NVIDIA's GeForce 9800 GTX officially launched, officially fast
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted April 1st 2008 10:38AM
posted April 1st 2008 10:38AM
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
posted April 1st 2008 10:38AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
APRIL FOOLS.... Wait...
......to be an ass, agreed!
Hey! Now that lamers "1st" post has dissapeared.....and I end looking the ass instead!
Looks like a clepto brick. If i had the money, id still buy an 8800 ultra, dont really need anything more powerful than that at the moment, but i suppose the crysis heads want some cool graphics.
A theft obsessive brick?
So you'd buy a more expensive card that is less powerful? How does that make sense?
Does ron jeremy in a mario suit make any sence?
This better not be a joke. At $329.99 I smell my next project coming to fruition.
UPDATE: Apparently Newegg IS selling some for $329.99. 5 different companies including BFG Tech and eVga.
Potential Newegg/Engadget conspiracy to pull the wool over our eyes on THIS day of fools? Maybe not..
soz to be a "noob" - are BFG cards any good? is there much difference in manufacturer?
Generally companies like eVga, BFG Tech and my favorite XFX, sell their cards overclocked with a warranty. The differences between them can be cosmetic (different plastic or cardboard covering the fan), functional (different fan designs based on the amount of overclock) and occasionally software packages. For instance, when I bought my graphics card (XFX 7800GS XXX edition) it came with 3 games and had a higher clock speed than eVga and BFG. In this instance I see no significant difference between eVga and BFG so I would go with whatever is available.
And yes I think BFG is very good.
I would generally pick the good video card brands like he mentioned over better-known mobo brands like Asus, MSI, and Gigabyte. The quality is roughly equivalent I'd imagine, but I think it's usually best to go with a company that specializes in the product you're buying.
I still wouldn't buy it, even at that price. Some people like don't feel like taking up two slots for a graphics board. The least they could do is put another 2 DVI ports then maybe I'll consider it.
I've found EVGA to be a solid company for both mobos and video.
"And before you ask -- Crysis: Yes. Doom: Yes. Overlords: Welcome. Will blend: Yes. Russia: Benchmarks you."
If you put this at the end of every entry on this site, the comments would be cut in half ;)
I still wanna see the video of it blending.
...but will it play call of duty 4? lol
If you add "3G- NO" you will eliminate 99% of the rest of the comments.
@Chris in CA
yeah, but then inevitably people would realize that's an iPhone reference, and then the flood of "engadget loves apple too much!" crap would flood in, replacing the 99% of other comments they avoided.
:\
Will it fit in my Eee?! lol j/k
I read specs on this and it says it has an audio chip on it. Will this function as a video card/sound card? Not that I want that because it might cut video performance, but I am curious.
...
yes, but will it blend on a blender that plays doom causing a crysis because of the russian overlords that made it?
sorry, had to do it
Stuff mac's they want to have a premium priced computer with outdated graphics, let them.. but what i am voting you up for is your picture!
@ k
Fail
NO!
meh. i want raw hardware for my money not higher clock speeds cause if this is just a G92 then it's not really much better than an overclocked 8800gt with a good cooler on it. (MSI zilent 8800gt is the best)i guess that's why it's only $330, but still. not that this is a bad card, but i yearn for more.
"And before you ask -- Crysis: Yes. Doom: Yes. Overlords: Welcome. Will blend: Yes. Russia: Benchmarks you."
But will it work in my Mac?
Of course it won't.
Actually yes it will, technically. If you install it you can use it in Windows in Boot Camp. The reason it won't work in OS X is because OS X uses EFI. Remember EFI? That thing that MS promised Vista would be using, then they couldn't make it work and gave up? Yeah. You gotta love how MS fails to make new, better technologies work, has to keep using BIOS which is old and busted, and drags everybody down with them.
But if you really want to use a 9800GTX card in a Mac, it'll work in Boot Camp. Ironically, if MS had gotten EFI working in Vista, these cards would be using EFI and then they *would* work in OS X. So the ultimate reason this card won't run in OS X is because of Microsoft.
