Cheap New GeForce 8800 GT Challenges $400 Cards

J. Dzhugashvili writes "What would you say to a video card that performs like a $400 GeForce 8800 GTS for $200-250? Say hello to the GeForce 8800 GT. The Tech Report has tested the new mid-range wonder in Crysis, Unreal Tournament 3, Team Fortress 2, and BioShock. It found that the card keeps up with its $400 big brother overall while drawing significantly less power and — here's the kicker — generating slightly less noise."

$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[by Anonymous Coward]

$200-250 is a crazy amount to pay for a video card. $400 is insanely expensive. How much disposable income to you have, anyways?

You want to impress me? Show me a $50-100 video card that can perform as well as a $200. $50 falls into something I call 'cheap'.

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[Aladrin (926209)]

All of today's $100 cards perform better than cards from 5 years ago. Happy?

The same complaint you've just made can be made for -all- computer components. The high-end ($400) stuff -is- insanely expensive, and only for the true die-hard hobbyists. The hobbyist ($200) stuff is for those that want to enjoy the sport, but can't afford to throw their money away. And the cheap stuff ($100) is for those that don't really care and the low-end stuff is good enough.

If you're not a gamer, you have -no- reason to buy a card at all. The onboard video is more than good enough. (I use an onboard Intel GMA 3000 on my Kubuntu box and it runs Compiz better than my ATI at work.)

And

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

The people who buy lower end should be real thankful there is a high end. That's where the lower end comes from. nVidia can afford to sell the 8600 for $100 precisely because they paid the R&D costs with the expensive 8800s. The lower end is as cheap and as good as it is precisely because there's a high end.

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[Solandri (704621)]

All of today's $100 cards perform better than cards from 5 years ago. Happy?

The same complaint you've just made can be made for -all- computer components. The high-end ($400) stuff -is- insanely expensive, and only for the true die-hard hobbyists. The hobbyist ($200) stuff is for those that want to enjoy the sport, but can't afford to throw their money away. And the cheap stuff ($100) is for those that don't really care and the low-end stuff is good enough.

I think the OP was getting more at how the price strata of computer equipment has changed over the years.

CPUs: 5 years ago, ~$1k was top, ~$300 mid-line, ~$125 low-end. Today, same.
HD: 5 years ago, ~$700 was top, ~$200 mid-line, ~$80 low-end. Today, same, maybe a bit lower.
RAM: 5 years ago, ~$500 was top, ~$200 mid-line, ~$100 low-end. Today, same, maybe a bit lower.

Video: 5 years ago, ~$400 was top, ~$150 mid-line, ~$50 low-end. Today, it's gone up. ~$700 top, ~$300 mid-line, ~$100 low-end.

However, I would argue against the OP: From a market standpoint the reason video card pricing has increased is because the customers are more willing to spend more on a video card than the other components. Certainly GPUs have increased in complexity to where they've equaled or surpassed CPUs in circuits thus increasing manufacturing costs, but ATI and nVidia wouldn't have pushed GPUs to that point if the public weren't willing to buy them. It leaves the folks who can only afford a $150 video card feeling as if they have a smaller penis because the high-end is now $700 instead of $400. But as you point out, any low end card out today would smoke the high-end cards from 5 years ago.

Now if we can just get the game developers to write code which will run at acceptable FPS on mid- to low-end video hardware...

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[Pojut (1027544)]

No weights involved, however it is not uncommon for professional gaming teams to hire ex-drill instructors.

It may seem simple, and is not a "sport" in the sense that it doesn't require physical stamina, however in the pro leagues it does require a significant amount of time to train. How do you train with a video game? Getting the timing of a weapon down just right in CS...knowing EXACTLY what units to use and where to use them depending on the type of attack/types of units your opponent is using...you get the idea. Basically, it requires you to know the game better than the people that made it. Not only that, but you must have the dexterity in your fingers to be able to control as well as possible (it is also not uncommon for pro gamers to play some form of instrument that requires dexterity, such as Saxophone or Guitar.)

Try playing SSBM or CS:S against someone who regularly plays in tournaments and trains on a daily basis...see how long you last.

And while you are laughing at them for being nerds, they are making a shitload of money for doing what essentially amounts to playing games for a living.

Re:

[Pojut (1027544)]

How do you figure they are wasting their lives?

They do their job, and in return they can pay their bills, put a roof over their head, and put food in the pantry...

Isn't that why you work?

