9800GX2 cards are here

[OCGuy]

The only people crying are the ones that can't afford it.


It is a new card at launch price. Get over it.

Some people were predicting $650-750. I dont have an SLI board, so the second this thing comes down to $550 it is mine.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Rusin

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: Rusin
Well 9800 GX2 is around 40% faster and 40% more expensive than HD3870 X2. 9800 GX2 also consumes less wattage under load and is more quiet.

9800 GX2 is also better overclocker than HD3870 X2; 20-25% increase for core and shaders is realistic with GX2; How many HD3870 X2's hit 1000MHz with reference cooler and without volt mods?

I don't think that they are ripoff's [I still wouldn't buy them..].

Actually, from the reviews I've seen the gx2 consumes more power than a 3870x2, and is louder too.

You have been pretty selective then .

4 tests say that 9800 GX2 consumes more:
Hardwarezone
PcPerspective
Neoseeker
Hexus

5 tests say that HD3870 X2 consumes more:
Hothardware
Tom's Hardware
TechPowerup
Tweaktown
HardOCP

Have found three sites that compared noise levels and all said that 9800 GX2 is more quiet under load situations; one said that HD3870 X2 is more quiet on idle:
Tweaktown
Tom's Hardware
Techpowerup






I have found only three tests that say something about noise levels.

I rank this site higher on the competence scale than the likes on NVocp and Toms, and they said the gx2 is hotter, louder, and draws more power. It depends on who you believe.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
The only people crying are the ones that can't afford it.


It is a new card at launch price. Get over it.

Some people were predicting $650-750. I dont have an SLI board, so the second this thing comes down to $550 it is mine.

Yeah right. Most of us can afford this easily, we just don't waste money. I don't know why you'd worry about a measly $50 pricedrop though if you want it.
Enjoy this ridiculous card, I'd stick with your GTS till something worth buying comes out.

 

[v8envy]

There's a difference between "can't" and "refuse to."

I've got a laptop in my closet I spent $5300 for in 1998. My first desktops ran me well over 3 grand. Heck, the Opteron notebook I bought in 2004 wasn't $200 after rebate at Staples either.

Sandwich cards are just not that great. You want SLI, go nuts. But for plenty of people with jobs $600 is a drop in the bucket. Heck, my wife impulse spends more than that every week and I don't really notice. My issue is with SLI being an infereor technology. The 8800 Ultra matches this sandwich in plenty of games once you crank up AA. This card does very little the Ultra doesn't already do, and comes with all the drawbacks of SLI.

Solid pass here.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
The only people crying are the ones that can't afford it.


It is a new card at launch price. Get over it.

Some people were predicting $650-750. I dont have an SLI board, so the second this thing comes down to $550 it is mine.

i can afford it and i am not crying

i just find that it won't do anything for my system i can't do with AMD for a lot cheaper
--certainly not at 16x12/16x10

i can replace my 2900p with a cheap {$350, wait and see} 3870x2 and be in "GX2 territory" performance-wise for probably $250 less [2900xt + 3870x2] rather than buying a $600 GX2 and replacing my Crossfire entirely

AMD's bang-for-buck wins for me ... i will wait a few months for r700 or GT200x2

 

[Bateluer]

I think I'm going to wait a bit on my video card upgrade, need to get some dress clothing for (semi)formal functions. Might use my economic stimulus check to pick up a 4870X2.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin


i just find that it won't do anything for my system i can't do with AMD for a lot cheaper
--certainly not at 16x12/16x10

i can replace my 2900p with a cheap {$350, wait and see} 3870x2 and be in "GX2 territory" performance-wise for probably $250 less [2900xt + 3870x2] rather than buying a $600 GX2 and replacing my Crossfire entirely

AMD's bang-for-buck wins for me ... i will wait a few months for r700 or GT200x2

At low res like 16X12 you shouldn't be buying a new video card.

A card as powerful as the 9800GX2 is overkill for your monitor.

I think if I was in your shoes I'd spend the money on a new monitor.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin


i just find that it won't do anything for my system i can't do with AMD for a lot cheaper
--certainly not at 16x12/16x10

i can replace my 2900p with a cheap {$350, wait and see} 3870x2 and be in "GX2 territory" performance-wise for probably $250 less [2900xt + 3870x2] rather than buying a $600 GX2 and replacing my Crossfire entirely

AMD's bang-for-buck wins for me ... i will wait a few months for r700 or GT200x2

At low res like 16X12 you should be buying a 8800GTS or even GT and being done with it much cheaper, and without multicard limitations.

