Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NVIDIA's First 55nm GPU: GeForce 9800 GTX+ Preview

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 24, 2008 4:29:24 PM

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3340&p=3

The Radeon HD 4850 continues to be a better buy than NVIDIA's GeForce 9800 GTX, even if both are priced at $199. The overclocked, 55nm 9800 GTX+ manages to rarely outperform the 4850 but for the most part isn't competitive enough to justify the extra $30. AMD was quick to point out that by the time the 9800 GTX+ ships that it will also have factory overclocked 4850s, which should make things even more interesting. Because, honestly, a factory overclocked Radeon HD 4850 is far more attractive to us than an overclocked GTX+.


a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2008 4:37:03 PM

very interesting amd is very competitive this time around. nvidia gtx 280 is a horrible card looking at benchmarks im happy to see my 9800gx2 is still on top.
=]
June 24, 2008 4:40:33 PM

Honestly, 4850 with mature drivers will definitely be better.
Related resources
June 24, 2008 4:43:01 PM

wow I'm surprised about the GX2 lol:p 
a c 143 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 24, 2008 4:44:45 PM

So nice to see AMD winning a round from time to time. It's good for consumers.

I'm guessing that nVidia is working on a 55nm GTX 280+ now.
June 24, 2008 4:46:24 PM

LOL probably, if the price was set better, the 280 GTX could've been the card that pushed ATI out of the competition for good.

But thats nvidia for ya:)  Greed kills!
June 24, 2008 4:52:03 PM

pcgamer12 said:
Honestly, 4850 with mature drivers will definitely be better.

Honestly thats just it this is why nvidia has lost me as a faithfull customer! "where do we go now?" The green team needed to stop rehashing old product's and come up with something new. the 4850 is brand new with a completly different design than the last gen. And will only be improved on with new driver's and factory overclocked versions of both the 4870 and 4850.

The 9800gtx+ not only does the name sound rediculous but it often loses to an Ati card that is 30-50$ cheaper. Add to that now most of the nvidia line is useless these are card's i cant see anyone buying anymore..

8800gt
9600gt
8800gts(g92)
9800gtx

All the above cards are around 150-250 dollar's and perform way less than a 4850 priced at 160-199$

I was an nvidia fanboy for years and i can say that i have never bought an Ati card in my life but!! With the crap nvidia has been pulling the last year or soo they have pissed me off with there pricing and product naming strageties.

June 24, 2008 4:56:04 PM

I would be glad as hell to jump back onboard with ATI:) 
June 24, 2008 4:58:19 PM

Me too maybe it's becuase i have been with one company for too long?

It will be nice to change things up for awhile.
June 24, 2008 5:11:53 PM

invisik said:
nvidia gtx 280 is a horrible card looking at benchmarks


Oh come on....it's actually a very good card. A single GPU solution that is essentially almost as fast as the 9800GX2. That's an incredible leap forward. The only real problem with the card is the crazy-ass price. If the card were priced around $500, I bet people would be buying these up.

The 4850 still is the best bang for buck, and I plan on getting that or the 4870, but seriously, the GTX280 is a very, very good card, regardless of the price.
June 24, 2008 5:12:41 PM

I've always been with Nvidia ever since the 7000 series. My fav of all cards was the 9800 XT, which gave the revolutionary games, Doom 3, Far Cry and Half life 2 30+ frames with 4 AA :D 
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2008 5:37:47 PM

stabgotham said:
Oh come on....it's actually a very good card. A single GPU solution that is essentially almost as fast as the 9800GX2. That's an incredible leap forward. The only real problem with the card is the crazy-ass price. If the card were priced around $500, I bet people would be buying these up.

The 4850 still is the best bang for buck, and I plan on getting that or the 4870, but seriously, the GTX280 is a very, very good card, regardless of the price.


okay in a way the gtx280 isnt to bad because its one card, but y wouldnt anyone just buy a 9800gx2 which now is like 450$ or even less while the gtx280 performance is less and cost 200$ more. The gtx280 runs very loud and gets extremely hot i have heard and it doesnt support dx10.1 yet which is sad. other then that its a okay card if not considering the hefty price tag.
=]
June 24, 2008 5:43:38 PM

agreed^, I've seens a store here have the GX2 for 399.99:) 
June 24, 2008 5:58:49 PM

invisik said:
okay in a way the gtx280 isnt to bad because its one card, but y wouldnt anyone just buy a 9800gx2 which now is like 450$ or even less while the gtx280 performance is less and cost 200$ more. The gtx280 runs very loud and gets extremely hot i have heard and it doesnt support dx10.1 yet which is sad. other then that its a okay card if not considering the hefty price tag.
=]


Right, my point wasn't that it was cost effective, my point was that it is an incredible single GPU solution. I truly is. If you completely remove price from the equation, the GTX280 is just plain awesome!

I, too, would get the 9800GX2 before getting a GTX280 because the price and performance are better, unless I was going after some of the features of the GTX280, such as the BadaBoom encoding and what not.

