RANT AND RAVE! Stop Production of the 9800GTX!

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by Surfy, Apr 28, 2008.

  1. Karl 2

    Karl 2 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 295
    Me neither, in fact most benchmark published -for what it's worth- show a slightly better performance from the 9800 GTX at all but those esoteric resolutions/settings where vram actually makes a difference. But no one plays at those settings so it's of little relevancy. IMHO the lukewarm reception had more to do with the fact that the 9800 series was not the mega-uber-OMG power monster that many had predicted. It's basically a G92 with faster clocks, "faster" being the key word. It also OC's better than other G92's, maybe an indication that nVidia had originally designed it with even faster stock clocks, which is reminiscent of the original 8800 GTS (G80).

    I often read stuff like "a new-generation card like the 9800 GTX should have been much faster than the preceding generation". Yeah but it's not a new generation, it's just a new series designation. nVidia's goof was to not introduce the 9800 series when it launched the G92, the 8800 GT should have been called 9800 GT, the 8800 GTS 512 should have been plain 9800 GTS, looks like it just dawned upon them very recently that the market was just as confused as they were, and thank God they did not release their newest card as the 8800 GTX 512 like I suspect they initially had intended to.

    So one could expect that the difference between the 8800 GTS 512 and the 9800 GTX should be about the same as the difference between the original 8800 GTS 640 and the 8800 GTX: not spectacular. But there is one difference: the 9800 GTX is reputably the best overclocker nVidia has ever produced but the same can't be said of the 8800 GTS 512 therefore the 9800 GTX has the potential to perform significantly faster than the GTS 512. It's more difficult to gauge the difference between the 9800 GTX and the 8800 GTX because of differing architectures but one can expect that since the 9800 GTX is obviously meant to be the natural successor of the 8800 GTX then there should be an improvement in performance, but that may not be obvious in a 32-bit OS or DX9.
     
  2. ElementalDragon

    ElementalDragon Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,316
    Likes Received:
    9
    GPU:
    eVGA RTX 2070
    i just pray they don't actually call the upcoming cards that are supposed to blow the pants off of just about everything, and compete with ATI's 48xx cards, a 9900GTX. what are we gonna see next.... a 9901GTX? is NVidia gonna try to stretch the 9 series out for as long as humanly possible?

    Prodigy Freak: Wow..... that's classic. Three cheers for the new guy trying to be sheepish, following the thread starter, saying NVidia is sh*t...... when he's using an 8600GT.

    USUALLY when people say something is sh*t.... they have their own bit of evidence to back that claim up. coming into the third page of a thread about NVidia stopping the 9800GTX and saying NVidia is sh*t, when you're using an NVidia video card (and a relatively recent one, mind you), is sheepish and hypocritical.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2008
  3. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    479
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    The 9800 GTX is meant to be the latest Highend card to replace the 8800 GTX, now everyone has got to agree a high end card is generaly intended for people who want to play at high resolutions and with high levels of AA/Af, if the 9800 GTX fails to deliver here at the same or preferably higher performance level than the previous generation in any situation than it is hard to deem it a success.

    This is even more crucial for people who want to use sli and in the high end sector this is even more common, the extra ram and larger memory interface of the 8800 GTX is a real bonus for people playing at 1920x1200 and above with high levels of AA/AF and most people using Sli are likely to be running these resolutions.

    I also don't think the 9800 GTX was released with DX10 in mind as for the reasons already stated it is likely to find it more difficult to deal with the more demading dx10 environments with a much higher texture count.

    It is easy to see the 9800 GTX as being just a quick money earner and only intended to pass over time until Nvidia are in a position to release their real high end card/s.
     
  4. Sneakers

    Sneakers Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,717
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte 980Ti Windforce

    Don't think the people who still argue against above reasons really understand that high clocks is not everything. Having 768 (?) memory and a 358-bits bus is quite abit more preferable in very high gaming resolutions with all fluff maxed. When it comes to SLI where you wanna play at 1920 and above it have an even bigger impact.

    Personally I think that the 9800 GTX would been a 800 dollar card if they went 768 ddr3 and 358 bit bus, wich wouldn't sell at all, so they compromised. A cheaper card that runs very very good at above average resolutions but skips behind in the SLI department ( not by much but abit ) compared to the 8800 GTX/Ultra.

    Kinda wierd that people also refer to "reviews" backing their statements, most reviews, if not ALL I seen, shows that the 8800 GTX is 1-4 fps slower in a few games then the 9800 GTX , but in the games 88GTX is ahead it is by 4-7 fps. And in SLI it is just better in 90% of the games they tested with the highest settings possible, wich you want when you invest in SLI.

