Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Affordable DX10 - GeForce 8600 GTS and 8600 GT

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the only-a-bit-more-than-nine dept.

224

mikemuch writes "While ATI still hasn't released a DX-10-capable graphics card, Nvidia today already released its affordable SKUs, in descending price and performance order the GeForce 8600 GTS and GeForce 8600 GT, and 8500 GT. The GTS costs $200-230, the GT from $150-170, and the 8500 reaching down to the $90 range. The architecture for the new GPUs is the same as for the 8800 line, but with lower clocks and fewer stream processors."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ATi ain't far behind (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768215)

While ATI still hasn't released a DX-10-capable graphics card...

Don't worry - ATi will be announcing (if not launching) their new R600 range next week. I wouldn't buy anything until we see how that goes.

Korean Kommie Kills in 32 Commonwealth of Virginia (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768313)

Korean Kommie Kills 32 in Commonwealth of Virginia. Have you heard?

Re:ATi ain't far behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768463)

I'd buy now. You know nVidia's drivers will work, and ATI's will just be a pile of crap that crashes randomly.

Re:ATi ain't far behind (2, Informative)

darien (180561) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768767)

But Nvidia's drivers don't work, at least not on Vista. Google confirms it [google.co.uk] .

Re:ATi ain't far behind (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768879)

thats a kind of a moot point, because pretty much nobody's drivers work in Vista...

Re:ATi ain't far behind (1)

clintre (1078849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768969)

Actually my ATI 1900 drivers work fine in both 64 and 32 bit versions of Vista. Are they perfectly optimized yet no, but I get almost identical fps marks in the many games I play. I have yet to crash. Not to say that others have not had issues, but I have not. I update my drivers regularly since they are still evolving for vista.

Re:ATi ain't far behind (1)

kakalaky (902350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769463)

My 7900gt works fine under Vista. What's your point?

Re:ATi ain't far behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769789)

My 8800gs DOESN'T work fine under XP x64. Why? You tell me, I'm sure someone can, it's /.!

Windows XP x64, Service Pack 1 (I know, I know, I'm lazy)
8800gs, most recent drivers
2 monitors:
  • Sony WEGA LCD TV running via DVI to VGA
  • Some off-brand LCD monitor running via DVI to DVI.
I tried putting my monitor to the left of my TV, it would force the TV to be primary, and my monitor to have a shitty 1024x768 resolution. Move it to the right and my TV won't display at all (too high a resolution, I think). It won't let me choose individual resolutions and unless I have both screens displaying the same thing (which I don't want), I can't get the TV to display at all! /. Help!

--beckerist

Let me get this straight. (2, Insightful)

Glytch (4881) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769183)

DirectX 10 only works under Vista.

The biggest reason to get these cards over other existing ones is for DirectX 10.

The drivers for these cards don't work under Vista.

Huh.

Re:ATi ain't far behind (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769333)

I won't believe it until Netcraft confirms it!

So how much did NVidia pay them for this? (3, Insightful)

Moryath (553296) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768797)

The Radeon X1950 beats the NVidia cards in every single test save for the "synthetic" crapmark test that has nothing to do with reality.

Yet their final page says you should buy the NVidia rather than the X1950?

Somebody's been paid off. This wasn't an article, it's a fucking stealth ad. They have no integrity.

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this? (1)

Lord Crc (151920) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769105)

The Radeon X1950 beats the NVidia cards in every single test save for the "synthetic" crapmark test that has nothing to do with reality.

Interesting, that's not what I've been seeing in tests. In fact, in most tests it seems the 8800 GTX beats the X1950 XTX with a comfortable margin. Here's one review that goes through a number of games: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gf8 800-games.html [xbitlabs.com]

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this? (4, Interesting)

Holmwood (899130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18770099)

The Radeon X1950 beats the NVidia cards in every single test save for the "synthetic" crapmark test that has nothing to do with reality.
Interesting, that's not what I've been seeing in tests. In fact, in most tests it seems the 8800 GTX beats the X1950 XTX

In context, it's clear the GP was referring to the NVidia cards that were reviewed by the article. And he's mostly right. In only one (of many) actual gaming benchmark did any of the Nvidia cards reviewed outperform the X1950.

