Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

9800 GTX specs and pics

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 26, 2008 7:56:11 AM

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/GeForce_9800_GTX_Card_P...

"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?

More about : 9800 gtx specs pics

February 26, 2008 7:57:58 AM

Sorry, didnt see someone else got this one first. Delete pls moderator?
February 26, 2008 8:54:13 AM

You can go into edit and delete it yourself.
Related resources
February 26, 2008 1:01:27 PM

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.
February 26, 2008 1:19:10 PM

I totaly agree with dev1se.

If the new GTX is as improved as the 9600GT is gonna be the single gpu king and beat the ATI X2, let alone in SLI (2gpu vs 2gpu).

Pls don't forget the newest ATI can barely beat the old single gpu nvidia with 2 gpu's.

Of course I agree that the cost will be higher and ATI is not bad in that respect.
February 26, 2008 1:34:05 PM

tjoepie said:
I totaly agree with dev1se.

If the new GTX is as improved as the 9600GT is gonna be the single gpu king and beat the ATI X2, let alone in SLI (2gpu vs 2gpu).

Pls don't forget the newest ATI can barely beat the old single gpu nvidia with 2 gpu's.

Of course I agree that the cost will be higher and ATI is not bad in that respect.


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.
February 26, 2008 1:39:25 PM

You've got to be kidding me; still only a 256-bit memory bus? While it may usually be faster than the 8800GTX or Ultra, there are cases where it'll fall far behind just as the 8800GT does. :??: 
February 26, 2008 1:46:19 PM

what's so special about a picture when it's the same as all the card nvidia has been releasing recently.
February 26, 2008 1:48:24 PM

I guess all we can do now is wait and see what Nvidia really releases.
February 26, 2008 1:50:44 PM

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).
February 26, 2008 2:39:21 PM

I think it's pretty much confirmed now that the 9800GTX is nothing to get excited about. Rumors indicate that Nvidia has something big up its sleeve (GT200?), but in the short term it looks like g92 is as good as it gets.
February 26, 2008 3:48:15 PM

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.

February 26, 2008 4:23:17 PM

dev1se said:
825mhz Core & 2400mhz DDR4 from a G92 based card would make any of ATi's current cards look pale in comparison.

Always remember, when randomly pulling number out of thin air it is best to keep them somewhat believable. I remember when the rumor about the 9800GTX was something like 384 stream processors and a 512bit bus. I was really impressed because in the back of my mind I was like "that could really be true." We were talking about a GPU that was still a long ways off, and I figured surely by then Nvidia would have a new monster to unleash. Of course those specs turned out to be way off, but they seemed believable at the time.

Now, with the 9800GTX less than a month away your 825MHz core and 2400MHz GDDR4 claim doesn't have the same effect. Why? Because it's too good to be true. We already know that Nvidia has trouble with GDDR4. We have g92 chips right now and they can't clock anywhere near 825MHz without obscene power consumption and heat production.

I like to speculate just as much as the next enthusiast, but I also like to keep things somewhat realistic. And no, I don't consider your "specs" to be within the realm of possibility.
February 26, 2008 4:31:30 PM

homerdog said:
Always remember, when randomly pulling number out of thin air it is best to keep them somewhat believable. I remember when the rumor about the 9800GTX was something like 384 stream processors and a 512bit bus. I was really impressed because in the back of my mind I was like "that could really be true." We were talking about a GPU that was still a long ways off, and I figured surely by then Nvidia would have a new monster to unleash.

Now, with the 9800GTX less than a month away your 825MHz core and 2400MHz GDDR4 claim doesn't have the same effect. Why? Because it's too good to be true. We already know that Nvidia has trouble with GDDR4. We have g92 chips right now and they can't clock anywhere near 825MHz without obscene power consumption and heat production.

I like to speculate just as much as the next enthusiast, but I also like to keep things somewhat realistic. And no, I don't consider your "specs" to be within the realm of possibility.
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. :( 
February 26, 2008 4:33:31 PM

And the leaks start w/ 3Dmark 2006......
(specs seem to be confirmed by GPU-z, crap it might just be G92)


February 26, 2008 4:41:17 PM

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.
February 26, 2008 4:43:18 PM

Heyyou27 said:
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. :( 

Sorry, my post was a little unclear. I know the 384SP/512bit specs are wrong; I'm not delusional. I've edited my post to make this clear.

