Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

9800 GTX a solid performer?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 22, 2008 2:53:47 AM

I saw Newegg dropped the price for the Evga model to $199. That's as cheap or cheaper as most 8800 GTS (G92) models. Has this card had any sort of recurring issues? I googled a bit and didn't find anything concrete.

I have a Antec NeoHe 550 W so I'm not sure how it's going to hold up with the newer cards; my res is capped at 1680x1050 anyway.

Maybe this would be a good last upgrade for me? $199 seems really reasonable.

I currently have a 8800 GTS 320 mb/Athlon X2 6400+.

(stimulus check just arrived hehe. Have to support the economy).
June 22, 2008 2:56:58 AM

i would say go for it. as the driver for it is really stable now.

the HD4850 is good as well which performing at the same level as the 9800GTX but the driver still got some iron out to do.

at last the PSU of yours will do the job nicely!:) 
Related resources
June 22, 2008 3:32:02 AM

I wish that Crysis benchmark had DX10 on very high. That way you can really see which card performs under pressure. $199 isnt bad though... I would get one if I were going to upgrade. That's pretty good for that card being well over $300 a month ago.
a c 107 U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 3:41:22 AM

They dropped it because of the release of the 4850.
June 22, 2008 3:52:00 AM

hughyhunter said:
I wish that Crysis benchmark had DX10 on very high. That way you can really see which card performs under pressure. $199 isnt bad though... I would get one if I were going to upgrade. That's pretty good for that card being well over $300 a month ago.



200$ video cards arent realy playable on very high :p 

but I see your point anyways
June 22, 2008 4:06:34 AM

I wish the review for graphics cards wouldn't use overclocked parts, the point is to get an idea of how performance will be for YOU so its misleading to show a review with an overclocked cpu (but what really bothers me is when they use 1600+mhz DDR3 ram)

Anyway, I think you should wait a few weeks to get the 9800GTX+, it will be faster, more energy efficient and about the same price.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 4:13:19 AM

You mean like 8AA? Or it could before thr 4850 got here,because it was 300? Not sure I follow
June 22, 2008 4:24:24 AM

ovaltineplease said:
200$ video cards arent realy playable on very high :p 

but I see your point anyways


Sorry but that all i play Crysis on is Vary High :kaola: 
June 22, 2008 1:53:21 PM

Zerk said:
Sorry but that all i play Crysis on is Vary High :kaola: 

at 800x600? :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 2:21:37 PM

The 9800GTX is about the best you are gonna get unless you go with the 9800GX2, or go SLI, or spend a bundle on one of the new nVidia 280's.
It's an absolutely great buy for $200.
June 22, 2008 2:24:38 PM

is there any one buying the 9800GTX recently instead of the HD4850??
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 2:38:39 PM

iluvgillgill said:
is there any one buying the 9800GTX recently instead of the HD4850??


Personally, if I was in the market for a new card....I think after years of owning ATI cards, and the experience I have had since buying an 8800GTS 512, I think I would prefer at this point to stay with nVidia.
The 4850's have not been around long enough for anyone to make a decent opinion of them yet IMHO. After a couple of months, shoot they all may start exploding causing unfortold injury to thousands of people while they are gaming away....... :na: 
June 22, 2008 3:05:45 PM

If you're going to buy a new card for that resolution, then wait for the HD 4870, which won't be that much more expensive (hopefully) and should bring in an even bigger jump in performance.
June 22, 2008 3:17:15 PM

Hey since you are in the market for a new video card, why not get a 4850.

Its got some better features , new architecture , DX 10.1 , Lower power consumption, takes up less space .

The thing is that i was wondering the about the 9800gtx the other day but decided in favor of the ATI 4850.
June 22, 2008 3:21:47 PM

Why would one get a 9800gtx instead of 4850 since they cost the same and the 9800gtx gets raped sideways by 4850...?
June 22, 2008 3:31:34 PM

The reason for the drastic price drop is because of the new competition brought by the Radeon 4850. The two cards are now the same price. The 9800 GTX does not "get raped sideways" by the 4850; rather, they have been trading the top spot back and forth during the more credible reviews. In my opinion, the two cards are equal right now. I bought another 9800 GTX to SLI for the current price because I am limited by my 780i mobo and my existing 9800 GTX SSC, but the ATI option would be great as well. I plan on OC'ing the cards to around 800/2000/1200. The best thing you could do, though, is to wait till the 4870 comes out and take its performance into consideration (as well as the likely price drops of other cards that it will cause). Either way, you should definitely upgrade because the 320 MB GTS is getting outdated fast... if it was the G92 version you could probably hold off for awhile yet.
June 22, 2008 4:24:50 PM

It depends on the game.

