New Ultra High End Price Point With GeForce 8800 Ultra
by Derek Wilson on May 2, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Often, when reviewing hardware, it is difficult to draw a hard line and state with total confidence that our conclusions are the only logical ones that can be drawn from the facts. We try very hard to eliminate personal opinion from our reviews and provide readers with enough information to form their own educated opinions. We try to point out the downsides of the best products out there, as well as the niche uses for which otherwise disappointing hardware might shine. So often our job is about balance and temperance.
But not this time: The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra is an utter waste of money.
Let's review the facts. First, our performance data shows the 8800 Ultra to perform on par with our EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTX KO ACS3. Certainly the 8800 Ultra nudges the EVGA part out of the lead, but the performance difference is minimal at best. The price difference, however, is huge. We can easily find the EVGA card for its retail price of $650, while NVIDIA expects us to pay $180 more for what amounts to a repositioned cooling fan and updated silicon. Foxconn also offers an overclocked GTX for $550 that has essentially the same clocks as the EVGA KO ACS3 (Foxconn is 630/2000 versus 626/2000 for EVGA), making $830 even more unreasonable.
Add to that the fact that we've tested over a dozen 8800 GTX parts since their launch last year, and every single card we've tested has reached higher core clock speeds than the 8800 Ultra with overclocking. We know that increasing core clock speed using nTune causes shader clock speed to increase as well. Setting an 8800 GTX core clock to 621 would give us a shader clock of ~1450MHz, coming close to the 8800 Ultra level. The extra 50MHz increase in shader clock speed won't have a very large impact on performance as we have seen in our clock scaling tests.
All this leaves memory speed as the 8800 Ultra's only real advantage: none of the memory on 8800 GTX parts we've tested can reach 1080MHz from the base 900MHz. The only problem is that this doesn't give the part enough of a boost to matter in current real world performance tests.
With GPU revisions including layout changes, process tweaks, and an improved cooling solution, the least we would expect from the creation of a new price point in the consumer graphics market is a new level of performance. Price isn't the issue here: it's all about the value. It would be difficult even for a professional gamer to justify the purchase of an 8800 Ultra over the EVGA overclocked GTX. This incarnation of the G80 is even less justifiable than Intel's Extreme processors or AMD's FX line.
Certainly, placing some value in overclockability is fair. The problem here is that the stock speed at which the card runs offers no real added value over an already available overclocked 8800 GTX. If the overclockability of the G80 A3 silicon is its key point, why not simply offer the chips to add-in card builders at a premium and allow them to make custom overclocked boards at the speeds they choose? Let them call it an 8800 Ultra without defining a (rather low) stock speed for the new cards.
If user overclocking is where it's at, then standard 8800 GTX speeds are fine. Call it an 8800 Ultra because it features A3 silicon, market it towards overclockers, and sell it at a price premium. But don't try to sell us on 612/1500/1080 clock speeds.
With a push towards targeting overclockers we have to wonder: if there is so much headroom in the 8800 Ultra, why not offer us stock clock speeds that make a real performance difference?
We are all for higher performance, and we don't mind higher prices. But it is ridiculous to charge an exorbitant amount of money for something that doesn't offer any benefit over a product already on the market. $830 isn't the issue. In fact, we would love to see a graphics card worth $830. The 8800 Ultra just isn't it.
Often, when reviewing hardware, it is difficult to draw a hard line and state with total confidence that our conclusions are the only logical ones that can be drawn from the facts. We try very hard to eliminate personal opinion from our reviews and provide readers with enough information to form their own educated opinions. We try to point out the downsides of the best products out there, as well as the niche uses for which otherwise disappointing hardware might shine. So often our job is about balance and temperance.
But not this time: The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra is an utter waste of money.
Let's review the facts. First, our performance data shows the 8800 Ultra to perform on par with our EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTX KO ACS3. Certainly the 8800 Ultra nudges the EVGA part out of the lead, but the performance difference is minimal at best. The price difference, however, is huge. We can easily find the EVGA card for its retail price of $650, while NVIDIA expects us to pay $180 more for what amounts to a repositioned cooling fan and updated silicon. Foxconn also offers an overclocked GTX for $550 that has essentially the same clocks as the EVGA KO ACS3 (Foxconn is 630/2000 versus 626/2000 for EVGA), making $830 even more unreasonable.
Add to that the fact that we've tested over a dozen 8800 GTX parts since their launch last year, and every single card we've tested has reached higher core clock speeds than the 8800 Ultra with overclocking. We know that increasing core clock speed using nTune causes shader clock speed to increase as well. Setting an 8800 GTX core clock to 621 would give us a shader clock of ~1450MHz, coming close to the 8800 Ultra level. The extra 50MHz increase in shader clock speed won't have a very large impact on performance as we have seen in our clock scaling tests.
All this leaves memory speed as the 8800 Ultra's only real advantage: none of the memory on 8800 GTX parts we've tested can reach 1080MHz from the base 900MHz. The only problem is that this doesn't give the part enough of a boost to matter in current real world performance tests.
