(G92)8800GT First review!

What I want to know is, whats nvidia's logic with releasing the 8800GT. Its faster than the 8800GTS 640, but its also cheaper. assuming that they update the GTS 640 to 112 pipes, it would only have a 2-3% advantage over the 8800GT (for 100 dollar price increase assuming they stay at $350 MSRP).

Another thing is, this card fixes the price gap between the 8600GTS and 8800GTS 320, but it doesn't fix the performance gap, it just makes it 10-15% wider.

I hope this isn't the only card nvida launches here, but they are leaving a massive hole in their lineup, which everyone just assumed this would fill. This also lays to waste that it the progression of acronyms goes GS > GT > GTS > GTX > ultra.

Maybe ill get my brother to EVGA step up (down) to this card, since he bought a GTS 320 last month.
 
Simpson5774 said:
What I want to know is, whats nvidia's logic with releasing the 8800GT. Its faster than the 8800GTS 640, but its also cheaper. assuming that they update the GTS 640 to 112 pipes, it would only have a 2-3% advantage over the 8800GT (for 100 dollar price increase assuming they stay at $350 MSRP).

Another thing is, this card fixes the price gap between the 8600GTS and 8800GTS 320, but it doesn't fix the performance gap, it just makes it 10-15% wider.
Click to expand...

Some folks really will complain about anything. You are complaining they are giving you too much performance for the dollar? The 256MB 8800GT will be under $200, meaning there is no room for a card priced between the 8800GT/8600GTS.

The performance gap is irrelevant when you have such a small price gap. You want something more expensive than 8600GTS and performing worse than 8800GT 256MB?? Who in their right mind would buy it with the 8800 only a few dollars more??

Obviously the current 8800GTS models will be discontinued. Likely followed by a new 65um 128shader GTS that is possibly faster than the GTX and a new top card that we haven't seen yet. Then the lineup will make a lot of sense.

These kind of transitions happen every year in graphics cards. The only real surpise has been the logevity of the GTX at the top.
 
Thats great :) the link doesnt work, and you only show 3dmark scores? Is it hard to ask to bench a real game?

So sick of these gay arse 3dmark scores, show me some damn WIC, or bioshock, or dx10 benchies.

Something other then 3dmark. Anyway it does have a good showing, but 3dmark isnt a game :/
 
are u on crack? its FULL of real game benches. the link works, u need to scroll to the right.
 
So for high res gaming the GTX still rules for now. That is good I guess. I run 1920x1200.

Glad there is a new affordable card out there so people can upgrade to the 8800 series finally.
 
hey cookerjc, can you post some texture fill rate numbers? or maybe tell me how many TMUs the 8800 GT has?
 
TomGreen321 said:
Maybe the oddball memory bus hampered the other 8800's.
Click to expand...

No. The numbers looked strange because they were not doubles of previous memory sizes, but they were still standard 8-bit derived numbers. The total memory bandwidth quoted for a video card is not actually available in a single unified path between GPU and onboard memory. It is composited from multiple paths, one to each memory chip solder point on the card. The individual paths on the G80 are each 32-bit; on the GTS, they go to 10 solder points for a total of 320 bits, connecting to a memory chip that is either 32 or 64 MB in size, for a total memory of 320 or 640 MB. On the GTX, there are 12 solder points instead of 10, yielding 384 bits total bandwidth and 768 MB of RAM. The same counting methods apply on ATi cards, even if the individual numbers are different. As long as the underlying paths aren't something really odd like 19 or 23 bits, it's not as weird as it looks on the surface and has no negative impact on performance.
 
Snowdog said:
The performance gap is irrelevant when you have such a small price gap. You want something more expensive than 8600GTS and performing worse than 8800GT 256MB?? Who in their right mind would buy it with the 8800 only a few dollars more??
Click to expand...


http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8-roundup_19.html#sect0

Looking at 3dmark06 scores, it looks like the 8800GT is over double the performance of the 8600GT, im sure the difference is actually larger when you compare the other factors. That being said, a gap like that has never existed in nvida's history, they usually have a part separating the two (6800nu, 78/7900GS), the 200-250 dollar sweet spot. The 8600GTS isn't worth 200 dollars, even w/o the 8800GT being in existence, but this kind of gap makes the 8600GTS worthless.

Some people can't afford the 250 for a 8800GT (if this was last year, I wouldn't be able to get one since I only had 200 for a video card), and if they can't they can't they are effectivly screwed.

Saying the performance gap is irrelevant is pretty naive. ATi also has a LARGE gap between the 2600XT and the 2900pro (and you can just unlock those and call it an XT).
 
Simpson5774 said:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/geforce8-roundup_19.html#sect0

Looking at 3dmark06 scores, it looks like the 8800GT is over double the performance of the 8600GT, im sure the difference is actually larger when you compare the other factors. That being said, a gap like that has never existed in nvida's history, they usually have a part separating the two (6800nu, 78/7900GS), the 200-250 dollar sweet spot. The 8600GTS isn't worth 200 dollars, even w/o the 8800GT being in existence, but this kind of gap makes the 8600GTS worthless.

Some people can't afford the 250 for a 8800GT (if this was last year, I wouldn't be able to get one since I only had 200 for a video card), and if they can't they can't they are effectivly screwed.

Saying the performance gap is irrelevant is pretty naive. ATi also has a LARGE gap between the 2600XT and the 2900pro (and you can just unlock those and call it an XT).
Click to expand...

