NVIDIA gets official with GeForce 9800 GT / 9800 GTX+ GPUs
By Darren Murph 
posted Aug 2nd 2008 10:28AM
posted Aug 2nd 2008 10:28AM
[Via Hardware Revolution]
posted Aug 2nd 2008 10:28AM
Growth of netbook sales in 2009 over 2008
Netbook revenue is up 264 percent from last year, and has contributed to an overall lowering of the average PC cost by 19 percent. The average netbook costs about $300.
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.
I want to put one of these in my 14in lappy.
Were you trying to be funny?
are these gonna get too hot and make my computer have colors and lines all over the screen?
That's what graphics cards are for, to put colours and lines all over the screen.
dont be such a smartass you know what he means...
Being a smartass means you win +ranks.
another defective GPU??
you do know that most of nvidia's recalled gpu's were mobile and not desktop products
Me Want! Me Want!
Why? so this defeats the purpose of 9600GT now. im down for technological improvements BUT DAMN THE 9600GT CAME LIKE JUNE!!!
ahh and now my 8600GT is completely inferior lol.
but i still luv it... until they put one in an iphone....
You're... really dumb. What does the iPhone have to do with anything here? You're obviously just trying to be annoying.
Dave, you're a terrible troll.
Dave, the 9600gt came out in February. Welcome to August.
Ok, I'm genuinely confused, because I don't follow graphics cards much. But I've been looking for a new one, and I've found:
GeForce 9600 GT 1GB 256-bit GDDR3
But after this I went and found
GeForce 9800 GT 512MB 256-bit GDDR3
Which one is better? The newer one, or the one with more memory?
@curtisrutland
The 9600GT only has 96 shaders. The 9800GT has 112 shaders. The more shaders you have available, the more calculations your graphics card can do (when neglecting core speed, of course), and thus will be faster.
Does it matter? Yes, but only slightly. If the price difference is negligible, then go for the better one.
@Ruben
He was asking whether having 1 GB for textures etc in a slightly lower powered graphics card is better than having a slightly better card with on 512 MB.
I think the 1 GB will be better but most games etc. probably wont take advantage of it for some time since cards with 1GB are not widespread.
Personally I would go with the 1GB card if I intended to keep the laptop for a while unless you can upgrade the RAM later on in the other one. Scenes will be more realistic looking with the better/extra textures.
@curtisrutland
In my opinion, the one with more memory.
But there aren't many games out today that require it. So if you want the best performance in current games go for the newer one. But, (anyone care to disprove?) if you want to enjoy the newer games that come out in the next year or two.. then go for the 1 GB card. More textures = nicer looking environment, characters .. but your framerate will be affected since u'll have the lower end card. So you gotta decide do u want to have great performance on todays games (then get the 512 MB) .. or do you want to have OK performance on tomorrows games with sweet looking graphics but at a slightly slower frame rate tomorrow.
@Johan: That's completely wrong actually, the extra VRAM will make little to no difference and the 9800GT is a lot better than the 9600GT.
I would wait for the 1gb versions of the 9800GT to come out.
If you REALLY must get a graphics card now, then I'd recommend the 9800GT, the current games won't be able to use that much memory for a long time.
Also, if you actually need a 1gb card, you would be running it on a large screen which would actually require a large amount of graphics memory, in which case a mid specced graphics card isn't really what you want, as it wouldn't actually be powerful enough to run it at such a high resolution. Surely XFX, BFG and stuff will come out with a 1gb version of the 9800GT.
@ curtisrutland
It depends on what you do and your gaming preferences. The 9600 GT is fine for light developing and fair gaming. The 9800 GT is great for developing and good for gaming. If you have a high pixel count, 1920x1200 and higher, and you plan on playing at that resolution at low detail, go with the 9600. Higher resolutions require more RAM, but don't necessarily require more processing.
If you can justify the price difference, or you prefer gaming in high detail at 1680x1050 or below, then get the 9800. Most real gamers don't go highest resolution because they prefer high FPS (and the fact that anything above 800 px height is overkill), so the companies don't go all out with the RAM. The 9600 appeals to noobs because of the large amount of RAM. Noobs typically prefer "OMG IT'S WUXGA AND I HAVE A FULL GB OF RAM, THAT MEANS YOU CAN'T BEAT ME EVEN THOUGH YOU GET 2X THE FPS AND HIGH DETAIL." Graphics card companies know their market well.
I'd heartily recommend the 4850, though. It's about the same (better in most, but not the vast majority of games), but uses less power and produces less heat. Also, Visiontek's 4850 has a LIFETIME WARRANTY. You'll probably buy another card sometime in your life, but the warranty doesn't hurt.
"Current games won't be able to use that much memory" What? Are you kidding? You don't think Crysis, COD4, Mass Effect, etc etc can "use" 1gb of memory? Of course they can! Uggg, where do people get these ideas.
Look, all things equal, you're better off with more memory. Unfortunately, all things are NEVER equal with graphics cards, period. An older gen card with more memory just isn't going to out perform a new gen card. (Unless it's last gens top of the line card, and you are pitting it up against this gens middle of the road cards...obviously)
I'm not sure how the 9800GT stacks up against the 150 dollar offerings from ATI, but the 9800 GTX+ seems to be on par if not slightly better than the HD4850 from ATI (both are 200 dollars). The difference there is that the ATI card gets pretty hot during gameplay, and the 9800GTX doesn't thanks to a massive dual-slot cooler. Unfortunately the 9800GTX is HUGE compared to the 4850, so it won't fit in as many cases, and it's very power hungry. Both options have their advantages and disadvantages (The 9800GTX has Cuda, which makes video transcoding lightning fast among other things, and it has Physx support. The 4850 will probably get faster with improved drivers) so it really doesn't matter which card you buy at this point.
