Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

G92 8800GTS' hitting newegg

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 1:07:06 PM

And a good review of the GTS/512 and GT/256 over at Anandtech.com
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 1:27:17 PM



Also good reviews over at FiringSquad and Guru3D

8800GTS/512 isnt going to make any GTX or Ultra want to replace his or her GPU but it should really give pause to anyone that might have been thinking of getting a GTX or Ultra.
Related resources
December 11, 2007 1:37:11 PM

Seems to me that it's very close between the GTS and GTX. Great value card.
December 11, 2007 2:05:39 PM

Its kinda pissing me off that Tom's Hardware is seemingly un-aware of this video card. Every other major site has posted a review, but not Toms Hardware.

And now that I think of it, I wish I could see a THG for the 780i chipset.

Come on Tom's Hardware, get your act together!
December 11, 2007 2:10:36 PM

To me it still doesnt warrent the extra money over a GT, seems to get at max 10% boost over it.
December 11, 2007 2:15:53 PM

Maybe there is a good reason why THG isn't excited about the new GTS ?
December 11, 2007 2:18:12 PM

If there is a good reason that they arent excited, id be really cool if they clue us in on why!
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 2:28:44 PM

THG is usually slow off the mark with reviews. They'll probably have one before this time next week.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 2:35:20 PM



From the 8800GTS/512 review over at HotHardware.com
December 11, 2007 2:37:08 PM

I'm happy with my 8800GT, just wish it had dual slot cooler like the GTS. Oh well, $300 is enough for a vid card. Don't think I'd ever spend more than that for one.
December 11, 2007 2:37:50 PM

To the OP, thank you for the link, I'd been looking for the EVGA version all day on Newegg, but for some reason, I couldn't find it, so thank you for the link :D 
a c 147 U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 2:48:29 PM

Honestly I am still not impressed. And I will tell you why.

They came out with the 8800GT which performs just under the GTX. Now they came out with the 8800GTS which performes sorta on par with the GTX comming close to the Ultra. Then you have ATI and their 3870 which sometimes hovers around the GT and sometimes just flat out runs under it. It depends what games and what graphics you are looking at.
So they are basically making cooler running cards because of the die shrink and also cheaper. ALL at the same time no more powerful than a card that has been out for a year already.
Where is the mind blowing performance? where is the GTX Killer? Where is the Big Honcho of gaming? It's not out yet what gives?

I am going to sit on my OCed x1900xtx until something knocks my socks off and can run Crysis or World in Conflict cranked to all crap. I can crank COD4, UT3, TF2, and many other to almost their highest settings. Nothing is encouraging me to upgrade.

but those of you with 7000 series nvidia cards obviously it would be a great addition but what about those of us that want mind blowing graphics?
December 11, 2007 2:48:57 PM

WR2 said:
And a good review of the GTS/512 and GT/256 over at Anandtech.com



This review with crysis does'nt tell me to spend $150.00 more for it than a 3870 .... or $100.00 more than the previous nvidia g92 !

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-r...

Looks like another overpriced wantabee to me . At least they put a descent cooler on it but really no great leaps whatsoever in value or performance . If I were you and not bought any yeat ... I would'nt give $370.00 before shipping for these . Another letdown ....
December 11, 2007 2:54:55 PM

WR2:
Good post. But I expected the 3870 CF to be a LOT faster than the 8600GTS SLI. (not just a little faster)
It seems to get 8800GTX SLI performance on 1 card with 1 6pin power connection - I'm looking for a card with unEarthly performance. Maybe a high-end g90 or r700 card can play Crysis on DX10 1920x1200 MAX settings and 35+ fps. The high-end g90s and r700s will be out in late spring I hope.
Crysis isn't the only game and Crysis favors the 8800s, but I think it will be a good measure on how future games might perform (HL3, Sims3, etc)
(just thinking out loud)
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 3:05:57 PM

With the 3870 CF already outpacing 2900XT CF its hard to say if its something of a driver issue or just that Crysis doesnt favor ATI hardware of the moment.

Let's hope to see 3870CF improve quite a bit with new driver releases.

