Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

NVIDIA's 8800 Ultra Provides Performance at a Price 88

Mighty Mouse writes "Hardware review sites across the web have published reviews on NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 Ultra. The response appears to be fairly lukewarm at the moment, mainly thanks to its incredibly high asking price. Bit-tech tested the 8800 Ultra in eight different games at three resolutions, finding it to be on average about 10% faster. TechReport's Scott Wasson reviewed the card using another good selection of games, while HotHardware had the chance to check out SLI performance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NVIDIA's 8800 Ultra Provides Performance at a Price

Comments Filter:
  • by Kid Zero ( 4866 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:25AM (#18957387) Homepage Journal
    10% faster for $200 (+/-)? How's this a deal? For that price it'd better do dishes, too.

    • Agreed there, that doesn't really sound like a huge deal for the average consumer, but for buisnesses that deal with graphics that could be useful.
      • Wouldn't businesses that deal with graphics be using their Quadro line? Unless you mean the game developers themselves...
        • I meant any company related to graphics design, and game developers. This card could also be used for 3D rendering and any company that did 3D work may want to look at that for modeling, etc.
        • by leenks ( 906881 )
          Well they would if the consumer line wasn't now more powerful than the quadro line :-)
    • by Aladrin ( 926209 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:33AM (#18957499)
      $200 by itself doesn't mean much. If I could make my car 10% faster for $200, I think that'd be great.

      We're talking about 10% faster than a $600 card. (Newegg prices.) So that's 10% for 33% more money. Doesn't sound nearly so bad, now. Factor in that a lot of the price of a device is overhead that doesn't change between cards, and 10% faster is quite a bit more for that amount of money.

      Also, don't forget that we're not talking about a card for casual gamers for $50. This is an entire series of cards meant only for those who absolutely have to have the fastest/best card on the market no matter the cost. And they buy 2 of them.
      • If I could make my car 10% faster for $200, I think that'd be great.

        I'm not sure what kind of car you have, but I don't think most people need their car to go any faster. Most cars i've seen go 1.5 ( or probably 2) times the speed limit. Why pay $200 for something you aren't going to be able to use. I think it's the same with these high end video cards. Sure they do better in benchmarks, but how does that actually affect game play. Can you really tell the difference between 300 FPS and 330 FPS? What I

        • You kind of ran away with the analogy in an attempt to make it inappropriate, but you forgot something basic about these cards. They are targeted to very specific people who are looking for the best performance. If you did nothing but land speed tests, 33% more money for a 10% higher top end would indeed be worth it.

          Also, the 300 to 330 FPS comparison is flawed. With many modern games, the quality of the effects scales upward with the power of the GPU. It's not just that the games will run smoother, but
        • by Aladrin ( 926209 )
          Around 75-80mph, my car shimmies and shakes enough that I don't feel it's safe to drive over that speed. The extra 10% would be quite useful to me on interstate highways, where my car can barely do the limit safely. That really has nothing to do with the point of my statement, though. $200 to improve a car (a $10-100k item) 10% is a lot different from improving a graphics card (a $100-1000 item) 10%. The $200 by itself didn't mean anything. It's the percent increase in cost compared to the percent incr
          • Around 75-80mph, my car shimmies and shakes ... $200 to improve a car ...
            Umm, there's a thing called a "wheel alignment" and another called "tire balancing" and both together should cost less than $200.
          • by vought ( 160908 )
            Around 75-80mph, my car shimmies and shakes enough that I don't feel it's safe to drive over that speed.

            Then you need to have the suspension, wheels, and tire balance checked. Driving safely doesn't just mean going slow - it means operating a safe vehicle. If your car shimmies and shakes that badly at 75mph, it probably isn't safe trying to make emergency maneuvers or stopping from more normal highway speeds, either.
        • by orlanz ( 882574 )
          Ok, lets get those refresh rates more reasonable.

          TV is around 25-30 fps which totally sucks for gaming, but is doable. 1080p is 60 fps, which is very good and quite comfortable for most players. But for hardcore games, they need a min of 50 fps. Their game play gets effected by frame rates under 80 fps.

          For me, when I was a hardcore gamer, my game play got effected when the frame rates dropped below 60 fps, beyond which I couldn't tell the difference. Today (am not on campus with access to the high end g
      • by fuzz6y ( 240555 )

        Factor in that a lot of the price of a device is overhead that doesn't change between cards, and 10% faster is quite a bit more for that amount of money.

