Im going to get one of these cards for Christmas! Sorry, i just have to tell everyone, Im sooo happy! (sorry, no im really sorry about that, im not in control of my fingers sometimes)

Anyhow my point was, seeing how long it takes to create a game AND a game engine from scratch. I reckon a bit of guesswork and a bit of calculation is required by developers to work out how much power an average gamer is going to have by the time the game is released. This year was a graphics advancement letdown, as in the first half of it , Nvidia wiped the floor with ATi, and the second half, this half, they (Nvidia) just sort of sat there, producing mid range cards, waiting for ATi to produce something to challenge thier 8800s. So naturally, as ATi wasn't even close to Nvidia's cards, graphics didnt get better like they were supposed to, and as a result, games like Crysis are sounding ridiculously demanding, when, if all went the way it should have, it would only be a normal requirement.

Its a simple case of "We've got the best card, why should we waste money improving on it, and i think it may be the start of a AMD sempron (Nvidia's side) vs Pentium 4 (ATi's side) era

(For those who dont know about processors, AMD totally owned P4 when it came to who was the fastest, but P4 did have some good budget CPU's)

Tried the Crysis demo with the "recomended" drivers from nvidia.

For starters the game is from EA...just try FIFA 08 to see why you shouldn't be impressed with the low performance of your pc.

I agree with Bubba here, they are just trying to force us to buy or upgrade, I mean it looks good, but you can tell that it is not optimized yet. Crysis was supposed to be the new landmark of graphics.......Please call "id software" or "Epic", because these "Crysis" guys don't know how to do things right......

I have read some comments about Crysis being too heavy in the HW department. CryTek did this on purpose so that on a descent PC today, the visuals would be amazing. A PC two years from now would be able to take even more advantage of its higher power & better graphics cards to make Crysis even more unbelievable. You do not need to set all the settings to be "Highest" to be blown away with the game as I would imagine a "Medium" setting for the video is probably more spectacular than the "Highest" settings in all other PC games.

I've been waiting so long for the next card after the 8800GTX to come out just to see if they made it any smaller since the 8800 GTX won't fit in my case. I sure hope the next one is 2 inchs shorter or just 1 1/4 inch shorter. One things for sure I tried out the new Crysis demo and after shelling out $3 grand just 1 year ago I cannot even play Crysis on medium settings smoothly in every part of the game. Ridiculous. Games like the new Medal of Honor run smoothy on all high settings and I think Crysis could if they didn't program the game to demand so much extra resources when it doesn't really need it. They just want people to go and buy more expensive. hardware

Despite the lack of competition GPU progress has slowed down to that of the CPU industry. Architecture can only improve so much before your reliant on die shrinks.

If Nvidia had managed to release a GPU thats almost triple the performance of the 8800 GTX this year, I would have kissed Jen-Hsun (Nvidia CEO).

So confusing from a branding point of view the GT is faster than GTS! Also the chip is called G92 so shouldn't it be called a 9800GT???

There's talk with the GTS being bumped up to 112 SP's. Will that be called 8800GTS version 2 or 8900GTS?

I would have made the 8800GT GPU be called something like G88 at 80nm with 96 SP's and released last Q2. Then release a 8900GT G89 65nm with 128 SP's this Q4.


Whats with this new Nvidia confusion stuff.. why would they release new cards with the same name as the old cards.. someone should phone them and let them know 8900 is still avalible..

8800 GT, 8800 GTS

Im currently owning an old 8800 GTS 640 MB.. and was hoping to get a 9800 card in 2007.. 


Nvidia wanted to go 65nm and it made the most sense to do it in the midrange where they stood to benefit the most. 

The first rule of the naming scheme is that the top end has to have the top number. 

It looks like Nvidia is in a position to sit back and milk its top end. No 8900GTX, so no 8900GT/S and no 8850GT/S. 

Relaunching the 8800GTS with a new chip is less than conventional, but the alternative would be creating a new suffix.

Aren't those the same dodgy figures that were brandished last week just on a different website? 

It seems odd to me that a card with 1/3 less memory bandwidth using allegedly nothing more than a die shrunk core could possibly be faster than its older brother.

Eitherway the knock on effect is that Current model 8800GTS cards are already plummeting in price, I just bagged myself a 640MB factory overclocked one for under £200....................Which is nice.


This has to be the WORST year for graphics cards for a long while. 

ATIs problems with the R600, and AMD buying ATI probably slowed them down as well. 

NVIDIA has had no competition this year, and so hasn't had the need for the usual 6 month update schedule. 

This is why competition in the market is vital. So let's hope ATI's new card (2950 or 3x00) is going to be good. Next year should be different if Intel make good on their promises.

A third competitive company should make things much more interesting, especially one which already has the main market share, even if it's current products are only mediocre.

I can see this as being annoying for existing 8 series owners, but that is progress for you.

But for the people who held on until these new parts came out, such as myself, it is a good news.