NVIDIA 9800GTX+ Review Thread

[OCGuy]

9800gx2 = 2 8800GT

2 8800GT = 2 4850, because 8800GT=4850 (not accounting for differences in SLI/Xfire)

9800GX2 also = GTX280



So seeing how if you use that they all are about the same.....where do 2X 9800GTX and 2X 9800GTX+ fit in? Ive said before Im probably going to say forget the trade-up because I can sli for $209.....and with EVGAs trade up, even if the prices of the 280 fall, they will still be $649 there.

 

[zod96]

That could be very well true allies. At high resolutions the 4850 probably would pull ahead and it might be more future proof

 

[BFG10K]

Believe it or not, but AMD/ATI is in deep trouble!!

:roll:

Just when ATI thought they had a complete midrange winner with the 4850, Nvidia struck back virtually overnight with the 9800GTX+. Nobody saw the GTX+ coming! Basically, ATI spent a lot of R&D time and resources in the 4850, only to have Nvidia punch it in the mouth the GTX+ without spending a dime or research.

The 9800 GTX+ costs more, isn?t available yet, and likely still loses with 8xAA.

Going 55nm doesnt cost Nvidia a dime.

It cost ATi a lot of money but nVidia can do it for free? Riiiight.

What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

Presumably the 4870 X2.

 

[BFG10K]

Everything set to High using Windows Xp and DX9, Nvidia drivers used were 175.16 and the Ati drivers used were the new ones released today 8.6. Benches were done at 1680x1050

Sorry, I can?t even see what game you benchmarked. What was it?

That and you were using a low resolution without going higher than 4xAA so it?s no wonder you were CPU limited in those tests.

 

[BFG10K]

See that's my problem with the 4850 launch. Everyone who claims to be unbiased and claimed the above seems to conveniently overlook the 8800GT and 8800GTS that offer exactly this or better relative to the 4850

For me personally the biggie is the amazing 8xAA performance. It needs to be substantiated first of course but according to ComputerBase the 4850 delivers 8xAA performance far in excess of even a 8800 Ultra, much less the lesser G9x bretheren.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
9800gx2 = 2 8800GT

2 8800GT = 2 4850, because 8800GT=4850 (not accounting for differences in SLI/Xfire)

9800GX2 also = GTX280



So seeing how if you use that they all are about the same.....where do 2X 9800GTX and 2X 9800GTX+ fit in? Ive said before Im probably going to say forget the trade-up because I can sli for $209.....and with EVGAs trade up, even if the prices of the 280 fall, they will still be $649 there.

I'm pretty sure if the 4870 comes out competing with the GTX260 the MSRP of it will lower along with the MSRP of GTX280. I'm pretty sure EVGA charges MSRP so it should lower its prices accordingly.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

See that's my problem with the 4850 launch. Everyone who claims to be unbiased and claimed the above seems to conveniently overlook the 8800GT and 8800GTS that offer exactly this or better relative to the 4850

For me personally the biggie is the amazing 8xAA performance. It needs to be substantiated first of course but according to ComputerBase the 4850 delivers 8xAA performance far in excess of even a 8800 Ultra, much less the lesser G9x bretheren.

you wouldn't be happy with the crappy 4850 stock cooler...I'd check out the 4870 first if I were you.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
9800gx2 = 2 8800GT

2 8800GT = 2 4850, because 8800GT=4850 (not accounting for differences in SLI/Xfire)

9800GX2 also = GTX280



So seeing how if you use that they all are about the same.....where do 2X 9800GTX and 2X 9800GTX+ fit in? Ive said before Im probably going to say forget the trade-up because I can sli for $209.....and with EVGAs trade up, even if the prices of the 280 fall, they will still be $649 there.

um, 4850 > 9800gtx but not > 8800gt? wow...

 

[BFG10K]

you wouldn't be happy with the crappy 4850 stock cooler...I'd check out the 4870 first if I were you.

I am checking out the 4870; it was never my intention to get a 4850 if there's a faster single card available.

