Zotac launches its 9800GT Eco card

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php? [...] 9&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!

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.

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?

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. [...] earch=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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Its more like a 9700M GT

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

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

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.

I could say the same about your arguments

thats completely different though, this is downclock and the 4850 with GDDR5 is a 4870 basically, a 9800 GT downclocked isn't architecturally a 9600 GT...

Ok tell me this.

Why haven't we seen a 9600gt EE that didn't need a power connector. Looking at the charts, a reference 9600 GT pulls 98W compared to 105/125 of a 9800gt. Only last week a passively cooled 9800gt was released, a passively cooled 9600gt has been around for ages. It's all linked, power and heat.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Zotac have been smart here. They have been allowed to keep the 9800gt name even though it performs worse than a 9600gt. Double shaders running at lower clocks might allow them to keep the 9800gt name, but it won't let them keep the 9800gt performance.

The archetecture differences and higher shaders alone will have it beat a 9600GT. But just how much is all up to how the clock speeds scale.

Perhaps somebody here with a 9800GT/8800GT can downclock their card to the Zotac Eco specs and run benches?

It might do. Losing 20% shader clock is a lot though, even with double shaders. If all those shaders aren't getting used to the full, the 9600gt will be better due to shader/clock ratio.

Something has happened to turn a 105w TDP gpu into a 75w TDP gpu. It wasn't a die shrink or architectural improvements. Maybe the vcore has been dropped as well, that would fit in with energy efficiency at least and would make sense with a lower clock.

We will find out once the benchmarks are released.

I do see the logic. It's all about selling the worst 9800 gpu's as energy efficient. There's nothing wrong with that except the usual which is many people will see the n800 tag and assume it's a better card than it really is, again.

I would say Zotac's 9800GT Eco will be based on the G92b chip since it is less expensive for nVidia to produce than the G92 chip and due to the smaller die process it will also be more energy efficient. MSI's OC'ed 9800GT G92 video card has been measured to consume up to 83.2w, thus a down clocked 9800GT based on the G92b chip should be within the 75w envelop the PCI-e x16 port can deliver. Also since the GPU is down clocked, the vcore can also be undervolted as well which further reduces power consumption.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/v [...] html#sect0


Regarding the debate that this "Eco" 9800GT will be less powerful than a 9600GT, I would say it's doubtful because the GPU architecture is slightly different. See specs as follows:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/misc/pictu [...] ec.png&1=1


By default, the clock speed of the 9600GT is higher than that of the 9800GT, yet we all know the 9800GT is the more powerful card. Dropping the GPU's speed by 50MHz is a 8.33% decrease, dropping the shader speed from 1500MHz to 1350MHz represents a 10% decrease. Let's simply assume there will be a 10% drop in performance (90% of normal 9800GT).

The following is a review of Zotac's overclocked 9800GT AMP, but it does include benchmarks of stock speed 9800GT and 9600GT. I will simply focus on the 1920 x 1200 benchmarks which are the most stressful.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews [...] mp_Edition

Call of Duty 4
9600GT = 36.7 FPS
9800GT = 44.2 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 39.8 FPS

Call of Juarez
9600GT = 42.2 FPS
9800GT = 57.3 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 51.6 FPS

Company Of Heroes
9600GT = 107.1 FPS
9800GT = 143.8 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 129.4 FPS

Crysis
9600GT = 15.2 FPS
9800GT = 18.9 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 17.0 FPS

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
9600GT = 46.6 FPS
9800GT = 54.5 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 49.1 FPS

Far Cry - I liked this game, but come on it's kinda old.
9600GT = 117.6 FPS
9800GT = 130.3 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 117.3 FPS

FEAR
9600GT = 54 FPS
9800GT = 60 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 54 FPS

Prey
9600GT = 59.2 FPS
9800GT = 68.7 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 61.8 FPS

Quake 4 - Ummm.... Is there something wrong with their benchmarks? The 9800GT is actually slower than the 9600GT?
9600GT = 30.2 FPS
9800GT = 18.7 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 16.8 FPS

Splinter Cell 3: Chaos Theory
9600GT = 59.8 FPS
9800GT = 65.1 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 58.6 FPS

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
9600GT = 38.2 FPS
9800GT = 41.5 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 37.4 FPS

Supreme Commander
9600GT = 36.3 FPS
9800GT = 42.5 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 38.3 FPS

Team Fortress 2
9600GT = 58.4 FPS
9800GT = 66.8 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 60.1 FPS

Unreal Tournament 3
9600GT = 62.4 FPS
9800GT = 71.9 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 64.7 FPS

World In Conflict
9600GT = 27.0 FPS
9800GT = 32.0 FPS

9800GT (@ 90%) = 28.8 FPS


Conclusion

#1 The Zotac should perform between the 9600GT and 9800GT.

#2 Stop making half-ass guesses. There are plenty of benchmarks out there that can be used to make an educated "guess-timate" to what kind of performance to expect rather than simply saying a 9600GT will be faster than the "Eco".


You have been "edu-micated" go forth and prosper.

So i'm guess I was right

Good to see back up facts 2

Thank you jaguarskx

Jaguar, why not show us the benchmarks at lower resolutions.

Nobody is going to be buying an energy efficient 9800gt and playing at 1900x1200, and the 9600gt dies at that resolution.

I don't consider simply taking this eco 9800gt at 10% less performance proves anything. Anyone can pull numbers out of their behinds.

Why assume a 10% drop in performance? Let's take the previous TDP of 105w and compare it to the current TDP of 75w. That's a 30% reduction in power for only 10% reduction in performance? If Jaguar can do that, he should be working for Nvidia.

What if the number is closer to 20% instead?

If you bothered to actually read my post you will notice that I have provided a link to the review site where those benchmarks came from. They test at 3 other lower resolutions.

LOL

Jaguar FTW.

K close the forum we're don here Moderators