Hard OCP's 9800 GX2 SLI article.... word.

[batmang]

Pretty cool article, almost makes the GX2's worth buying. $1100-$1200 for two of those... ouch!

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/...wxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

 

[JAG87]

Where Did My Memory Go?

We feel that the use of 512MB of RAM and its more narrow bus per GPU on the GeForce 9800 GX2 is a bottleneck, especially when running Quad SLI. Four of these GPUs are very powerful, with an incredible amount of shader power. The shader performance exists here to push pixels at extremely high resolutions and in-game settings and AA settings. However, the storage space isn?t there to support the high resolutions and AA settings that four GPUs are capable of pushing. That combined with the narrow 256-bit memory bus means the GPU shader performance is way out of balance with the storage and memory bandwidth supporting each GPU. This was proven with GeForce 8800 GTX SLI (2 GPUs, but backed by 768MB of RAM and 384-bit memory bus) allowing higher settings than Quad SLI, and smoother more consistent performance.

Quite simply GeForce 9800 GX2 Quad SLI is bottlenecked, and the result is very underwhelming performance scaling when playing games with it like we think you would be doing with a $1200 video card setup.

Another fail for nvidia.

 

[panfist]

nvidia sucks but I blame amd/ati for sucking harder.

 

[n7]

Holy crap i agree with a HardOCP conclusion? :Q

Impossible.

Good to see them pointing out the crippled truth.

I've been ranting & raving over the downgraded 256-bit interface & less vRAM since we've known about it.

The fact they make this crap crippled for those of us with 2560x1600 display pisses me off to no end.


edit:
Skimmed thru the review fast; gotta get to work.
Good grief the 8800 GTX SLI config does do much better for minimum fps too.
What a joke...i can pick up a second year & a half old GTX to get better performance that two GX2s.

Wow.

 

[Rusin]

256-bit mem bus on high end is definitely bottlenecking factor..at least until GDDR5 is used. Also having 512MB usable vram for four G92-GTS cores..

 

[MarcVenice]

It's good to see a hardware reviewing site not beating around the bush. People buying a 1200$ videocard setup + 350$ PSU and 250$ mobo will also be sporting a huge monitor.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: n7
Holy crap i agree with a HardOCP conclusion? :Q

Impossible.

Good to see them pointing out the crippled truth.

I've been ranting & raving over the downgraded 256-bit interface & less vRAM since we've known about it.

The fact they make this crap crippled for those of us with 2560x1600 display pisses me off to no end.


edit:
Skimmed thru the review fast; gotta get to work.
Good grief the 8800 GTX SLI config does do much better for minimum fps too.
What a joke...i can pick up a second year & a half old GTX to get better performance that two GX2s.

Wow.

8800 GTX is nicely balanced card. That's one of the reasons it's very hard to beat.
Even NV has a hard time.

 

[ghost recon88]

Shoulda gone to the 512-bit like ATI pulled a long time ago. nVidia is just being a cheap-ass, plain and simple.

 

[lopri]

I am not sure why G92 is so problematic with handling memory. It is crippled compared to G80 no doubt, but it shouldn't be this bad. Once the local memory runs out the card just collapse it seems. I feel like it's actually worse than 8800 GTS 320. The performance is excellent otherwise so the drop is even more dramatic. (e.g. 60~70FPS with no AA then 3~9FPS with 4AA) I hope this is a drivers issue and gets worked out. And I still experience ALT+TAB'ing corrects the slow down sometimes, another thing that makes me suspect the cards' poor memory management.

 

[batmang]

It's sad to know that NVidia is doing all possible to milk every ounce of money they can out of their latest cards. If they are going to charge $550+ for a video card, it needs to deliver better performance than the $350 little brother (8800GTX/Ultra), at LEAST 30% increase in all area's. Thats what would make it worth the money. The 3870 X2 is worth $420 IMO. It performs much better than a single 3870 and 3870 CF. So that is WORTH $420.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Interesting review on the 9800 GX2. Much like the last GX2, there seem to be downsides to Nvidia's dual-chip design (like all dual-chip designs, which are a series of compromises).

