Actually, the 9800GX2 is not all by itself for drivers. It is using the same drivers as any other 9xxx series card right now, and from what I hear, they plan to keep it that way. So with any new driver release, the 9800GX2 will be getting the same updates. And actually, I had 2 8800GTX in SLI before this card. And personally, I would buy the 9800GX2 first. Not only do you have to shell out $800 plus for 2 EVGA 8800GTX's, you need the SLI motherboard. Im not saying the 9800 is faster in every situation, but I guarantee it will out perform the 8800's in some cases. For anyone with an Intel chipset, the 9800GX2 is the ultimate solution.
I was just looking over these posts, I acutally haven't upgraded to the 1.2 patch yet. Ill do that tonight first thing.
I have to say its hilarious that the majority of people complaining are those with an 8800GTX. The one guy supporting it ^^^^^^ actually replaced 88ooGTX's for one and seems pretty happy to me! And if you read the whole review on Guru 3D the reviewer actually likes the card, allot! Just look at how it performs in COD4! And I can only presume the performance in Crysis is due to the wrong patch being used or a simple driver issue! And another benefit of this card is that it allows SLi on a none SLi board, which will appeal to allot of people! And as the review states, you have to compare it with the 8800 Ultra, as that it is what it is going to replace, and it destroys it!
because majority of the people complaining are those who are dismayed that they can not upgrade to a GX2. and for the record, stop expecting either nVidia or ATI to release cards that are 2-3x more powerful everytime a new family comes out. because the way i see it, people only sees a card worthy if it will last them for a lifetime. that's just not possible with the rate technology advances these days.
The idea that an SLI card replaces a Single GPU card IMO is wrong. nVidia wants this GX2 to be a replacement for the Ultra. But the Ultra is NOT an SLI card - it's a single GPU. I have had SLI and x-fire and multiple GPUs back in the 3dfx days. And there are many issues with SLI that you don't have to deal with on a single GPU. I know this from personal experience. The technology certainly has come a long way, but there are still issues with SLI. The GX2 is simply two G92's slapped together, so it's still SLI no mater how it is marketed. So this is not a replacement for a single GPU Ultra or GTX for that mater.
i always loved the phrase reason im running Vista right now and now i love it... o and anyone didnt get what i was implying it was directed to yelsewshane's comment o and ive been looking for this and i thank you also what about the 3870X2.. it was made to compete against the 8800GTX and Ultras... so whats wrong with that.. also the "Dual Core" CPU was made to replace the "Single Core".. technology happens
There is nothing "wrong" with it. But SLI and x-fire technology is much different than multiple CPU's. Multiple GPUs have to "share" or "split" the same load or process, with CPUs they run separate independant processes or threads. It makes far more sense to have multiple CPUs than it does GPUs. Not that multiple GPUs are useless, of course they aren't. I have SLI afterall (and as mentioned before most of the previous technologies as well). I think of it like this... Would two G92's in SLI be considered a "replacement" for a GTX/Ultra? No, and maybe the only reason you say that is because you need two PCIE slots. The GX2 is a single slot solution, but in the end it is just two G92's slapped together. I would rather have a single GPU card that performs as well (or close) to the GX2. Then down the road buy a second card for SLI. With the GX2 I need to go quad SLI if I want a second "card". Quad SLI would not be as efficient as dual card SLI with each single GPU card having the same performance as a GX2. In other words, Quad SLI with two GX2's, would perform slower than two single GPU cards with one having the same performance as one GX2.
Crysis & GX2 According to an unnamed (well, at Guru3D, unnamed that is) source, quoted by Inq: http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/19/daily-wibble-19mar2008 one 9800GX2 will run Crysis in very high (1600 x 1200) at about 26 fps and 2 GX2s in Quad SLI runs Crysis in very high nicely at 42 fps. For >$1K US, they should. The future in in multi-GPU setups, just like it the present is multi-core CPUs.
The two GTX's would perform better. But if you ever plan on going Quad SLI you might consider the GX2 instead. If I didn't already have GTX's I would probably consider two GTS512's over two GTX's... I got my second GTX for $250, and my first on for $500. If you can find a couple GTX's for around $250 that would be a great deal and I'd go for that. Otherwise, I would personally probably go with two GTS512's if you never plan on going quad SLI. Two GTS512's with everything at default clocks, actually performance better than a single GX2.
Well, TBH I haven't run a 3DMark bench in years. But I would score the same as anyone with the same setup and clocks as I do... As for Crysis... I run at 16x10, mostly High settings with a few mediums and 2xAA. This is the only game I have to lower my native resolution to get playable frame rates. As far as "benching" it... I also haven't done that since it first came out before even patch 1.1. Benchmarks are ok to verify your system runs as expected - and to see gains from overclocking, driver changes etc... But to me, the real test is if a game is playable. So I rarely run benchmarks, at least not for some time as my system hasn't changed much in the last year or so. Lastly, so many people run benchmarks and compare drivers and etc... So I really don't need to do this myself to "know" what gains to expect. Again, if the game is playable and I can enable enough eye-candy for my preference, then I really could care less about benchmarks... If I am having an issue with a specific game, then I go on the Internet and see if other people are having the same problem, or try and find a tweak or driver or solution to it.
I was reading on another forum that the 9800 may have some issues on Intel mobo's, eg running x4 AA, system crashes etc. Since intel board are not compatible with sli, and the 9800 is essentially sli, it might be better to have a Nvidia based board. On this note, why is there not a better relationship between NV and intel, surely it would be better for Nv interests to have intel chipsets running SLi, since it would potentially put more pressure on AMD. I find it ironic that Intel boards run AMD crossfire solutions, considering the competition between AMD and Intel. What gives?
DUDE.... I only weigh 4,000 pounds what's wrong with that Anyway there are some more 9800GX2 benches on xtremesystems.org in case anyone is curious.
dudes i'v been waiting for this all week KINGPIN's 98gx2 this is way kool http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=181289
