9800gtx From Asus Evaluated

[Nemo]

The review can be found at: http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asus_en9800gtx/

[Wwhat]

It seems a bit pushing it to say 'cons: none' since I personally can't help but notice that it doesn't have dx10.1(/shader4.1) support, and that it probably isn't the best idea to now spend 300 on a card that's just a tweaked soon-to-be-replaced generation.

[Bosco]

It seems a bit pushing it to say 'cons: none' since I personally can't help but notice that it doesn't have dx10.1(/shader4.1) support, and that it probably isn't the best idea to now spend 300 on a card that's just a tweaked soon-to-be-replaced generation.

Its kinda of hard to put that as a con when the card is not designed for that.

 

Its like saying well I don't like this Mustang because it doesn't run on propane

 

Once the new 9900's come out hopefully that will add what current cards lack time will tell.

[capthowdy575]

does any card support 10.1 and 4.1

[jammin]

All the ATI HD 3xxx series cards support DX 10.1 / Shader model 4.1.

 

How relevant DX 10.1 support is at the moment is debatable.

Edited April 7, 2008 by jammin

[Ste]

Far as I know, which isn't much, the 9800GTX's are slightly beefed up 8800 GTS's. A few more capacitors and it is clocked higher.. Maybe a few revisions made to the PCB or core design? I dunnue..

 

So stepping up from a lower card may be a good idea, but flat out paying the full price for one, I just can't see...

[capthowdy575]

well i have a 2900 pro im thinking of getting a 3870 or just wait for the new cards to come out

[rwm]

There really is a con:

At very high resolutions/AA/AF you have lower fps with the 9800gtx in some games than with the cheaper and older 8800GTX.

That is because the 9800gtx only has a 256bit memory bus instead of the 384bit of the 8800gtx.

http://www.ht4u.net/reviews/2008/nvidia_ge...gtx/index25.php

[Bosco]

There really is a con:

At very high resolutions/AA/AF you have lower fps with the 9800gtx in some games than with the cheaper and older 8800GTX.

That is because the 9800gtx only has a 256bit memory bus instead of the 384bit of the 8800gtx.

http://www.ht4u.net/reviews/2008/nvidia_ge...gtx/index25.php

 

Actually if you take the time to look you will find the 9800GTX cheaper then the 8800GTX.

 

Second we do not use a timedemo for Call of Duty 4

 

Third we are using Vista not XP like you linked too.

 

At 1920 the 9800 lost by 7 frames for a cheaper and newer style card thats not to bad in COD4.

 

Now if you look at Bioshock the 9800 beat the 8800GTX by 8 frames at 1920.

 

Now if you look at all of our games that we tested on the 9800 only lost three times at 1920 one of those by 1 frame.

 

So no I do not agree with you that its a con.

 

As for the site that you linked to using bioshock's intro and claiming over 200 frames give me a break. 150 frames at 1920 come on.................... I am all for sharing opinions and comments but next time link to something I can understand and doesn't throw consumers for a loop. <_>

[ccokeman]

The intro is not nearly as gpu intensive as the game. i see spikes well above 200 in that section.

[rwm]

Actually if you take the time to look you will find the 9800GTX cheaper then the 8800GTX.

 

I already did:

The cheapest 8800gtx I find is a XFX GeForce 8800 GTX 600M Extreme, 768MB GDDR3 for 205,90€.

http://geizhals.at/deutschland/?fs=8800gtx...amp;y=0&in=

 

And the cheapest 9800gtx I find is a Zotac GeForce 9800 GTX, 512MB GDDR3 for 233,61€.

http://geizhals.at/deutschland/?fs=9800gtx...amp;y=0&in=

 

Second we do not use a timedemo for Call of Duty 4

 

Third we are using Vista not XP like you linked too.

 

And this contradicts the fact of the lower memory bus speed and its consequences in which way?

 

At 1920 the 9800 lost by 7 frames for a cheaper and newer style card thats not to bad in COD4.

 

Now if you look at Bioshock the 9800 beat the 8800GTX by 8 frames at 1920.

 

Now if you look at all of our games that we tested on the 9800 only lost three times at 1920 one of those by 1 frame.

 

That is why I wrote:

"At very high resolutions/AA/AF you have lower fps with the 9800gtx in some games than with the cheaper and older 8800GTX."

 

So no I do not agree with you that its a con.

 

You are wrong, at very high resolutions/AA/AF in some games the lower memory bus speed is a con.

 

As for the site that you linked to using bioshock's intro and claiming over 200 frames give me a break. 150 frames at 1920 come on....................

 

The intro is not that gpu intensive as the game and the used system(Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Win XP) is pretty fast.

 

I am all for sharing opinions and comments but next time link to something I can understand and doesn't throw consumers for a loop. <_<

 

What is so difficult to understand the graph? I only posted another benchmark to show that others also got such results and not only ccokeman/overclockersclub.com.

Edited April 11, 2008 by rwm

[Silverfox]

I already did:

The cheapest 8800gtx I find is a XFX GeForce 8800 GTX 600M Extreme, 768MB GDDR3 for 205,90