# NVIDIA Gently Intros GeForce 9800 GTX+



## malware (Jun 19, 2008)

AMD today took a major point for the red team by positioning its brand new ATI Radeon HD 4850 cards between NVIDIA's GeForce 9 series and GTX 200 series cards. The all new HD 4850 cards beat NVIDIA's GeForce 9800 GTX while also maintaining the very reasonable MSRP of $199. Currently NVIDIA has no card that can compete in this category, but that's eventually going to change in mid-July, when the company will announce a new mid-range video card dubbed GeForce 9800 GTX+. The card will be idential to GeForce 9800 GTX from the outside, but from the "inside" it will use a smaller and more efficient 55 nanometer GPU with increased default clock/shader speeds: from 675MHz to 738MHz and from 1688MHz to 1836MHz respectively. Memory speeds for this card will be dropped slightly to 1GHz (1100MHz for GeForce 9800 GTX). Other than that the card is virtually the same as GeForce 9800 GTX, the three-way SLI support also remains untouched. NVIDIA expects to start offering GeForce 9800 GTX+ with a MSRP of $229. The company also plans to drop the price of the 65nm GeForce 9800 GTX to $199.

First card is Leadtek 9800GTX, second one is GeForce 9800 GTX+


 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## newconroer (Jun 19, 2008)

And this goes to show how flexible Nvidia can be due to ATi trailing behind for a considerable amount of time.

They've got a handful of cards, new and old that they can re-hash, tweak, optimizie etc. throw them in the market at whatever price point to compete against ATi, while they continue to hold flagship crowns.

I had a feeling this was going to happen.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Jun 19, 2008)

Looks like I know what my next card is going to be.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 19, 2008)

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/14970

According to this, it looks like it the same card. Just overclocked with a new sticker on the box.


But this pic shows that it is smaller


----------



## Dark_Webster (Jun 19, 2008)

But still... is it worth it? With the new HD4850's ??


----------



## panchoman (Jun 19, 2008)

saw this one coming.. the new 4 series would probably raise a red flag at nvidia and being a bigger company with more resources, they'd probably find a way to quickly put down ati and still hold the crown, and this is it, a die shrink and clock up..


----------



## ElWapo973 (Jun 19, 2008)

Everything about this card sounds good except for one thing.  Why lower the memory speed on this card?  It's not like the original 9800GTX had too much bandwidth to begin with(or any G92 based card for that matter).  If any thing they should be throwing in the higher rated GDDR3 chips running in the GTX 280 as the additional bandwidth would go hand in hand in helping this card at higher resolutions/settings.  I am a bit confused on that subject.  Oh well,  the way things are looking at the moment the next card to find it's way in my rig will probably be an HD 4870.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 19, 2008)

the fabrication will be smaller which means you can fit more transistors on each chip, the temp will also be a little better. they already planned this for the 9800GT.

- Christine


----------



## wolf2009 (Jun 19, 2008)

NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX+ GPU @ 55nm





NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX GPU @ 65nm

Source

Daamn u nvidia, just when i had my heart set on amd , u bring this out with all the physx, cuda capabilities that i may use for my video encoding.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 19, 2008)

much more preferable 

- Christine


----------



## Aeon19 (Jun 19, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> Daamn u nvidia, just when i had my heart set on amd , u bring this out with all the physx, cuda capabilities that i may use for my video encoding.



But physx will be supported by drivers...so everyone who have 8800 series could use physx... 

Isn't it??


----------



## wolf2009 (Jun 19, 2008)

Aeon19 said:


> But physx will be supported by drivers...so everyone who have 8800 series could use physx...
> 
> Isn't it??



g92 and above . 

wat i meant was i wanted a powerful card than 9600gt , and i was about to go amd, but now nvidia comes in cheaper unless ati is significantly better .


----------



## ShinyG (Jun 19, 2008)

This card proves that the 4850 hit the spot! We now have competiton again, my friends  Direct competition: price AND performance! Wohooo!


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 19, 2008)

Now if AMD can do the same on the processor front, then we will be rolling.........


----------



## panchoman (Jun 19, 2008)

wolf2009 said:


> g92 and above .
> 
> wat i meant was i wanted a powerful card than 9600gt , and i was about to go amd, but now nvidia comes in cheaper unless ati is significantly better .



isn't it also supported by the G80 cores?


----------



## ShadowFold (Jun 19, 2008)

Ok now im confused.. idk if I should get this or the 4850 for 1440x900..


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 19, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Ok now im confused.. idk if I should get this or the 4850 for 1440x900..



4850 is out now.  Of course, better to wait for official comparisons then make the decision. I think the 4850 looks nice, however w/ this die shrink these things will likely have some very good oc capabilities, possibly enough so to make them decently faster than the 4850.


----------



## overclocker! (Jun 19, 2008)

what next? 9800gtx Rambo!  

Go Go ATI Go Go!!!!!!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 19, 2008)

Hmmm...now I don't know what to do.  I was all set to switch to an Intel Motherboard and ATi graphics cards, but now that the 9800GTX is dropping to $199 I am really tempted to just buy another one of those for SLI...


----------



## Psychoholic (Jun 19, 2008)

So, i wonder if there will be a "miracle driver" i'm using the 177.35's on my 9800gtx and i love them, but i wouldnt complain for a little more performance of course.

I wonder what kind of clocks it will do..  I have mine at 800/2000/2400 (core shader mem) 24/7 clocks, and 850/2100/2480 for benching.


I'm guessing you could sli one of those with one of the current 9800gtx's?


----------



## Urbklr (Jun 19, 2008)

Yes, but does this take AA like the 4850 does?


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 19, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> much more preferable
> 
> - Christine



hey keep your looney comments to yourself, wait that's a twoney, nvm carry on. 


@ the topic I'd expect sapphire and powercolor to launch a clocked version of the 4850 to counter this they do have some wiggle room as the 9800gtx+ is launching at 230$ slightly above the stock clocked 4850.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 19, 2008)

With this imminent release it makes me wonder how long it will be before they release the 260/280 in 55nm form. Could this hurt the current 260/280 sales? I'm not too bothered as I won't be buying one but it's an interesting question nonetheless...


----------



## HTC (Jun 19, 2008)

rodneyhchef said:


> *With this imminent release it makes me wonder how long it will be before they release the 260/280 in 55nm form.* Could this hurt the current 260/280 sales? I'm not too bothered as I won't be buying one but it's an interesting question nonetheless...



It's quite possible that they are already finishing it and are just waiting for the 4870x2 to be launched to make their counter-strike.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 19, 2008)

rodneyhchef said:


> With this imminent release it makes me wonder how long it will be before they release the 260/280 in 55nm form. Could this hurt the current 260/280 sales? I'm not too bothered as I won't be buying one but it's an interesting question nonetheless...



I don't expect 260/280 in 55nm form any time soon.  They already had G92's shrunk down to 55nm a while ago, there was a news article about them switching to using them on the 9800GX2.  So they probably just used the same core on the 9800GTX+.  I don't think they already have a 55nm 260/280 core yet, but I'm sure it will come in time.  I give it 4-6 months before 55nm 260/280 cores hit the market, at least.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 19, 2008)

NICE COMEBACK from nVidia. And perfect timing


----------



## magibeg (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm thinking with effects turned on due to simply having a better core the 4850 will probably still hold an advantage over this.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jun 19, 2008)

Interesting, looks like they had a chance to test it as well.









DaMulta said:


> http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/14970
> 
> According to this, it looks like it the same card. Just overclocked with a new sticker on the box.
> 
> ...




Are they seriously going to rebadge current OC'd 9800 GTX to "+"?


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jun 19, 2008)

I guess they are. This really makes no sense, but it shows they are a little scared of ATIs early numbers after the NDA was lifted. Its really a bit retarded but it works as alot of Nvidia owners are happy with it. Shrunk the core, increased shaders clock (still dont know why ATI doesnt do that) and lowered memory speeds. FTL Im afraid.


----------



## calvary1980 (Jun 19, 2008)

calvary1980 said:


> the fabrication will be smaller which means you can fit more transistors on each chip, the temp will also be a little better. they already planned this for the 9800GT.
> 
> - Christine



it's not a rebadge. a rebadge is a 9600GSO.

- Christine


----------



## Megasty (Jun 19, 2008)

If I was NV I wouldn't give a damn about these cards. Its fine for them to further sandbag the 9800GTX to make it more competitive PP-wise with the 4850. They have to wait until the 4870x2 comes out b4 doing anything else with the gt200. It will give them the chance to turn a good profit with the unknowing ppl who just step up to a GTX280 or 260. Its plain as day to what NV is doing but it will be in vain anyway in the longrun.


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 19, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> NICE COMEBACK from nVidia. And perfect timing



awesome smilie for these types of threads!

