The BFGTech GeForce 9800 GTX is a good product but it's not breaking any performance barriers or redefining our gaming experiences. The bundle is nothing to get excited about, but the video card itself is capable. The only problem we see is that the 9800 GTX isn't truly superior to the 8800 GTX it is intended to replace in terms of real world gaming performance. A “new” product that comes to market is usually considerably better performing than its predecessor, at least in the high end GPU space. That is not the case here. There is more fancy “green” technology in this 9800 GTX, which is of course a step in the right direction, but it does not shift any performance paradigms.
What's a good power supply for the 9800? Price isn't really an object.
I've never heard anyone complain about PC Power & Cooling PSUs. Their PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad PSU won best PSU of 2007 at Anandtech.
Alternatively, if "price isn't really an object" means "price is mostly not an object but still I don't want to pay three times as much for little to no benefit", give Fortron-Source a try.
Or check the PSU reviews at HardOCP. Those guys really torture-test those things.
I dont know if it is just me, but I got one out of the box broken, and then my computer ate another in the past month or so. It has been really good other then that, but I was just surprised to have issues with such a highly rated supply
alcoholic_engineer on
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
What's a good power supply for the 9800? Price isn't really an object.
I've never heard anyone complain about PC Power & Cooling PSUs. Their PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750 Quad PSU won best PSU of 2007 at Anandtech.
Alternatively, if "price isn't really an object" means "price is mostly not an object but still I don't want to pay three times as much for little to no benefit", give Fortron-Source a try.
Or check the PSU reviews at HardOCP. Those guys really torture-test those things.
I dont know if it is just me, but I got one out of the box broken, and then my computer ate another in the past month or so. It has been really good other then that, but I was just surprised to have issues with such a highly rated supply
I just ordered the 1kw PSU myself. I plan on going SLI with 9800GTX and have about 5 HDs so I am going to need the power. The 1kw has gotten monster reviews, and is one of the better PSUs out there.
Ouch, so the 9800 GTX isn't that appreciably better than the 8800 GTX? On the flipside, it isn't retailing for 500-fucking-dollars like the G80 did.
The 9800GTX does bench better than the 8800GTS and GTX. It has higher clocks and will get a bit better performance. It also has improved SLI performance.
Considering the 9800GTX costs $400 on average, and the 9800GX2 costs $800 on average (Australian prices), it costs more or less the same to get 2 9800GTXes or one 9800GX2. I'm assuming the former is a better choice, performance wise. Are there any charts that compare a GX2 VS Dual 9800GTXes?
Zante on
0
Options
That_GuyI don't wanna be that guyRegistered Userregular
What a world we're living in... I can't believe I'm seriously considering buying two of those things eventually.
I plan on getting another 1 or 2 more over the next month or 2 as I save up more money. From what I have read the 9800GTX does SLI much better than any of the previous cards.
You people with your fancy Nvidia chipset machines.
Intel needs to drop kick NVidia execs until they give in. If AMD is willing to license with Intel, So can NVidia.
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Get 4 gigs of DDR2 for now. DDR3 is a bit too expensive to invest in right now. The best bet would be to invest in DDR3 after Nehalem comes out.
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Vista 32bit supports only around 3 gigs (It varies depending on the amount and type of hardware you have installed on your motherboard)
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Just how bad is vista 64? I mean, for internet and basic stuff I assume that it is quite alright. But gaming? Is alchemy working good for the new sound card tech? What about the current sound stuff because I mean, I would hate to have to replace my sound card...
Just how bad is vista 64? I mean, for internet and basic stuff I assume that it is quite alright. But gaming? Is alchemy working good for the new sound card tech? What about the current sound stuff because I mean, I would hate to have to replace my sound card...
It is not as bad as people make it out to be. You might have problems with older hardware, but not with anything made within like two years or so.
Vista 64 should be a-okay with you as long as you have modern hardware, just as Malkor said. Driver support is surprisingly good, and there are few broken applications.
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
It's probably better to talk about realities though. Afterall, Win98 had problems with more than 512MB.
Vista 64 home premium supports 16GB, and Ultimate 128GB+
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
It's probably better to talk about realities though. Afterall, Win98 had problems with more than 512MB.
Vista 64 home premium supports 16GB, and Ultimate 128GB+
Well, in reality my laptop is running Linux, which would support all 256TB if I was using a 64-bit kernel, but in reality there's no Flash plugin for Linux 64, and Flash is so deeply embedded now that a lack of it makes the Internet nearly unusable, which makes me sad
but in reality I can't afford more than one gigabyte of RAM anyway.
But are you sure about Win98? I could have sworn it worked fine with a full gig, although I never hand more than that to test with.
There aren't even any consumer level mobos that support that right?
Consumer-level mobos seem to be topping out at 8 gigs, although dual-socket workstation-class boards have supported absurd amounts of RAM for some time now.
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
It's probably better to talk about realities though. Afterall, Win98 had problems with more than 512MB.
Vista 64 home premium supports 16GB, and Ultimate 128GB+
Well, in reality my laptop is running Linux, which would support all 256TB if I was using a 64-bit kernel, but in reality there's no Flash plugin for Linux 64, and Flash is so deeply embedded now that a lack of it makes the Internet nearly unusable, which makes me sad
but in reality I can't afford more than one gigabyte of RAM anyway.
But are you sure about Win98? I could have sworn it worked fine with a full gig, although I never hand more than that to test with.
I run Ubuntu 64-bit and I use flash just fine. It took me awhile, I actually don't even remember how I did it anymore, but you can get it to work after some research.
the easiest way is just to install 32 bit firefox and 32 bit flash. But when you consider the fact that currently 64 bit linux gives little to no performance increases it's really not even worth the small amount of time it takes to install a 32 bit browser
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
It's probably better to talk about realities though. Afterall, Win98 had problems with more than 512MB.
