Zotac launches its 9800GT Eco card

[L1qu1d]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12659&Itemid=1

We're getting closer to the 8800 GTX speeds with out a power connector as each day passes, this is the only card that looks like it can beat the 4670 till now with out having a power connector.

Very interesting

Enjoy!

 

[jennyh]

I'd have to see benchmarks to believe it's faster than a 4670.

'lower clock speeds' on a 9800, doesn't that make it a 9600gsomething?

 

[L1qu1d]

no

112 SP(9800 GT) vs 64 SP (9600 GT), Def not 9600 GT. And even if it were 9600 GT, it would still be stronger than the 4670, only prob is how much?

"The new 9800GT Eco works at 550MHz for the core, which is 50MHz lower than the reference 9800GT card. It still has 112 stream processors but the shader clock has been dropped from 1,500 on the reference card to 1,375MHz for the Eco Edition. The card has 512MB of GDDR3 memory clocked at 1,800MHz and a 256-bit memory interface."

Only 50 mhz decrease in core clock, but looks like the shader went to 1350 compared to 1500.

I wonder how much, if any, OC potential this card has.

There is not if, this card will beat the 4670, look at the specs, whole different league from the 4670. The lower clocks don't even look like they will drag it to 9600 GT levels. It will rest between 9600 GT and 9800 GT.

 

[jennyh]

It's a nice looking little card tbh. If what it claims is actually true, it would have made a nice 240. At least it seems to be a real improvement compared to the 250.

 

[boudy]

There is no doubt it will be faster than the 4670, but another thing that makes the 4670 great is the price. Its so cheap for so much performance.
Will this be the same?

Also, would you even be able to overclock this any (since it IS a underclocked 9800gt)?? I mean, wouldnt overclocking make this card need the extra power again?

 

[L1qu1d]

^thats exactly what I was thinking, but who knows, I mean cards have managed to Overclock before with out power conncetors, but I know some cards are really picky.

example for my old 9800 GX2, there were 2 connectors, 6 pin and 8. You could connect 2 6 pins, but you couldn't overclock.

So really we will have to see.

Yes the price might be an issue, but I see this card going for 100$ or so. Hopefully less.

 

[jennyh]

Thing is, the 4670 isn't that far off the 9600gt in performance. We are talking <5fps in most games. The 9800gt isn't that much far ahead of the 9600gt either.

If you drop those clocks all around, you could easily see a 9800gt drop below a 9600gt in benchmarks. If it drops far enough...

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15393&page=13&search=4670

That was a Zotac 9600gt at 650 clock, 1625 shader and 1800 memory. Compare that to this new 'energy efficient' 9800gt @ 550 clock, 1375 shader and you'll soon figure why it doesn't need extra power.

This '9800gt' is quite a bit lower specced than that 9600gt in this review - so much lower that I would have to say there is a good chance this new 9800gt would perform worse than their 9600gt, and possibly worse than the 4670 also.

 

[L1qu1d]

Grid is an ATI game

And no, not as easily as you'd, remember it still has almost double the SPs, and almost double the texture units.

Look at the clocks, 50 mhz down, 125 shader and the memory is still the same. And what smore beatiful, it doesn't need a power connector.

The 9600 GT is generall 10-15% faster than the 4670 and from this chart its about 13%.

thus makes the 9800 GT in general 20-25%

From the specs, it won't loose that much

 

[boudy]

@jennyh
WHAT??
Are you out of your mind?? There is no way that even an underclocked 9800gt will perform worse than a 4670, absolutely no way.

There is a difference in the amount of shaders (9800gt has 112, 9600gt has 64), thats what makes the GPU a 9800gt anyway. Just because the clocks are lower doesnt mean the card is worse.
They didnt make the same chip for all the 9XXX series cards and just give them different clock speeds and coolers, it just doesnt work that way.

Also, keep in mind that a 9600gt still needs an extra power connector, this one doesn't.

 

[jennyh]

All I'm trying to say is, I'd be a bit wary of this '9800gt'.

It has a slightly lower clock and its shader clock has been slaughtered to make it 'energy efficient'.

You don't simply go from a power hungry 8800 to a pci-e bus powered card without losing something. Not even in 2-3 years.

This card will perform worse than a 9600gt. If double shaders can only give a small 10% increase at stock, losing 50mhz core and 20% shader clock will place it lower in terms of raw performance. Or more likely it will be better in some games and worse in others.

I do believe it will be faster than a 4670, but I bet you will be surprised at just how small the gap is. I don't believe it will slot inbetween a 9600gt and 9800gt stock in price or performance. It will probably be priced the same as a normal 9800gt while performing slightly worse than a 9600gt.

 

[spathotan]

Im gonna have to agree with jenny on this one. This card has probably suffered on the performance more than we think. I mean the 6pin is removed for hells sake, that's 75W of power gone, and you lost it somewhere. This is a regular old G92, not some new efficient revision.

 

[L1qu1d]

Where is this power hungry card you speak of? The 9800 GT???? Really?

I am very doubtful that the card will be any less than the 9600 GT. I mean to shrink 15% to match the 9600 GT, doesn't seem possible.

20% shader, 10% core, well cards don't really work that way, its not like regular math.

