Not yet rated
Loading ...Nvidia - scared of Intel already?
Clive Webster
During the testing and write-up of the GeForce 9800 GTX review, I came across some odd language from Nvidia in its Reviewer’s Guide (the fact sheet Nvidia sends out to reviewers in order to brainwash them into thinking its next product is great). It’s no real secret that Nvidia is worried about Larrabee, Intel’s forthcoming ‘graphics product’, hence phrases such as:
“A second GeForce 9800 GTX offers tremendous bang for the buck. Compared to upgrading the CPU, it offers much higher performance at a fraction of the cost.”
In other words, ‘don’t buy a Core 2 Quad and a GeForce 9800 GTX, just buy two 9800 GTXes.’ Hmm…
Of course, Nvidia has some benchmarks to back this up. For gaming, Nvidia’s graphs say that a pair of 9800 GTXes with an Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 processor gets you better frame rates in a load of games than a single 9800 GTX with a £600 Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650. But as we all know, a pair of graphics cards isn’t going to help non-3D apps, while a CPU will.
The CPU requirements for testing with the 9800 GTX also seem low – a £70 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo E4500 is apparently fine for a single card, while a £180 3.16GHz Core 2 Duo E8500 won’t limit 3-Way SLI performance. Given that almost every Core 2 Duo can hit 3GHz, Nvidia seems to be saying, ‘spend all your money with Nvidia, your CPU is fine.’
This paranoia on Nvidia’s part seems a bit early given that Intel hasn’t even said whether Larrabee will be aimed at gaming or CAD-type applications, and it won’t be out until the end of 2009 at the earliest either.
Very strange language and extremely generalised too. There are many games that are CPU limited, FSX for one and they respond very poorly to SLI and Crossfire. If the game puts both of my E8400’s cores at 100% load even with the CPU @ 4.3GHz then what chance would a 2.2Ghz CPU have? I’d much rather have a single card and spend the rest on the CPU. Building a balanced system is more important now than ever, especially with multi-threaded gaming now upon us.
I’m more than happy with my 1Gb 8800GT! Not sure how the 9800GTX compares to the 8800GTX for power consumption. If that’s significantly lower than that might justify the not-too-great ‘increase’ in performance’ but I was expecting maybe a few more stream processors (144 or 160). IF the release (as well as the blurbs on your press booklet) is becuase nVidia is worried about Intel’s foray into the market (again) or ATi then maybe they should go down to 45nm or lower for their top-end cards. I think nVidia have released way too many cards over the past 6 months and I doubt a huge number of people will be running for this when they’ve just bought an 8800GT/65nm GTS or pre-ordered a 9800GX2…
Also, I use alot of CAD/3D programs and while a good graphics card helps when navigating your 3D environment (just as it does in a game), when it comes to rendering and post-production (ie editing renderings in photoshop etc), it’s the CPU that takes the brunt of the work. With the exception of apps that can use Gelato (or similar), the graphics card might as well go to sleep because it’s not really being used - and it’s pointless trying to .rar a file or convert video/music while rendering as it increases the time immensly. I’d agree with Antony that a balanced system is best - I’m sure even hardcore gamers have cpu-intensive tasks like music/video etc to deal with too.
The 9800GTX compares to the 8800GTX for power consumption. If that’s significantly lower than that might justify the not-too-great ‘increase’ in performance’ but I was expecting maybe a few more stream processors (144 or 160).