|
|
Nvidia and XFX launch GeForce 8800 GS
Another pair of letters to add to your spotter's guide; the GeForce 8800 GS has 384MB of RAM and is apparently comparable to a 640MB standard GTS
Is it a GTS, is it a GTX, is it a GT? Nope, it's yet another suffix to keep track of while you're choosing your next graphics card upgrade. Nvidia hasn't made a particularly big fuss about this one, but XFX has already announced two PCI-E 2.0 cards based on the new GPU.
Both cards will come with 384MB of RAM and a 192-bit memory interface and, like a standard GeForce 8800 GT card, the GS cards will come with a single-slot cooler too. The GPU has 96 stream processors, although we haven't yet received any detail on their clock speed. However, the standard core clock will be 580MHz, and the GDDR3 memory clock will be 700MHz (1.4GHz effective).
In terms of performance, XFX claims that the GS will be capable of the 'same gaming feats of grandeur as a standard XFX GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB graphics card.' XFX will also be introducing an overclocked XXX version of the GS, with a 680MHz core and 800MHz (1.6GHz effective) GDDR3 memory.
It's an interesting combination of specs, with fewer stream processors than the 8800 GT, but more memory than a cheaper 256MB GT. You can pre-order the overclocked card from Dabs for £128.75 inc VAT, so it will need to be fast enough to take people's eyes off the 256MB 8800 GT, which costs just £117.36.
Do too many suffixes and small variations make the graphics industry confusing? Let us know your thoughts.
Reddit | Technorati
I dont have any problems keeping up with product ranges. Nvidia are just updating their lineup that's all. The old GTSs are being shifted and so will the GTX in time. I dont see what all the fuss is about.
Comment by RedHotsRule549 at 12:02am 22nd January 2008
This sounds to me that Nvidia are desperatly trying to squeeze as much money out of the 8800 series as they can. To me they are deliberatly wasting time in releasing new models which can push the likes of Crysis into the game of the centry. As it stands Crysis has been a selling flop due to the lack of speed in single graphic cards so where does it go - to the PS3 which in all honesty won;t be much better. Why bother dithering around on the 8800 series and actually come out with newer series of models that can play the likes of Crysis, on a single card, in ultra high settings. Sadly this is the way it is going with Nvidia where they have no asperation to please and surprise their customers anymore.
Comment by tlaltiplac at 1:31pm 21st January 2008
For me, model numbers mean nothing. I'll wait for our good friends at CustomPC to wingle out the best, in terms of performance and price and pick my winner from those (after having corroborated their findings with a second or third source =] )
Comment by mctcpc at 8:54am 21st January 2008
Yawn. Scratch. Snore. Someone should tell Nvidia to stop farting around and concentrate on the successor to the GTX. Good job with the 8800GT - now there's no reason to upgrade to anything but a card powerful enough to play Crysis at high settings 1920/1200. And I don't mean two 8800GT's stuck together, because that means sli support in games, which means I won't be able to play World in Conflict full blast.
Comment by Cybersciver at 4:36pm 18th January 2008
than the suffixes on a Ford Mondeo, next we'll be having an 8800GSR then a GSXR, then maybe an XR8800i...anyone know when the Cosworth 8800 Type-R is due out? The GT seems the best all-round card on cost-performance-energy efficiency and that's that (this is coming from someone who has an 640Mb GTS !)
Comment by EdArch at 1:31am 18th January 2008
I still don't know what card I need to run Crysis at 1650x1050 on High detail. (Or Very High if any card can give a playable framerate).
Even Custom PC haven't managed to tell us, because the game isn't included as part of their benchmarks.
Comment by marcgear at 5:25pm 16th January 2008
I think their need to be some set standards for the required performance gap between individually named cards, then a decent naming system that actually has a heirarchical order to it. It's just impossible to know which suffix is meant to show better levels of performance
Comment by NewParadigm at 9:38am 16th January 2008
I'm fine with the naming convention if it works i.e. in terms of speed of the card it goes GT GTS GTX, etc. But when you have a GS as quick as a GTS still on sale what hope do we have as consumers?
Comment by pveater at 8:06am 16th January 2008
this isn't like some huge R&D development costs. it's the same as the otehrs with different things! it might be a ploy custom pcc wrote about ASUS using, which is just to have so manny motherboards it looks like they're the only maker. this is an 8800 gt with slightly less memory. I think what's happening is too many people are saying I WANT 8800 GT so they're bringing this out to shift huge demand away from it (which drives 8800gt prices up, leading people to go for ATI, for some odd reason) at least, that's my guess. if i'm right, i should work for marketing or something
Comment by wegreenall at 10:48pm 15th January 2008
More the merrier! Let confusion reign! (& it gives lots & lots of people yet another thing to moan on about)
Comment by tharfcake at 9:03pm 15th January 2008
gs gts gtx gt gtxultra. omg. follow ati's way of doing things please!
Comment by jaxxersist at 8:38pm 15th January 2008
This is probably just a limited run to clear out some downgraded binning inventory that nvidia have in stock...
Comment by philheckler at 8:24pm 15th January 2008
Ok firstly, W T F in big letters, secondly,if it rivals the old 640mb GTS, has a bigger 192bit interface than the 8800GT512, 96 streams, and a weird stupid figure of 384mb ? Why? If it is anything better than the 8800GT256mb, and 3850 - and can just play some games at 1900x1200 then it might be worth a look, otherwise, its just to gain a few more FPS per pound for someone with a different sized monitor?! My 320mb GTS surely cant be that bad now can it? if this card rivals its bigger old brother at 60% of the price?!?
Comment by Lightning_Pete at 7:41pm 15th January 2008
The other stupid thing about this is nVidia has already announced (hasn't it?) the release of the 9600 GX2... which is 2x 8 series cards bolted together - so why release a "new" 8 series card? and why not start all new cards with 9?? Sheesh... sort your PR and advertising arms out nVid; R&D are doing a good enough job!
Comment by NickMC07121989 at 5:21pm 15th January 2008
Lets face it, next gen cards from Nvidia just aren't needed to beat the competition. So why spend all that money on development when you can simply rearrange your current current cards with differing amounts of RAM, Stream processors and clock speeds and give them new names? The trouble is some of the performance gaps are so small - 8800gt/gts (512MB) for example, nothing makes much sense any more!
Comment by combatus at 4:49pm 15th January 2008
Cards should come in flavours with GPU and memory capable of each common resolution, with no silly mismatches (eg X1950Pro 512Mb) and clear nomenclature.
Comment by woe2you at 4:47pm 15th January 2008
Make a Comment
- Rumour control: 55nm GeForce 200-series GPUs on the way
- High-speed Seagate SSDs coming next year
- User Account Control to be relaxed in Windows 7
- OCZ's first CPU waterblock released
- Nvidia head lambasts Larrabee
- Intel has ‘serious questions’ about AMD split
- Custom PC folding team takes number 6 position
- AMD spins off chip fabrication business
- Top 10 PC games chart
- Play Crysis Wars for free
These are the most popular news articles over the past seven days.
- Over-volted RAM will damage Core i7 CPUs
- Top 10 PC games chart
- Intel has ‘serious questions’ about AMD split
- Play Crysis Wars for free
- AMD spins off chip fabrication business
- Custom PC folding team takes number 6 position
- Nvidia head lambasts Larrabee
- Rumour control: 55nm GeForce 200-series GPUs on the way
- User Account Control to be relaxed in Windows 7
- OCZ's first CPU waterblock released
Broadband Dongles
Fastest, cheapest 3G mobile broadband dongles from 3, Vodafone, T-Mobile and Orange
from just £10/month
