[first look] Geforce 8800GS 192bit 384MB/768MB released [keep updating the thread]

http://www.expreview.com/img//news/2007/12/28/spec.png

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/2007/12/28/88GS-2.jpg
Geforce 8800GS 192bit 384MB

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/2007/12/28/88GS-5.jpg

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/2007/12/28/88GS-4.jpg

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071228/768003.jpg
Geforce 8800GS 192bit 384MB

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/071228/768013.jpg

Quote:

---

NVIDIA is going to release Geforce 8800GS 192bit 384MB and 768MB soon, but this time non-reference version comes first. We don’t know it will come so fast, but the card is here. Not only Yeston, but Unika and Gainward also will release their 8800GS soon. If you like, you can read the small test posted earlier.


The first card showing up today is a Yeston 8800GS made by Palit. The Card only have 6 memory chip, and the mark on the GPU is G92-150. The SP is not 96 we mentioned earlier, but 112, the same with 8800GT.

The second card in the next page is 8800GS 192bit 768MB GDDR3. The main difference is the core and shader clock higher than 384MB version. 384MB have a HDMI slot while 768MB have two DVI. 768MB version’s memory chip is from Samsumg, have 12 memory chips totally.

The price tag of 8800GS 384MB will be 1199CNY, about 164USD, 8800GS 768MB will be 1499CNY, about 204USD.

Though this is a Yeston card, but other brand’s first shipment of 8800GS will all look the same, they are all made by Palit. So if you are expecting a different 8800GS, wait.

---

original post @ Expreview.com

1st update:

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...8gs-06-1_1.jpg

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...8gs-05-1_1.jpg

http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...8gs-03-1_1.jpg

the Original @ Expreview.com

2nd update:

finally we get the card from Ｙeston today. before busy reviewing the product, we use Rivatuner to read its specification. Because we also have a doubt like you guys: is it really a 112SP card?

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...gs_coreram.jpg

We are sure GPU-Z’s database have no info about the card, so we try Rivatuner. Because Rivatuner have a unencrypted database so we can add 8800GS’ device ID “0606″.

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...0gs_info_s.jpg
After adding the device ID, it is able to read the GPU’s actual speciation: 192-bit G92(A2,96sp) with 384MB DDR3.

So we once again fooled by manufactory PR,and we are sorry for the misleading information, that’s not we intended to. The card will hit china market this week, and a company even begin their “purchase in advance” compaign.

Wouldnt a 192 bit card with 768 memory have a servere bottle neck ram wise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmaKKed

Wouldnt a 192 bit card with 768 memory have a servere bottle neck ram wise?

---

humm not sure.. could do but im pretty sure 192bit is just so they can keep it cheap and avoid 128 as theyve already seen it sucks.

there is another test about 256m/512/1024m 8800gt compare with 14 test,but no eng version now.

Chinese version:Expreview

So there is going to be a 768MB version. I was wondering about that.

That's actually pretty kick-ass for $200, especially with the 112sp. It's no 8800gt for $200 (like what was supposed to happen) but certainly not bad.

Sure memory bandwidth is kinda of low, but it's not terrible...It could be worse, they could be using 1400/1600mhz-rated GDDR3.

I wonder what the price of these will become when the 8800gt's switch over to the 6 layer PCBs and eventually become cheaper?

At least Nvidia is finally getting something out worth-while is the ~<$200 market.

Thanks for the updates EXP.

idd 768MB version would be a very good value for the card. When are these cards comming, Early Feb?

thanks for sharing cookerjc :toast:

Hmmmm since the core has so many bits disabled (16 shaders and 4 rops) maybe that'll allow for higher OC which could compensate and match the 88GT even when it's OC'd.

Either way you look at it, its an excellent card for the budget market, gen2 dx10, decent memory size, decent memory bandwidth for casual gaming (1280x1024 or 1440x900) and going by initial bench's its a pretty large performance increase over current budget cards.

Just a shame that $200 for the 768mb version will unlikely translate to £100 here in good old england. Probably end up selling for about £130/140 here or $260/280.

Looking forward to 9800GTX though thats my next purchase, kinda need it use a 24" now, poor 2900XT is in tears when i play crysis.

I think they've made enough variants of the 8800 line. Seriously they need to release a new flagship. All this mid-range crap is pissing me off. How many "mid-range" cards have been released or announced in the past month?

