Quick Card Search:
navigation About Us Contact Us Compare Videocards Forum Links Search Cards Submit A Videocard Videocard Table Home Video Card Review Finder Video Card Superlatives Video Card Database Video Card News
Tabs   Tabs

The GeForce 9800 GTX: What Was nVidia Thinking?

Today T-Break has a full review published of the unannounced but hotly anticipated GeForce 9800 GTX. We've known for quite a while that the 9800 GTX was nothing more than yet another G92 derivative. But now that I've actually seen a review, I have to confess that I'm completely confused and rather annoyed.

nVidia's card naming scheme has been relatively consistent over the past several years. New architectures get a x000 name change, and refreshes get 0x00. This was true for the GeForce 4 (Ti4600 -> Ti4800), the GeForce FX (FX5800 -> FX5900), GeForce 6 (GeForce 6800 -> no refresh), and GeForce 7 (7800 -> 7900). But with the 8800 series, nVidia decided that the refresh, for some bizarre reason, would get a name change usually reserved for major architectural changes. If nVidia were to be consistent, the 9800 GTX would be an 8900 GT. That's right, not even a GTX since it has less memory and a smaller memory bus!

The closest nVidia has come to this kind of naming confusion before was with the 7800 GTX which, arguably, was more like a 6900 Ultra. The architecture hadn't changed much at all, they just added 8 more pipelines to the 6800 Ultra and called it a 7800. This fact was pointed out by many but wasn't much cause for concern since the 7800 GTX brought tremendous performance improvements.

The 9800 GTX brings no such performance boost. In fact, it's slower than the 8800 Ultra in most benchmarks, and slower than the 8800 GTX whenever you crank up the resolution and eye-candy. So why would nVidia do such a thing?

I have a couple of theories, neither seems particularly sensible. Theory 1: nVidia is simply copying ATi's Radeon 2000 -> 3000 move from last year. Maybe they felt that letting ATi's model numbers get close to theirs was somehow bad for business. Theory 2: nVidia wants their next architecture to be the GeForce 10 (or GeForce X) to mark some large departure in architecture or nomenclature. To make the transition a little smoother they decided to throw away the GeForce 9 label on the GeForce 8 series' refresh.

Whatever the case may be, I don't see this as a positive move for nVidia. When the 9800 GTX officially launches they're going to have every major review site on the web talking about how they choked and the GeForce 9 series is a total disaster. The last thing nVidia needs is everyone calling the GeForce 9 their next NV30.

Update from Steve:

I agree with Theory 2 from Mike's second to last paragraph. I have heard from a video game developer friend of mine that Nvidia is making some really bold statements about their next generation. Of course companies often love "talking up" their own products that they have yet to release, but apparently this Nvidia person was very sincere and/or convincing. 


25 Comments
Friday, March 28, 2008 6:35:35 PM
anonymous
guest
This is so true, I am very disappointed with the highend 9 series. The only good improvement in the 9 series, is the 9600gt for the midrange market. The 9800GX2 should be called the 8900GX2 and the 9800gtx should be called the 8900GT. Nvidia really knows how to upset their fans!
Friday, March 28, 2008 6:48:53 PM
Sunny
guest
Yeah I have to think that the 9 series is a waste. Well so far. I am not sure if they would be putting out anymore cards in the 9 series. But hopefully they can redeem themselves with the Geforce 10 series or whatever they call it. As ATI seems to be right on them with the 3870X2. Maybe it will be time for ATI to dominate for a while. WHo knows?
Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:12:41 AM
anonymous
guest
Article has been pulled!
Saturday, March 29, 2008 3:19:08 PM
anonymous
guest
ok so in conclusion the 9800 GTX is a flop?!?!? and if so what is the king of graphics cards at the moment?
Saturday, March 29, 2008 4:02:18 PM
Dincon
guest
@ anonymous

the 9800GX2 should be called the 8800GX2 (not 8900GX2) because its two 8800GTS cards.
Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:00:29 PM
Radiator
Senior Member
Maybe they just accidentally wrote 9800 instead of 8900 when writing it down ? Hahah...
Anyways , the review is now down .
Saturday, March 29, 2008 5:09:49 PM
anonymous
guest
ARGH! they down the review.
Saturday, March 29, 2008 7:27:02 PM
9 serie noob upgrade
guest
3870X2 is cheap from me is the best price performance i got a 8800gtx think i will end up with a second one to sli them 9800gtx is weaker then 880gtx because at high res it cannot cacht up with the 256bit interface and the 512 meg the oonly thing good is that its coast less
Saturday, March 29, 2008 10:57:39 PM
VoodooČ
guest
Dincon. The 9800GX2 should be called 8900GX2 because the 8800GTS 512 should be called 8900GTS or something like that.
Sunday, March 30, 2008 12:54:25 PM
anonymous
guest
@Dincon, sorry :(
Sunday, March 30, 2008 2:38:34 PM
andrew`
guest
Review at http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1356/9/page_9_benchmarks_crysis/index.html
Sunday, March 30, 2008 4:43:19 PM
Headfoot
Member
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1356/nvidia_geforce_9800_gtx_early_test/index.html

