New Ultra High End Price Point With GeForce 8800 Ultra
by Derek Wilson on May 2, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Final Words
Often, when reviewing hardware, it is difficult to draw a hard line and state with total confidence that our conclusions are the only logical ones that can be drawn from the facts. We try very hard to eliminate personal opinion from our reviews and provide readers with enough information to form their own educated opinions. We try to point out the downsides of the best products out there, as well as the niche uses for which otherwise disappointing hardware might shine. So often our job is about balance and temperance.
But not this time: The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra is an utter waste of money.
Let's review the facts. First, our performance data shows the 8800 Ultra to perform on par with our EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTX KO ACS3. Certainly the 8800 Ultra nudges the EVGA part out of the lead, but the performance difference is minimal at best. The price difference, however, is huge. We can easily find the EVGA card for its retail price of $650, while NVIDIA expects us to pay $180 more for what amounts to a repositioned cooling fan and updated silicon. Foxconn also offers an overclocked GTX for $550 that has essentially the same clocks as the EVGA KO ACS3 (Foxconn is 630/2000 versus 626/2000 for EVGA), making $830 even more unreasonable.
Add to that the fact that we've tested over a dozen 8800 GTX parts since their launch last year, and every single card we've tested has reached higher core clock speeds than the 8800 Ultra with overclocking. We know that increasing core clock speed using nTune causes shader clock speed to increase as well. Setting an 8800 GTX core clock to 621 would give us a shader clock of ~1450MHz, coming close to the 8800 Ultra level. The extra 50MHz increase in shader clock speed won't have a very large impact on performance as we have seen in our clock scaling tests.
All this leaves memory speed as the 8800 Ultra's only real advantage: none of the memory on 8800 GTX parts we've tested can reach 1080MHz from the base 900MHz. The only problem is that this doesn't give the part enough of a boost to matter in current real world performance tests.
With GPU revisions including layout changes, process tweaks, and an improved cooling solution, the least we would expect from the creation of a new price point in the consumer graphics market is a new level of performance. Price isn't the issue here: it's all about the value. It would be difficult even for a professional gamer to justify the purchase of an 8800 Ultra over the EVGA overclocked GTX. This incarnation of the G80 is even less justifiable than Intel's Extreme processors or AMD's FX line.
Certainly, placing some value in overclockability is fair. The problem here is that the stock speed at which the card runs offers no real added value over an already available overclocked 8800 GTX. If the overclockability of the G80 A3 silicon is its key point, why not simply offer the chips to add-in card builders at a premium and allow them to make custom overclocked boards at the speeds they choose? Let them call it an 8800 Ultra without defining a (rather low) stock speed for the new cards.
If user overclocking is where it's at, then standard 8800 GTX speeds are fine. Call it an 8800 Ultra because it features A3 silicon, market it towards overclockers, and sell it at a price premium. But don't try to sell us on 612/1500/1080 clock speeds.
With a push towards targeting overclockers we have to wonder: if there is so much headroom in the 8800 Ultra, why not offer us stock clock speeds that make a real performance difference?
We are all for higher performance, and we don't mind higher prices. But it is ridiculous to charge an exorbitant amount of money for something that doesn't offer any benefit over a product already on the market. $830 isn't the issue. In fact, we would love to see a graphics card worth $830. The 8800 Ultra just isn't it.
Often, when reviewing hardware, it is difficult to draw a hard line and state with total confidence that our conclusions are the only logical ones that can be drawn from the facts. We try very hard to eliminate personal opinion from our reviews and provide readers with enough information to form their own educated opinions. We try to point out the downsides of the best products out there, as well as the niche uses for which otherwise disappointing hardware might shine. So often our job is about balance and temperance.
But not this time: The NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra is an utter waste of money.
Let's review the facts. First, our performance data shows the 8800 Ultra to perform on par with our EVGA e-GeForce 8800 GTX KO ACS3. Certainly the 8800 Ultra nudges the EVGA part out of the lead, but the performance difference is minimal at best. The price difference, however, is huge. We can easily find the EVGA card for its retail price of $650, while NVIDIA expects us to pay $180 more for what amounts to a repositioned cooling fan and updated silicon. Foxconn also offers an overclocked GTX for $550 that has essentially the same clocks as the EVGA KO ACS3 (Foxconn is 630/2000 versus 626/2000 for EVGA), making $830 even more unreasonable.
Add to that the fact that we've tested over a dozen 8800 GTX parts since their launch last year, and every single card we've tested has reached higher core clock speeds than the 8800 Ultra with overclocking. We know that increasing core clock speed using nTune causes shader clock speed to increase as well. Setting an 8800 GTX core clock to 621 would give us a shader clock of ~1450MHz, coming close to the 8800 Ultra level. The extra 50MHz increase in shader clock speed won't have a very large impact on performance as we have seen in our clock scaling tests.
