NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTX reviewed

If you're looking to impress with your gaming rig and money is no object, it doesn't look like you can do much better than NVIDIA's latest bit of graphics excess, the DirectX 10-compliant GeForce 8800 GTX . That's according to the good folks at bit-tech.net, who recently got a chance to put this monster of a graphics card through its paces, finding that it delivered on performance -- but, obviously, isn't for everybody. For one thing, you'll want to have at least a 24-inch monitor to take full advantage of the card, with bit-tech actually saying that the card is too fast for use with resolutions less than 1900 x 1200. Not surprisingly, it also consumes loads of power, with NVIDIA recommending a minimum 450W power supply; that, of course, is for a single card -- we're a little scared to think of what you'll need for an SLI setup. Bit-tech did find a few problems with the device, including a few glitches with image quality in Half-Life 2: Episode One, although they suspects that'll be remedied with a driver update.

[tau zero @ Nov 9th 2006 3:59AM]

Stream Processing FTW!

[Jon @ Nov 9th 2006 4:18AM]

Can someone find out how "quiet" the 8800 cards are for use in a HTPC in a livingroom setup? I doubt we'll see fanless active cooled 0db 8800's I'd like to know if a semi-silent model is available.

[Johno @ Nov 9th 2006 4:23AM]

@Jon

i know that some companies are offering a watercooled version of the 8800gtx,albeit at a premium (on an already premium iteam) but if you are interest it should run a fair bit quieter for your htpc

[sdsdv10 @ Nov 9th 2006 12:23PM]

@ John

Do you really need this much 3D power in a HTPC? HTPC usually are on the slower and quieter side of things, so they normally don't make the best gaming rigs. A 7xxx series nvidia or x19__ ATI card should do fine. Or do you just like to spends lots of money? In which case, carry on!

[GhostDoggy @ Nov 10th 2006 4:57AM]

Home Theater PC, but not in a Home Theater? And you are asking about silent running in a living room? How about a real home theater?

[Juaquin @ Nov 9th 2006 2:40PM]

A true comparison would be run at the same settings for all boards. If that means you have to lower the others, that's what you do. Also, the lack of a REAL benchmark (like 3DMark05) or even a standardized test (there are demos available for HL2 and other games that run the same thing every time then average frame rates) shows that they're trying to gloss over the fact that it's not really all that much more powerful than the GX2. Better? Yes. Revolutionary? Not really.

Look at the rates - the GX2 blew away the G80 in some tests and they ignored that by saying "well the G80 has much more spectacular graphics" just because it was running 16x AA rather than the GX2's 8x or something like that.

They're playing it up to make Nvidia happy. Shame on them.

I want to see some hard 3DMark scores before I judge it.

[David @ Nov 9th 2006 4:40AM]

I wonder how long it will be until this card goes out of date.

[Billy Goats @ Nov 9th 2006 10:05AM]

3 hours

[craig#2 @ Apr 10th 2008 1:26AM]

Its April 10th, 2008 and its still got the best bang-to-buck ratio.

[Jon @ Nov 9th 2006 5:34AM]

@Johno
What is the link to that company? I cant find it on google. I'd like to keep tabs on when the silent 8800 is available.

[Johno @ Nov 9th 2006 6:20AM]

Here is the link for the watercooled version of the 8800GTX

http://www.bfgtech.com/8800GTX_768_PCIe_wc.html

enjoy

[Dae @ Nov 9th 2006 7:11AM]

I guess its time to update my Newegg.com wish list. You never know i might get lucky one day and actually follow through and buy this dream system of mine. sigh..

[Andy D @ Nov 9th 2006 7:15AM]

"For one thing, you'll want to have at least a 24-inch monitor to take full advantage of the card, with bit-tech actually saying that the card is too fast for use with resolutions less than 1900 x 1200."

Where in the review does it actually say it's too fast?

[Me @ Nov 9th 2006 7:29AM]

This site has 3DMark benchmarks http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2054230,00.asp

[Rusty @ Nov 9th 2006 7:44AM]

LOL.......good grief! I'd have to install a SEPARATE power supply to run this sucker. I already have "just" a 500w supply in my computer now! How about these vid card mfgs just put a piggyback power connector on the back of the card, and give us a wall cube adapter to run these suckers...