Where I believe the GP is mistaken is in his conclusions about the article. The article itself says, in conclusion:

The 256MB version of the Radeon X1950 Pro is faster in most games, and by a pretty good margin, too.

The article notes, correctly I think, that the X1650XT is not a good card for gamers to buy. It notes that the 1950 won't do DirectX10, and the budget NVidia cards may not be fast enough to do it well either.

However, it's also instructive to have a look at this review at Hard OCP [hardocp.com] . There, in two demanding games (Oblivion and STALKER), the 8600 GTS appears to win handily over the 1950XT. If those benchmarks are accurate, it suggests the ExtremeTech article may draw conclusions that are too favorable to the X1950.

Ah well, interesting times for all gfx card consumers!

Holmwood

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this? (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769397)

yes, but does ATI have any cards such as the 7950GX2 which has 2 cards bundled together on one PCIX slot - allowing for a total maximum of 4 cards (quad-sli)???

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this? (1)

QuesarVII (904243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769871)

You mean PCIe right? PCIX is regular pci, only 64bit and running at either 66, 100, or 133MHz. I've seen people confused by this a lot lately...

Re:So how much did NVidia pay them for this? (1)

gripen40k (957933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18770081)

I think the bigger question is 'does ATI need a 7950gx2', when they could just come out with a better card?

And really, how well is that nVidia card doing in sales anyway?

But the x1950 still isn't DX 10... (2, Insightful)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18770011)

Which in most cases for gamers, doesn't usually matter-in most cases, the more powerful hardware is better than weaker hardware with new tech. However, with the way M$ is pushing Vista upgrading, how long will it be before there are less impressive games that require DX10 to run, and potentially DX10 hardware? Or what about DX10 games like Crysis? Maybe that will push performance past non DX10 cards. It's hard to say untill we can test things like that.

Re:ATi ain't far behind (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769869)

May was the last date I heard, but they did announce the name for the new cards. The HD 2900 XT will be the high end card, followed by similarly named 2600 and 2400 variants. No prices or specific date. More info: http://www.engadget.com/2007/04/13/amd-names-names -r600-now-the-ati-radeon-hd-2900-xt/ [engadget.com]

Re:ATi ain't far behind (2, Insightful)

lattyware (934246) | more than 7 years ago | (#18770311)

I must say, I will *allways* buy nVidia until ATI shape up their Linux drivers. Twinview makes dual monitors as easy in Linux as anywhere else, and that is something valuable to me. But still, ATI cards *are* important - hopefully they mean nVidia will drop the price. But until then I am happy with my passive 7600GS.

too many models and lines (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768219)

I wish there was an easier way to judge the speed of one Nvidia card against another just by looking at the name. I can never tell.

Are these faster than my 7800GS? Would they be faster than a 7800GT? Who can fucking tell?

Re:too many models and lines (2, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768385)

Maybe you could try looking at the benchmarks? The answer is yes BTW, but the question you should be asking is "How much faster are these than my current card?".

Re:too many models and lines (1)

nanoflower (1077145) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768765)

I'm sure the cards are much faster than my current card. That's because my current card is a TI 4200 so just about any new card will be faster. ;) At least a few companies are supposed to be releasing some of these models in AGP forms so I may upgrade to one of them.

Re:too many models and lines (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769055)

Assuming your CPU is around the same vintage as your graphics card, upgrading to a (mythical at this point) AGP version of an 8600 may not be the best idea. Chances are the card would starve waiting for the processor and you'd basically be wasting money. You'd probably be better off upgrading the CPU, Memory, and Motherboard while you're at it to switch to PCI-Express before you upgrade to a modern video card. This isn't as expensive as it sounds, you could easily get a decent performer for $600 or so (Intel Core2 type processor, $100 motherboard, 2GB of memory or so) by reusing most of the components (HDD, Optical Drives, Power supply (unless you skimped originally), case, monitor, keyboard, mouse) from your old system. Of all of that the Power Supply is the most iffy, but if you bought something decent you'll probably be fine.

