Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Leadtek's $900 Performance Leviathan

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 30, 2007 11:22:25 AM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/30/leadteks_performance_leviathan/index.html

Leadtek's GeForce 8800 Ultra offers overclocking, self-contained water cooling and unparalleled graphics power. But for $900 retail, you expect a lot.
July 30, 2007 12:25:39 PM

hmmm i think the oblivion outdoor benchie is up the ****..... why is the 7900gtx on top??? oh and the 8800gtx was outgunned by the 320 and 640 8800gts's... weired!
July 30, 2007 2:52:57 PM

was gonna say the same thing
Related resources
July 30, 2007 3:00:59 PM

Just another gimick to take your money. Next they will start putting turbo chargers and ram air intakes on our video cards. You don't need to spend a bundle to get a good card and to me this is exactly what this article shows.
July 30, 2007 3:04:04 PM

7900 gtx is on top..weird. It did have higher fps at 1024x768 and 1280x1024 (but does that even matter? :o  ). And again at 2560x1600...that is very odd. Really shows that the $900 is totally worth the money :sol: 

Just SLI 2 320mb OC'd 8800's...they will be cheaper than a gtx, and still outperform it
July 30, 2007 3:32:38 PM

Errr...Is it Quadcores ? I deserve Quadcores for 900 $
July 30, 2007 3:59:32 PM

Definitely not worth it, but neat. The Oblivion outdoor bench is definitely messed up. I'd like to see what 2 of these in SLI would be like in comparison to 2 HD2900XT 1GB and 2 8800GTX.
July 30, 2007 4:26:11 PM

lol 8800gtx or 2900xtx in sli/crossfire will cost about what one of these cards do, so I have no desire to see these "leviathan" cards in sli lol 1800 is a build not just the gpus. I dont think this could ever come close to being worth it ,$ vs performance , at least not at its current price.
July 30, 2007 4:36:05 PM

Yes there is an error in the Oblivion Outdoor graphs. Sorry about that. The figures were placed into the worng rows when I was building the graph from a previous file. I am gettting it fixed.

It should go...

Card 1024x768
Nvidia GeForce 7900 GTX 24.33
ATI Radeon X1950 XTX 33.03
XFX GeForce 8800 GTS 39.96
BFG GeForce 8800 GTS OC 320 42.49
Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX 42.88
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT 53.03
Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra 54.53
Leadtek Leviathan GF 8800 Ultra 59.09
July 30, 2007 4:37:44 PM

As for quad core vs dual core... wouldn't matter much if any. If a game is not coded for more than two threads than it won't matter at all unless there is a bunch of tasks that can handle a quad core running in the background (Which is not he case for individual game tests).
July 30, 2007 4:40:52 PM

pimpinwilly said:
hmmm i think the oblivion outdoor benchie is up the ****..... why is the 7900gtx on top??? oh and the 8800gtx was outgunned by the 320 and 640 8800gts's... weired!


When I saw the card rankings so weird, I wondered if someone mixed up the card numbers and the results. They just don't make sense. I can't say its definately wrong, but it does seem to show the various cards don't perform to their advertising if the charts are correct.
July 30, 2007 4:51:44 PM

It looks like the GTS 320 and GTS numbers have been copied in the first benchmark. Is that just my imagination?
July 30, 2007 4:53:44 PM

I smell a showdown coming on, between the Leviathan and the BFG 8800 Ultra WC and the eVGA Black Pearl.

I wonder if Leadtek will make a version without the included radiator setup, in case you wanted to hook the card up to an existing water cooling system.
July 30, 2007 5:00:47 PM

prolfe said:
It looks like the GTS 320 and GTS numbers have been copied in the first benchmark. Is that just my imagination?


It does look that way. But it should be kept in mind that the GTS 320 is an overclocked version, not the standard, so some numbers might be very close. Still, identical numbers point to someone making a mistake when filling in the charts. Also, even in the charts where the 320 and 640 versions seem very close, I think a standard GTS 320 would not have scored so well. Alternatively, the 640 version could have been overclocked and therefore put in better numbers.
July 30, 2007 6:36:08 PM

man no one has that much money to spend on a graphics card
July 30, 2007 6:51:40 PM

desidude006 said:
man no one has that much money to spend on a graphics card
There are users on this forum who have a more expensive GPU setup. :lol: 
July 30, 2007 7:12:08 PM

Gota say id absolutly give anything to get a card like that lol. I bet it overclocks a HELL of a lot more then they have done, probably guessing that whoever buys it will overclock it more anyway.

Ill stick with my 7950gx2 for now though..

