Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Cheap New GeForce 8800 GT Challenges $400 Cards 402

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the like-fanless-music-to-my-ears dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cheap New GeForce 8800 GT Challenges $400 Cards

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 29, 2007 @01:54PM (#21159135)
    $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'.
    • by Aladrin (926209) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:13PM (#21159395)
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:34PM (#21159675)
        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.
      • All of today's $100 cards perform better than cards from 5 years ago. Happy? Five years ago? Try two. Today's $100 card (Nvidia 7600GS) performs better than my $200 card from two years ago (Nvidia 6600 GT). The top card of two-three years ago was the 6800, and the 7600 performs better in some benchmarks.
      • by Solandri (704621) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:05PM (#21160921)

        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...

    • by krunk7 (748055) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:46PM (#21159857)

      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?

    • "$200-250 is a crazy amount to pay for a video card"

      You can say the same thing about 8MB of ram, and computers 10 or 15 years ago, and even the first CD-ROM drives. I was an early adopter of 4X CD burner long before CD burners became mainstream and it cost me $600. Do I regret it? No because I knew thats the price you pay for early adoption and paying off R&D and research into new more efficient manufacturing processes.

      A "video card" is a highly complicated specialized CPU, maybe you should look into t
    • by Emetophobe (878584) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:56PM (#21160009)
      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.

  • Kicker (Score:4, Insightful)

    by HateBreeder (656491) on Monday October 29, 2007 @01:55PM (#21159141)
    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.
  • Help me understand. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by IndustrialComplex (975015) on Monday October 29, 2007 @01:56PM (#21159157)
    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?
    • by Lord Ender (156273) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:09PM (#21159325) Homepage
      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.
      • Everyone other serious game will henceforth buy the GT.
        Should say: Every other serious gamer will..
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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.
    • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:10PM (#21159339) Homepage
      Because the "competitor" is two weeks away from a major new product launch.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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
      • It's the way of the world with tech. Todays treasure is tomorrows trash...and sometimes tomorrow really is tomorrow, for unfortunates who buy on the eve of a price drop (silly iPhone whiners).

        You win some, you lose some, especially when you're buying the top of the line.
      • No-one should feel "kicked in the sac" for adopting cutting-edge technology. Anyone who does so should be savvy enough to know the costs and the market.
      • by vux984 (928602) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:56PM (#21160015)
        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...
      • by darkwhite (139802) on Monday October 29, 2007 @03:16PM (#21160313)

        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?
  • 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?

    • by aesiamun (862627)
      Probably those who think that gaming on consoles isn't extreme enough. I'm quite happy keeping my gaming on my consoles only.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by 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
    • by Jugalator (259273)

      Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why?
      Because I like to play new games on a PC that can do a lot of other things too, and the game communities I am in mostly play PC games.
    • Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why?

      Same people who stood in line the first day to plunk down $699 on an iPhone.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by werdnam (1008591)
      I can't tell whether you actually want an answer or not, but I'll bite: The set of games for the Wii and the set of games for the PC are not the same set. Therefore, if you want good performance on a game that is exclusive to the PC (or, even if it's not exclusive, you prefer the PC control scheme, or the fact that PC graphics can outdo those on a console (especially the Wii)), then you need a decent graphics card.
    • Come on, own up: who's buying these console-priced cards, and why?

      I buy video cards and computers for gaming because the console hasn't tackled my kind of game - at least not well yet - the MMORPG. Till then, it's computer gaming for me.
      (and besides, the computer hardware doubles as a development platform - I do engineering programming and hardware-accelerated visualization. That card comes in handy. I really can't do that on a Wii)
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Mantrid (250133)
      Because some people want to play more than mini-games and Mario?
    • by king-manic (409855) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:13PM (#21159391)

      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.
    • by Kamots (321174)
      I've got a 8800 GTS 640 (picked it up for $315 shipped though...) that I was thinking of swapping out for a GTX (although I've been thinking for the last few days... maybe I'll just see if I can't sell my GTS and pick up a GT, pocket $50-100... and wait for the GTX replacement card)

      Once you've got a decent system together (mine's based around a mildly OCed e6750), then you've got to ask yourself if you'd rather pay the $200-400 for a console, or for a video card to turn your computer into a better gaming sy
      • by TellarHK (159748)
        I've gotta disagree, as someone that really dislikes the MS Juggernaut(tm) that the 360 is just a repackaged PC. It -is- a multi-core PPC based box, after all, using a custom video chip that may be based on but not completely copied from a PC design. As far as gaming systems go - and I have all three of the current generation's machines, I really have a lot of respect for what Microsoft's done with the 360. Sony reached too far too fast and too arrogantly, the Wii has great potential and innovation but re
    • by Sockatume (732728)
      The kind of PC builders who enjoy their system through their games, rather than their games through their system. It's about pushing the technical envelope. Kind of like audiophiles, but with technical competence and objective benchmarking tools.
      • by idontgno (624372)

        Kind of like audiophiles, but with technical competence and objective benchmarking tools.

