9-Series Lineup Revealed

[LoadsaMoney]

lol


Rose has kicked in!

G80 yes...

So how can the new 9800gtx be the same as old 8800 gtx?

Loadsa your getting on my nerves!

As its the same card put on a smaller chip, and had its bus halfed, so its actually worse, just they are overclocking them a bit to make up for the halfed bus.

 

[easyrider]

Laugh all you want, i already know the GX2 will be faster than the X2, this isn't about that, its about it still being an old 2006 8800 on a smaller chip, 1 digit changed, and overclocked a bit.

Its hardly ground breaking but the 45nm Intel chips are not either.

We are drip fed TECH once you accept this you can give your post count a

break!

 

[willhub]

How much will GX2 be?

Is the ultra worth the extra over a GTX?

This is GFX not bang for buck

a lot of people want bang for buck, I know one thing, if the GX2 was for example 5fps faster than the X2 in crysis I would not pay 50+ quid extra, if the GX2 is anything over £330 then its not worth it IMO.

Either way I'm sticking with my rig in sig untill Nahalem, infact I'll probs stick with it untill Summer 09 when I'll get a much better system than if I waste my money on useless cards like the GX2.

 

[snowdog]

Hmmm am I the only one thinking they will still release a G90 in the end?
Prolly 9900GTX or something.

 

[tHe_HyBrId]

However, even though it seems taht the new 9800's on the g92 core will be basically the same as the 8800's on the g92 core.. I was wondering whether anyone has considered that the 8800gt and new gts were/are in fact testers cards used on the g92 core, for nvidia to see how well it performs and what improvements they could make.

Essentially making the 8800GT and 8800GTS prototype 9800's as it were. Because when you look at some reviews of the new 9600GT with "only" 64 stream processors, I believe that the results justify themselves.

With effectively half of the shader processing power, the 9600GT can hold itself quite well up against the "superior" 8800GT which has twice the number of shader processors.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/501/19/

The same goes for the Crysis Single-Player demo, which isn't an excelletn example since it's the demo..but again, half the shader processors yet around 80% - 90% of the 8800GT's power..

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/501/21/ (Although I admit the 8800GT would probably open up the gap on the 9600GT at high settings and above)

World in Conflict - The similar trend continues..
http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/501/23/

3DMark 05 and 06 - Not that they really matter, btu the ressults show how well the 9600GT holds up against the 8800GT..again.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/501/24/

And also a few more benchmarks and game tests can be found there..

But the point I'm trying to make is that with the "new" 9-series cards, I believe that
Nvidia have tweaked and optimised the efficiency of the G92 core, others the 9600GT should be performing at aound half the performance of the 8800GT, but its not, it is clearly hot on its heels, so imagine what a 9800GT, GTX or GX2 might be capable of if the results from the 9600GT with only 64 shader processors are anything to go by..

Thats just my opinion anyway..

HyBrId

P.S. I'm so happy that I snapped up my two lovely BFG 8800GTS 640mb OC2's in the overclockers clearance sale a little while back, at £129 inv each they were a steal A competitor was selling just one of these for £259 :O I have had them overclocekd upto 710/1700/2200 so far in benchmarks Excellent OcUK

 

[Willis]

I don't really care if its old tec new tec or bloody state of the art tec, all I care about is that we get a card that is faster than a 8800 Ultra etc and to me that's all that matters.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Its hardly ground breaking but the 45nm Intel chips are not either.

We are drip fed TECH once you accept this you can give your post count a

break!

I know we are, but we aint been drip fed at all, drip fed is cards coming out every few months, like they used to do, like about 6 months after the 7800's came out, the 7900's came out, but from November 2006 to March 2008 is pathetic, the 9800's look cack now, as they should have appeared around last May, and chances are we would have had yet another series after them as well by now.

 

[fornowagain]

snip

Have a look at the comments from the Bit-tech reviewer for the 9600GT. There's nothing new or tweaked about the G94 over G92.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11152425&postcount=76

 

[Willis]

I know we are, but we aint been drip fed at all, drip fed is cards coming out every few months, like they used to do, like about 6 months after the 6 series came out, the 7 series came out, thats being drip fed, from November 2006 to March 2008 is not being drip fed, these cards should have been out 8-9 months ago.

I think we have had a good choice of cards to be honest and if it was not for crysis people would have not been that bothered as the 8800GTX/Ultra was eating games for breakfast even at 1920x1200.

 

[tHe_HyBrId]

Ahh ok thank you, well that puts my theory down the Pan.. Although I still believe that the 9800's will hopefully bring a bnit more of a substantial performance increase over what many people are suggesting it will.

Nvidia claimed (apparently) that the 9800GX2 will bring a 30% performance increase over the 8800 Ultra, so I'm going to try and put taht into perspective..

First with 3Dmark (pretty pointless and meaningless for most real world performance)

So say.. 3Dmark05 with an Ultra and a commonly used Q6600 for example gets ~18,000 points, therefore the 9800GX2 should get ~23,400...

3DMark06 same system, an Ultra might get ~15,000 points, therefore the 9800GX2 should get ~19,500.