A card as powerful as the 9800GX2 is overkill for your monitor.

I think if I was in your shoes I'd spend the money on a new monitor.

First of all, i don't *want* a new monitor. i would NOT mind 19x12, however, IF i could get one [reasonably] priced in a 20". i *hate* gaming on a big screen. i had 27" in the past and i tried 24" ..
- i simply don't like it for gaming.
--AND there is no one else i am going to bother trying to "impress"
:roll:

Secondly, i haven't run into ANY "multi-card limitations" yet ... my slowest GPU will be 2900xt ... as fast an 8800GTS-640M - at least

Now you might not think my reasons are valid for upgrading to a solution as powerful as GX2 - i.e. 2900xt + HD3870x2 - but i will post them for others:

[1]Perhaps i want to play DX10 games fully maxed out - even with AA ... and [2] perhaps i also like to play my slightly older games with 8xMSAA
--i find 'Frame rates' to be only a small part of the total gaming experience and i would like to do the [3] evolving IQ comparisons of r600>r670 and experience 8xMSAA for myself fully

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: nRollo

Originally posted by: apoppin


i just find that it won't do anything for my system i can't do with AMD for a lot cheaper
--certainly not at 16x12/16x10

i can replace my 2900p with a cheap {$350, wait and see} 3870x2 and be in "GX2 territory" performance-wise for probably $250 less [2900xt + 3870x2] rather than buying a $600 GX2 and replacing my Crossfire entirely

AMD's bang-for-buck wins for me ... i will wait a few months for r700 or GT200x2

At low res like 16X12 you should be buying a 8800GTS or even GT and being done with it much cheaper, and without multicard limitations.

A card as powerful as the 9800GX2 is overkill for your monitor.

I think if I was in your shoes I'd spend the money on a new monitor.

First of all, i don't *want* a new monitor. i would NOT mind 19x12, however, IF i could get one [reasonably] priced in a 20". i *hate* gaming on a big screen. i had 27" in the past and i tried 24" ..
- i simply don't like it for gaming.
--AND there is no one else i am going to bother trying to "impress"
:roll:

Secondly, i haven't run into ANY "multi-card limitations" yet ... my slowest GPU will be 2900xt ... as fast an 8800GTS-640M - at least

Now you might not think my reasons are valid for upgrading to a solution as powerful as GX2 - i.e. 2900xt + HD3870x2 - but i will post them for others:

[1]Perhaps i want to play DX10 games fully maxed out - even with AA ... and [2] perhaps i also like to play my slightly older games with 8xMSAA
--i find 'Frame rates' to be only a small part of the total gaming experience and i would like to do the [3] evolving IQ comparisons of r600>r670 and experience [4] 8xMSAA for myself fully

LOL- I posted this, went upstairs to eat, and as I was munching on ham I thought "Hey! Apoppin' has 2900CF already! What the heck does he need a new video card for?!"

So I came down and edited, then saw this post.

IMHO:

Screen Size + Resolution>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all

16X10 8X16X on a 20" is still going to look much worse than 19X12 4X16X on a 24", or better yet, 25X16 4X16X on a 30".

The small increases higher AA brings pale in comparison to adding more pixels to the scene, and having the the scene fill your field of vision more.

I've been on 20" monitors, 24" monitors, and 30" monitors, and the times I jumped in screen size are the times I just said "Wow. This f*ckin' rocks."

Any review you read on the internet will agree with that, anyone who's ever experienced it will agree with that.

No one I've ever heard of has ever said,"D'oh! I wasted money on this bigger monitor when I should have been jacking my vid power to run 8X AA!"

Running 8X AA is fine and I always have hardware that will do it, (quad GX2 experiences coming soon) but IMO you have to take care of business on the resolution side of things first.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin
[1]Perhaps i want to play DX10 games fully maxed out - even with AA ... and [2] perhaps i also like to play my slightly older games with 8xMSAA
--i find 'Frame rates' to be only a small part of the total gaming experience and i would like to do the [3] evolving IQ comparisons of r600>r670 and experience 8xMSAA for myself fully

The 2900s are notorious for taking a huge hit using any AA. Also I hope you are not planning on playing OpenGL games as CrossfireX will not run them.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nRollo

IMHO:

Screen Size + Resolution>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all

16X10 8X16X on a 20" is still going to look much worse than 19X12 4X16X on a 24", or better yet, 25X16 4X16X on a 30".

