NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra reviewed

NVIDIA has only just taken the wraps off its new top-end GeForce 8800 Ultra card but the folks at bit-tech have already managed to get their eager hands on one, and have provided their usual in-depth review for anyone in need of a bit more info before dropping $800+ on the card. Not surprisingly, the card simply blew through all their benchmarks, which proved to be enough for bit-tech to declare the 8800 Ultra the "fastest graphics card on the planet." Less clear, however, is if that bump in performance is worth the hefty premium the card demands over the still-impressive GeForce 8800 GTX (especially an overclocked one). Those considering the card still have a bit more time to ponder that last point though, as it won't be available to the public 'till May 15th.

[f00b4r @ May 3rd 2007 7:11AM]

Right, that kind of money also buys you an Xbox 360, a Wii and chuck in a discounted PS2 as well.. I know what I'd prefer.

[sudopeople @ Oct 24th 2007 10:58PM]

The Ultra.

[zonamanoz @ May 3rd 2007 7:20AM]

I see the US is also getting ripped off by nvidia.

[Chuckles McGee @ May 3rd 2007 7:49AM]

The 8800 GTX was benchmarked back in November 2006 and ATI has yet to make anything faster. Nvidia keeps improving, if only a tad... and ATI is sleeping? Has ATI abandoned the premium gamer market?

[Maestro @ May 3rd 2007 8:08AM]

This is impressive, but as of right now, what the heck ya gonna use this for? Any of the other high end cards can more than handle the latest DX9 games. I think ATI is going to release as some of the newer DX10 games arrive.

Of course, I could be totally wrong as usual!

[Chuckles McGee @ May 3rd 2007 9:33AM]

Well y'know, Call of Duty 2 only runs at an average of 23 fps at 2560x1600 on maximum quality with the old X1950... that's simply unacceptable for todays gamer! Imagine the lack of enjoyment such a gamer would have from being arduously forced to scale back the resolution to perhaps something as low as... gasp... 1920x1200! Only a whee-tad greater than HDTV resolution! Any cinematic quality in the game would be lost! Oh woe!

[Rynth @ May 3rd 2007 8:26AM]

ATI? Sleeping? I'll take it you don't follow graphics very closely? R600? Ring any bells? Boy I can't wait for that chip to be released.

[MasterCKO @ May 3rd 2007 11:51AM]

I've seen benchmarks, and the X2900 HD XTX or whatever (ATI's naming scheme went from not-so-great to absolutely terrible, btw) isn't faster than the 8800 GTX on anything. I'll see if I can find the reference to it later and post it here.

[chris @ May 3rd 2007 8:44AM]

I'll wait til' Crysis and Unreal Tournament III come out before I buy a new card. I want those games to run like butter.

[jharcnc @ May 3rd 2007 9:29AM]

It's pretty simple...the same way there will always be people who deem a Ferrari to be useless waste of money, there will also exist an [albeit] small segment who has to have the best in the world regardless of the price:performance ratio.

No one in the market that is both interested in this kind of product (and can afford it) is going to say, "I could buy 3 consoles for what this costs!" Like the guy in the Ferrari dealership is not going to say, "I could buy a house for what this costs!" Its a luxury item--utility does not necessarily factor in.

[Hardy @ May 3rd 2007 11:59PM]

I don't disagree with your Ferarri concept, however, I find the "inflation" of the price of these new cards to be a little suspect in relation to 1. the other parts of the computer and 2. the marginal benefit gained. I'd rather buy a z06 for $70k and beat a ferrari, than buy a ferrari and not have the funds to fill up the tank :)

[jharcnc @ May 4th 2007 8:53AM]

Totally agree with your comment about marginal benefit. Without a doubt, this offering demonstrates well the law of diminishing marginal utility. However, this is the best video card in the world (for now) and I think we can agree anything with that status can be considered a luxury good. My point is simply that NVIDIA is not only clearly targeting the high end enthusiast market, but targeting the top 5-10% of THAT market--in other words, those individuals who want the best...no matter what...regardless of the price:performance ratio.

This is not meant to be offensive in any way to anyone, but those consumers that are in the market to buy components like e6400 and e6600 Core2Duos to overclock need not apply.

That being said...I'm not buying one! I'll take a pair of the GTXs though!

[Jason @ May 3rd 2007 10:11AM]

Jesus look at the size of that motherfucker. Gonna need a new tower just for the flippin graphics card.

[matthew @ May 3rd 2007 11:03AM]

yay! i can finally install vista!

[nigel @ May 3rd 2007 11:07AM]

every thing runs like butter on my console...

[Nathan Bergman @ May 3rd 2007 12:05PM]

Rynth,

Apparently you dont follow graphics closely. It sucks, R600 doesnt look to promising.


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=7052

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7043

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4898

[MasterCKO @ May 3rd 2007 12:27PM]

oh, there it is. Thanks for the links, Nathan.

[Tachion @ May 3rd 2007 1:00PM]

@Hardy

Exactly. I've pretty much abandoned PC gaming for consoles (except for an occasional MMORPG) because it's just too damn expensive. Also, many of the PC games also come out on consoles, which is why I'm using my P4 3.0 Ghz w/ a Radeon 9800 to type this, even though this computer is 4 years old.

[JasonT @ May 3rd 2007 11:41PM]

I agree with the Ferrari analogy, but would take it one step further: most of the major automakers have high performance flagship cars, (think Ford GT, Bugatti's Veyron, etc) that they often build and race or sell at a loss, but they still benefit in-house from the product Reaserch & Development that they can use in their lesser models.

Sure, that's $800 for a graphic card, but whether you buy it today or not, they'll be selling you pieces of that technology for years to come.

[Hardy @ May 3rd 2007 11:50PM]

It's interesting how every other component in a pc continously drops in price, save the video card and I suppose the most "extreme" cpus. Gone are the days when $200, then $300, then $400.... then $500 would buy you the leetest thing known to man kind. I've kind of abandoned the pc gaming arena because of this constant bending over the consumer. Most any game I can play on the pc I can play on my xbox360 just as well and for those I can't (civ4), the x850xt of yester year is more that sufficient. It's interesting how you can buy a whole console with still mindblowing graphics and have your 60 year old grandmother hook it up to her HDTV with ease, for less than half what it would cost you just to buy this card :)

[rantanamo @ May 4th 2007 2:45AM]

LOL @ console Stans in this thread. This thing costs more than your consoles because it P3wns your console as have all the 8800s and higher end 7900s

[SumYungGai @ May 4th 2007 6:09PM]

@Rynth

Hello? Sleeping? The R600 has been delayed and delayed BECAUSE ATI has been trying to figure out how the hell to deal with the fact that the 8800GTX still kicks even the fastest R600-based part's ass (i.e. X2900 HD XTX). ATI was set to sell a flagship product (with flagship price) and spouted off all kinds of crap about re-taking the graphics crown from Nvidia. Sadly, the benches that are starting to leak one site after the next since last week put the fastest R600 incarnation closer to an 8800GTS than 8800GTX.

Meanwhile Nvidia has the 8800 Ultra they've had in their pockets for 3-4 months, plus they've got the 8900GTX, 8900GT2, 8950GTX and 8950GT2 all lined up ready to slap down ATI in case they WERE a contender.

Bad times for AMD and ATI (and yet these two geniuses thought it was a good idea to merge). Intel is killing AMD with its excellent Core 2 Cpu's (intel increased its market share in ONE QUARTER (Q1 07) more than AMD's entire year 2006 growth) and Nvidia is kicking ATI and the only place ATI cards have left to go are bargain bin ..