NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GTX Priced

[Jimmy 2004]

According to NordicHardware, several leaked slides have revealed the price of NVIDIA's upcoming GeForce 9800 GTX card to be $349 (one even said $299-$349, but the higher value seems much more likely). The card should go on sale on March 25th, and the reference specifications have a G92-420 core running at 675MHz with 512MB of GDDR3 memory at 2000MHz.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Jimmy 2004]

Thanks to calvary1980 for sending this in.

 

[crow1001]

Just buy an 8800GTS and OC it, most retarded release from Nvidia in a long while.

 

[candle_86]

i disagree really, its a new core revision and god knows what else, bring it on baby

 

[Snake05]

I don't believe the performance over the GTS 512 is going to be worth the money, but then again thats how performance cards always are...

 

[mdm-adph]

Maybe this means ATI'll drop the price on the 3870 X2 a little more to compete even better...

 

[crow1001]

Doh, have you not seen the specs and 06 scores, revised core or not, its on par with an overclocked GTS, it may have more room for overclocking but this release sucks big time. I would probably take the age old GTX over this, bigger interface and memory, real embarrassment.

 

[HousERaT]

I'll think about this card when it hits $300.00. If they release it at that price then that's even better.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

nvidiots ...

 

[sinner33]

I was too impatient of waiting after 6 months with a 6600gt, got myself a 3870x2. I'm happy i didn't miss out on this marginal upgrade.

 

[ShinyG]

Well, I think ATi pulled a very good improvement with the 38x0 over the old 2900 as far as efficiency and price go so we assumed the jump from 8800 to 9800 would be equally impressive...
I guess not...
Giving the card another finger (SLI finger, pun intended) doesn't seem to be enough for a name change. Also, where is the DDR4 memory?

 

[tvdang7]

Just buy an 8800GTS and OC it, most retarded release from Nvidia in a long while.

? 7800 gtx 512 and 7900 gtx is just the same story.

i hear the 9800 gtx has more unlocked shaders

 

[newtekie1]

So an MSRP of $50 more than the 8800GTS 512.

When you look at the extras of the card, the $50 is more than warranted.

1. Triple-SLI
2. Far better power curuits
3. Far better overclocking(because of 2)
4. Better memory
5. Much better memory clocks because of 4

Even if you ignore Triple-SLI, because lets face it most people aren't going to use it, the better power curcuits and better memory is worth the $50. I'll definitely consider trading in my 8800GTS 512 in a step-up through eVGA for $50.

Well, I think ATi pulled a very good improvement with the 38x0 over the old 2900 as far as efficiency and price go so we assumed the jump from 8800 to 9800 would be equally impressive...
I guess not...
Giving the card another finger (SLI finger, pun intended) doesn't seem to be enough for a name change. Also, where is the DDR4 memory?

When you look at it, it really is a big improvement. Compare the 8800GTX to the 9800GTX, the 9800GTX is a huge improvement.

People are getting way to hung up on the naming scheme of the cards. Yes, the improvement from the 8800GTS512 to 9800GTX isn't that big. But lets face it, the 8800GTS512 should have been a 9800 series card. Actually, I will say it, the 9800GTX should be an 8 series card, specifically the 8900 series just like the 8800GTS512 should have been. I will also say that ATi's 3800 series should have been the 2950 series.

I don't believe that having a simple die shrink, which is what ATI did, and adding DX10.1 was really worth changing the name to the 3800 series. Personally, I think the 3870 should have been the 2950XT and the 3850 should have been the 2950Pro. There simply wasn't a big enough improvement to warrant a entire name change.

I really don't believe the G92/94 based cards should have 9000 series names either. I don't think there is enough improvement to warrant a name change either. Personally, I think the 8800GTS512 should have been called the 8900GTX, and the 9800GTX should have been called the 8900Ultra. Though at least nVidia reworked their cores a little in an effort to boost performance and didn't just do a die shrink like ATi.

 

[phanbuey]

totally agree

 

[hv43082]

Well this means I don't have to upgrade my 8800GTX. Save some money!

