Can anyone list nvidia video cards from best to worst? I'm thinking about building a new computer. My current card is a 7600gt. I've seen a lot of recommendations for the ASUS EN9800GT on the forum, but I was wondering where it lies in comparison with other nvidia cards. It's kind of confusing with all this GT, GTX, GSO, etc. labels.
nvidia video card hierarchy
- Thread starter CanOWorms
- Start date
I think the best way to approach it is to say what your budget is, and find the best card for that price.
My budget is kind of low since I don't play too many games. I basically want to be able to play Fallout 3 at medium-to-high settings. I was thinking $125 or so - that's why I was looking at the ASUS card since it seems to be in that range. I'm kind of curious where it lies in the hierarchy.
You shoould probably wait till fallout 3 is released then since you won't know what the requirements will be. I mean no one expected 8800gtx in sli wouldn't be enough for crysis on high.
That being said what mobo do you have (i.e. does it support sli or crossfire) and what resolution will you be playing in. Resolution matters a whole lot for video cards since even the most powerful ones will crawl at 2560x1600.
That being said what mobo do you have (i.e. does it support sli or crossfire) and what resolution will you be playing in. Resolution matters a whole lot for video cards since even the most powerful ones will crawl at 2560x1600.
My current computer is a bit old. No SLI and I'm guessing it doesn't have Crossfire because I have never heard of that before (assuming it's something newer). I have an AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 1.5 gb ram, and the 7600gt.
I currently play games at random resolutions. I have a 27.5" monitor that can go up to 1920x1200, but I usually play stuff at smaller resolutions. I use the nvidia feature which doesn't scale the image so that I have black bars all around the center of the screen. For example, I can run The Witcher at 1400x1050, Team Fortress 2 at 1680x1050.
Actually, that card is ITSELF confusing because it's a non-standard version *of that model*.
Most 9800GTs are basically rebadged 8800GTs: faster than the 9600GT or 9600GSO/8800GS (the latter two are the same card) or the 320mb or 640mb versions of the 8800GTS, but slower than the 512mb version of the 8800GTS (which is a 8800GT with more shaders) or the 9800GTX (which is a 512mb 8800GTS with higher clocks and a better circuit board to handle that), or the 9800GTX+ (which is a 9800GTX clocked even higher).
The ASUS "Ultimate" 9800GT, however, isn't a 8800GT but a 9800GTX clocked almost to 9800GTX+ speeds. It's so much better than any other "9800GT" that it really should have some other name. Ah well.
Fairly well said considering Nvidia made this kind of mess!!!
The "typical" 9800GT can be overclocked quite a bit,... but the ASUS 9800GT ultimate has 128 shaders in comparison to the "typical" 9800GT's 112 shaders which makes a noticable difference,... it does run about $20 more that the typical 9800GT (I was just pricing some yesterday for a build)
to OP - One thing also to keep in is that you are running a CPU that is going to start limiting stuff as well. If you are not doing a big upgrade (motherboard, cpu and ram) anytime soon, then you might want to consider getting a processor to help get you by http://www.tigerdirect.com/app...&sku=CP1-A64-3800X%20E is one of the few socket 939 chips out there that would help out It will be around $50 for that depending on where you go and shipping.
nerp
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,865
- 105
- 106
nvidia sucks majorly with the card names. There are WAY too many cards. 8800GT, GTS, GTX, Ultras, 9800GTs, GTXs, ultras, 640s, 892, 512, rebadged this, rebadged that, superclocked fanless OC, GS, GTSX, etc. Reading threads comparing nvidia cards is like watching a box of Alphabits spill across a kitchen counter. It's a huge turnoff, IMHO, and makes them just look like they're spamming the market with the same stuff with different packaging. And every thread where someone askes "Is this a good card" there's AWLAYS some other SLIGHTLY different option available with a different card name, etc.
Screw that noise.
Screw that noise.
krnmastersgt
Platinum Member
- Jan 10, 2008
- 2,873
- 0
- 0
8800 Series: GTS 512mb > GT 512mb > GTS 640mb > GTS 320mb
9800 Series: GTX+ > GTX > GT
The 9800 GT is basically the 8800 GT but with higher clocks and a different stock cooler if I'm not mistaken.
Also note the GTX+ is a 55nm chip as opposed to the 65nm that is the GTX, higher clocks and less heat/power consumption.
9800 Series: GTX+ > GTX > GT
The 9800 GT is basically the 8800 GT but with higher clocks and a different stock cooler if I'm not mistaken.