Re:too many models and lines (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769051)

Yes, look at the benchmarks. But (unfortunately) benchmarks only typically look at a few cards, and not the entire lineup. How much faster are these than my NVidia 6200?

Is there a site that lists every single NVidia card in the various form factors (AGP8x, PCI-E, etc.), and run the same benchmarks on them? Why can't they do this as part of their naming scheme? (ie: a 6600 being an average of 10% faster than a 6000 on a combination of all the benchmarks).

Re:too many models and lines (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769147)

While that sounds great in theory, there are too many factors that go into the performance of a card to really roll it all into one number. Differences in Direct X and OpenGL performance alone would confuse things, not to mention the differences in feature support. Even if they were to do that, in a few generations you would have incredibly unweildy product numbers. Just looking at the performance difference between a Geforce 256 and a Geforce 8800GTX should show how crazy large the numbers would get. Plus, it would encourage AMD and other rivals to adopt a similar looking naming scheme, but use a different way to calculate it that gives them bigger numbers, which would encourage nVidia to cheat on their own numbers, and in the end you have stuff that's no better than the fairly arbitrary numbers they use now. At least with the current numbers you know what generation of the chip is on the board and know what it will support. So if you know you need Shader Model 2.0 support you should stay away from GeForce 5xxx series cards for instance.

It goes basically like this (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769277)

The first number is the major generation of hardware. So these are the 8000 series cards, the 8th generation of GeForce hardware. All other things being equal, a new generation card of a similar number performs better than an older one. So a 7600GT should outperform a 6600GT and an 8600GT should outperform a 7600GT. However the primary reason to look at new major version numbers is new features. In this case, 8 series cards support DirectX 10, 7 series are DirectX 9.0c.

The second number is the minor version and generally increasing numbers indicate increasing speed. Usually, they indicate the amount of processing hardware so an 8800 has more pixel pipelines and shaders and such than an 8600. Then there's the letters. GTX > GTS > GT, not sure how it goes after that. Again, speed related.

What it really comes down to though is you need to look at benchmarks. There's no one magic metric for cards, they'll be better at some things worse at others. You need to see how it performs on the stuff you are doing to make the determination.

Re:too many models and lines (4, Informative)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769415)

http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php [gpureview.com] is your friend. Allows you to select any ATI and nVidia card known and compare them side by side. Somebody back about four years ago here on slashdot pointed me in the right direction to that site and have been using it since. :)

Mod this guy up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769733)

At last a website that allows you to compare video cards with useful information!

Re:too many models and lines (2, Insightful)

Alastor187 (593341) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769875)

I think when used correctly price can be a fairly good indicator of performance. Look at the manufacture retail price for different cards. The highest priced cards offer the most performance, likewise the lower priced cards over less performance. In some cases this works between manufactures. NVIDIA and ATI typically offer the same performance for about the same price. They are obviously competing so it is never exact, but I have never seen one severely undercut the other. I guess it makes sense, we want performance so that is what they charge us for.

Yay! DX10! (5, Funny)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768227)

It's about time! I can't wait to play... .... ....... ...wait... nevermind. There are no DX10 games.

Re:Yay! DX10! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768527)

And....no drivers for the only OS that supports it. Everybody wins!

Re:Yay! DX10! (1, Funny)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768595)

This is about Aero; now that there are some moderately priced DX10 cards out there Aero isn't just for rich gamers.

Re:Yay! DX10! (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768727)

This is about Aero; now that there are some moderately priced DX10 cards out there Aero isn't just for rich gamers.
Aero runs fine on my GeForce 6200. So, I guess it's also for people with $30 graphics cards. It's not the resource hog people seem to think it is- I found it used minimally more CPU and memory than Vista basic when you have a sufficient, $30 graphics card.

Re:Yay! DX10! (3, Informative)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768947)

Aero is based on DX9. Any DX9-capable card is able to run it adequately.