9600GT
8800GT
8800GTS (G92)
8800GS
3850
3870
2900 PRO
2900 GT

It's seriously getting monotonous. From both companies. I think it's time to release a new card when games are getting to where an 8800 Ultra can't get 60 FPS at high settings. And I don't think any amount of drivers will help.

Yea lol Nvidia keeps them rollin

Thank ATI (+ greedy NVIDIA) for that. Until there's no competition in highend section, no new highend card. A good example how stagnant market can be like when there's lack of serious competition.

What sucks most is that new highend cards are getting needed now with huge LCD displays only getting cheaper and more popular so it's not like new cards aren't needed yet. Whoever releases a new decent highend card first will probably see a decent sales number growth.

They needed a 512MB version @ 164 or slightly more. Performance wise, this will be lacking versus the HD3850, but may sway the unenlightened this is aimed at with the 768MB model.

Didnt nvidia say there wouldnt be a 8800GS a while back? lol. Its good to see the mid to highrange doing alot better than previous gens. The gap between 8600GTS and 8800GTS was just retarded.

Updated the 1st thread with some quick tests.

Not bad scores for a (hopefully) ~$164 card. HD3850 seems to get a tough opponent but I'm sure actual game benchmarks will show a bit more even results between these cards. Too bad the mem bus is only 192bit and will bottleneck in newer GPU demanding games or in high res or filters applied. 256bit is the minimum I'd go for if I wanna use a card that's gonna last at least some months ~ 1 year for decent frames in newer games. Hope 192bit or 256bit becomes low-end as of when Geforce 9 series arrives with highend cards being 512bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cookerjc

Updated the 1st thread with some quick tests.

---

that looks to be a very solid midrange card. 6750 at stock and card at stock?

can you try a little oc and maybe an sli run?

thanks for the preview! :up:

card is slightly overclocked at core, shader and memory. (look values in table and compare to the ones on screenshot)

results are quite similar to 3850 at stock so i wouldn't be too excited about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realsmasher

card is slightly overclocked at core, shader and memory. (look values in table and compare to the ones on screenshot)

results are quite similar to 3850 at stock so i wouldn't be too excited about it.

---

i sure am going to get excited about it if it becomes cheaper than the 3850 and if it oc's well.:D

would be nice of course, but i'm not seeing this at the moment.

8600gts still prices just like 3850, while being MUCH slower.

so 8800gs will be much faster then 8600gts but even cheaper ? doubt it.

Old products rarely adopt to change as they "should" be (ie huge price drops) when new products appear (compare 7900GTX when 8800GTX arrived). Older products have a tendense to have a more stagnant price and often overpriced or get a pricedrop depending on stock status in the end. Since every1 isn't that aware of the hardware market what products are the "smart buy" and let some guy in a store choose the parts etc they still get sold despite the relatively high price. So I wouldn't say it would be impossible.

Good example is the E6600 CPU which many people still think is the "wise" buy today when E6750 would be a lot smarter choise... Every1 aint as smart as people as XS you know when it comes to computers & hardware. Personally I'd guess it ends up in the 130~150 EUR range for 384MB though in Germany.

Updated with new info.
we fooled by company PR! :mad: it is only 96SP...

LOL castrated 8800GT :rofl:

8800GR, G, G1/2 coming soon. Guess it seems they are trying to get rid of the number change for low and mid end cards i see. Actually kind of a smart move marketing wise.

... we really dont need another one. and definiatly not 2. give amd a chance nvidia lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zytek_Fan

LOL castrated 8800GT :rofl:

---

Definitely QFT.

I'm just laughing at the 768MB. Why!?! :ROTF:

Where would this go? Between the 8800 GT 256MB and the 8800 GT 512MB!?

8800GT 256
8800GS 384
8800GT 512
8800GS 768
8800GT 1024
8800GTS 512

Although I would expect the 8800GT with 256MB to still outperform the 8800GS with 384MB simply because it has 112 SP and a larger memory bus.


Also, if this card is coming out in February, I'd expect this would compete with ATI's low-midrange lineup and offer DisplayPort..!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by turtle

So there is going to be a 768MB version. I was wondering about that.

That's actually pretty kick-ass for $200, especially with the 112sp. It's no 8800gt for $200 (like what was supposed to happen) but certainly not bad.