Erm, EFI has nothing to do with graphics cards, only for the motherboard booting the computer. The actual reason it won't work (very well) in a Mac is that there won't be drivers written for OS X.
The ignorance of some people here astounds me sometimes, it really does. EFI is a firmware interface. Video cards have firmware. Is any of this clicking for you yet? The card must support EFI to work in OS X. That's why it works in Boot Camp, because most of these cards support BIOS, and Windows uses BIOS.
I really don't think it can be any clearer than that, if you still don't get it you probably also have problems tying your shoes and counting past 10.
Zak, seeing as how Microsoft has the dominant market share and Apple has the minority share, wouldn't it be Apple's fault for introducing a technology that the majority of the market doens't use yet, thus increasing the costs of producing compatible addins for their own products, rather tha nit being Microsoft's fault for not including the new technology?
There are plenty of new technologies available yet not implemented, doesn't mean every one of them needs to be implemented or that there are any tangible benefits of implementing them. The only real benefit of running EFI is having the ability to boot up a feature-rich system without needing to boot into the OS. Since very few users do this at all, it hardly seems necessary to include this piece of technology in production today.
"EFI is a firmware interface. Video cards have firmware. Is any of this clicking for you yet? The card must support EFI to work in OS X. That's why it works in Boot Camp, because most of these cards support BIOS, and Windows uses BIOS."
Wow. Please educate yourself before lecturing others, lest you look moronic.
Windows doesn't use BIOS. The BIOS allows you to boot into Windows, that's it. After Windows takes over, it loads its own hardware abstraction layer and device drivers to communicate with the various devices. The reason why OS X needs EFI compatible devices is because EFI's relationship with the OS kernel is different. A system that uses EFI doesn't take over completely like a system that booted from BIOS. Rather systems like EFI rely partly on the EFI to provide driver support for devices. This is why hardware can be designed with EFI in mind to allow the OS to offload some of the hardware abstraction to the firmware. But that doesn't mean devices not designed with EFI in mind can't work in these systems. As long as proper drivers are loaded by the OS kernel, these devices can be made to function like normal.
How does any of that make sense when Microsoft said they were going to implement EFI? Obviously MS thought there were some tangible benefits to using it, but they couldn't make it work so they gave up and went back to standard BIOS. And yes, GOD FORBID anybody tries to move things along by using new technologies. It's really too bad Apple pushed USB into the mainstream, isn't it? Seeing as how nobody finds that useful in any way, or even uses it at all.
The point is, why blame Apple for making EFI work when MS couldn't? MS obviously tried to make it work and they failed. Is that Apple's fault too? Try to remember it was Microsoft's idea to implement EFI into Vista in the first place, so any argument you try to make about its validity as a technology is null and void. Microsoft obviously thought there was some advantage to it, and so did Apple. So who's left that thinks standard BIOS is still a better choice?
Nobody. But MS is the market leader, and when MS fails to do something like make EFI work, the world fails with them.
AlexL - Hair splitting. Fantastic. Windows doesn't use BIOS? Really? Have you told Microsoft about that yet, because I don't think they've heard. If Windows doesn't use BIOS, what does it use? Unicorns? Fairies? Yes I understand that Windows USES BIOS to boot. Maybe if I refresh you on what EFI means it will make more sense.
It stands for Extensible Firmware Interface. Maybe you can answer this question - do video cards use firmware? Hmm.
"As long as proper drivers are loaded by the OS kernel, these devices can be made to function like normal."
Apparently that was over the heads of both nVidia's and Apple's hardware and software engineers, because they didn't think there was any way of making a non-EFI compatible card work with OS X. If it had simply been a driver issue, don't you think that maybe they could have figured it out? Or do you just think you're smarter than they are? Wait, don't tell me, I already know the answer to that.
Zak is a typical Apple users. Criticize MS for following Apple's method, criticize MS for not following Apple's method. Before Apple adapted intel, I remember how Apple Ad's blasted Intel CPU and how Apple fanboys echoed their Ads. Now...uhmm, you know what we said about Intel...forget everything we said, they are good.
