NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT: The Only Card That Matters
by Derek Wilson on October 29, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
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.
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
vijay333 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
just activated the step-up on my current 8800GTS 320MB -- after shipping costs and discounting the MIR from back then, I actually get the 8800GT 512MB for -$12 :)bespoke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Lucky bastard! :)vijay333 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
hehe...great timing too. only had 5 days remaining before the 90day limit for the step-up program expired :)clockerspiel - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Genrally, Anandtech does an excellent job with it's reviews and uses robust benchmarking methodology. Any ideas why the Tech Report's results are so different?http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13479">http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13479
Frumious1 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Simply put? TechReport is doing some funny stuff (like HardOCP often does) with their benchmarking on this one. I have a great idea: let's find the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the 8800 GT vs. the 8800 GTS 640 and then ONLY show those resolutions! 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF? Ignoring the fact that 16xAF isn't noticeably different from 8xAF - and that 4xAA is hardly necessary at 2560x1600 there are just too many questions left by the TR review. They generally come to the same conclusion that this is a great card, but it's almost like they're struggling to find ANY situation where the 8800 GT might not be as good as the 8800 GTS 640.For a different, more comprehensive look at the 8800 GT, why not try http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce...">the FiringSquad review? They test at a variety of resolutions with a decent selection of GPUs and games. Out of all of their results, the only situation where the 8800 GTS 640 comes out ahead of the 8800 GT is in Crysis at 2xAA/8xAF at 1920x1200. Granted, they don't have 2560x1600 resolutions in their results, but how many midrange people use 30" LCDs? For that matter, how many highend gamers use 30" LCDs? I'm sure they're nice, but for $1300+ I have a lot of other stuff I'd be interested in purchasing!
There are a lot of things that we don't know about testing methodology with all of the reviews. What exact detail settings are used, for example, and more importantly how realistic are those settings? Remember Doom 3's High Quality and Ultra Quality? Running everything with uncompressed textures to artificially help 512MB cards appear better than 256MB cards is stupid. Side by side screenshots showed virtually no difference. I don't know what the texture settings are in the Crysis demo, but I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people are maxing everything out and then crying about performance. Being a next gen title, I bet Crysis has the ability to stress the 1GB cards - whether or not it really results in an improved visual experience.
Maybe we can get some image quality comparisons when the game actually launches, though - because admittedly I could be totally wrong and the Crysis settings might be reasonable.
Frumious1 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Simply put? TechReport is doing some funny stuff (like HardOCP often does) with their benchmarking on this one. I have a great idea: let's find the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the 8800 GT vs. the 8800 GTS 640 and then ONLY show those resolutions! 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF? Ignoring the fact that 16xAF isn't noticeably different from 8xAF - and that 4xAA is hardly necessary at 2560x1600 there are just too many questions left by the TR review. They generally come to the same conclusion that this is a great card, but it's almost like they're struggling to find ANY situation where the 8800 GT might not be as good as the 8800 GTS 640.For a different, more comprehensive look at the 8800 GT, why not try
Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
I just dont like being fed by the same site to tell 2 totally different things when picking my new GPU card.Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Ive been following anandtech testresults very carefully since the UT3 demo was released. What i can find comparing these results to the others in UT3 just doesnt make any sense ;1.st
Looking at : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
shows the new 8800GT card beating 2900XT by, almost 120fps vs 105fps or so, in 1280*1024 @ UT3.
2.nd
Looking at the first & second GPU test : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128...
Shows the 2900XT being on top with about 108,5fps, vs 8800 ULTRA, GTX and GTS, with 104,2 98,3 and 97.2 @ 1280 * 1024.
Prett close nr.s you see.
3.rd
Looking at the new test again, 8800GT VS 8800GTS : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
Shows the 8800GT beating 8800GTS. @ 1280 * 1024 = close to 120fps vs 105fps. The GTS still over 100, when being below a 100 on the previous test.
But the huge difference is @ 1600 * 1200. 8800GT right above 100fps, when the GTS around 90? On the previous test GTS showed results as low as 77fps, cmon something smells wierd.
See where im going?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
just showed the 8600GTS performing alot worse in this new test compared to the old one, @ all resolutions.
and again
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
8800GT and 8800GTX performing about the same, at the highest almost 120fps. compared to the previous test thats like 20 fps better than the GTX performed last time. Why dont these tests corresponde at all to the one just made?
Seems like all the 8800GT, GTX, ULTRA cards just got awhole freaking lot better, and making the 2900xt looking worse. WHICH I FIND DOUBLTY.. Someone bring the facts to the table.
dont tell me 2extra gb of ram made the nvidia cards play alot better, and the ati card alot worse!
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
We used a different driver version this time -- in fact, we've gone through two driver revisions from NVIDIA here.The AMD card didn't slip significatnly in performance at all (differences were all within 3%).
We did rerun the numbers, and we really think its a driver issue -- the new NV driver improved performance.
Parafan - Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - link
Well clearly a graphics issue this must be. But I read nvidia 169.xx drivers were made for optimizing the performance, but lowering the quality of the graphics.This was prooved when the water was less nicer in crysis etc with 169.04 and 169.01, than with their previous 163.xx drivers.