ASUS EN9800GTX 512MB

[PAGETITLE=Introduction, Look at the EN9800GTX 512MB] [Top Ad] When thinking about NVIDIA's usage of the term "GTX", what's the first thing that comes to mind? For me, I think of "Good To The Xtreme". Granted, I threw in a second T in there, but that's not what's important. GTTX doesn't quite have the same ring to it. But it stands true... GTX is a moniker that to me, represents incredible performance... performance that's the top of its class. We saw that first with the 7800 GTX and then with the 8800 GTX. The 8800 GTX is particularly a perfect example of that fact. Despite the fact that it was first released in late 2006, it remained the biggest performer all the way until this past December, where it was succeeded in performance by the 8800 GTS 512. There was of course the 8800 Ultra, but that was a quick release with a simple speed bump, whereas the GTS 512 had substantial upgrades that made a real difference. But it stands to reason, for a single GPU to hold the top spot for an entire year... is impressive. So with that, welcome to the 9800 GTX, a card that makes a mockery the GTX moniker. Blunt? Perhaps. Truth? Most definitely. It might sound like I don't like the 9800 GTX, but that's far from the truth. I just don't feel it deserves to wear the GTX name, in any shape or form. In reality, this is a 9800 GTS, as it's clearly a successor to the 8800 GTS 512. At the root, the 9800 GTX is indeed an 8800 GTS 512 card, only with higher clocks. In fact, as we found out in our recent review of the ASUS EN8800GTS 512, the 9800 GTX doesn't even stand a chance where a small overclock is involved. Even though the ASUS 8800 GTS 512 card was equipped with a modest overclock, it beat the 9800 GTX in almost every test. Should a next-gen graphics card be trumped so easily be a last-gen card? I don't think so. Closer Look. Contrary to how that introduction sounded, the 9800 GTX is an incredible graphics card, and one that should be considered for a new build or as an upgrade. I mentioned in the introduction that when the 8800 GTX was first released, it was the top of its class for quite a while. What I didn't mention was that when that card was first released, it cost near $600. The 9800 GTX, on the other hand, can be had for $330. What a difference a year and a half can make. The fact of the matter is, NVIDIA is kicking some serious ass right now. Their lineup fills every market segment, and regardless of what you are looking for, NVIDIA has it. Take a look at the recent 9600 GT for example. That card is impressive, and with a modest overclock, it can match the performance of a slightly more expensive 8800 GT, making it a great purchase decision for most anyone. Or how about the ability to go Quad-GPU with the help of two 9800 GX2s? It doesn't matter what your budget is, or what you are going for. Both AMD or NVIDIA have what you need. Lately, however, NVIDIA is pushing out the faster performing parts, making their cards a more realistic choice, unless revamped pricing skews things. Model Core MHz Shader MHz Mem MHz Memory Memory Bus Stream Proc. 8600 GT 540 1190 700 256MB 128-bit 32 8600 GTS 675 1475 1000 256MB 128-bit 32 8800 GS 550 1375 800 384MB 192-bit 96 9600 GT 650 1625 900 512MB 256-bit 64 8800 GT 600 1500 900 512MB 256-bit 112 8800 GTS 320/640 500 1200 800 320/640MB 320-bit 96 8800 GTS 512 650 1625 970 512MB 256-bit 128 9800 GTX 675 1688 1100 512MB 256-bit 128 8800 GTX 575 1350 900 768MB 384-bit 128 8800 Ultra 612 1500 1080 768MB 384-bit 128 If I sounded disinterested in this card in the intro, I think this specs table could explain why. Yes, the 9800 GTX is indeed faster than the 8800 GTS 512, but it's far from being "next-gen" material. The Core Clock has been bumped up 25MHz, the Shader Clock is up 63MHz, while the Memory Clock has been pushed to a very healthy 1100MHz. That extra boost in memory should make up for any lack of overall memory density, if there is such a thing with today's games. With their EN9800GTX, ASUS chose to stick to the reference cooler, but not before adorning the face of the card with a mythical beauty. After all, she's what makes the card run faster. Right? The cooler itself runs itself to the very end of the card, with air holes at the end to allow cool air to come in, which the leaf-blower fan then picks up to push out through the back. You might also notice the two PCI-E power connectors. Allow me to rant again. The 9800 GTX is, in essence, a higher-clocked 8800 GTS 512, as I've established about fifteen times so far. What's the reason for dual PCI-E connectors, then? While this doesn't make much sense to me, it will allow for better and more stable overclocking, although I'm still not going to assume that the card wouldn't have worked fine with a single power cable. If SLI is in the cards (no pun), then you have two choices. Either pick up a beefier PSU, or try your luck with using Molex-to-PCI-E power converters, which your cards would include. As long as you have a sufficient PSU, there should be no issue in doing things this way. The reference 9800 GTX cooler is identical at the back to the previous 8800 