Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is a G92 GTS Instead of GTX A Bad Move?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 3, 2007 11:07:09 PM

Been wondering why exactly Nvidia decided to make a new GTS based on the G92 instead of doing it with the GTX. If you look at benchmarks for the 8800GT vs the 8800 GTX, the lil slim card is a very good runner up under it's big brother. With the new GTS they are increasing both the Stream Processors to 128 and the core clock speed to 650/1940 shader clock speed. These specs surpass the current GTX, even OC versions. Also its being said that these will be under $500. So basically is this the new top dog? If so where does that leave the GTX? I wonder why Nvidia decided to make a G92 GTS instead of a G92 GTX because to me it just seems like a shot to the foot to themselves in a way. Am i right or wrong? Maybe someone could give me another perspective to look at this from.

More about : g92 gts gtx bad move

December 3, 2007 11:48:24 PM

Nvidia did it because AMD is having trouble and they can smell blood.

They're willing to take a hit on their own product line - prematurely sending the GTX and Ultra to obsolescence - if they can wipe out AMD as an option.

This, plus they were probably a little worried about the 3870 coming in as a sub-$200 8800 GTS killer. So they started playing hardball.

In my humble opinion, anyhoo.

December 4, 2007 7:23:32 AM

cleeve said:
Nvidia did it because AMD is having trouble and they can smell blood.

They're willing to take a hit on their own product line - prematurely sending the GTX and Ultra to obsolescence - if they can wipe out AMD as an option.

This, plus they were probably a little worried about the 3870 coming in as a sub-$200 8800 GTS killer. So they started playing hardball.

In my humble opinion, anyhoo.


Premature :o  ???? My 8800GTXs are a year old and should be being pensioned off to my kids computers by now...
Related resources
December 4, 2007 7:59:34 AM

ofcourse they decided to do a G92 GTS to cater to the "less priviledged" masses.

a G92 GTX would not be affordable by many only the rich ;) 

the rich can wait for the 9SERIES D9E in february 2008
December 4, 2007 10:05:55 AM

In 11 days I will have had my GTX for exactly one year. If I were buying right now I would be looking at the G92 gts with the intent of overclocking and would be curious if the rumoured 1 gig version will add any performance.

If someone already owns a GTX or a very overclockable GTS640 there is no need to upgrade at this time, the gain would be too small. Right now the gt,gts512,gtx and ultra all occupy too small a window of performance in most instances at moderate resolutions.
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 4, 2007 12:41:03 PM


The main reason is that the G92 GTS is cheaper to make than the GTX. Thats where the price differance comes from. From a sinical stand point they released the GT at a really good price to steal any possable ATI thunder and everybody was wow and a good price too. Then they realised there was none so the prices creep up. The same will probably happen with the GTS as well.
There is nothing we can do except not buy it but thats not going to happen is it. :) 
Mactronix
December 4, 2007 1:08:55 PM

Not only that, but if they are releaseing the 9XXX series soon, then why still have the top dog be the 8800 gtx or so. Start showing that there are improvments that are a little better and then slowly rule them out. Get people ready for the new GTX.

I know that I am getting ready for one. So, even though my 8800gtx is only 7 months old, I feel that it is time for an upgrade.
December 4, 2007 1:55:17 PM

dtq said:
Premature :o  ???? My 8800GTXs are a year old and should be being pensioned off to my kids computers by now...


Premature based on performance, not on age. :) 
a b U Graphics card
December 4, 2007 9:46:28 PM

dtq said:
Premature :o  ???? My 8800GTXs are a year old and should be being pensioned off to my kids computers by now...

You have lucky kids. Mine are happily using an XP2400+ / 9800 pro / 17" CRT. Shhhh, don't tell them there are games made after 2005 and resolution above 10x7. ;)  Luckily they are not old enough to question why I get to use an 8800GTS & 22" LCD.
December 4, 2007 9:53:17 PM

i'm very curious to see what the benchmarks will look like cause the 8800GT's perform right under the GTX, i think even surpassing the 640mb GTS though i never seen a benchmark showing that. If a Faster GTS comes out then i can really see, with very little effort, it surpassing the GTX. I'm curious to know if the GTS being 256 bit and not 384 bit like the GTX make it a tad slower? From what i've read the new GTS will be DX 10 and PCI 2.0 and rumored to come in a 512mb and 1GB version. Wish we had more concrete details on the specs.
December 4, 2007 10:40:53 PM

The new GTS will act like an 8800GT on steroids. That is to say that it will perform on par or slightly faster than the GTX on normal resolutions and moderate AA, but at the highest resolutions and extreme AA the GTX will still edge it out, and when the GTS uses all of its 512MB framebuffer the GTX will kill it.

This is pure speculation of course, but you asked :) 
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
December 5, 2007 1:35:23 AM

I read somewhere that the new GTS G92 will not support Triple SLI, but the GTX will. That is, you can get a 780i mobo and three 8800 GTX cards in SLI, but you can't do that with the new GTS card. It's crazy, isn't it :) 
December 5, 2007 2:52:23 AM

This is why we need more competition.
December 5, 2007 1:10:02 PM

Voodoo.... WHERE ARE YOU!?!?!?!?
December 5, 2007 8:44:49 PM

I heard they are going to be releasing a 1 gig version of the g92 GTS at some point. An official confirmation of that will prove to be the death knell of the GTX in all venues.
!