NVIDIA Prepares to Launch 9800 GTX+ Next Month

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

If there is one thing NVIDIA's great at, it's making the competition feel the heat. Even though they are offering the best top-end cards right now, and have been since... hmm, the 6-series, the last thing they want to do is allow AMD to take the lead, in anything. We already know that AMD makes some incredible mid-range cards, and that's what seems to scare NVIDIA, especially with the upcoming HD 4850 card launch.

From early reports, the HD 4850 out-performs the 9800 GTX from NVIDIA, a card that up until the GTX 280 was the fastest single-GPU card on the planet. But it gets better. The HD 4850 isn't only faster, but it's supposed to be priced around the $200 mark (HD 4870 at ~$279). Well, at that price, it would be $70 cheaper on average, over the 9800 GTX. So what's NVIDIA to do? Drop prices? No, in typical NVIDIA fashion, they'll again release another card that should not see the light of day.

Ryan at PC Perspective just received a new NVIDIA card, labeled the 9800 GTX+, to benchmark to his hearts content. 9800 GTX+? I'm all for new GPUs when they are warranted, but other than a small die shrink and clock bump, this is essentially a pre-overclocked 9800 GTX. What's the point? Who knows, but we will once the card is released next month and can have a gander at its pricing.

<table align="center"><tbody><tr><td>

</td></tr></tbody></table>
Compared to the current generation GeForce 9800 GTX that runs at 675 MHz core, 1688 MHz shader and 1100 MHz memory clocks, the new 9800 GTX+ is a considerable bump in speed. What makes this all possible? The 9800 GTX+ is the 55nm refresh of G92 - all current 9800-series cards are built on 65nm technology.

Source: PC Perspective
​

 

[b1lk1]

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

That is the sound of the Nvidia cow getting milked AGAIN. This card is sad, even with the change to 55nm. How much longer are they going to milk the market?

 

[Rob Williams]

I asked the same thing when they released the GSO.

http://techgage.com/article/palit_geforce_9600gso_sonic_768mb/

I love NVIDIA's offerings, and they obviously have a huge advantage over AMD right now, but the market is being saturated beyond reason, and it needs to stop.

It's the same thing with Intel though... NVIDIA's not alone. Remember when we were asked to post QX9770 reviews five months before they became commercially available?

 

[b1lk1]

LOL!!! Yeah, that was out of hand.

I do agree that Nvidia has the beastliest (is that a word?!?) offerings, but with nothing being able to use that power, what is the point? It's like overclocking an Intel Quad to 4GHz. Sure it is fast and super powerful, but what if anything even uses all that power?

AMD/ATI is staying in the real world with their offerings and with prices us humans can afford, they are gonna bleed Nvidia. There are enough boneheads that will buy GTX280's (mostly for benchmark scores sadly), but I feel like ATI is making a rebirth FINALLY. Now if AMD can do the same, they'd be the force to reckon with we all thought they were going to be a year ago.

 

[Kougar]

Milking the market? This thing was only released because AMD's new HD 4850 clobbers the original 9800GTX, and does it for a mere $199. Less after supposed rebates or volume discounts (Buy two for Xfire, save up to $25 off at Newegg, etc). The issue is even the GTX+ gets beaten or evenly matched by the 4850..

 

[madmat]

The 9800GTX+ isn't a bad deal at the price as it's cheaper than the GTX and is a wee bit faster. The sad thing is that it's still no faster than the 8800GTX which has gone the way of the dodo. The GTX280 is way overpriced, it's not twice as fast as 9800GTX yet it's same price as a 9800GTX SLI setup. The 9800GTX+ will further muddy the waters as it's even cheaper, you could do TRI SLI for about the same price as the GTX280 and that'll definitely whoop up on the 280.

What really piques my interest is that nV's letting it be reviewed before it actually launches. I remember when they decreed that there wouldn't be any more soft launches and stopped allowing reviews until card launches officially rolled out. Now that the new ATI (it'll never, ever be AMD in my eyes, they bought a vid card mfg, they didn't develop their own graphics set) cards are rolling out and looking like contenders rather than also-rans, nV is getting nervous.

When you look at the 4850, the performance makes using Intel chipsets and running Crossfire look compelling for a change. Maybe nV will rethink their no SLI on Intel chipsets mindset.

 

[Rob Williams]

The 9800GTX+ isn't a bad deal at the price as it's cheaper than the GTX and is a wee bit faster. The sad thing is that it's still no faster than the 8800GTX which has gone the way of the dodo.

The 9800 GTX+ is not going to be cheaper than the generic GTX... upon launch it will be priced at $229, while the 9800 GTX will be set at $199. As for the 8800 GTX being faster than the 9800 GTX, I'm not sure where you are getting that information, but our reports consistently show the opposite:

http://techgage.com/article/palit_geforce_9600gso_sonic_768mb/3

The GTX280 is way overpriced, it's not twice as fast as 9800GTX yet it's same price as a 9800GTX SLI setup. The 9800GTX+ will further muddy the waters as it's even cheaper, you could do TRI SLI for about the same price as the GTX280 and that'll definitely whoop up on the 280.

