Nvidia 89 series cards out soon???

[99e46]

There has been rumors out about the 8900 series cards..but when is it REALLY being released?

I might upgrade but depending on prices. From what I have read they are gonna be just about the price range of the current 88 series cards but who knows til release.

"Supposedly" it is supposed to be released along with ATI's R600 release but when is that...hmm confusing but aren't rumors always confusing?!?! :?

Anyway here are some links I found on the 8900 cards. :) Enjoy and sorta drool because the 89 series are almost identical to the 88 series but til benchmarks are out who knows!!

Info on 89XX and R600 (http://www.i4u.com/article7944.html)

Info on the 89 series (http://www.tweaktown.com/news/7055/geforce_8900gtx_and_8950gx2_pricing_and_informatio n/index.html)


I don't know if the prices are set but they seem to cheap for me! Even the 88 series cost that much.. :think:

Again all we can do is upgrade and upgrade til we die!! :dead:

[Silenced_Coyote]

Until a game comes out that is so graphically intensive to force me to lower my settings to the point that the image quality is bad so I can get adequate frame rates, then I will upgrade. But as of now, I'm really happy with my 8800GTS. I don't need maxed settings in all my games. I'm just happy that I finally own a desktop that meet the min requirements. The rest is the icing on the cake. MMMM... I love icing:bunny:

[Zephik]

lol You guys are crazy, I would be happy with a X1650XT.

Isn't this supposed to go something more like...

"oh hey, these programs are too demanding! We need to create a more adequate gpu!"

But instead it is going like...

"**** it! MORE POWER!"

lol

[progbuddy]

I would rather get two 8600GTS's and SLI them for $450 rather than paying about $600 for a skateboard-sized mini-oven.

[Silenced_Coyote]

lol You guys are crazy, I would be happy with a X1650XT.

Isn't this supposed to go something more like...

"oh hey, these programs are too demanding! We need to create a more adequate gpu!"

But instead it is going like...

"**** it! MORE POWER!"

lol

I don't think it would work well that way. The way I see it, the advancement in hardware lets programmers know what is possible for them to create. For example, would programmers make a game with DX10 1 year back and wait for Nvidia and AMD to come up with DX10 video cards? The same goes for CPUs. Would it make sense to use multi-threaded code a few years back and make Intel and AMD try to catch up? We wouldn't be able to play a game until that happened. I guess you could say that new hardware expands the limits of programmers and it makes sense (in my way of thinking that is) for the sequence to be the way it is now. Of course, when I speak of software, I'm strictly talking about video games. I know that software and hardware go hand in hand. Without it, our video cards wouldn't function.

[CanaBalistic]

You could go SLI with 2 8500's for $210 or $104 each.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3048554&Sku=P450-8654

[bartvandenberg]

You could go SLI with 2 8500's for $210 or $104 each.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3048554&Sku=P450-8654


You wouldnt get near the framerates from those low end crappy cards as you would with a 8900. heck... even a nice 8600 gts will probably be roughly the same for framerates.

i still dont understand why people think that buying 2 cheaper cards is the better way to go then buying one much better card.

[CanaBalistic]

Well, i would imagine that two 8500's would perform better than one 8800 (640mb). They both use the same 8800 GPU. I'm sure in time there will be a soft mod to unlock the extra features of the value card.

And for a DX10 SLI setup for just over $200, you cant go wrong.

[bartvandenberg]

Well, i would imagine that two 8500's would perform better than one 8800 (640mb). They both use the same 8800 GPU. I'm sure in time there will be a soft mod to unlock the extra features of the value card.


2 8500's sli wont touch a 8800gts.



And for a DX10 SLI setup for just over $200, you cant go wrong.

and yes, really, you can. why would you want a dx10 sli setup for $200? Sli is meant for an extreme performance setup. not just because you can. it is supposed to give you the oppurtunity for amazing performance, so why waste it gettin some low end budget stuff? Wont benefit you in the end.

why buy 2 cards running at 128 bit, low clock speeds, very little texturing capabilities, and few pipelines, when you have the chance to get a 320 bit card with 5 times the rendering power.

link 4 8500's together, and maybe you will come closer to a 8800gts power.

[Silenced_Coyote]

2 8500's sli wont touch a 8800gts.



and yes, really, you can. why would you want a dx10 sli setup for $200? Sli is meant for an extreme performance setup. not just because you can. it is supposed to give you the oppurtunity for amazing performance, so why waste it gettin some low end budget stuff? Wont benefit you in the end.

why buy 2 cards running at 128 bit, low clock speeds, very little texturing capabilities, and few pipelines, when you have the chance to get a 320 bit card with 5 times the rendering power.

link 4 8500's together, and maybe you will come closer to a 8800gts power.

I'd have to agree. Even 8600GTS in SLI gets an average performance of what a 8800GTS gets, but two 8600GTS would cost more. So don't waste your money with 8500s in SLI. Go with single card setups if you are thinking about low to midrange. The 8800GTS (320 mb) is the better deal.
Here's some proof from FiringSquad about the 8600GTS SLI performance:
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8600_gts_preview/page17.asp

[MaxOC]

actually its worth it to get the 640 320 just isnt enough for me

[bartvandenberg]

actually its worth it to get the 640 320 just isnt enough for me


actually, as i understand it, the only benefit you get from the 640 over the 320 is better framerates at higher resolutions. so.. if you still have that smaller 19 inch that only supported a 1280 X 1024, or that widescreen 1440 X 900, then you could do without the extra 100-150 bucks.

BUT.. i wont push anyone to buy the 320 if you can afford the 640, because im sure when more games come out, even at the lower resolutions, you're gonna need that extra 320mb of ram.

im only sayin that the 320 is def a good suffice if you must, and you wont suffer any real performance from it.

[MaxOC]

yeah, unless you have 21in+, or 1600x1200, im using 1680x1050, so bf2142 at max settings needs it

[Silenced_Coyote]

Looks like the performance hit comes from higher resolutions and enabling higher AA levels. Here's a few charts for those who want to see more concrete facts and numbers.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2926&p=3

By the way, HardOCP actually recommends it for resolutions of 1920x1200 and lower. It doesn't do bad at all at that high of a resolution.
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTI4MSwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

[bartvandenberg]

yeah, unless you have 21in+, or 1600x1200, im using 1680x1050, so bf2142 at max settings needs it


so i guess my 6800 ultra aint doin too bad. full settings at 1440 x 900 is still playable (*cough* Jerky but playable8) *cough*) sittin around 35 fps