There's nothing to unlock. The HD 2900 Pro is a full blown HD 2900 XT, with lower clock frequencies. You only need to onverclock the Pro to reach XT levels, which you may or may not be able to do.

And as LawGiver mentioned, the 256 MB version of the GT, should not cost as much as the 512 MB model. It should be around $200.
 
$200? Nvidia is going to flat out KILL Ati if they don't get it together SOON.

I await the Uber card with great hope. No more lag for at least a few months lol.
 
That is a really slick looking card, with some great performance for the price...I can't wait to see the figures on the new high-end.
 
Simpson5774 said:
Some people can't afford the 250 for a 8800GT (if this was last year, I wouldn't be able to get one since I only had 200 for a video card), and if they can't they can't they are effectivly screwed.
Click to expand...

Re-Read my post, I added some color to help you with the important bit. Remember these are launch prices, only down from there.

Also consider that a 8600GTS replacement on smaller faster process is also likely. They can't release every chip at the same time. They need to concentrate where it makes the biggest difference. The G92 is fantastic midrange for anyone in that market and it exceeds what everyone was calling for in a midrange card.
 
So how come no one has leaked the high end yet? They won't release a card that is so close to performance with the card 2x its cost unless they have a new top end part to replace its price point.
 
jmackay said:
So how come no one has leaked the high end yet? They won't release a card that is so close to performance with the card 2x its cost unless they have a new top end part to replace its price point.
Click to expand...

Sure they will.

The same sources that have nailed the G92 indicate there is no new high end in 2007.

Sell rates of the high end have largely dried up as those price ranges tend to be the early adopter crown, now they can be put out to pasture have more than achieved their purpose. Now a new wave and much bigger sales numbers at a lower prices can swing through. Once everyone is happy with with their 8800 performance level, then can they drop the new high end in early 2008. They are executing perfectly IMO.
 
If they end up being better than my 8800GTS 640's, I am buying them.


(Doubt they will be)
 
Wow, kudos to Nvidia. This card looks damn sexy, and for 250 bucks even more so. Cant wait till these come out.
 
OEM and midrange pay the bills, high end gives bragging rights.

If this is the card that rumors say it to be, then the 8600GTS models are screwed as toss in $20-30 more and you are at 8800GT.

The 320MB 8800GTS is all but gone, and I don't see a reason to buy a 640MB 8800GTS when at times it can be double the price yet not be worth 25% better than the 8800GT.

GTX/Ultra owners still want something better though, a 8800GT is still a downgrade, hi-res + eye candy + fluid FPS is where those cards still hold an edge.
 
mmmmm, I wonder how long it will be be before there is a mobile/notebook version of this chip. I would love a new Mac Book Pro with one of these babies. drooooooool:D
 
Surprising results here compared to a 8800GTS 640MB. If other reviews, especially the [H] match the results, I will ditch my 640MB and get one of them from EVGA or XFX then watercool it :)
 
Can't wait on a [H] review, gonna be loving to get one of these with an aftermarket cooler and OC'ing the shit out of it. mm 65nm !
 
nice.. now used prices for 8800gts 320mb should fall even more for my 1440x900 native rez lcd :)
 
I hope this induces ATI to release some benchmarks of their new cards to quell some of the hype. Glad I sold my 640 last week for near what I bought it for though :)
 
Nice, looking at those numbers theres going to be some mighty price drops on the 8600/8800GTSs. :)
Dropping the 8600GTS to around $120 (and the GT to $90) makes a hellova lot more sense considering their performance while also dropping the 8800GTS (320) to around $180 fills in that price range better (with the 640 around $280). IMO the 8800GTS 320 should be rebranded as a 8700 series card.
 
Snowdog said:
Cooker: Great Scoop! Thanks for the info.

Hey disbelievers who claimed they were fake pics etc. If you have a brain you can pick out the truth from the rumors. The VR-Zone info was essentially correct.

The card is identical to the first leaked "fake" pics.
The GPU is a G92, they have pics of the Die and GPU-Z output.
It is 112 shaders.
It is faster than GTS.
It is $250.

BTW Firefox works on that page. I am on Linux right now using FF, Scroll to the Right!
Click to expand...


Yep... of course people sharing info early were trashed :(. Great little review, and their overclock is not too bad ;).
 
Wow, great price/performance ratio. I found my next card (last card I bought was a 7600gt and I've still got it). Looks like this one will hold up pretty well for the money. Wouldn't feel guilty spending ~$200 on this. ;)
 
inotocracy said:
Wow, great price/performance ratio. I found my next card (last card I bought was a 7600gt and I've still got it). Looks like this one will hold up pretty well for the money. Wouldn't feel guilty spending ~$200 on this. ;)
Click to expand...

I've got two of them on order for an SLI setup already :D!
 
alphaqforever247 said:
i guess its time for everyone with a gtx to sell them and jus get a gt and pocket some money.
Click to expand...
Nah. The GTX will still perform better at stock clocks. It might be a somewhat stupid thing to buy today, but I don't imagine there are going to be many folks selling their GTXs for a single GT. Now, 2900 owners, on the other hand ;)

I'm not an SLi man, so I'm not contemplating selling the Ultra for a pair of these. NVIDIA just needs to get their new high-end parts out damn soon.

This is very cool, though. A ~$250 card that nips pretty damn close to a $500 card. Fantastic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top