    1 card only, the 9800 GTX is slightly ahead, but if you get a 8800 at a cheaper price ( wich I for example do ) the choice is quite easy, you go with the card that yields the most fps / dollar once it has fullfilled your minumum req.
    :banana:
     

  5. soprano_boy

    soprano_boy Master Guru

    Messages:
    337
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    SLI BFG GTX260 Core 216
    nVidia Really did loss it when the 7 series ended shore DX10 was good as but thats it they are now lossing it thats how i think of it
     
  6. yelsewshane

    yelsewshane Banned

    Messages:
    1,591
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Sapphire VaporX 290
    I have owned the 8800gts 640, 8800gtx 768, 8800gt, and the 9800gtx. At stock clocks the 9800gtx is the fastest card. However, the bottom line is once you overclock the older 8800gts 640, 8800gtx 768 they get a real kick in the pants due to the fact they came so lowly clocked at stock. My 8800gtx is indeed faster than my new 9800gtx once both are overclocked. If they would of only put the 9800gtx on a 512bit bus with 1024mb memory it would of been kick ass.
     
  7. weston

    weston Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,726
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 275
    9800GTX is faster in raw shading power due to the higher core clocks.
    8800GTX is faster at AA since it has more memory bandwidth.
    If you want to run High levels of AA, I still recommend the 8800, but for 4xAA, The 9800GTX is going to be equal or faster than the 8800 in most games. Since they are the same price, I have to say the 9800 is a pretty good deal really even if it offers nothing 'new' over the 8800 and it is quite a bit faster without AA applied which isn't that bad at high resolution anyway.
     
  8. Karl 2

    Karl 2 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 295
    I agree, the consensus among reviewers appears to be that in most situations (realistic settings and res) the 9800 GTX equals or even slightly surpasses the 8800 Ultra, and for some reason flatly beats the Ultra in FSX (I assume by that they simply mean it's "very slow" rather than "awfully slow" at reasonable settings in FSX) and of course the Ultra is slightly faster than the 8800 GTX.

    The resolutions and settings at which bus width and amount of vram really make a difference are usually those where ATI's top dog comes ahead so we're talking extremes, not a very common occurrence and usually the prize is taken by the least awful card at those settings, which doesn't necessarily mean the performance is acceptable, personally I don't care if a card is able to achieve 6fps at Martian resolutions, it's no more playable than 2fps anyway.

    While 28-inch or even 30-inch monitors may become mainstay in a relatively near future for the time being few gamers can afford them and even though some current smaller monitors support resolutions that would be suitable for jumbo screens most games are not optimized for such settings. In most situations the 9800 GTX will perform as great or even better than the 8800 GTX/Ultra and it benefits from lessons learned by nVidia following problems they had with early-relase G92 cards; heat issues fixed, better vram chips, lower power requirements and, obviously, fastest single-GPU stock clocks on the market. Not to mention much better value than the previous GTX/Ultra even though the $300 MSP inflates to $350 or so actual street price.

    I find this card very attractive, I may even buy one since it's the only worthwhile upgrade from a G80 so far. I had an Ultra for a while but sold it while it was still worth something because I figured that the minute performance gain over my GTS 640 at 1024x1280 was not worth the money and power consumption.
     
  9. allesclar

    allesclar Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    5,715
    Likes Received:
    113
    GPU:
    GeForce GTX 1070
    you can overclock the cores of the 8800gtx to make it higher but you can increase the memory bandwitdh of the 9800gtx, end of.
     
  10. Karl 2

    Karl 2 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 295
    I assume you meant "you can't increase the memory bandwitdh of the 9800gtx."

    Indeed you can't increase the memory bandwidth but even if you could would that make that much of a difference? I think not otherwise the 8800 GT would not have been faster than the 8800 GTS 320/640 and of course the top-of-the-line models from ATI would be considerably faster than anything by nVidia. "Big bus" will likely matter in the future but for the time being it appears to only make a difference at very high resolutions/AA settings that currently don't deliver acceptable FPS regardless of hardware.
     

  11. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    479
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    I can play almost all games ( crysis an exception) at the Highest resolutions with acceptable frame rates (30+) with good levels of quality (2xAA minimum in most cases), I don't know why people keep talking about not getting acceptable fps at high resolutions as that's why you have sli and seeing that sli is limited to a single cards memory size/ interface I probably couldn't enjoy the same experience with most cards in most situations if it wasn't for the high memory size/ interface, this has ofcourse been the case for nearly two years now.

    Unfortunately we'll have to wait until Ati can improve on their current failings in card architecture and their lack of decent drivers support, as it takes more than one element to provide an all round good quality product.
     
  12. Ieldra

    Ieldra Banned

    Messages:
    3,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 980Ti G1 1500/8000
    I perfectly understand the 9800GTX's advantages from a price point of view BUT it really is just a G92 8800GTS.
    I know this is a complete display of vanity but 8800GTX owners, and trust me I'm one of them, DO NOT WANT ANYTHING TO BEAT THEIR BELOVED GPU !
    It's true. 8800 GTX was one of the best cards ever, massive performance. We love it, and seeing a respin of a GTS "replace" the 8800GTX... >_<
    Don't take it personally guys. I think the 9 series is just a selling point, the real next generation is the 10 series :) [EVEN NUMBERS FTW]
     
  13. dukedave5200

    dukedave5200 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    BFG GTX 285 OCX - SLI
    Not sure about other 8800GTX owners -- but the bolded comment in your quote is completely off the mark -- at least in my case.