Look at this, an Oced 9800 GT (1 gig I kno, but I'm looking at the low res), is 12% faster with 100 mhz OC, 243 mhz shader and 138 mhz memory increase (which is basically doubled)...it gains 12% generally, so that means that the downclock would only loose 6% by these numbers....

http://www.guru3d.com/article/galaxy-geforce-9800-gt-1024mb-review/18

so lets see, that bring it still over the 9600 GT

We'll see when it comes out

 

[boudy]

If this card has higher frame rates than the 4670, and is ~$100, I would see people buying it. The reason most people buy the 4670 is because of the amount of power that it needs to run, but now another competitor will make it the power efficiency market more interesting.

Of course this isnt going to be able to run Crysis, heck no. Never expect that, just expect that it will be better performance than the 4670, which is the only card that offers great performance for such little power cost.

 

[L1qu1d]

Don't forget that this means that we can have sli setups in that strength area as well. not every1 has Crossfire boards, so now Nvidia holders will be able to sli their own 4670 card in a way

 

[spathotan]

Where is this power hungry card you speak of? The 9800 GT???? Really?

I am very doubtful that the card will be any less than the 9600 GT. I mean to shrink 15% to match the 9600 GT, doesn't seem possible.

20% shader, 10% core, well cards don't really work that way, its not like regular math.

Look at this, an Oced 9800 GT (1 gig I kno, but I'm looking at the low res), is 12% faster with 100 mhz OC, 243 mhz shader and 138 mhz memory increase (which is basically doubled)...it gains 12% generally, so that means that the downclock would only loose 6% by these numbers....

http://www.guru3d.com/article/galaxy-geforce-9800-gt-1024mb-review/18

so lets see, that bring it still over the 9600 GT

We'll see when it comes out

I dont think its gonna drop down to the 9600GT, thats a little to far. But I do think it will being a larger drop than assumed.

 

[L1qu1d]

I'd say tops 10% if any, and I still thinkg 5-6% loss.

Remember these cards aren't energy hungry at all, event he 9600 GT isn't, they just aren't low enough not to require a 6 pin.

Only problem with this card is no OC potential, then again if you buy this card usually you know what your getting into.

 

[jennyh]

I like this card. I'd love to see more stuff like this tbh.

I'm just very suspicious of something carrying the '8/9800' name now. Benchmarks will show this card to be less powerful that the 9600gt, of that I'm quite sure. If Zotac had done a 9600gt 'energy efficient' and not requiring more power then it would have been much more believable. The 9600gt went passively cooled, low profile etc - an energy efficient 9600gt card should have shown up before a 9800gt did...

 

[jennyh]

The OC potential shouldn't be an issue. These things are rated on TDP, and a pci-e bus should be able to handle 75W in the worst case. The 4670 for example maxes out at around 60w or so, no matter how hard it is overclocked it will not require an extra power connector.

This zotac 9800 must be comfortably inside the 75w allowance of the pci-e bus even at the worst case. That extra power effeciency doesn't come free. Surely the 9600gt would have been much more likely to be pci-e powered?

I'm just very suspicious of the naming of the card. It might have the same number of SP's but it has 10-20% lower clocks than a 9600gt. Does that still make it a 9800gt? That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[spathotan]

Its more like a 9700M GT

 

[L1qu1d]

9800 GT alone has lower clocks than the 9600 GT?

Whats your point?

9600 GT has higher clocks than the 280 GTX lol Core wise haha...

Remember the 9600 GT doesn't run on the G92, it runs on G94 while the 9800 GT, even the underclocked, runs on G92.

G94 was created as a budget series. My laptop 9700M GTS runs on a G94 with 48 SP instead of 64, I need to OC it to 700 mhz for it to match the 9600 GT.

 

[L1qu1d]

Its more like a 9700M GT

9700M Gt runs 32 SP, and is 8600 GTS speeds (desktop wise).

 

[jennyh]

I just sold a 9800gt with 670 core, 1950 mem and 1675 shader clocks.

If anything, these 'energy efficient' 9800's will be failed g80's much like gainwards supposed 4850 with ddr5 memory.

The clocks are very low compared to even stock 9800's. I have no doubt they are the worst of the worst g80's rebranded as 'energy efficient'. I'm still quite impressed that they can run without an extra power connector, but don't be fooled as to what you are actually getting here. I think we are all cynical enough to realise what this card really is.

 

[L1qu1d]

What the hell are you talking about it?

you completely lost me...G80? like the 8800 GTX, 8800 Ultras 8800 GTS?

Are we on the same page? Do you know what a revision is?

What are you talking about fooled? Your too confusing, especially with your ""

So your trying to say that they aren't energy efficient? maybe you haven't heard of the 2900 XT and most of ATi's high end cards?

I don't get what your argument is?

9800s failed G80s? that doesn't even make sense, seeing as they still sell, are realitivaly cheap, and are just rebranded 8800s GT.

Lets leave this as, we'll see when we get the price of the card

 

[boudy]

Alright so here is a thought: Did you ever think that they purposely used a 9800gt just so that it would get the same performance as a 9600gt, just without extra power? That makes sense, right? They are just trying to have a competitor with the 4670, simple as that. So no doubt it will be close to the 9600gt in performance, but the no extra power plug is to appeal to consumers who dont have a large power supply. I highly doubt that these are defective, though.

 

[spathotan]

Even if they were G80's (which they arent), I doubt anybody has held on to ones this long that were damaged bad enough to run on less than 75W at downclocked speeds.