I motion that this smilie be added to our smilie arsenal here at TPU! 




back OT - this is a smart move on nVidia's part, but even if these new cards are in the same ballpark for performance that the 4850 is, I forsee ATI dropping their price even lower as the 4870s are filling stock.  With how the HD4000 series is stanced right now to really take it to nVidia's front door, ATI are going to be willing to go extreme in their tactics and marketing again.

Watch . . . the 4850 will drop in price from it's current $199 to about $160~ once these new nVidia cards roll out . . .


----------



## cdawall (Jun 19, 2008)

and to shove it NVs face ATi should release a 485*5* and have it clocked 100mhz faster in mem/core


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 19, 2008)

yea AMD could but look how cheap you can get a G92 based card 99 AMR so that only speaks for how cheap a G92 really is. This could get very interesting indeed.


----------



## Lu(ky (Jun 19, 2008)

Sounds like Nvidia has a MOLE working at ATI or something for them to know all of there info and  ready for ATI new stuff.. And for me paying top dollar for a 9800GTX SSC and Nvidia holding back there better DRIVERS for it makes me a little angry. I feel like instead of them giving there customers 100% of product, they are holding back to compete with ATI.  I will be waiting for the new 4870 X2 and Nvidia can kiss my AR$H with there high price cards...


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 19, 2008)

You aren't going to find a full G92 for $99.  You can find the 8800GS for under $80 AMR, but those are just cores that would have otherwise gone to waste, so it isn't costing nVidia anything to make them.  The same goes for the 8800GT, for the most part.



Lu(ky said:


> Sounds like Nvidia has a MOLE working at ATI or something for them to know all of there info and  ready for ATI new stuff.. And for me paying top dollar for a 9800GTX SSC and Nvidia holding back there better DRIVERS for it makes me a little angry. I feel like instead of them giving there customers 100% of product, they are holding back to compete with ATI.  I will be waiting for the new 4870 X2 and Nvidia can kiss my AR$H with there high price cards...



I don't know where you are coming from here.  Drivers are drivers, they get released when they are ready.  I wouldn't call nVidia utterly dominating ATi over the past few years them "hold back".


----------



## Megasty (Jun 19, 2008)

Lu(ky said:


> Sounds like Nvidia has a MOLE working at ATI or something for them to know all of there info and  ready for ATI new stuff.. And for me paying top dollar for a 9800GTX SSC and Nvidia holding back there better DRIVERS for it makes me a little angry. I feel like instead of them giving there customers 100% of product, they are holding back to compete with ATI.  I will be waiting for the new 4870 X2 and Nvidia can kiss my AR$H with there high price cards...



That's a lot of people's opinion on sandbagging. The only cure for it is for it to backfire in their faces. I've been waiting for that for 2 yrs now. I want the good old days of close competition back now. GW NV, now your best single G92 can hardly keep up with ATi's mid-range card


----------



## AsRock (Jun 19, 2008)

Lu(ky said:


> Nvidia can kiss my AR$H with there high price cards...



ATI all the way for me.  Not because i am a AMD fan but with out them you be paying out ya a$$ for every video card you bought.


----------



## newconroer (Jun 19, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> I guess they are. This really makes no sense, but it shows they are a little scared of ATIs early numbers after the NDA was lifted. Its really a bit retarded but it works as alot of Nvidia owners are happy with it. Shrunk the core, increased shaders clock (still dont know why ATI doesnt do that) and lowered memory speeds. FTL Im afraid.




So by putting something else into their product catalogue, which costs them very little in both resources and economics, it's somehow a direct result of them being scared?

???

Nvidia :

280
260
GX2
9800
8800 GTS 512
8800 GT
8800 Ultra
8800 GTX
8800 GTS 640

Every card on that list can play pretty much any game, at nearly any resolution (with exception to Crysis), and still be above a 'tolerable' level. Yes there are exception, but on a whole they are all powerful cards.(I didn't even mention the later model 8600 and 9600 mid-range, which are peppy in their own right)


ATi:

4850
3870 X2
3870
3850


The most recent and most powerful to date by ATi. Where their current top card (minus and unknown status of the 4870, yet to be seen). Is faster than two of the cards in Nvidia's top end lineup of the last two years(8800 640 GTS and 8800 GT - the rest are too marginal to make claims over).

That alone should speak volumes.


It doesn't really matter who you 'side' for, these are the products on the market, and even if ATi's dual GPU solution 4870X2 puts down the 280, who cares. A) The frames we'd be looking it would be way more than needed for any game, it would be as pointless to purchase an X2, as people said about the GX2. B) Nvidia will still hold all the cards, and while ATi struggles to out do themselves in the future, Nvidia sits comfortably bidding their time.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Jun 19, 2008)

NVidia should change there name to " NVninja ".


----------



## Lu(ky (Jun 19, 2008)

> I don't know where you are coming from here.  Drivers are drivers, they get released when they are ready.  I wouldn't call nVidia utterly dominating ATi over the past few years them "hold back".



I was referring to the 9800GTX driver Nvidia was holding back to compete with ATI. And for me to have this card for the last 2 months and not have the best current Driver for it because Nvidia wants to hold out tell the see the results of ATI new cards is just BS in my book. Here is my  S O U R C E    Bottom line I am tired of Nvidia's high prices, and the games they are playing with my money. ATI here I come..


----------



## Megasty (Jun 19, 2008)

newconroer said:


> So by putting something else into their product catalogue, which costs them very little in both resources and economics, it's somehow a direct result of them being scared?
> 
> ???



No, its not them being scared. Its NV coming back down to earth. When the 9800GTX came out, its only competition was the 3870x2 & 50x2 so they priced it accordingly. The same has just occurred for the 4850. NV lowering prices is ALWAYS a good thing but it only goes to show you how ridiculous their prices are to start. This will continue until NV & ATi are on equal ground again w/o them greatly passing each other. The only problem with this is that AMD refuses to charge a bagillion bucks for a card. We all know what gonna happen when the 4870x2 comes out. I don't know anyone who will get a GTX280 now when they'll be able to get it for $500 or less in a few months


----------



## 1c3d0g (Jun 20, 2008)

Daaamn...oh man, the pricing of this new part makes me SERIOUSLY consider buying one. If only some third-party manufacturer (EVGA, XFX etc.) would bring out a better cooler, I'd probably upgrade instantly.


----------



## imperialreign (Jun 20, 2008)

Megasty said:


> No, its not them being scared. Its NV coming back down to earth. When the 9800GTX came out, its only competition was the 3870x2 & 50x2 so they priced it accordingly. The same has just occurred for the 4850. NV lowering prices is ALWAYS a good thing but it only goes to show you how ridiculous their prices are to start. This will continue until NV & ATi are on equal ground again w/o them greatly passing each other. The only problem with this is that AMD refuses to charge a bagillion bucks for a card. We all know what gonna happen when the 4870x2 comes out. I don't know anyone who will get a GTX280 now when they'll be able to get it for $500 or less in a few months



I agree - and, TBH, I think nVidia's high pricing is going to rend their ass with these releases . . .


my reasoning being is that ATI have only just released their mid-range card for the series, 4870 and 4870x2 are still later down the road.  Considering how well the 4850 is performing so far, and it's current price, they'll sell better than what nVidia is currently offering.

So, nVidia has to remarket and lower their price to compete; fine and dandy, but what does ATI tend to do once they release their upper-end model?  Lower the price of their mid-range even further, meaning that the ball will stay in ATIs favor, as now their mid-range will still be far below nVidia's competing price, and the 4870s will be priced well, (hopefully) perform better than what nVidia currently has out, and they'll be selling like hotcakes.

nVidia will counter again with another price drop and new hardware, and then we'll see the 4870x2 roll out, ATI lower the prices on their other models on shelf, and the ball is still in ATI's court . . . and a few months after that, I'm sure ATI will further lower the price of the 70x2.



We're seeing hardball here like we haven't seen between the companies in a few years.


----------



## wolf (Jun 20, 2008)

so will SLi be incompatible because of G92 and G92b? i believe its only like cores that SLi together.......

any opinions on what i should do being an 9800GTX owner?


----------



## Weer (Jun 20, 2008)

ShinyG said:


> This card proves that the 4850 hit the spot! We now have competiton again, my friends  Direct competition: price AND performance! Wohooo!



The fact that AMD can only rival nVidia at the budget realm, has already been proven.

If AMD wants to get it's resources, honor and title back.. they will have to do a lot better than what they are currently capable of.

No one using anything but a Scalar architecture can hold the performance crown. That has been proven. The price/performance crown should not interest us nearly as much. I'm sure the.. what is it now X4K series(?).. has cost AMD much money to make than they will counter by selling it at the mere 200$ price-point. But it's their fault - the card is no better than the G92.