The small increases higher AA brings pale in comparison to adding more pixels to the scene, and having the the scene fill your field of vision more.

I've been on 20" monitors, 24" monitors, and 30" monitors, and the times I jumped in screen size are the times I just said "Wow. This f*ckin' rocks."

Any review you read on the internet will agree with that, anyone who's ever experienced it will agree with that.

No one I've ever heard of has ever said,"D'oh! I wasted money on this bigger monitor when I should have been jacking my vid power to run 8X AA!"

Running 8X AA is fine and I always have hardware that will do it, (quad GX2 experiences coming soon) but IMO you have to take care of business on the resolution side of things first.

imho, is that your "honest" or "humble" opinion?


been there thrice ... done it twice ... tried it over-and-over
---and i don't care to *impress* anyone. Unlike some HW elitists. Haven't we been here 2-3 years before? You don't even play games. Except to admire them on a big screen.

Didn't you run your own CRT at an "eye burning" 70Hz just so you had the highest resolution to "show off" here?
:roll:

i had a very nice 19x12 24" LCD for 2 weeks
-tried 22" 16x12 for a week

i settled on 20.1 16x12.


Owned a 27" incher ... and i simply don't care for large screens EXCEPT as a TV [period]. i sit close. i like it that way.

my is "honest" and rather humble opinion of what works for ME

ME ME ME

me



and in case you missed it

ME




Clear?

The 2900s are notorious for taking a huge hit using any AA. Also I hope you are not planning on playing OpenGL games as CrossfireX will not run them.

it will be in the 4x slot .. the 3870x2 should handle any "excess" AA ... and the 2900xt's AA is as GOOD AS 8800GTS-640M - it's competitor

i am not worried about Ogl .. by the time GX2 fixes its OWN AA issues, AMD will fix their OGl ones

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

and the 2900xt's AA is as GOOD AS 8800GTS-640M - it's competitor

Actually it's competitor is the 8800GTS-512 and the 2900 gets spanked harder than a room full of misbehaving monkeys.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13772

Also note that the 640 is in those benchmarks and it also places above the 2900.

Sorry to use facts on you

The only time the 2900 "seems" to perform well is with AA turned off.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

and the 2900xt's AA is as GOOD AS 8800GTS-640M - it's competitor

Actually it's competitor is the 8800GTS-512 and the 2900 gets spanked harder than a room full of misbehaving monkeys.

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13772

Also note that the 640 is in those benchmarks and it also places above the 2900.

Sorry to use facts on you

The only time the 2900 "seems" to perform well is with AA turned off.

i can agree with your being "sorry" part

you have never been good with "facts" before and i see nothing has changed .. let me go over the "facts" again with you, shall i?

First of all, No it isn't - 8800GTS-512 came out after 2900xt was "retired" by 3870 and 3870x2 - and your GTS gets "spanked" by 3870x2.

and at the resolutions that i play 16x10/16x12, the old GTS barely keeps up with 2900xt in some games, beats it in others and is blown away in games like CoJ. Very competitive.

Neither the 2900xt nor ANY GTS play well at 25x16

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

First of all, No it isn't - 8800GTS-512 came out after 2900xt was "retired" by 3870 and 3870x2 - and your GTS gets "spanked" by 3870x2.

Well now you are digging yourself into a hole. The 2900 came out after the GTS640 so my comparison is "equivalent" to yours.

If the 3870 replaced the 2900XT that truly is sad because it can't even compete with a $149 9600GT, let alone a 8800GT,GTS,GTX,Ultra,GX2

The 3870x2 is 20-40% slower than a GX2.

Moral of the story is that an overall average of all reviews placed the 2900 behind a GTS640 while having more noise,heat,power draw, etc.

The real issue is that ATIs top GPU is in 4th or 5th place.

 

[Rubycon]

So I guess tossing my 3870x2 for this would not be a very wise move?

nV cooler design is just plain silly. These cards should move all of their heat outside of the case.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

First of all, No it isn't - 8800GTS-512 came out after 2900xt was "retired" by 3870 and 3870x2 - and your GTS gets "spanked" by 3870x2.