Sure memory bandwidth is kinda of low, but it's not terrible...It could be worse, they could be using 1400/1600mhz-rated GDDR3.

I wonder what the price of these will become when the 8800gt's switch over to the 6 layer PCBs and eventually become cheaper?

At least Nvidia is finally getting something out worth-while is the ~<$200 market.

Thanks for the updates EXP.

---

I'm reading that these are 96 sp , 12 ROPS , and 192 bit bus -- that is quite a crippling. I'd avoid this card -- The HD3850 cards will beat this card especially at 1900x1200 (and they were easily found through bestbuy over the holiday for $150) -- Nvidia does have something worthwhile for <$200 - $199 to be exact; I have one on the way from Newegg (they quickly went out of stock) - it's the Gigabyte 8800GT 256MB card w/ the Zalman cooler, comes factory overclocked at a blazing 700mhz , which matches and beats stock 8800gt 512MB cards in most all situations (unless you want to run 1900x1200 with 8x AA, which I find ridiculous) - The Gigabyte card will obliterate this upcoming 8800gs card, no contest. Also, to address all the DDR3 memory speed references -- memory speed does not make that much of a difference in real world gaming performance (there's a review online, google it, that compares separate differences between overclocking core speed and ram speed independently) - anything over 1400MHZ will be fine, and lower clocked DDR3 on newer cards is running tighter timings vs higher clocked ram with looser timings (just like DDR vs. DDR2) - overclocking will be more effective on lower clocked ram since loosening timings scale as you up the clocks where as ram such as 1900mhz DDR3 is already at very loose timings. Maybe that made a bit of sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DShankar

Definitely QFT.

I'm just laughing at the 768MB. Why!?! :ROTF:

Where would this go? Between the 8800 GT 256MB and the 8800 GT 512MB!?

8800GT 256
8800GS 384
8800GT 512
8800GS 768
8800GT 1024
8800GTS 512

Although I would expect the 8800GT with 256MB to still outperform the 8800GS with 384MB simply because it has 112 SP and a larger memory bus.


Also, if this card is coming out in February, I'd expect this would compete with ATI's low-midrange lineup and offer DisplayPort..!?

---

Nope, the 8800gt 256MB would blow the 8800gs out of the water, including the 768MB card except in maybe a rare instance at 1920x1200 at 8x AA and 16xAF. Onboard Ram amount is not the determining factor unless you run super high resolution with antialiasing (which I know I don't run, nor anybody I know - no need for AA at super high res from what I've seen)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Nope, the 8800gt 256MB would blow the 8800gs out of the water, including the 768MB card except in maybe a rare instance at 1920x1200 at 8x AA and 16xAF. Onboard Ram amount is not the determining factor unless you run super high resolution with antialiasing (which I know I don't run, nor anybody I know - no need for AA at super high res from what I've seen)

---

Actually, 256MB of VRAM tends to struggle on anything higher than 1280x1024 on most modern games.

For 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 I wouldn't be surprised to see the 8800GS 384MB outperform it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

Actually, 256MB of VRAM tends to struggle on anything higher than 1280x1024 on most modern games.

For 1680x1050 or 1600x1200 I wouldn't be surprised to see the 8800GS 384MB outperform it.

---

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong - how do you think that card is much different than an 8800gts 320MB, which doesn't do anything spectacular at higher resolutions (64 MB will not make the difference). Your assumptions are incorrect - it might struggle if you are talking about 1900x1200 with 4x AA 16xAF (and that's only in few games). At 1680x1050 even with full antialiasing, you are still good go go with an 8800gt 256MB card & it performs identical to the 8800gt 512MB in all games except Crysis -- that's a fact, a link below for your reference (Since you can't seem to do your own research) . I am finding this common theme that folks on forums simply aren't doing their homework and have no idea what they are talking about, nor even attempt to gather data to back up there posts. Mental laziness is a bad habit.