        I dunno, I always thought the "max res, max AA, max framerate" crowd was more akin to dB drag racers [wikipedia.org] than audiophiles.

        Huh. That's a good phrase: "FPS drag racers"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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
      • by Pharmboy (216950)
        Because even Will Wright says that the Wii is the only next generation console [slashdot.org].

        What makes it next generation isn't the power, it is the usability. I still play more games on my computer (P4ht/3.2ghz w/7600gt) than I do the Wii, but the CONTROL on the Wii, and the controllers, are absolutely the best. The Wii isn't more powerful than even my old computer, but the gaming EXPERIENCE is much better.

        As an old fart who games a fair amount, I would say that the games on PC are more realistic, but playing on the
    • I don't see your point. That's like asking who's buying $25,000 cars when you can buy a $18,000 car. $250 is the price you pay to play games on a PC at 1600x1200 or above. Actually, prior to that it was $300 or even higher if you have a 30" monitor. The Wii is a different product, not sure why you would compare the two. The comparison is meaningless.
    • by imsabbel (611519)
      Counter question:
      Who is buying Wii-Priced games anyway?

      If i buy one game a month, the card will have paid for itself.

      Not to mention that for Wii-like games, intel integrated graphics would be plenty.
    • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:25PM (#21159547)
      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.
      • by Bert64 (520050)
        People who have cards for serious purposes as opposed to gaming typically go for higher end workstation cards...
        In these cards, quality is often favoured above speed.

        I also wondered, why do gamers try to get frame rates higher than their screen's refresh rate? I always found having a smooth and consistent framerate, than having it run flat out at 400fps on simple scenes and slow down to 100 in complex frames was much easier to play with. I used to play quake on an SGI, which capped the framerate to 60 i bel
    • by Kjella (173770)
      I have an 8800 GTS and a Wii. Why? Because the former kicks ass in 1920x1200 playing games like Oblivion, World in Conflict etc. while the Wii is just plain old fun with decent graphics. If you want to talk about "the curve", the Wii is way behind it today. But I forgive it for that, though if there was a WiiHD at PS3 prices I'd buy it but I realize I'm in a minority there. The Wii is definately best for games that are supposed to look cartoonish like all the Mario games, Zelda etc., I got FIFA08 and it cou
    • I just bought a Dell XPS in a package deal that included a high-end graphics card. I don't own a console or play console games because I hate the controllers, the resulting UI, and I don't usually play the kinds of games that consoles offer (and first person shooters are far superior on a PC with a mouse to aim with). So, the console "option" is irrelevant to me. If I can play my games with the graphics settings cranked and see no performance loss, and I know my system will be cutting edge for years, the

    • by mcpkaaos (449561)
      Disclaimer: I am a FPS player.

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

      Simply stated, lesser cards will not drive high resolution displays (1600, 1920, etc) at high, stable frame rates without washing out the visuals by turning features off or down.

      Lots of people (myself included) get a huge amount of entertainment from PC gaming. This level of entertainment is often related to the performance of the machine. If you are crawling along Oblivion (just as an example) at 20 fps, you a
      • by Pharmboy (216950)
        >> Lots of people (myself included) get a huge amount of entertainment from PC gaming.

        <jest>
        Man, you sound like a person that would waste $50 a month for cable modem when you can get perfectly good internet over the phone line for less than $10. Or might spend $20,000 on a car when you can take the bus for $1. Or pay $4 for a drink at the nightclub when you just buy a six pack and stay at home. Whats next? Blowing money to eat at a restaurant when you could have just made a peanut butter san
    • I bought an NVidia 8800 GTX at $500. I did it because it seems like the best choice for my overall design, the total machine (not including parts I scavanged off my old system) was $1300. Sure, its much more than subsidized consoles, but I'm ok with that. My current machine was custom built and assembled by myself because I like to build things (also, I'm a control freak.) I have a Wii and its fun, but it feels like I truely own my PC. Anyways, back to the design, the specifications are designed for flexabl
      • by TellarHK (159748)
        No upgrades until 2012? For a $1300 system using a single GTX? No, that's not going to happen. Within 2 years there will be games available, that you'll probably want, which will bring that machine to its knees. How do I know this? I played the Crysis demo on an C2D E6420 overclocked to 3Ghz with a single 8800GTS 640M card last night. With all the spiffy detail turned on (Under DX10) I got something close to 20fps at best, at 1680x1050. With monitor resolutions expected to increase, transistor counts on s
    • by tknd (979052)

      I bought a $300 video card in the past. And I bought a Wii. So I guess I fit both groups.