[daaper @ Nov 9th 2006 8:32AM]

They're not saying it draws 450W of power. they're saying you need at least a 450W power supply to support your system plus the 180W (peak) that this thing will draw. If you have a 500W power supply already, then you're fine.

[kiddy @ Nov 9th 2006 8:30AM]

Someone use a I-cute 430watts PSU to power this card up.

btw I am not going for this card so what I am waiting for is AMD ATi R600.

[0_0 @ Nov 9th 2006 9:25AM]

Boy am I glad I'm a console gamer so I don't need to keep up with this ridiculous kind of tech-geekery.

[daaper @ Nov 9th 2006 9:48AM]

no kidding...i will never complain about the price of consoles when this card costs as much as the "overpriced" PS3. People building gaming PCs hardly bat an eye at $2k...to each his own!

[boe @ Nov 9th 2006 10:37AM]

If you read Tom's Hardware they come out with totally different results - no surprise their VGA charts have been out of whack when compared to all the other major test sites. I'm not sure if Tom's only hires crack heads or if they don't actually own any equipment for testing and just throw darts at a dart board - maybe while using the crack.

[Matt B @ Nov 9th 2006 10:50AM]

NOw I have to flip a coin, this or a PS3. My 7800GT still hangs very well with todays games, but looking at the benchmarks from the link above leads me to believe that the 8800 will more than double the performance on my current card. I'll wait til after xmas though.

[Ken @ Nov 9th 2006 11:04AM]

Since when does 1900x1200 only come in 24" monitors? Shit, my 17" laptop has that native res.

[sdsdv10 @ Nov 9th 2006 12:33PM]

"Since when does 1900x1200 only come in 24" monitors? Shit, my 17" laptop has that native res."

@Ken, I far as I can find you will only find 1920x1200 in 17" laptops. I haven't been able to find a single separate 17" display with this resolution. On Newegg, all 1920x1200 models were 24". I recommend a little searching before typing next time.

[Tate Barnes @ Nov 9th 2006 11:32AM]

I have been an Engadget reader for a few years, but until now, have not thought to make a comment. Perhaps now is an appropriate time.

Jon, if a semi-silent model was available, you would know about it. The company will release the entire family of products in good time, as they have done in the past.

Juaquin, I can assure you that the editors of Engadget have nothing to gain by making Nvidia happy. Do you think Nvidia will let Engadget or anyone else break a NDA for the sake of a slightly positive comment? Shame on you for being ignorant.

David, when the ratio of performance to price becomes less favourable than the next best alternative, a product is 'out of date.' That said, the concept of out of date is subjective, leaving your comment vauge, if not pointless.

Daaper, thanks for bringing some semblance of logic to this thread.

0_0, if you don't need to keep up with this 'tech-geekery', stay off this site and wait for the TV to tell you what to buy.

Boe, Tom's Hardware has offered some of the best analysis of new/emerging hardware over the last 5 years.

Engadget, thanks for the continual updates on the industry.

[Baffled @ Nov 9th 2006 1:30PM]

Wow Tate, that has got to be the best first-post I have ever seen.
You dominate!

And seriously, this card is SO not necessary for an HTPC. Unless you are powering a humonguos 1080p set, the graphics card is one of the least important parts of a HTPC.

[bluemonq @ Nov 9th 2006 2:06PM]

"Juaquin, I can assure you that the editors of Engadget have nothing to gain by making Nvidia happy. Do you think Nvidia will let Engadget or anyone else break a NDA for the sake of a slightly positive comment? Shame on you for being ignorant."

Re-read the comment again, and learn about pronouns. "They" refers to bit-tech.

[Juaquin @ Nov 10th 2006 3:27AM]

Tate, shame on you for not thinking. I was referring to the site that reviewed the card, not Engadget. Engadget doesn't have an 8800 to test, so how can I accuse them of bs benchmarks if they have nothing to benchmark??

[Ryan @ Nov 11th 2006 11:51PM]

Wait, so This will run Crysis on my Vista PC in january with DX 10?