But then onto real world performance, say at all high settings and 1600x1200 in Crysis (patch 1.1) an Ultra and Q6600 gives an average framerate of 35fps on the fly-by GPU test. Then a 9800GX2 would theoretically get 45.5fps.. a substantial boost?

Call Of Duty 4 - 8800 Ultra might get an average 50fps at 1920x1200 on max with maybe 4xAA enabled, therefore a 9800GX2 shoulder be getting 65fps..

I think most of you will see the pint I am trying to make, a 30% performance boost in some cases could amount to substantially better performance.. But then again the 9800GX2 will be a dual-gpu card, so that 30% increase could be deemed very poor in comparison to one ultra's performance..

But at the moment I think the best thing that most of us can do is wait for reviews and performance ratings to be released... As with many things, speculation could lead to surprise, for all we know the 9800GTX could be a killer graphics card, then again so could AMD/ATI's HD4000 line-up.. ^^

Ah so confusing

HyBrId

 

[steve258]

But the point I'm trying to make is that with the "new" 9-series cards, I believe that
Nvidia have tweaked and optimised the efficiency of the G92 core, others the 9600GT should be performing at aound half the performance of the 8800GT, but its not, it is clearly hot on its heels, so imagine what a 9800GT, GTX or GX2 might be capable of if the results from the 9600GT with only 64 shader processors are anything to go by..

That's right but 9600GT is a G94 is it not? Whereas the spec sheet on p.1 seems to suggest the new 9800GT/GTX/GX2 are based on G92 which is the same as the current 8800GT/GTS 512Mb, if it turns out to be true of course.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

I think we have had a good choice of cards to be honest and if it was not for crysis people would have not been that bothered as the 8800GTX/Ultra was eating games for breakfast even at 1920x1200.

The refreshers replace all the previous range though not long after, like the 7900 GTX replaced the then top card at the time 7800 GTX, they don't replace them nearly 16 months after, well sorry, they are doing that now.

 

[Radiation]

Nvidia and others have always taken the **** its just people only seem to notice it when they get this pitiful and greedy, graphics cards have been on average way to expensive for anything considered decent performance and the mid to low range has rarely moved fairly in performance, it should be that the lowest new gen is always faster than the highest previous gen but that’s never been the case and then we have the cost to performance ratio being pathetic until you wait a year, like how only recently the 8800gt came out and the range finally got worthwhile.

Theres issues all over when you think about it, like how hardware manufactures will produce a general set of components and then cripple them to sell for less yet it still costs about the same to produce both high and low end sometimes, why can't we have reasonable price and performance for all right from the start? its been a bit of joke for a long time and yet they still get away with it because some people are quick to buy in to it and we all loose out as a result.

 

[Willis]

The refreshers replace all the previous range though not long after, like the 7900 GTX replaced the then top card at the time 7800 GTX, they don't replace them nearly 16 months after, well sorry, they are doing that now.

But putting the old tec thing to one side I still think we will see the same jump we had from a 7800GTX to a 7900GTX but not the massive jump we seen from a 7900GTX to the 8800GTX, what ever way you look at it I think the 9800GTX is going to be a lot faster than a 8800GTX and even faster after its Overclocked

I think Nivida might have a few tricks up there sleeves.

 

[tHe_HyBrId]

That's right but 9600GT is a G94 is it not? Whereas the spec sheet on p.1 seems to suggest the new 9800GT/GTX/GX2 are based on G92 which is the same as the current 8800GT/GTS 512Mb, if it turns out to be true of course.

Yeh you're right the 9600gt is on the g94 core, but I'm sure that Nvidia must have been performing some tweaks/optimisations to the g92 core since its release with the 8800gt a while back, especialy if as I believe Jokester suggested the memory will be good for 2500Mhz, yet at stock speeds from the artile at the beginning of the thread ti was stated that the ram will run at 2400Mhz stock, so maybe if they haven't improved the core in any way, they may have altered a few extra bits here and there to provide some extra performance..?

HyBrId

 

[Robert]

I don't really care if its old tec new tec or bloody state of the art tec, all I care about is that we get a card that is faster than a 8800 Ultra etc and to me that's all that matters.

So if it was 5% faster you'd buy it and make a huge loss?

RIght, smart.

 

[Willis]

So if it was 5% faster you'd buy it and make a huge loss?

RIght, smart.

But I think i'm safe when I say its not going to be 5% faster, see my last post to see how faster I think its going to be.

Also what do you call a huge loss, what I call a huge loss is some one who buys a Graphics card just to ramp up there 3D mark score and don't really play games.

 

[Monkeynut]

But if they love 3DMark and want to get their score faster, no it isn't a huge loss. Because then they have got their money's worth out of it. If it does what you want it to how is it a loss?

 

[LoadsaMoney]

It doesn't matter what core they are on, they could be on G5000's, wont make any difference, as at the end of the day, they are still 2006 8800's, the 9600 GT is a cut down 8800 GT, the GX2 is 2x 8800 GTS's, the 9800 is yet another 8800, the 9500 etc... are yet more 8800's, 8800's came out in 2006, we don't want them, we want something new, this is 2008 not 2006 still.

 

[Monkeynut]

Isn't Intel coming into the discrete GPU market?

Let's hope they come in big and kick ass.