The 9800GTX is a tad better than the 8800GTS G92. Not worth the price difference imo.

 

The ECS one on newegg costs $170... OC it and you got your 9800GTX.

 

clock for clock, its THE same, it may come at a higher speed, but the EVGA 8800GTS KO has about the same clock speeds out of the box for $50 less. the thing i dont like about the 9800gtx is it needs 2 pci-e connectors, the 8800gts only needs one. the 9800gtx will do tri sli vs just dual sli with the 8800gts, but there is NO WAY your psu will handle 3 9800gtx's and have 6 pci-e connectors. i would just get the EVGA 8800GTS 512 KO

 

same card, the 9800 can overclock a bit more, but its not worth the extra money.

 

Pointless to be honest...like i told you on the phone!...yet you never believe me..you n00b...The 9800GTX is just a way for nvidia to make more money..and there wasnt much talk about this card as there was with the G80s and G92s..it just sort of came and went.

 

The GTX is on a better PCB; either has a better binned GPU, or more voltage going to it's GPU (or both); and has 0.8ns samsung memory, while most 8800GTS have 1ns Qimonda.

Out of the box the 9800GTX is clocked higher than the 8800GTS 512. Due to more voltage and better components, it will also overclock some what higher.

When overclocked to their stable limits, the GTX tends to do about 10-50MHz better on core, 100-300MHz better on the shader, and 100-200Mhz better on memory.

it is a pretty large jump in price for only a modest increase in performance, however.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blameless The GTX is on a better PCB; either has a better binned GPU, or more voltage going to it's GPU (or both); and has 0.8ns samsung memory, while most 8800GTS have 1ns Qimonda. Out of the box the 9800GTX is clocked higher than the 8800GTS 512. Due to more voltage and better components, it will also overclock some what higher. When overclocked to their stable limits, the GTX tends to do about 10-50MHz better on core, 100-300MHz better on the shader, and 100-200Mhz better on memory. it is a pretty large jump in price for only a modest increase in performance, however.

i believe they have the same exact core. Also, my 8800GTS has 0.8ns samsung chips on it.

Like I said before, it overclock a bit better, but not by much, and especially not by enough to justify the price.

 

Don't waste your money on the 9800GTX. The GTS is less than 5% slower and way cheaper.

 

The 9800GTX is a slightly better clocker, and costs considerably more. I wouldn't call it a ripoff... look at the relationship of the Ultra to GTX for slightly better OC'ing, but hundreds of dollars to spend.

If you want the best single CPU card out atm, the 9800GTX is it, however it is not the best value. The Ultra/GTX pull at high res but the 9800GTX holds up against them until above 1680. If I remember the Tom's HW review said that the 9800GTX was on average 7% faster than the GTX/Ultra with all resolutions considered.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iandh The 9800GTX is a slightly better clocker, and costs considerably more. I wouldn't call it a ripoff... look at the relationship of the Ultra to GTX for slightly better OC'ing, but hundreds of dollars to spend. If you want the best single CPU card out atm, the 9800GTX is it, however it is not the best value. The Ultra/GTX pull at high res but the 9800GTX holds up against them until above 1680. If I remember the Tom's HW review said that the 9800GTX was on average 7% faster than the GTX/Ultra with all resolutions considered.

Single vs single, 8800GTX/Ultra is just better. All the reviews you read out there compare framerates and that's it. At 1680x1050 with high AA/AF or above, 8800GTX/Ultra is very steady, but the 256-bit 512MB on the 8800GTS/9800GTX makes it stutter a bit.

From my own experience:

9800GTX SLI > 8800GTX SLI > 8800GTX > 9800GTX

There are just some things simple bar graphs can't tell you.

 

Here is the difference:

The 9800GTX performs less than 5% better, on average than the 8800GTS G92. (Source)

The 9800GTX costs ~$300, while the 8800GTS G92 costs ~$225 (low-end).

In other words:

A 9800GTX will give you a ~4% performance boost, at a ~33% price premium.

 

Even with money being 'no issue', I really don't think getting a 9800GTX makes a lot of sense at this point. If you really need something now I'd get a 9600/8800GT/GTS that way when the next gen comes out (which is supposedly pretty monstrous and pretty soon) you can just pick one up without feeling like you just blew $300 on the 'latest/greatest' just a couple months ago...

 

so I just stepped up from an 8800 GTX to the 9800 GTX... was that a bad move? I'll admit my frames in COD4 seem to be down... when I go through smoke and such it does stutter a tad although I haven't done any serious testing to prove any of it... all I know is that my 3DMark scores went up by a thousand or so.

So was it a bad move?