@ trooper1947 Sorry that you feel let down. Try not to have such high expectations next time, OK?
December 11, 2007 3:15:47 PM

With the crysis benchy at the top...am I reading it right? A 5.7fps difference between the GT/512mb and the "best" GTS/512mb? Doesn't seem worth it to me to spend an extra $70-$120 for the GTS then... correct me if I am wrong please. I wold like to understand the draw to the GTS...
December 11, 2007 3:24:09 PM

rocket_sauce said:
With the crysis benchy at the top...am I reading it right? A 5.7fps difference between the GT/512mb and the "best" GTS/512mb? Doesn't seem worth it to me to spend an extra $70-$120 for the GTS then... correct me if I am wrong please. I wold like to understand the draw to the GTS...



Somewhat better performance, and a dual slot cooler. Not worth that much $ difference, IMHO.

-TyShoe
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 3:33:08 PM

rocket_sauce said:
With the crysis benchy at the top...am I reading it right? A 5.7fps difference between the GT/512mb and the "best" GTS/512mb? Doesn't seem worth it to me to spend an extra $70-$120 for the GTS then... correct me if I am wrong please. I wold like to understand the draw to the GTS...


It would be just wrong to base any buying decision on just one chart. If you check out all the reviews listed here they you'll have an idea where the price vs performance curve shakes out. It's pretty common to pay a premimum for higher performance and the GTS looks to be - on average over many benchmarks - about 10-15% faster and maybe 15-20% more expensive.
Or another way of looking at it would be that its showing near GTX/Ultra performance (at some resolutions in some benchmarks) for $100-250 less.
Anandtech review 8800GTS/512 vs 8800Ultra



December 11, 2007 3:39:30 PM

So, basically they OC'ed a GT and just gave it better cooling. They probably did more than that of course and maybe some driver updates will widen the fps gap a little more, but seems to me like the biggest advantage here is that it the GTS should better keep your system cooler than the GT. But, maybe an after market cooler ($20-$40?) will do the same thing for the GT when/if they make one.
December 11, 2007 3:42:55 PM

WR2 said:
It would be just wrong to base any buying decision on just one chart.
Or another way of looking at it would be that its showing near GTX/Ultra performance (at some resolutions in some benchmarks) for $100-250 less.


When you put it that way...very nice indeed...
December 11, 2007 3:52:50 PM

Looks to me like the reviews are playing the favor card as they switch from no aa to 4X. What gets me is the 8800GTS in the benchmarks is a good $150 costlier than the HD3870 and doesn't support DX10.1. Not counting the SLI scores as I am a single GPU user only the 8800GTS doesn't perform a $150 better. In the anandtech review the 8800GT 256 gets hit pretty hard by even the 3850. While Nvidia does have the fastest its price per performance is way off. The GTS will need to be less than $300 and the GT 512 around $230 with the GT 256 about $180.


While this is hardly the average case for $150 extra and no DX10.1 it should never be the case.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 4:14:46 PM

No time to read the reviews, but man I'm disappointed at quick glance. FS show the GTX crushing the GTS 512MB in Oblivion and Bioshock.
December 11, 2007 4:43:12 PM

There will be a 1GB variant of the new G92 GTS too. I saw a pre-order option at some online shop this morning.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 4:43:31 PM

elbert said:
Looks to me like the reviews are playing the favor card as they switch from no aa to 4X. What gets me is the 8800GTS in the benchmarks is a good $150 costlier than the HD3870 and doesn't support DX10.1.


The price difference is more like $120. And if none of the cards can deliver playable frame rates at DX10 what's the point of making an issue of DX10.1? It's not like a DX10 GPU will NOT run a DX10.1 game.

If you look at the Company of Heros (DX10), Lost Planet (DX10) and World In Conflict (DX10) there is more of a peformance differential in keeping with the relative prices.

For a casual gamer who doesnt mind playing at lower quality settings, or someone that games at medium resolutions (1280x1024, 1440x900, 1680x1050) or someone a really tight budget there really isnt a need for going beyond the 3870 & 8800GT choices. Even the 3850 & 8800GT/256 arent bad choices.