By the way, the 384/512 specs are most likely for the GT200, which is the supposed name of Nvidia's next "real" highend GPU. Or maybe I really am delusional...
a c 88 U Graphics card
February 26, 2008 5:16:57 PM

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
February 26, 2008 5:31:18 PM

Oh it's about time I mention again that the naming schemes from both Nvidia and ATI are FUBAR. I mean what the hell?
February 26, 2008 5:40:12 PM

homerdog said:
Oh it's about time I mention again that the naming schemes from both Nvidia and ATI are FUBAR. I mean what the hell?

Yeah that is part of the problem, nVidia G92 cards should have all been 8900 XXX.
February 26, 2008 5:50:06 PM

homerdog said:
Sorry, my post was a little unclear. I know the 384SP/512bit specs are wrong; I'm not delusional. I've edited my post to make this clear.

By the way, the 384/512 specs are most likely for the GT200, which is the supposed name of Nvidia's next "real" highend GPU. Or maybe I really am delusional...
I'm sorry, I understood what you meant and was agreeing with you. Let's just hope a new card will come out to replace the 8800GTX/Ultra soon.
February 26, 2008 6:17:23 PM

Kari said:
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


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.
February 26, 2008 6:18:08 PM

homerdog said:


Now, with the 9800GTX less than a month away your 825MHz core and 2400MHz GDDR4 claim doesn't have the same effect. Why? Because it's too good to be true. We already know that Nvidia has trouble with GDDR4. We have g92 chips right now and they can't clock anywhere near 825MHz without obscene power consumption and heat production.

I like to speculate just as much as the next enthusiast, but I also like to keep things somewhat realistic. And no, I don't consider your "specs" to be within the realm of possibility.


Who said anything about these specs being on the GTX?? Where the f*ck in my message did I even mention the GTX in that post???

MY POST WAS ABOUT THE WAY ATI THROWS MASSES OF MHZ AT THEIR CARDS TO GET PERFORMANCE.
IF A G92 BASED CARD WAS RUNNING AT THE SAME MHZ AS THE 3870 GPU, FOR BOTH DDR4 AND THE CORE, THEN ATI'S CARDS WOULD BE SERIOUSLY LACKING.

My comment was comparing GPUs and how efficient they are per MHZ... Instead tho Homerdog, you read my post totally wrong and make me look a thick ****.
February 26, 2008 6:19:17 PM

badgtx1969 said:
Yeah that is part of the problem, nVidia G92 cards should have all been 8900 XXX.


Agreed.... 8900GX2 makes more sense
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2008 6:19:50 PM

I havnt seen a ATI card cost over 500 bucks yet, OK, depends on where you shopped, but thats a far cry from 700+. nVidias been sitting on this lead for a looong time, and havnt come out with any earth shal\kers yet. Lets hope the 9800GTX does just that, BUT in the 400$ range, NOT 6-700$
a c 88 U Graphics card
February 26, 2008 6:30:55 PM

dev1se said:
IF A G92 BASED CARD WAS RUNNING AT THE SAME MHZ AS THE 3870 GPU, FOR BOTH DDR4 AND THE CORE, THEN ATI'S CARDS WOULD BE SERIOUSLY LACKING.
Yeah and if phenoms were clocked at 5GHz they would kick intels a$$

But they are not :pt1cable: 
February 26, 2008 6:36:04 PM

If the rumors are true it wouldnt surprise me. Nvidia is probably trying to spin off there GX2 as there highend card. If they came out with a GTX model of the same series that out performs a 2GPU setup, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

I guess we wont know for sure until the weeks to come. We saw how good the G92 was with the 8800GT compared with the G80GTS models. Maybe theres more juice left in it than we thought?
February 26, 2008 7:20:43 PM

Sadly ATI will have to release something half decent to get the ball rolling again
February 26, 2008 7:30:49 PM

Meh, not really. ATI cards do better in some things nvidia in others. If you think the new ones will beat ATI in price/performance I say most likely not. ATI use a much cheaper process and way of implementing their new dual core gpus then nvidia. I dont think it will hurt them too much to drop the price. Also the partners can do a lot more with them in the way of coolers and overclocks.


If a 9800GX2 doesn't scale as well as the 9600GT which has amazing SLI scaling then I personally will probably go with an X2.. why? Because unlike a lot of people ill use it in the right situation to get the best out of it.
February 26, 2008 7:49:05 PM

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.
February 26, 2008 8:18:48 PM

NightlySputnik said:
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.

Agreed, except I think that we might see RV770 by mid-summer. Hopefully this will shepherd a sooner and expedited arrival of the 'real' D9E (G100?).

