Go Back   Hardware Canucks > NEWS & REVIEWS > Press Releases & Tech News

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old August 1, 2008, 05:04 PM
belgolas's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St. Thomas Ontario close to london
Posts: 3,925

My System Specs

Default

well according to one review the 9800 GT is only a little bit slower then the 4850.
__________________

Sponsor a child!
Fight poverty.

Qoute by Perineum
"ID10T. I just BETCHA he's got 9 toolbars on his web browser right now."
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old August 1, 2008, 05:07 PM
SugarJ's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Langley, BC
Posts: 6,079

My System Specs

Default

So is the 8800GT. Look at Skymtl's review for a comparison. It is the same card as the "new" 9800GT. Just a die shrink apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old August 1, 2008, 05:50 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1lk1 View Post
These cards might have been worth something 3-4 months ago. Now they are a cash grab and not worth it. Nvidia should be ashamed for releasing more and more cards with these cores and calling them new. These are not new.
The worse is that NVIDIA is misleading unsuspecting customers - because in the comparaison chart they compare 9800 / 8800 and other cards, BUT they use GTX specs, but don't mention it, only 9800 / 8800 / 8500 etc.... VERY deceptive practices - I can imagine people losing sleep over the 9800 and rushing out to upgrade their 8800GT to 9800GT - suckers! That reminds me of what Creative did with their inexpensive line of X-FI cards that were nothing more than rebadged Audigy cards with audigy chipsetrs ! Why not use 8900GT, of course marketing wise it's better to use 9800GT to sucker up people !
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old August 1, 2008, 10:01 PM
Scratch's Avatar
MVP
F@H
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 373

My System Specs

Default

one word "RIPOFF!"
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old August 2, 2008, 03:01 PM
lemonlime's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
F@H
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Toronto Area
Posts: 530
Default

I agree.. it really misleads consumers. Same sort of confusion when the 8800GT first came out. Doesn't make much sense that a 'GT' should have outperformed the 'GTS' cards.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old August 2, 2008, 06:22 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,221

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemonlime View Post
I agree.. it really misleads consumers. Same sort of confusion when the 8800GT first came out. Doesn't make much sense that a 'GT' should have outperformed the 'GTS' cards.
Actually that's not 100% accurate - there have been many different GTS models. The 8800GT outperms an 8800GTS 320MB - 1) 512MB of RAM, games now are using bigger textures! 2) 112 shaders vs. 96 on the 8800GTS 320MB, and I can tell you by EXPERIENCE sine my old card WAS in fact a 8800GTS 320MB, and playing the recent games I do feel it! The 8800GT and 9800GT are identical (same number of shaders, same clocks.) now why some people report it being slightly slower, I don't know, but the cards are identical. Unlike the GT / GTS comparaison which have different specs. The 8800GT was meant to replace the 8800GTS 320MB, which was phased out.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes