ok, I did get to read the review and it looks like the ATIx2 is getting owned by the GX2 by a good margin. This seems a bit odd if you compare it to previous leeked benchies. Time will tell
---------------
They mostly come at night. Mostly...
It is overpriced but most new tech is. They should have given it more memory because it has the horsepower to use it and you can see where it hits a wall at high res with AA/AF turned on.
---------------
Quote
"Wit is educated insolence."
-Aristotle
Already having an 8800GTX if multi gpu was of use to me (which sadly it isnt) my best upgrade would be a second card the same as I have already, which is pretty poor considering the age of the 8800GTX .
Price is way over the odds for performance I think. I think everythigns pretty much looking how we expected. Im rapidly loosing hope that the 9800gtx will be a "must have" for a high end rig, even for TRI-SLI purposes all rumours are suggesting the 8800GTX will be at least near to tri sli 9800gtx's... I really hope im wrong on that.
From THG REVIEW:
Having said this, we do not recommend buying a GeForce 9800 GX2 for those who rarely change graphic cards and want to invest in a very high end card and keep it for a long time. There are times when a card like this should excel, like in higher resolution and with demanding settings, but the 9800 GX2 is barely better than a simple GeForce 8800 Ultra. The blame, just like on the 3870 X2, is on the amount of memory being limited to only 512 MB, a quantity incompatible with the very high resolutions and even more with antialiasing. Numbers speak for themselves, when the 9800 GX2 out performs the 8800 Ultra (with 768 MB) by 29% on average and up to 41% in 2560x1600, activating antialiasing at this resolution shortens the gap to 13%! Yet, in many games, it's the only mode that still isn't smooth and the 9800 GX2 doesn't deliver much.
As i said before, 98xx series arent called a revolution, they are like the big brothers of 88xx series (just like 78xx and 79xx series)
Unfortuantely most sites only tested with 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 i havent seen any 1600x1200 or lower ones
Where was HL2: Episode Two with 8xAA and 16xAF. In fact, why didn't toms use 8xAA and 16xAF for the filter selections in their test? Maybe because Nvidia tell them to test at at 4xAA.
San Pedro > More simply, because we didn't had the time and because this setting is rarely used as it addresses a very specific situation. 4x AA is basically sufficient in most games to get rid of aliasing in the native resolution of displays. I also can't understand why nVidia would rather reviewers to use 4x AA in stead of 8x.
Looks like it kicks the **** outta everything. No questions asked but the price tag.... wayyy too much
---------------
I wish everyone at my high school could be mature enough to talk PC hardware not just gaming. You're unique... just like everyone else.
Well in that case, 2xAA usually gets the job done too (especially at super high resolutions). I've also seen reviews where going from 4xAA to 8xAA on an AMD card isn't a significant performance change (don't feel like searching for proof -sorry). 16xAF, however, should always be used for high end cards in reviews, IMO.
And the the card is a monster, $600 is quite expensive considering 8800GTSs are going for under $250.
When the article came out, all three GPUs in the article were listed as 0.065µ on the page 4 chart. They fixed the 3870x2, but the 8800 Ultra is still wrong.
Message edited by carver_g on 03-18-2008 at 08:30:52 PM
.
NiceChick99@hotmail.com 