 

[DarkMatter]

So an MSRP of $50 more than the 8800GTS 512.

When you look at the extras of the card, the $50 is more than warranted.

1. Triple-SLI
2. Far better power curuits
3. Far better overclocking(because of 2)
4. Better memory
5. Much better memory clocks because of 4

Even if you ignore Triple-SLI, because lets face it most people aren't going to use it, the better power curcuits and better memory is worth the $50. I'll definitely consider trading in my 8800GTS 512 in a step-up through eVGA for $50.



When you look at it, it really is a big improvement. Compare the 8800GTX to the 9800GTX, the 9800GTX is a huge improvement.

People are getting way to hung up on the naming scheme of the cards. Yes, the improvement from the 8800GTS512 to 9800GTX isn't that big. But lets face it, the 8800GTS512 should have been a 9800 series card. Actually, I will say it, the 9800GTX should be an 8 series card, specifically the 8900 series just like the 8800GTS512 should have been. I will also say that ATi's 3800 series should have been the 2950 series.

I don't believe that having a simple die shrink, which is what ATI did, and adding DX10.1 was really worth changing the name to the 3800 series. Personally, I think the 3870 should have been the 2950XT and the 3850 should have been the 2950Pro. There simply wasn't a big enough improvement to warrant a entire name change.

I really don't believe the G92/94 based cards should have 9000 series names either. I don't think there is enough improvement to warrant a name change either. Personally, I think the 8800GTS512 should have been called the 8900GTX, and the 9800GTX should have been called the 8900Ultra. Though at least nVidia reworked their cores a little in an effort to boost performance and didn't just do a die shrink like ATi.

Exactly! I said something similar some time ago. Don't know in general, but many people that I know thought HD3870 was better than 8800 and HD2900 just because of the name. Maybe Nvidia felt they had to increase the number just like Ati did.

Apart from that, the card is better than 8800GTS. Yeah an OCed 8800 GTS performs just as well, but let's face it, 9800GTX running at 675Mhz is faster in released reviews than 8800GTS at 700+ Mhz, and that's an improvement. And they are selling them for $50 more ffs, they are not selling it at +$500 as if it was the next gen moster. Forget about naming, it's a revision. I don't remember so many people blaming Ati because of HD3000 naming.

 

[MilkyWay]

dont care all i want to know is dose it perform significantly better than my 8800gt 512

 

[flashstar]

It's obvious now that the 9xxx series isn't like the 7xxx to 8xxx jump or the 6xxx to 7xxx jump. I'd consider 9xxx to be more of a "hop". This change is more comparable to when Microsoft released windows XP over 2000 with just more "bling bling".

What I'm trying to say is that even if Nvidia adds more shaders and improves the memory, the core architecture will remain the same. I'm betting that ATI has been able to keep quiet enough about the R700 long enough that Nvidia has really underestimated them.

Nvidia's going to try to rush out the 10,000 series soon enough because I'm sure that they now know that ATI is in the lead technologically. It's up to the guys in red to get the R700 out before that happens.

 

[MilkyWay]

lets remember that this is like half life 2 episodes bring out one model tweak it bring out a new card teak it again bring out a new line of cards
then when its ready bring out the new tech

at the moment getting a 3870 makes sense if you plan on going crossfire but for a single gpu solution if get a 8800gt 1gb version coz really the 8800gts is a little dearer and not significant enuf to warrant the extra when new cards are out this year

 

[yogurt_21]

So an MSRP of $50 more than the 8800GTS 512.

When you look at the extras of the card, the $50 is more than warranted.

1. Triple-SLI
2. Far better power curuits
3. Far better overclocking(because of 2)
4. Better memory
5. Much better memory clocks because of 4

Even if you ignore Triple-SLI, because lets face it most people aren't going to use it, the better power curcuits and better memory is worth the $50. I'll definitely consider trading in my 8800GTS 512 in a step-up through eVGA for $50.