Also, you do know that it's Apple's choice to make 9800 card work on current their current Macs, just as its their choice to make 8800 work on older (1 1/2 year old) Mac Pro. All they have to do is tweak a little thingy called "driver". Apple got you guys by the balls...thank god for open system that Window is.
roach - I was pointing out FACTS. You do know what a fact is, don't you? Microsoft tried to get EFI to work, and they failed. That is a FACT, not a criticism. And why do you believe it's just a driver issue to get a non-EFI compatible card to work in OS X? Don't you think that if it were just that easy, Apple would have just used the available cards in the market instead of paying nVidia through the nose to create a special EFI-compatible card just for them? Honestly, how much sense does that make? Have you put any thought into it at all?
And yes it is their choice to make the 8800GT work on the older Mac Pro. That's specifically why they asked nVidia to work on fixing the problem, and why nVidia consequently announced that they were going to release a card that fixed it. Do you really think that Apple intentionally prevented that card from working on the 1st gen Mac Pro? Like on purpose? What possible motivation would Apple have for doing that?
I'll take Money for $500 Alec... ur Zak
I'm not understanding the whole "EFI doesn't work with Vista" bit. I can load XP or Vista on a MacBook- no BootCamp. How does that not work? And while we're at it, how do you access the BIOS on the MacBook? Why would Apple Use a BIOS on an EFI system?
"I was pointing out FACTS. You do know what a fact is, don't you? Microsoft tried to get EFI to work, and they failed. That is a FACT,"
If that is a fact, cite your source. Microsoft's official position on the matter is that EFI support for Vista was scraped because there is no hardware support for it. Microsoft has EFI support implemented successfully in other platforms, such as Windows 200 and XP for IA-64 systems. If you have some kind of insider knowledge into Microsoft that indicates they actually failed to make EFI work for Vista, I'd like to see it.
"So who's left that thinks standard BIOS is still a better choice?"
Let me take something that you said in another post:
"the reason for that is that the 8800GT available for the current Mac Pro contains a 64-bit EFI driver in ROM which is incompatible with the 1st gen Mac Pro which needs a 32 bit driver."
This is one of the huge problems with EFI. It is very immature, and has gone through quite a few revisions since it was first launched, creating many different compatibility nightmares, including the fact that earlier EFI-based firmwares did not have the BIOS legacy compatibility code built in and had to be flashed to run Boot Camp, and also the problem with EFI firmware revisions losing legacy support for device firmware built for earlier EFI revisions.
It would seem like Microsoft made a wise choice to stay with the more mature BIOS-based firmwares, which does not suffer from these problems, don't you think?
Matt - Money? It's going to cost Apple MORE money to have nVidia update that card. So you're saying you think Apple did it on purpose so they could spend more money?
Chris - Boot Camp uses a BIOS emulator.
AlexL - Way to avoid responding to my last post. And fine, how about this - Microsoft said they were going to implement EFI, and then they didn't. Better? It changes nothing regarding anything else I've said.
"And fine, how about this - Microsoft said they were going to implement EFI, and then they didn't. Better? It changes nothing regarding anything else I've said."
So you admit you lied about Microsoft failing to make EFI work?
Companies reevaluate things all the time. The initial plan isn't always the best. It's far more likely that Microsoft reevaluated the EFI situation and decided it doesn't make the cut for Vista's release. From what we've seen with Apple's fiascos in making EFI work, it would certainly seem Microsoft's plan to scrap it turns out to be the better plan. This changes everything you said in your earlier posts, because it means your little story about Microsoft failing to make EFI work in Vista was nothing but a sensationalist made-up story in the name of Apple fanboyism.
Regarding responding to your last post, you still don't quite grasp what exactly EFI is. EFI is the interface between the OS and the firmware stored in the motherboard's ROM. Its specifications doesn't require the OS to use it to communicate with any addon devices. An OS is always free to load its own drivers to communicate with other devices, bypassing EFI directly. It seems your only argument that video cards need to support EFI to work is that EFI has the word "firmware" in it and video cards also have "firmware". So it must be true because the words match, right?