 

Ive never had a 8800gts but i did have a 8800 Ultra before i got my 9800GTX and i have to say that i have found my 9800GTX performs and overclocks better that my 8800 Ultra ever did

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by om3n so I just stepped up from an 8800 GTX to the 9800 GTX... was that a bad move? I'll admit my frames in COD4 seem to be down... when I go through smoke and such it does stutter a tad although I haven't done any serious testing to prove any of it... all I know is that my 3DMark scores went up by a thousand or so. So was it a bad move?

For your monitor, I'd say it was a neutral move (1920x1200 is the res where the 8800GTX usually outperforms the 9800GTX), but personally I wouldn't have done it.

 

it depends. did u step up as in the 'evga step-up program' or just buy a 9800gtx? if you used the step-up program does that entitle u to step-up again (to a 9900GT/GTX/etc)? if so u didnt make a bad move. if not then yea. its a small upgrade.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NuclearCrap Single vs single, 8800GTX/Ultra is just better. All the reviews you read out there compare framerates and that's it. At 1680x1050 with high AA/AF or above, 8800GTX/Ultra is very steady, but the 256-bit 512MB on the 8800GTS/9800GTX makes it stutter a bit. From my own experience: 9800GTX SLI > 8800GTX SLI > 8800GTX > 9800GTX There are just some things simple bar graphs can't tell you.

What made you go from 8800GTX SLI to 9800GTX SLI? And why do you say now that the 9800GTX SLI is better? You have a 24" (1920x1200) monitor. Are you saying the 9800GTX SLI is better for 1680x1050 high AA/AF or above than the 8800GTX SLI?

Tae

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tae What made you go from 8800GTX SLI to 9800GTX SLI? And why do you say now that the 9800GTX SLI is better? You have a 24" (1920x1200) monitor. Are you saying the 9800GTX SLI is better for 1680x1050 high AA/AF or above than the 8800GTX SLI? Tae

Don't forget why SLI existed in the first place. It was created for high-def gaming.

If anything, I noticed that these 9800GTXs scale better in SLI. While one card may stutter at higher res, put 2 in SLI and you'd have more than enough raw power to overcome that limitation. It's more or less like brute forcing.

SLI splits the work evenly, and the same process duplicates on both card's memory. True, I still get 512MB, but essentially it acts like 512MB on 512-bit.

I might not fully understand how this all works behind the scene, but as far as gameplay goes, 9800GTX is the better card for SLI while 8800GTX is the better card for a single-GPU setup on high-res.

There's also another reason why I went from 8800GTX SLI to 9800GTX SLI. I don't care much about power consumption, but as for heat, single 8800GTX is 100% acceptable. When you get 2 in SLI, they would create so much heat that it affects your entire computer and your room temperatures. Don't forget, the heatsink design of the 8800GTX circulates at least half of its heat back into the case, so that became a problem in SLI.

 

The 9800GTX is indeed more powerful than the 8800GTS and overclocks better as long as price isn't the issue.

The 9800GTX is about as powerful as an 8800GTX if that puts it into perspective.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NrGx The 9800GTX is indeed more powerful than the 8800GTS and overclocks better as long as price isn't the issue. The 9800GTX is about as powerful as an 8800GTX if that puts it into perspective.

To put it into better perspective, the 9800GTX is less than 5% faster than the 8800GTS; yet it costs around 33% more.

And saying it "overclocks better" is a little misleading. They both overclock very well. The 9800GTX starts at higher clocks; so (from what I've seen) it subsequently achieves slightly higher maximum frequencies. But that's about it. They use the same G92 core (probably "binned" higher for the 9800GTX). The ending difference isn't huge by any means. The thing is; you're still likely to see around the same 5% performance difference when both are overclocked to their max.

The reason why the memory achieves higher frequencies on the 9800GTX is simply because the timings have been loosened (sorry I can't find the link ATM). So while the GTX is generally capable of higher memory frequencies, the memory actually performs better on the GTS at the same frequency. This has been proven by Expreview. To demonstrate, they overclocked the 8800GTS G92 and 9800GTX to the EXACT same clocks - and the 8800GTS G92, on average, performed better.

So when considering the 8800GTS G92 vs. 9800GTX, you have to ask yourself - is 75 to 100 dollars with a 5% performance increase - and could that money be better spent elsewhere? If you're building a new rig (and actually have a budget limit), you'd probably be able to increase the performance more than 5% by putting the 75 bucks towards a different component. That would make buying a 9800GTX completely redundant.