Vista 64 home premium supports 16GB, and Ultimate 128GB+
Well, in reality my laptop is running Linux, which would support all 256TB if I was using a 64-bit kernel, but in reality there's no Flash plugin for Linux 64, and Flash is so deeply embedded now that a lack of it makes the Internet nearly unusable, which makes me sad
but in reality I can't afford more than one gigabyte of RAM anyway.
But are you sure about Win98? I could have sworn it worked fine with a full gig, although I never hand more than that to test with.
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
It's probably better to talk about realities though. Afterall, Win98 had problems with more than 512MB.
Vista 64 home premium supports 16GB, and Ultimate 128GB+
Well, in reality my laptop is running Linux, which would support all 256TB if I was using a 64-bit kernel, but in reality there's no Flash plugin for Linux 64, and Flash is so deeply embedded now that a lack of it makes the Internet nearly unusable, which makes me sad
but in reality I can't afford more than one gigabyte of RAM anyway.
But are you sure about Win98? I could have sworn it worked fine with a full gig, although I never hand more than that to test with.
So dudes, assuming I nab 8 gigs of DDR3 and my computer is having a wild orgasm upon installation... And have a 64bit OS... which version of Windows should I get? Is the uber options from Ultimate worth it or just get home premium or what?
So dudes, assuming I nab 8 gigs of DDR3 and my computer is having a wild orgasm upon installation... And have a 64bit OS... which version of Windows should I get? Is the uber options from Ultimate worth it or just get home premium or what?
If you are fucking made of money to the point where you're buying eight gigabytes of hilariously overpriced DDR3, you might as well buy Ultimate, as to do otherwise would be like buying a Lamborghini and not getting custom license plates.
You wouldn't really get any major benefit, but DDR3 doesn't have a significant (price-justifying) performance increase over DDR2 and that doesn't seem to be stopping you, so...
Posts
I dont know if it is just me, but I got one out of the box broken, and then my computer ate another in the past month or so. It has been really good other then that, but I was just surprised to have issues with such a highly rated supply
If you are getting or have one of the 9800s I would get either
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371009
or
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817371012
I just ordered the 1kw PSU myself. I plan on going SLI with 9800GTX and have about 5 HDs so I am going to need the power. The 1kw has gotten monster reviews, and is one of the better PSUs out there.
The 9800GTX does bench better than the 8800GTS and GTX. It has higher clocks and will get a bit better performance. It also has improved SLI performance.
I plan on getting another 1 or 2 more over the next month or 2 as I save up more money. From what I have read the 9800GTX does SLI much better than any of the previous cards.
Intel needs to drop kick NVidia execs until they give in. If AMD is willing to license with Intel, So can NVidia.
Neither and both.
Get 4 gigs of DDR2 for now. DDR3 is a bit too expensive to invest in right now. The best bet would be to invest in DDR3 after Nehalem comes out.
I assume Vista supports 8GB correct?
Doesnt XP only support something like 2GB?
Vista 32bit supports only around 3 gigs (It varies depending on the amount and type of hardware you have installed on your motherboard)
It is not as bad as people make it out to be. You might have problems with older hardware, but not with anything made within like two years or so.
32-bit operating systems support an absolute maximum of 4GB of RAM. In reality it's less because PCI devices reserve some of the address space.
64-bit operating systems support a theoretical maximum of 16 exabytes (an exabyte is roughly a billion gigabytes) but in reality the 64-bit CPUs you can buy today "only" support 256 terabytes, and Vista64 (and XP64) itself "only" supports 16 terabytes of that.
Pffft! Nobody will ever need that much RAM.
It's probably better to talk about realities though. Afterall, Win98 had problems with more than 512MB.
Vista 64 home premium supports 16GB, and Ultimate 128GB+
Well, in reality my laptop is running Linux, which would support all 256TB if I was using a 64-bit kernel, but in reality there's no Flash plugin for Linux 64, and Flash is so deeply embedded now that a lack of it makes the Internet nearly unusable, which makes me sad
but in reality I can't afford more than one gigabyte of RAM anyway.
But are you sure about Win98? I could have sworn it worked fine with a full gig, although I never hand more than that to test with.
Consumer-level mobos seem to be topping out at 8 gigs, although dual-socket workstation-class boards have supported absurd amounts of RAM for some time now.
I run Ubuntu 64-bit and I use flash just fine. It took me awhile, I actually don't even remember how I did it anymore, but you can get it to work after some research.
If? So you mean it doesn't basically.
It supported 2GB, but had problems with above 512MB
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q253912/
Geez, calm down.
If you are fucking made of money to the point where you're buying eight gigabytes of hilariously overpriced DDR3, you might as well buy Ultimate, as to do otherwise would be like buying a Lamborghini and not getting custom license plates.
You wouldn't really get any major benefit, but DDR3 doesn't have a significant (price-justifying) performance increase over DDR2 and that doesn't seem to be stopping you, so...
Plus we have tax rebates and shit coming in...
Btw; any of you fucks want to use this rebate shit to get 8 gigs of DDR2, here you go for $150 after all teh rebaets
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145184
The cheapest I can find for 4 gigs of DDR3 is $334.
You tell me if it's worth it.
For the future.
See, I'd future-proof by putting the extra five hundred dollars in a five-year CD at like five percent APR. That's future-proofing.
Where the fuck do you get a 5% CD for just $500!?
Spending $500 on something that'll be worth about $50 when you actually need it, isn't really futureproofing.