Might switch to that card in a year or so tho if it comes way down in price after the g92 stuff comes out.
July 30, 2007 9:43:01 PM

its nice to see extreme bias, with no 2900 xt 1gb ddr4, its been out from sapphire and his for about 2 months yet toms wont bench the fastest card in their reviews, but they do the 2600 xt ddr4, i makes no sense why u would do one oem moded card and not the other

and if ur comparing dx10 cards u should run vista (nvida) , if some1 says first card for dx10 adn has an ad campeighn for vista by not bench on that, u will have to switch soon to play crisis, tf2, and quake why not start benching it now so that people can see what they are buying for a more modern platform
July 30, 2007 11:06:54 PM

when G90 comes out people who bought this might feel stupid
R700 for that matter as well
July 30, 2007 11:12:43 PM

As a technical showcase for an overclocked 8800 card it only just beats XFX 8800 Ultra XXX using an AIR cooler.

http://www.xfxforce.com/web/product/listConfigurations.jspa?seriesId=730995&productId=1085635

Nvidia better get their next gen cards out soon because I think the 8800 chips are really being pushed to their limits by these overclocked cards and I wouldn't be suprised to see plenty of RMA requests in the not to distant future which will give Nvidia a bad name.

@zanzabar: I don't think you can call it 'extreme bias' but yeah I also would like to see the 2900 xt benched by Toms. We all know DX10 is the future whether it be on XP or not so why not test stuff with Vista to highlight were Nvidia are lacking and should pull their socks up (drivers). A comparison in DX9 is still justified though for those that have not/will not make the upgrade.
July 30, 2007 11:16:23 PM

DoMTaR said:
Just SLI 2 320mb OC'd 8800's...they will be cheaper than a gtx, and still outperform it


I agree with you. I'd like to see some "cheap" (<$900) SLI configurations compared to the single Leviathan in the benchmarks.
July 31, 2007 12:04:21 AM

I was impressed with some of the rankings of the 2900. And these benchies really prove the strenghts and weaknesses of the card. AA & AF really change its performance, but without them the 2900 was almost on top. Even beat the Ultra on 3DMark, but was all over the place on the rest, was sad in Doom3 at the bottom.

Speaks alot to the power of the card, if they could only get the drivers to work with the AA & AF on.

As for the Leviathan, I can't see where it showed it was worth the extra money. Didn't seem to do all that much better than the other cards out there, for 900 bucks I'd was a huge gap in performance between it and the next version down. I'd crossfire a couple of the 2900's before even considering this card. Just seems like a waste.
July 31, 2007 2:48:12 AM

Quote:
Along with the installation manuals, the graphics card's package includes four self-tapping fan screws with which to mount the cooler. There is also a pair of adapter cables for the six-pin power connections for those with older power supplies. We would like to make it clear that you will need at least 35 W on +12V available to power the entire system with the Leviathan. This is the minimum specification Leadtek has made for this card.


damn, only 3 amps on the +12V rail? I could power that with an old 250 watt power supply. No wonder the card costs so much money, they spent tons making it more efficient than an AMDs Northbridge, lol.

Oh and the 2900XT 1gb thing is maybe because they might not have gotten one yet. Toms and other places sometimes aren't able to test some products for quite a while.
July 31, 2007 3:30:31 AM

desidude006 said:
man no one has that much money to spend on a graphics card


$900 for a graphics card is nothing. Have you checked out the price on some of the highend nVidia Quattro cards?

Most readers of this forum will never have a need for such a card. I know I don't, but if somebody was passing them out for free I might hafta stand in line...twice.
July 31, 2007 3:52:23 AM

bum_jcrules said:
Yes there is an error in the Oblivion Outdoor graphs. Sorry about that. The figures were placed into the worng rows when I was building the graph from a previous file. I am gettting it fixed.

It should go...

Card 1024x768
Nvidia GeForce 7900 GTX 24.33
ATI Radeon X1950 XTX 33.03
XFX GeForce 8800 GTS 39.96
BFG GeForce 8800 GTS OC 320 42.49
Nvidia GeForce 8800 GTX 42.88
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT 53.03
Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra 54.53
Leadtek Leviathan GF 8800 Ultra 59.09


Are you on Tomshardware's payroll or is it something different?
July 31, 2007 4:05:11 AM

Major_Trouble said:
@zanzabar: I don't think you can call it 'extreme bias' but yeah I also would like to see the 2900 xt benched by Toms. We all know DX10 is the future whether it be on XP or not so why not test stuff with Vista to highlight were Nvidia are lacking and should pull their socks up (drivers). A comparison in DX9 is still justified though for those that have not/will not make the upgrade.


I believe that is an overstatement on your part. The 8800 is still king in DX10 and the new drivers are almost on par in DX9 in XP vs Vista. While there are a few areas where AMD/ATI shines they aren't winning by any means. Nv also plans on having their second gen cards later this year. With AMD/ATI's recent track record you could be waiting a year or more for their second gen card.

No bias here if AMD/ATI made a better card I would buy it.


July 31, 2007 5:10:37 AM

I would get this because if you figure in the cost of the water-block, pump, radiator, hoses, fan, and coolant, not to mention the time to set everything up, then you'll probably come out ahead with this one.

Right now, my 8800 GTS-640 is the hottest thing in my system (idles at 60c). My CPU is already cooled with the 120 Extreme, so no need to water-cool it, but I do want to do something with my GPU and this is one way to do it. It also makes sense because I am not into SLI at all.

I think people had too-high an expectation here with the card, as it wasn't proclaiming itself to be the be-all, end-all of GPU's. I look at it as an efficient way to get a high-end, factory OC'd, water-cooled GPU easily into my system, a la the Aquagate Mini's.