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[Sloppy (14984)]

They ARE wasting their lives, they're just being paid to do it. You sound as if every bum on the street, prostitute, meth dealer, or prison inmate isn't wasting their lives because they get paid to do something vaguely resembling work.
...
You're better off keeping a real job

I think the confusion sets in, right here. How is a "real job" less life-wasting? Is there any employed person (whether they're a meth dealer or a doctor), who isn't "wasting their life?" You do work for someone else, and get paid. Then you come home and use the money to do something for yourself.

Re:

[Kelbear (870538)]

It's advertising for games and gaming hardware. They're getting sponsored, that's how they're getting paid. Evidently somebody thinks that paying them is better than not paying them.

Entertainment and advertising have value to someone, not necessarily you or I, but much of the money moving through these sectors is coming from someone who does.

Also, not everyone can do something mentally or spiritually rewarding. Not everyone can be special. Shit, if anyone could make a living doing what they really wanted to

Re:

[Yosho (135835)]

I wasn't laughing at them. I was laughing at calling it a "sport" - I laugh the same way at golfers who call their game a 'sport'(Tiger Woods makes more taking a dump than all video sportsman combined). At least the golfers have to walk - a little.

The dictionary [reference.com] says, among other things, that a "sport" is a: 3. diversion; recreation; pleasant pastime..

Golf and video games both easily fit into that definition.

It's pretty funny that you're insulting golf, though. I'm guessing that you haven't golfed much, or

Sports vs. Games

[TheCrayfish (73892)]

Perhaps this quote attributed to Ernest Hemingway can help clear this up: "There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games."

Re:

[Machtyn (759119)]

You've obviously have never played the sport of golf. Get off your buttocks and take a "strolling" round of this, ahem, non-sport of golf. (A good walk ruined, penned Mark Twain.)

Tiger Woods doesn't hit 300+ yard tee shots because he was simply walking a fairway for 72 holes a day. He also doesn't make the majority of his money off of the game/sport of golf.

Likewise, professional gamers do train for their "sport" and, if they are lucky, they earn most of their money from endorsements.

Re:

[ImpShial (1045486)]

I know women who make a shitload of money taking off their clohes - I pity them.

Why would you pity them? Most professional (professional being the key word here) strippers/dancers/prostitutes know that what they do is a form of entertainment. And I really wouldn't pity them, as they have A LOT more power and control over the men & women who are watching them to feed their inner animal.

Many women I have spoken to who peddle flesh for a living know that they call the shots, and quite a few of them make a

Re:

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

I think you're mistaking a "sport" for something "athletic."

Though I think 'professional gaming' is silly, there are lots of 'sports' that are not particularly athletic, and/or are more about use of certain specialized equipment than about innate physical characteristics. So that's not really a legitimate criticism.

There are almost purely athletic sports (running, perhaps, the most pure), and there are very skill-based sports (fishing, shooting, bowling, bocce, etc.), and of course a whole lot in between. P

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[acariquara (753971)]

Chess is an Olympic sport.

Nuff said.

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[krunk7 (748055)]

I spend 250 dollars for a night out at a nice restaurant with my wife, especially if a nice bottle of wine is included.

Wh wouldn't I spend this on a one time purchase that will provide hours and hours of entertainment for up to 1.5 years?

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[toleraen (831634)]

Because the sort of person that wants a $100 video card is the type of person who would get several nights out for $250 at what they perceive to be nice restaurants, including drinks.

Re:

[Surt (22457)]

Yeah, you're in the stratosphere with that night out budget. That's probably in the top 10% of American incomes.

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[Minwee (522556)]

I spend 250 dollars for a night out at a nice restaurant with my wife, especially if a nice bottle of wine is included.

Why wouldn't I spend this on a one time purchase that will provide hours and hours of entertainment for up to 1.5 years?

Well, for starters, there's the fact that you already spent it all for a night out at a nice restaurant.

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[Emetophobe (878584)]

We're talking about high end cards here, not your run of the mill card for non-gamers. $200-300 is relatively cheap compared to the $550-800 price of the 8800 Ultra [newegg.com]. Also, this is brand new tech, prices are always higher for early adopters. Expect this card to be worth $100 in a year or two.

Re:$200-250 is NOT cheap!

[tehcrazybob (850194)]

This thread may be about video cards, but somehow it reminds me of all the audiophiles I've ever known...