----------



## X-TeNDeR (Jun 20, 2008)

Fanboism aside - it seems that AMD is rolling the better products for the costumers - fighting hard to place their gear on the shelves for as little $$ as possible. On the other side, NVidia is rolling a really big and powerful card - the GTX260/280, but the sticker says "get a second job" - now thats not the kind of attitude that I, as a costumer, want to see. make a decent card, that doesn't cost a leg to make - and sell in masses. competition is good, sales are good, and everyone is happy.

Lets not forget that in a few months, these "high rollers" will be replaced with, perhaps, other high rollers. this is a big waste of money imo.

RAM prices are dirt low, and CPU's nearly as low.. why can't both GFX companies take the price-performance route too?


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 20, 2008)

wolf said:


> so will SLi be incompatible because of G92 and G92b? i believe its only like cores that SLi together.......
> 
> any opinions on what i should do being an 9800GTX owner?



Keep it, it's faster in some areas and slower in others. Plus the new driver should speed things up//


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

Lu(ky said:


> I was referring to the 9800GTX driver Nvidia was holding back to compete with ATI. And for me to have this card for the last 2 months and not have the best current Driver for it because Nvidia wants to hold out tell the see the results of ATI new cards is just BS in my book. Here is my  S O U R C E    Bottom line I am tired of Nvidia's high prices, and the games they are playing with my money. ATI here I come..



Yes, you can assume that it is a big consirousy by nVidia to sandbag.  Or they have just worked on their drivers, an area that the enthusiust market has been complaining about for years, and improved them to meet demand.  Which sound more logical to you?

Oh and basing any argument on Fud kills your argument before you even started it.  75% of the stuff posted on Fudzilla is complete BS.

And as for the high prices and you being tired of them, nVidia has beat ATi price to performance for a long time now.  They have higher priced cards, but they destroyed ATi's offerings.  Until the 4850's laung ATi didn't have a single card worth considering, for every ATi card there was an nVidia card that gave a better price to performance in the same price range.(with the exception of maybe the 3870x2, but that is only because nVidia didn't have a card in that price point)  So I would really like you to back up your overpriced comment with some history proving that you have a reason to be "tired" of it.  If you don't want to pay high priced, buy a lower end card.  Just because they have a $600 card, that doesn't mean you have to buy it.


----------



## DaMulta (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, you can assume that it is a big consirousy by nVidia to sandbag.  Or they have just worked on their drivers, an area that the enthusiust market has been complaining about for years, and improved them to meet demand.  Which sound more logical to you?


There was a  performance increase was in the 8.6 drivers as well. Is AMD holding back too?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> There was a  performance increase was in the 8.6 drivers as well. Is AMD holding back too?



Exactly, the whole point of releasing new drivers is they are improvements over the old drivers.


----------



## wolf (Jun 20, 2008)

and improvements they are  i cant believe im getting 20% more fps and these are GTX280/260 drivers hacked for my 9800, i hope theres more to come


----------



## tkpenalty (Jun 20, 2008)

-Tkpenalty yawns-

And they leave us 8800GT users in the dark. BRAVO NVIDIA.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

Dark_Webster said:


> But still... is it worth it? With the new HD4850's ??



It's absofnlutely not.

If the 9800GTX (old) is sold for $199, take a look at these:










Even at $199 it's not worth it. Add to that, the much higher power requirements of the 9800GTX (and need for 2x 6-pin or 6-pin + 2x molex power inputs). Add to that, lesser options of scalability compared to HD4850. You can use upto 4 HD4850's in tandem, you can't with the 9800GTX. If $400 is all I have, I'd buy a 790FX board and a HD4850 now, enjoy all the games, keep buying a HD4850 each month so end of four months I have a fairly powerful graphics sub-system.


----------



## Bundy (Jun 20, 2008)

wolf said:


> and improvements they are  i cant believe im getting 20% more fps and these are GTX280/260 drivers hacked for my 9800, i hope theres more to come



I cant decide whether to install the modded drivers or wait until Nvidia officially release them. How long do they normally hold these ones for? geez.

lol 20% for free is the best value for money I've seen in a while. It makes this price drop worth even more than it seems given that most benchmarks were using the older drivers.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

well going to 55nm and slight changing the name is a good move. I think it makes better sense than merely updating the core and having the two get mixed in together.


----------



## TooFast (Jun 20, 2008)

nvidia is screwing up big time... all the people that paid 350$ for the 9800gtx must feel stupid.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

TooFast said:


> nvidia is screwing up big time... all the people that paid 350$ for the 9800gtx must feel stupid.



by that logic everyone who ever bought a video card feels stupid.

OMG you bought a 9700PRO for $300 in 2002? i got an 8800GT for $200 this year! omg you must feel stupid!


sorry if this comes off as petty, but those kind of comments are very short-sighted... a cheaper, better value card ALWAYS comes out, in time.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 20, 2008)

Megasty said:


> That's a lot of people's opinion on sandbagging. The only cure for it is for it to backfire in their faces. I've been waiting for that for 2 yrs now. I want the good old days of close competition back now. GW NV, now your best single G92 can hardly keep up with ATi's mid-range card



G92 is 2007 tech and the fact it can tie the new core speaks volumes about its longivity honestly. It makes you honestly wonder what happens with the refreash GT200 cores that will come likly smaller, a lil cut down but overall faster.


----------



## TooFast (Jun 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> by that logic everyone who ever bought a video card feels stupid.
> 
> OMG you bought a 9700PRO for $300 in 2002? i got an 8800GT for $200 this year! omg you must feel stupid!
> 
> ...



ya.... but not a month later!


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> by that logic everyone who ever bought a video card feels stupid.
> 
> OMG you bought a 9700PRO for $300 in 2002? i got an 8800GT for $200 this year! omg you must feel stupid!
> 
> ...



agreed look what the 6600GT did to the 9800XT, or what the 7600GT did to the x800XT/6800Ultra, or the 8800GT/3870 to the 8800GTSG80/2900XT. IT happens every year. I paid 250 bucks for a 5900XT in 2004 in late January does that make me stupid then no, if i paid that same price today yes. Same logic applies to anyone who bought say an 8800GTX in 2006 for 600 bucks, they made a smart move, would they be stupid to pay even half that price today yes they would. Use logic, the 9800GTX came out so Nvidia could appear to be moving forward thats why it appeared, because to the normal moron nvidia looked stagnant. Its the cost of being on the bleeding edge, in 2 years you can prolly find a GTX280 on ebay for 100-150 bucks, but not today, the fastest always costs the most at there time. If you want to wait two years to get a really good deal on a card be my guest but by then its merly midrange if that.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> agreed look what the 6600GT did to the 9800XT, or what the 7600GT did to the x800XT/6800Ultra, or the 8800GT/3870 to the 8800GTSG80/2900XT. IT happens every year. I paid 250 bucks for a 5900XT in 2004 in late January does that make me stupid then no, if i paid that same price today yes. Same logic applies to anyone who bought say an 8800GTX in 2006 for 600 bucks, they made a smart move, would they be stupid to pay even half that price today yes they would. Use logic, the 9800GTX came out so Nvidia could appear to be moving forward thats why it appeared, because to the normal moron nvidia looked stagnant. Its the cost of being on the bleeding edge, in 2 years you can prolly find a GTX280 on ebay for 100-150 bucks, but not today, the fastest always costs the most at there time. If you want to wait two years to get a really good deal on a card be my guest but by then its merly midrange if that.



on the 8800GTX, i was one of the lucky ones who did... considering its power even today, i think that was one hell of an investment. anyone who got a 9800GTX in the last week or so can try and return it to get a GTX+ anyway... i would, in that situation.


----------



## PedoBearApproves (Jun 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> by that logic everyone who ever bought a video card feels stupid.
> 
> OMG you bought a 9700PRO for $300 in 2002? i got an 8800GT for $200 this year! omg you must feel stupid!
> 
> ...



your annaligy is very flawed, in this case your comparing a card thats a first gen dx9 card from how many years ago? with  a card from THIS YEAR.

and i really think anybody who bought a 9800gtx was pretty stupid if they didnt get somekind of uber deal, since they 8800gts g92 gives same perf, hell mine hits 788/1900/2020 no problem, thats faster then the new 9800gtx+........


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

timing all comes down to education. how many people have advised people to wait for the new cards on here?

If someone didnt wait and rushed out they didnt get a bad deal... they paid the extra money to get the card faster because they didnt want to wait.

Speed, quality, price: pick two
Its a universal law for buying things.
(speed being speed at which you get the item, not speed of hardware)


----------



## Megasty (Jun 20, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> G92 is 2007 tech and the fact it can tie the new core speaks volumes about its longivity honestly. It makes you honestly wonder what happens with the refreash GT200 cores that will come likly smaller, a lil cut down but overall faster.



