Food For Thought

Ouch, what a disappointment.

May I use this graph in a hardware forum?

Sad on the consumer side. Great on the business side.

Nice!!! yeah that graph shows it just sucks to be the 9800 GTX right now. Not any improvement. Good job with the under achievement Nvidia.

@pk7: Of course...:)

Well looks like that all that matter to nvidia is that they can just sell their new stock, nothing else for consumers :D!

There must be some reasons nVidia to did this..... Can I upload this graph into my Friendster or blog?

That's rather riddiculous... but then again , the high bandwidth on the
8800 GTX/Ultra were rather riddiculously high and it wasn't fully in
use .

STUPIDITY REIGNS SUPREME!

They are just setting everyone up for the *new* release. This way they can say "Wow - this is X times faster than the previous 9800 GTX" - You know we will see it....

NV realized with the G92 core that the extra bandwidth was being wasted and was only raising the manufacturing price of the cards. I'd be willing to be that this applies to most of the recent cards as well.

The 2900XT didn't need a 512 bit bus and the 8800GTX didn't need a 384 bit bus. All it does is make it look better on paper and raise the cost of the card. There is not a performance difference on a card with too much bandwidth.

This comparison doesn't tell you which cards are being compared also, so I'm a bit suspicious.

Technically the 9800 GX2 is their new high end card. It has a memory bandwidth of 128 GB/sec. Which is higher than the 8800 ultra.

@-RK: The graph stands on its own merits. Never before has a new high-end nVidia card had dramatically less memory bandwidth than the previous generation. I could make a similar comparison of GFLOPS or any other rating you might choose. The point is, this is the first time nVidia has ever made a generational name change (i.e. 8-series to 9-series) and gone down in performance.

The cards compared are all nVidia's high end cards starting with the Riva 128 ZX. You can imagine the others: TNT 1, TNT 2 Ultra, GeForce 1 DDR, GeForce 2 Ultra, GeForce 3, GeForce 3 Ti 500, GeForce 4 Ti 4600, GeForce FX 5800 Ultra, GeForce FX 5900 Ultra, GeForce FX 5950 Ultra, GeForce 6800 Ultra, 7800 GTX, 7800 GTX 512, 7900 GTX, 8800 GTX, 8800 Ultra, 9800 GTX

@cronin101: Actually, the 9800 GX2 has two separate memory banks which must duplicate all texture data. So yeah it can move 128 GB/sec, but that's just the same data going to two different chips...so it's really only 64 GB/sec.

1 thing tho it's performance is close to the 8800gtx even with the lower memory bandwidth. Maybe they are thinking of doing more with less pretty sure their next cards are gonna be much better. Although would have been nice if it did perform a litle better.

The TNT2 Ultra was a highend card? Heheh... so I've even had a highend video card once in my life... about 7 years ago .

Anyway , the riddiculous bandwidth was useless , but they atleast could have made a new bloody core for the 9800 GTX , instead of using the old one .

@mike.

you actually mean gone down in STATISTICAL performance

real world and benchmarking, the 9800GTX is a step up from the 8800GTX.. (aka 3dmark score is thousands higher, more FPS in every game) if you've actually read any reviews... and that's just at stock :)

@Flinchy: I think it's pretty obvious that this is a graph of memory bandwidth, which is a statistic. I made no insinuation that this maps directly to overall performance in games.

That being said, the 9800 GTX is barely faster than the 8800 GTX...it is *not* faster than the 8800 Ultra...and it uses the exact same technology that was in the 8800 GT and 8800 GTS...

No matter how you slice it, given its name, this card is a huge disappointment and represents a step back for nVidia.

"The point is, this is the first time nVidia has ever made a generational name change (i.e. 8-series to 9-series) and gone down in performance."

...

and it IS faster than the GTX. the ULTRA is an overclocked GTX. overclock then 9800GTX...
....
....

and yes it's a huge disappointment, but it's still an increase, no matter how mild :-.. it's also not particularly expensive, i paid more for my 8800GT start of last december.

Sorry -RK, the larger bandwidth on the 8800 GTX has a HUGE impact in performance. Or does a 9800 GX2 Quad-Sli take massive downspikes in performance at high resolutions for no reason; when the 8800 GTX doesnt?

Nvidia made a crap move, very simply put. While we as a consumer may have no idea why they took this route it has to be a small step into a bigger picture. Honestly though i think ATI is putting so much pressure on them lately that they had to push something out and fast, so they decided to throw a new gen number(I.E. 9xxx), to make it seem a new and better card came out. I personally think it is a buncha B.S. and a cheap way to get a few extra bucks by slapping on a 9 thousand number and calling it an upgrade when in all tests the 8800 Ultra blows it away.

Mike, You mean memory performance right?