Perhaps the two obsessions are superficially similar, but I suspect if you were to stop and think for a moment, you would find some significant differences. Primarily in that the video card obsession has extremely quantifiable, testable, measurable, and repeatable qualities. Audiophile psychosis, on the other hand, is basically spending huge sums of money for differences that can only be heard by the person who spent the money and which disappear as soon as someone brings up the idea of a scientifically valid test.

Kicker

[HateBreeder (656491)]

I would say the kicker is that it draws significantly less power, rather than producing little noise.

Obviously, the fan is making the noise, not the chip.
I bet you could probably find a 8800GTX with some high-end silent cooling rig.

Re:Kicker

[Joce640k (829181)]

Half the price and almost the same frame rate is irrelevent?

Weird.

Help me understand.

[IndustrialComplex (975015)]

I can understand if this card were released by a competitor, but why would Nvidia release a card that competes with their top of the line at such a low price? Who wouldn't want the cheaper card?

The only thing I can think of is that the production costs were higher for the GTS, resulting in less profit per card...

Can anyone clue me in?

Re:Help me understand.

[Lord Ender (156273)]

The GTS was to get money from early adopters, and remains on the market to squeeze money out of people who make purchasing decisions based on emotional ("I have the best!") rather than financial considerations. Everyone other serious game will henceforth buy the GT.

Re:

[bigstrat2003 (1058574)]

Well, the GTS isn't the "best", so that wouldn't be a consideration. There is another reason though. I already have an 8800 GTS, so if I want to ever go SLI, I'll be getting another of the same card I have already. Not that I wouldn't like to get a GT for cheaper, but a second GTS would still be cheaper than two GTs.

Re:Help me understand.

[Joce640k (829181)]

Because the "competitor" is two weeks away from a major new product launch.

Re:

[MarcoAtWork (28889)]

but why would Nvidia release a card that competes with their top of the line at such a low price?

do you really think that the 8800gtx will still be nvidia's top-of-the-line card come Christmas?

Re:

[TellarHK (159748)]

I would have initially assumed that nVidia, fearing a threat from ATI, would have taken a different route to try and get the big bucks. Drop the price on existing cards by a hundred bucks or so, use the NV92 used for the 8800GT as the 8850GT in order to differentiate the price features, and charge a premium price for it in the $350 range.

This way, early adopters don't feel like they got screwed into mild feature obsolecense by a card that costs half as much, people wanting the upgrades see more reason to b

Re:

[krelian (525362)]

I bought a 8800 GTS 320MB about year after it came out, I don't consider it being an early adopter. Now, Nvidia brings a better card for a lower price. That's very different from the usual price drop on older cards.

Re:

[TellarHK (159748)]

That's a really good question. The GTS production costs were certainly higher, as it's a dual-slot card that uses more components, material and a larger die size, but as a GTS 640MB owner I'm feeling somewhat kicked in the sac. Yes, I'm fully aware that newer cards come out every few months, but it seems a little bit of a slap in the face when something comes out cheaper, arguably faster, and more manageable than your $400 piece of gear -without- a credible marketplace threat.

It's hard to imagine they're m

Re:Help me understand.

[vux984 (928602)]

However, this would be an excellent time for nVidia to start letting Intel use SLI on chipsets.

Meh, I'm unconvinced SLI is anything more than markting hot-rods to idiots. I think this is like the dual 3dfx Voodoo Monster II all over again. If the next generation cards can do in a single slot what todays cards need two or more in SLI for, then 99% of consumers will just wait for the next card, and only the twits who need/want the bragging rights of an SLI unit will go for it.

I doubt any games are ever going to require an SLI setup.

In any case think back to the 3dfx monster stuff and recall how that panned out. Instead of everyone needing an array of video cards to run the latest games the entire dual card thing was rendered obsolete because a single next gen card could beat a dual monster setup for half the price.

And look at whats happening in CPU's... virtually nobody has a quad socket motherboard; and even dual sockets are a rare niche product. Yet we've had support for it on the desktop since 2000. But instead the trend has been to multi-core cpu's. The cost benefit just isn't there for multiple socket cpus or multiple card video solutions. However, if they can do "SLI on a single board"... that will be your next generation solution.

My 0.02 on the subject...

Re:Help me understand.

[darkwhite (139802)]

Yes, I'm fully aware that newer cards come out every few months, but it seems a little bit of a slap in the face when something comes out cheaper, arguably faster, and more manageable than your $400 piece of gear -without- a credible marketplace threat.

Let me get this straight. You're complaining about nVidia releasing a new, cheaper, cooler, faster card not because ATI is about to cut its throat but simply because it wants to serve its customers better and push the envelope further???