Summary: the 8800gs, or the mythical 9600gt , are not going to be able to compete with even a 256MB 8800gt at all resolutions and even 4x antialiasing up to 1680x1050 or 1600x1200.

http://en.expreview.com/?p=64&page=8


Here's one little example for you, and I'd say Call of duty 4 is would be a good example of intensive graphics & representative of a graphics engine good for a year -- the 8800gs would be lucky to simply match the HD3850 here:

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...mb/cod4_01.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong - how do you think that card is much different than an 8800gts 320MB, which doesn't do anything spectacular at higher resolutions (64 MB will not make the difference). Your assumptions are incorrect - it might struggle if you are talking about 1900x1200 with 4x AA 16xAF (and that's only in few games). At 1680x1050 even with full antialiasing, you are still good go go with an 8800gt 256MB card & it performs identical to the 8800gt 512MB in all games except Crysis -- that's a fact, a link below for your reference (Since you can't seem to do your own research) . I am finding this common theme that folks on forums simply aren't doing their homework and have no idea what they are talking about, nor even attempt to gather data to back up there posts. Mental laziness is a bad habit.

Summary: the 8800gs, or the mythical 9600gt , are not going to be able to compete with even a 256MB 8800gt at all resolutions and even 4x antialiasing up to 1680x1050 or 1600x1200.

http://en.expreview.com/?p=64&page=8


Here's one little example for you, and I'd say Call of duty 4 is would be a good example of intensive graphics & representative of a graphics engine good for a year -- the 8800gs would be lucky to simply match the HD3850 here:

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...mb/cod4_01.png

---

Take a chill pill. No need to be so rude, especially since you've just joined.
A forum is a place of opinion, and while some may suck, I find no problem in saying,
"hey I've seen these test scores, check them out". No need to slander people.
Knowledge is power, share the wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong - how do you think that card is much different than an 8800gts 320MB, which doesn't do anything spectacular at higher resolutions (64 MB will not make the difference). Your assumptions are incorrect - it might struggle if you are talking about 1900x1200 with 4x AA 16xAF (and that's only in few games). At 1680x1050 even with full antialiasing, you are still good go go with an 8800gt 256MB card & it performs identical to the 8800gt 512MB in all games except Crysis -- that's a fact, a link below for your reference (Since you can't seem to do your own research) . I am finding this common theme that folks on forums simply aren't doing their homework and have no idea what they are talking about, nor even attempt to gather data to back up there posts. Mental laziness is a bad habit.

Summary: the 8800gs, or the mythical 9600gt , are not going to be able to compete with even a 256MB 8800gt at all resolutions and even 4x antialiasing up to 1680x1050 or 1600x1200.

http://en.expreview.com/?p=64&page=8


Here's one little example for you, and I'd say Call of duty 4 is would be a good example of intensive graphics & representative of a graphics engine good for a year -- the 8800gs would be lucky to simply match the HD3850 here:

http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...mb/cod4_01.png

---

please read this

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=171466

as you can see in a few games it is close to the 512mb and in others even not as demanding games it loses out at 1280x1024 with AA and it can't even run crysis 1280x1024 noAA without taking a hit.

this is only the beginning as well, newer games will use more and more. in many of those cases a 8800gs with 384mb vram will win while being cheaper as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Well, actually, you are utterly and completely wrong... (quote shortened to save room)

---

One game does not represent all. I actually happen to own a 8800GTS 320 and I do know what I am talking about. I play on a 22" 1680 x 1050 display and certain games (Crysis being a prime example, but there are many others) are running out of VRAM. I have to carefully manage texture sizes as well as AA settings to make sure games are playable. In hindsight, I should have probably spent an extra $50 for the 8800GTS 640, but like they say, hindsight is 20/20. ;)

I stand by my claim that 256MB is simply not enough for anything over 1280 x 1024, especially the latest DX10 titles. I am having enough trouble tweaking game settings to make them playable with 320MB, I can only imagine what 256MB would be like. I suggest you go over the link hipno provided, and get educated before calling others ignorant. ;)

Here is a summary of 256MB vs 512MB vs 1GB
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...rd_roundup.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epsilon84

One game does not represent all. I actually happen to own a 8800GTS 320 and I do know what I am talking about. I play on a 22" 1680 x 1050 display and certain games (Crysis being a prime example, but there are many others) are running out of VRAM. I have to carefully manage texture sizes as well as AA settings to make sure games are playable. In hindsight, I should have probably spent an extra $50 for the 8800GTS 640, but like they say, hindsight is 20/20. ;)