Also note the GTX+ is a 55nm chip as opposed to the 65nm that is the GTX, higher clocks and less heat/power consumption.
Qbah
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2005
- 3,754
- 10
- 81
I'd say it's something like (top is the slowest):
8800GS=9600GSO
8800GTS 320MB~9600GT
8800GTS 640MB
8800GT=9800GT
8800GTS 512MB~9800GTX
8800GTX~9800GTX+
8800Ultra
GTX260
GTX260 Core 216
GTX280
That would be my take on the whole matter. There is also a 9800GT Ultimate from ASUS which is a 9800GTX. As for 55nm or 65nm, they perform the same.
8800GS=9600GSO
8800GTS 320MB~9600GT
8800GTS 640MB
8800GT=9800GT
8800GTS 512MB~9800GTX
8800GTX~9800GTX+
8800Ultra
GTX260
GTX260 Core 216
GTX280
That would be my take on the whole matter. There is also a 9800GT Ultimate from ASUS which is a 9800GTX. As for 55nm or 65nm, they perform the same.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
The Asus 9800gt model is basically a overclocked G92 8800gts. About the performance of a 9800gtx. Which is very close to GTX 260 performance.
Nvidia top cards are GTX 280 then followed by GTX 260. The Asus isn't too far off about 10~20% slower than GTX260. GTX 260 is about 20% slower than GTX 280.
Your computer is old. That is a single core processor in a dual-core optimized modern games. You need to overclock to at least 3.0ghz which is out of the question from 1.6ghz AMD processor. You need a high clocked dual core processor that fit your mobo.
With a processor upgrade I don't see how you can't play fallout 3. Probably can push highest settings long as you turn off AA.
Nvidia top cards are GTX 280 then followed by GTX 260. The Asus isn't too far off about 10~20% slower than GTX260. GTX 260 is about 20% slower than GTX 280.
Your computer is old. That is a single core processor in a dual-core optimized modern games. You need to overclock to at least 3.0ghz which is out of the question from 1.6ghz AMD processor. You need a high clocked dual core processor that fit your mobo.
With a processor upgrade I don't see how you can't play fallout 3. Probably can push highest settings long as you turn off AA.
I'll agree about the processor upgrade. 1.6 Ghz AMD is pretty slow for a cpu now a days.
You don't necessarily need dual core since most games are still single threaded, but now the extra core come at the same price.
I'd suggest going for an 8800 card since those will probably be cheaper and if you go used there should be tons of people selling them to upgrade. As people have said 8800 = 9800 roughly so as long as you don't need the audio out via hdmi you can save some good money.
You don't necessarily need dual core since most games are still single threaded, but now the extra core come at the same price.
I'd suggest going for an 8800 card since those will probably be cheaper and if you go used there should be tons of people selling them to upgrade. As people have said 8800 = 9800 roughly so as long as you don't need the audio out via hdmi you can save some good money.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
You do need a dual core these days. Almost every single game released within the last year and a half have been dual core optimized. Fallout 3 will be optimized for dual core. There's no reason not to upgrade to dual core when every game released will be dual core optimized at minimum.
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
This is a good list, although I would say the 9600GT is faster than the 640MB 8800GTS, and it's definitely faster than a 8800GTS 320MB (especially at higher resolutions or AA enabled).
Zap
Elite Member
- Oct 13, 1999
- 22,377
- 7
- 81
:thumbsup: Upgrading now for something in the future is just asking for disappointment.
As Azn said, it is an overclocked G92 8800 GTS and not a 9800 GTX. They all have 128 processors, but the 9800 GTX has faster memory, longer PCB, different fansink and two SLI fingers for Tri SLI.
Originally posted by: betasub
LOL, and if that doesn't confuse you, then you probably work in marketing
Heh, I guess I am a part of the marketing dept. here.
Heat/power is negligible because of the higher stock clocks.
exar333
Diamond Member
- Feb 7, 2004
- 8,518
- 8
- 91
Good list. It's pretty sad that we have to have a hierarchy to list Nvidia's products, but "meh".
I know it's been beaten to death, but am I the only one who thinks their naming structure is getting out of hand? What ever happened to having 1 flagship GPU, an upper-middle, lower-middle, and a low-end GPU? Maybe throw in an extra budget low-end, and you are talking about 4-5 different products in a series.
I feel it is more like 2 or 3 at every price point
IT is absolutely a mess, especially for the casual end user who doesn't try to keep up with this as many of us do,... you really need a degree in N.V.I.D.I.A.
Not
Very
Intuitive -
Downright pain
In
Arse
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 320
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter