NVIDIA's 512MB GeForce 9800 GTX+ hits the bench
By Darren Murph 
posted Jun 20th 2008 9:13AM
posted Jun 20th 2008 9:13AM
[Thanks, Ryan]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Nice CPU... any more specs?
Try clicking the link.
Sudo : Yep.. thanks.. saw it...
I'd get this card to run games on a 20 inch monitor at about 1600p.
It runs Crysis at fewer than 40 fps at anything higher. What card do I need to run crysis on a 20" monitor at 60 fps (using a Core2Duo Quad with 4 GB of RAM )?
what does the quarter do? Is this a special tweak? :)
Cy21 ... Try 2x "GTX 280" Cards and you will be able to play on highest resolution with decent fps :P
aww, it was a reply to Flashpoint :P
I love competition...and hate how silly NVIDIA's nomenclature has become.
Me want. do you want?
Me want a GTX 280 :(
It's not THAT much better than an 8800 GT...
note: the 8800GT OCX in comparison is overclocked quite a bit. it has 700 MHz core clock (standard: 600 MHz) and 2000 MHz memory clock (standard: 1800 MHz)
Time to sell my car.
Do they all come with a quarter?
you will probably have to pay an additional $10 for such cool addon
I'd prefer a heatsink and fan to be honest.
they really should take that quarter away so they don't short out the board
This is stupid. I don't see any huge performance gains, 10 frames here, 6 frames there, really nothing to write home about. These guys need to stop. If people are buying these cards for minimal gains then the world is truly gone to shit. Did you really notice that Crysis plays six frames slower on the Radeon? or 10 frames sower in COD4?...this is sad.
dude crisis plays at 15 fps at all of the ultra-high settings and at the highest resolution
that's incredible
btw 10 frames slower is a huge deal. before crisis could only be played at 1 or 2 fps on all highs. 15 is a huge upgrade
The scores don't make sense and don't jive with other scores around. Seems like other sites have the 4850 spanking the regular GTX at higher resolutions once AA is enabled... not so in this guy's benches. Plus, the GTX+ has lower low FPS, and lower high FPS than the regular GTX, but the average is a little higher. It makes no sense at all. The GTX+ is merely a higher clocked GTX... so uh... wouldn't it be faster in all cases?
All I saw was that they're all pretty much the same when you look at AVG frames per second.
What I want to know is when pc case manufacturers are going to start adding the space for the dedicated graphics card power supply. I'm kind of behind the times on gaming pc's, Mine is an older P4 Dell with an agp nvidia card. Does this card have two power ports?! What the hell!
1 8-pin nad 1 6-pin
The Antec p190 has two power supplies in it. So I believe Antec is the closest to your specification lol.
WOW, this card completely demolished all others (4850) and for the price that it is being offered, i dont see why anyone would by and MAD card... i can only imagine 2 and 3 way SLI...drool
hmm, it was on par with the 4850 most of the time. and that for 30 bucks more, direct x 10.0 instead of 10.1, higher power consumption and the need for an nvidia mainboard chipset if you want to take full advantage of the SLI capabilities.
I'd hold my money for the 4870, it will be significantly cheaper than the new gtx 260 and 280 while beeing faster than the 9800 gtx series. A good midrange card.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Nvdia fan (running a 7900gtx right now), but a suggested pricetag of 649 $ for the gtx 280 is a little bit ridiculous if you see the comparisons to a 3870 x2 (which is "last gen" now).
So when are we gonna see a 9800GX2+ for under 350$ ?
-Me likey competition
Looks like the 4870 is gonna kick ass. I'm impressed with ATI's 4850 not only did it bring performance to the table, but look at the price war. This is such a relief from the nVidia dominated price gouging of a year ago. This proves that healthy competition benefits the consumer more than anything else in the market.
will it run okay with my measly 300 watt HP power supply?!
(or will it blow up my computer?)
I'm surprised they didn't call it the GTX 240 or something like that to make people think its really a lot faster than it actually is.
yes its 55nm, the nomencalture should sort itself out with the GT200 gen cards
Ok... the 9800GTX+ seems to perform better than the 4850, depending on who's benchmarks you look at, but what about power requirements? From the two 6 pin PCI Express power connectors on the 9800GTX+, it looks like it might be a lot more power hungry than the 4850 (which only has one connector). It also seems to need more cooling, as the 9800GTX+ and it's cooling takes up two slots. The 4850 is a single slot card. While a few more FPS may be nice, I don't want to have to replace my PSU and free up an extra slot just to run the thing.
Nvidia has been blowing away the rest for years,and still does> if your worried about money than get a better job or get out of compuer gaming and buy a ps3 wich also i might add steps on all other game consoles. My 9800gtx runs crysis at 24fps on high,at 1900x1080 52"lcd and im doing a bfg trade up this month for the 9800gtx+ but i do admit the gtx 200 serise in way to over priced< 9800gtx+ is the best value+performance
yes the 55nm is better on power,cooler,overclocks better,cheaper.Looks like Nvidia is Following Intel like the 45nm core 2s that noone can keep up with very smart,thats called picking up the pace instead of playin around with the same old gpu architecture