For a hard core gamer, or someone who just doesnt care to play at anything other than the highest quality settings, someone gaming at 19x12 & higher resolutions, or someone to whom $120 is a couple extra hours at work the 8800GTS should be a lot more attractive.

It's good to have choices.
December 11, 2007 5:12:25 PM

elbert said:
Looks to me like the reviews are playing the favor card as they switch from no aa to 4X. What gets me is the 8800GTS in the benchmarks is a good $150 costlier than the HD3870 and doesn't support DX10.1. Not counting the SLI scores as I am a single GPU user only the 8800GTS doesn't perform a $150 better. In the anandtech review the 8800GT 256 gets hit pretty hard by even the 3850. While Nvidia does have the fastest its price per performance is way off. The GTS will need to be less than $300 and the GT 512 around $230 with the GT 256 about $180.
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/skymtl/GPU/8800GTS512/GTS-50.jpg
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image/skymtl/GPU/8800GTS512/GTS-16.jpg
While this is hardly the average case for $150 extra and no DX10.1 it should never be the case.


Why is the 8800GTX on the DX10 Crysis Benchmark? Am I missing something? I thought the GTX was DX9.
December 11, 2007 5:57:00 PM

prodystopian said:
Why is the 8800GTX on the DX10 Crysis Benchmark? Am I missing something? I thought the GTX was DX9.


The Nvidia G80 GPU (8x00 series) is all DX 10
December 11, 2007 6:32:50 PM

Quote:
Elbert, It depends what game your talking about. In a lot of cases, especially at lower resolutions than 1600x1200 (0xAA/af) , the 256mb 8800GT runs neck and neck with the 512mb version and sometimes blows away the 3870 512mb card, making it the best bang for the low resolutions buck.




http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_8800_gt_256mb_xxx_review/page4.asp

True but in these the 3870 beats the 8800gts and blows away the 8800gt 512.
December 11, 2007 6:51:36 PM

WR2 said:
The price difference is more like $120. And if none of the cards can deliver playable frame rates at DX10 what's the point of making an issue of DX10.1? It's not like a DX10 GPU will NOT run a DX10.1 game.

If you look at the Company of Heros (DX10), Lost Planet (DX10) and World In Conflict (DX10) there is more of a peformance differential in keeping with the relative prices.

For a casual gamer who doesnt mind playing at lower quality settings, or someone that games at medium resolutions (1280x1024, 1440x900, 1680x1050) or someone a really tight budget there really isnt a need for going beyond the 3870 & 8800GT choices. Even the 3850 & 8800GT/256 arent bad choices.

For a hard core gamer, or someone who just doesnt care to play at anything other than the highest quality settings, someone gaming at 19x12 & higher resolutions, or someone to whom $120 is a couple extra hours at work the 8800GTS should be a lot more attractive.

It's good to have choices.

No the price difference in a stock 8800GTS is a $120 the ones reviewed are $150 more. Why is it the 8600GT sales when some of the older 7xxx are faster? Usable life has to count for something. Make a GPU that beat any in HL and is only DX8 compatible as watch how many sales.

True a 8800 may run a dx10.1 game but thats called emulation. Guess what occurs to the frame rate on emulation? If we look at only 8X aa which soon to be the desired setting then we see that the 3870 does perform very close.

For the casual gamer who wants their GPU to last a few years I would suggest going for DX10.1 in a 3850. I would like to look at the rest of the benchmarks but lossing in those 2 and costing $150 more has blinded me and my wallet is shuttering to that fact.
December 11, 2007 7:04:34 PM

Well, I took the plunge on the EVGA 512 GTS on Newegg with a free copy of Crysis. Saves me ~54.00 with tax. I was planning on buying the game anyways so to me the card really cost me about $310. That's not bad considering it's slightly faster than the 8800GT 512 and better cooling. Considering how people are saying their cards run really hot in my opinion that's a good deal. If something better comes along in the next 3 months thats a nice down payment.
If not, it's not a bad card to have for a year or so.
December 11, 2007 7:10:44 PM