With GPU revisions including layout changes, process tweaks, and an improved cooling solution, the least we would expect from the creation of a new price point in the consumer graphics market is a new level of performance. Price isn't the issue here: it's all about the value. It would be difficult even for a professional gamer to justify the purchase of an 8800 Ultra over the EVGA overclocked GTX. This incarnation of the G80 is even less justifiable than Intel's Extreme processors or AMD's FX line.
Certainly, placing some value in overclockability is fair. The problem here is that the stock speed at which the card runs offers no real added value over an already available overclocked 8800 GTX. If the overclockability of the G80 A3 silicon is its key point, why not simply offer the chips to add-in card builders at a premium and allow them to make custom overclocked boards at the speeds they choose? Let them call it an 8800 Ultra without defining a (rather low) stock speed for the new cards.
If user overclocking is where it's at, then standard 8800 GTX speeds are fine. Call it an 8800 Ultra because it features A3 silicon, market it towards overclockers, and sell it at a price premium. But don't try to sell us on 612/1500/1080 clock speeds.
With a push towards targeting overclockers we have to wonder: if there is so much headroom in the 8800 Ultra, why not offer us stock clock speeds that make a real performance difference?
We are all for higher performance, and we don't mind higher prices. But it is ridiculous to charge an exorbitant amount of money for something that doesn't offer any benefit over a product already on the market. $830 isn't the issue. In fact, we would love to see a graphics card worth $830. The 8800 Ultra just isn't it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
dsumanik - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Let this be a lesson kids, buy an ATI card, and an AMD processor or two.Even the low end stuff, for your mom or your kids machine.
The reason why the CPU market is so awesome right now is because intel felt real pressure from amd and they had to respond with a superior product at lower prices or face a continual market share loss.
We now see nvidia's true colors, the sky's the limit on the prices, and they quite surely, could have released a product with far more performance, at a lower price point, had AMD been simply been putting pressure on them.
If anyone buys this card, you are wholeheartedly supporting $1000 dollar retail graphics cards, that will increase in performance incrementally over the years instead of quantum leaps, at a fair, and still profitable cost...
Mise well just buy a wii im thinking...
sxr7171 - Thursday, May 3, 2007 - link
I'm not buying an AMD processor or graphics card simply because they offer competition to Intel or Nvidia. I will buy an AMD product when they offer simple superior performance to the competition again. At the $300 I paid for my 8800GTS, there is nothing that comes close in performance for the money.Don't tell me that ATI didn't try some insane pricing when they had the lead.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
AMD would love to join NVIDIA on this. Don't forget about the FX series of processors or the 4x4 program.Rather than pressure companies to build hardware that doesn't cost much, let's encourage them to build hardware that's worth the price they put on it.
There is a market for high end hardware. There is no reason NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel shouldn't satisfy that market. But there's no point in charging $830 for performance we can get for $650 just because people will buy it.
mlambert890 - Friday, May 4, 2007 - link
Great point. Yeah, lets be a charity for AMD. Come on. Where are these people coming from??? When AMD offers a competitive part again for a decent price, I will buy from them again. If Intel starts offering parts I feel are not worth it, I wont buy from them.I have 8800GTX in SLI and am running at 629/1000 and these are just plain old air cooled GTX parts. NVidia is nuts on this Ultra. It wont sell well at this price and they will either have to put more value or drop this down to regular GTX pricing.
THe market adjusts itself and doesnt need political statements from ideological consumers to drive it. Of course if you choose to spend your money that way, more power to you! One could argue that it keeps AMD weak though. If they know they have a comfortable revenue stream for substandard parts, the can rest. Remember... they rose to challenge Intel from NOTHING, not from a flow of "charity" revenue.
strikeback03 - Thursday, May 3, 2007 - link
I think they are following Murphy's Law: It is morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money. They made changes at minimal cost to a product, slap a high price on it, and see if anyone is dumb enough to bite. When sales numbers drop off, they cut the price, and probably end up closer to $700 where the performance should leave it.I don't blame nVidia for making it, I just laugh at anyone who buys it.
Speedo - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Yeah, I don't think its worth that much more $$ just for that little extra edge in performance.FIXX719 - Monday, December 5, 2016 - link
HELLOOO... I CAME FROM THE FUTURE :v ...... YOU CANT RUN 4K IN THIS CARD :v .... byefelicityc - Tuesday, January 11, 2022 - link
I come from the even further future. A magical fairy wizard has blessed nvidia with the ability to create price pressure without doing anything by themselves or even pretending to sell sports-model GPUs.Also, SLI is dead, you still can't run Crysis (it looks pretty good on those 2x 8800 GTX) because it breaks on newer versions of Windows, the mortgage market is about to crash in a year or so, and you should invest in Bitcoin.
Also, AMD saves the CPU market briefly and AMD rebrands as ATI, except as AMD.
It's been a weird few years.