 

[uclaLabrat]

hell, I wish I could upgrade right now, as I'm on a 3700+ at 2.8G, 2G RAM, and a 1800XT 512. But, I game at 1280x1024. My next rig will be pushing the Samsung 305T, which is why I have to save up so much :-D

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
9800gx2 = 2 8800GT

2 8800GT = 2 4850, because 8800GT=4850 (not accounting for differences in SLI/Xfire)

9800GX2 also = GTX280



So seeing how if you use that they all are about the same.....where do 2X 9800GTX and 2X 9800GTX+ fit in? Ive said before Im probably going to say forget the trade-up because I can sli for $209.....and with EVGAs trade up, even if the prices of the 280 fall, they will still be $649 there.

um, 4850 > 9800gtx but not > 8800gt? wow...

Read the last page (page 9) of this thread....

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
9800gx2 = 2 8800GT

2 8800GT = 2 4850, because 8800GT=4850 (not accounting for differences in SLI/Xfire)

9800GX2 also = GTX280



So seeing how if you use that they all are about the same.....where do 2X 9800GTX and 2X 9800GTX+ fit in? Ive said before Im probably going to say forget the trade-up because I can sli for $209.....and with EVGAs trade up, even if the prices of the 280 fall, they will still be $649 there.

um, 4850 > 9800gtx but not > 8800gt? wow...

Read the last page (page 9) of this thread....

If you're talking about zod's results, then yes, at relatively low resolutions coupled with 4xAA or less, the 8800GT can hang with the 4850. Coincidentally, the 8800GT also hangs with the 9800GTX under similar circumstances.

 

[bryanW1995]

leave him alone, he's getting paid to throw this crap on our forums. maybe if we ignore him he'll go away...

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
9800gx2 = 2 8800GT

2 8800GT = 2 4850, because 8800GT=4850 (not accounting for differences in SLI/Xfire)

9800GX2 also = GTX280

...

Some people are either blind, or are so biased they can't think straight.

Lets compare the Anandtech numbers. Below is the performance difference between the HD4850 and 8800GT @ 1920x1200 resolution:

Crysis 1920x1200 :
8800GT : 20.9
HD 4850: 24 +14.8%

Call of Duty 1920x1200:
8800GT : 52.3
HD 4850: 66.4 +26.9%

Quake Wars 1920x1200:
8800GT : 47.6
HD 4850: 75.4 +58.4%

Assassins Creed 1920x1200:
8800GT : 37
HD 4850: 46.6 +25.9%

Oblivion 1920x1200:
8800GT : 30.5
HD 4850: 34.8 +14%

The Witcher 1920x1200:
8800GT : 28.7
HD 4850: 34.5 +20.2%

Bioshock 1920x1200:
8800GT : 34.8
HD 4850: 55.6 +59.7%

-------------------
Average gain over 8800GT: +31.4%

31% gain over the 8800GT, that is huge. The only game where there is a few frames difference between the cards is Crysis, but for Crysis it is like that with all cards.

If people are so biased to call the 8800GT equal in performance to the HD4850, then we should say that the HD4850 is equal to the GTX260, because from the anandtech numbers, the GTX260 is only 14% faster.

The difference between the HD4850 and the 8800GT is DOUBLE (31% vs 14%) the difference between the HD4850 and the GTX260. These are facts, go recheck the reviews on the net.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
leave him alone, he's getting paid to throw this crap on our forums. maybe if we ignore him he'll go away...

So I quote results that someone posted, and I am "being paid" to be here. Dont be so emotional and personal.....why is anyone that doesnt say that 4850 is a god-card a pariah? Holy smokes.....

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: shangshang
What will happen when the GT200 goes 55nm in 3 months? Hmm what's ATI's answer then?

That will pretty much piss off current GTX 280 owners as well as soon-to-be GTX 260 owners. 55nm GT200 is actually what I'm waiting for my gaming rig. HD 4870 for my main system.

 

[lopri]

While I have my opinion, I personally don't understand the HD 4850 vs 9800 GTX+ argument. If I'm not mistaken there are just about a dozen 9800 GTX+ officially out there to the press and nobody knows when it's going to available to mass public. So as of now it's an actual product that can be purchased below $200 vs a future product that's likely to be above $200. I don't see the point.