Do you realize what the alternative is?

Yup

[dazedNconfuzed (154242)]

New incarnation of given technology cheaper than older incarnation of same technology, film at 11...

Re:

[RightSaidFred99 (874576)]

The news is that this is a leap forward in price/performance. There have only been a few comparable video card releases in history. Typically, it goes "you pay $500 for a high end card, then it goes to $450, then $400, etc...". This is a card that costs $250 (or less) that is almost as fast as a card that costs $400 or more.

In other words, if you play PC games at 1600x1200 or above, this is the only choice that you really have now - nothing else makes sense unless you're playing on a 30" monitor or want

Worth upgrading my GeForce 7950 on my box?

[antdude (79039)]

OK. After playing Crysis single player demo, I only got 9-10 FPS average (0 FPS minimum!) with high settings (I refuse to go lower, did turn off motion blur which drove me nuts) according to the two batch benchmark files. I just upgraded my system last December 2006 too! That video card was expensive (almost 300 bucks) enough! :(

My current computer specifications can be found here:
http://alpha.zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/computers.txt [zimage.com] (I do not like to and want to OC; doesn't help when I have physical disabilities since I can't open my case to reset CMOS, fiddle with the hardwares, etc.). I use the latest NVIDIA drivers (including betas), 1280x1024 native resolution on my 19" LCD monitor (helps to use lower native resolutions since I don't need larger one :)), no FSAA if FPS is needed, and 16X anisotropic (no anisostropic didn't even help for Crysis).

Is it worth getting a newer video card (e.g., 8800) to help the newer games' FPS like Crysis, World in Conflict, C&C3 (not too choppy like the first two), etc.? I do not want to upgrade my motherboard, CPU, RAM, etc. at this time. I am not sure where's the bottleneck is. Video card? My CPU? Something else?

Thank you in advance. :)

Maybe so

[jayhawk88 (160512)]

But does the $250 card make people online you will never meet in real life think that your penis is gigantic like the $400 card does?

Overkill?

[lymond01 (314120)]

I run TF2 in 1680x1050 with a GeForce 6800GS Overclocked-out-of-the-box. Never skips, never gets busy, no artifacts. My processor is a single core Athlon (somewhere in the 3.2 GHz range). 2 GB of memory. It's not a "new" box by any means, but I haven't found a game that doesn't run on full (except FEAR with some of the most advanced features) graphics.

Re:

[Itchyeyes (908311)]

TF2 is a great game, but come on... you can't seriously use it as a benchmark for graphical performance. I doubt you're even running Episode 2 on full settings with that card and still getting decent frame rates. And if you can't find any games that make your graphics card chug, World in Conflict, UT3, COD4, and Crysis all have demos out now. Try running any of those games and then come back and tell us that a 6800GS is all you need with a straight face.

Nice looking card

[Emetophobe (878584)]

Here are the main benefits I see with this card:

1. Single slot cooler instead of a dual slot like all the other high end cards made over the last 2 years
2. One 6 pin power connection instead of two like all the other high end G80 cards
3. Power consumption. According to the article (yes I read it), Nvidia rates the power consumption of the 8800GT at 110 watts.
4. Supports PCI Express 2.0 (backwards compatible with PCI Express 1.1)
5. Relatively cheap. I always found $200-300 to be the best price range for a video card (the high end G80 cards on the other hand cost $500-800 [newegg.com])

Does it have dual link dvi HDCP? 8800 GTX did not!

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

Well considering that i recently found out that my $600 geforce 8800 GTX card, does not support HDCP over dual link, which means i can not watch HD-DVD or Bluray on my pc... I'm a little pissed off at nvidia. Especially since the cheaper GTS version does support HDCP through dual link.

Which really boils down to one thing.... and its not entirely nvidia's fault. Its this entire HDCP DRM encryption mentality. This is EXACTLY what happens to consumers when these huge corporations impose such unfriendly, incompatible schemes on us. I paid for the best video card at the time, and it was $600, Nvidia said it supported HDCP and was ready for Vista. BOTH... were lies.

$200? Where?

[bogie (31020)]

The cheapest you can buy this for is $260 not including shipping at Newegg. I don't know where he got that 200-249 range from, but the range I'm seeing is $260-$290.

So much for the return of the midrange. Midrange being the $150 card. Today's $150 card ie the 8600gts is a joke for DX10 and the newest games. No wonder the PC gaming industry is in the shitter and losing out to consoles. You need to spend almost $300 on a video card just to stay current.