[Ken @ Nov 9th 2006 12:55PM]

"@Ken, I far as I can find you will only find 1920x1200 in 17" laptops. I haven't been able to find a single separate 17" display with this resolution. On Newegg, all 1920x1200 models were 24". I recommend a little searching before typing next time."

sdsdv10,
You limit yourself by using Newegg as a reference. Monitors are available as WQUXGA (3840x2400) and yet still smaller than 24". LG, iiyama, Apple, IBM, Viewsonic, etc. have all made panels capable of WUXGA or greater and smaller than 24". Maybe you should follow your own advice.

[Ken @ Nov 9th 2006 1:19PM]

LOL

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020+1109909240+1309821326&Subcategory=20&description=&Ntk=&srchInDesc=

[sdsdv10 @ Nov 9th 2006 1:53PM]

Ken, exactly what are laughing at. You link goes to a 23" monitor, much closer to 24" than 17". If you want to make your point, find a link to a stand alone 1920x1200 17" monitor that is both readily available and a similar cost to the 23-24" units (meaning something someone might actually purchase). If not, then both your comment and reply are meaningless.

[bluemonq @ Nov 9th 2006 2:11PM]

You made a statement of fact: "On Newegg, all 1920x1200 models were 24." Ken showed that this was not true. Regardless of the fact that 23" and 24" aren't that different, he is still technically right.

[sdsdv10 @ Nov 9th 2006 4:23PM]

Ah yes, a typical method of discussion used on the internet (and else where). When you can not refute the substance of the claim, attack its technical accuracy to divert the discussion.

If you look at Ken's original comment, "Since when does 1900x1200 only come in 24" monitors? Shit, my 17" laptop has that native res." he was implying that 1920x1200 (not actually 1900x1200) was a common resolution for many sizes iof LCD monitors (particularly those smaller than 24") and that the author of the was incorrect in making the statement; "For one thing, you'll want to have at least a 24-inch monitor to take full advantage of the card,".

So what is my rebuttal, well there are several. First, Ken's 17" 1920x1200 resolution is in a laptop. So what if anything would that have to do with a high end graphics card as a 8800GTX outlined in this article. Two, a quick search of Newegg found 13 LCD monitors with that resolution (9 are 24" and 4 are 23"). There were no 17" stand alone LCD monitors with a 1920x1200 native resolution. A further quick search of Google showed that even in laptops, 17" 1920x1200 screens are not all that common (although not unheard of). Furthermore, the author never said �only� 24�. He was just using common knowledge that the most popular monitor with 1920x1200 resolution is Dell�s 24� unit (and probably by a wide margin). So yes, I was incorrect in stating that �all� are 24� but 9 out of 13 is certainly a majority, but this doesn�t change what I believe was the author�s point. Which is, there is no reason to buy this expensive 8800GTX 3D graphics card if you�re not going to drive a big ass monitor, or two. Ken, simply didn�t like the liberties the author took in specifically connecting the higher resolution to the 24� monitor size. I argue that not only was the author correct, but that the vast majority of readers understood what he meant. Ken took umbrage with that statement and I took umbrage to Ken�s comment. To wit, Ken hasn�t really supplied any useful evidence that the literary license the author took was inappropriate or incorrect. It had nothing to do with the factual correctness of my reply. That was simply a diversion from an unsubstantiated comment of Ken�s. For Ken�s comment be valid he would have to find a commonly available monitor considerably smaller than 24� (and 23� doesn�t count in my mind) that is reasonably priced and has 19200x1200 navtive res. He hasn�t done that yet. Does it make sense now?

[bluemonq @ Nov 9th 2006 2:24PM]

Oh, finally, you didn't specify that the standalone monitor had to be an LCD, so why don't you try the ViewSonic G90fb? 18" viewable diagonal (what's an inch between friends, right?), 1920 x 1440 maximum resolution.

[sdsdv10 @ Nov 9th 2006 4:33PM]

"Oh, finally, you didn't specify that the standalone monitor had to be an LCD, so why don't you try the ViewSonic G90fb? 18" viewable diagonal (what's an inch between friends, right?), 1920 x 1440 maximum resolution."