        Taking that into account makes it worse, not better. if some amount x of the price of both cards is overhead, then the speed-related portion of the prices are 800-x and 600-x, and (800-x)/(600-x) is bigger than 800/600 (for 0<x<600 of course).

    • by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:37AM (#18957573)
      10% faster for $200 (+/-)? How's this a deal? For that price it'd better do dishes, too.

      It's possible the benchmarks they tried had hit another bottleneck (hardware or software), but either way, the top-range of cards are *all* overpriced and more of a status symbol than a practical purchase.

      Anyone buying 8800 today (ultra or not) apparently has money to waste, and if 10% more cost $200, so be it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Fweeky ( 41046 )
        "top-range of cards are *all* overpriced and more of a status symbol than a practical purchase."

        Not really; plenty of games struggle even on fairly beefy cards if you want to run them at native resolution on a decent TFT with details turned way up. I spent about £200 on a 512MB 7950GT and it likes to dip into the distracting world of jerkovision in plenty of games in at least some spots, even without full detail. Spending twice as much for 2-3x the performance seems like a pretty good deal to me if
        • by Barny ( 103770 )
          /me grins

          8800gtx owner here, upgraded from a pair of 7900gt a few months back (well, when the gtx first came out actually) and paired with a 24" screen can just keep games above that 35 fps with all details up @1920x1200

          Yes, it is definitely worth the money for the gtx imho, however....

          You will note the EVGA 8800gtx gives the same performance as a 8800ultra http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39342 [theinquirer.net]

          This new breed is just a 8800gtx heavily over clocked, no wonder NV didn't want people OEM OCing the gt
        • by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
          Not really; plenty of games struggle even on fairly beefy cards if you want to run them at native resolution on a decent TFT with details turned way up.

          So what do you do. You pay an insane price for a card that's 10% faster (and will cost twice less in few months)?

          How about not running with the details way up, how's that for a solution?

          I also struggle without a Ferrari with all extras, but it doesn't mean I indebt myself and go buy, since I struggle.
          • by Fweeky ( 41046 )
            What? No, you know it's normally polite to actually read the comment you're replying to, right?

            "Spending twice as much for 2-3x the performance seems like a pretty good deal to me if you actually have use for the extra power"

            "Still, just because I can easily afford it doesn't mean I'm going to spend it on something I'll barely notice."

            The former was about the 8800 series in general; it's a good couple of times faster than my existing card. The latter is about the Ultra, which is similar to "getting a top-o
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Deliveranc3 ( 629997 )
        This generation is pretty scary fo Nvidia, looks like the 8800 isn't scaling well (No surprise with so many pipelines you need better and better schedulers). And the midrange is slower than the old midrange, and not even close to the old medium-high or high end (Which was the trend for the last 10 years). I think they're scared because the best resolution on most of the older LCDs is 1280x960 and the old 7800 could do that with 16ANx4AA and no one wanted more.

        To stay away from this they've been killing th
    • Not mine! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I just bought 4 of these puppies for the pure, unadulterated performance boost that makes my life significantly more comfortable during the daily WoW grinding for my demanding gold farm biz.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Top of the line has never had the best price/performance ratio on PC components, to my knowledge, which means spending 33% more for a 10% improvement is very in-line with the way things work.

      Not saying it's reasonable or rational, but when you deal with the crowds that have to have the best, and have plenty of disposable income, you can get away with it.
    • All of the 8800's pixel pipelines are programmable, instead of being fixed to a certain function. When that starts getting heavily exploited, then you should see a big jump in performance.
    • by afidel ( 530433 )
      Not only is the upfront cost more, but so is the recurring cost. An SLI'd system with a Core 2 6800, 2GB of ram, and a single Raptor ate 524W! I have an Athlon 64 x2 4200, SLI'd 7600GT's, Raid'd HDD's and 2Gb of ram and I probably pull 150W max.
      • by jandrese ( 485 )
        Interestingly enough, from the article apparently the 8800GTX Ultras pull less power than the 8800GTXes. It's from the improved manufacturing techniques though, and since those improvements should trickle down to the regular 8800GTXes fairly soon the advantage will go away. It may come as a bit of a surprise to the early adopters that they could save 20-30W by just rebuying their card now.
  • by hsa ( 598343 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:29AM (#18957447)
    Read this review.