According to the benchies (30.2 GT vs 35.9 GTS), the GTS has a 16% performance increase over the GT. Considering that the GTS is priced 19% higher than the GT, I'm willing to spend the extra 3% for the dual slot cooler. I can't see how anyone can say this card is overpriced. Just look at the numbers...
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2007 8:44:08 PM

elbert said:
No the price difference in a stock 8800GTS is a $120 the ones reviewed are $150 more.
All of the reviews included a stock 8800GTS (Evga in the first chart) and the prices difference is $110 now available at NewEgg. Evga 8800GTS/512 $360 with free Crysis game

Closing your eyes and opening your wallet would be worse.
But then keeping your eyes closed to the facts is about the only way your position makes sense.
The HD2900XT/HD3870 price/performance is just as whack as anything at the moment.
DX10.1 making 4xAA mandatory should be a bit SCARY to 3870/3850 owner since they perform best in speed mode.

Fortunately people that take the time to look everything over have a good chance of coming out with the best choice for their own situation.


December 11, 2007 9:28:01 PM

ok think about this
the 8800 gt (ssc) is marked at 329.99 and runs with a core clock of 700mhz and a ram clock of 2000mhz
while the 8800 gts is marked at 359.99 and runs with a core clock of 650mhz and a ram clock of 1940mhz
the gt and gts have the same architecture, so i'm pretty sure that the (SSC) version of the 8800 gt is better than the gts as of now.
unless 16 more stream processors makes that much of a difference. (which it doesn't)
December 11, 2007 9:45:48 PM

raptorxt said:
ok think about this
the 8800 gt (ssc) is marked at 329.99 and runs with a core clock of 700mhz and a ram clock of 2000mhz
while the 8800 gts is marked at 359.99 and runs with a core clock of 650mhz and a ram clock of 1940mhz
the gt and gts have the same architecture, so i'm pretty sure that the (SSC) version of the 8800 gt is better than the gts as of now.
unless 16 more stream processors makes that much of a difference. (which it doesn't)


I think it would be nice to see some benches to see max temps comparing a GTS cooler with the ones on the GT.
I'm hoping the GTS cooler is much better and can safely OC to 750mhz and atleast to the 2100mhz mark.
December 11, 2007 11:06:33 PM

raptorxt said:
ok think about this
the 8800 gt (ssc) is marked at 329.99 and runs with a core clock of 700mhz and a ram clock of 2000mhz
while the 8800 gts is marked at 359.99 and runs with a core clock of 650mhz and a ram clock of 1940mhz
the gt and gts have the same architecture, so i'm pretty sure that the (SSC) version of the 8800 gt is better than the gts as of now.
unless 16 more stream processors makes that much of a difference. (which it doesn't)


When an SSC GTS is put out, the price/performance ratio will remain the same. Clock speeds and ram speeds are not a relative way of measuring performance, specifically because of things like stream processors, etc. Does a 3.0 GHz P4 outperform a 2.4 GHz Q6600, for example?

Of course, I'm not advocating one card over the other. I just call 'em as I see 'em.
December 12, 2007 12:20:49 AM

WR2 benches show the GTS512 equal to the GTX
Elbert shows the SAME Crysis 16x12 bench with the gtx miles ahead?
Whats up with that?
December 12, 2007 1:08:59 AM

WR2 said:
All of the reviews included a stock 8800GTS (Evga in the first chart) and the prices difference is $110 now available at NewEgg. Evga 8800GTS/512 $360 with free Crysis game

Closing your eyes and opening your wallet would be worse.
But then keeping your eyes closed to the facts is about the only way your position makes sense.
The HD2900XT/HD3870 price/performance is just as whack as anything at the moment.
DX10.1 making 4xAA mandatory should be a bit SCARY to 3870/3850 owner since they perform best in speed mode.

Fortunately people that take the time to look everything over have a good chance of coming out with the best choice for their own situation.

Either of these 2 benchmarked from the link you gave is more than $110 higher than the 3870. The higher Alpha Dog benchmarked is $150 higher. Good spin on the 4xAA as all cards work best in speed mode but this mode puts the HD38x0 the most behind. At high AA like 8XAA their is little performance gain over the 3870 from the other GPUs and with out question not $110+. Who pays this much for a GPU to play in speed mode?
http://www.hothardware.com/articles/NVIDIA_GeForce_8800_GTS_Refresh_Asus_and_XFX/?page=3
Quote:
A non-Alpha Dog reference clocked version is planned as well. The Alpha Dog carries an MSRP of $379, while the reference clocked version's MSRP is set for $349.