All this leaves memory speed as the 8800 Ultra's only real advantage: none of the memory on 8800 GTX parts we've tested can reach 1080MHz from the base 900MHz. The only problem is that this doesn't give the part enough of a boost to matter in current real world performance tests.
With GPU revisions including layout changes, process tweaks, and an improved cooling solution, the least we would expect from the creation of a new price point in the consumer graphics market is a new level of performance. Price isn't the issue here: it's all about the value. It would be difficult even for a professional gamer to justify the purchase of an 8800 Ultra over the EVGA overclocked GTX. This incarnation of the G80 is even less justifiable than Intel's Extreme processors or AMD's FX line.
Certainly, placing some value in overclockability is fair. The problem here is that the stock speed at which the card runs offers no real added value over an already available overclocked 8800 GTX. If the overclockability of the G80 A3 silicon is its key point, why not simply offer the chips to add-in card builders at a premium and allow them to make custom overclocked boards at the speeds they choose? Let them call it an 8800 Ultra without defining a (rather low) stock speed for the new cards.
If user overclocking is where it's at, then standard 8800 GTX speeds are fine. Call it an 8800 Ultra because it features A3 silicon, market it towards overclockers, and sell it at a price premium. But don't try to sell us on 612/1500/1080 clock speeds.
With a push towards targeting overclockers we have to wonder: if there is so much headroom in the 8800 Ultra, why not offer us stock clock speeds that make a real performance difference?
We are all for higher performance, and we don't mind higher prices. But it is ridiculous to charge an exorbitant amount of money for something that doesn't offer any benefit over a product already on the market. $830 isn't the issue. In fact, we would love to see a graphics card worth $830. The 8800 Ultra just isn't it.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
ssidbroadcast - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
$300-$200 more for an overclock? That's it?For that much more money, buy a GTX, take off the stupid heatsink that takes up a whole slot, and spend the extra 200-300 on a decent water cooler.
nVidia is getting just plain arrogant now. C'mon, AMTi... pull it together!
MadBoris - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Obviously it's the best nvidia could do with the time they had to compete with the R600. They came out with something to maintain perfromance crown, better than nothing.Obviously not worth the price...
Question is...HOW DOES THIS CARD OVERCLOCK?
How fast can this card really go with core and mem?
sxr7171 - Thursday, May 3, 2007 - link
Yeah it is a trophy card. They had to do it for good PR. Now if anyone actually buys it, I guess that's a bonus for Nvidia. There are a good number of people in the world with more money than they know what to do with. This is for those people who buy $300 shirts regularly or don't think twice before dropping $20,000 on a sofa.bob4432 - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
this kind of b.s. from a company will mean i will probably never buy another nvidia gpu, and after my next build another m/b based on their chipset. this is a complete joke and i can't wait for amd/ati to put out something soon. the x1950x is a good card but needs a big brother that is dx10.this has got to be the dumbest thing i have seen since the killernic...this move should even make the fanboys question their allegiance.
sxr7171 - Thursday, May 3, 2007 - link
You are the fanboy for getting so riled up over this and thinking that you shouldn't buy Nvidia's currently superior products because of it. If you have $300 to spend on a video card, there is nothing that beats an 8800GTS now. What does Nvidia releasing a BS $830 card have to do with the excellent price/performance you have been able to get from their other products since late last year.The dumbest thing I have seen is people who will wait to buy something only from a specific company to get poorer performance for their dollar. It is the same kind of sucker who would buy the 8800GTX Ultra.
ss284 - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
This kind of BS happens because ATI can't come out with anything to beat the 8800gtx, even 6+ months after it was released. Nvidia is price gouging because they really have no competition. The R600 is a complete joke, hopefully the coming reviews will shed some light on why.defter - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Can you tell me what is the difference between $999 Q6700 and $530 Q6600? The price difference is huge, $470...coldpower27 - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
Unlocked Multiplier and 266MHZ more.mlambert890 - Friday, May 4, 2007 - link
Also, the 266 Mhz more and the "Extreme" branding means that the silicon tested higher. People seem to not want to place value on that, but then they get pissed if they're the one that buys the cheap part that will NOT o'clock. If you opt for the budget version, just realize that its a gamble. The "Extreme" parts are essentially geared towards o'clocking and should oclock.For example, getting my QX6700 to 3.2 was effortless and 3.46 required only a minor voltage bump. On water and with a bit more voltage I can do 3.7 but it gets hotter than I would like so I keep it at 3.46. Many people do better than I with the QX6700. This is ALL just multiplier also... NO FSB o'clock so NO need for better RAM and a mobo that isnt picky with FSB o'clocking.
personally, I think there is a LOT of value in all of that. People who dont can buy the cheaper part and feel the Extreme is a "ripoff".
The QX6700 vs. Q6600 is NOT analgous to this situation with the 8800GTX Ultra. NVidia is being ridiculous.
Staples - Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - link
This is just like CPUs the past few years which are 10% faster, the price is usually 50% or more. This is getting crazy without ATI in the market.