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2979 [anandtech.com]

    And conclusion
    "But not this time: The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra is an utter waste of money. "

    Don't pay $180 extra for something that gives only few percents extra.
    • Am I the only one who thinks that 10% faster does not mean 10% more money? I mean I wouldn't really expect the price/speed relation actually linear...
      • No, but in this case, ~1% (yes, one!) faster means 28% more money. And I think most people will agree that's absurd. The reason for this discrepancy is that there are already cards that are factory-overclocked that cost about 650$ and deliver similar performance to the 8800 ultra.
  • Pointless card (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eebra82 ( 907996 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:34AM (#18957531) Homepage
    We all know why NVIDIA would release such a card - considering how soon the R600 is released. Still, giving this card too much attention is pointless. It will exist in very limited quantities and even if you can afford one, you are highly unlikely to find one.

    So basically, we are looking at a card only a few hundred will buy.
  • I picked up an 8800 GTS 320meg card a few weeks ago for under $300. The thing runs all my games at top settings with AA cranked up on a 20.1" wide screen. I can run FRAPS through Shat'rath in WoW and still keep 30+ fps.

    • Fraps means nothing; I can do the exact same thing too. All the fraps work is done on the CPU, what minor encoding there is before it dumps it to the disk. That's why a minute or two of footage can run several hundred megabytes no problem-- because it's just an uncompressed video dump.
      • by RingDev ( 879105 )
        Correct! FRAPS adds little to the video processing load. For people who are interested in recording game play though, knowing that a card that costs 1/3rd as much will provided you the exact same output (30fps) can drastically alter their purchasing decision.

  • by Shivetya ( 243324 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:39AM (#18957595) Homepage Journal
    whats the point?

    XFX and others have factory over clocked cards with better speeds than the ultra, though the ultra does feature better memory that should allow overclocked ultras to be quicker than overclocked gtxs.

    One thing I did find interesting, most sites say that Nvidia is only competing against itself as the R600 is supposedly very disappointing. In other words, its no threat to the 88 series
    • But this is the new baseline according to nVidia, partners will then sell overclocked versions of the Ultra. XFX are quoted as saying they'll introduce three different speed grades of it, which sounds crazy to me considering what a gigantic novelty item this is.

    • by jandrese ( 485 )
      Given that nobody has published benchmarks on the R600s yet, that's pure speculation/hearsay. ATI has typically had faster hardware (but crappier drivers), although nVidia really put out a monster with the 8800. It remains to be seen how well they compete. Frankly, I'd be highly disappointed in ATI if the R600s don't beat out the 8800 given that the 8800 has been out for 7 months now.
  • by Fallen Kell ( 165468 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @11:47AM (#18957709)
    The reviews that were posted here on /. while good normally didn't do their homework today with this new card. Only Anandtech seemed to take a look at what is currently available in terms of factory overclocked 8800GTX's on the market. They used the EVGA 8800GTX KO w/AC3, which benches within less then 1% of the performance of the 8800 Ultra AND costs $180 LESS!

    Read the review yourself.... [anandtech.com]
  • Quad SLI (Score:2, Funny)

    by Coleon ( 946269 )
    Great ... now ill sell my four 8800 GTX. and in ... maybe 10 years i could get the money to buy ONE of those. Damn AMDTI why are you keeping away from US!!! I hope the price war will make the ULTRA a little bit cheaper. I just want to play my starcraft with a Quad SLI ULTRA :-)
  • Now seriously, I love that shiny new (and hot!) GPU as much as everyone else does, but is this really vital news? With a slightly improved architecture, and higher clocks, NVIDIA achieves a 10% performance increase. Nothing to see here.
    • by Tarlus ( 1000874 )
      I agree. The Ultra doesn't have any different features or capabilities over what the 8800 GTX or GTS can already do. It's just a tiny bit faster.
  • Why Ultra already? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Murrdox ( 601048 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @12:11PM (#18958057)
    I won't be needing an Ultra anytime soon, and I can't see why others would need to either.

    I built a brand new system for myself back in November '06, and I put a BFG-Tech 8800 GTX in it.

    I love this card. I love it to death. I can throw anything at all at it, and it turns it into pretty rainbows. I run Oblivion and Supreme Commander at the maximum my monitor can support (1920x1200) full everything turned up to the maximum, and the 8800 doesn't even flinch.