Re:Yay! DX10! (3, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769451)

I stand corrected

Re:Yay! DX10! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18770229)

You have the decency and good grace to admit that you were mistaken??
Are you sure that you're on the right site?

Re:Yay! DX10! (1)

Bibz (849958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769411)

My ATI Radeon 9600 from 2 year old laptop can run Aero just fine...

Linux Drivers? (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768239)

Are these DX-10 only or do they still support OpenGL?...I ask because i'm about to build a new PC and I want NVidia not ATI under GNU/Linux.

Re:Linux Drivers? (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768335)

They also support OpenGL and Linux (using proprietary drivers).

Re:Linux Drivers? (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768403)

Thank you.

They support OpenGL just fine (5, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768585)

nVidia would be fools not to as many games need GL and gaming is probably their biggest market. What they mean by "DirectX 10" is feature set basically. OpenGL doesn't really keep up to date with cards very well so features are usually expressed in terms of DX versions. For example DX 7 means you have at least fixed function T&L, DX 8 means semi-programmable shaders, DX 9 fully programmable and things like that. DX 10 specifies a bunch of new stuff, the Wikipedia entry on it is pretty good if you are interested.

As a practical matter it isn't real useful for end users at this point as nothing really supports it. However it may be of interest to programmers since DX 10 cards take shader programmability to a whole new level. It specifies a unified shader interface, and nVidia has chosen to unify the shader hardware as well (ATi says they have done the same). Thus effectively a DX10 card can be looked at as a stream processor, with a whole lot of units. Various things, like folding, are likely to be able to be designed to run in part on the GPU for massive speed gains. nVidia has a whole deal for helping that called CUDA.

But yes, GL support is there, I can confirm it. I have an 8800 and I play GL games all the time. They work great.

Re:Linux Drivers? (1)

Knifa (1048830) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769539)

Why would you buy a 8x-series card to use it in Linux?

Seems a waste of money to me.

DX10? What? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768259)

Why are we still designing GPUs for Windows? It's like the Slashdot crowd hates Microsoft for everything but still clings to them for their computer games. Screw DX10, ask for Open GL 3.0 already!

Re:DX10? What? (4, Interesting)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768471)

Jeez, that's a silly question.

Because that's where the money is.

If developers, even a few, thought they could make more money on Linux than Windows, or even turn a hefty enough profit by supporting both, they'd do it.

Thanks for companies like Introversion, Transgaming, and Codeweavers, and of course all the developers of Wine, Linux gaming is more popular than ever. Thanks to people like the folks behind Ogre3D, Newton, ODE, OpenAL, etc Cross-OS gaming is easier than ever.

I think this puts us right on the cusp of seeing a big change in Linux gaming. (And Mac OSX gaming, too.) But until then, Windows is -the- PC gaming OS and that's where hardware and software creators will be making their investments.

Now, I know the usual argument is that OpenGL is already cross-platform and should be supported. And I agree to a point... But ATI's OpenGL support has apparently always sucked, and you don't create a game that will suck for half the market if there's an easy alternative. (DirectX.) (Disclaimer: I have no first-hand experience with ATI cards. I've stuck with nVidia since Voodoo died.)

Re:DX10? What? (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768745)

I'm doing my part. I only buy games that will run on linux. That's right, I said BUY.
Money talks.
Being all evangelical doesn't help if you are only interested in free as in beer. Developers need paid. I have over the last 6 months paid the equivalent cost of Vista Home in donations to various OSS projects. Do the same and Linux may move out of the basements of the world and maybe developers will port TO DX10 instead of the other way around.

Re:DX10? What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769217)

That will never happen... too many sheep.

Re:DX10? What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769329)

I too only buy games that run on linux but my machine with a NVidia card constantly freezes. I can sys-req out and restart X (which freezes consuming 100% CPU) but it happens too often for the machine to be usable. It's a longstanding and widely reported bug that remains unfixed, possibly something to do with image copying code. My games collection is therefore rather small, consisting as it does of one game that I can't play.