The only problem is that NV keeps on switching between  55nm & 65nm cores, when 55nm cores have every advantage over the latter. The G92 is great & fast but all this switching around for more costly, huge, & slower cores just don't make any sense. NV & ATi have cores produced by the same companies so the tech to produce all cores @ 55nm is there, but NV only does it with rehashes. Then the rehash makes the orig look like a pos  I can't delve into their 65nm dinosaurs when I know for sure that the 55nm will blow all over it - but for some reason they refuse to completely move to 55nm :shadedshu


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

DaMulta said:


> There was a  performance increase was in the 8.6 drivers as well. Is AMD holding back too?



You still don't know this? Nvidia is the reincarnation of evil, while Ati is Christ resurrected in graphics company form, that because of his humility came with very low resources and works above his posibilities everyday to get some little improvements. Nvidia on the other hand has the ability to make cards 10x faster, but because owning the market well beyond the actual marketshare and taking Ati out of the ecuation is bad for their bussines, they hold back all that potential. In fact, letting Ati have more than 30% market share while being inferior (if full potential was used) and having to lower most cards' prices to compete to inferior products*, is a lot better way of improving profits than improving the cards performance, you can't compare. _/sarcasm mode off_

*Like 8800 GT, 9600GT... always taking into account yours are better bt you don't want to unleash their power by the drivers you are holding back


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

Megasty said:


> The only problem is that NV keeps on switching between  55nm & 65nm cores, when 55nm cores have every advantage over the latter. The G92 is great & fast but all this switching around for more costly, huge, & slower cores just don't make any sense. NV & ATi have cores produced by the same companies so the tech to produce all cores @ 55nm is there, but NV only does it with rehashes. Then the rehash makes the orig look like a pos  I can't delve into their 65nm dinosaurs when I know for sure that the 55nm will blow all over it - but for some reason they refuse to completely move to 55nm :shadedshu



Switching to a lower fab process is not always beneficial if the process and your architecture don't fit well in that moment. It can increase costs a lot and sometimes even not allow higher clocks or better power consumptions and even have severely lower yields. (Prescott, firts 45nm chips...) Producing in 55nm costs more per wafer than on 65 nm. The trick is in whether the higher chips number and other benefits accounts for that difference. A clear example of this is RV670, especially when compared to RV770. RV670 loses to G92 in performance-per-watt (under load) while the latter is in 65nm and has quite more transistors. How can that be? The classic answer was more SPs or some other exotic answers. But to invalidate those, here it comes RV770, with much more SPs, TMUs and transistors and with not a lot higher power consumption. We can talk about architecture improvements, but there is an undeniable improvement in the fab process too. If you want my opinion, I think it's more because of the latter, than the former and is what a 55nm chip should consume, as simple as that.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 20, 2008)

actually those 800SP's arn't being used its still the same old R600 design actully if you look at it, same design except instead of 64 usder shaders for complex now 160 are used for complex work of the 800 still a 5 part shader design that has been retooled for better effeincy but still crippled thanks to ROPS and TMU's. The reason for the numbers we see are quite simple over all for both areas 64 shaders for complex vs 160 shaders for complex with 128 simple shaders vs 320 simple shaders, and the rest are interger units. They more than doubled there shader output on this card but again alot of the card is still not used and with powerplay those parts are left off. That explains your power figures that and the lack of rops or TMU's.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> actually those 800SP's arn't being used its still the same old R600 design actully if you look at it, same design except instead of 64 usder shaders for complex now 160 are used for complex work of the 800 still a 5 part shader design that has been retooled for better effeincy but still crippled thanks to ROPS and TMU's. The reason for the numbers we see are quite simple over all for both areas 64 shaders for complex vs 160 shaders for complex with 128 simple shaders vs 320 simple shaders, and the rest are interger units. They more than doubled there shader output on this card but again alot of the card is still not used and with powerplay those parts are left off. That explains your power figures that and the lack of rops or TMU's.



Being the architecture similar in both cases, no matter how you look at it, it has 2.5x more shaders, both complex and simple. Also I would want to place a bet it's mantaining SP-to-TMU ratio and has 40 TMUs, again 2.5x. Now the rest of the chip is the "same" size so 2.5x higher power consumption is out of question, but I think that 25-50% more seems reasonable, the actual card consumes just 10W or 5% more than the HD3870 under load while being much much faster. If you strongly believe that this comes from architectural enhancements only, explain me how and show me some precedents, please.

Of course I'm basing my numbers on the belief that the card has 40 TMUs and thus it has "enough" of them or at least as much as HD3870 of them to have a similar under load usage. And note that I said similar, as I DO believe all new cards are being underused, as well as fastest older cards: GX2 > X2 > 9800GTX in order of lesser usage of real power.

If TMU number is smaller you could be right and many SPs could not be used, though we have to wait a week and see, but there are enough "hints" out there to make me believe it has 40.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 20, 2008)

its not that the TMU's are slowed down, also look at the 4850 reviews the core hasn't been crippled from what we know so TMU's are in line with what we expect. But you have to consider a few things doing with optimization and die shrinks first. First of all as stated it not an automatic power saved and 65 to 55 isnt that big honestly. Because the number of shaders went up and so did the TMU's granted but look how the core was arranged and the memory sub system the GDDR5 runs alot cooler and uses less power than even GDDR4 does and with you have 8 chips that helps lower first of all. Second of all the core was arranged better this round likly to cut heat output from the core which adds the bonus of less energy expended on heat so you save more power because of less friction in the interconnects to generate heat which is simply a loss of the cards power to friction. All this play's a massive role in the power usage, along with other things such as quality of componets used ect, even the caps can effect the power usage. I honestly belive the power envolope we see has more to do with design that process


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> its not that the TMU's are slowed down, also look at the 4850 reviews the core hasn't been crippled from what we know so TMU's are in line with what we expect. But you have to consider a few things doing with optimization and die shrinks first. First of all as stated it not an automatic power saved and 65 to 55 isnt that big honestly. Because the number of shaders went up and so did the TMU's granted but look how the core was arranged and the memory sub system the GDDR5 runs alot cooler and uses less power than even GDDR4 does and with you have 8 chips that helps lower first of all. Second of all the core was arranged better this round likly to cut heat output from the core which adds the bonus of less energy expended on heat so you save more power because of less friction in the interconnects to generate heat which is simply a loss of the cards power to friction. All this play's a massive role in the power usage, along with other things such as quality of componets used ect, even the caps can effect the power usage. I honestly belive the power envolope we see has more to do with design that process



Look, that the power efficiency and many other things increase as the fab process matures is a fact, finding the right type and amount of doping, better ways of getting rid of the remains and the time and the way the chemicals are applied are only some exemples of the things that advance and that have to be tested for every process (EDIT: and chip) as no two are equal.

Don't talk about GDDR5 here because it doesn't use it.

There's no doubt all the things you mentioned are true, but IMO the process is a lot more relevant. Ati is always the first to jump to those new processes, so they are simply not mature when they first use them. They take a risk and sometimes it pays off and sometimes not. Not to say that what you say it's also true and, in fact, many of the enhancements you mentioned have a lot to do with the fab process, because being smaller, the arrangement has to change. This is true, but if Ati wasn't able to come with the right arrangement in the first place, Nvidia will probably not do it better. Only that is one reason not to change. Let's see another one:

Price - What I'm going to say can be applied to GDDR5 too. When talking about the price of the fab process and the benefits you are going to obtain, you can't simply compare the price as it is now (or was when Ati started using it) and say it pays off to do the change. Nvidia has 60-70% of the discreet market share, that means it has to produce twice as Ati if they want to mantain it. Current manufacturing costs of 55nm (remember GDDR5 too) are based on the demand of pretty much only Ati's needs and they strugle to meet demand. Mix Nvidia in and you need to multiply the supply by 3x. They can't do that, so prices would skyrocket. As a fact TSMC already upped all of his prices because of this same reason and increasing costs (that at the same time are related to the demand too). If prices went up it would be bad for both companies, not to mention consumers, but because Ati is targeting a lower priced market that situation would be beneficial for them, but in no way for Nvidia. For Nvidia is just better to not enter that price/supply war and make prices lower as long as theay are competitive. Don't dare to ask if this point is not well explained.


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 20, 2008)

so according to the chart a 4850 is the same as a 3870x2

so 1 gpu is as powerful as the top dual ati gpu solution?

thats good

only idiots would buy this updated 9800 because there are new cards around the corner and the relative performance increase over a normal 9800gtx is minute probly a little higher clocks due to it being smaller a little less power usage


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 20, 2008)

well if the regular 9800GTX goes to 199 and with the new numbers the 177 beta's give is any indication id say the 9800GTX is a damn good competitor to the 4850


----------



## MilkyWay (Jun 20, 2008)

9800GTX is last gens card and if a last gen card can be performance equal to a next gen card then that proves the new gen is shit

the problem is the 4850/70 is more powerful than the 9800gtx

your only taking into account the price, even then the 4850 is the card of choice in next gen due to the price either way ill have to wait and see if the next nvidia cards are any better performance wise enuf to justify the price


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

MilkyWay said:


> 9800GTX is last gens card and if a last gen card can be performance equal to a next gen card then that proves the new gen is shit



If it takes a $199 card to beat a 9800GTX which is just three months old and had a $350 launch-price it proves otherwise. "This is new-gen, that wasn't" is a flawed argument. The G92 was built to compete with ATI in this very generation, just that it was rushed in because of RV670. Else G92 was supposed to be _the_ GPU that shat all over GeForce 9 series.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> If it takes a $199 card to beat a 9800GTX which is just three months old and had a $350 launch-price it proves otherwise. "This is new-gen, that wasn't" is a flawed argument. The G92 was built to compete with ATI in this very generation, just that it was rushed in because of RV670. Else G92 was supposed to be _the_ GPU that shat all over GeForce 9 series.