    Now, if an enthusiast like me needs to build a new system, and didn't buy a 8800 GTX when it came out, and has a lot of money to spend, then maybe that person will jump on this Ultra.

    However, considering that there are no games out there right now that can really tax the GTX, why spend more money on an Ultra, when there's nothing out there to really get the extra performance from? If there was a new game out there, and the GTX struggled to give you 35 FPS on, but the Ultra could get you 45... then that might be a performance issue worth looking at. But who is going to be able to tell the difference between 50 FPS and 53 FPS? The difference will be imperceptible.

    Just my 2 cents. However, I applaud NVidia for coming out with this, just to make sure they stay on top of the mountain. It shows that they are not resting on the laurels of their recent successes, and are still innovating.
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @12:31PM (#18958383)
    Nvidia needs to stop releasing new cards. The current 8800 GTX and GTS have absolutely terrible driver support in XP and Vista. There is no reason Nvidia should be releasing hardware. They need to get their asses in gear and write some real drivers.

    XP drivers have serious overlay issues, and gui rendering issues that cause adobe apps to be very unstable. It has vsync problems that can crush opengl performance from 160FPS at 2560x1600 to 15fps !!!

    The Nvidia control panel is complete shit. Its impossible to use, and its a half ass work in progress. The color control sucks in the nvidia panel.

    Anyone editing in Avid Express, or Media Composer will quickly find that Video Overlay's on the 8800gtx are rendered with a different color space than regular ui rendered stuff... It makes it near impossible to match the two also because Nvidia's drivers control panel is horrible.

    Nvidia has decided to not support NFORCE 3 boards on Vista. How fucking convenient for them. There is no reason to not support it. It's not that old and the platform can use pretty fast modern cpus and gpus.

    Nvidia sold the 8800 as vista ready, without even having a vista driver written...

    To this day, the Vista drivers still suck and both the XP or Vista drivers have had very few updates in the course of 4 months. (1 update for xp drivers)

    I just dont see Nvidia taking things seriously this time around. They are really fucking up something great. BTW i question the 8800 hardware, because there has been a lot of hardware bugs with the dam thing. Check out EVGA's forum and all of the RMAs that have taken place and how many problems people have with the 8800

    AVOID the 8800 until Nvidia gets their shit together.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      I agree. We've been using the 8800GTX for an OpenGL application under XP, and it has terrible performance with certain types of lines (GL_LINE*) in VBO mode. So much so that our application runs faster on a high-performance laptop with a 7series 'Go' than it does on a machine with an E6700 and a 8800GTX.
      I keep hoping that they'll fix this straight-lines problem - our app draws plenty of lines, but I have to use immediate mode to draw them or else I only get 10fps.
    • They just released the new Forceware drivers today.
      • by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) *
        They release them about once a month. It's still beta. Just recently, nTune actually started to work. If you check out the number of issues that have been fixed and are still outstanding - it's pretty incredible that they haven't gotten into some sort of legal trouble for advertising their product as something it's not e.g. Vista Ready or even SLI capable. You can't overclock it and there are no performance monitoring tools (this new build includes some support but it crashes a lot).

        The parent is basically
    • I understand where you're coming from, but the problem is that they can't just have the computer engineers working on hardware just join up with the people making their software. Sure, there those working on the hardware have to know about the software, but there is always a disconnect between the two teams. Besides, with unified drivers, a fix for the 8800 Ultra will reflect on the GTX and GTS. Releasing a new card is not impeding the development of better drivers, but making them more money to hire mor

    • It seems that while ATI is improving in the driver-arena, NVidia is falling into the hole that previously had a lot of people switching over to them.

      It used to be that ATI made powerful cards, but the drivers were crap so you couldn't fully utilize them, or at least not reliably. Nowadays it seems ATI is putting forth a decent effort to getting their cards working with Vista, and decent XP drivers as well. Heck, even the ATI linux driver works quite nicely on my laptop after I tweaked with it a bit.

