9800 GTX specs and pics

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Ge [...] /5599.html

"VR-Zone has gotten some details and photos of the GeForce 9800 GTX (G92-P392) card. It comes with 12-layer PCB at 4.376" by 10.5". This card is clocked at 673MHz for core and 1683MHz for the shader while memory clock is yet to be determined. The memory interface is 256-bit with 512MB of 136-pin BGA GDDR3 memory onboard. It comes with two DVI-I and one HDTV-out. There are two SLI connectors and two 6-pin PCIe power connector. The card employs the CoolerMaster TM67 cooler where the fan is rated at 0.34A, 4.08W, 2900rpm, 34dBA. The total board power is 168W."

If the GTX has the same number of SPs as the gts (did I hear right?), what do these clocks mean for performance compared to a GTS?

Sorry, didnt see someone else got this one first. Delete pls moderator?

These specs are a load of b*ll*cks... the GTX will be higher spec than this.

It's probably some ATi spun bull sh!!t to make people go out and buy their X2 cards instead of waiting for the new 9800 series.

How many people expected the 9600GT card to be such a hit 2 months before its release??? Very few.
Expect the same from the 9800 Series.

My respect to ATi comes for its pricing... it's been excellently pricing its cards since the release of the 2900XT...

Remember though, when the X1900XTX was the daddy?? ATi were shafting us on the prices at that point.

Whoever is on top at any given moment in time seems to be asking silly money for their cards. Hence nVidia's rediculous pricing of the 8800 Ultra, for what is only a marginal performance increase over the GTX.

what's so special about a picture when it's the same as all the card nvidia has been releasing recently.

It seems very unlikely Nvidia will release a card that does not beat its older model.
Unless the price is much lower nobody would buy it.

The big advantage I see for the GTX vs GX2 is the better cooling (=overclock) possibility and 3-way SLI where 1 card can do physics calculations (as nvidia is planning).

Just look at nVidia's clock's vs ATi's clocks for the newest range GPUs...

ATi is throwing every MHZ it can get into their cards whereas nvidia's happily keeping their 8800GT's and 9600GT's relatively low on clock speeds but still performing as good as / better than ATi's much higher clocked offerings.

So imagine the G92 GPU with clock speeds as high as ATi's cards.

825mhz Core & 2400mhz DDR4 from a G92 based card would make any of ATi's current cards look pale in comparison.

Anyone who believes specs along those lines is only begging to be disappointed. I need a card that is capable of providing a massive performance improvement over my current card 8800GTX, or I may never buy a new videocard. I've had the darn thing for over a year and it's still more or less near to the fastest card out. It seems at the rate Nvidia is going, I won't be able to play Crysis on Very High with a single card until late 2009.

If this supposed 9800 GTX has the specs they say it will have, I think the 8800 Ultra (and even the 8800 GTX) will own it at higher resolutions. This makes no sense to me, especially considering the statements from Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang: a single-chip approach pays off best when it comes to high-end graphics products. This '9800 GTX' may be marginally better than the 8800 GTX as well as the 3870x2, but it is dropping the ball for a next series card badged w/ GTX.

Nordichardware quotes that expreview article aswell
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7410.html

so thats not something to get excited about, it'll propably be faster than the 8800GTX but not by much

Yeah that is part of the problem, nVidia G92 cards should have all been 8900 XXX.

The Ultra is already faster than the GTX but not by much so whats the point???

As I have told everyone that is asking about getting a new card, just wait until the real next gen Nvidia architecture is released. This isn't it. All these cards, 9600, 9800, 8800gts, etc. are nothing but die shrunk, clocked up old architecture, there is nothing new about them. Don't buy into the media bullshit, thats all it is.

Agreed.... 8900GX2 makes more sense

Yeah and if phenoms were clocked at 5GHz they would kick intels a$$

But they are not

Sadly ATI will have to release something half decent to get the ball rolling again

All of those HD3870X2 and 9800GTX are only small improvement over their previous part. They "sometimes" improve only in a limited way since not all games are SLI-Crossfire aware. This is to say that I presently own a 8800GT and will surely not upgrade until either R700 or G100 (or whatever it's code name) is available at the end of 2008.

Sorry, I just assumed you were referring to the 9800GTX since that's what this thread is about (9800 GTX specs and pics).

Anywho, IPC doesn't mean a hill of beans when you're comparing two separate architectures that are designed to run at different frequencies. ATI isn't throwing "masses of MHz at their cards," their cards are designed to run at high frequencies. Whether or not this was their original intention when they were designing the R600 is debatable (and I don't think it was), but this is the route that they have chosen with the 3800 series and I have to admit it's working out for them. 3800 cards are relatively cheap to produce and are a great choice for gamers on a budget.

8800 GTX - 24 ROP ; 8800 GTS 320/640 - 20 ROP ; 9800GTX - 16 ROP...

Euhhh Nvidia wants to make a suicide ?

1) 128 SP - it's NOT enought for Crysis, when will we see 160 and 192 SP???
2) we know that 8800GTX gets better FPS in hi res 2560x because of 24 ROP !!! AND even those 24 ROP at launch were dissappointing, evernyone expected 32 !


SO PEOPLE for your next gen GPU look for those specs

Min 160 SP ( that we expected in the 8800 Ultra)
32 ROP
1024 MB of GDDR4 VRAM
Core speed : starting @ 550 Mhz

To me it seems like the core speed would be over 650mhz since it is a G92 like the GTS. I put my money on 750mhz

Yeah sounds more like it from what ruhdinho mentioned above.... the 9800 series needs to at least double on the spec of the 9600 otherwise what would be the point

nVidia has always pretty much doubled the performance of their high end parts compared to their mid range ones. Why end the trend now?

6600 was half the 6800, 7600 was half of a 7900, 8600 half the 8800...

Or another pattern I found was Mid-Range SLI = High end Single GPU

Check the Overall FPS charts, doesnt seem to be far off.

So my mystical prediction for the 9800GTX is.... Around 10% lower / higher performance than 9600GT SLi.

Still have my "daddy" in a box.. Was the bomb back then

Saying that two 9600GTs will have roughly equal performance to a 9800GTX is not the same thing as saying that one 9800GTX will be twice as fast as one 9600GT. You have to take SLI scaling inefficiencies into consideration. I would guess that a 9800GTX would be ~70-80% faster than a 9600GT, but that's a pretty big guess.

I also think that the 9800GTX will have a GB of VRAM, not the 512MB that has been claimed.

Its just timing in the market. ATI's failure to compete at the top left them in between mid and high. The monies always in the middle low end, and nVidia didnt want to tip their hat too soon, so out came the 8600s which coincedently on par with the 2600. Things have changed a little, but not much. If it was me, which it will be sooner or later, Im waiting for the nexr REAL gen of cards to come

sorry accidentally pressed the submit button

-playing cryis completely maxed out and ok for a decent price. honestly I don't want to wait that long either and I feel like the market is going to be slow for a while. Maybe middle of 09 before we really can play the game for 2 grand.