The card can't use all that extra bandwidth, so it doesn't affect the card's performance as a whole.

I agree wholeheartedly that the card is a complete failure, but memory bandwidth isn't the reason why.

This isnt the 9800 GTX, but since these two are based on the same bitwidth and compression technology for memory it is a very valid point. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ3OCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0 As you can see, the lack of memory bandwidth at high resolutions (which if you are buying the "highest end" card you will be playing at) causes massive downspikes in performance, especially when AA is turned on. The extra bandwidth IS used when using large textures (ie big screen resolution) and AA, so essentially when you are doing the two most intensive things. So this card is a complete failure and memory bandwidth is pretty much the reason why, because it won't scale well at 2 and 3 way at the resolutions you play at with 3 really high end cards; maximum. Also performance when AA is turned on is directly affected by memory bandwidth. And AA = mmmmm tasty. So the 8800GTX takes less of a hit with AA than G92 cards.

The 768 MB vRAM on the 8800 GTX makes it not take a huge performance hit unlike the 9800 GX2 . As far as I know , the GX2 uses only 512MB ( 2x512MB but as I recall , SLi-ing cards doesn't double the vRAM ) .

@-RK: I didn't say that was the reason. I just thought it was an interesting trend. The reason the card sucks is obvious: it's essentially just an overclocked 8800 GTS 512.

@Flinchy: The 8800 Ultra was released in a box labeled "8800 Ultra". That makes it a different card. And the 9800 GTX is slower than the 8800 Ultra, which means the 9000 series is a step backwards from the 8000 series. You've gone out of your way to try to correct me twice now and you've been wrong each time. I recommend you give your next comment, should you choose to make one, a little more thought.

@Radiator & Headfoot: I think the best way to state it, is that the memory bandwidth is why the 9800 GTX is not *equal* to the 8800 GTX/Ultra. However, even if the bandwidth were there, it would still be the smallest performance increase between major version changes nVidia has ever put forward.

Does Memory bandwidth of any graphics card tell the speed of that card ???
the more gb/s , the faster the graphics card is ???
how can i check the speed of the graphics card? by
memory clock frequency ?
core clock frequency ?
Memory bandwidth ?
Bits e.g 128bits ,192bits ,256bits, 384 bits or 512 bits
Gddr 2 , Gddr 3 , Gddr 4 ???
memory 128 mb , 256 mb , 512 mb , 1024 mb or 2048 mb ?
in this list , which causes the speed of the card??

no. it is general consensus that the 8800 ULTRA is an OC'd 8800GTX. and that IS what it IS. there's no if's or buts. just what it is. there is nothing different from the GTX to the ULTRA besides clock speed. GTX=ULTRA.

NOW.

the 9800GTX is NOT just an oc'd 8800GTS. some asian website (i'm sure you've seen it) proved it when they tried to flash a GTS with a 9800GTX bios. it failed. it failed hard. it's actually a voltmodded oc'd 8800GTS with upgrades to something in the transporting of the data to make it more efficient. 9other than that it's a GTS lol)

and you STILL have it incorrectly labelled as having only 56 TMU's.

@Mike

Yeah, very true. Although the part that's really unfortunate is the Quad Sli. If they had just increased the bitwidth to the same as G80 it would've been insane! Well I suppose it still is insane, but you know what I mean :D

@Flinchy: The 9800 GTX TMUs are fixed. It looks like Steve copied the 8800 GT when he added that card.

As for the 8800 Ultra vs 9800 GTX argument, you've completely missed the point. You're also being a jackass. My point is quite simple: nVidia released the 8800 Ultra, they then released the 9800 GTX. The 9800 GTX is slower than the 8800 Ultra. Therefore they've taken a step backwards.

Whether or not you think the 8800 Ultra is just an overclocked GTX couldn't be more pointless. The simple fact that people can go to the store and buy an 8800 Ultra makes it an actual card that actually exists and is therefore perfectly acceptable for comparison to the 9800 GTX.

At this point, you're doing little more than wasting my time with this argument. However, I must respond since I can't allow you to post a bunch of misinformation that might confuse people. So I'm going to ask you to drop the subject. This is my site, my opinion is the one that ultimately matters here. You're more than welcome to disagree. However, you are expressly forbidden to argue senselessly for days on end. Especially on card pages. If you want to ramble on, take it to the forums.

sorry, i was going from a peak potential point of view. the ULTRA is the peak of 8800GTX performance. the 9800GTX can still be overclocked significantly.

while i guess you're right, for those people who prefer to buy a card and live with stock performance...