Nvidia is a hyper-competitive company, and sometimes I think they are their own worst enemy when it comes to releasing too many products. On the chipset frontier, I remember the Nforce 2 and Nforce 4 were class-leading choices that didn't confound users with too many versions. Nowadays there are just too many families to the Nforce series to keep up (and new chipsets like 790i don't attract me too much anyways - too pricey and it will be obsolete by this fall. I'd rather get a cheap, reliable P35 board).

Can you imagine a die shrunk 8800GTX to 65nm or the 55nm half node (and not just a tweak like the 8800 Ultra), along with fast GDDR4 on a 384-bit bus? It would take so much less power than the original 8800GTX, and still be the most balanced/versatile card on the market.

Heck one of my problems with Nvidia's whole lineup right now is that for the most part the stock coolers are let temperatures get WAY too high during operation. I briefly owned an 8800GT (thankfully with a stock heatpipe cooler) and found it to be a solid card, but in general their cards are just ovens...

ATI isn't great either but the 3xxx series (X2 aside) are a step in the right direction.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: panfist
nvidia sucks but I blame amd/ati for sucking harder.

What does Nvidia's quad sli failing have anything to do with amd/ati?

Nvidia never could perfect this technology. If you remember the 7 series it was the same way.

 

[Lorne]

Azn, Good point.

Theres alot of biosed hipocrycy in here that does nothing to resolve or even hint to the cause of the problem.

 

[panfist]

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: panfist
nvidia sucks but I blame amd/ati for sucking harder.

What does Nvidia's quad sli failing have anything to do with amd/ati?

Nvidia never could perfect this technology. If you remember the 7 series it was the same way.

It's not just the failure of quad sli, it's the really poor gains in general over the old 320bit GTS, 8800GTX, 8800Ultra. I can't remember any time ever in video game history when a two year old video card was still king of the hill (8800 ultra). Yes the GX2 may deliver better frames in some applications, but at 30" monitor resolutions the GX2 does not stand up to 8800 ultra sli.

nvidia COULD have made a card that whomped the 8800 ultra sli, but they didnt, they just made few cards that were barely better than the old 8000 series, and priced them where the 8000 SHOULD HAVE FALLEN a while ago.

The reason the prices on the original 8000 series never fell: because ATI can't get it up.

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: panfist

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: panfist
nvidia sucks but I blame amd/ati for sucking harder.

What does Nvidia's quad sli failing have anything to do with amd/ati?

Nvidia never could perfect this technology. If you remember the 7 series it was the same way.

It's not just the failure of quad sli, it's the really poor gains in general over the old 320bit GTS, 8800GTX, 8800Ultra. I can't remember any time ever in video game history when a two year old video card was still king of the hill (8800 ultra). Yes the GX2 may deliver better frames in some applications, but at 30" monitor resolutions the GX2 does not stand up to 8800 ultra sli.

nvidia COULD have made a card that whomped the 8800 ultra sli, but they didnt, they just made few cards that were barely better than the old 8000 series, and priced them where the 8000 SHOULD HAVE FALLEN a while ago.

The reason the prices on the original 8000 series never fell: because ATI can't get it up.

Eh, at least ATi prices their cards properly. The 3870 doesn't perform like a 8800GT so they don't price it like one. The 3870X2 barely beats a 8800GTX so its priced right above it at $420-$450, not frickin' $570-$600 like the 9800GX2. I respect ATi because they give a rats ass about the consumers. They release monthly drivers/updates, they price products appropriately, etc. We all know AMD processors are being pummeled by Intel, but ATi is doing well in the medium graphics market. To me it seems like NVidia is turning into Micro$oft.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: batmang
NVidia is turning into Micro$oft.

yup! and m$ says nvidia is responsible for 30% of the vista crashes due to nvidia drivers. LOL

Nvidia m$ & intel drama is teh suck.