I stand by my claim that 256MB is simply not enough for anything over 1280 x 1024, especially the latest DX10 titles. I am having enough trouble tweaking game settings to make them playable with 320MB, I can only imagine what 256MB would be like. I suggest you go over the link hipno provided, and get educated before calling others ignorant. ;)

Here is a summary of 256MB vs 512MB vs 1GB
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/...rd_roundup.png

---

Quite a few of these numbers in your comparison are not confirmed by other reviews, from more reputable sites like firingsquad -- while I think expreview is quite, it's obvious that they either had a serious flaw in their testing or the comparisons are just plain wrong -- Specifically The world in conflict and company of heroes comparison is not adding up, and I'm not buying it. While I agree that the 8800gt 512MB is a better bet for many people that play at high resolutions with 4x AA enabled -- The 8800gt 256MB is excellent value for those like me and others I know that play at higher resolutions without AA (AA is pointless in higher resolutions in my opinion) - like I said in my original post. I am not denying the performance differences at 4x and 8x AA at ultra high resolutions , but's it's not going to affect a large amount of gamers who either play at lower res, still have smaller LCD monitors, or just don't really care about antialiasing and would rather have smoothness and high frame rates.

This review here, http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page10.asp
, shows numbers that debunk some of the data in your chart & confirms the fact that the 256MB 8800gt performs identical to the higher Vram cards in most gaming situations that concern me.

But I definitely stand by my opinion that the 8800gs 384MB cards (whenever they come to light) will not even be in the same league as the 8800gt 256MB even at ultra high resolutions. I'm not sure why the specs of that card would suggest otherwise, and it seems quite careless to think so -- It's rather obvious that it will not. Since I was responding in my previous post to a guy who stated that an 8800gs could beat the 8800gt , I still think it's pretty darn ignorant to think a 384MB card with the specs of the 8800gs would in any way compete with the 8800gt 256MB card.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pdiggs

Quite a few of these numbers in your comparison are not confirmed by other reviews, from more reputable sites like firingsquad -- while I think expreview is quite, it's obvious that they either had a serious flaw in their testing or the comparisons are just plain wrong -- Specifically The world in conflict and company of heroes comparison is not adding up, and I'm not buying it. While I agree that the 8800gt 512MB is a better bet for many people that play at high resolutions with 4x AA enabled -- The 8800gt 256MB is excellent value for those like me and others I know that play at higher resolutions without AA (AA is pointless in higher resolutions in my opinion) - like I said in my original post. I am not denying the performance differences at 4x and 8x AA at ultra high resolutions , but's it's not going to affect a large amount of gamers who either play at lower res, still have smaller LCD monitors, or just don't really care about antialiasing and would rather have smoothness and high frame rates.

This review here, http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...iew/page10.asp
, shows numbers that debunk some of the data in your chart & confirms the fact that the 256MB 8800gt performs identical to the higher Vram cards in most gaming situations that concern me.

But I definitely stand by my opinion that the 8800gs 384MB cards (whenever they come to light) will not even be in the same league as the 8800gt 256MB even at ultra high resolutions. I'm not sure why the specs of that card would suggest otherwise, and it seems quite careless to think so -- It's rather obvious that it will not. Since I was responding in my previous post to a guy who stated that an 8800gs could beat the 8800gt , I still think it's pretty darn ignorant to think a 384MB card with the specs of the 8800gs would in any way compete with the 8800gt 256MB card.

---

How are their numbers wrong? They are using different settings.

Systems and drivers may differ too. Too lazy to compare.

The numbers are well within an acceptable margin of error.

I think the GS name is just a marketing ploy, possibly to draw those in who found great overclocking success with the 7900GS -- I love my 7900GSs and have overclocked them to the same speeds as my fastest 7900GTs. But, as many have stated and as the benchies show, I don't think they are comparable. I also don't like that they went back to the PCB reference design that they used with the G90 series, since I have an NV Silencer 5 waiting to be lovingly placed on 8800GT 512MB. But, I'm waiting for the 8800GT 512mb to drop below $200, so it may be a while... ;)

Has anyone been able to overclock these cards? I have tried using Riva and that is a no go. ATi Tool and nVhard page do not work. Using coolbits and nTune looks like it's going to work, but it does not actually set the clocks I select (it says it does, but does not).
This is on a second system, so it's not crucial, but I sure would love to test out the OCing ability of this card.