Here we are, a year after the launch of G80, and we are seeing what amounts to the first real "refresh" part. Normally, we see a new or revamped version of hardware about 6 months after its introduction, but this time NVIDIA introduced its latest architecture over a six month period instead. First we saw the high end hardware hit, then the low end parts emerged after resting on previous generation hardware to serve as the low end. We haven't seen a true midrange part come out over the past year, which has disappointed many.

Rather than actually create a midrange part based on G80, NVIDIA opted to tweak the core, shrink to a 65nm process, integrate the display engine, and come out with hardware that performed somewhere between the high end 8800 GTS and GTX (G92). While this, in itself, isn't remarkable, the fact that NVIDIA is pricing this card between $200 and $250 is. Essentially, we've been given a revised high end part at midrange prices. The resulting card, the 8800 GT, essentially cannibalizes a large chunk of NVIDIA's own DX10 class hardware lineup. Needless to say, it also further puts AMD's 2900 XT to shame.



We will certainly provide data to back up all these ridiculous claims (I actually think NVIDIA may have invented the question mark as well), but until then, let's check out what we are working with. We've got a lot to cover, so let's get right to it.

G92: Funky Naming for a G80 Derivative
POST A COMMENT

90 Comments

View All Comments

  • DukeN - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    This is unreal price to performance - knock on wood; play oblivion at 1920X1200 on a $250 GPU.

    Could we have a benchmark based on the Crysis demo please, how one or two cards would do?

    Also, the power page pics do not show up for some reason (may be the firewall cached it incorrectly here at work).

    Thank you.
    Reply
  • Xtasy26 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Hey Guys,

    If you want to see Crysis benchmarks, check out this link:

    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/1...">http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/.../2007/10...

    The benches are:

    1280 x 1024 : ~ 37 f.p.s.
    1680 x 1050 : 25 f.p.s.
    1920 x 1080 : ~ 21 f.p.s.

    This is on a test bed:

    Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 @2.93 GHz
    Asetek VapoChill Micro cooler
    EVGA 680i motherboard
    2GB Corsair Dominator PC2-9136C5D
    Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB/Zotac 8800GTX AMP!/XFX 8800Ultra/ATI Radeon HD2900XT
    250GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 16MB cache
    Sony BWU-100A Blu-ray burner
    Hiper 880W Type-R Power Supply
    Toshiba's external HD-DVD box (Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive)
    Dell 2407WFP-HC
    Logitech G15 Keyboard, MX-518 rat
    Reply
  • Xtasy26 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    This game seems real demanding. If it is getting 37 f.p.s. at 1280 x 1024, imagine what the frame rate will be with 4X FSAA enabled combined with 8X Anistrophic Filtering. I think I will wait till Nvidia releases there 9800/9600 GT/GTS and combine that with Intel's 45nm Penryn CPU. I want to play this beautiful game in all it's glory!:) Reply
  • Spuke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Impressive!!!! I read the article but I saw no mention of a release date. When's this thing available? Reply
  • Spuke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Ummm.....When can I BUY it? That's what I mean. Reply
  • EODetroit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Now.

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub...">http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductLi...18+10696...
    Reply
  • poohbear - Wednesday, October 31, 2007 - link

    when do u guys think its gonna be $250? cheapest i see is $270, but i understand when its first released the prices are jacked up a bit. Reply
  • EateryOfPiza - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    I second the request for Crysis benchmarks, that is the game that taxes everything at the moment. Reply
  • DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    we actually tested crysis ...

    but there were issues ... not with the game, we just shot ourselves in the foot on this one and weren't able to do as much as we wanted. We had to retest a bunch of stuff, and we didn't get to crysis.
    Reply
  • yyrkoon - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Yes, I am glad instead of purchasing a video card, I instead changed motherboard/CPU for Intel vs AMD. I still like my AM2 Opteron system a lot, but performance numbers, and the effortless 1Ghz OC on the ABIT IP35-E/(at $90usd !) was just too much to overlook.

    I can definitely understand your 'praise' as it were when nVidia is now lowering their prices, but this is where these prices should have always been. nVidia, and ATI/AMD have been ripping us, the consumer off for the last 1.5 years or so, so you will excuse me if I do not show too much enthusiasm when they finally lower their prices to where they should be. I do not consider this to be much different than the memory industry over charging, and the consumer getting the shaft(as per your article).

    I am happy though . . .
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now