Well now you are digging yourself into a hole. The 2900 came out after the GTS640 so my comparison is "equivalent" to yours.

If the 3870 replaced the 2900XT that truly is sad because it can't even compete with a $149 9600GT, let alone a 8800GT,GTS,GTX,Ultra,GX2

The 3870x2 is 20-40% slower than a GX2.

Moral of the story is that an overall average of all reviews placed the 2900 behind a GTS640 while having more noise,heat,power draw, etc.

The real issue is that ATIs top GPU is in 4th or 5th place.

You really don't understand .. let me try again.. slowly

First was G80 ... released in November '07 .. and there was GTX, ultra, GTS-640 & 320. ATi was in the middle of being swallowed up by AMD and was late to the party with a *midrange card* - the 2900xt - which went up against GTS .. primarily 8800-GTS640.

Those cards - the 2900xt and the GTS640 are "equivalent" cards .. similar performance good up to 16x12 .. including ability to handle AA.

OK, then we have AMD releasing HD3870 to 'take over' from the now discontinued HD2900xts and 2900pros. That card was also "midrange" and competed with the next 'bump' in NVIDIA's line up - the new and improved 512MB GTS640. That brand-new $149 9600GT also casts serious doubts about buying GTS for much more money.

still with me ?.. OK, 3870x2 competed with the [now] "last gen" of NVIDIA taking Ultra's "old spot".

Now we have the next increment from NVIDIA the decidedly temporary 9800 series [well, temporary as "high end" solutions] and the slapped-together $600 GX2 to take the spot away from $420 3870xt

Nothing is sad .. we now see AMD dump their inventory at fire sale prices in preparation for r700 which will compete with GX2 and 9800 ...

THEN - almost immediately, NVIDIA strikes back - still Q2, with GT200

and everyone upgrades again .. within 4 months

go for a GX2 !!!
you have my blessing

sin no more

 

[Tempered81]

@ ruby: wait a few weeks for some cat 8.4/8.5 vs. force 178. Hopefully we're gonna see some quadfire/ quad sli comparisons. Then you can do the price/performance comparison and make your decision.

5 weeks from now, I don't think you would take a loss by not buying/selling now. Your 3870x2 can't be slow in anything, except crapsis?

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You really don't understand .. let me try again.. slowly

Slowly does appear to be your speed.

First was G80 ... released in November .. and there was GTX, ultra, GTS-640 & 320. ATi was in the middle of being swallowed up by AMD and was late to the party with a *midrange card* - the 2900xt - which went up against GTS .. primarily 8800-GTS640.

Ah see this is where your FUD comes in. AMD did not buy ATI and then start working on the 2900. The 2900 had been in development for years as a high end GPU. You can not blame AMD for the failure of the 2900 to compete.

Those cards - the 2900xt and the GTS640 are "equivalent" cards .. similar performance good up to 16x12 .. including ability to handle AA.

Eh no. Most reviews clearly show the 640 out pacing the 2900 especially when AA is used. Even current review released this week show this.

OK, then we have AMD releasing HD3870 to 'take over' from the now discontinued HD2900xts and 2900pros. That card was also "midrange" and competed with the next 'bump' in NVIDIA's line up - the new and improved 512MB GTS640. That brand-new $149 9600GT also casts serious doubts about buying GTS for much more money.

The 3870 is not a replacement for the 2900 as it runs much slower. It is a mid range card but it never competed well against NVIDIAs 8800GT or even the low-mid 9600GT/

still with me ?.. OK, 3870x2 competed with the [now] "last gen" of NVIDIA taking Ultra's "old spot".

Welcome to last week. The x2 is to compete with the GX2 and does not even come close. You really like to skew things. Of course a pair of 9600GTs also crush a X2 and can be had for much less.

Now we have the next increment from NVIDIA the decidedly temporary 9800 series [well, temporary as "high end" solutions] and the slapped-together $600 GX2 to take the spot away from $420 3870xt

Costs about 40% more and is about %40 faster. Go figure.

Nothing is sad .. we now see AMD dump their inventory at fire sale prices in preparation for r700 which will compete with GX2 and 9800 ...

The R700 won't compete with the GT200 is what you are saying. especially if it comes out in 2009.