Oh, and the 8800GTX. It usually outperforms both the 8800GTS and 9800GTX at high res + AA/AF. There have also been accounts of less "lags" (frame rate drops & minimum frames) when playing games, probably due to the superior 768MB of 384-bit memory. They aren't as good at low res & no AA/AF, however. But the overall difference is minimal. Since they're getting much more scarce, if you can find one in the low-$300 range you're lucky. So the 8800GTX price-to-performance ratio ATM is rather poor, and not really worth it for most.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choggs396 To put it into better perspective, the 9800GTX is less than 5% faster than the 8800GTS; yet it costs around 33% more. And saying it "overclocks better" is a little misleading. They both overclock very well. The 9800GTX starts at higher clocks; so (from what I've seen) it subsequently achieves slightly higher maximum frequencies. But that's about it. They use the same G92 core (probably "binned" higher for the 9800GTX). The ending difference isn't huge by any means. The thing is; you're still likely to see around the same 5% performance difference when both are overclocked to their max. The reason why the memory achieves higher frequencies on the 9800GTX is simply because the timings have been loosened (sorry I can't find the link ATM). So while the GTX is generally capable of higher memory frequencies, the memory actually performs better on the GTS at the same frequency. This has been proven by Expreview. To demonstrate, they overclocked the 8800GTS G92 and 9800GTX to the EXACT same clocks - and the 8800GTS G92, on average, performed better. So when considering the 8800GTS G92 vs. 9800GTX, you have to ask yourself - is 75 to 100 dollars with a 5% performance increase - and could that money be better spent elsewhere? If you're building a new rig (and actually have a budget limit), you'd probably be able to increase the performance more than 5% by putting the 75 bucks towards a different component. That would make buying a 9800GTX completely redundant. Oh, and the 8800GTX. It usually outperforms both the 8800GTS and 9800GTX at high res + AA/AF. There have also been accounts of less "lags" (frame rate drops & minimum frames) when playing games, probably due to the superior 768MB of 384-bit memory. They aren't as good at low res & no AA/AF, however. But the overall difference is minimal. Since they're getting much more scarce, if you can find one in the low-$300 range you're lucky. So the 8800GTX price-to-performance ratio ATM is rather poor, and not really worth it for most.

True.

Unless you really care about aesthetics like I do, I suggest going for the 8800GTS 512 for lower resolutions or the 8800GTX for higher resolutions. I only paid for the extra 20-30MHz overclock, the black PCB, and the GTX branding, though I did get them for $270 shipped a piece so what the hell.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NuclearCrap True. Unless you really care about aesthetics like I do, I suggest going for the 8800GTS 512 for lower resolutions or the 8800GTX for higher resolutions. I only paid for the extra 20-30MHz overclock, the black PCB, and the GTX branding, though I did get them for $270 shipped a piece so what the hell.

Back PCB's do rule.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choggs396 Back PCB's do rule.

I couldn't resist.

But honestly if it's on sale for just about as much as the GTS 512, why the hell not. It's only a stupid move if it's at its usual $300.

BTW I went to Radioshack and got a new soldering iron, so that 810Mhz core isn't staying for long.

 

They will overclock a bit higher, if you can find a GTX for around the same price as a GTS which I assume you will, jump on a GTX. I personally went for the GTS, the extra OC didn't justify the cost at the time.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choggs396 To put it into better perspective, the 9800GTX is less than 5% faster than the 8800GTS; yet it costs around 33% more. And saying it "overclocks better" is a little misleading. They both overclock very well. The 9800GTX starts at higher clocks; so (from what I've seen) it subsequently achieves slightly higher maximum frequencies. But that's about it. They use the same G92 core (probably "binned" higher for the 9800GTX). The ending difference isn't huge by any means. The thing is; you're still likely to see around the same 5% performance difference when both are overclocked to their max. The reason why the memory achieves higher frequencies on the 9800GTX is simply because the timings have been loosened (sorry I can't find the link ATM). So while the GTX is generally capable of higher memory frequencies, the memory actually performs better on the GTS at the same frequency. This has been proven by Expreview. To demonstrate, they overclocked the 8800GTS G92 and 9800GTX to the EXACT same clocks - and the 8800GTS G92, on average, performed better. So when considering the 8800GTS G92 vs. 9800GTX, you have to ask yourself - is 75 to 100 dollars with a 5% performance increase - and could that money be better spent elsewhere? If you're building a new rig (and actually have a budget limit), you'd probably be able to increase the performance more than 5% by putting the 75 bucks towards a different component. That would make buying a 9800GTX completely redundant. Oh, and the 8800GTX. It usually outperforms both the 8800GTS and 9800GTX at high res + AA/AF. There have also been accounts of less "lags" (frame rate drops & minimum frames) when playing games, probably due to the superior 768MB of 384-bit memory. They aren't as good at low res & no AA/AF, however. But the overall difference is minimal. Since they're getting much more scarce, if you can find one in the low-$300 range you're lucky. So the 8800GTX price-to-performance ratio ATM is rather poor, and not really worth it for most.

Most of your post was about the price difference and how this made the GTS better. Read the OP please. He asked which was better.