Not at all. Nvidia has been postponing GT200 for more than a year. GT200 was supposed to be the 9 series.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> If it takes a $199 card to beat a 9800GTX which is just three months old and had a $350 launch-price it proves otherwise. "This is new-gen, that wasn't" is a flawed argument. The G92 was built to compete with ATI in this very generation, just that it was rushed in because of RV670. Else G92 was supposed to be _the_ GPU that shat all over GeForce 9 series.



G92 was not ment to compete with the 4800 series, it was mean to compete with the 3800 series.  It isn't a totally new generation of GPUs, it was a G80 die shrunk, just like ATi did with the 3800 series.  G92 was supposed to be the 8900 series, but ATi released their new cards under a completely new series number, so nVidia did the same for marketting purposes.  That is the one and only reason G92 GPUs got packaged as 9800 series cards.

You are also missing the fact that G80 cards are equalling the 4850, cards that have been out for 2 years.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Not at all. Nvidia has been postponing GT200 for more than a year. GT200 was supposed to be the 9 series.



Why isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.



newtekie1 said:


> You are also missing the fact that G80 cards are equaling the 4850, cards that have been out for 2 years.



Yeah, you're also forgetting that the G80 cards that cost ~$500+ then are being equaled by ATI cards that cost ~$199 now. None of NVidia's own $199 cards now equal the performance of those $500+ G80 cards.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Why isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.



G92 is in the 8 and 9 series. Dont ask why, no one really knows. 8800GT has it, 9800GX2 has them. they're all G92.

The reason Nvidia did it, was because ATI threw the 3xx0 series at us.. and they were the same designs as the 2xx0 series. In the average joes mind if a 2600XT was good, a 3850 must be toooons better. (and it is, actually) - so Nvidia released the same cards in the 9 series, rather than releasing yet more models in the 8 series.

Not that i condone what either company did, but its not like video card naming schemes have ever made sense.


btarunr: my $190 8800GT matches my $700 8800GTX. Yes, nvidias modern cards DO match their old behemoths. you've missed something there.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Why isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.



The first codename for the card that would succed G80 was G9*0* not G92. In one point in time it was said that G90 didn't exist no more and that it had been replaced by G92. That was not true and only proved the poor speculative skills of some sites when G92 was announced.

G90 then took the name G100, the one that now is GT200, even then probably G90, G100, and GT200 are not the same project, but are the same on the soul. It is the real next gen card.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

Mussels said:


> btarunr: my $190 8800GT matches my $700 8800GTX. Yes, nvidias modern cards DO match their old behemoths. you've missed something there.



At 100% stock-speeds? Because OC is not part of my argument. It's about what NVidia has to offer.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> At 100% stock-speeds? Because OC is not part of my argument. It's about what NVidia has to offer.



Eh... it's exactly that what Nvidia offers. Ati didn't like and didn't allow partners overclock, Nvidia did as a valuable alternative and Ati had to allow it too. Because G80/G92 had no competition reference clocks were kept lower, when you can't compete you clock them higher. The fact that G80/92 cards overclock so much better is enough testimony of this.

Nvidia has always patner overclocked cards at launch. Ati hasn't still. <- This validates any mention to Nvidia OCed cards competing with Ati stock cards, as you usually have to wait quite a bit until Ati OC cards are released, but you can take a Nvidia one right now.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Eh... it's exactly that what Nvidia offers. Ati didn't like and didn't allow partners overclock, Nvidia did as a valuable alternative and Ati had to allow it too. Because G80/G92 had no competition reference clocks were kept lower, when you can't compete you clock them higher. The fact that G80/92 cards overclock so much better is enough testimony of this.
> 
> Nvidia has always patner overclocked cards at launch. Ati hasn't still.



That doesn't answer my question, of whether Muzz's GT performed "on-par" with his GTX at stock speeds.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> That doesn't answer my question, of whether Muzz's GT performed "on-par" with his GTX at stock speeds.



Inno3D. Probably factory overclocked to the bone. My point above was that you can get Nvidia OC cards at launch and many times for very little price premium if at all. I bought mine for less than every other GTs in the arket back then. 700 Mhz factory OC, superb temps and noise. Then you have Palits too.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> At 100% stock-speeds? Because OC is not part of my argument. It's about what NVidia has to offer.



I'm sure there is a pre-overclocked model that it is possible with.  However, overclocking is a factor that can't be ignored, and the newer cards overclock alot better then the older cards did.



btarunr said:


> Why isn't it in the 9-series then? G92 was supposed to be the core.
> 
> Yeah, you're also forgetting that the G80 cards that cost ~$500+ then are being equaled by ATI cards that cost ~$199 now. None of NVidia's own $199 cards now equal the performance of those $500+ G80 cards.



Again, comparing prices of cards now and prices of cards then is irrelevant.  Prices go down over time.  As time goes on you get better performance for the same price, that is how the industry works.  If you can't understand that, you need to get out of it now.  And yes, their current cards do equal the G80's performance, and they do it at lower prices.

My E6600 cost $300 when I bought it, and it is now outperformed by a $175 E8200, big deal.  Does that mean the E6600 is a piece of shit now because I paid $300 for it?  No, I wouldn't pay $300 for it today, and you don't pay $500+ for a G80 card today.  The price you pay for performance always goes down over time.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> Inno3D. Probably factory overclocked to the bone. My point above was that you can get Nvidia OC cards at launch and many times for very little price premium if at all. I bought mine for less than every other GTs in the arket back then. 700 Mhz factory OC, superb temps and noise. Then you have Palits too.



Why do you go into circles? All I'm trying to tell is that there's no $199(range) NVidia card that outperforms those G80 titans. If you want to put a $199 NVidia factory-OC'ed card, please pit it only against a factory-OC'ed G80, else you're not making the right comparison. Mine is of a $199 ATI card at stock speeds rivaling a G80 cards at stock speeds.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm sure there is a pre-overclocked model that it is possible with.  However, overclocking is a factor that can't be ignored, and the newer cards overclock alot better then the older cards did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is relevant since you originally said "it took ATI 2 years to match an NVidia G80", when I said "yes, and at just $199".


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> It is relevant since you originally said "it took ATI 2 years to match an NVidia G80", when I said "yes, and at just $199".



Yes, and again, I point out, the price ATi did it at is irrelevant and comparing it to prices 2 years ago is idiotic.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Why do you go into circles? All I'm trying to tell is that there's no $199(range) NVidia card that outperforms those G80 titans. If you want to put a $199 NVidia factory-OC'ed card, please pit it only against a factory-OC'ed G80, else you're not making the right comparison. Mine is of a $199 ATI card at stock speeds rivaling a G80 cards at stock speeds.



Who's going into circles? You have OCed 8800 GTs for a lot less than $200 with performance close to GTX, you have OCed GTSs a bit under $200 and stock 9800GTX for a bit more $ that compete in performance and you have OCed 9800 GTX that are faster.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Yes, and again, I point out, the price ATi did it at is irrelevant.



Alright, round II, I'll have it your way:

Newegg already sells an ASUS HD4850 for effectively $169 +shipping. So with "Prices always keep changing" mantra, give me a $169 NVidia card (with whatever parameters) that rivals G80 (GTX/Ultra).


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

my GT was in fact OC'd, and it came very close to the GTX in performance even at stock.

Its stock speeds were 650/1900, and its now at 755/2000 (i'm still messing around with shader clocks)

The thing is, the 8800GT is not the fastest G92.. the 8800GTS 512MB SSC edition would take that crown, with the more shader units.

regardless of whether it BEATS a G80 card... its less than 1/3 the price. if i had an SLI board, i'd have two of them and cash to spare, for a lot faster than the G80 was. The point you're trying to make is so... niche? its mostly irrelevant. omg, ATI have a $200 card that matches the old behemoth.. yeah that tends to happen. Nvidia will release one sooner or later, as well.