GTX cooler, which makes sense as it's practical. There is an opening large enough to allow an ample amount of warm air to escape throughout the back. Also here is a TV-Out port and dual DVI ports. For those pondering a purchase of an after-market cooler, here is a shot of the back that should help. The layout is similar, but not identical, to the 8800 GTX layout, so 8800 GTX after-market coolers will not likely fit. So if you are to purchase a cooler, make sure that the manufacturer explicitly states support for the 9800 GTX. The ASUS bundle with this card isn't terribly impressive, but sometimes, it doesn't need to be. Included is a Molex-to-PCI-E converter, TV-Out cable, driver and manual CDs and also a nice leather-like CD holder. I admit... I would have liked to see a game bundled here, but most often, those are given to post-launch cards, or TOP cards, to help sweeten the deal. Even an HDMI adapter would have been nice, though, as even the lowly EN9600GT included one. On the next page, we will take a look at our current testing methodology, which we recommend you take a look at if you have not already. Our methodologies tend to be far different than most sites. On page 3, we will jump straight into our test results. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Testing Methodology and Test System] Regardless of the OS we are running or product being reviewed, there are a few conditions that are met to assure accurate, repeatable results. Desktop and scrap files are cleaned up, including emptying of recycle bin/trash. No virus scanner or firewall is installed. Internet is disabled. Computer has proper airflow and room temperature is 80°F or less. Hard-drives affected by testing are defragged using Diskeeper 2008 before each fresh run. Below is our testing machine, which remains untouched throughout all testing except for the graphics card. Testing Machine. Processors: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Quad-Core 3.0GHz Motherboard: ASUS Maximus Extreme (X38-Based) Memory: OCZ 2GB Titanium DDR3-1600 (@ DDR3-1333, 7-7-7-20, 1.9v) Video: ATI Cards (Catalyst 8.2), NVIDIA Cards (169.25 for the 8-Series) (174.35 for the 9-Series) ASUS EAH3850 TOP 256MB. ASUS EAH3870 X2 1GB ASUS EN8800GT TOP 512MB ASUS EN8800GTS TOP 512MB ASUS EN8800GTX 768MB. ASUS EN9600GT TOP 512MB ASUS EN9800GTX 512MB. Gigabyte 9600 GT 512MB Palit 8800GT Super+ 1GB Sound: Onboard HD Audio. Storage: Seagate 7200.11 500GB Power Supply: Corsair HX620W Chassis: Antec P182 Mid-Tower Etcetera: Windows Vista Ultimate 64-Bit Cooling: Corsair Nautilus 500 In previous GPU reviews, we've used Windows XP Professional due to it's stability (when compared to Vista), but as Vista becomes increasingly popular and the choice for many, it makes sense for us to make the switch as well. We choose to use the 64-Bit version of the OS due to it being the logical choice for gamers who want to use more than 2GB of RAM in their machine. Game Benchmarks. Depending on the graphic card being reviewed, we split up models into two different categories: Low-End to Mid-Range and Mid-Range to High-End. The former will see the GPUs tested using 1280x1024 and 1680x1050 resolutions, since those are the most common resolutions for gamers looking to purchase a GPU in that price-range. For our Mid-Range to High-End category, we test GPUs at 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and also 2560x1600 to better reflect the resolutions for those looking for a solid GPU offering. We do not use time demos in our reviews except where necessary, and in the case of our current GPU reviews, the only game to be subject to a time demo is Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. This is due to that game disallowing greater than 60FPS without the use of a time demo. But since the game is a popular choice for multiplayer gamers, it should be included in some form or another. Manual Benchmarks In an attempt to deliver "real-world" results, all games except the above mentioned title are played through manually, with the average FPS recorded with the help of FRAPS 2.9.4. In our personal tests, we have found that manual benchmarks are the best way to deliver accurate results, since time demos rely heavily on the CPU. In order to deliver the best results, each title we choose is explored to find the best possible level for our benchmarking. Once a level is chosen, we play through in order to find the best route, and then in future runs, we stick to that route as close as possible. We are not robots, so we cannot make sure that each run is identical, but they will never be far off from each other. As we see in our results, scaling is good, so we are confident that our methodology is a good one. Crysis. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Call of Duty 4. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Half Life 2: Episode Two. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 Call of Juarez. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600 S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 1680x1050 1920x1200 2560x1600...

ASUS EN9800GTX 512MB

Page 181 –

Rob Williams