Some one on here also mentioned the Black Pearl setup from EVGA. Well, they've been advertising it for months now, and while the GPU is available, the MB ain't. Plus, if you were to look, the price of admission is $899.99 (GPU/water-block only), and that's WITHOUT the hoses, radiators, fans, and coolant!
July 31, 2007 5:34:43 AM

Martell77 said:
I was impressed with some of the rankings of the 2900. And these benchies really prove the strenghts and weaknesses of the card. AA & AF really change its performance, but without them the 2900 was almost on top. Even beat the Ultra on 3DMark, but was all over the place on the rest, was sad in Doom3 at the bottom.


doom 3 has been an invalid bench for a long it limits all unknown cards to 30 fps, and used to limit all non nvidia cards to high (u couldent use super high) for non nvidia cards, and to put this into perspective the game came out at the time were the top nvidia card was teh 5900 ultra, and that card lost to the ati 9500,9600,9700, and 980 in all revisions and the 5900 couldent even run the game well if at all with high / supper high settings

and at people who doubt the power of ati go and look at future mark and search the orb by grafix scores teh 2900xt 1gb in cross fire is on top, its 2nd only to a set of fully moded 8800 ultras with replaced memory dims with volt mods and fully customized mb and grafix bios and customized drivers just for that benchmark with liquid nitrogen cooling of course, not to say that the ati cards dont have the same but its documented on the xtreme system forums 9this setup won overall by like 30 points)
July 31, 2007 7:40:56 AM

There are plenty of high-end enthusiast water-cooling devices out there that can do a better job of cooling this card, assuming that your aim is to OC the 8800 ultra and get top frame rates.

LN and phase change is another matter, but if you already have a professional water-cooling setup (radiator, pump, etc..) on your cpu and want to OC your GPU, you could spend a few cents more on some hose and slap on an aftermarket GPU block like the Swiftech Stealth, which will only set you back $100, and still lets you go SLI with a second block in the cooling loop.

As for cases with dual 120mm fan mounts, there's plenty of them out there. It doesn't hurt to mod your case either!

But to compete with the $300 premium of the Leadtek, you could put together a complete stand-alone peltier GPU cooling assembly for about $300 as well, get cooler temps and possibly better overclocking.

Nope. This card is not worth $900, and two of them for $1800 is utter stupidity.
July 31, 2007 4:20:03 PM

Peltiers are shite, and I haven't seen one that's worth the power or money needed to get one. Additionally, while they can get something below ambient, you then will have to deal with condensation; if the peltier goes out, you'll probably have 5 seconds before the chips burn-out.

Just for reference, Anandtech did a review of two or three CPU coolers that used peltiers and guess what? The Ultra 120 eXtreme still whooped their asses! Hell, the performance of the coolers using peltiers was practically no better than that of the stock HSF. Those coolers, however, were designed to operate at ambient or higher to avoid condesation. Regardless, they still failed.

If your rig is already water-cooled, then the odds are in favor that you have already water-cooled the GPU as well, so, yes of course, this card doesn't make much sense. But, for those of us who don't want or need to water-cool our whole system, just the GPU, then this makes more sense. It's still expensive as hell, but isn't it always?

Funny thing, what you said about other setups that were better at cooling when the article never even posted temps! I would also have liked to have seen some pictures of this card setup in a couple of popular cases.
August 2, 2007 3:36:13 AM

When you consider the price for 2 x 2900XTs 1000MB, a PSU to run them (at 230-250w apiece under load you'll need about 1Kw), and your electric bill, I think they're the biggest waste of money on the planet. I see both 8800 Ultras and GTXs ahead on 3dmark05, and it's pretty much a toss up between the 3 on 3Dmark06. While the Nvidia cards may be highly modded, who's to say the ATIs aren't as well? Considering the cost to power these cards, the 8800Ultra/GTX is a much better deal in the long run.

This Leadtek is obviously aimed at a specific market, those not interested in SLI and those who also want an easy to setup water cooled card. I think Leadtek has once again accomplished what they set out to do, and is one of the best manufacturers on the planet.

I can get this card from our suppliers for almost the same price as an Ultra, so not bad at all. But then having used Leadteks ever since BFG voided my (lifetime?) warranty on 2 x 6800U OCs, I'm a little biased toward Leadtek. :) 
August 2, 2007 4:40:34 AM

darklife41 said:

This Leadtek is obviously aimed at a specific market, those not interested in SLI and those who also want an easy to setup water cooled card. I think Leadtek has once again accomplished what they set out to do, and is one of the best manufacturers on the planet.

I can get this card from our suppliers for almost the same price as an Ultra, so not bad at all. But then having used Leadteks ever since BFG voided my (lifetime?) warranty on 2 x 6800U OCs, I'm a little biased toward Leadtek. :) 


I agree with what you wrote about this card being for a specific set of people; mainly because I said it too! :) 

EDIT: On a side note, what the hell is the purpose of going "green" on CPU's and other PC components, and then blow it all on a freakin' power-hungry GPU?
August 4, 2007 8:45:09 AM

Anyone running a 2900XT or 2 obviously isn't interested in going green. ;) 
!