8800GTX is a very old card and it was an awesome buy for its longevity: that was rare in the video card world, for sure. But no matter the card, you wait two years and a midrange will beat a high end.. Onboard video these days is faster than the best Geforce 3, but no one argues 'ahaha AMD released an onboard video faster than Nvidias king of the GF3 era'

times change... different cards hold the value king and different times, but it changes so often theres no use making a fuss over it. Find the best, buy it, and look out for the next one.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Alright, round II, I'll have it your way:
> 
> Newegg already sells an ASUS HD4850 for effectively $169 +shipping. So with "Prices always keep changing" mantra, give me a $169 NVidia card (with whatever parameters) that rivals G80 (GTX/Ultra).



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130317

Here you go, enjoy. (I know, it isn't far because it actually IS a G80.  Next you will say we shouldn't consider the nVidia cards that are actually G80s, regardless of price. Right?)


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130317
> 
> Here you go, enjoy.



Puhleez, does that rival a GTX? At 112SP's?


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Puhleez, does that rival a GTX? At 112SP's?



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814134037

Even better, even cheaper.  $159.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Puhleez, does that rival a GTX? At 112SP's?



its the SSC edition, which wasnt that far behind in most tests. its also a stock OC'd model.


As i said before guys: the best bang for hte buck card is always changing. right now, ATI are certainly making a grand showing... but keep an eye out for price drops. if a 9600GT suddenly becomes a $100 card because of this, we're in for some good times...


----------



## btarunr (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814134037
> 
> Even better, even cheaper.  $159.



Hey nice deal. Thanks.


----------



## DarkMatter (Jun 20, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Alright, round II, I'll have it your way:
> 
> Newegg already sells an ASUS HD4850 for effectively $169 +shipping. So with "Prices always keep changing" mantra, give me a $169 NVidia card (with whatever parameters) that rivals G80 (GTX/Ultra).



http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500006

Or if you admit a bit lower performance (AKA oc it yourself), $139: <- Humph it's actually $129 After mail in rebate.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121224

Enjoy.



newtekie1 said:


> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814134037
> 
> Even better, even cheaper.  $159.



Winner.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 20, 2008)

DarkMatter said:


> > Originally Posted by *newtekie1*
> > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814134037
> >
> > Even better, even cheaper. $159.
> ...



Nope -- we're *all* winners.  

Seriously, though, that's a damn big rebate -- almost tempted me to upgrade (always did like the G92 8800GTS cards for some reason), though a 4850 is still about 15% faster, for only about $10 more.

You know, just musing -- people who bought a brand new 8800 GTX two years ago, even at the price it debuted at, really got their money's worth.  With this new emphasis on really functional multi-processor graphic cards, that kind of long-lived status at the top probably won't happen again -- there'll always be a faster card with one more processor slapped onto it just a few months down the road.  Kinda sad, really -- the G200 probably is the last of its kind.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> Nope -- we're *all* winners.
> 
> Seriously, though, that's a damn big rebate -- almost tempted me to upgrade (always did like the G92 8800GTS cards for some reason), though a 4850 is still about 15% faster, for only about $10 more.
> 
> You know, just musing -- people who bought a brand new 8800 GTX two years ago, even at the price it debuted at, really got their money's worth, you know.  With this new emphasis on functional multi-processor graphic cards, that kind of long-lived status at the top probably won't happen again.



But the 8800GTS overclocks a lot better than the 4850.  Everything I have seen show the 4850 overclocking like crap.  So if you overclock the gap gets narrower.


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 20, 2008)

*sigh*

Why do NV have to go and slap a + on the end of the name? Why don't they just call this new card a 98*5*0 GTX, or a 9800 GT, or something more logical?

I'm glad there's finally some competition in the graphics card market, but I want to see what the 4870 and its big brother, the 4870 X2 can do before I lay down my hard-earned cash.


----------



## PrudentPrincess (Jun 20, 2008)

Wow I can't believe they're dropping the price already. This is why me and nvidia have a love-hate relationship.


----------



## mdm-adph (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> But the 8800GTS overclocks a lot better than the 4850.  Everything I have seen show the 4850 overclocking like crap.  So if you overclock the gap gets narrower.



The way I see it, the 4850 is brand new, and it probably features entirely new problems in setting clock speeds (independent shader clocks and all that), so lets refrain from judging its overclocking ability just yet until more people hack away.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 20, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> The way I see it, the 4850 is brand new, and it probably features entirely new problems in setting clock speeds (independent shader clocks and all that), so lets refrain from judging its overclocking ability just yet until more people hack away.



Why?  It isn't entirely new, and the "people" that do the hacking have had a decent amount of time to hack away at it to figure it out.  The 4850 just doesn't overclock well.  It could be the single slot cooler that lets it heat up to 90+C or it could be that ATi is binning the GPUs to put higher clocking ones in the 4870s, but either way the 4850 is definitely not a good overclocker.  I'm sure as the overclocking programs get tweaked a little, we will see slight increases, but I don't think we will see major jumps in overclocking potential.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 20, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Why?  It isn't entirely new, and the "people" that do the hacking have had a decent amount of time to hack away at it to figure it out.  The 4850 just doesn't overclock well.  It could be the single slot cooler that lets it heat up to 90+C or it could be that ATi is binning the GPUs to put higher clocking ones in the 4870s, but either way the 4850 is definitely not a good overclocker.  I'm sure as the overclocking programs get tweaked a little, we will see slight increases, but I don't think we will see major jumps in overclocking potential.



other thing is they could be limited by stock vgpu


----------



## HAL7000 (Jun 21, 2008)

the simple truth is Nvidia is trying to cover up with excuses the "9800GTX"  like amd does with cpu's as of late with a promise of the same but new and improved...9800GTX+ nvidia fanboys just can't stand the thought of ATI stepping on Nvidia's toes with a better product for less money.
All the promises do not change what is today.....the 4850 and hopefully the 4870 look to be real bargains....Face it.........ATI wins this round............the 9800GTX+ is just another minor improvement but the same old bullsh*t.


----------



## HAL7000 (Jun 21, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Why?  It isn't entirely new, and the "people" that do the hacking have had a decent amount of time to hack away at it to figure it out.  The 4850 just doesn't overclock well.  It could be the single slot cooler that lets it heat up to 90+C or it could be that ATi is binning the GPUs to put higher clocking ones in the 4870s, but either way the 4850 is definitely not a good overclocker.  I'm sure as the overclocking programs get tweaked a little, we will see slight increases, but I don't think we will see major jumps in overclocking potential.



Newtekie...do you own a 4850 to state that claim? Plus as drivers mature so does performance ....this goes in both camps ....Nvidia's and ATI's. 
*Back your claim with facts* ......not release drivers/design alone ........the 4850 was just released ......get real


----------



## PedoBearApproves (Jun 21, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> Newtekie...do you own a 4850 to state that claim? Plus as drivers mature so does performance ....this goes in both camps ....Nvidia's and ATI's.
> *Back your claim with facts* ......not release drivers/design alone ........the 4850 was just released ......get real



dont feed the troll, hes clearly an nvidia fanboi(also known as nvidiots).

i have an 8800gts, it works fine, acctualy faster then the 9800gtx and gtx+ are stock, but its far from perfect, the 177.35 drivers so far seem to be a boost, but.....well nvidia better not cripple the relece version of them on sub 9800 cards, if they do, they will loose alot of their user base, since ati never pulls that, and now has a line of cards coming out that compete in the highest selling price range


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 21, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> the simple truth is Nvidia is trying to cover up with excuses the "9800GTX"  like amd does with cpu's as of late with a promise of the same but new and improved...9800GTX+ nvidia fanboys just can't stand the thought of ATI stepping on Nvidia's toes with a better product for less money.
> All the promises do not change what is today.....the 4850 and hopefully the 4870 look to be real bargains....Face it.........ATI wins this round............the 9800GTX+ is just another minor improvement but the same old bullsh*t.



The HD4850 is a great card, I never said it wasn't, I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a great card here.  However, thinking that nVidia products are suddly crap because ATi has a good product that competes with it is a clear sign of fanboyism.

You are right, the 9800GTX+ is just a small improvement, but really that is all nVidia needs to continue to be competitive(and of course price drops, which they have done to meet competition).  The 9800GTX is already available for $199 to match the HD4850's price, and I expect it to go down beyond that price to match ATi's price to performance.



HAL7000 said:


> Newtekie...do you own a 4850 to state that claim? Plus as drivers mature so does performance ....this goes in both camps ....Nvidia's and ATI's.
> *Back your claim with facts* ......not release drivers/design alone ........the 4850 was just released ......get real



If by own you mean have on in one of my personal machines, then no I don't.  But I did install one in a customer's machine today and played around with it. Beyond that, you don't have to own a card to know things about it, no matter how much you seem to think the opposite.  You can learn a lot from reviews and the talk around forums, and the reviews and talk from experts in overclocking(including Wizzard, the creator of this site and ATITool) is that the 4850 simply doesn't overclock well.  The card was just released, but it has been available for at least a weak to all the reviewers, who also happen to be the people who make the overclocking software(not that they need it, if worst comes to worst, BIOS flashes are the weapon of choice, and there is no break in period with a new card and BIOS flashing, Wizard has done several reviews where the only option to overclock was BIOS flashing, so if it came to that with the HD4850 he would have done it).  The fact is that the HD4850 can be overclock using software already available, and it overclocks like shit.  Updates to the software MIGHT improve that overclocking slightly, but it isn't going to make huge gains.  The clock speeds can be increased without problem, the cards just artifact at low speeds.