Unreal Tournament 3:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/17.html
G92 8800gts/9800gtx, and even the puny 9600gt far outperform 4850.

Quake 4:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/13.html
Scroll down to 2048x1536 resolution, and see just how far 4850 beats gtx280.

A benchmark on a single game (CoD4, etc) is worthless. You can't make blanket statements on overall performance based on one game. On average, 4850 perform about the same as g92 8800gts/9800gtx at stock clock rate.

The advantage for 4850 is it scales better on higher resolutions for most games. As resolutions get higher, fps loss for 4850 tends to be smaller than rival g94 based gpu.

The disadvantage is it runs hotter and does not overclock well.
June 22, 2008 4:33:14 PM

At mihirkula: um, no "boyo," it doesn't get spanked... Go to Anand or ExtremeTech or HotHardware's reviews and their conclusions... Yes the card is great, I'm not denying it, but it certainly doesn't blow the 9800 GTX out of the water by any means. Add to that the fact that Nvidia is coming out with their updated driver and PhysX driver which should increase performance substantially. I suggest you look at a bunch of reviews, not just one benchmark from a single review...
June 22, 2008 4:34:52 PM

@ dagger.. i never made blanket statements based on one game... i had to give one link ainnit ....

the fact that 4850 performs better at higher res is itself a better choice for me .... whichever the game.

moreover i would never back my opinion with performance comparison for older games like quake 4. anyhow all this can lead to 500 posts so lets not get into it. that goes for jorqian too.
June 22, 2008 4:46:43 PM

i looks like the thread will go on without me!LOL

people who know me for awhile sure know what im talking about!right people?:) :p 
June 22, 2008 4:49:40 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i looks like the thread will go on without me!LOL

people who know me for awhile sure know what im talking about!right people? :)  :p 

Hello, who are you? :p 
June 22, 2008 4:51:58 PM

LOL:p  keep going dagger!haha
June 22, 2008 5:28:09 PM

To answer iluvgillgill's qn... no 9800GTsuX for me. i MAY buy either a 4850 or a 4870 ... Xfire it with my 3870 on my EX38. There might be zero advantage of 3870 with 4850/4870 Xfire but i'm gonna get it anyway.
June 22, 2008 6:47:04 PM

I think we can all come to a consensus that the best option right now (for people no restricted to a SLI mobo, i.e. me) is to wait for the 4780.
June 22, 2008 7:05:15 PM

ovaltineplease said:
200$ video cards arent realy playable on very high :p 

but I see your point anyways

I play Crysis on very high AA off and get around 20-32fps. Sometimes as low as 10 in very intense scenes like the tunnel underground or the end in the rain. But overall it plays well on very high. I'll bet a $200 card will play Crysis with all the bells and whistles by the end of this year. Maybe sooner.
mihirkula said:
Why would one get a 9800gtx instead of 4850 since they cost the same and the 9800gtx gets raped sideways by 4850...?

I'm not getting it!!! The 4850 performs about the same... show me a benchmark where it rapes it sideways. From what I've seen is it beats it by 1-3FPS sometimes.... and other times the GTX is faster. So for the same price it all comes down to preference and power consumption. Because essentially they perform the same!
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 7:21:25 PM

Turn up the AA and watch the GTX melt
June 22, 2008 7:40:49 PM

Thnks for replies.

