Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Expreview] 8800GTS 512 OC > 9800GTX
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Expreview] 8800GTS 512 OC > 9800GTX - Page 5

post #41 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post
The Ultra has never not been a rip off. And the A3 rev core eventually made it into pretty much every G80 card.

The G92s in current 9800GTX cards are still A2s.
And eventually every Q6600 was a G0... how is that relevant?

Even so, after the A3 GTX's started to appear, Ultra's still seemed to have a slightly better binned chip on average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by im_not_an_artard View Post
8800 gts 640/320, gt, and gtx were all very good deals for the amount of performance they brought when they were first released
Actually I remember most saying that the GTX was power hungry and overpriced when it came out. Remember everyone complaining about two power connectors, and $500? I do.



Let's break this down folks...

8800GT avg max OC 720/1850/2000, avg price $180

8800GTS avg max OC 800/2000/2200, avg price $260

9800GTX avg max OC 850/2100/2400, avg price $330



This card is not that out of line folks... seriously, I still completely fail to see what all of the fuss is about. Give it a couple weeks and it will likely be found for close to $300, which is a PERFECT price for it, compared to the $260 8800GTS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
Bottom line = When your last gen GTS card is outperforming the latest next number up GTX card than there is definitely something wrong.
I already said earlier in the thread that I agreed this card should be called the 8900GTX, and that would have been perfectly fitting.


What I don't get is that instead of comparing price/performance ratio, which is what is truly important, everyone is getting into a big hissy fit about it having a "9" in the beginning.


My opinion is that Nvidia knew that after this gen the numbering scheme was going to have to start back at the beginning or change completely, so they probably decided to kill off the 9 series with some gap filler cards (9800GTX, 9600GT, 9600GSO, 9500GT) and save their next huge leap in architecture for the new numbering scheme, whatever that may be.
post #42 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh View Post
And eventually every Q6600 was a G0... how is that relevant?
The Ultra had a 3 month window when it had siginificantly better OCs than the GTX.

Even an A2 GTX gave more frames for the dollar than an A3 Ultra (assuming you maxed out both).


Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh View Post
This card is not that out of line folks... seriously.
I never said it was. It's actually not priced too badly. Still, it's not quite as good a deal as a GT or GTS 512.

Some people are just getting hung up on the model number.
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.2/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.175/1.15v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti (F3P) @ 2025/1485, 1... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.34v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.06) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Sapphire Fury Nitro OC+ @ 1053/500, 1.225vGPU/1... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
Primary
(15 items)
 
Secondary
(13 items)
 
In progress
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5820K @ 4.2/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.175/1.15v Gigabyte X99 SOC Champion (F22n) Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti (F3P) @ 2025/1485, 1... 4x4GiB Crucial @ 2667, 12-12-12-28-T1, 1.34v 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Plextor M6e 128GB (fw 1.06) M.2 (PCI-E 2.0 2x) 2x Crucial M4 256GB 4x WD Scorpio Black 500GB Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Professional x64 SP1 BenQ BL3200PT Filco Majestouch Tenkeyless (MX Brown) Corsair RM1000x 
CaseMouseAudio
Fractal Design Define R4 Logitech G402 Realtek ALC1150 + M-Audio AV40 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
X5670 @ 4.4/3.2GHz core/uncore, 1.36 vcore, 1.2... Gigabyte X58A-UD5 r2.0 w/FF3mod10 BIOS Sapphire Fury Nitro OC+ @ 1053/500, 1.225vGPU/1... 2x Samsung MV-3V4G3D/US @ 2000, 10-11-11-30-T1,... 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
1x Crucial BLT4G3D1608ET3LX0 @ 2000, 10-11-11-3... OCZ (Toshiba) Trion 150 120GB Hyundai Sapphire 120GB 3x Hitachi Deskstar 7k1000.C 1TB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Noctua NH-D14 Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1 Antec TP-750 Fractal Design R5 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DS 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-6800K @ 4.3/3.5GHz core/uncore, 1.36/1.2v ASRock X99 OC Formula (P3.10) GTX 780 (temporary) 4x4GiB Crucial DDR4-2400 @ 11-13-12-28-T2, 1.33v 
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingOS
Intel 600p 256GB NVMe 2x HGST Travelstar 7k1000 1TB Corsair H55 (temporary) Windows Server 2016 Datacenter 
PowerCase
Seasonic SS-860XP2 Corsair Carbide Air 540 
  hide details  
Reply
post #43 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blameless View Post
The Ultra had a 3 month window when it had siginificantly better OCs than the GTX.

Even an A2 GTX gave more frames for the dollar than an A3 Ultra (assuming you maxed out both).




I never said it was. It's actually not priced too badly. Still, it's not quite as good a deal as a GT or GTS 512.

Some people are just getting hung up on the model number.
It definitely is NOT as good of a deal as an 8800GT or GTS. No doubt. But it isn't as far off as everyone is making it sound either.

A lot of people are getting way too hung up on the model number, and that is what is hanging me up as well. There are two things that I care about:

1. $

2. fps



I could give a crap less about what the thing is called. Naming conventions became silly and fickle LONG before the 9800GTX, and long before computers even existed for that matter.
post #44 of 72
LOL I don't even think it should of been named 8900GTX, considering most jumps that big in the number scheme equate to around double the performance or more. They should of named it 8800GTS REV 2.0

Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh View Post
It definitely is NOT as good of a deal as an 8800GT or GTS. No doubt. But it isn't as far off as everyone is making it sound either.