When fast new systems with Dual Core cpus, 1GB of memory, and 19" LCDs, cost $500-$600 who in their right mind thinks spending $250 on a gpu isn't a ripoff?

Double Precision Floating Point Support?

[Brit_in_the_USA (936704)]

It was rumored pre-release that he G92 may have double precision floating point support. Is there any confirmation or firm denial of this?
(the reviews I have seen have been far less technical on new chip features than in previous graphics card launches).

Re:Who the heck is buying these cards?

[king-manic (409855)]

Even at 'only' $250, it's that or a Wii. And the Wii is a stable platform, whereas your cutting edge premium card is going to look overpriced and behind the curve tomorrow - ask all the people who just ordered $400 8800 GTS cards how that feels.

Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why?

It's a question of what you enjoy. My rig is a year old and runs all the latest game at "medium" settings very well. FPS are the only ones that require savagely expensive systems. Zelda/Wii sports/Resident evil 4 have provided less fun then warcraft 3. I spend more time in oblivion then in those 3 as well. The wii is a social console. It's great for company sort of ho hum solo. If it's not your then it isn't that valuable to you at any price.

Re:

[m4g02 (541882)]

Even at 'only' $250, it's that or a Wii. And the Wii is a stable platform, whereas your cutting edge premium card is going to look overpriced and behind the curve tomorrow

Don't get me wrong, Wii is a nice little console, but it looked behind the curve in its launch date, and it looks behind the curve today. I don't understand why fanboys have to troll everything; we are comparing PC video cards here, why are you talking about the Wii?

A year ago I bought this laptop with a GeForce 7900 and have been pl

Can you Luddites find a new site please?

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

Seriously, what is it with the technology haters on Slashdot? This is a tech site and yes, there are people out there whole like having cutting edge tech for various reasons. Maybe they are just gamers with lots of money. Maybe they like having graphics that totally stomps on anything a Wii can do. Maybe they have a high end PC anyhow for other work, and as such a good card is worth it. Maybe the games they want to play are only for computer (like say World of Warcraft). Maybe they don't game, maybe they use them for 3D visualization like, say research with insects (just helped a professor at work buy one for that reason). Maybe they use them for GPGPU related things.

Quit hating just because you can't afford the newest toys. If someone can and if that's what they want, then great. You should be happy because guess what? That's where the Wii graphics come from. Lower end graphics come from higher end graphics. It costs a lot of money to develop new technology like this, and the high end is where the development cost gets reimbursed. You get the cheap, good graphics in the Wii precisely because ATi has done so much high end development and it has filtered down.

Re:

[Endo13 (1000782)]

Actually, the 8800 cards are just for playing games. Really. video/graphics/animation pros get something like this [newegg.com] or a FireGL [newegg.com].

Re:

[TellarHK (159748)]

I've gotta disagree with that. You want a card with a good memory setup for things like Photoshop, just because you're working with such huge data structures on your screen. You don't want $20 cards, but a $50 card will likely do the trick.

I worked at a newspaper for a while, and they had a number of Pagemaker 7.5 machines running with some really lousy on-board graphics that were sold as "High-Spec" by the con artist offering tech support for the place for years previously. It took me bringing in my old

Re:

[Endo13 (1000782)]

Not really.

There's basically two kinds of people who buy $400 graphics cards. People who have so much money it's chump change, and people for whom PC gaming is their big hobby. For either of those groups, it's really not that much money. Think about it. The best gaming rig in the world still won't top $10K (and that's going REALLY off-the-wall extreme) which is peanuts compared to some hobbies. And you can build a really good gaming rig that has pretty much all of the best-of-the-best including a $400 graph

Re:

[Bacon Bits (926911)]

No, the difference is that the 8800 GTS is 90nm, and the 8800 GT is 65nm.

The Anantech review [anandtech.com] details things much, much better (unsurprisingly).

Re:

[petermgreen (876956)]

How hard would it be to install this on a Pro? I hear that EFI makes this impossible.
Afaict you can put a card with a PC bios in and it will work in windows but it won't work in the bootloader or OS-X.

why buy a desktop machine that's upgradable if you can't upgrade it?

Lets see, the mac pro is the cheapest mac (the xserve can do some of theese things too but it is even more expensive than the mac pro) that

* supports a matched pair of monitors of your choice (the mini doesn't support multiple monitors at all,