I'm gonna wait and see how ATI's latest sort themselves out.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 7:41:08 PM

As you can see, in these links, the 4850 kicks the GTX pretty hard, and looking at the TPU link, youll see that turning the AA up, the 4850 pulls away. Crysis, which is tied, is using no AA. So, if you want eye candy AND great performance, get the 4850, which we all know has beta drivers in these tests http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/15.html http://techreport.com/articles.x/14967/7 http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3338&p=12
June 22, 2008 7:43:27 PM

^... no one listens...lol...

for people asking for "a benchmark where it rapes the 9800"... a difference of 9 FPS is quite large ...and thats in the same link thats been posted earlier.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 7:59:51 PM

They arent all like that, but ti didnt take me that much to find these differences either, and itll only get better for the 4850 as the drivers mature
June 22, 2008 8:24:14 PM

ATI is back baby ...and there smokin hot hehehehe
June 22, 2008 8:46:09 PM

Crysis definately isn't one of 4850's strong games. At 2048x1536 with 4x aa, 4850 is almost 50% slower than a 8800gtx, a g80 card from 2 generations eariler. Not to mention also slower at lower resolution and aa settings.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/8.html

Some of other rendering engines where 4850 fell short include UT3. Unreal engine is the most widely used engine for game developers.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/17.html

It also did poorly on Far Cry, running on the original Cryengine.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/10.html

It performed well on CoD4, Prey, and STALKER:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/6.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/12.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/15.html

It also performed reasonably well on 3dmark06:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/20.html

It ocs badly. And temperature is high. Doesn't matter if you don't oc though.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/24.html
June 22, 2008 8:56:52 PM

I wont be ditching my 2900XT card until I can find a reasonably priced graphics card that can run Crysis on Very High with a little AA and smooth FPS.
My next card might be another ATI, but my experience with them has not been great because I find their drivers buggy and some games just run terrible on ATI hardware. My experiences with Nvidia has been much better and I find they perform more consistent in most games.
June 22, 2008 9:20:30 PM

i wonder what the price/performance will be like for the HD4870 for $329 at launch.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 9:21:27 PM

What I find extremely interesting is, the use of Crysis as any qualifier, is that unless thats your particular game of choice , it holds no merit over any other game. http://techreport.com/articles.x/14967/7 I use more than 1 sire for a better idea as to performance. The TR is very reputable and shows no such differences, in fact it shows it beating both GTX's in crysis, which like I said , is just 1 game, and not really indicative as to the makeup of future games. This oc myth has to stop, as people that actually own the cards refute it, and its still stuck within the CCC. Its time for W1zzard at TPU to make it oceable as well as others
June 22, 2008 9:21:56 PM

iluvgillgill said:
i wonder what the price/performance will be like for the HD4870 for $329 at launch.

That'll depend on performance, which we don't know yet. Better err on the side of caution and not go with the hype. People always have overinflated expectations. :p 
June 22, 2008 9:22:16 PM

^.. isn't the revised price $299?
June 22, 2008 9:24:12 PM

i also thought the revise price for the GTX260 is $299 and GTX280 $499.but its not sadly.
June 22, 2008 9:31:41 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
What I find extremely interesting is, the use of Crysis as any qualifier, is that unless thats your particular game of choice , it holds no merit over any other game. http://techreport.com/articles.x/14967/7 I use more than 1 sire for a better idea as to performance. The TR is very reputable and shows no such differences, in fact it shows it beating both GTX's in crysis, which like I said , is just 1 game, and not really indicative as to the makeup of future games. This oc myth has to stop, as people that actually own the cards refute it, and its still stuck within the CCC. Its time for W1zzard at TPU to make it oceable as well as others

That benchmark is not meaningful. It only shows 1920x1200 on high and very high, and gives nothing on lower resolutions. The problem is, on those settings, neither of them get playable frame rates. Very high shows 4850 at 13.0-14.9fps, compared to 9800gtx at 13.0-14.fps, a 0.1fps difference. High range from around 17-20/21, still not playable.

Now look at this Crysis benchmark, covering a large range from 1280x1024 0xaa to 2048x1536 4xaa on high. 1280x1024 with 2xaa is the highest resolution that is still playable, with 4850 average 36.9fps, and 9800gtx average 39.9, both very playable.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/8.html
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 9:32:15 PM

It seems to me, before the "launch " of the 4850, there wasnt any hype, hope nor love. At least at this point, we have a glimpse of how the 4870 will perform. Garunteed itll be the 3rd fastest card made. Maybe the second? who Knows. Itll be pushing in a few games for top performance.
June 22, 2008 9:34:19 PM

i'd never heard about GTsuX280 for $499 .... anyhow this is a link for a comprehensive 9800GTX+ vs 4850 .....

