Geforce 9800 GTX: Picture and specs

[KeithP]

It comes with two DVI-I and one HDTV-out.

What exactly is HDTV-Out? Do they mean HDMI?

-KeithP

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: JAG87
you guys are retarded if you think this card is going to perform like an 8800GT or GTS.

Don't hold back, say what you really mean

lol? im not sure what you mean


I'm am looking forward to a pair of 9800GTXs, but honestly I was expecting a little more on the memory/bus. I have a feeling that they will perform very well compared to 8800GTXs, but not at 2560x1600 with AA, which is what I care about. Then there is always the Quad SLI hope. Exciting times, I love looking forward to things.

 

[krnmastersgt]

I agree with JAG, but at the same time I very much doubt they'd give such an astounding performing card with such horrible memory, I expect/ed at least 768mb or 1gb of GDDR3 or GDDR4.

 

[Tempered81]

9800GTX 512 Pictures

9800GX2 1024 Pictures:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=178398

 

[qbfx]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: JAG87
you guys are retarded if you think this card is going to perform like an 8800GT or GTS.

Don't hold back, say what you really mean

lol? im not sure what you mean


I'm am looking forward to a pair of 9800GTXs, but honestly I was expecting a little more on the memory/bus. I have a feeling that they will perform very well compared to 8800GTXs, but not at 2560x1600 with AA, which is what I care about. Then there is always the Quad SLI hope. Exciting times, I love looking forward to things.

IMO there's no way they'd put 512mb on this thing, the 8800GTX already has 768mb, what's the point to put less memory on a "new generation" card if the old version had 256mb more 2 yrs ago ? Same goes for the bus. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[krnmastersgt]

Originally posted by: qbfx

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: JAG87
you guys are retarded if you think this card is going to perform like an 8800GT or GTS.

Don't hold back, say what you really mean

lol? im not sure what you mean


I'm am looking forward to a pair of 9800GTXs, but honestly I was expecting a little more on the memory/bus. I have a feeling that they will perform very well compared to 8800GTXs, but not at 2560x1600 with AA, which is what I care about. Then there is always the Quad SLI hope. Exciting times, I love looking forward to things.

IMO there's no way they'd put 512mb on this thing, the 8800GTX already has 768mb, what's the point to put less memory on a "new generation" card if the old version had 256mb more 2 yrs ago ? Same goes for the bus. We'll have to wait and see.

Thanks for repeating what I said

 

[qbfx]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt

Originally posted by: qbfx

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: sgrinavi

Originally posted by: JAG87
you guys are retarded if you think this card is going to perform like an 8800GT or GTS.

Don't hold back, say what you really mean

lol? im not sure what you mean


I'm am looking forward to a pair of 9800GTXs, but honestly I was expecting a little more on the memory/bus. I have a feeling that they will perform very well compared to 8800GTXs, but not at 2560x1600 with AA, which is what I care about. Then there is always the Quad SLI hope. Exciting times, I love looking forward to things.

IMO there's no way they'd put 512mb on this thing, the 8800GTX already has 768mb, what's the point to put less memory on a "new generation" card if the old version had 256mb more 2 yrs ago ? Same goes for the bus. We'll have to wait and see.

Thanks for repeating what I said

You're most welcome tho I didn't read your post. It doesn't take a PHD in theoretical math to figure that out, does it ?

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: JAG87
you guys are retarded if you think this card is going to perform like an 8800GT or GTS. the 9600GT has only 64 shaders / 32 TMUs, while the GT has 112 shaders / 52 TMUs, and the GTS has 128 shaders / 64 TMUs

yet the 9600GT is practically on par with the 8800GT and not too far behind the GTS. imagine a card with 128 of the same shaders that the 9600GT has and 64 TMUs. I think we are looking at almost double the performance of an 8800GT. This is not the same core that's in the 8800GT and GTS.

and if this revised G92 core is going into the GX2 as well, boy thats going to be one heck of a card. up to 4 times faster than a stock 8800GT. my only grip is that quad SLI will probably suck donkey balls again, and that 2 GTXs in SLI will end up being the fastest graphics setup again.

anyone recall the 7900 series, sound familiar?


PS. I am still shaking my head at the 256 bit bus and 512 MB memory. all this graphics horsepower will probably get destroyed at high resolutions.

Haven't we had this conversation already? The 9800GTX is a revised 8800GTS, it will probably end up being faster than an Ultra if they optimize AA and of course the higher clocks so it will be a less expensive (and faster) way of getting Tri-SLI running so it's not too bad.

