Lost some respect for my video card today

[Ketchup]

I have a 9800 GTX+ in my rig. Yeah, it's pretty old, but it plays everything I need (most recently Portal 2) at acceptable frame rates on my 24" screen at 1080. It is a pretty nice looking card too, I think. I remember when nVidia renamed it the GTS 250, and made it a little shorter. So today I am browsing Newegg for no particular reason and find that they still sell 1 GTS 250:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814187099

Are you kidding me? This little thing is the same as this?

Crazy stuff. I'll probably have to get a 680 to get over it.

 

[joshhedge]

I'm still running SLI BFG 8800GTX OC2 with a dedicated BFG Physx card, cost an arm and a leg back in the day. Still a good rig with the C2Q Extreme

 

[mak360]

Sorry but this is the 1st post am having trouble understanding, from what it was conveying or asking.

PS think we should all start a new thread to say "oh, i think am going to buy a 7970 or 680" etc. (sarcasm)

 

[chimaxi83]

Sorry but this is the 1st post am having trouble understanding, from what it was conveying or asking.

PS think we should all start a new thread to say "oh, i think am going to buy a 7970 or 680" etc. (sarcasm)

are you drunk, or is OP's sarcasm far over your head?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

wow, I'm surprised

usually these half-height cards come at the cost of half bandwidth, but they claim 256bit instead of 128bit, so performance potential is there to match a 9800GTX+

this particular model has clock speeds that match the 8800/9800GT though, so its not quite as fast as 9800GTX+, at least not without some overclocking (assuming it could hit those speeds)

 

[Pandora's Box]

Just looking at that small fan makes my ears bleed.

 

[Gryz]

So you just looking at the size of the thing.
Yeah, that's easily comprehensible.

More interesting is the speed of videocards.
How does my new gtx680 compare to supercomputers from the past ?
Supposedly a gtx680 can do 3 TeraFlops.

Now check out this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supercomputing#Historical_TOP500_table

At the turn of the century, the fastest supercomputer in the world was the Intel ASCI Red/9632, at DoE-Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. That supercomputer could do 3 TeraFlops. It was the fastest machine on the planet until late 2000.

The ASCI Red/9632 used 850 kWatts. It was 150 m^2 big (1600 ft^2). It consisted of 9632 Intel processors.

That was only 12 years ago.

 

[Ketchup]

I remember when I first got mine, I was a bit disappointed at the temps, and by how often the fan would spin up.

I removed the heatsink to find a horrendous job applying something they were passing as thermal material at the factory that day. A nice dose of arctic silver 5 made a world of difference.

My point is that for being essentially the same card, I had an initial shock when viewing the size. It's not like we're comparing old and new gen parts here.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

S-Video, that really caught on /sarcasm

 

[Ketchup]

S-Video, that really caught on /sarcasm

Same for DVI, on its way out from what I have been hearing. I had to get an HDMI adapter to use with my new monitor.

 

[Ferzerp]

So you just looking at the size of the thing.
Yeah, that's easily comprehensible.

More interesting is the speed of videocards.
How does my new gtx680 compare to supercomputers from the past ?
Supposedly a gtx680 can do 3 TeraFlops.

Now check out this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supercomputing#Historical_TOP500_table

At the turn of the century, the fastest supercomputer in the world was the Intel ASCI Red/9632, at DoE-Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. That supercomputer could do 3 TeraFlops. It was the fastest machine on the planet until late 2000.

The ASCI Red/9632 used 850 kWatts. It was 150 m^2 big (1600 ft^2). It consisted of 9632 Intel processors.

That was only 12 years ago.

And a 7970 is even better at 3.8 Tflops

Add 3 of those in crossfire, and you're up to better than 2002's best (either nv, or amd there actually)

 

[nenforcer]

If it makes you feel better that Sparkle card lacks the SLI connector so no one will be putting 3 of those into triple SLI like you can with your card.

 

[chloros]

would have made more sense if my sister posted this thread. sigh

 

[Smartazz]

So you just looking at the size of the thing.
Yeah, that's easily comprehensible.

More interesting is the speed of videocards.
How does my new gtx680 compare to supercomputers from the past ?
Supposedly a gtx680 can do 3 TeraFlops.

Now check out this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supercomputing#Historical_TOP500_table

At the turn of the century, the fastest supercomputer in the world was the Intel ASCI Red/9632, at DoE-Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. That supercomputer could do 3 TeraFlops. It was the fastest machine on the planet until late 2000.

The ASCI Red/9632 used 850 kWatts. It was 150 m^2 big (1600 ft^2). It consisted of 9632 Intel processors.

That was only 12 years ago.

I think you're comparing double precision with single precision. Still, it is mindblowing how quickly technology evolved thanks to exponential gains.

 

[Ketchup]

I think there are two answers to my surprise. One, as mentioned earlier, is that this card is a clocked down version.

The other, I found in a review.

The cooling gets the job done at around 50 Celsius idle and 80 Celsius on load

Pretty much answered my question about how they got the same core to run with what appears to be significantly less heatsink.

 

[Leyawiin]

Only thing that makes me sad is my $550 (in 2006) 8800 GTX with two six pins has about the performance of an HD 6670 with none. At least it doubles as a space heater.

 

[Smartazz]

Only thing that makes me sad is my $550 (in 2006) 8800 GTX with two six pins has about the performance of an HD 6670 with none. At least it doubles as a space heater.

The 8800s stayed relevant for so long. Most games are still playable with them today.

 

[Ferzerp]

The 8800s stayed relevant for so long. Most games are still playable with them today.

At low res.

 

[Smartazz]

At low res.

No doubt, but most PC gamers I know would still keep a card of that performance level.

 

[-Slacker-]

The 9800 gtx+ was just a minor refresh of the 8800 gtx, but it was shrunk form a 90nm fab to 55nm ... essentially shrunk by 2 manufacturing processes, so of course it can be made into a low profile video card like that.

And since it was the fastest nvidia gpu when it came out, they understandably put some bling on it to make it look the part. When the gts 250 came out, it was mid range at best, so they didn't have to pretend anymore.

 

[Fallengod]

Personally, I value lower temps and less power consumption so I try not to hold onto old video cards. The older the cards, the more heat produced and power consumed. Although, I only own my AMD 5770 now because my 9800GT died last year, if that wouldnt have happened I might still be using it heh. I dont know why people want to hold onto the older gen cards that used to consume massive power.

 

[Ketchup]

I dont know why people want to hold onto the older gen cards that used to consume massive power.

My bank account says I can't!

But I'll tell you what, send me 300 bucks, and I promise I'll get a new card that consumes less power.

 

[-Slacker-]

Newer cards of the same 'class' usually use more power, not less.

 

[Via]

The 8800s stayed relevant for so long. Most games are still playable with them today.

It still gets my vote for greatest video card of all time, and imo it's not that close.

 

[OS]

Personally, I value lower temps and less power consumption so I try not to hold onto old video cards. The older the cards, the more heat produced and power consumed. Although, I only own my AMD 5770 now because my 9800GT died last year, if that wouldnt have happened I might still be using it heh. I dont know why people want to hold onto the older gen cards that used to consume massive power.

well the difference in power consumption is mostly when the GPU is under load,