Will the true 9800GTX please stand up.....please stand up! :pfff: 
February 26, 2008 8:31:42 PM

dev1se said:
Who said anything about these specs being on the GTX?? Where the f*ck in my message did I even mention the GTX in that post???

MY POST WAS ABOUT THE WAY ATI THROWS MASSES OF MHZ AT THEIR CARDS TO GET PERFORMANCE.
IF A G92 BASED CARD WAS RUNNING AT THE SAME MHZ AS THE 3870 GPU, FOR BOTH DDR4 AND THE CORE, THEN ATI'S CARDS WOULD BE SERIOUSLY LACKING.

My comment was comparing GPUs and how efficient they are per MHZ... Instead tho Homerdog, you read my post totally wrong and make me look a thick ****.

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.
February 26, 2008 9:41:25 PM

Definitely plenty choice out there for gamers who are happy settling with 20-25fps on Crysis!

The graphics card companies need to realise that whatever card to come out first that plays Crysis at Ultra High with 4xAA with 40FPS+ is going to sell in massive amounts if priced right. They should all be aiming to release a card that can manage this, to keep the competition alive.
At the moment, no card sounds like it'll be able to manage that.
February 27, 2008 12:04:30 AM

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
February 27, 2008 1:05:31 AM

The specs the rudinho above me posted seems a bit more on the mark. the specs posted in those articles seems to be more what i would exspect out of the 9800gt. I just find it hard to believe that nvidia would release a card that would have less memory than it's predecessor at the same price range.
February 27, 2008 1:44:08 AM

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 :D 
February 27, 2008 12:37:21 PM

nkarasch said:
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 :D 

Nvidia likes to play it safe with their reference clocks. That way it's up to their AIB partners (eVGA, XFX, etc.) to ramp up the clockspeeds with their "factory OC'd" cards.
February 27, 2008 12:55:45 PM

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.
February 27, 2008 1:54:08 PM

dev1se said:
6600 was half the 6800, 7600 was half of a 7900, 8600 half the 8800...

True for the 6600 and 7600, but the 8600 wasn't even close to half the 8800. Things have changed since the 6 and 7 series days.
dev1se said:
So my mystical prediction for the 9800GTX is.... Around 10% lower / higher performance than 9600GT SLi.

I like that prediction :sol: 
February 27, 2008 1:55:19 PM

dev1se said:
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.



Still have my "daddy" in a box.. Was the bomb back then
February 27, 2008 2:08:44 PM

Hadn't thought about it that way... Usually, people mention the trend of 1.5-2x performance of high-end cards over generations. If 9800 GTX is in fact 2x performance of 9600 GT, it should be a good card.

I'm still waiting for R700 and G100 though...
February 27, 2008 3:42:44 PM

harmattan said:
Hadn't thought about it that way... Usually, people mention the trend of 1.5-2x performance of high-end cards over generations. If 9800 GTX is in fact 2x performance of 9600 GT, it should be a good card.

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.
February 27, 2008 4:29:01 PM

homerdog said:
True for the 6600 and 7600, but the 8600 wasn't even close to half the 8800. Things have changed since the 6 and 7 series days.

I like that prediction :sol: 


You get what I mean though, judging from past series this is the way I expect it to pan out this time around.

Lets hope it is 10%+ better than 9600GT SLi

a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2008 4:45:06 PM

rudinho said:

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


I also think that the 9800GTX will have a GB of VRAM, not the 512MB that has been claimed.
February 27, 2008 6:10:45 PM

dev1se said:
You get what I mean though, judging from past series this is the way I expect it to pan out this time around.

In the past we have generally had low-end cards, midrange cards, and high-end cards, each tier being at least ~2x faster than the one below it. Recently things have been migrating to the middle; there is no longer such a huge distinction between the midrange and the highend. Whether this trend will continue is anyone's guess, but I have to admit I kind of like it. Having a $250 8800GT that performs almost as good as a $450 8800GTX is kind of nice :p 
dev1se said:
Lets hope it is 10%+ better than 9600GT SLi

If that were the case then I would be pleasantly surprised.
a b U Graphics card
February 27, 2008 10:04:28 PM

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
February 27, 2008 10:57:52 PM

Agreed with 2x performance of 9600gt. But I like being able to pick up an 8800 gt 8800 gs 3850 or 3870 now a 9600gt and get the gaming performance I want for 150-250 bucks ok (maybe 280 in october). But still want a high end card to come out even if i don't buy it. We don't have one and the while theres alot in the market nothing in the high end. If I had 5 grand for a computer I would like to play some of these games at 4 megapixel res. I really would like playing crysis
February 27, 2008 11:00:18 PM

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.
!