Review of the card from tweaktown, may not be up long so use cache if you need to
Sunday, March 30, 2008 6:03:39 PM
striderzorness
guest
9800gtx = FAIL
Monday, March 31, 2008 7:47:29 AM
spydag
guest
the only things in my mind are that nvidia is in panic by doing such movements,(in two months time the first reviews of the new ati cards will be announced,beware!!!),and second instead of research work, we have marketing fireworks!!!.Personally, the best direct10 series pieces of nvidia are 8800gts 320mb,and 8800gt 512mbfrom the aspect of performance to price ratio.
Monday, March 31, 2008 1:23:14 PM
Radiator
Senior Member
The 8800 GTS 320MB didn't have enough vRAM for most applications , so I for one consider it a failiure .
Monday, March 31, 2008 4:37:24 PM
anonymous
guest
8800gts320mb is not worth it since 8800gt512mb is cheaper and pwns the 8800gts640mb np
Monday, March 31, 2008 5:58:28 PM
Maybe EVGA will extend the Step-up program for 260 days for those who might possibly consider a 9800 GTX for $200 more over there 8800GT purchases at Christmas. NOT!
Monday, March 31, 2008 11:24:17 PM
anonymousP
guest
The tweaktown article looks at least a bit more promising than the T-break. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to the reviews until the card hits retails cuz they're wrong more often that not. If they were always right, the 9800GX2 would be much slower than it is.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:12:36 AM
anonymous
guest
Quote: "8800gts320mb is not worth it since 8800gt512mb is cheaper and pwns the 8800gts640mb np"

Yeah thats cos the 512 verison came out almost a YEAR after the 640 version
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:15:39 AM
Headfoot
Member
Wow the GTS 320 hate is totally incorrect. For all intents and purposes it is the exact same as the 640 until you hit 1900x1200 or in very few games at 1680x1050. Radiator, your opinion on the 320 is very wrong, seeing as it was the most popular card of 2006.... it was a great card when it was the only sub 500$ card. Now its a steal at a solid 100-150$.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:20:48 AM
anonymous
guest
The review linked here can be found in google cache even though it's down.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 10:07:23 AM
spydag
guest
when i was saying that 8800gts 320mb was a good piece of directx10 series,i meant it historically that when was released last may, it was the first really direct10 solid performer for gamers with a limited budget or gamers with a 17" TFT monitor ( resolution limited at 1280x1024 ).In resolutions up to 1280x1024 both the 320MB and the 640MB version perform on par.The 8500/8600GT/8600GTS cards can't play decently direct10 games(crysis,cod4).Even the 9600gt which released recently has the same performance(with the 8800gts 320mb).I want to make it clear i don't recommend anyone to buy 8800gts 320mb today(unless it is found below the 130 euros),of corse 8800gt 512mb is my choice.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 11:03:18 AM
Radiator
Senior Member
Actually , even at 1440x900 or something similar , the 8800 GTS 320MB
often crapped out due to the lack of vRAM ( on more demanding games ) .

The 9800 GTX... is barely a few frames faster than the 8800 GTX and almost always slower than the 8800 Ultra .
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:30:10 PM
axesupra
guest
yea 8800gts 320 was a good card back then. its got little muscle by new standards now. end of story
Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:10:05 PM
Headfoot -- It's now 2008 and it gets pwd like a n00b by the 9600GT, unless you driving a 30" panel. A 9600GT consumes less power while throwing of less heat and noise. For about $250; 9600 in SLI and you can trade punches with the GTX!
Add Comment
Name:

Comments:
This is a moderated comment list. All posts are subject to my personal approval. Please limit your comments to the subject of the article. Don't (for example) start asking questions about your video card here, you'll get a much better response in the forums.

Anonymous posts are allowed, but I encourage you to sign up for the forums and post comments under your name.
none   none