Please see previous reply. You found one 18" CRT monitor with the desired resolution, I can find 15 more 23"-24" LCD monitors with the same resolution. Which do you think sells more? This obscure CRT? Also, please remember this relates back to what the author was writing about. He (the author) was trying to make a connection between the resolution number 1920x1200 and a typical monitor someone would buy. Do you really think the average consumer is thinking hi-res --> Viewsonic 18" graphics CRT? No, they are thinking Dell 24" widescree, or Apple 23", or Samsung 24" etc. You are confusing technical accuracy with the use of a literary metaphor. As such, I would ask you to ignore my comments, reread what the author wrote and decide if it makes sense.

[chris @ Nov 9th 2006 2:29PM]

ahhhh..... nvidia how i love thee... making boards the size of texas and as powerful as a small nuke.. ahhhh let me count the ways I love thee.... 0001, 0010, 0011, etc....

On a more serious note, five Bens is alot for a second level cad, though, but i will still get one. of course.

[Wildside @ Nov 9th 2006 3:41PM]

lol, the R600 from ATI is going to be better. I'll wait for this sucker to come out, dont got the money right now to get a DX10 card from Nvidia. I'm spending all on Wii n accessories.

This card is slightly better then the PS3s' graphic engine just to let u all know.

[tekdemon @ Nov 9th 2006 4:35PM]

Dang it draws like 80 extra watts vs the 1950xtx...
I mean it's much faster but...dang...that's a lot of power running through that video card...

[bluemonq @ Nov 9th 2006 4:32PM]

Frankly, I couldn't care less about what either of you think. It was just a reminder for you to avoid using absolutes; would it really have killed you to say "all of the monitors are around 24 inches"? When you take someone to task on the Internet, it pays to make your statements idiot-proof. Just because you don't think it counts doesn't mean someone else won't either. You're going to think, "why would I care about what others think?" Well, if you didn't, you wouldn't have bothered posting, now would you?

And there are still plenty of CRTs with 17" - or nearly so - viewable diagonals that do match or surpass that resolution. Considering their price and reviews, I may end up actually getting one now. So thanks...I think.

[Ken @ Nov 9th 2006 7:20PM]

I love internet arguments. They are the best!

[sdsdv10 @ Nov 9th 2006 4:39PM]

"bluemonq @ Nov 9th 2006 4:32PM

So thanks...I think."

Your welcome... I think.

Good luck with that. I have a T60 laptop with 1600x1200 on a 15.4" screen and at the resolution and small pixel size it is very hard to read anything more than 12-14" away.

[Ken @ Nov 9th 2006 7:29PM]

BTW

"Ah yes, a typical method of discussion used on the internet (and else where). When you can not refute the substance of the claim, attack its technical accuracy to divert the discussion."

No diversions. You misunderstood the statement as claiming more than it actually did. You continued to spiral out of control contruing intent of authors, relative meanings, and demanding proof of things never claimed. Seriously...

For my comment to be vaild I would need only to find a monitor smaller than 24" and capable of 1900x1200 resolution or greater.

[djp123 @ Nov 9th 2006 8:08PM]

wow, that was a pointless discussion

[rendezvous65 @ Nov 10th 2006 12:32AM]

really interesting but maybe I can catch a 7950 GT but I dont play PC gaming that much. I would love to upgrade my 6600 GT though.

[madhat1 @ Nov 18th 2006 10:20AM]

If anyone was wondering, the SLi setup, now available on Alienware's flagship ALX rig, need a 1000W power supply.

[Clipp @ Nov 21st 2006 8:38AM]

I have a system I built with a 7600GT video card and a 19' monitor that has a max res of 1280x1024. Will I see a major improvement if I upgrade to the 8800GTX? Thank you in advance

[Frank Butler @ Sep 5th 2007 11:06AM]

I just built the Dream machine. Money was no object. It has a dual core two chip and the Nvidia 680 i mother board and Two Nvidia 8800 GTX's set up in SLI mode. I have two 22 in. Flat screens that have a 2 Ms time. Least to say I have never seen any thing like it. Quake 4 is as sharp as anything you could ever want. FEAR same thing in the dark will send shivers up your back its so real. I have a 1000 watt power supply. So everthing is cool. The down side is SLI turns off one of my monitors. Also on the cards themselves there are two places to hook up the cross bar that goes between cards and I don't know which one to use. Or why it would have two inputs for that matter. If anyone knows please e-mail me and tell me. Thanks if you have any questions pleas e-mail me. [e-mail]