9800 GTX specs and pics

[spoonboy]

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/GeForce_9800_GTX_Card_Photos_%26_Specs_Unveiled/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?

 

[spoonboy]

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

 

[pchoi04]

You can go into edit and delete it yourself.

 

[dev1se]

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.

 

[tjoepie]

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.

 

[dev1se]

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.

 

[Heyyou27]

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.

 

[gwolfman]

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

 

[spaztic7]

I guess all we can do now is wait and see what Nvidia really releases.

 

[tjoepie]

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).

 

[homerdog]

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.

 

[dev1se]

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.

 

[homerdog]

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.

 

[Heyyou27]

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.

 

[badgtx1969]

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

 

[badgtx1969]

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.

 

[homerdog]

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...

 

[Kari]

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

 

[homerdog]

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

 

[badgtx1969]

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.

 

[Heyyou27]

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.

 

[warezme]

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.

 

[dev1se]

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 ****.

 

[dev1se]

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

Agreed.... 8900GX2 makes more sense

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

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$