Getting Cocky: 8800 GT vs. the GTX

We've already established that NVIDIA's new 8800 GT is better than the 8800 GTS, and we've just proved that the 8800 GT is a much better value than the 8600 GTS, but how does it fare against the current king of the hill - the GeForce 8800 GTX?

We would be out of our minds to expect the 8800 GT to even remotely compete with the GTX, but the real question is - how much more performance do you get from the extra money you spent on the GTX over the GT?













Because the 8800 GT does top the 8800 GTS, there is an even smaller gap between the 8800 GT and the GTX than between the existing $400 and $500 parts. With a smaller difference in performance than the GTS and about a $250 to $300 premium for the 8800 GTX beyond the part that falls one step down in performance, we really don't see much motivation to purchase the 8800 GTX.

Of course, there are exceptions to this, and people who own 30" displays and have deep pockets will still want the best of the best in their boxes, which means the 8800 GTX/Ultra SLI setup that will be necessary to get the most out of Crysis when the game finally makes its way on to shelves this fall. NVIDIA still owns the high end market, and while it's not for everyone, it is there for those who need it.

But back to the real story, in spite of the fact that the 8800 GT doesn't touch the GTX, two of them will certainly beat it for either equal or less money.

NVIDIA Demolishes... NVIDIA? 8800 GT vs. 8600 GTS What must AMD do? 8800 GT vs. 2900 XT
POST A COMMENT

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • AggressorPrime - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    I made a typo. Let us hope they are not on the same level. Reply
  • ninjit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    This page has my very confused:
    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...

    The text of the article goes on as if the GT doesn't really compare to the GTX, except on price/performance:

    quote:

    We would be out of our minds to expect the 8800 GT to even remotely compete with the GTX, but the real question is - how much more performance do you get from the extra money you spent on the GTX over the GT?


    quote:

    But back to the real story, in spite of the fact that the 8800 GT doesn't touch the GTX, two of them will certainly beat it for either equal or less money.



    Yet all the graphs show the GT performing pretty much on par with the GTX, with at most a 5-10fps difference at the highest resolution.

    I didn't understand that last sentence I quoted above at all.
    Reply
  • archcommus - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    This is obviously an amazing card and I hope it sets a new trend for getting good gaming performance in the latest titles for around $200 like it used to be, unlike the recent trend of having to spend $350+ for high end (not even ultra high end). However, I don't get why a GT part is higher performing than a GTS, isn't that going against their normal naming scheme a bit? I thought it was typically: Ultra -> GTX -> GTS -> GT -> GS, or something like that. Reply
  • mac2j - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    I've been hearing rumors about an Nvidia 9800 card being released in the coming months .... is that the same card with an outdated/incorrect naming convention or a new architecture beyond G92?

    I guess if Nvidia had a next-gen architecture coming it would explain why they dont mind wiping some of their old products off the board with the 8800 GT which seems as though it will be a dominant part for the remaining lifetime of this generation of parts.
    Reply
  • MFK - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    After lurking on Anandtech for two layout/design revisions, I have finally decided to post a comment. :D
    First of all hi all!

    Second of all, is it okay that nVidia decided not to introduce a proper next gen part in favour of this mid range offering? Okay so its good and what not, but what I'm wondering is, something that the article does not talk about, is what the future value of this card is. Can I expect this to play some upcoming games (Alan Wake?) on 1600 x 1200? I know its hard to predict, but industry analysts like you guys should have some idea. Also how long can I expect this card to continue playing games at acceptable framerates? Any idea, any one?
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    that's a tough call ....

    but really, it's up to the developers.

    UT3 looks great in DX9, and Bioshock looks great in DX10. Crysis looks amazing, but its a demo, not final code and it does run very slow.

    The bottom line is that developers need to balance the amazing effects they show off with playability -- it's up to them. They know what hardware you've got and they chose to push the envelope or not.

    I konw that's not an answer, sorry :-( ... it is just nearly impossible to say what will happen.
    Reply
  • crimson117 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    How much ram was on the 8800 GT used in testing? Was is 256 or 512? Reply
  • NoBull6 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    From context, I'm thinking 512. Since 512MB are the only cards available in the channel, and Derek was hypothesizing about the pricing of a 256MB version, I think you can be confident this was a 512MB test card. Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    correct.

    256MB cards do not exist outside NVIDIA at this point.
    Reply
  • ninjit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    I was just wondering about that too.

    I thought I missed it in the article, but I didn't see it in another run through.

    I see I'm not the only one who was curious
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now