Re:DX10? What? (1)

HolyCrapSCOsux (700114) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769689)

I segfault occasionally in UT2004, but other than that have had no problems.
Fedora Core 6
Nvidia Geforce 6600GT PCI-e Driver version 1.0.9755
Asus A8N-SLI Premium

Not top-o-the line, but good enough for everything I have tried thus far.

obligatory print version (2, Informative)

Laebshade (643478) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768269)

Obligatory print version [extremetech.com] . No pictures, but who needs those?

That said, while I'm not sure how these cards will perform, I have been using their big brother for a while. I've had a Leadtek 8800GTS (640mb) for a few months now, and it runs great. It would probably run better if I was using WinXP instead of Vista, but I'm happy with it.

Re:obligatory print version (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768611)

Compared to their big brothers these new cards are highly castrated. These cards have 32 shader units to the 96 and 128 found on the 8800 GTS and GTX respectively, and the memory interface is only 128bit, while it's 320 and 384 on the GTS 640 and GTX. From the benchmarks I've been seeing, these cards aren't anything to get excited about. By the time DX10 games see the light of day we'll probably see far more powerful cards for less money. Anybody buying to play right now would be better off sticking with the high end last generation cards, or bite the bullet and get an 8800.

Re:obligatory print version (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769007)

Oh really? Did you bother to look at the numbers of the old cards before you said that? The 7800GTX has 24 (!) shader units. That's better than 32 how?

From: http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article .asp?article=articles/archive/c0508/12c08/12c08.as p&guid= [computerpoweruser.com]

Okay, the 8500 (the $100 model) only has 16. But how does that compare to the 7800GTX I paid $500 for? The $200 8600 has 32, and all the other specs are higher also.

It makes -no- sense to buy a 7800 once the 8500 and 8600 are released.

Re:obligatory print version (1)

IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769339)

I've never paid more than $40 for a graphics card, and I've never found a game I couldn't play comfortably (high res, good frame rates). I buy a new $30-40 card every couple of years. Is there really any benefit to spending $500 on a card? I doubt I spent that much on my entire current PC.

Re:obligatory print version (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769829)

Bragging rights. And the tech demos were fun for about 5 minutes.

Notice I'm not defending my purchase at all. I was only marginally impressed with that card over my previous $150 card. That's not a real good feeling, I can tell ya. I'll probably be buying one of the $200 8600's shortly after they come out. And only that because I'm going to be putting together a new system.

Re:obligatory print version (1)

Andrzej Sawicki (921100) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769449)

It makes -no- sense to buy a 7800 once the 8500 and 8600 are released.
I beg to differ. Think cheap upgrades. These "old" cards are a long way ahead of most current games' needs, as long as you run at a low resolution (up to 1280x1024, if I read the charts correctly), and the prices for the 7 series will "probably" fall, "probably" pretty soon.

Re:obligatory print version (1)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769883)

The 8800 is a new architecture. You can't do a straight shader to shader comparison. If you did, then the 8800 GTX with it's 128 units should be six times as powerful as your 24 shader card. It's not. When comparing apples to apples, the 8800 to the 8600/8500, you can see that the hardware simply isn't going to hold up to increasingly demanding games when it has 1/3 the memory throughput and 1/4 or 1/8 the number of shaders. Look at the benchmarks that are coming out, they don't lie. The 7900s are as powerful as the 8500/8600, and depending on the game and resolution sometimes even come out quite a bit ahead.

Re:obligatory print version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18770047)

GF 7800 GTX 24 pixel shaders, 8 vertex shaders, total 32.
GF 8600 32 UNIFIED shaders - these can act as either pixel or vertex shaders.

So they have the same number of shaders, but the 8600 can dynamically reassign them based on what the game needs - a little better but not worth upgrading over.
The GF 7800 GTX also has more memory bandwidth, which can make quite a big difference.