PedoBearApproves said:


> dont feed the troll, hes clearly an nvidia fanboi(also known as nvidiots).



I find your post filled with irony.

1.) You are new to the forums, and one of your first posts is flaming.  And I am the troll?
2.) Look at my sig, two of my 4 machines have ATi cards in them.  Yep, I'm a fanboy alright.  And before the HD3850 and 8800GS I had x1950Pros in those machines, in fact I have had a few x1950Pros, which I have sold am selling on this site.  A fanboy that owns both ATi and nVidia hardware, that makes sense.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 21, 2008)

I actually ordered two of those 8800 GTS 512  they're going to my cousins' place in NY, will come to me in July.


----------



## SheetCake (Jun 21, 2008)

btarunr said:


> I actually ordered two of those 8800 GTS 512  they're going to my cousins' place in NY, will come to me in July.



need a bios mod to let the 8800gts be seen as a 9800gtx


----------



## DaedalusHelios (Jun 21, 2008)

SheetCake said:


> need a bios mod to let the 8800gts be seen as a 9800gtx



That only works on the Galaxy ones from Asia.


----------



## SheetCake (Jun 21, 2008)

im sure theres a way to mod the bios to get the device to be seen as a 9800gtx, just a matter of somebody figuaring out how, nvidia better not try and lock the new driver perf boosts to the 9800gtx with driver blocks, people will be pissed(im one of them!!)


----------



## v-zero (Jun 21, 2008)

The 4850 is still the better card. DX10.1, continual driver improvements, more potent shader throughput for future games, better AA performance, lower price - plus within 2 weeks the 4850 will hit $169, the GTX and GTX+ are expensive to make compared to ATi's parts which are low-binned cores.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 21, 2008)

Well the G92 doesnt cost very much to produce my reasoning is they can afford to sell the 8800GS for 99 bucks which is a G92 core with parts turned off. 

If they really wanted to that board could be produced @ 130 most likly


----------



## Gam'ster (Jun 21, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> Well the G92 doesnt cost very much to produce my reasoning is they can afford to sell the 8800GS for 99 bucks which is a G92 core with parts turned off.
> 
> If they really wanted to that board could be produced @ 130 most likly



Damn right, if it did come to $120 - $140 for arguments sake that would put a small thorn in ATI's side no doubt, After all it is price vs performance that dictates the majority's purchasing ways and if it come to that i would have a hard time deciding.


----------



## candle_86 (Jun 22, 2008)

well if the 4850 gets faster or OC's better to out preform it theres a good chance the 9800GTX will drop in price to compete again at 199 its right there with it so im not bothered, id prolly go 9800GTX simply to save hassle


----------



## SheetCake (Jun 22, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> Well the G92 doesnt cost very much to produce my reasoning is they can afford to sell the 8800GS for 99 bucks which is a G92 core with parts turned off.
> 
> If they really wanted to that board could be produced @ 130 most likly



those are defective cores that would have been trashed, so it dosnt cost nvidia anything extra to use them vs trashing them, so they use them to make a crap card that they can sell and at least get some $ out of their defective cores.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 22, 2008)

v-zero said:


> The 4850 is still the better card. DX10.1, continual driver improvements, more potent shader throughput for future games, better AA performance, lower price - plus within 2 weeks the 4850 will hit $169, the GTX and GTX+ are expensive to make compared to ATi's parts which are low-binned cores.



There are already 8800GTS 512MB's available for $159, and HD4850's available for $169.  I don't think the 9800GTX priced at $199 is low enough for it to be competitive, however, I also don't think that the street price will be $199.  Cards usually sell for less than the MSRP, case in point, the $169 HD4850's and the $159 8800GTS.

As to wich is the better card, I don't think the HD4850 is better.  At stock it is the better card, but overclocked the 8800GTS and 9800GTX take the lead.  So which is better really comes down to what kind of person you are, an overclocker or not.  Saying one is clearly better then the other in all situations is wrong, IMO.  They both have their strengths and weaknesses.



SheetCake said:


> im sure theres a way to mod the bios to get the device to be seen as a 9800gtx, just a matter of somebody figuaring out how, nvidia better not try and lock the new driver perf boosts to the 9800gtx with driver blocks, people will be pissed(im one of them!!)



They haven't, people are already reporting the performance increase affects all G92 based cards.  Also, has anyone here picked up on the fact that nVidia just added PhysX support to all G92 and G80 cards also?


----------



## HAL7000 (Jun 22, 2008)

*newtekie1*, ...but tell me why the negatives concerning the 4850, and nothing about 9800GTX or the + version, Nvidia released 2 of the same card basically ....well it appears that Nvidia is loosing some ground these days....scrambling to make something competitive. I am not a graphics guru nor do I claim to be, but it sounds like to me you are trying and failing to second guess the labs at AMD/ATI. You know this is the first release (4850) and it is good, try not to make more of it than needs to be. You need facts to back up claims, not opinions. 

Try some mentioning some 9800GTX+ facts/ opinions in this string. This is about the 9800GTX+ and not a 4850 bash. 
I don't think you are trolling either .


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 22, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> *newtekie1*, ...but tell me why the negatives concerning the 4850, and nothing about 9800GTX or the + version, Nvidia released 2 of the same card basically ....well it appears that Nvidia is loosing some ground these days....scrambling to make something competitive. I am not a graphics guru nor do I claim to be, but it sounds like to me you are trying and failing to second guess the labs at AMD/ATI. You know this is the first release (4850) and it is good, try not to make more of it than needs to be. You need facts to back up claims, not opinions.
> 
> Try some mentioning some 9800GTX+ facts/ opinions in this string. This is about the 9800GTX+ and not a 4850 bash.
> I don't think you are trolling either .



My talk about the 4850 was entirely in responce to talk already posted about the 4850.  The topic is about the 9800GTX+, but the discussion is about multiple cards, and how the 9800GTX+ fits in to the industry.

The 9800GTX+ is virtually identical to the 9800GTX, but it is a die shrink.  It is a common practice in the industry to just simply release a die shrunk version of the same GPU.  ATi did the same thing with the 3800 series, it was just a die shrink of the 2900 GPU.  It makes production cheaper, and usually improves performance.

Down playing the negatives of the 4850 by simply saying "well it is only their first release" isn't a good argument.  I'm hoping the 4870 will be a better overclocker, but right now I don't know that it is.  I do know that the 4850 is a poor overclocker, that isn't an opinion, that is a fact based on what I have personally seen and what I have read of other's experiences with the card.  What other unreleased cards might do isn't really a part of this discussion.  Simply saying the card is a bad overclocker isn't bashing the card, or bashing ATi, aren't we getting a little on the defensive here?  Simply pointing out that the card isn't God's gift to the Video Card Industry suddenly means I am trying to second guess ATi?  You know it is possible to point out negatives of a card and not hate it, right?  We aren't in a black and white world.  It isn't a case of you either love it entirely, or hate it.  I'm not bashing the HD4850 in any way, pointing out a few negatives isn't bashing.

And if you would actually read more of my posts then just the parts that concern you, the HD4850 "bashing", you would see that I have posted plenty of other facts and information about the 9800GTX+.  Like the PhysX support that nVidia just added, which oddly hasn't been talked about at all anywhere on these forums from what I have seen, and IMO is a major thing.  Odd how you missed that, almost like you were so enraged that anyone would speak negatively in any way about your beloved ATi and it's products, you just completely skipped anything that wasn't related to that.  For someone that throws the word fanboy around so quickly...oh, nevermind...


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Jun 22, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Now if AMD can do the same on the processor front, then we will be rolling.........



I hope they can. Lets see what they can pull out of there nvm


----------



## HAL7000 (Jun 22, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> Simply pointing out that the card isn't God's gift to the Video Card Industry suddenly means I am trying to second guess ATi?  You know it is possible to point out negatives of a card and not hate it, right?  We aren't in a black and white world.  It isn't a case of you either love it entirely, or hate it.  I'm not bashing the HD4850 in any way, pointing out a few negatives isn't bashing.
> 
> And if you would actually read more of my posts then just the parts that concern you, the HD4850 "bashing", you would see that I have posted plenty of other facts and information about the 9800GTX+.  Like the PhysX support that nVidia just added, which oddly hasn't been talked about at all anywhere on these forums from what I have seen, and IMO is a major thing.  Odd how you missed that, almost like you were so enraged that anyone would speak negatively in any way about your beloved ATi and it's products, you just completely skipped anything that wasn't related to that.  For someone that throws the word fanboy around so quickly...oh, nevermind...