      But the thing is that I bought that $300 video card 3 years ago and I still use it today. I expect to get another year of life out of it so that would bring service to 4 years. If I had not bought the video card, I probably would have found myself upgrading multiple times over those years. That would probably mean a $100 or more card at the same time I bought the $300 card and another investment about a year and a h

    • by Itchyeyes (908311)
      I bought a $350 8800 GTS six months ago. Why? Because I wanted to play PC games. The PC gives you a significantly different experience than the Wii does. And if you ask me, the video card was the better value. Am I upset that Nvidia has released a new card? Of course not. Only a fool would expect a piece of technology to stay on the cutting edge for very long these days (I'm looking at you, iPhone early adopters).
  • Show me a video card that is sub 3-digit in price. No way am I going to spend $200 on a video card.
  • Yup (Score:4, Funny)

    by dazedNconfuzed (154242) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:00PM (#21159213)
    New incarnation of given technology cheaper than older incarnation of same technology, film at 11...
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      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

  • by antdude (79039) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:01PM (#21159235) Homepage Journal
    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. :)
    • Your video card is probably the bottleneck.
    • by magarity (164372)
      Why not go SLi with another of your current cards? Unless you're determined to get first generation Dx10 then the 8xxx series isnt yet as cost effective as a pair of 7xxx series.
      • by antdude (79039)
        How much more FPS will I get out of that for newer games like Crysis? If it is like 5-10 FPS, then it is not worth it. I am not sure if I have room for another PCIE card in my system and adding more heat will make my system more hotter (my room is like 85 degrees(F) during heat waves so you can see how bad inside the case is; I do have air cirulation in it).
  • Maybe so (Score:5, Funny)

    by jayhawk88 (160512) <jayhawk88@gmail.com> on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:11PM (#21159365)
    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?
    • by CompMD (522020)
      Unfortunately it probably doesn't. Frankly, nobody I know (including myself) really cares much about the fact that all of my CAD workstations have Quadro cards (and the old ones have Elsa Gloria cards). However, I'm sure that some of those 1337 gam0r types would shit a brick if they knew what those cost. As I'm sure you know, in Lawrence its fun and easy to have "whose is bigger?" challenges. :)
      • by Bert64 (520050)
        Yeah, i have an SGI Onyx somewhere, a stupidly powerful graphics workstation in it's day...
        I also have some Elsa Gloria cards, i got one with an alphastation a few years ago.
    • Everyone knows $400 cards are Jordache. :_
  • Overkill? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lymond01 (314120) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:17PM (#21159445)
    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.
    • Of course it's not overkill for some people. TF2 isn't exactly demanding compared to other games. If you're buying a new video card and your budget is $200-$400, this is now the card that you would buy. If you're playing at higher resolutions with eye candy, you need this card for newer and more demanding games.
    • by imsabbel (611519)
      Play the crysis demo.

      Then you realize two things:

      a) you have seen movies with worse graphics
      b) there is no graphic hardware in the world that can enable all details.

      Just like in the sweet old times. All those cards running the latest games at 200fps gets boring once in a while...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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.
  • This is not really all that shocking. "Most expensive" does not necessarily mean "top of the line". There have been tons of benchmarks showing how "slower" and cheaper CPUs synchronize with the bus more efficiantly than some of the overpriced high-clockers do and perform way better. These two cards don't even sound like they're all that different. From the sounds of it, the GTS is the same card as the GT with some fancy fans on it which are less efficient, make more noise, and don't improve performance
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 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).
  • How hard would it be to install this on a Pro? I hear that EFI makes this impossible. But if that's the case, why buy a desktop machine that's upgradable if you can't upgrade it?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by 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,
  • Nice looking card (Score:5, Informative)

    by Emetophobe (878584) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:44PM (#21159829)
    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])

  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Monday October 29, 2007 @02:56PM (#21160033)
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bogie (31020) on Monday October 29, 2007 @04:40PM (#21161469) Journal
    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?
  • by Brit_in_the_USA (936704) on Monday October 29, 2007 @06:01PM (#21162855)
    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).

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Working...