NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2 pics, specs leaked

Details aren't quite hard and fast, but this is NVIDIA's top-of-the-line to-be, so it's never too early to start nerding out. HardOCP says the best way to think of the GeForce 9800 GX2 is a 8800 that's been shrunk down to 65nm and SLI'd onto a "single" card. The card is supposed to be at least 30% faster than a 8800 Ultra, and will apparently support Quad SLI. So, now for the really nerdy part:

• 1GB frame buffer
• Two PCBs
• Two 65nm GPUs
• 256 Stream Processors

That's the way HardOCP tells it, and who are we to argue?

[Via PC Perspective]

[BladeSling @ Jan 4th 2008 1:22AM]

damn... damn...

[Kurian @ Jan 4th 2008 5:46AM]

Only 30% faster is NO WHERE close to their claims of 1 teraflop (3x faster).

This is NOT GOING to run Crysis at Very High.

[Ruben @ Jan 4th 2008 9:29AM]

Actually, with quad-sli, it will hit a teraflop. They said the core will be able to hit a teraflop, but they didnt say a "single core".

Besides, who cares if it can hit a teraflop. The R600 hits 450 GFlops (compared to the G80's 330GFlops) and that doesnt allow it to beat the 8800GTX in almost every game.

[V3LOCIP3D3 @ Jan 4th 2008 11:51AM]

Kurian this will be able to run Crysis on very high no problem. If you did it right, you could run crysis on very high with SLi 7800s. My gaming computer is an X2 3800+ with only 1gb of ram and a 256mb X800 GT, and I can run crysis on lower settings fine.

[Josh @ Jan 5th 2008 5:33PM]

Bear in mind that this is probably not the official "9 Series" as we have come to know it. This is most likely a product like the 7950 was for the 7 series. I would expect, and i don't know if i'm right, that Nvidia will leave this as a super high end 8 series product and then wait a couple of months to release the next generation of the GeForce series.

The product cycle for each X series is roughly 14-18 months, so Q2 is a fair estimate for these fabled 1 TeraFLOP cards to be released. Also bear in mind that AMD-ATi haven't yet released anything that really rivals the 8 series in terms of raw power. It's like Intel vs AMD, Intel sees no reason to release the Quad core Penryns in full until there is significant competition from AMD - Phenom is rather laclustre at the moment compared to the Core 2 Duos.

And finally, the 8800GT's were codenamed G92, so 9 isn't necessarily an indicator of series name.

That's just my opinion, i may be proved wrong but hey!

[Devon @ Jan 4th 2008 1:25AM]

dang, nice card. I wanna hear about the power consumption though.

[4honor @ Jan 4th 2008 7:44AM]

I want to hear the price!

[a ham sandwich @ Jan 4th 2008 8:35AM]

eesh 4honor, you sure? :P

[Alan Partridge @ Jan 4th 2008 8:35AM]

^ You really don't

[mushyho @ Jan 7th 2008 11:13PM]

according to Tom's Hardware its gonna be around 449
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/01/05/exclusive_nvidia_geforce_9800gx2/

[waiownsyou @ Jan 4th 2008 1:30AM]

Son of a bitch! And I just got this 8800 GTS too!

[producerism @ Jan 4th 2008 7:36AM]

isn't the GTS worse than the regular GT? More memory, but slower... right?

[Ruben @ Jan 4th 2008 8:58AM]

Not if its the 512MB version. That card is really good. You can probably pick up another 8800GTS 512 and end up with an equivalent to this card, except without the possibility of quad-sli (but considering the price of one of these will easily be greater than 2 or even 3 GTS's, would you care?).

[Andy @ Jan 4th 2008 3:58PM]

The GS and the older GTS (G80) are slower. But the new GTS (G92) is faster.

[sam @ Jan 4th 2008 1:31AM]

ah time to upgrade

[Benny @ Jan 4th 2008 1:31AM]

glad i din't pay to buy the 8800 now that the 9 series is out.

[IseWise @ Jan 4th 2008 1:32AM]

So is this the card that lets you play Crysis?

[UKNigel @ Jan 4th 2008 2:16AM]

Yes, but only on the lowest settings. :P

[michas_pi @ Jan 4th 2008 2:50AM]

No, this is the card that lets you play the ending to Crysis on anything above low.

[Moof @ Jan 4th 2008 1:34AM]

w00t time to step up to this baby!

[thethirdmoose @ Jan 4th 2008 1:34AM]

and im still on a 9200 :(
except an ati 9200 :(
theres no difference, right? guys?

[Mobius_1 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:32AM]

They are the same generation rite?

I mean what goes around comes around

[Mobius_1 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:32AM]

They are the same generation right?

I mean what goes around comes around

[Yubastard @ Feb 5th 2008 9:07PM]

lol!

[Brennan @ Jan 4th 2008 1:37AM]

dang..........here is Nvidias answer to R680 aka HD 3870 x2, which is what i want to get for my MSI K9A2 Platinum then hopefully another for Crossfire.