 

[Extelleron]

The problem with 9800GX2 Quad SLI is that its bottleneck is apparent at extremely high settings + 2560x1600, which is exactly where Quad SLI is required. It is hard to justify Quad SLI at anything but 2560x1600, yet that is where it is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and pixel performance.

It will be the same with 9800GTX Tri-SLI; most of the times it will be faster than an 8800GTX/8800U, but sometimes it will be bottlenecked and those will be the very settings where the extra performance is needed.

nVidia's G92 chip w/ 16 ROPs and a 256-bit bus is highly suitable to a midrange card like the 8800GT, but it is clearly NOT designed or good for high resolution, High AA/AF gaming. It's not designed for 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF, but that is where people buying Quad SLI play at.

If I had unlimited money and was going for a GPU setup, I'd still go for 8800 Ultra Tri-SLI. Only when R700 and later GT200 ships will that setup be beaten.

 

[batmang]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
The problem with 9800GX2 Quad SLI is that its bottleneck is apparent at extremely high settings + 2560x1600, which is exactly where Quad SLI is required. It is hard to justify Quad SLI at anything but 2560x1600, yet that is where it is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and pixel performance.

It will be the same with 9800GTX Tri-SLI; most of the times it will be faster than an 8800GTX/8800U, but sometimes it will be bottlenecked and those will be the very settings where the extra performance is needed.

nVidia's G92 chip w/ 16 ROPs and a 256-bit bus is highly suitable to a midrange card like the 8800GT, but it is clearly NOT designed or good for high resolution, High AA/AF gaming. It's not designed for 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF, but that is where people buying Quad SLI play at.

If I had unlimited money and was going for a GPU setup, I'd still go for 8800 Ultra Tri-SLI. Only when R700 and later GT200 ships will that setup be beaten.

^^ Word.

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: batmang
NVidia is turning into Micro$oft.

yup! and m$ says nvidia is responsible for 30% of the vista crashes due to nvidia drivers. LOL

Nvidia m$ & intel drama is teh suck.

LOL LOL LOL

 

[AzN]

Originally posted by: panfist

Originally posted by: Azn

Originally posted by: panfist
nvidia sucks but I blame amd/ati for sucking harder.

What does Nvidia's quad sli failing have anything to do with amd/ati?

Nvidia never could perfect this technology. If you remember the 7 series it was the same way.

It's not just the failure of quad sli, it's the really poor gains in general over the old 320bit GTS, 8800GTX, 8800Ultra. I can't remember any time ever in video game history when a two year old video card was still king of the hill (8800 ultra). Yes the GX2 may deliver better frames in some applications, but at 30" monitor resolutions the GX2 does not stand up to 8800 ultra sli.

nvidia COULD have made a card that whomped the 8800 ultra sli, but they didnt, they just made few cards that were barely better than the old 8000 series, and priced them where the 8000 SHOULD HAVE FALLEN a while ago.

The reason the prices on the original 8000 series never fell: because ATI can't get it up.

Quad sli has nothing to do with your gripe with ATI/AMD or Nvidia.

G92 was released because G80 was more expensive to produce. The biggest group in the PC industry called the "mainstream" doesn't like paying $500 for video cards. Hence G92 was born.

GT200 is the real next generation. G92 was a rehash.

 

[TC91]

nvidia's drivers have poor or even horrible memory management, or at least a memory leak problem as far as im concerned. when comparing the 256mb 8800gt to the 256mb 3850 in many benchmarks where you would expect the 256mb 8800gt to come out ahead of the 3850 (faster gpu, equal amt of vram) every single time, but it runs of of vram pretty quickly compared to the 3850, and can get beat up by the 3850 by a notable amt in those situations.

X-Bit Labs review: see call of juarez, crysis, fear, hl2, hellgate london, company of heroes, cnc3, and world in conflict, particularly at the higher resolutions and compare the 8800gt 256mb to the 3850 256mb, the 8800gt takes a bit of a beating as it appears to run of of vram a bit faster than the 3850.

http://xbitlabs.com/articles/v...sparkle-px88gt256.html