I have to agree here overall, but there are still some downsides. For Tri-SLI, you'll need an NVIDIA motherboard, and thanks to the extra cards, you'll have a) crammed case b) more heat and c) higher power consumption. Considering that one GTX 280 draws less power than a single 9800 GTX, using a Tri-SLI setup is bound to make a noticeable difference on the power bill, hah.

I agree that the card is way overpriced though. But as I mentioned in another thread, it's still a good card for those using huge resolutions (higher than 1920x1200) and want to stick to a single GPU. Just because the card isn't twice as fast as a 9800 GTX doesn't mean it's price is unwarranted. Look at Intel's Extreme processor pricing... it's the exact same situation.

When you look at the 4850, the performance makes using Intel chipsets and running Crossfire look compelling for a change. Maybe nV will rethink their no SLI on Intel chipsets mindset.

Well, that and the fact that Intel has already said no (for now) to NVIDIA with regards to creating Nehalem chipsets. If NVIDIA can't do that, it means no one with a Nehalem system will be able to run SLI... essentially taking a massive bite out of potential video card sales. Crossfire will be fine, so moving to the ATI side will be a lot more attractive.

I really don't see how NVIDIA can keep forcing SLI on their own chipsets, except on the AMD side of things.

 

[Merlin]

I guess the only reason to run Tri - SLI is with three 30" monitors?
It would be nice to play GRID with three monitors. But I dont think I would put THAT much into any game.
That's big bucks for that setup

Merlin

 

[madmat]

Actually, with TRI SLI you can run a single monitor, there is no multiple monitor support with any SLI that I'm aware of.

 

[madmat]

The 9800 GTX+ is not going to be cheaper than the generic GTX... upon launch it will be priced at $229, while the 9800 GTX will be set at $199. As for the 8800 GTX being faster than the 9800 GTX, I'm not sure where you are getting that information, but our reports consistently show the opposite:

http://techgage.com/article/palit_geforce_9600gso_sonic_768mb/3



I have to agree here overall, but there are still some downsides. For Tri-SLI, you'll need an NVIDIA motherboard, and thanks to the extra cards, you'll have a) crammed case b) more heat and c) higher power consumption. Considering that one GTX 280 draws less power than a single 9800 GTX, using a Tri-SLI setup is bound to make a noticeable difference on the power bill, hah.

I agree that the card is way overpriced though. But as I mentioned in another thread, it's still a good card for those using huge resolutions (higher than 1920x1200) and want to stick to a single GPU. Just because the card isn't twice as fast as a 9800 GTX doesn't mean it's price is unwarranted. Look at Intel's Extreme processor pricing... it's the exact same situation.



Well, that and the fact that Intel has already said no (for now) to NVIDIA with regards to creating Nehalem chipsets. If NVIDIA can't do that, it means no one with a Nehalem system will be able to run SLI... essentially taking a massive bite out of potential video card sales. Crossfire will be fine, so moving to the ATI side will be a lot more attractive.

I really don't see how NVIDIA can keep forcing SLI on their own chipsets, except on the AMD side of things.

At the current time the 9800GTX is $320+ which IS half the cost of the GTX280. I wasn't aware that they were rolling back the cost of the 65nm GTX as I hadn't seen it mentioned in the preview I read, they only mentioned that it's ~$100 cheaper than the straight GTX. That's where I got my info. If the GTX does drop to ~$30 cheaper than the GTX+ I can't see any appeal in the GTX+ aside from the slight speed boost in core clocks, they're so similar in overall performance that the draw is negligible.

 

[Merlin]

Actually, with TRI SLI you can run a single monitor, there is no multiple monitor support with any SLI that I'm aware of.

Hmmmmm
With 8800GT in SLI I can run the 40" plasma TV and the 24" Acer monitor, together.
Split or combined, either way.
I have an option to run 4 monitors in the Nvidia setup
But I never done so.
I was just talking about three 30" monitors on Tri-SLI

Merlin

 

[madmat]

Well, that's a new one on me although I've never vested much interest in multi monitor support. I'm glad to hear that nV finally gifted SLI setups with the gift of multiple monitor support.

 

[Kougar]

According to the SLI FAQ site, SLI supports TV outputting, but NOT multiple monitors. Would need to unlink SLI to use more than one monitor.

Prices for the moment:

9800GTX $199
9800GTX+ $229
GTX 260 $450
GTX 280 $650
ATI HD 4850 $199
ATI HD 4870 $ $299

I have to agree with alot that was said. Right now ATI has the edge, their 4850 is already very good and forced NVIDIA to show their hand prematurely. This leaves the playing field open for the the 4870 with GDDR5.

It would appear to be better... if it is a full $100 better than the 4850 then NVIDIA is going to be left high and dry, since everyone will want two 4870's that beats everything and still costs less than a GTX 280.

 

[Merlin]

At any rate, it's good for the consumers, a price/product war

Merlin

 

[madmat]

At any rate, it's good for the consumers, a price/product war

Merlin

Agreed, if nV drops the prices on the GTX2 series cards or the 55mn part has so much more speed that it makes the 65nm part look like a turd then we could see things heat up. I don't see GDDR5 being all that much more advantageous. The ram bandwidth that the GTX2 series has is beyond what the PCIe bus can handle so it's a moot point.