Print 85 comment(s) - last by 3kliksphilip.. on Nov 7 at 10:13 AM

NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GT (G92) will feature high-end performance with a smaller thermal envelope and single-slot cooling.  (Source: NVIDIA)

ZOTAC GeForce 8800GT AMP! Edition overclocked to 700 MHz core, 2000 MHz memory and 1700 MHz shader clocks. The ZOTAC GeForce 8800GT AMP! Edition will retail for €249 in Europe and Asia regions  (Source: ZOTAC)

ASUS EN8800GT with Company of Heroes  (Source: ASUS)

GIGABYTE GV-NX88T512H-B with BioWare's Neverwinter Nights  (Source: Gigabyte)

BIOSTAR's GeForce 8800 GT offering, dubbed the V8803GT52   (Source: BIOSTAR)
NVIDIA today launches its newest mainstream part, the GeForce 8800 GT

NVIDIA today is set to launch its newest midrange graphics card part, the GeForce 8800 GT, previously known by its codename G92. NVIDIA guidance states that its newest graphics card will be sold at a retail price in the $199 and $249 price range.

Development around the G92 processor revolved around reducing the thermal and power draw on the GeForce 8800 GTX (G80) processor.  G80 was manufactured on TSMC's 90nm process node while the G92 is manufactured on TSMC's 65nm node.  This shrink allows a single 8800 GT to operate on a 105 Watt draw, almost 80 Watts less than the 8800 GTX during heavy operation.

Top-to-bottom, the GeForce 8800 GT fits snugly between NVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTS 640 MB, which NVIDIA sets at a retail price of $349, and NVIDIA's GeForce 8600 GTS, which is sold for $149.

The GeForce 8800 GT sports a 100 MHz speed bump over the 8800 GTS, and comes factory clocked at 600 MHz. The 600 MHz clock speed of the 8800 GT is actually 25 MHz higher than the 8800 GTX's default GPU clock, which is set at 575 MHz. The 8800 GT's clock speed also comes within striking distance of the GeForce 8800 Ultra's 612 MHz GPU clock speed.

The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT features 112 stream processors, 16 fewer than the 128 stream processors found on the ultra high-end 8800 GTX and 16 more than the 96 stream processors found on NVIDIA's 8800 GTS.

The stream processors of the 8800 GT come clocked at 1500 MHz, the same speed as the stream processors of the GeForce 8800 Ultra. Comparatively, the GeForce 8800 GTX comes with its stream processors clocked at 1350 MHz while the 8800 GTS' stream processors are clocked at 1200 MHz.   

The GeForce 8800 GT features up to 1024MB of GDDR3 memory, which is based on a 256-bit memory interface. According to NVIDIA, total memory bandwidth rings in at 57.6 GBps, and the texture fill rate is 33.6 billion/second. Naturally, the two preceding figures are only theoretical values; actual values are bound to be quite different.

The GDDR3 memory of the GeForce 8800 GT comes clocked at 900 MHz -- equal to the memory frequency of the GeForce 8800 GTX. However, the 8800 GT falls short of the 8800 Ultra's memory speed, which is 1080 MHz (2160 MHz effective).

NVIDIA guidance states that the GeForce 8800 GT supports the new PCIe 2.0 bus standard. The PCI-Express Special Interest Group claims that the new bus standard yield improvements in bandwidth.

High-definition video fans will be glad to hear that the GeForce 8800 GT comes integrated with support for NVIDIA's 2nd generation PureVideo HD engine, which allows for H.264 video decoding to be offloaded from the processor and on to the video card.  HDCP support is also present on all reference designs.

NVIDIA guidance promises a hard launch with its GeForce 8800 GT cards, however, so far only Gigabyte, Palit and Zotac have 8800 GT-based offerings.  Newegg independently confirmed with DailyTech that the card will be available online after the 6AM embargo lift.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Kurumi on 10/29/2007 2:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
So you mean to tell me that the 8800GT is faster and cheaper than my 8800GTS 640MB? Not that there is anything wrong with that but something tells me that the GT should be slower (and therefore cheaper) than the GTS (as with 7xxx and 8600 GT and GTS).

RE: What?
By JackBeQuick on 10/29/2007 2:10:19 AM , Rating: 5
So you mean to tell me that the 8800GT is faster and cheaper than my 8800GTS 640MB?


RE: What?
By therealnickdanger on 10/29/2007 7:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
The reviews I've seen on Tweaktown and VRzone have shown me a card that continuously beats both the GTS and often even the GTX. It beats the GTX Ultra in a couple synthetics. It also consumes slightly less power than the GTS at load.

Gotta love high-end refreshes. I still think I'll wait for the 8850/8900 before going DX10 though.