      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )
        >> even the ATI linux driver works quite nicely on my laptop after I tweaked with it a bit

        Not what I've experienced at all.
        ATI Linux driver performance is massively below the performance of same HW under windows.
        This isn't true of nVidia's linux drivers, which occasionally even outperform same under windows.
        Also as you said, ATI's linux drivers require lots of tweaking to even work, nVidia's are plug-n-play.
        • by phorm ( 591458 )
          I guess it depends on the card. On mine is has issues running GL screensavers in windows, but the acceleration works better in linux :-)
    • I hate to say it but this seems to be more of a fanboi rant than anything. The vista operating system is new and drivers reflect that, I'll give you that. I'll also give you the fact that the nvidia control panel is a complete waste of time since it only confuses the hell out of people and makes it difficult to change the settings you want, but you can always revert and use the old control panel.

      Now what I will NOT give you is the XP stability bit. Ive been using their drivers pretty much since XP came o
      • by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2007 @04:05PM (#18961919)
        It is most certainly not a "fanboi" rant anymore than you're a troll.

        Go read the nvidia forum, even TODAY, look at the complaints and all of the problems with the drivers released today.

        I cant for the life of me imagine why you would think it is a fan boy rant? I own an nv 8800gtx, installed in my quad core qx6700 workstation which i use for 3d animation and modelling professionally. This is not a fan boy rant. I didnt just make up the opengl vsync issue... I fucking discovered it! After scratching my head and trying to figure out why in the hell opengl was so deathly slow, I ran the same opengl test on an ATI x1550 AGP that was in my web surfing computer.... The ATI smoked the 8800 in opengl performance (this is softimage XSI, not doom 3 :) )

        The 8800 was choking at 15FPS will all 4 viewports being displayed, where as the ATI was 90 to 100fps... and this is all rendering at 2560x1600 on my hp 30inch monitor...

        The 8800GTX has been NOTHING but hell since i got it. The few games i played... Company of Hereos for one, would render stray polygons and stretch them into infinity...

        You can not run the 8800gtx with the /3G switch, or else you can expect ALL adobe applications to basically not redraw. They simply will work for 4 minutes and then a massive redraw melt down will take place...

        Turn off the /3 Switch... and the redraw problem goes away... although it seems to be back with Adobe CS3, so i'm guessing Nvidia needs to fix something in their drivers again...

        As for quadro cards... I've owned them. They were NEVER worth their price. Most people run Geforces, not Quadros in their workstations. Quadros are nice by insanely over priced and often lacking in performance compared to the geforces...

        And WHY would i buy another quadro, when Nvidia cant even support NFORCE3 anymore, OR write a dam driver for the 8800gtx? You're saying i should invest even more money into Nvidia after having been SCREWED by them?

        Hmm.. RANT yes.. Fan boy? no. I have never liked ATI. The 9800pro i owned, i was given (game developement) The ATI x1550 AGP is in my web surfing pc... The PC i basically do nothying excepot get email and do office stuff on...

        Nvidia's XP drivers are stable in that XP wont crash... but they are have serious issues as i've listed.

        Plenty of people edit video with a Geforce card. Nv8800GTX isnt just a consumer card. A $600 video card is not a consumer card in my eyes. Most people wont buy the dam thing. These are enthusiast cards.... Its a high performance card, the fastest yet... Are you saying it is ok to have terrible drivers for a $600 peice of hardware? Are you saying it is ok to release hardware as "vista ready" without a dam driver that functions in vista?!??

        And As for the video editing overlay... I'll leave you with this. Do a search on Avid's forum. Yes AVID does recommend the Quadro line of cards for Media Composer... But if you search the forum... you'll quickly find out that the QUADRO cards have the same dam video overlay color problem. It was fixed in one of the drivers, and broken again in the next... and AVID had to tell its customers to adjust the color overlay settings in Nvidia's control panel. The problem is... It is NEAR impossible to match the overlay color, with the regular gdi color values. So when you're stopping and pausing your video in avid... the dam video colors change, which makes it quite hard to color correct etc.

        Buying an expensive quadro would not solve that issue. It's all Nvidia's driver...

        I just want Nvidia to support their product, which in my opinion is the best dam card out there... but it is so plagued with problems.

        A friend of mine pointed out to Nvidia actually a vsync issue within their hardware, and they all run quadros... to do large format 3d at very high resolutions real time.... Nvidia's response was "ooops oh yeah thats a bug" Basically they couldnt get the cards to all sync and render the frames together across multiple displays...

        They're going to ATI now.

        I could careless WHO gets my money, as long as the dam thing works.