All I'm trying to say is that the GTX280 was a huge leap forward for single GPU solutions, it's just too bad Nvidia priced them so high that only rich (or fiscally stupid) fanboys will be purchasing them.
June 24, 2008 6:21:32 PM

"One more gimmick card to rip-off our fanboys, please". That's what I think that Huang says to his goblins at their Satan Clara Green HQ every now and then. Enough of that already. Actually, the GTX 2XX are not "very good" cards. *IF* there were no *IFs* then it would be different: "*IF* it didn't cost that much...", "*IF* it didn't need a nuclear power plant...", "*IF* they could make some decent drivers...". Go on: this is starting to sound like Phenom fanboys saying that it is smoother than a Core 2 Quad, even while delivering 20-40% less FPS. Well, actually, the GTX 2XX delivers more FPS (hey, 4870, you can't come fast enough!!!... to our rigs, that is), but the performance is simply laughable *IF* compared to the much simpler - and cheaper, in its best meaning - approach of DAMMIT. 55nm will probably be as good to the GTX 2XX as it is to the 9800GTX+: almost nothing performance-wise and a 75-100$ price reduction. By the time it arrives 48XX will be a lot cheaper too: same situation as before. It's not even funny. Nvidia focused on General Computing this round, not on Graphics. GTX 2XX are neither about FPS nor games: they're about challeging Intel while building a road for Nvidia's upcoming applications.

Since I'm not - and we shouldn't be - buying with those stupid distant promises in mind, I'm going with DAMMIT this round.
a b U Graphics card
June 24, 2008 6:24:16 PM

stabgotham said:
Right, my point wasn't that it was cost effective, my point was that it is an incredible single GPU solution. I truly is. If you completely remove price from the equation, the GTX280 is just plain awesome!

I, too, would get the 9800GX2 before getting a GTX280 because the price and performance are better, unless I was going after some of the features of the GTX280, such as the BadaBoom encoding and what not.

All I'm trying to say is that the GTX280 was a huge leap forward for single GPU solutions, it's just too bad Nvidia priced them so high that only rich (or fiscally stupid) fanboys will be purchasing them.


i completely agree with u. i dont get y nvidia wont drop the prices yet? nvidia as usual overprices there products. 9800gtx was around 280-300 now its found for 200$ so nvidia overprices as much as possible due to lack of competition thank god ati came back. kinda getting sick with nvidia.
June 24, 2008 6:24:54 PM

L1qu1d said:
I would be glad as hell to jump back onboard with ATI:) 




I'm right with you on the same page L1qu1d. For $299 4870 sounds like a great price/performance match.

Though i'm wondering if the 4870x2 will work on my SLI board? (i saying no). Or if any ATI card will work?

June 24, 2008 6:27:07 PM

Well i'm suprised that nvidia dropped prices on the GX2 and the G92 cards soo much, but kept a high price on the G80 cards

8800 Ultra for 500$ wow I'm in heaven:| from 600:o  after wat 1.5 years....
June 24, 2008 6:29:25 PM

This is good that ATI is actually making a come back, hopefully it will lead to a price war and better products coming out.
June 24, 2008 6:33:10 PM

Both companies sucks !!!! Cards are too slow !!!!
June 24, 2008 6:37:37 PM

I think its a major improvement for both companies, take away the GX2, and people would've been happy:)  as fast as a GX2 for the 280 (sometimes lower, sometimes higher) and only a single GPU.
a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 24, 2008 6:47:09 PM

If NVIDIA didn't make the 9800GX2, the GTX 280 would be far more popular
June 24, 2008 7:08:43 PM

If AMD didn't make the HD48x0 line, Nvidia would be far more popular.
June 24, 2008 7:12:02 PM

ok here is what we are arguing, price, when it comes to power, don't fool yourselves Nvidia still takes the cake. As much as I love ATI keep that in mind:) 
June 24, 2008 7:12:53 PM

xx12amanxx said:
than a 4850 priced at 160-199$

WHERE ARE YOU GUYS FINDING THESE $160 4850s???? Everyone keeps on mentioning them. :/ 
June 24, 2008 7:14:37 PM

Maziar said:
If NVIDIA didn't make the 9800GX2, the GTX 280 would be far more popular



...not in Crysis !!!!
June 24, 2008 7:26:55 PM

stabgotham said:
I truly is.

It's ok you're right though.

Yup it looks like there's no stopping AMD on this one.

June 24, 2008 7:29:48 PM

dattimr said:
"One more gimmick card to rip-off our fanboys, please". That's what I think that Huang says to his goblins at their Satan Clara Green HQ every now and then. Enough of that already. Actually, the GTX 2XX are not "very good" cards. *IF* there were no *IFs* then it would be different: "*IF* it didn't cost that much...", "*IF* it didn't need a nuclear power plant...", "*IF* they could make some decent drivers...". Go on: this is starting to sound like Phenom fanboys saying that it is smoother than a Core 2 Quad, even while delivering 20-40% less FPS. Well, actually, the GTX 2XX delivers more FPS (hey, 4870, you can't come fast enough!!!... to our rigs, that is), but the performance is simply laughable *IF* compared to the much simpler - and cheaper, in its best meaning - approach of DAMMIT. 55nm will probably be as good to the GTX 2XX as it is to the 9800GTX+: almost nothing performance-wise and a 75-100$ price reduction. By the time it arrives 48XX will be a lot cheaper too: same situation as before. It's not even funny. Nvidia focused on General Computing this round, not on Graphics. GTX 2XX are neither about FPS nor games: they're about challeging Intel while building a road for Nvidia's upcoming applications.

Since I'm not - and we shouldn't be - buying with those stupid distant promises in mind, I'm going with DAMMIT this round.
I'm partially agreeing with you. Sure the Phenoms would have been a great launch if the 9850BE cost $10. But they don't, and they never will lol.

a c 169 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
June 25, 2008 8:03:27 AM

Milos-stancene said:
...not in Crysis !!!!


Yeah but the 9800GX2 takes the lead in some other games
!