Still, you're quite right, the 7800 GTX is now officially dead at retail (or being sold for less than the 8600). It's still a kickass card and one which I'd probably be using for the next 2 years if I had one - of course, I'd never spend $500 on a card because I know that mid- and low-end cards are much better value if you have a little patience :)

Another review at anandtech (4, Informative)

bad_fx (493443) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768417)

There's another look at these cards at anandtech, here: http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2970 [anandtech.com]

I usually find their reviews to be the best around. Always very detailed, and from what I've seen always right on the money. (They seem impressed, but their bottom line seems to be that, for now, you're better of sticking with a 7600GT, 7900GS or X1950XT if you already have one.)

In Short: Bandwidth-Starved and Overpriced (5, Interesting)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768481)

The 8600GTS delivers 40% of the performance of the 320MB 8800GTS for 70% of the price.

The 8600GT outperforms a 7600GT - but is priced like a 7900GT.

Re:In Short: Bandwidth-Starved and Overpriced (5, Funny)

wcbarksdale (621327) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768835)

Thank you for explaining some letters and numbers I don't understand in terms of some other letters and numbers I don't understand.

Re:In Short: Bandwidth-Starved and Overpriced (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769563)

I don't know if this is exactly true but this was the case for the geforce 6-series:

Ultra - Fully working and enabled gpu, fastest clockrate.
GT - Fully working and enabled gpu, not as high clock as Ultra.
GS - Partly disabled gpu.
GTO - Partly disabled gpu, lower clockrate than GS. /NU - The normal version is also called NU, Partly disabled and slower than GTO.
LE - Even more disabled gpu.
XT - As disabled as LE but with 128-bit memories.

XT was higher clocked than LE thought, but I think LE is still better.

So it goes like:

XT LE normal/NU GTO GS GT Ultra

I think once in the days there was a GTS to, I think it was higher than GT =P

I guess Geforce 8600, 8610, 8620, 8630 and so on would have made to much sense...

Re:In Short: Bandwidth-Starved and Overpriced (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769611)

Uhm, did my / make NU go up there? Guess I should have previewed :)

Should have been:
Ultra - Fully working and enabled gpu, fastest clockrate.
GT - Fully working and enabled gpu, not as high clock as Ultra.
GS - Partly disabled gpu.
GTO - Partly disabled gpu, lower clockrate than GS.
NU/nothing - The normal version is also called NU, Partly disabled and slower than GTO.
LE - Even more disabled gpu.
XT - As disabled as LE but with 128-bit memories.

What about power consumption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768483)

Do these new cards also need their own dedicated nuclear plant to run, and a 50 Amps/rail dual rail power supply?

Don't care (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768541)

As long as there is no stable, useful and fast system supporting DX10, there's no point buying a card supporting it.

Re:Don't care (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768665)

And by the time games are coming out that require DX10, these cards will be so out of date it won't even be funny... unless you're the guy laughing at your friend who went out and spent a chunk of change on a card that doesn't really have any support just because he wanted to have the biggest ePeen on the block.

Re:Don't care (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769071)

These are "midrange" cards, which means they're still pretty expensive but they certainly aren't electronic penis enhancements.

Buying these for DX10 support would indeed be stupid (they even warn against this in TFA). I got a GF 5200, which was in the first generation to support DX9. It supported it but was so slow that it couldn't play any DX9 games for shit anyway! Didn't bother me that much because it only cost 50 quid and was a huge step up from the voodoo 3 it replaced, but I could have got a GF 440 with similar performance for even less cash.

That said I think I'll buy one of these. I'm a huge Total Annihilation fan and my current PC has no chance of playing Supreme Commander, the benchmarks show that these cards can handle it very well. I'd get the ATi card that spanks them in the benchmarks, except for the ATi linux driver situation...

Re:Don't care (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768723)

As long as there is no stable, useful and fast system supporting DX10, there's no point buying a card supporting it.

What if Microsoft held a war... and nobody came?

This is pretty hilarious shit. Obviously no one gives a shit about Vista, or there'd be tons of DX10 hardware with working drivers already. It's clear that no one with lots of money is beating anyone up about this.