    • NVIDIA used to be great, but its shoddy driver sucks now for Windows. I can't use the 8x.xx with my GeForce 7950 GT KO PCIE card. :( It's nice that NVIDIA still rocks for Linux compared to crappy ATI's Linux support, but it seems like Windows drivers are going downhill like ATI's. Ugh! I am stuck between two card manufactures. Yes, I know about other brands but I play games so...

      NVIDIA, I want my TV display overlay ratio corrected now! Release new versions with the fix already!!!!!! Also, Vista users [nvidia.com] are an
    • In fact, considering nVidia's past performance concerning older chipsets/cards, I expected it. For example, to use a Geforce 2 GTS (which, while old, isn't half-bad for the games I like to play (CS1.6, *craft (not WoW)) you have to go back to Forceware 71.xx. Now that's some old shit. The WinXP x64 Forceware doesn't include (and never did) support for cards older than GeForce 4 (which was damn near state of the art when XP x64 was released).
    • In my experience unless you have a cutting edge card you should be able to find a driver that works OK in XP, although there are obivously exceptions. But on Vista....well let's just say Nvidia fell down and bumped its head 6 months ago and never got up. The Vista drivers are garbage and it took outright revolt to even get them to admit there was a serious problem. If you upgrade to Vista be prepared to see a massive framerate loss on some of your favorites titles. If you insist on upgrading make dam sure y
    • I have an 8800, and have for a couple months. When I got it the XP drivers were fine, and XP was what I was running. It ran all my games very fast. Now I've upgraded to 64-bit Vista, and it's still fine. Everything runs, and quite well.

      I think a large part of the problem is people who screw with their systems, computer ricers I call them. When you try and over clock everything, run beta drivers, do all kinds of wacky tweaks to try and get 100 extra 3DMark points and such, is it any real surprise stability p
      • I dont overclock.

        What you've said, is a common response, but in this case, it doesnt apply. Nvidia really does have its hands full. Just because the XP drivers function, doesnt meake them fully functional. If the XP drivers didnt work at all.. Nvidia would be out of buisness right now. Their stock would have dumped pretty low once stock holders found out that their latest hardware didnt even support XP.

        So yes, it does function in XP... to an extent. There are bugs... there are optimization and performance p
        • Well, as far as I can tell, they are final. MS has signed off on them, they do everything I want, Adobe does NOT crash for me (Photoshop CS2 in this case), I don't get artifacts in anything and so on.

          Sorry, but you are having problem, as are some others, but that doesn't mean that the problems are global. Look at all the bitching about the X-Fi lots of users seem to have troubles with it, though even more don't. The biggest problems were centred around timing problems on the PCI bus of certain motherboards.
          • are you running on a qx6700? How is your system similar to mine? You cant say the 8800gtx works for everyone, just as i cant say it's broken for everyone. Our setups are probably different, and as you stated.. often it is the unique aspects of each person's build/software combinations that we can attribute these problems to. HOWEVER there is a lot of people having all kinds of problems with the 8800gtx.

            I'm only ranting because there is nothing left to do, short of buying a 7900 based card :) And I'll spread
  • Has anyone shelled out the bucks and spent the time checking whether nVidia's CUDA dev env actually delivers the power of the 8800 for general purpose cpmputing (GPGPU), in easy procedural programming, as nVidia promised?
  • They're squeezing everything they can out of the current architecture and leftover parts (to get more money), as long as they're still on top. Why release something new when you can make current specs faster and still make a few more bucks?

    It's business. Once ATI releases their new cards, Nvidia will do the same and drop the prices of these and vice/versa.

    Hardware manufacturers chess, I guess.
    In the end, we benefit from it.
  • from the equation. ATI's R600 is purported to be a disaster so nVidia took the luxury of releasing this turd at an unheard of price. Sure it's fast, but performance-wise it's within a couple percent of the already factory-overclocked BFG 8800GTX ACS at $180 more!

    Nvidiots and AMD/ATI fanboys, listen up:

    Embrace your fellow gamer. Meaningless paper launches like this will be par for the course in the future if one or the other company fails to compete.
  • And find an 8800 Ultra. E-pen0r +1.
  • I tried to buy a new card last month. I had a 7900GS AGP ready to buy with money in hand, until I noticed on the back it wanted a 350W PSU. All the other cards on sale had the same or higher requirement. They've lost a sale just based on that.

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972