[Dolemite @ Jan 4th 2008 1:55AM]

WTF? No wonder PC gaming died. Every couple of months some new card that costs $400 and needs its own power grid.

I miss the days when a "simple" ATI Rage Pro played every game available. :(

[Kax02 @ Jan 4th 2008 2:00AM]

While it's still a bit of money to drop, the 8800GT and 3870 are filling the void well enough, even the 3850 isn't that bad of a deal for the price. All of those in the high 100's or low 200 range.

I guess at this point neither camp can really say much about the other using dual gpu solutions on a single card.

[Mike @ Jan 4th 2008 2:26AM]

@dolemite

I agree, I am so sick of this industry being driven by douchebags who sit in their basements, blow all their money on computer shit, and then jerk off when they get 200 FPS. Mind you, on the other hand, if it weren't for idiots (yes, you are an idiot if you spend $700 on a video card) buying these over-priced things then the mid-range, you know, the range that sensible people buy in, would not exist. I would just like to see more 8800 GT range cards hit the market. It has exceptional performance for the buck.

"Hey Johnny, I just hit 220 FPS and my card is at like 1.8V."
"Oh, damn, you must have bitches all over you!"
"Yeah, pretty much. Have you seen my fleshlight?"

[reductimat @ Jan 4th 2008 11:54AM]

Mike, your anger is misdirected.

Just so you know, to some, $700 is not a lot of money.

[euclid @ Jan 4th 2008 2:46AM]

@ Mike and Dolemite

Couldn't agree more. There used to be a time I tried keeping up. The ATI 9800 Pro was the last card during those 4 years of constant unnecessary upgrades. (I changed cards 6 times in total within that time frame). Then on PC gaming died for me.

[MoonRocket @ Jan 4th 2008 3:00AM]

PC Gaming died? When did this happen?

I certainly didn't get that feeling while playing the following throughout 2007:

Crysis
Bioshock
World in Conflict
Call of Duty 4
Orange Box
Neverwinter Nights 2 Expansion
The Witcher

The media has been predicting the death of PC gaming for the last decade and has been wrong every time.

[steve @ Jan 4th 2008 4:44AM]

Of course if you try to buy the latest and greatest card available, you're going to go broke, but that makes no more sense than buying a new ipod every generation. If the old one is still running, don't get a new one, it's very simple. In 4 years, I might buy 2 cards, and that's if I have some extra money lying around; how anyone could ever be pulled into buying 6 different cards in the same timespan is beyond me.

[4honor @ Jan 4th 2008 7:50AM]

Instead of spending $400 on a card, maybe go buy a PS3 or 360, and you not only get a vid card, but also a cpu, harddrive, controller, etc. Sometimes they also come with games! Wow!

And you don't have to constantly upgrade your console to play new games, the lifetime of a console last way longer than a video card in terms of being outdated. Sigh...

[snds @ Jan 4th 2008 8:34AM]

@4honor

What do you call buying the next gen of consoles every 6-8 years? You end up spending just as much when you upgrade to next gen consoles, and this last gen was particularly expensive, especially if you wanted to take advantage of everything each console had to offer (minus the wii). If you even remotely wanted a PS3 or Xbox 360 you needed to invest in some form of HDTV and a decent sound system. That adds at the low end an extra $800.

Granted every generation of game consoles hasn't been exactly like that, but keep in mind that while PC gamers upgrade more frequently in many cases they can do so with minimal impact to their budget, if you shop right. When it comes to consoles its fairly equivalent in price on launch day to buying 1-3 graphics cards upgrades. And with CPU/Mem/Motherboard prices at their lowest this past year, (especially if you were inclined to buy AMD) those upgrades are a non-issue since many people have 10 year old PCs running new gfx cards and it only makes sense to upgrade to a box that can scale up, and for minimal dollar impact over a longer course of time.

I myself have both HD consoles and a damn fast gaming rig (for under $1200) so I know what it's like to spend the money, so long as it's spent wisely.

I do agree with the post about guys that just fantasize about their $700 graphics cards, its lame at best. But keep in mind that those hardcore nuts are what give us the reasonably prices mid-range cards.

As for console you fanbois, get a grip, you end up spending just as much to get the latest in M$ and Sony hardware as hardcore PC gamers do. Keep in mind the countless accessories and upgraded cables you'll need to get the most out of the console in the first place. That adds an extra 100-$150 to your budget. Remember the PS2 at launch? just about $300 and that was barebones, just a controller, no network card, no memory card, no game, beyond a demo disc (if I remember correctly). So before you say "go buy a console! its cheaper!" look where you spend your money and look how normal PC buyers end up spending cash. You pay just as much, and it's proprietary, non upgradeable. PC's are scalable to the times. With consoles you have to invest half a paycheck just for the hardware.

[indigo80 @ Jan 12th 2008 5:19AM]

@MoonRocket

he said 'PC gaming died for me' not 'PC Gaming died', big difference.

Personally i used to be a big pc gamer (bought in at 386 time with the sierra games) got tired of constant upgrading then family commitments (holidays, house, cars etc) cause you to miss a generation and then the buy in to catch up is pointless. Or it could be the i've got less free time and a quick blast on a console fills the gap where a pc gamer requires more commitment

[darx23 @ Jan 4th 2008 12:40PM]

@snds

Console gaming is infinitely cheaper than pc gaming will ever be. I hated having to upgrade my card just to have a decent looking game run. No matter what my xbox always has excellent looking games, they don't need to run on lower settings over time on the same machine like a pc game. My xbox was 350 and i've yet to spend another dime. Guess what? I'm playing in HD too. Hell even COD4 was only $38! Cheaper than pc

[Duo @ Jan 4th 2008 11:48AM]

I still have all the components in my rig that were there about three years ago. AMD 3200+, GeForce 7800GT, and 2GB RAM. I still play most games on high settings(Note:Haven't touched Crysis yet), and I still have the option of building a SLI rig with my 7800. Upgrading isn't every four months for the average gamer, get a clue.

[loci @ Jan 4th 2008 12:30PM]

"WTF? No wonder PC gaming died"

if pc gaming died...then who the f*ck is buying these cards.

pc gaming is f*cking thriving you moron.

when the 8800gt came out, they could not keep up with demand and upped the price a 3rd...

"pc gaming is dead"

go away muppet

[Me @ Jan 4th 2008 12:35PM]

Yeah, its too bad that PC gaming has so many more possibilites than console gaming, Better graphics at a faster pace is so bad, they should just stop altogether.

Advancements are a terrible thing!!!!!

[Josh @ Jan 4th 2008 12:59PM]

I'm sorry, but what can your gaming console do? Oh... thats right, it can do just that - play games, you get a proprietary system that cannot be upgraded or scaled to do anything but play games that have graphics that become considerably dated after a relatively short lifespan (when compared to the fast pace of computer advancement). When I spend money on upgrading my computer i do it knowing that the money will help increase my productivity as a photographer and therefore decrease the amount of time i have to work, making it a MUCH better investment than an expensive toy like a console. Not only that, but i can use my computer to surf the internet, write a paper, listen to music, download music, sync my iPod, i can type on it, use a mouse to frag people with much better accuracy, i can burn CDs, and it is completely upgradeable should i need more power in any one sector.

Yah, i agree that spending 700$ on a GPU is pretty absurd, but if it wasn't for the flagship parts none of that power would filter down to normal users in scaled down cards (or even you whiny console owners who never shut up about how your worthless toys are cheaper). I have a 7800GT and i have had it for about 2 years now and am still completely happy with it, it can eak by crysis on high settings which is more than enough to make me happy (as it still kicks those console's graphics ass)

To each his/her own i suppose.
I'll stick to my "dead PC gaming" as i see no point in buying overpriced locked down crap that i can't even modify.

[DefPo3t @ Jan 4th 2008 1:57AM]

For the record its [H]ardocp the number 1 folging@home team in the world and im happyly sitting at around 158,000 on the leader boards

ohh and for the price seeing as the 8800 ultra can be had for 600$ add 100$ just for the nvidia logo 250$ cause its new -150$ because of phased out lower modles and 250$ for the price of the secound gpu = down payment on a car ( jk ) more like 9504 to 1000$ range ** based on previous nvidia releases

[DefPo3t @ Jan 4th 2008 1:59AM]

**modle should be model
9504 should be 900$

[Prokanda @ Jan 4th 2008 2:10AM]

6 typos and you only correct 2? who cares anyway... it's just the 'net. don't take yourself too seriously, you'll have a heart attack. =)

[Mobius_1 @ Jan 4th 2008 4:35AM]

Even if he corrected his typos I doubt I can comprehend what he is trying to tell us...

[ichandler73 @ Jan 4th 2008 8:50AM]

My first car was less than $700. And it was a CAR. And it wasn't as big as this video card.

@Mike - you nailed it.

[XPC @ Jan 4th 2008 9:44PM]

I know that these new graphics cards are big, but seriously, I wouldn't have paid $700 for a car that small. :P

[John @ Jan 4th 2008 2:01AM]

This makes me feel bad for buying an 8800 Ultra for $700 :/.

Oh well, I can play Crysis 1680x1050 Max specs :D.

[waiownsyou @ Jan 4th 2008 3:03AM]

I see your 8800 Ultra @ 1680x1050 and raise you two 8800 Ultras in SLI running 2560x1600 with max settings.

[asphixiated @ Jan 4th 2008 3:19AM]

i see your over priced 8800ultra @ 1680x1050 and raise you my 8800GT @ 1680x1050.

oh and i can afford to pay my bills this month, too.

[waiownsyou @ Jan 4th 2008 3:36AM]

Tell that to the slaves I have here.