NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT: The Only Card That Matters
by Derek Wilson on October 29, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
What must AMD do? 8800 GT vs. 2900 XT
Alright, here's where things get really interesting. AMD has yet to come out with its 8800 GT competitor, but we've heard some rumors here and there. First, our understanding is that the RV670 based AMD part will not be any faster than the 2900 XT (and will likely be at least a little bit slower). While we can't confirm this, as we haven't heard from AMD on the subject or received hardware to play with yet (in fact if we had, we wouldn't even be able to bring up our speculation). But if we are right, then it makes sense to compare the 8800 GT to the 2900 XT and see what happens.
Given the performance of the 8800 GT relative to the 8800 GTS, we can expect the 8800 GT to perform on par with, if not better than, the Radeon HD 2900 XT. Our numbers, confirm this for the most part. It's also worth noting that as resolution increases, the 2900 XT really closes the performance gap. This information is quite important. Either AMD needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us with performance higher than we expect, or they need to compete with the 8800 GT based on price. We are hearing that the upcoming part from AMD should be competitive with 8800 GT pricing, but we'd need to see availability of the RV670 based parts at prices lower than the 8800 GT to make them start looking worth while. This could be difficult for AMD if NVIDIA hits their target of $200 (or lower for the 256MB version).
Again, none of the info we have on the upcoming AMD part is confirmed by AMD. We are simply speculating based on our best guess at their direction and rumors we have heard. Regardless of what AMD does or doesn't have in the works, it will be difficult for them to afford just another moderate showing. They must either clearly out perform or out price the 8800 GT to stay in the game this generation.
Alright, here's where things get really interesting. AMD has yet to come out with its 8800 GT competitor, but we've heard some rumors here and there. First, our understanding is that the RV670 based AMD part will not be any faster than the 2900 XT (and will likely be at least a little bit slower). While we can't confirm this, as we haven't heard from AMD on the subject or received hardware to play with yet (in fact if we had, we wouldn't even be able to bring up our speculation). But if we are right, then it makes sense to compare the 8800 GT to the 2900 XT and see what happens.
Given the performance of the 8800 GT relative to the 8800 GTS, we can expect the 8800 GT to perform on par with, if not better than, the Radeon HD 2900 XT. Our numbers, confirm this for the most part. It's also worth noting that as resolution increases, the 2900 XT really closes the performance gap. This information is quite important. Either AMD needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us with performance higher than we expect, or they need to compete with the 8800 GT based on price. We are hearing that the upcoming part from AMD should be competitive with 8800 GT pricing, but we'd need to see availability of the RV670 based parts at prices lower than the 8800 GT to make them start looking worth while. This could be difficult for AMD if NVIDIA hits their target of $200 (or lower for the 256MB version).
Again, none of the info we have on the upcoming AMD part is confirmed by AMD. We are simply speculating based on our best guess at their direction and rumors we have heard. Regardless of what AMD does or doesn't have in the works, it will be difficult for them to afford just another moderate showing. They must either clearly out perform or out price the 8800 GT to stay in the game this generation.
Getting Cocky: 8800 GT vs. the GTX
Out with the Old, In with the New: 8800 GT vs. 7950 GT and 1950 XT
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
It's hard to tell what you are getting when you compare the results from one article to those of another article. Ideally, you would like to be able to assume that the testing was done in an identical manner, but this isn't typically the case. As was already pointed out, look at the drivers being used. The earlier tests used nvidia's 163.75 drivers while the tests in this article used nvidia's 169.10 drivers.Also, not enough was said about how Unreal 3 was being tested to know, but I wonder if they benchmarked the the game in different manners for the different articles. For example, were they using the same map "demo"? Were they using the game's built-in fly-bys or where they using FRAPS? These kind of differences between articles could make direct comparisons between articles difficult.
spinportal - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Have you checked the driver versions? Over time drivers do improve performance, perhaps?Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Well the 'new' drivers made the GF 8600GTS Perform alot worse. But the higher ranked cards better. I dont know how likely that isRegs - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
To blacken. I am a big AMD fan, but right now it's almost laughable how they're getting stepped and kicked on by the competition.AMD's ideas are great for the long run, and their 65nm process was just a mistake since 45nm is right around the corner. They simply do not know how to compete when the heat is on. AMD is still traveling in 1st gear.
yacoub - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
"NVIDIA Demolishes... NVIDIA? 8800 GT vs. 8600 GTS"Well the 8600GTS was a mistake that never should have seen the light of day: over-priced, under-featured from the start. The 8800 GT is the card we were expecting back in the Spring when NVidia launched that 8600 GTS turd instead.
yacoub - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
First vendor to put a quieter/larger cooling hsf on it gets my $250.gamephile - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Dih. Toh.CrystalBay - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Hi Derek, How are the Temps on load? I've seen some results of the GPU pushing 88C degrees plus with that anemic stock cooler.Spacecomber - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
I may be a bit misinformed on this, but I'm getting the impression that Crysis represents the first game that makes major use of DX10 features, and as a consequence, it takes a major bite out of the performance that existing PC hardware can provide. When the 8800GT is used in a heavy DX10 game context does the performance that results fall into a hardware class that we typically would expect from a $200 part? In other words, making use of the Ti-4200 comparison, is the playable performance only acceptable at moderate resolutions and medium settings?We've seen something like this before, when DX8 hardware was available and people were still playing DX7 games with this new hardware, the performance was very good. Once games started to show up that were true DX8 games, hardware (like the Ti-4200) that first supported DX8 features struggled to actually run these DX8 features.
Basically, I'm wondering whether Crysis (and other DX10 games that presumably will follow) places the 8800GT's $200 price point into a larger context that makes sense.
Zak - Monday, November 5, 2007 - link
I've run Vista for about a month before switching back to XP due to Quake Wars crashing a lot (no more crashes under XP). I've run bunch of demos during that month including Crysis and Bioshock and I swear I didn't see a lot of visual difference between DX10 on Vista and DX9 on XP. Same for Time Shift (does it use DX10?). And all games run faster on XP. I really see no compelling reason to go back to Vista just because of DX10.Zak