Legit Reviews

According to Expreview

Of course, take it with a grain of salt.

this must be a mistake or a bad joke:

The memory interface is 256-bit with 512MB

that's worse than the 8800GTX?! dropping down from 384bit/768MB doesn't look like advancement to me... this must be wrong. + they compare it to 8800GTS? why not to the 8800GTX?

in comparison to an 8800 GTX, it has fewer ROPs (16 vs 24), Still only DX 10.0 Support, smaller bus (256bit vs 384Bit), less RAM (512mb vs 768mb), less bandwidth (70.4GB/sec vs 86.4GB/sec).

ridiculous.

Grain of salt taken, but wouldn't Nvidia be resting on their laurels if this is really the case.

ATI might actually win out next gen, if their R700(?) delivers.

Dan

They compared it to the 512MB GTS because it's just as fast as the 8800GTX. 8900GTX would've a bit more honest naming!

don't forget the naming on the 9600 GT... should be a GeForce 8650 GT or something in that case.

Thats bogus! A simple work of photoshop if you ask me.

ibleet wrote:Thats bogus! A simple work of photoshop if you ask me.

I had hoped so too, but it has a validation link. They're a little harder to fake.

Dan

think companies are slowing down higher end cards to push multi-GPU platforms?

Zertz wrote:They compared it to the 512MB GTS because it's just as fast as the 8800GTX. 8900GTX would've a bit more honest naming!

first the GTS isn't as fast as the GTX. second even if that would be so, because of the same specs as the 8800GTS they should call it GTS not GTX. also: it's basically a 8800GTS overclocked, so the name should be 8850GTS or 8900GTS or 8800GTS superclocked. when you see 9800GTX, it suggests a new architecture and that's wrong

Apoptosis wrote:think companies are slowing down higher end cards to push multi-GPU platforms?

BTW, I think Nate is right on