RE: What?
By hadifa on 10/29/2007 8:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
There is a catch IMHO. Despite the lower power requirement, and based on tweak town's review, the card runs quite hotter than even 2900XT and is as noisy which makes it obviously much hotter and noisier than 8800gts.

This is a result of its single slot cooling solution. This might not be an issue for many, but many like myself are conscious about noise and heat.

I will wait for some proper/quiet cooling solutions and to see what AMD has to offer in 2 weeks time.

Smells like a promising holiday.

sound and heat:

RE: What?
By mWMA on 10/29/2007 12:14:13 PM , Rating: 2
well it seems that the tech report opposite in their review as the sound level is lower than 2900XT. As for the heat I do expect that to go up a little but not much considering the single slot cooler in use.

RE: What?
By hadifa on 10/29/2007 11:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Tomshardware 'review which they themselves took from someone else finds the 8800 GT to be fairly quiet at the same level of the GTS.

RE: What?
By xsilver on 10/29/2007 8:59:26 AM , Rating: 3
So you mean to tell me that the 8800GT is faster and cheaper than my 8800GTS 640MB?

not only that, its going to be cheaper than a 8800gts 320mb too!

nvidia has been pushing up the price point for the best "value" card but at least this time they exceed expectations unlike the 8600gts when it was released.

(granted, with newer drivers and games, the 8600gts has gained some traction against something from the older generation such as a 7900gt /gtx)

RE: What?
By AOforever1 on 10/29/2007 2:11:27 AM , Rating: 4
I feel sorry for anybody that brought a GTS in the past month. *cough* sorry man lol...

RE: What?
By Hypernova on 10/29/2007 7:56:02 AM , Rating: 1
Indeed, who ever bought a 320MB GTS in the last 2 months just got officially fucked. Not that you don't pay a price for getting what you want right then and there.

RE: What?
By ziggo on 10/29/2007 10:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
That person would be me. Not that I am unhappy about the performance of this card, but I just built the thing 3 weeks ago. I could have easily waited for this. Could have bought two of them for not much more than the GTS320 and put em in SLI without breaking the power supply.


RE: What?
By mWMA on 10/29/2007 12:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is why one should always keep an eye on upcoming developments.
In fact anyone buying the 8800GT right away is also a sucker at this point as we still need to look at the RV670 offering also coming out in week or two.
Nvidia wanting to sell this thing (512MB version) for less than $200 once the market is settled, is making me wonder what the next high end card will perform like.

RE: What?
By TontoGo on 10/30/2007 8:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I wonder what's just down the road too. I hope ATI actually knocks out a kick ass product this time. 2900 was lukewarm, so to speak. I can't get really excited about a card if I get double the performance in the latest games compared to my current card, but double means getting ~30 frames per second.

RE: What?
By 3kliksphilip on 11/7/2007 10:13:15 AM , Rating: 2
In England the Geforce 8800 prices have been static all year. I bought an 8800 GTS right at the beginning of the year and am happy with it. I don't quite know why people who have just bought would be really 'officially f**ked' or what ever. It's not exactly a massive performance boost. Slightly faster, slightly cheaper, slightly cooler... I'd be more put out if I bought a high end card just before the next gen cards came out. Nothing destroys my Geforce 8800 GTS at 1680 x 1050, apart from Crysis. Though that is on DirectX 10 with everyhing on full, and it will require more than just a mere update to the Geforce 8800 series to run it significantly better. In the end the Geforce 8800 GTS and GT will become redundant at around the same time as each other any way. So many people have bought Geforce 8's (Or equivilent) that it's good in a way that the next gen cards aren't being released soon. Plus it gives AMD a chance to release something good.

RE: What?
By thejez on 10/29/2007 9:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
I *almost* pulled the trigger on a GTS 640 3 days ago... OMG I am sooooo glad I decided to wait... im now gonna get a faster card AND save $$.... wow..

RE: What?
By jefmes on 10/29/2007 2:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wow...that sounds right if everything in that article is correct. That's just about what I've been waiting for before I went DX10, and I like the much lower power draw.

RE: What?
By SirLucius on 10/29/2007 2:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, the price is right and the performance is better than what I expected from the price point. I may have to pick one of these up when the next paycheck comes in.

RE: What?
By JackBeQuick on 10/29/2007 2:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
I think the performance is going to be about the same, but its way way less on the power draw. This is exactly what the industry needed.

RE: What?
By tacoburrito on 10/29/2007 2:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
There has got to be some serious typos in the article. If the article is correct, the GT is only a few notches below the GTX but miles better and faster than the GTS.

Is nVidia still producing the GTS and GTX? Because there seem to be little reason to pay for either of those if GT does what the article says.