Note how from 0xAA to 8xAA in HL2 and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition the HD3870 gains 1 sometimes 2 places. The benchmarks are mostly void of 8xAA benchmarks which by these few would put a better showing for the HD3870.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canucks-reviews/3635-xfx-8800gts-512mb-g92-alpha-dog-edition-review-9.html
December 12, 2007 1:16:48 AM

mrmez said:
WR2 benches show the GTS512 equal to the GTX
Elbert shows the SAME Crysis 16x12 bench with the gtx miles ahead?
Whats up with that?

Its the difference in 1280X1024 to 1600X1200. The 8800GTS chokes at higher res due either to 256bit bus or only having 512MB not sure which.
December 12, 2007 1:37:39 AM

jjblanche said:
When an SSC GTS is put out, the price/performance ratio will remain the same. Clock speeds and ram speeds are not a relative way of measuring performance, specifically because of things like stream processors, etc. Does a 3.0 GHz P4 outperform a 2.4 GHz Q6600, for example?

Of course, I'm not advocating one card over the other. I just call 'em as I see 'em.


i'm sorry i should have clarified
the 8800gt and the 8800gts are of the same architecture (G92) so you can relate the clock speeds accordingly, but if shader processors really do make a gigantic difference then the 8800gts will come out the victor.

the p4 and core 2 quad are two completely different architectures so you can't relate the two the way you can between two of the same architecture
December 12, 2007 3:01:57 AM

I like it. I like the better cooler and performance increase, even though it isn't a huge one over the GT. Both are great cards. But currently, I can actually buy a GTS.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2007 3:37:35 AM

WR2 said:
It would be just wrong to base any buying decision on just one chart.


Then why keep posting just one chart? Cherry picking the reviews doesn't help.

WR2 said:
It's not like a DX10 GPU will NOT run a DX10.1 game.


Actually it won't.

I think the point you meant to say is that it's not like there are going to be any DX10.1 exclusive titles anytime soon.

The benefits and worth of DX10.1 features will depend alot on the titles, just like the DX8.1 and SM3.0 differences turned out to be minimally important.
The question is with DX10 mattering so little to many gamers, would it really be possible to make a compelling argument for an incremental change despite some cool features?

It's unlikely that DX10.1 will be as impressive a difference as DX10 vs DX9 and to many people even that difference has been more dissapointment than important change.
a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2007 4:41:58 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Then why keep posting just one chart? Cherry picking the reviews doesn't help.
Which of the different charts I posted is the one you think was cherry picking? And what comment of mine makes you think I was cherry picking?

Seriously? Are you saying a DX10.1 game will NOT run on a DX10 GPU like the 8800GTX?
Isn't that like saying a DX10 game will not run on DX9 hardware like a Nv 7950GT?

a b U Graphics card
December 12, 2007 4:53:44 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
I think the point you meant to say is that it's not like there are going to be any DX10.1 exclusive titles anytime soon.
OK I see "DX10.1 exclusive" now. And no thats not what I meant. Any game that is coded with DX10.1 support should also support DX10 and probably DX9 (and possibly not DX8). As far as I know there are no DX10 titles that do not run on DX9 hardware. There was some buzz that PT Boats - Knights of the Sea might be DX10 only but Im pretty sure it was just the early benchmark relased that was DX10 only.

December 12, 2007 5:07:39 AM

just ordered G92 gts and new power supply i should get it just before x mas NZ$ 600 for card im happy
a c 147 U Graphics card
December 12, 2007 9:31:39 AM

I have $400 in my pocket ready to buy a new card. But only when I'm impresses. I really don't think DX10.1 is going to make a big splash. DX10 is still trickling out and even people with Vista, DX10 hardware, and DX10 ready games they are still running it in DX9. The performance hit is so great it sucks. So there is no encouragement for me to get vista OR a new card.

I'll wait for the dual GPU card from ATI and see what Nvidia does with the GTX. Someone has to knock the 8800Ultra off the top here soon.
!