Re:Don't care (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769833)

Yes, there is no compelling reason to upgrade to DX10 today just to get DX10.

But to paraphrase your comment: As long you are buying a new video card, there's no point buying a card that doesn't support it.

If your still using a 5000 or 6000 series unit, an upgrade might well be in order. If you are buying a new mobo to upgrade cpu's and your existing card is AGP a new card is mandatory... for me, I think the sweet spot is the 320MB 8800GTS, but for someone on a tighter bugdet the new 8600 might be a better value than a 7600.

cheers

Re:Don't care (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18770165)

All true. But DX10 support is certainly no purchase directing feature. If card A doesn't support it but is otherwise identical with card B, but 50 bucks cheaper, card A is gonna be my choice.

I've seen far too many "Vista ready" and "Vista certified" products that were anything but that to believe that spin anymore.

Drivers, drivers, drivers (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768583)

The current Forceware drivers for Vista are the buggiest, worst performaing drivers that Nvidia has ever put out. Take a look at their forums sometime; they are trying very hard to alienate their customers.

It doesn't matter how great these cards sound on paper. Without at least decent drivers they are worthless.

Re:Drivers, drivers, drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768867)

They work great on XP. I think Vista's your problem :D

Re:Drivers, drivers, drivers (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769111)

I run them on XP as well, yes, and Linux. I referenced Vista because the topic is DX 10 related, and the cards are built for DX 10.

Re:Drivers, drivers, drivers (1)

bulled (956533) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768885)

That is what one gets when you push to the newest MS OS. However the 8800GT cards run great under linux (with the non-free drivers) and under XP and the games I play haven't looked better. The drivers for XP and linux are, in my experience, very stable.

Re:Drivers, drivers, drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768909)

Vista is shit right now, if you haven't noticed. Use XP or Ubuntu.

I laugh at you if you're actually using it.

SKUs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768653)

Since when did consumers start referring to offerings as "SKUs"? We have enough acronyms to confuse things already, there's no need for terms like this in summaries.

-UAA (Users Against Acronyms)

not objective (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768655)

The Benchmarks say one thing but the actual games (which is why most not all but most people buy these cards) show that the X1950 Pro wins most of the time. What do they actually talk about though at every possible point? How badly the X1650 XT performs.

Please. This is all bull.

Who cares? (1, Flamebait)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768725)

Why would we want DX10? It only runs under Vista at this time, and there's no way any serious gamer is going to switch to Vista. It's too fucking unstable, slow and DRM ladened to the point that you can't manipulate files without waiting for days to finish.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/16/vista_fore nsics_2/ [theregister.co.uk]

days to delete files? lucky vista didn't corrupt the drive? looking for drm bits on every file access? good god, what kind of fucked up shit is this?

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768803)

Those who want to play Crysis may have no choice about it... though I can see them releasing a DX9 patch shortly after they realize there's not enough of a market to justify DX10.

Re:Who cares? (1)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768967)

Or wait until dx10 is emulated under Wine.

I for one will not allow a game to drive a bad purchase decision (like Vista).

Re:Who cares? (1)

brunascle (994197) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769721)

looks like that's a project in this year's Summer of Code for Wine: http://wiki.winehq.org/SummerOfCode [winehq.org] (scroll to the bottom)

It's a *product*, not a SKU (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18768789)

WTF is with people calling a product a Stock Keeping Unithttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_Keeping_Uni t [wikipedia.org] ? It's a physical item, not a freaking number.

MOD PARENT UP. (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768891)

I'm glad you pointed this out Anonymous, it grinds my gears as well. Some nerds thought the acronym sounded cool, but you are quite right.

Re:It's a *product*, not a SKU (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768963)

It's marketing shorthand for a product. In companies where products are physically manufactured, this term gets tossed around a lot.

Re:It's a *product*, not a SKU (2, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769409)

You apparently haven't worked retail.

Yes, it's a Stock Keeping Unit. When a manager wants to talk about the variety on his shelf, he talks about the number of SKUs on it. Each SKU is a different item in the computer, but may be VERY close to another product in actuality. Yellow Rubberbands vs Red Rubberbands, for instance.