RE: What?
By KristopherKubicki on 10/29/2007 2:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
There has got to be some serious typos in the article. If the article is correct, the GT is only a few notches below the GTX but miles better and faster than the GTS.

Although the GT has more stream processors and a higher core clock, the GTS has a wider memory bus (320 bit vs 256 bit) and a higher memory clock.

While I'm sure theres situations where one card is better than the other, I suspect these two will be pretty close as far as overall performance.

RE: What?
By defter on 10/29/2007 3:32:26 AM , Rating: 2
GTS has a lower memory clock, not higher. Thus the difference in bandwidth is quite small.

RE: What?
By murphyslabrat on 10/29/2007 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
But, with the larger bus, overclocking would have more of an effect on bandwidth. I have no idea how much of an effect the extra bandwidth would have on performance, but nevertheless...I am not a VGA overclocker, but it appears as though there would be more performance headroom on the GTS vs the GT, but whether or not the additional $100-$150 is worth it...again, I don't really care ^^j

In any case, the larger BUS width, and the larger memory will probably earn it a place in the hands of the criminally uninformed.

But that GT looks soooooo cheap...

RE: What?
By superbooga on 10/29/2007 2:32:17 AM , Rating: 4
Actually the 7600GT was faster than the 7600GTS

RE: What?
By floffe on 10/29/2007 5:38:24 AM , Rating: 1
That's not hard since there was no 7600GTS, only a GS

RE: What?
By murphyslabrat on 10/29/2007 12:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
No, the 7600GTS was a harbinger of factory overclocked video cards. While not officially sanctioned, someone (BFGtech? I don't remember who the first one was) took a 7600GS and overclocked it, then warrantied the product. The idea was for an intermediate between the 7600GT and 7600GS, but in reality was never cheaper or faster than the low-cost 7600GT's.

So, while there was never an official or practical 7600GTS, they were sold. And, regardless of the effectiveness, you can now get an FOC'ed card as a direct result of the 7600GTS.

RE: What?
By sj420 on 10/29/2007 11:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
None of that information is right.

There are 7600 GTS's, I own two of them.

They are not simply overclocked warrentied cards - at least not the eVga versions.

They literally mixed components from both the GS and GT and called it the GTS. I own two eVga (that are really old, if you couldn't tell) 7600 GTS's that were for sli. Maybe some other company just overclocked it and slapped a warrenty on it but not with eVga.

"The card is a bit of an enigma, as it registers as a 7600GS in the drivers, but its performance was shown to be most akin to that of a 7600GT."
"After consultation with EVGA, they say the 7600GTS is a cross between the 7600GS and a 7600GT (GDDR3 memory)."


RE: What?
By bryophytesd on 10/29/2007 4:58:06 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think an 8800gt would be better than two 512MB 7950gt in SLI? Still running XP so DX10 isnt a factor.

RE: What?
By DigitalFreak on 10/29/2007 8:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
I would say yes. My single 8800GTX is faster than my old 7900GTX SLI setup.

RE: What?
By murphyslabrat on 10/29/2007 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem is that you then cannot get a second 8800GT for better sli settup, and with 2x7950 GT's you have over twice the power requirement.

RE: What?
By luigionlsd on 10/29/2007 8:06:54 AM , Rating: 2
I think the only thing confusing people this time is the numbering system. Many times when nVidia (or ATI for that matter) does something like this, the number is one higher. Take the 7-series for example - 7800 GT and GTX to start, and then nVidia released the 7900 GT which outperformed the GTX, at a price competitive to the 7800 GT. The only thing confusing this time is that it's 8800 GT and not 8900 GT/GTS.

RE: What?
By lompocus on 10/29/2007 10:36:03 PM , Rating: 1
actually its better faster and cheaper than a GTX.

I can't wait to SLI 2 of these...nay, THREE of these, considering I have an early 590sli board with 3 slots for that!

more powerful that a GTX, around 1.7x as powerful, for the price of 1!

RE: What?
By walk2k on 11/1/2007 6:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
Installed one yesterday.

My setup
AMD X2 4400+ (dual cores @ 2.2Ghz), Asus A8N-E, 2GB ram.
GF 7800GT = 4000 3dmark06
GF 8800GT = 8500 3dmark06!

Seems quiter than the 7800GT, or about the same. Definitely not louder.

Yes it's faster than the GTS, and at normal 19" panel resolution (1280x1024) it's equal in most cases to the GTX/Ultra. Only with the humongous widescreen monitors would you want the 640/768MB versions really.

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings
Related Articles
PCIe 2.0 Ratified
January 16, 2007, 5:54 AM

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki