GeForce 9800 GX2

[Kovoet]

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Z...800_GX2/1.html

Reading this from front to back with this review, I think I personally made the best choice taking the GTS8800 512mb. Especially bang for bucks. My card beats it half the time with my resolution set at 1280x1024. Power consumption leave's it standing. You have to ask youself a question here is it worth getting this, with me certainly not. Maybe for some of you with a 30inch screen yes. I think nVidia have screwed up here with all the hype considering this card.

Maybe when the new driver comes out it will improve it, but I know with my card is also waiting for the new driver.

Is this going to be a case with people just having money to blow, if so I'll take some of that money please.

[gOJDO]

Well, the 8800GTS g92 is nowhere near the best bang for the buck!
The Radeon 3850, the GeForce 9600GT and the GeForce 8800GT have higher performance/price ratio.

Also the 9800GX2 needs a good driver to show it's potential. Current drivers are buggy and unoptimized.

[3870x2]

actually the price per performance is pretty high with the 512 gts, meanwhile the gx2 has the worst price per dollar. By Far. I was expecting more, but the 200 extra dollars doesnt make the gx2 better. Im no fanboy, but, though people are saying NVidia has won, they havent. They lost. They have a card that performs 5% better than the x2 at about 30% higher price, Justification? >> its high end.
And as the drivers go along, the x2 will beat the gx2. If you think about it the Drivers for the g92 architecture been out since december, almost 3 months after the x2, and yet it still only barely beats the x2. Next month, the x2 will probably equal or beat the gx2 in FPS at 200 dollars more.
Good side? i would almost buy it just because it is by damned far the best looking card, and the best performing card. For that i give NVIDIA props, and as far as worth goes, it is still worth purchasing if you are an enthusiast. Im just dissapointed because its going to cost me more than 300 dollars to step up to this card, for only about 10-15% higher performance. GG, Nvidia and ATI are almost neck and neck.

[gOJDO]

I agree, lately nVidia and ATI are running almost side by side and I am very happy about it.

The X2 is a very good performer, but as an enthusiast card arrived too late. The rich gamers have 8800 GTX/Ultra(s) for more than a year. Both the 9800GX2 and the 3870X2 are not offering a performance worth to think about changing your GTX/Ultra(s) for them.
Anyway, I still believe that a lot more performance can be squeezed out of the two SLI-ed 8800GT's stringed into GX2. I would wait for a decent driver for the GX2 before I make any conclusion about it. So far, it looks like a real disappointment. When talking about disappointments, the most disappointing are the 9800GT/9800GTX. These are a joke. I was expecting the 9800GTX to have gDDR4 @2.4GHz 384bit interface, 24 ROPs, 128SPs, 700+MHz core and 1900+MHz shader.

[3870x2]

Yeah, i was expecting like 60-70 fps max settings on crysis....ok, but still, something more than the nothing that i saw. If it was 500 dollars i wouldn't hesitate to step up to it. I wonder if paying the extra 50 dollars to step up to the gx2 from the 512 gts is even going to be worth it... guess well find out on april fools...where hopefully they are like "HAHA! were just joking guys, alright, were done now, heres the real gx2. Sorry for all you guys who bought the fluke, were not giving refunds."

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

Yeah, i was expecting like 60-70 fps max settings on crysis....ok, but still, something more than the nothing that i saw. If it was 500 dollars i wouldn't hesitate to step up to it. I wonder if paying the extra 50 dollars to step up to the gx2 from the 512 gts is even going to be worth it... guess well find out on april fools...where hopefully they are like "HAHA! were just joking guys, alright, were done now, heres the real gx2. Sorry for all you guys who bought the fluke, were not giving refunds."

^

I think 9800GX2 and 9800GT/X were meant to be 8900's, but theyre also probably the last iteration of g80 design, NV might have a new core/design at 65nm, and theyre just trying to run out the numbering scheme.

Its definitely a marketing trick. Since the g92 is nothing more than an optimized die shrink like penryn, and since NV's marketing department has SOME (who knows) strategy in mind, its pretty safe to assume that there is a good reason for such a crap progression in naming. The only logical one i could think of is that they want a new design under a new naming scheme.

About the performance, it needs new drivers I totally agree that the 9800GX2 and GT/X will be an EPIC waste of money if you have an 8800GTS.

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

but theyre also probably the last iteration of g80 design

no theyre not ...

[candle_86]

Originally Posted by 3870x2

actually the price per performance is pretty high with the 512 gts, meanwhile the gx2 has the worst price per dollar. By Far. I was expecting more, but the 200 extra dollars doesnt make the gx2 better. Im no fanboy, but, though people are saying NVidia has won, they havent. They lost. They have a card that performs 5% better than the x2 at about 30% higher price, Justification? >> its high end.
And as the drivers go along, the x2 will beat the gx2. If you think about it the Drivers for the g92 architecture been out since december, almost 3 months after the x2, and yet it still only barely beats the x2. Next month, the x2 will probably equal or beat the gx2 in FPS at 200 dollars more.
Good side? i would almost buy it just because it is by damned far the best looking card, and the best performing card. For that i give NVIDIA props, and as far as worth goes, it is still worth purchasing if you are an enthusiast. Im just dissapointed because its going to cost me more than 300 dollars to step up to this card, for only about 10-15% higher performance. GG, Nvidia and ATI are almost neck and neck.

I wouldn't count on that if i was you, the 2900XT never caught the 8800GTX like everyone said it would. But Nvidia always does tweaks a things to squezze power from there cards.

[candle_86]

Originally Posted by phanbuey

^

I think 9800GX2 and 9800GT/X were meant to be 8900's, but theyre also probably the last iteration of g80 design, NV might have a new core/design at 65nm, and theyre just trying to run out the numbering scheme.

Its definitely a marketing trick. Since the g92 is nothing more than an optimized die shrink like penryn, and since NV's marketing department has SOME (who knows) strategy in mind, its pretty safe to assume that there is a good reason for such a crap progression in naming. The only logical one i could think of is that they want a new design under a new naming scheme.

About the performance, it needs new drivers I totally agree that the 9800GX2 and GT/X will be an EPIC waste of money if you have an 8800GTS.

its very simple, ATI changed names without improving, so Nvidia has to or there cards appear dated and unable to compete wtih ATI