    I was very ready to replace my 8800GTX's. I was hoping (I guess) I could buy one 9800GTX and get the same performance (or close) to my SLI'ed 8800GTX's. This is what I did the last round, the round before that, and the round before that. Then a little later this year when prices started to drop I would have bought another 9800GTX and SLI'ed them.

    But as it is, going from a single 8800GTX to a single 9800GTX would be a step backwards IMO. The price of the 9800GTX might be well worth the performance - but nVidia is NOT getting any money from me this round, and I suspect many other 8800GTX owners as well.

    The bottom line for me is that this 9800GTX does NOT deserve the name. The 9800GTX may be faster at lower resolutions, but I already have a bandwidth issue in several games I regularly play that require high resolution and high levels of AA. Even with the new compression on the 9800GTX I am QUITE certain I would have to lower AA a level or two to stay within the limitations. So that is a step backwards.

    The 9800GTX has a high-end name, but is not a high end card, and its price should clearly indicate this to those that understand what they are buying... ;)
     
  14. A M D BugBear

    A M D BugBear Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    477
    GPU:
    4 GTX 970-Quad Sli
    Reminds me when I had the 7900GTX 512mb and the 7800GT 256MB. when I owned the 7900gtx 512mb I personally down clocked to the same exact speeds as the 7800gt, and tested fear with maxed out settings, Same EXACT FPS, Even though the 7900gtx had 4 addtional pixel pipelines compared to the 7800gt which only had 20 If I remembered correctly. And fear at that time was very shader intensive game.
     
  15. Karl 2

    Karl 2 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,607
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX 295
    I have to respectfully disagree. Until recently I was using a 8800 Ultra in one of my systems and unless I'm mistaken the Ultra was at least as fast as the 8800 GTX. Well guess what, a borrowed 9800 GTX proved to be noticeably faster than my Ultra in FSX and that both at stock and maximum stable overclock on both cards. The difference was a consistent 5 to 7 fps which for those who are familiar with FSX is quite an improvement.

    A few months ago I had tried a 8800 GTS 512 (G92) hoping to improve FSX performance but it turned out to be slower than the Ultra and did not OC much, but neither does the Ultra. I can only assume that the reason the 9800 GTX performs better are not just faster clocks but better quality chips that allow speeds never before reached on a single-gpu card. Apparently the 9800 GTX does better in SLI as well but I couldn't vouch for that.
     

  16. dukedave5200

    dukedave5200 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,192
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    BFG GTX 285 OCX - SLI
    No doubt the 9800GTX will be faster, but only up to a certain point. I am sure most of the games I play would get a small boost - this does show in reviews and benchmarks... But the difference is pretty small, at least according to reviews and benchmarks. But I know for a fact that I run into memory and bandwidth limitations with the 8800GTX in a couple games I play - admitedly they aren't exactly very common.

    I guess you have to take my whole post into account too, not just that one sentance. Then you may be able to understand my point of view.
     
  17. E.J.Smith

    E.J.Smith Master Guru

    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    EVGA GeForce Titan
    I can say with extreme confidence that I'm very happy with the box my EVGA 9800 GTX came in. It's not too shabby on the performance end, either.
     
  18. BlackZero

    BlackZero Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,878
    Likes Received:
    479
    GPU:
    RX Vega
    I have to respectfully disagree also :)

    according to the Guru3d vga charts (from recent reviews) the 8800 GTX Sli has a relatively large lead (10-20%) over the 9800 GTX in many titles and where this is not the case the difference is too small to count.

    http://www.guru3d.com/category/vga_2/


    Though according to Hardocp the 9800gtx does provide better shader performance but the memory limitation still applies in many cases and so it really comes down to individual titles.

    http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ4OSw5LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


    Unfortunately I do not have first hand experience running both setups in sli so can not vouch from personal knowlwdge but I have a great deal of respect for both these sites and have found them to be very accurate by most accounts.
     
  19. Slam

    Slam Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    3,228
    Likes Received:
    23
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 2070 XC
    Sounds like you got a hold of a bum GTS 512. They generally overclock plenty, as my card shows. And it will run with any G80 card....give or take depending on res and aa.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2008
  20. Fusion_XT

    Fusion_XT Master Guru

    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    MSI GTX1080 X 2139/5400
    Honestly i dont give a crap about SLI.. i just want the fastest Single core GPU.
    And the 9800GTX just doesnt cut it imho, i bought my 8800GTX for only €199,- BEAT THAT !.

    Awesome performance for the price of a GT. Im going to wait for the 9900GTX and see if it is really a monster im hoping it to be!.
     

Share This Page