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/731/11/

apart from COD4, 4850 is just a LITTLE behind the 9800GTX+....is the performance difference worth the price difference of 40 bucks.... IMO, no.
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 9:38:37 PM

dagger said:
That benchmark is not meaningful. It only shows 1920x1200 on high and very high, and gives nothing on lower resolutions. The problem is, on those settings, neither of them get playable frame rates. Very high shows 4850 at 13.0-14.9fps, compared to 9800gtx at 13.0-14.fps, a 0.1fps difference. High range from around 17-20/21, still not playable.

Now look at this Crysis benchmark, covering a large range from 1280x1024 0xaa to 2048x1536 4xaa on high. 1280x1024 with 2xaa is the highest resolution that is still playable, with 4850 average 36.9fps, and 9800gtx average 39.9, both very playable.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/8.html

Ummm...OK, I took your last post as to mean, the more you put on the 4850, the more the GTX's pulled ahead. I post a bench that shows more demand and you state its not relevant when it shows its still equal, as other sites show it in Crysis. Like I said, its only 1 game, and theyre mostly matched. On beta drivers, not too bad.
June 22, 2008 9:47:50 PM

I don't understand the beta drivers argument. Yes, ATI's drivers will of course get better. However, the news has been out that along with the PhysX driver, Nvidia is also releasing another Forceware driver that should boost performance significantly. Now, I think both cards are about equal and both great buys at $200 (you can pull up benchmarks with ATI winning, you can pull up benchmarks with the 9800 winning, etc). The only reason I'm defending the 9800 GTX here is because with all the 4850 hype, it seems that people think a $200 9800 GTX is a poor buy when truthfully there is not a huge difference between the two. For people with SLI boards, the 9800 GTX SLI is a no brainer. For people with Xfire boards, waiting to see how the 4870 does is probably the best option IMO.
June 22, 2008 9:55:31 PM

jcorqian said:
I don't understand the beta drivers argument. Yes, ATI's drivers will of course get better. However, the news has been out that along with the PhysX driver, Nvidia is also releasing another Forceware driver that should boost performance significantly. Now, I think both cards are about equal and both great buys at $200 (you can pull up benchmarks with ATI winning, you can pull up benchmarks with the 9800 winning, etc). The only reason I'm defending the 9800 GTX here is because with all the 4850 hype, it seems that people think a $200 9800 GTX is a poor buy when truthfully there is not a huge difference between the two. For people with SLI boards, the 9800 GTX SLI is a no brainer. For people with Xfire boards, waiting to see how the 4870 does is probably the best option IMO.

Nice to hear a voice of reason. It's in short supply lately. For the drivers argument, people said the exactly same thing about 3850/3870s, but those promised driver optimization didn't pan out. It's always better to judge by what you see, not what you hope to see.
June 22, 2008 10:02:39 PM

This is why... like i've stated in the past... that it all comes down to personal choice. You either buy the 4850 or the 9800GTX! both perform relatively the same as far as price/performance from what I've seen from the benches. So it all comes down to personal preference and who can come out with a more overclockable card. I will put my money on 9800GTX as outperforming the 4850 only because it's a dual slot cooler and overclocks extremely well. But for the majority that dont decide to overclock the 4850 might be the way to go!
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 10:03:12 PM

This card is running on beta drivers. It isnt really officially released yet. Not til the 25th. The drivers are the ones the testers used. They will get better. As for a more mature product, thwey wont see the same increase/improvements across as wide a range of abilities and games. This is normal. The 200 for a GTX isnt a bad buy, but what about 1 week ago? 300? I saw someone sell their gtx for 270 and bought 2 4850s for 300, so for 30 bucks they got more than twice their ability heheh
a b U Graphics card
June 22, 2008 10:05:54 PM

Look at Toms charts, compare those numbers on older drivers with the 3xxx series to what we are seeing now in these new previews
June 22, 2008 10:09:35 PM

Well obviously one week ago the 9800 GTX was a terrible buy when ATI came out with a similarly performing 4950 at $100 to $150 lower in price. Nvidia noticed this and adjusted the price accordingly.
!