Like it or not, sometimes the real world carries over into our little tech paradise and we have to understand their terms. Even worse, sometimes we start using them ourselves! Oh noes!

AGP Version... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18768809)

Will these cards be out in an AGP version? I was planning to get an Sapphire ATI X1650PRO 512MB AGP video card. If nVidia has an affordable DirectX 10 video card coming out soon, I might wait.

Re:AGP Version... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769429)

I'd be very surprised. There were no AGP versions of the 7xxx series after all.

Re:AGP Version... (2, Informative)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769479)

Probably not - IMHO AGP users were lucky to get 79xx versions in AGP, which may be the last new model agp card made...

Re:AGP Version... (1)

tehmadscientist (982224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18770257)

I agree...I'm actually surprised there are so many 7xxx AGP card out. Ill be absolutely shocked if they release an 8xxx AGP card. Especially with the coming of Vista and its hunger for power/resources, i cant see agp staying around much longer.

Content? (3, Interesting)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769157)

I wouldn't worry about ATI/AMD not having DX10 hardware until their is content and a significant number of users that can use it.

1. You need a Game that supports DirectX 10, how many have been released so far?
2. You need the user to be running Windows Vista to have support for DirectX 10
3. The user needs to have also purchase a DirectX 10 graphics card to complete the loop.

It is the chicken and the egg, and history hasn't been kind to the early adopters of graphics cards that are the FIRST to implement a new API.

Re:Content? (2, Interesting)

n0w0rries (832057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769565)

I'm perfectly happy sticking with XP until...

1) There's a moderately priced, high performance DX10 video card available ($200-$250)
2) There's a way to address the DRM laden Vista (either a hack/patch/new version)
3) There's a DX10 game that I have to have that doesn't include spyware, adware, or malware.

The only way to convince big corporations that their new direction sucks is to vote with your wallet. Don't buy whatever crap they want to shove in your face. I play bf2 a lot, but didn't buy bf2142. Why? Because they never fixed the bugs in bf2, and they charge full price for a game with ads in it.

More opinions! (3, Informative)

Vigile (99919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769245)

Here are some links to other interesting reviews of these products:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?type=expert&aid=3 92 [pcper.com] tested under Vista 64-bit and shows the 8600 GTS behind the aging ATI X1950 Pro
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM yNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA== [hardocp.com] tested under XP and shows better performance on the 8600 GTS
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=8409 [hexus.net] tested under XP but not a lot of newer games

old $150 x1950 pro outdoes new $200 8600 gts (3, Insightful)

guidryp (702488) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769387)

So in short, you pay more and get less performance in hopes that someday, you will need DX10.

It seems nice of Nvidia to leave ATI/AMD a chance to beat them squarely in the $200 bracket by showing up with more memory bandwidth.

8600 is ok but hardly anything to get excited about. More about features than performance or bang/buck.

Mobile 8000 (1)

nevermore94 (789194) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769643)

Does anyone who follows this stuff have any idea how long until the 8000 series makes it to a mobile version for gaming laptops?

Pot & Kettle (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769845)

While ATI still hasn't released a DX-10-capable graphics card,

And while Nvidia still hasn't released working Vista drivers...

I would Mod the article submitter Troll -1 over the wording in this article.

shi7! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18769859)

member. GNNA (GAY BSD machines,

Why would I want one? (2, Interesting)

teflaime (738532) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769881)

I, among others, have yet to see a convincing arguement to buy a DX-10 capable video card. I'm not upgrading to Vista, until they remove their DRM supportive crap and their awful driver signing nonsense. I'll switch to an over-priced Mac first.
I don't play FPS, which is most likely to be the biggest genre that actually thinks it needs DX-10.
My next logical upgrade will be to dual SLIs, unless I can't use dual monitors with them (I know some people who said they've had trouble with SLI and dual monitors, but I haven't researched it much because I'm not upgrading right now).

ISA (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18770139)

Yes, but is this card available in ISA format?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?