Here's the real reason why non-EFI compliant video cards don't work with OS X: it's all in the preboot process. This is one of the things EFI carry over from the BIOS days: the firmware still needs to successfully run the video card's firmware drivers before it can proceed to boot the OS. It has nothing to do with OS X not being able to run drivers to support a non-EFI video card. OS X can absolutely run such a card if proper drivers were written for it. The problem lies in the preboot stages where the motherboard's EFI ROM can't run the video card's ROM drivers. This is really a limitation of EFI. Newer EFI ROMs have compatibility code that allows them to run BIOS-based OSes and devices. This is why you can dual boot Windows in Intel Macs. But this compatibility mode doesn't work when booting up EFI OSes. If this works, then non-EFI video cards will boot up OS X just fine, and as long as the proper drivers are loaded, they will work under OS X just fine.
The guns of an Apple fanboy has silenced. For this time...
"So you admit you lied about Microsoft failing to make EFI work?"
Lied? Are you even listening to yourself? Or more importantly are you even reading what I've been saying? Okay, I'll try again, and note that this is the third time: Was EFI implemented in Vista? The answer is NO. That was my point all along, which is why it doesn't change anything I said. If you were paying attention even a little bit, you would have caught that.
If EFI had been implemented in Vista, there would be more cards available that were EFI compatible, right? Yes. And EFI compatible cards will run in OS X, right? Yes. These are all points that I have previously made. Nothing has changed. You're so hung up on calling me a fanboy that you're not even paying attention to anything I say. And that would actually make you more of a fanboy than I am.
"you still don't quite grasp what exactly EFI is. EFI is the interface between the OS and the firmware stored in the motherboard's ROM."
I actually said that myself already. See what I mean about you not paying attention?
"Newer EFI ROMs have compatibility code that allows them to run BIOS-based OSes and devices. This is why you can dual boot Windows in Intel Macs."
I'd just like to point out that I said basically the same thing ONE POST UP. You are seriously not paying attention to anything I say, and calling me a fanboy for no apparent reason. If this is your idea of intelligent conversation, I think it needs a little work.
And of course nothing you said changes my original point, which was that if Vista had gone ahead with EFI, there would be more EFI-compatible cards on the market and this entire discussion would be a moot point. Or did you miss that part too?
I see it's pointless to argue with you, seeing as how you are so hellbent on holding up your own illusions as to ignore logic and reason. So I'll just leave you with this.
"but they couldn't make it work so they gave up and went back to standard BIOS."
This is what you just said a few posts up. If you really believe that "Was EFI implemented in Vista? The answer is NO. That was my point all along" and you believe you did not say anything to the effect of Microsoft actually being a failure at making EFI work with Vista, then you are so far gone in the way of self-delusion that you don't even recognize your own words.
Sorry, Zak, but your so-called "facts" are completely and totally wrong. I guess being a know-it-all turned you into a know-nothing...
Maybe a little research here and there could help you along- until then, don't ever try to correct someone or run a little class session. Ever.
@Zak
Microsoft implemented EFI in Windows Server 2003.
Yet you claim they couldn't implement it in vista.
So what changed between 2003 and 2007 that Microsoft failed at their attempts (according to you) to implement EFI?
In an article last edited in April 2006, microsoft explicitly states:
"Although the initial release of Windows Vista will not include UEFI x64 64-bit support, a subsequent Windows Vista release will support UEFI."
"However, because BIOS boot is ingrained into all existing x86 and x64 deployments, Microsoft will continue to support BIOS-based boot for the foreseeable future. If UEFI becomes a well-established standard for booting systems, then Microsoft might consider a gradual transition away from BIOS-based boot support. It is likely that this transition would initially take the form of implementing only some features on UEFI systems."
Because you can't do your own research, I'll tell you what UEFI is:
"Using the EFI 1.10 specification as the starting point, the forum began to develop, manage, and promote the Unified Extended Firmware Interface (UEFI) specification with the goal to bring UEFI to mainstream systems that have traditionally used a BIOS to boot."
Now, maybe you'll finally shut the hell up about vista, EFI, and how every one of apple's greedy tactics is microsoft's fault.
my source: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/efibrief.mspx
I love these posts, not just for the drama but because I learn more about both technology AND people's perceptions of it.