NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT: The Only Card That Matters
by Derek Wilson on October 29, 2007 9:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The First PCIe 2.0 Graphics Card
NVIDIA's 8800 GT is the "world's first consumer GPU to support PCI Express 2.0." Although AMD's Radeon HD 2400/2600 have PCIe 2.0 bandwidth, they don't implement the full spec, leaving the 8800 GT technically the first full PCIe 2.0 GPU. Currently, the only motherboard chipset out that that could take advantage of this is Intel's X38. We have yet to play with benchmarks on PCIe 2.0, but we don't expect any significant impact on current games and consumer applications. Currently we aren't bandwidth limited by PCIe 1.1 with its 4GB/sec in each direction, so it's unlikely that the speed boost would really help. This sentiment is confirmed by game developers and NVIDIA, but if any of our internal tests show anything different we'll certainly put a follow-up together.
PCIe 2.0 itself offers double the speed of the original spec. This means pairing a x16 PCIe 2.0 GPU with a x16 electrical PCIe 2.0 slot on a motherboard will offer 8GB/sec of bandwidth upstream and downstream (16GB/sec total bandwidth). This actually brings us to an inflection point in the industry: the CPU now has a faster connection to the GPU than to main system memory (compared to 800MHz DDR2). When we move to 1066MHz and 1333MHz DDR3, system memory will be faster, but for now most people will still be using 800MHz memory even with PCIe 2.0. PCIe 3.0 promises to double the bandwidth again from version 2.0, which would likely put a graphics card ahead of memory in terms of potential CPU I/O speed again. This will still be limited by the read and write speed of the graphics card itself, which has traditionally left a lot to be desired. Hopefully GPU makers will catch up with this and offer faster GPU memory read speeds as well.
For now, the only key point is that the card supports PCIe 2.0, and moving forward in bandwidth before we need it is a terrific step in enabling developers by giving them the potential to make use of a feature before there is an immediate need. This is certainly a good thing, as massively parallel processing, multiGPU, physics on the graphics card and other GPU computing techniques and technologies threaten to become mainstream. While we may not see applications that push PCIe 2.0 in the near term, moving over to the new spec is an important step, and we're glad to see it happening at this pace. But there are no real tangible benefits to the consumer right now either.
The transition to PCIe 2.0 won't be anything like the move from AGP to PCIe. The cards and motherboards are backwards and forwards compatible. PCIe 1.0 and 1.1 compliant cards can be plugged into a PCIe 2.0 motherboard, and PCIe 2.0 cards can be plugged into older motherboards. This leaves us with zero impact on the consumer due to PCIe 2.0, in more ways than one.
NVIDIA's 8800 GT is the "world's first consumer GPU to support PCI Express 2.0." Although AMD's Radeon HD 2400/2600 have PCIe 2.0 bandwidth, they don't implement the full spec, leaving the 8800 GT technically the first full PCIe 2.0 GPU. Currently, the only motherboard chipset out that that could take advantage of this is Intel's X38. We have yet to play with benchmarks on PCIe 2.0, but we don't expect any significant impact on current games and consumer applications. Currently we aren't bandwidth limited by PCIe 1.1 with its 4GB/sec in each direction, so it's unlikely that the speed boost would really help. This sentiment is confirmed by game developers and NVIDIA, but if any of our internal tests show anything different we'll certainly put a follow-up together.
PCIe 2.0 itself offers double the speed of the original spec. This means pairing a x16 PCIe 2.0 GPU with a x16 electrical PCIe 2.0 slot on a motherboard will offer 8GB/sec of bandwidth upstream and downstream (16GB/sec total bandwidth). This actually brings us to an inflection point in the industry: the CPU now has a faster connection to the GPU than to main system memory (compared to 800MHz DDR2). When we move to 1066MHz and 1333MHz DDR3, system memory will be faster, but for now most people will still be using 800MHz memory even with PCIe 2.0. PCIe 3.0 promises to double the bandwidth again from version 2.0, which would likely put a graphics card ahead of memory in terms of potential CPU I/O speed again. This will still be limited by the read and write speed of the graphics card itself, which has traditionally left a lot to be desired. Hopefully GPU makers will catch up with this and offer faster GPU memory read speeds as well.
For now, the only key point is that the card supports PCIe 2.0, and moving forward in bandwidth before we need it is a terrific step in enabling developers by giving them the potential to make use of a feature before there is an immediate need. This is certainly a good thing, as massively parallel processing, multiGPU, physics on the graphics card and other GPU computing techniques and technologies threaten to become mainstream. While we may not see applications that push PCIe 2.0 in the near term, moving over to the new spec is an important step, and we're glad to see it happening at this pace. But there are no real tangible benefits to the consumer right now either.