the truth is that a lot of people (from information gathered from people who own stores and forums etc. etc.) who would buy a GTX overclock or go for SLI (with an 80-100% performance increase accross the board, which only 9 series cards do almost without fail.) unless you're lazy or for some reason don't want to overclock (manufacturers mostly offer a warranty that covers overclocking related faults these days so there's no reason to be afraid of gaining more fps for your buck). the 9800GTX is the better choice. maybe they've taken a step backwards from a stock, retail card perspective, but from an overall potential performance it's still a step forwards (again, unless gaming at 2560*1600, even Quadro cards have been shown to overtake at high res/AA).

i'm sorry for arguing.. and not quite saying the right thing to boot.

the ULTRA is a better card for those who either game at 2560*1600 (due to the framebuffer) and don't overclock.

the 9800GTX is better for overclocking, SLI (not tri as it still sucks) and game at 1920*1600 or below. (it's also available at retail, and cheaper than the ultra.. but i guess that's not the point... so i won't go further with that)

so it's not entirely a step backwards... it's more like a step sideways.. or diagonally.. something not quite forwards?

this is the last i'll say, anything more will be on the forums

sorry for wasting your time and cluttering up the article comments :- (oh and thanks for fixing the TMU count on the GTX :)) (oh-oh and i might as well say it here.. not that it's particularly important and you probably don't give a rats but the % increase statistics on the overclocking roundup article are incorrect (at least the ones i calculated myself))

I get tired of the "GTX IS an Ultra" arguement. NO, it isn't. Try looking it up before you state that they're the same. Its the same difference between the 9800 GTX and the 8800 GTS 512. No GTX can overclock its memory to the same clock an Ultra can clock its memory, because an Ultra has higher quality (read; produced later) memory. For a GTX to reach the same core clock speeds as an Ultra thats ALSO overclocked, you have to voltmod it. But then, you can voltmod an Ultra too. Why does everyone say a OC'd GTX is an Ultra? Do you not realize you can OC an Ultra too?!?! Furthermore when it comes to power consumption and heat, an Ultra consumes only slightly more than a GTX, less than if the GTX is overclocked to the Ultras stock clocks. Also it doesnt get as hot, but only marginally so. The point is, they are VERY SIMILAR, but they are not THE SAME.

Read the first page of this review for a better understanding of the differences between the GTX and the Ultra; they are small, but significant enough. http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Well , I suppose we can all agree on that this is the biggest screwup from nVidia since the FX series .

To all those that are whining about this graph, I suggest you re-read the title of Mike's news post. It says "Food for thought". It is a very simple graph. It shows that the latest high end card from Nvidia does not fit the trend of higher memory bandwidth.

I can't believe this thing is the top 4th card in this site... oh well , people are fairly stupid >.< .

@Flinchy: The overclocking potential of the 9800 GTX is rather impressive and I agree it should be taken into consideration when purchasing the card. However, I think the takeaway point is that the 9800 GTX is *not* the step forward we usually see from nVidia when they switch major version numbers. And this fact is somewhat alarming.

The top 10 cards in the market currently are: 1)9800GX2 2)HD3870 X2 3)8800Ultra 4) 8800GTS 512MB 5)8800GTX 6)HD3870 7)HD2900XT 8)9600GT 9)HD3850 10)8800GTS 320MB/640MB
Correct me if I'm wrong

@mike. yep i can buy that. should have been the 8900GTX or something. (i don't even know how often i've said that in the pat 2 weeks or so)

what might be even more disappointing (from a new generational perspective) is canning the 8800GS and rebranding it as the 9800GSO.

9 series is a complete failure so far, i'm holding out final judgment for the 9900 cards however.

@wyz135
You may want to make room for the 8800 GT due to its popularity and price/performance ratio. But otherwise I think we can all agree on that.

@Flinchy: I have seriously considered changing the name of the card to 8900 GTX in my database...;)

They better do something amazing with the 9900s. If they don't, they deserve to lose a bunch of market share to ATi.

"If they don't, they deserve to lose a bunch of market share to ATi."

and the cycle continues....

I find it both amusing and saddening that my 7950 GX2 has a higher memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s) than the 9800 GTX (70.4 GB/s). Granted, that's not an apples-to-apples comparison because the 7950 is actually 38.4 GB/s x2, but it does give an indication of the magnitude of this backwards step.

@wyz135: 2900 XT shouldn't be on that list. IMO the order should be: 7) 8800 GT 8) 9600 GT 9) HD 3850 10) 8800 GTS 320/640 MB

No it shouldn't be there. The 2900 is failure, even harder than this 9800GTX. Besides, that's a little off topic isn't it wyz?

Anyway, I think that the graph is a little misleading mike. NV realized that they didn't need all the extra bandwidth so they didn't include it in their cards. It both drops the price of the cards as the lower buswidth is cheaper and makes it more efficient.

Maybe... a step forward?

Regardless, it is an interesting step by NV, and it's noteworthy that ATI made the same change with the 3870 from the 2900.