When you look at it, it really is a big improvement. Compare the 8800GTX to the 9800GTX, the 9800GTX is a huge improvement.

People are getting way to hung up on the naming scheme of the cards. Yes, the improvement from the 8800GTS512 to 9800GTX isn't that big. But lets face it, the 8800GTS512 should have been a 9800 series card. Actually, I will say it, the 9800GTX should be an 8 series card, specifically the 8900 series just like the 8800GTS512 should have been. I will also say that ATi's 3800 series should have been the 2950 series.

I don't believe that having a simple die shrink, which is what ATI did, and adding DX10.1 was really worth changing the name to the 3800 series. Personally, I think the 3870 should have been the 2950XT and the 3850 should have been the 2950Pro. There simply wasn't a big enough improvement to warrant a entire name change.

I really don't believe the G92/94 based cards should have 9000 series names either. I don't think there is enough improvement to warrant a name change either. Personally, I think the 8800GTS512 should have been called the 8900GTX, and the 9800GTX should have been called the 8900Ultra. Though at least nVidia reworked their cores a little in an effort to boost performance and didn't just do a die shrink like ATi.

you'e got a real point there. if it's only 50$ more with a trade up program it's definetly worth it. especially if evga tacks on some extras.

 

[newtekie1]

It's obvious now that the 9xxx series isn't like the 7xxx to 8xxx jump or the 6xxx to 7xxx jump. I'd consider 9xxx to be more of a "hop". This change is more comparable to when Microsoft released windows XP over 2000 with just more "bling bling".

What I'm trying to say is that even if Nvidia adds more shaders and improves the memory, the core architecture will remain the same. I'm betting that ATI has been able to keep quiet enough about the R700 long enough that Nvidia has really underestimated them.

Nvidia's going to try to rush out the 10,000 series soon enough because I'm sure that they now know that ATI is in the lead technologically. It's up to the guys in red to get the R700 out before that happens.

ATi in the lead technologically? How do you figure that? I think you have some of your facts confused.

ATi has yet to release a single core that can outperform nVidia. They haven't had a GPU that can outperform nVidia in well over a year, almost a year and a half. Their only chance at outperforming nVidia was to make a card with two of their highest end GPUs on it, and even then it is only roughly 5% better than nVidia's high end single GPU offering. Even still, it is only 8% faster overall than the 8800GTS 512MB, but costs about $180 more.

Do you really think this is nVidia's answer to R700? Of course not, G100 is in the works also.

Like I said, all of you get on nVidia for calling G92 a new generation, but I don't remember any of you doing the same for ATi with the 3800 series. At least nVidia actually reworked the core somewhat to give better performance, ATi did nothing more than add DX10.1 support and shrunk the die.

 

[DanishDevil]

I personally think the major difference between ATi and nVidia right now is their marketing strategy.

For the first time, people can buy ATi's best single GPU for under $200. IMO, that's awesome. nVidia hasn't changed their marketing strategy, but ever since AMD got a hold of ATi, they seem to be appealing to the crowd that doesn't have $2000 to blow on updated PC components every 3 months. And that's the crowd that I'm a part of.

 

[eidairaman1]

I personally think the major difference between ATi and nVidia right now is their marketing strategy.

For the first time, people can buy ATi's best single GPU for under $200. IMO, that's awesome. nVidia hasn't changed their marketing strategy, but ever since AMD got a hold of ATi, they seem to be appealing to the crowd that doesn't have $2000 to blow on updated PC components every 3 months. And that's the crowd that I'm a part of.

Look what im on, its still capable of playing games fine

 

[Water Drop]

Sounds more like an "8900GTX" then a "9800GTX" by looking at the specs, but I'll wait till the final benchmarks to see what this offers over a G92 8800GT(S)

 

[flashstar]

The R600 core is much more logically designed than the G92 or G80. Now, ATI just has to add more brute force and they will have a winner. It appears that the R700 will do just that. I doubt that Nvidia can achieve a 60% performance boost even on their G100 like ATI is supposedly going to with their R7xx really soon.