New Ultra High End Price Point With GeForce 8800 Ultra
by Derek Wilson on May 2, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Battlefield 2 Performance
Without AA enabled, our BF2 performance numbers are very CPU limited even up to 1920x1200. Even our 4xAA numbers peg the CPU at 1600x1200, but they do show a little more detail at the higher resolutions. Gamers who like the Battlefield series won't be losing anything by avoiding the 8800 Ultra.
BF2 performance in game is limited to 100fps, so any performance over this will be capped. Compressing our scores even more clearly shows that nothing faster than an 8800 GTX is going to make a real performance difference in BF2. Our 8800 Ultra is only slightly faster than the EVGA card, and comes in at a little more than 10% faster than the 8800 GTX.
Without AA enabled, our BF2 performance numbers are very CPU limited even up to 1920x1200. Even our 4xAA numbers peg the CPU at 1600x1200, but they do show a little more detail at the higher resolutions. Gamers who like the Battlefield series won't be losing anything by avoiding the 8800 Ultra.
BF2 performance in game is limited to 100fps, so any performance over this will be capped. Compressing our scores even more clearly shows that nothing faster than an 8800 GTX is going to make a real performance difference in BF2. Our 8800 Ultra is only slightly faster than the EVGA card, and comes in at a little more than 10% faster than the 8800 GTX.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
kalrith - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
...because you can't purchase an E6600 that's overclocked to 2.9GHz out of the box, with the warranty intact. The extreme CPUs are actually marketable to people who want the overclocked performance without doing it on their own and voiding the warranty.We can already do that with EVGA's overclocked 8800GTX that performs at about 2% less than the Ultra and costs 22% less. It does that right out of the box and keeps its warranty at that performance level.
ADDAvenger - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Like they aren't already more of a status symbol than commodity!?
DerekWilson - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
perhaps to some ... and the ferrari analogy isn't quite right there either -- ferrari's actually have something to offer on the road/track, and they can be a good investment as well ... perhaps I need to rework that sentence.the thing is, there are enthusiasts out there who will buy the 8800 GTX for it's performance. but with cards more like the ultra, we will see fewer people buy the card for any quality/performance advantage. a higher ratio of status seekers will buy it as opposed to real enthusiasts.
certainly the hardcore overclockers will be interested. and it'll be interesting to see what A3 G80 silicon can do when strapped to a phase change cooling system. but that market isn't very large.
sxr7171 - Thursday, May 3, 2007 - link
Well the market for any $830 card isn't large as it stands, but the likelihood users adding some crazy cooling to it is pretty high among those who would pay $830 for a video card.Den - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
I would like to see the power usage numbers on this card since part of the A3 revision was supposed to help reduce power consumption.I agree this is a big step in price for a small step in performance, but that is just like high end CPU's. The interesting question is, when EVGA and others come out with overclocked Ultra cards, how much faster will those be than their overclocked GTX's? If they can get a 10% lead for $200 more, I bet they will get some takers.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
we don't usually test power with reference boards. we'll certainly look at it when we get our hands on a retail product though.nvidia is reporting lower power usage with the 8800 Ultra that ammounts to just a couple watts less than the 8800 GTX. While this is good for a higher performance part, it's nothing to write home about.
Chadder007 - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Holy Not worth the price of admission Batman!! That much more for an overclocked GTX?Fluppeteer - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
I completely understand this review's conclusions, but I can't help but notice...If the reviewers have agreed that the only point of this card is its ability to be overclocked, and given that they overclocked it (and proved that it has more headroom than the GTX), why are there no performance results for the overclocked card? Just because retail cards may behave differently? Surely they'd overclock *somewhat*, so the extra sample point (even with a "YMMV" by it) would be useful.
Fine, overclocking ability varies on a card-by-card basis, but if the sole point of this card (whether nVidia market it as such or not) is to be ramped up from the default clock, it seems strange not to have shown how much performance this might have provided.
Clearly the Ultra at default clock isn't economical compared with an overclocked GTX (no news there - a lot of overclocked devices are more economical than slower "higher end" parts), but if this card is really capable of running at higher speeds, that still makes it the fastest card available - and it would be nice to know by how much. Maybe nVidia will change their minds about the default clock (and remove a few Ultras from the production line) if the 2900XTX turns out to be faster than expected.
I'll reserve judgement until the consumer cards appear.
sxr7171 - Thursday, May 3, 2007 - link
Yes that is the real question. The whole reason all the revisions were done was to enable better O/Cing. Anyway, I can't afford it, but I hope it O/Cs well for those who can.ss284 - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
This is a really good point. Some OCed results would help, although the card is still overpriced.