The 9600GT is not a magical architecture, it's still G92 (well G94 if you want to get ******* technical) it only had AA revised (apparently according to some people here current G92 have a bug with AA that makes it use too much VRAM) so that's why they get great performance with AA. It's close to a 8800GT because it would appear games are currently not limiting cards in the shader department, if you would notice, some users downclocked their 8800GT's shader clocks to under 600 yet there was no (significant) performance difference, indicating the bottleneck might be oriented at memory bandwidth and fillrate, two things the 9600GT is pretty good at. I tried this test myself and indeed, shader clocks seem to have little effect on performance in current 8800 cards.

Given that games would appear to be limited by bandwidth and that the 9600GT is equal to the 8800GT (actually better because of the higher clocks and better AA) it would seem logical to think the 9600GT wouldn't be far behind the 8800GT. For some reason people like to think double the amount of any specs should amount to double the performance. In any case, considering everything, the performance difference between the two cards is coherent, just because it has double the shaders doesn't mean it should have double the performance.

Tri-SLI, the AA revision and higher clocks are all NV needs to finally retire the G80 and make the G92 their new flagship core. Just by looking at the facts (9800GX2 flagship and it being just two 8800GTS) you should be able to know what kind of performance to expect from the 9800GTX.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: Piuc2020

Originally posted by: JAG87
you guys are retarded if you think this card is going to perform like an 8800GT or GTS. the 9600GT has only 64 shaders / 32 TMUs, while the GT has 112 shaders / 52 TMUs, and the GTS has 128 shaders / 64 TMUs

yet the 9600GT is practically on par with the 8800GT and not too far behind the GTS. imagine a card with 128 of the same shaders that the 9600GT has and 64 TMUs. I think we are looking at almost double the performance of an 8800GT. This is not the same core that's in the 8800GT and GTS.

and if this revised G92 core is going into the GX2 as well, boy thats going to be one heck of a card. up to 4 times faster than a stock 8800GT. my only grip is that quad SLI will probably suck donkey balls again, and that 2 GTXs in SLI will end up being the fastest graphics setup again.

anyone recall the 7900 series, sound familiar?


PS. I am still shaking my head at the 256 bit bus and 512 MB memory. all this graphics horsepower will probably get destroyed at high resolutions.

Haven't we had this conversation already? The 9800GTX is a revised 8800GTS, it will probably end up being faster than an Ultra if they optimize AA and of course the higher clocks so it will be a less expensive (and faster) way of getting Tri-SLI running so it's not too bad.

The 9600GT is not a magical architecture, it's still G92 (well G94 if you want to get ******* technical) it only had AA revised (apparently according to some people here current G92 have a bug with AA that makes it use too much VRAM) so that's why they get great performance with AA. It's close to a 8800GT because it would appear games are currently not limiting games in the shader department, if you would notice, some users downclocked their 8800GT's shader clocks to under 600 yet there was no (significant) performance difference, indicating the bottleneck might be oriented at memory bandwidth and fillrate, two things the 9600GT is pretty good at.

Given that games would appear to be limited by bandwidth and that the 9600GT is equal to the 8800GT (actually better because of the higher clocks and no AA bug) it would seem logical to think the 9600GT wouldn't be far behind the 8800GT. For some reason people like to think double the amount of any specs should amount to double the performance.

Tri-SLI, the AA revision and higher clocks are all NV needs to finally retire the G80 and make the G92 their new flagship core. Just by looking at the facts (9800GX2 flagship and it being just two 8800GTS) you should be able to know what kind of performance to expect from the 9800GTX.

If its not a magical architecture, then how come only 64 shaders and 32 TMUs perform almost as good as 112 shaders and 52 TMUs, keeping everything memory related the same? Whats the point of having 128 shaders then? Why not make a simpler GPU with 64 shaders and clock it really really high, wouldn't that perform better?

Again, if like you say shaders dont make a difference, how come the the new GTS with 128 shaders performs better than the old GTS with 96 shaders, even though it has a worse memory bus and memory size???

I am sorry but your argument doesn't make much sense. The shader architecture between G92 and G94 is obviously different, there are optimizations, and those optimizations will be carried over to the G92 core used on the GTX and GX2. Like Xbit labs says, should be the A3 revision.

If what I am saying turns out to be wrong and you are right, well, I guess were all buying R700 this summer.

 

[Rusin]

Sorry..that picture is fake.

 

[Tempered81]

I hope all these damn specification rumors & speculation are false/fake. Otherwise the r700 better kick serious ass. Otherwise there is no competition. This really sucks. the 9xxx series is looking like a launch on the opposite end of the spectrum when compared to R300 & g80. Its more like a Geforce FX launch.