Said that, G92/G92b is kind of a dead end, IMO. I've carefully looked at AnandTech and TechReport's 4850 reviews (two of my favorites), and regardless of relative performance between RV770 and G92 there is a distinctive sign that the RV770 will only get better with upcoming modern games plus AA in general. (Assasin's Creed, Bioshock, GRID, etc.) Whether it's architectural benefit or the effect of XBox360 porting isn't clear, but the trend is definitely there.

Add to that, the two 6-pin power requirement and 10.5" length (this is kinda big deal to me for a mid-range) as well as everything regarding system stability (Vista drivers, HD playback, other applications which start adopting GPU acceleration, etc..), the choice between RV770 and G92/G92b is pretty clear to me.

NV desperately needs the 55nm GT200. I can't remember where I saw it but NV's own PowerPoint slide showed they had nothing to offer between $230~$400. On the other hand, we don't know exactly when HD 4870 will arrive, either, so the pressure is on both sides.

Edit: Duh, it's from AT review.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=3

 

[BenSkywalker]

I can't remember where I saw it but NV's own PowerPoint slide showed they had nothing to offer between $230~$400.

What if nVidia did in fact have an offering for, let's say, $260 that beat the HD4850 by, let's make up some random numbers for different games(or something like that)-

51% Crysis

57% COD4

22% ET:QW

47% Assasin's Creed

45% Oblivion

71% The Witcher

25% Bioshock

For a ~30% price premium you would get between 22% and 71% performance increase, do you think that 'hypothetical' offering would be tempting?

 

[Conroe]

If they did it would be faster than the GTX 260. The GTX+ is probably their best shot at the 200-300 market, the only other option is lowering the GTX 260 price. I think that will happen when the 4870 is released. Maybe not less then $300 but close.

 

[bamacre]

Damn Nvidia for their product naming for the past year or so. Confusing as HELL for those who don't keep up like we do.

Also, if these two cards use roughly the same amount of power, why the need for two 6-pin power connectors for the 9800 GTX+ (HD 4850 needs just one)?

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

I can't remember where I saw it but NV's own PowerPoint slide showed they had nothing to offer between $230~$400.

What if nVidia did in fact have an offering for, let's say, $260 that beat the HD4850 by, let's make up some random numbers for different games(or something like that)-

51% Crysis

57% COD4

22% ET:QW

47% Assasin's Creed

45% Oblivion

71% The Witcher

25% Bioshock

For a ~30% price premium you would get between 22% and 71% performance increase, do you think that 'hypothetical' offering would be tempting?

what resolution is that, does it include AA, AF, etc? That sort of performance bump is not gtx 260, that's not even gtx 280, that's some sort of sli configuration. For $260 it would have to be a couple of oc edition 8800gt cards, right?

 

[HOOfan 1]

my guess is to allow higher overclocking on the 9800GTX+

Apparently Legit Reviews found that it is an insane overclocker

 

[Skott]

Its good to see ATI coming back with something good. Keeps nVidia on their toes and helps keep pricing low between the two companies.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
my guess is to allow higher overclocking on the 9800GTX+

Apparently Legit Reviews found that it is an insane overclocker

well, it's already clocked at 738 core, a decent oc on a g92(b). I've heard numerous reports of 800 core on g92 systems, but not a lot higher than that + stable. let's assume that the 55nm lets you get another 50 mhz out of it, that puts it at 850 core, for a 112 mhz oc. that's a 15.18% oc. not bad, but not as nice as a large % of 8800gt owners got.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
my guess is to allow higher overclocking on the 9800GTX+

Apparently Legit Reviews found that it is an insane overclocker

well, it's already clocked at 738 core, a decent oc on a g92(b). I've heard numerous reports of 800 core on g92 systems, but not a lot higher than that + stable. let's assume that the 55nm lets you get another 50 mhz out of it, that puts it at 850 core, for a 112 mhz oc. that's a 15.18% oc. not bad, but not as nice as a large % of 8800gt owners got.

according to legitreview they got the core to 855Mhz 2.2Ghz on the shaders.

Apparently the overclock also increased the performance by 10%