A lot of people are getting way too hung up on the model number, and that is what is hanging me up as well. There are two things that I care about:

1. $

2. fps



I could give a crap less about what the thing is called. Naming conventions became silly and fickle LONG before the 9800GTX, and long before computers even existed for that matter.
If you care about money and fps shouldn't you have gotten the G92 8800GTS?
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #45 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
If you care about money and fps shouldn't you have gotten the G92 8800GTS?
lol thats a good point
We Be Rollin
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 C1 ASUS P5QPL-AM ATI RADEON 4850 4GB G.SKILL DDR2 PC2-8500 1066 PK (5-5-5-15) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640GB BLACK SONY 16X DVD ROM WINDOWS 7 PROFESSIONAL SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 226BW 22" 
PowerCase
PC P&C SILENCER 610W COOLER MASTER CENTURION 532 
  hide details  
Reply
We Be Rollin
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9550 C1 ASUS P5QPL-AM ATI RADEON 4850 4GB G.SKILL DDR2 PC2-8500 1066 PK (5-5-5-15) 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640GB BLACK SONY 16X DVD ROM WINDOWS 7 PROFESSIONAL SAMSUNG SYNCMASTER 226BW 22" 
PowerCase
PC P&C SILENCER 610W COOLER MASTER CENTURION 532 
  hide details  
Reply
post #46 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
LOL I don't even think it should of been named 8900GTX, considering most jumps that big in the number scheme equate to around double the performance or more. They should of named it 8800GTS REV 2.0



If you care about money and fps shouldn't you have gotten the G92 8800GTS?
The 7800GT to the 7900GT didn't equal double performance... in fact it was like 10% or something in most games, much like the difference we see here. So IMO 8900GTX would be perfect.

I didn't buy the 9800GTX because I needed a better video card, I bought it so that I would have a sample board to design my newest version of these:

http://www.petrastechshop.com/cu88cokitbyi.html


I would have been perfectly satisfied to stick with my 8800GT SC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by im_not_an_artard View Post
lol thats a good point
It would have been if that was why I bought the card...

I've only been voicing my opinion of the card's standing in the market, and my statement that I only care about fps/$ and not naming convention still stands.

In fact, being that I only purchased the card to design a heatsink solution for it makes my opinion completely unbiased. I have owned three 8800GT's, and likely never would have purchased the 9800GTX otherwise. I was perfectly happy with the GT's.
post #47 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh View Post
I already said earlier in the thread that I agreed this card should be called the 8900GTX, and that would have been perfectly fitting.
Exactly. The only problem I have is that Nvidia is just trying to pretend they have something new with the 9 series when in reality it's an 8 series revision. True 9800 GTX is going to be slightly better, but $/performance 8800 GTS 512MB is the sweet spot. So which matters more performance or cost? I say cost which is why I still have a 8800 GTS 320MB.
    
OS
Ubuntu 9.10 64-Bit 
  hide details  
Reply
    
OS
Ubuntu 9.10 64-Bit 
  hide details  
Reply
post #48 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by iandh View Post
The 7800GT to the 7900GT didn't equal double performance... in fact it was like 10% or something in most games, much like the difference we see here. So IMO 8900GTX would be perfect.

I didn't buy the 9800GTX because I needed a better video card, I bought it so that I would have a sample board to design my newest version of these:

http://www.petrastechshop.com/cu88cokitbyi.html


I would have been perfectly satisfied to stick with my 8800GT SC.



It would have been if that was why I bought the card...

I've only been voicing my opinion of the card's standing in the market, and my statement that I only care about fps/$ and not naming convention still stands.
I never said anything about going from 7800GT to 7900GT though, most GT's don't differ much in performance. I'm talking about going from 8800GT or GTS up to 9800GTX with no performance difference from the last gen GTS which is asinine.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Opteron 170 @ 2.81 on stock volts ASUS A8N5X XFX G92 8800GTS 2X1GB kingston DDR333 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD 250GB & Seagate 160GB Windows XP Pro SP3 P275 CRT Logitech Media Keyboard 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
Sparkle 550W CM 690 Intellimouse 3.0 Qck+ 
  hide details  
Reply
post #49 of 72
nVidia =





At least when ATI releases a card with the same performance they make it cheaper and cooler.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670k ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB Kingston Hyper-X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 OCZ Vertex 3 WD6401AALS WD5000AAKS 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Noctua NH-D14 elementary OS Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM LG W2442PA-BF 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Corsair HX750W Corsair Graphite 600T Logitech G700 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4670k ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB Kingston Hyper-X 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 830 OCZ Vertex 3 WD6401AALS WD5000AAKS 
CoolingOSMonitorMonitor
Noctua NH-D14 elementary OS Dell Ultrasharp U2312HM LG W2442PA-BF 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Microsoft Sidewinder X4 Corsair HX750W Corsair Graphite 600T Logitech G700 
Audio
ASUS Xonar DG 
  hide details  
Reply
post #50 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickS View Post
I never said anything about going from 7800GT to 7900GT though, most GT's don't differ much in performance. I'm talking about going from 8800GT or GTS up to 9800GTX with no performance difference from the last gen GTS which is asinine.
We could compare the 7800GT to the 7900GTX, and still there isn't all that big of a difference besides higher clocks. Moot point.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Expreview] 8800GTS 512 OC > 9800GTX