 

[Rusin]

jaredpace:
Don't forget G100; both G100 and R700 have been taped out and both should arrive (if we are lucky) at late Q2..or early Q3

 

[Tempered81]

yeah If i were in the market to purchase a top-end vga right now, it would be g100/r700. I would skip this, except for maybe sli 9600gt or 8800gt

 

[krnmastersgt]

Personally I'd rather ignore all the before launch reviews for the 9800 GTX, we'll see how it performs once it comes out.

 

[Cookie Monster]

What are those features/capabilities?? Time to discuss it at B3D

Yeah its amazing how a 64SP/32TMU G94 can sometimes give a 112S/56TMU G92 a run for its money. The difference in the number of units is pretty significant if you ask me. If those features/capabilites are currently enabled on the G94 (funny how it is based on A1 revision though), then we can expect the 9800 series to perform much better than say comparing it to a "OCed 8800GTS 512mb"

To JAG87 about the 8800GTS (G80 vs G92)
Thats pretty simple. Most modern games are more shader intensive. But even then it requires alot of texturing power (R600/RV670 lacks this and is seen why they perform badly even if they are much much stronger in terms of arithmetic power compared to its nVIDIA counterparts).

128SPs @ 1625MHz vs 96SPs @ 1200MHz
56 TMUs @ 650 MHz vs 24TMUs @ 500MHz
Quite the difference in both shadering/texturing power. Not to mention the new GTS having a higher fillrate compared to the old one.

The older GTS has higher memory bandwidth, but that is no use when theres no performance to use it. One thing holding back the new GTS is memory bandwidth. You can now why the new GTS can keep up woth the GTX/ultra sometimes or even surpass it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Cheex

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Well, bad news for PC enthusiasts, good news for me. It means my $200 8800GT was a good investment.

If this what is coming, then I don't want it.

I'm starting to think 9600GT SLI again...

AND...

Why does it have ONLY 512MB ??!!

Multiply everything times two. The card is 1.5 inches longer than a 8800GTX with only a 256 bit memory interface. 12 LAYER PCB!! Why?

Possibilites:

2 cores.
512MB x2 (1024MB)
And a big SLI bridge chip between the two cores.

Essentially a 3870X2 clone. (If only by design).

My humble speculation.

This could be the reason that it has been said that the 9800GX2 will be of limited production.

 

[Rusin]

Keys:
8800 GTX is 10.5" long
8800 GTS is 9" long
9800 GX2 is 10.5" long
This card here 10.5" long

There's something weird about that card..

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Rusin
Keys:
8800 GTX is 10.5" long
8800 GTS is 9" long
9800 GX2 is 10.5" long
This card here 10.5" long

There's something weird about that card..

I'm sorry, I meant 1.5" longer than 8800 GTS 512. Not GTX.

Yes, there is something not right.

If the 9800GTX is essentially the G92 core, 256-bit memory interface, 512MB mem, Why the additional 1.5" of PCB real estate in not only length, but in PCB layers?

AFAIK, a 8800GTS is 10 layer PCB. Some 8800GT's are 10 layer or 6 layer PCB.

 

[Tempered81]

@keys: I also heard it has two 6pin connectors WTh?

 

[Donts00tmesanta]

still haven't seen specs

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
@keys: I also heard it has two 6pin connectors WTh?

Just something else pointing to multicore.

NOTE: I'm not saying the 9800GTX is multicore, just speculating on the data that seems odd.

 

[Rusin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: jaredpace
@keys: I also heard it has two 6pin connectors WTh?

Just something else pointing to multicore.

NOTE: I'm not saying the 9800GTX is multicore, just speculating on the data that seems odd.

..and it's said that Nvidia delayed from late January to well March 11 because heat and other issues..

With Geforce 7 they made changes Fast...and pretty big changes they did:
http://www.firingsquad.com/har..._preview/images/03.jpg
They also made it consume a lot less power.

 

[Piuc2020]

If it's multicore... what the hell is nvidia's motivation to release a 9800GX2 card... to be followed by an almost identical dual 9800 card in less than 2 weeks... come on guys, NV is smarter than this and so should you instead of spreading the FUD like it's peanut butter.

Unless of course there is actually a reason why nvidia would choose to release almost identically performing multi-gpu cards less than 2 weeks apart from each other with different names...

 

[Rusin]

Speculation
Or they don't launch that dual PCB-version at all?

 

[Tempered81]

guesswork is turning ridiculous now... 8800ultra has two power connections right? it's single core. Maybe they're allowing for more power for more gpu vcore for higher clockspeeds?