakers since they will likely be in use for a long time compared to a gpu

I completely agree with this. The VPU market is just a fast turn over industry. Buy a cheaper midrange card and be done with it till something else that offers good value comes out. I know SLI is just another way to get you to not only replace a high end card every year, but 2 and now THREE high end cards.

While this is the most reasonable, sane POV from the average man's perspective, it appears Anandtech forums is just flooded with people who will push people to go SLI and spend more money to support those companies.

 

[Rubycon]

Why does the 9800GTX have only 512MB?

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: Rubycon
Why does the 9800GTX have only 512MB?

They don't want to release a (single) good card that doesn't require SLI to be significantly faster or more attractive. It's a gentle nudge to go SLI and accept it. I've had SLI in the past and won't be using it again. Unless someone has money to waste it's not a good option IMO and economic times are changing, I think paying homage to proprietary VPU technology is low on the list for most of us.
I wish I could filter out SLI users in FPS games because it'd be an extra joy owning them in-game, basically letting them know all that money is resulting in 300FPS headshots (their own). It looks fine from this side!

 

[superbooga]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
They don't want to release a (single) good card that doesn't require SLI to be significantly faster or more attractive. It's a gentle nudge to go SLI and accept it. I've had SLI in the past and won't be using it again. Unless someone has money to waste it's not a good option IMO and economic times are changing, I think paying homage to proprietary VPU technology is low on the list for most of us.
I wish I could filter out SLI users in FPS games because it'd be an extra joy owning them in-game, basically letting them know all that money is resulting in 300FPS headshots (their own). It looks fine from this side!

No, that's not the reason. Based on your logic, it was a mistake for G80 to be faster than the 7950GX2. Nvidia has stated, more than once, that a single GPU solution is preferable; the GX2 is really just a stop-gap solution.

 

[Obsoleet]

It's true. They are just now getting AMD/ATI into a weak enough position to pull it off. AMD is just trying to survive.
G80 was the past, what I said is true about the present. The GX2 is a "stopgap" solution? They haven't had enough time to come up with a decent single PCB setup that is attractive without needing SLI for significant improvements? I'll accept stop-gap but in the context of milking the market for the G90/G92 before they release the real next-gen hardware. Personally I'm not buying into it and that's why I'm recommending others see the same.

Let's face it all the 512MB+ 8800s are pretty similar in speed and this 9800GTX is not even worthy of the name as its shaping up to be more of the same.

Back to Rubycon's question, the 8800GTX (previous single slot high end) had 768MB. The 9800GTX has 512? Sure, it's cheaper but it's also not going to be really superior so what did you gain besides a dieshrunk chip that produces more profit for Nvidia, and encourages you to buy more VPUs and run their SLI tech?

 

[superbooga]

9800GTX has 512 because it has a 256-bit memory bus. It's not intended to blow away the 8 series; the intention is to bring 8800gtx class performance to a much more affordable level. Think of the 9800gtx as the Geforce 2 Ti, while the GX2 as the Geforce 3 Ti. Yes the 8800GT and GTS 512 pretty much did that, but marketing them as the Geforce 9 does remove a lot of confusion.

Nvidia's CEO believes a single GPU is still the best approach for high-end graphics. Now the timing was right for the creation of the GX2, plus there was no single-GPU solution to compete against the 3870x2.

Is the 3870 a huge step forward compared to the 2900? By your standards, not enough to warrant such big change in numbers, but it does contain improvements and is much more affordable. Same thing with the Geforce 9 series.

 

[Piuc2020]

And to think a few months ago everyone was bitching about how expensive cards were...