NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT: The Only Card That Matters
by Derek Wilson on October 29, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
What must AMD do? 8800 GT vs. 2900 XT
Alright, here's where things get really interesting. AMD has yet to come out with its 8800 GT competitor, but we've heard some rumors here and there. First, our understanding is that the RV670 based AMD part will not be any faster than the 2900 XT (and will likely be at least a little bit slower). While we can't confirm this, as we haven't heard from AMD on the subject or received hardware to play with yet (in fact if we had, we wouldn't even be able to bring up our speculation). But if we are right, then it makes sense to compare the 8800 GT to the 2900 XT and see what happens.
Given the performance of the 8800 GT relative to the 8800 GTS, we can expect the 8800 GT to perform on par with, if not better than, the Radeon HD 2900 XT. Our numbers, confirm this for the most part. It's also worth noting that as resolution increases, the 2900 XT really closes the performance gap. This information is quite important. Either AMD needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us with performance higher than we expect, or they need to compete with the 8800 GT based on price. We are hearing that the upcoming part from AMD should be competitive with 8800 GT pricing, but we'd need to see availability of the RV670 based parts at prices lower than the 8800 GT to make them start looking worth while. This could be difficult for AMD if NVIDIA hits their target of $200 (or lower for the 256MB version).
Again, none of the info we have on the upcoming AMD part is confirmed by AMD. We are simply speculating based on our best guess at their direction and rumors we have heard. Regardless of what AMD does or doesn't have in the works, it will be difficult for them to afford just another moderate showing. They must either clearly out perform or out price the 8800 GT to stay in the game this generation.
Alright, here's where things get really interesting. AMD has yet to come out with its 8800 GT competitor, but we've heard some rumors here and there. First, our understanding is that the RV670 based AMD part will not be any faster than the 2900 XT (and will likely be at least a little bit slower). While we can't confirm this, as we haven't heard from AMD on the subject or received hardware to play with yet (in fact if we had, we wouldn't even be able to bring up our speculation). But if we are right, then it makes sense to compare the 8800 GT to the 2900 XT and see what happens.
Given the performance of the 8800 GT relative to the 8800 GTS, we can expect the 8800 GT to perform on par with, if not better than, the Radeon HD 2900 XT. Our numbers, confirm this for the most part. It's also worth noting that as resolution increases, the 2900 XT really closes the performance gap. This information is quite important. Either AMD needs to pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us with performance higher than we expect, or they need to compete with the 8800 GT based on price. We are hearing that the upcoming part from AMD should be competitive with 8800 GT pricing, but we'd need to see availability of the RV670 based parts at prices lower than the 8800 GT to make them start looking worth while. This could be difficult for AMD if NVIDIA hits their target of $200 (or lower for the 256MB version).
Again, none of the info we have on the upcoming AMD part is confirmed by AMD. We are simply speculating based on our best guess at their direction and rumors we have heard. Regardless of what AMD does or doesn't have in the works, it will be difficult for them to afford just another moderate showing. They must either clearly out perform or out price the 8800 GT to stay in the game this generation.
Getting Cocky: 8800 GT vs. the GTX
Out with the Old, In with the New: 8800 GT vs. 7950 GT and 1950 XT
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
AggressorPrime - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
I made a typo. Let us hope they are not on the same level.ninjit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
This page has my very confused:http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
The text of the article goes on as if the GT doesn't really compare to the GTX, except on price/performance:
Yet all the graphs show the GT performing pretty much on par with the GTX, with at most a 5-10fps difference at the highest resolution.
I didn't understand that last sentence I quoted above at all.
archcommus - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
This is obviously an amazing card and I hope it sets a new trend for getting good gaming performance in the latest titles for around $200 like it used to be, unlike the recent trend of having to spend $350+ for high end (not even ultra high end). However, I don't get why a GT part is higher performing than a GTS, isn't that going against their normal naming scheme a bit? I thought it was typically: Ultra -> GTX -> GTS -> GT -> GS, or something like that.mac2j - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
I've been hearing rumors about an Nvidia 9800 card being released in the coming months .... is that the same card with an outdated/incorrect naming convention or a new architecture beyond G92?I guess if Nvidia had a next-gen architecture coming it would explain why they dont mind wiping some of their old products off the board with the 8800 GT which seems as though it will be a dominant part for the remaining lifetime of this generation of parts.
MFK - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
After lurking on Anandtech for two layout/design revisions, I have finally decided to post a comment. :DFirst of all hi all!
Second of all, is it okay that nVidia decided not to introduce a proper next gen part in favour of this mid range offering? Okay so its good and what not, but what I'm wondering is, something that the article does not talk about, is what the future value of this card is. Can I expect this to play some upcoming games (Alan Wake?) on 1600 x 1200? I know its hard to predict, but industry analysts like you guys should have some idea. Also how long can I expect this card to continue playing games at acceptable framerates? Any idea, any one?
Thanks.
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
that's a tough call ....but really, it's up to the developers.
UT3 looks great in DX9, and Bioshock looks great in DX10. Crysis looks amazing, but its a demo, not final code and it does run very slow.
The bottom line is that developers need to balance the amazing effects they show off with playability -- it's up to them. They know what hardware you've got and they chose to push the envelope or not.
I konw that's not an answer, sorry :-( ... it is just nearly impossible to say what will happen.
crimson117 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
How much ram was on the 8800 GT used in testing? Was is 256 or 512?NoBull6 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
From context, I'm thinking 512. Since 512MB are the only cards available in the channel, and Derek was hypothesizing about the pricing of a 256MB version, I think you can be confident this was a 512MB test card.DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
correct.256MB cards do not exist outside NVIDIA at this point.
ninjit - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
I was just wondering about that too.I thought I missed it in the article, but I didn't see it in another run through.
I see I'm not the only one who was curious