The transition to PCIe 2.0 won't be anything like the move from AGP to PCIe. The cards and motherboards are backwards and forwards compatible. PCIe 1.0 and 1.1 compliant cards can be plugged into a PCIe 2.0 motherboard, and PCIe 2.0 cards can be plugged into older motherboards. This leaves us with zero impact on the consumer due to PCIe 2.0, in more ways than one.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
90 Comments
View All Comments
vijay333 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
just activated the step-up on my current 8800GTS 320MB -- after shipping costs and discounting the MIR from back then, I actually get the 8800GT 512MB for -$12 :)bespoke - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Lucky bastard! :)vijay333 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
hehe...great timing too. only had 5 days remaining before the 90day limit for the step-up program expired :)clockerspiel - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Genrally, Anandtech does an excellent job with it's reviews and uses robust benchmarking methodology. Any ideas why the Tech Report's results are so different?http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13479">http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/13479
Frumious1 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Simply put? TechReport is doing some funny stuff (like HardOCP often does) with their benchmarking on this one. I have a great idea: let's find the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the 8800 GT vs. the 8800 GTS 640 and then ONLY show those resolutions! 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF? Ignoring the fact that 16xAF isn't noticeably different from 8xAF - and that 4xAA is hardly necessary at 2560x1600 there are just too many questions left by the TR review. They generally come to the same conclusion that this is a great card, but it's almost like they're struggling to find ANY situation where the 8800 GT might not be as good as the 8800 GTS 640.For a different, more comprehensive look at the 8800 GT, why not try http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce...">the FiringSquad review? They test at a variety of resolutions with a decent selection of GPUs and games. Out of all of their results, the only situation where the 8800 GTS 640 comes out ahead of the 8800 GT is in Crysis at 2xAA/8xAF at 1920x1200. Granted, they don't have 2560x1600 resolutions in their results, but how many midrange people use 30" LCDs? For that matter, how many highend gamers use 30" LCDs? I'm sure they're nice, but for $1300+ I have a lot of other stuff I'd be interested in purchasing!
There are a lot of things that we don't know about testing methodology with all of the reviews. What exact detail settings are used, for example, and more importantly how realistic are those settings? Remember Doom 3's High Quality and Ultra Quality? Running everything with uncompressed textures to artificially help 512MB cards appear better than 256MB cards is stupid. Side by side screenshots showed virtually no difference. I don't know what the texture settings are in the Crysis demo, but I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people are maxing everything out and then crying about performance. Being a next gen title, I bet Crysis has the ability to stress the 1GB cards - whether or not it really results in an improved visual experience.
Maybe we can get some image quality comparisons when the game actually launches, though - because admittedly I could be totally wrong and the Crysis settings might be reasonable.
Frumious1 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Simply put? TechReport is doing some funny stuff (like HardOCP often does) with their benchmarking on this one. I have a great idea: let's find the WORST CASE SCENARIO for the 8800 GT vs. the 8800 GTS 640 and then ONLY show those resolutions! 2560x1600 4xAA/16xAF? Ignoring the fact that 16xAF isn't noticeably different from 8xAF - and that 4xAA is hardly necessary at 2560x1600 there are just too many questions left by the TR review. They generally come to the same conclusion that this is a great card, but it's almost like they're struggling to find ANY situation where the 8800 GT might not be as good as the 8800 GTS 640.For a different, more comprehensive look at the 8800 GT, why not try
Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
I just dont like being fed by the same site to tell 2 totally different things when picking my new GPU card.Parafan - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
Ive been following anandtech testresults very carefully since the UT3 demo was released. What i can find comparing these results to the others in UT3 just doesnt make any sense ;1.st
Looking at : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
shows the new 8800GT card beating 2900XT by, almost 120fps vs 105fps or so, in 1280*1024 @ UT3.
2.nd
Looking at the first & second GPU test : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3128...
Shows the 2900XT being on top with about 108,5fps, vs 8800 ULTRA, GTX and GTS, with 104,2 98,3 and 97.2 @ 1280 * 1024.
Prett close nr.s you see.
3.rd
Looking at the new test again, 8800GT VS 8800GTS : http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
Shows the 8800GT beating 8800GTS. @ 1280 * 1024 = close to 120fps vs 105fps. The GTS still over 100, when being below a 100 on the previous test.
But the huge difference is @ 1600 * 1200. 8800GT right above 100fps, when the GTS around 90? On the previous test GTS showed results as low as 77fps, cmon something smells wierd.
See where im going?
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
just showed the 8600GTS performing alot worse in this new test compared to the old one, @ all resolutions.
and again
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...">http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3140...
8800GT and 8800GTX performing about the same, at the highest almost 120fps. compared to the previous test thats like 20 fps better than the GTX performed last time. Why dont these tests corresponde at all to the one just made?
Seems like all the 8800GT, GTX, ULTRA cards just got awhole freaking lot better, and making the 2900xt looking worse. WHICH I FIND DOUBLTY.. Someone bring the facts to the table.
dont tell me 2extra gb of ram made the nvidia cards play alot better, and the ati card alot worse!
DerekWilson - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
We used a different driver version this time -- in fact, we've gone through two driver revisions from NVIDIA here.The AMD card didn't slip significatnly in performance at all (differences were all within 3%).
We did rerun the numbers, and we really think its a driver issue -- the new NV driver improved performance.
Parafan - Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - link
Well clearly a graphics issue this must be. But I read nvidia 169.xx drivers were made for optimizing the performance, but lowering the quality of the graphics.This was prooved when the water was less nicer in crysis etc with 169.04 and 169.01, than with their previous 163.xx drivers.