If I hadn't found a GTX 260 from Nvidia online for 200 dollars, I'd probably wait for the GTX to come down to the 200 dollar price point, or for the 4870 to come down to 200 dollars. Why? Well, I like to game at 1080p, and both of the current 200 dollar cards are already somewhat gimped at 1080p, atleast for the high end games (like Crysis) when compared to the GTX 260 and the 4870. When I buy graphics cards, I think about the games I'll be playing on it in 2+ years, so if they'll chug on a game right now....well...you get the idea.
@BananaBoat
Apologies for what I said back there. Don't know what I was thinking. You're right and explained the situation better.
@curtisland
So basically, curt, everyone here has a different reason/opinion and after wasting 10 minutes of your life to read all of these, you still don't have a definite answer. I don't know shit about these things and won't tell you which to buy, but I think the best way to decide would be to average all of the review scores and such on some sort of matrix to find out which seems to be the overall crowd-pleaser.
@ BananaBoat
Wait, what? $200! Share the details. NAO.
Why don't all of you go read some benchmarks? Nearly all 1GB versions of cards with less memory are slower then there original with less memory.
Don't believe me? Look at the benchmarks.
The reason for it is that the ones with 1GB of memory have slower memory. The only time they make a difference is at really high resolutions with lots of AA and AF, and by then the game wouldn't be playable anyways because the card is too weak to run at said resolution with said amount of AA, and AF.
Thank you all for your responses. Guess I have some more research to do.
@LC
" Nearly all 1GB versions of cards with less memory are slower then there original with less memory."
Wha? Are you freaking stupid? My brain did a back flip while reading that. How can you have a 1GB version with LESS memory lol. And if you are implying that 1GB versions of cards are slower, think again. What a moronic statement, wow. More RAM usually is intended AT THE MOMENT, for larger screen resolutions, if you have a puny monitor or go 1680 x and below, then dont bother with 1 GB for now, unless you want to prepare for the future monitors you will buy.
Mmm, that's a sexy looking card. Pity I don't need it.
Just what I was thinking. Finally a good looking slim card instead of those dual-slot abominations we have these days.
I have to say, that seems to be the nerdiest and most disheartening comment I've seen in a while. Not to troll or anything, but when GPU's start looking sexy, that's a sure sign to not use the computer for a while.
I apologize for any hurt feelings for anyone who takes offense of this comment.
@cresheid
Um, its called modders and PC makes who value sapce over an uneccessarily large card. Think outside the box and read a few books, you'll feel smart :)
If this is the Laptop version of the DX10 supporting 8800GT, then allow me to say FINALLY. Now decent laptop gaming could begin.
Does that look like it'll fit in a laptop to you?
Sorry I didn't see the other invisible object in the photo to compare it and figure out its real size.
That aside, I guess I thought all 9000s were miniature 8000s, and the first comment on this post supported this assumption.
But I mean if you HAVE
to be an ass...
It has two DVI ports on the back... and you thought it would go into a laptop!?
yo could have figured out the size by looking at the DVI port. surely you know how big a DVI port is?
For those who don't know...
[----------------------------------------------------] roughly, with holes and stuff included.
Alright, ppl need to seriously take things a lot easier. I mixed up the 9800GT with the laptop-designed 9800M-GTS.....
huge mistake, apparently.
"Sorry I didn't see the other invisible object in the photo to compare it and figure out its real size."
Standard PCI bracket .. check.
Two DVI ports in plain view.... check.
Object having no physical resemblce to the nvidia MXM package.... check!
For homework, please read the MXM electromechanical specifications pdf .. it'll anyway keep you off the engadget forums for a few hours:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_13290.html
I was wondering if the 9800GT would be much better than my 8800GT. Never suspected that they'd be virtually the same card.
Virtually? Try exactly.
Woah, the 9800 GTX+ is only $199.99? Is that a typo? I might have to pick that up.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130376
Don't do it.
Things that are equal or better than the 9800 GTX/GTX+ at the same or lower price and (always) uses less power.
Survey says:
4850/4870.
OK Nvidia, no we are not impressed that you can relabel your 8800gt's and call it a new product. try releasing something actually new, ya know, not....old new.
Especially seeing how you can buy a 8800GT (tried and true product) for $20 less than the 9800GT. Why pay $20 more for something *nearly* identical.
The only possible redeeming feature of this would be if you could SLI your existing 8800GT (since like everyone has one) with one of these 9800GT's.
An 8800GT is FASTER than a 9600GT. Don't be fooled by Nvidia's naming schemes. The 9 series is NOTHING new.
"An 8800GT is FASTER than a 9600GT"
Well, duh. x800 has always been better than x600, except when the two are more than one generation apart.
Not representative of all games, but this tom's hardware chart should help prove my statement.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/graphics-cards/3dmark06-v1-0-2-hdr-sm3-0-score,538.html?modelx=33&model1=859&model2=722&chart=318
Tom's hardware is outdates.
P.S. The 7600GT beat the 6800 ULTRA.