You keep trying for a jump shot but I just keep knocking em down
[/quote]

 

[schneiderguy]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

The 3870 is not a replacement for the 2900 as it runs much slower.

The 3870 is faster than the 2900xt

 

[apoppin]

I didn't make ANYTHING up about 2900xt, Wreckage ATi had a under-performing GPU - compared to G80 - when AMD acquired them. IF ATi had their way, 2900xt would have been out in December as a whining DustBuster. AMD made them "redo" it many times before 2900xt finally launched - very power-hungry but still a decent design to build on.

2900xt and 8800-GTS640 take about the same performance hit when AA is applied - at playable resolutions - up to 16x12. Both Keys and i *each* had a PAIR to test against each other. So we know better.

Sure 3870 is a replacement for 2900xt .. at the very least, 2900p. They were both discontinued to make way for 3870 which is very close to 2900xt in performance.
YOU have to realize that AMD didn't have anything OTHER than "midrange" until the 3870x2 took the top spot.

The 3870 was to compete with the old g80 ultra .. AMD didn't "know" GX2 was going to be released this week. R700 is to compete with GX2 and r700's refresh will compete with GT200
--know your roadmaps

R700 is due Q2

EDIT:


OMG a PAIR of 9600GTs for SLI for $260!!!
after 2-MiRs
http://www.ncixus.com/products...sku=28428&promoid=1020

you still believe that GX2 is worth a *premium* of over $340?

 

[bryanW1995]

wreckage, where have you been? on 3870's launch day, AT did a review of it. In that review they compared 3870 with 2900xt. The 3870 averaged 6-10% FASTER than 2900xt.

You can look at all the review sites that you want. Have you ever OWNED a 2900xt and 8800gts 640 at the same time and compared their performance on your system? No? Then either apoppin is lying about what he say when he compared both cards, or he is telling the truth and the 2900xt is comparable to/better than 8800gt 640. If you don't trust apoppin then ask keys. I seem to remember a VERY long thread in which they went into excruciating detail while testing out their cards.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
wreckage, where have you been? on 3870's launch day, AT did a review of it. In that review they compared 3870 with 2900xt. The 3870 averaged 6-10% FASTER than 2900xt.

You can look at all the review sites that you want. Have you ever OWNED a 2900xt and 8800gts 640 at the same time and compared their performance on your system? No? Then either apoppin is lying about what he say when he compared both cards, or he is telling the truth and the 2900xt is comparable to/better than 8800gt 640. If you don't trust apoppin then ask keys. I seem to remember a VERY long thread in which they went into excruciating detail while testing out their cards.

Good memory

In House 2900xt Vs. 8800GTS-640

No lies .. no fud .. just the facts

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Wreckage

The 3870 is not a replacement for the 2900 as it runs much slower.

The 3870 is faster than the 2900xt

Close, but no.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13603

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

The 3870 was to compete with the old g80 ultra .. AMD didn't "know" GX2 was going to be released this week. R700 is to compete with GX2 and r700's refresh will compete with GT200
--know your roadmaps

I know my roadmaps I just question your misuse of them.

R700 is due Q2

Still waiting for proof on that.

OMG a PAIR of 9600GTs for SLI for $260!!![/b]
after 2-MiRs
http://www.ncixus.com/products...sku=28428&promoid=1020

you still believe that GX2 is worth a *premium* of over $340?

I would never spend that kind of money. The Governor of New York however might have the extra cash to get the best card ever made though.

The 3870 was upwards of $500 when it first launched and I don't see that being worthwhile.

This is why I had the foresight to buy an SLI motherboard.





[/quote]

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: schneiderguy

Originally posted by: Wreckage

The 3870 is not a replacement for the 2900 as it runs much slower.

The 3870 is faster than the 2900xt

Close, but no.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13603

From what I've seen I'd call it a wash. Each card is slower in some situations, neither is much different than the other 99.9% in the reviews I've read.

Neither really competes with anything in NVIDIAs line up other than their bargain 9600GT card, the shader resolve AA, and VLIW shader arch tag team to hobble these chips.

When your flagship single GPU part is competing for fifth place in a hierarchy like this:

8800U>8800GTX>8800GTS>8800GT> HD 3870 & 9600Gt

the "bragging rights" are gone and you've decidedly left the "high end/enthusiast" class. The rumored 9800GTX will knock that down a notch to sixth place in the single GPU world.