You miss what I was saying,,,,,I have read other post from you, if you look back at my prior post you will see that it ended in a positive. I did not miss out on what you said but as you stated.....it is all positive for the 9800GTX+ and negative for the 4850. 
*Share the links that you have concerning the poor over clocking of the 4850. I would like to read them as well. *
You see it took Nvidia 2 releases to make a 9800GTX+....to me they are loosing ground, esp when the 280 $$$$$$ runs like shit as well....getting beat out in some benches by the low end 4850 and others by the 9800GX2. ...as we read in the TPU reviews.,,,FACT. 
So is it wise to buy the 9800GTX+....nope....not worth the money.
I am far from being any fan boy..... just read my signature....they all piss me off...


----------



## SheetCake (Jun 22, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> *ATi did the same thing with the 3800 series, it was just a die shrink of the 2900 GPU.  It makes production cheaper, and usually improves performance.*



this craps what makes people say your bias nvidia fanboi, first, the 3800 was a die shrink but it want just a die shrink, check the details out, they also improoved the avivo support yeah thats right the 2900's avivo sucked/sucks it dosnt even really work, the 3800 cards works like a charm(better then purevideo)

they also changed other things, if i remmber correctly there are acctualy LESS transistors in the 3800's then the 2900's yet the perf is the same or better in many cases.......how can it be a pure die shrink if the number of transistors changes and they effectivly add a new unit for video decoding(avivo)?






click the image for source, note 3800=666m vs 2900@700m so if its a pure die shrink where did the 34million transistors go??????

and why was video decoding performace boosted so drasticly?


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2008)

if i see a link showing the 4850 beating an 8800GT, and not hating crossfire in a 16x/4x board.. i'll go get two.


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

Mussels said:


> if i see a link showing the 4850 beating an 8800GT, and not hating crossfire in a 16x/4x board.. i'll go get two.



Well the first one look at any review, overall performance the 4850 wins usually. 3dmark and certain games still favor nvidia. As for the 16x/4x, why would you want to anyway? If your gonna run two cards, might as well sell your board and do it right.


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Well the first one look at any review, overall performance the 4850 wins usually. 3dmark and certain games still favor nvidia. As for the 16x/4x, why would you want to anyway? If your gonna run two cards, might as well sell your board and do it right.



because i LIKE my board... if i was selling the board, i'd grab an SLI one and get another passive, vmodded 8800GT...


----------



## farlex85 (Jun 22, 2008)

Mussels said:


> because i LIKE my board... if i was selling the board, i'd grab an SLI one and get another passive, vmodded 8800GT...



I gotcha, I was just busting your balls, sorry.  Although, there are many other boards out there you would like also. SLI is worse at oc generally, and gt's don't scale very well to my knowledge.


----------



## SheetCake (Jun 22, 2008)

wiz needs to rebench with the new driver hotfix i wana see the results


----------



## Mussels (Jun 22, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> I gotcha, I was just busting your balls, sorry.  Although, there are many other boards out there you would like also. SLI is worse at oc generally, and gt's don't scale very well to my knowledge.



yeah bit i'm a silence nut. i like the power these things can give passively.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 22, 2008)

SheetCake said:


> this craps what makes people say your bias nvidia fanboi, first, the 3800 was a die shrink but it want just a die shrink, check the details out, they also improoved the avivo support yeah thats right the 2900's avivo sucked/sucks it dosnt even really work, the 3800 cards works like a charm(better then purevideo)
> 
> they also changed other things, if i remmber correctly there are acctualy LESS transistors in the 3800's then the 2900's yet the perf is the same or better in many cases.......how can it be a pure die shrink if the number of transistors changes and they effectivly add a new unit for video decoding(avivo)?
> 
> ...



It also added DX10.1 support, and the AVIVO is controlled by a different chip entirely IIRC, which has nothing to do with the GPU itself.  The memory interface changed also(most likely where the transistors disappeared to, a lower memory interface means less complex GPU).  Granted, I should have been more specific, it isn't just a die shrink, but it is a die shrink and the end result is essentially identical to the end user(minus the shrunk memory bus).

If you want some exact example from ATi's camp, look at the the R535 and R530.


----------



## SheetCake (Jun 22, 2008)

newtekie1 said:


> It also added DX10.1 support, and the AVIVO is controlled by a different chip entirely IIRC, which has nothing to do with the GPU itself.  The memory interface changed also(most likely where the transistors disappeared to, a lower memory interface means less complex GPU).  Granted, I should have been more specific, it isn't just a die shrink, but it is a die shrink and the end result is essentially identical to the end user(minus the shrunk memory bus).
> 
> If you want some exact example from ATi's camp, look at the the R535 and R530.



nope, its the on die, it is not a seprate chip, your thinking of the g80 and new gtx280 cards where the purevideo supports a seprate chip.

ati cards did use to have a theiter chip onboard, but thats for mepg1/2 (dvd playback) support nothing more.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 22, 2008)

HAL7000 said:


> You miss what I was saying,,,,,I have read other post from you, if you look back at my prior post you will see that it ended in a positive. I did not miss out on what you said but as you stated.....it is all positive for the 9800GTX+ and negative for the 4850.
> *Share the links that you have concerning the poor over clocking of the 4850. I would like to read them as well. *
> You see it took Nvidia 2 releases to make a 9800GTX+....to me they are loosing ground, esp when the 280 $$$$$$ runs like shit as well....getting beat out in some benches by the low end 4850 and others by the 9800GX2. ...as we read in the TPU reviews.,,,FACT.
> So is it wise to buy the 9800GTX+....nope....not worth the money.
> I am far from being any fan boy..... just read my signature....they all piss me off...



Firstly, your links, I didn't exactly have to go very far:
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/HD_4850/24.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4850/24.html

Two HD4850's in the hands of a person that I would consider a master overclocker.  Both overclock like complete ass.  Less than 10% overclocks is overclocking like ass, IMO, and 1% is just a joke.  I could go through and find some of the other articles and forum posts I have read, but I think that is enough, and that is really all the time I want to spend on the issue.  If you want to dispute it, show me some better results.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Point_Of_View/GeForce_GTX_280/26.html

You can look at another new product, and it overclocks better, and according to Wiz, it is actually harder to overclock.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_9800_GTX/24.html

There you can see the overclocks on the 9800GTX, better IMO.  You can speculate that the HD4850 overclocking might get better with better software and that the HD4870 might be a better overclocker, but there is no factual information backing to that, and you are all about the facts.

If you read around you will see me saying some positive things about the HD4850, you will even find some thread of me thinking about switching to HD4850's.

I definitely agree with you that ATi is catching up to nVidia, and if you read most of my posts on the subject you will see I think that is a wonderful thing.  Competition is a good thing, it forces lower prices from both companies, which is only good for for us, the consumers.

Don't get me started on the GTX 280, I think nVidia was insane on that front, but that is an entirely different discussion there.

Again, the value of the 9800GTX+ and weither it is worth buying depends on the type of person you are.  Personally, I think the 9800GTX+ would be worth it to buy over the HD4850 if both were priced the same(and it seems likely they will be very close).  But even more, the 9800GTX at the price it is at, overclocking the way it does, I think it is worth it if you plan to overclock.  BUT, most importantly, I think the 8800GTS(G92) is the best value out of the pack for overclockers, it overclocks almost just as well as the 9800GTX, but is cheaper than the HD4850.  And with the added value of PhysX support on the G92 cards, it helps their appeal(granted, not by much, probably about as much as DX10.1 helps ATi's appeal).


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 23, 2008)

200$ is good price , i see old 9800gtx just like 8800gts 512 but maybe new one is better


----------



## wolf (Jun 23, 2008)

most 9800GTX's get to 775-800 core and 1800-2000+ shaders, a 55nm part should do even better, maybe not hugely, but enough.

we will probably see some dirt cheap, pre-oc cards running 800/2000/2400, and thats just sweet.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 23, 2008)

hayder.master said:


> 200$ is good price , i see old 9800gtx just like 8800gts 512 but maybe new one is better



Haider, even at $199, the old 9800 GTX is not worth it. It takes more power, requires an OC to perform on par with a HD4850, thereby increasing power consumption.


----------



## wolf (Jun 23, 2008)

dude, 177.39 drivers make up the gap, and will make it exceed the 4850 under some circumstances.

im just hanging for a review that finally uses the new drivers so i cans top saying this and just post a link Finally.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 23, 2008)

You can't say that until you come across a comparison between a 9800GTX (with 177.39) versus HD4850 (with the latest hotfix to the Catalyst) .


----------



## wolf (Jun 23, 2008)

im saying that my 9800GTX has ~20% more FPS across the board on 177.xx drivers. and all the reviews are on 174/175's.

so yes what we really need is a comparison on 177's and ATi with the hotfix.


----------

