9800 Series, The Little Cards That Could

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -

All users who hold a 9800 series, stand up and be proud!   
 
To this day we can run every game fine on high resolution, and better than console graphics quality!   
 
These little cards, which are now many years old...are here to give hope to the length of PC gaming, and proof that you don't need to upgrade every year like some people think. 
 
Nvidia did a great job with the 9800 series, and for this...we shall show our respects!

#2 Posted by JJWeatherman (14557 posts) -

Damn. What resolution are you running? I'm guessing pretty low?

#3 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@JJWeatherman: I played Dragon Age at 1600x900, and all my other games around there.  My monitor is native at that.
#4 Posted by captain_clayman (3318 posts) -

ahhh yes, the 9800.  until like a couple months ago, that card could play like, anything on at least medium.

#5 Edited by AndrewB (7490 posts) -

Hell, the 8800 series is similar architecture, and I'm still rocking the 8800GT just fine. I won't be feeling the pressure to upgrade until the next generation of engines. Rage and Unreal Engine 4. 
 
Also, the trick is to overclock.

#6 Posted by Computerplayer1 (991 posts) -

I still use sli 9800gt sc cards from evga.  
 
I play most games on high at 1920x1200. Cards are unreal.

#7 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -
@AndrewB: This. The great architecture was introduced with the 8800 and that fiscal year nvidia printed money like crazy, 9800 was not such a big leap.
#8 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -

I almost cried a little. I still have my 9800 GT. First monitor is a 27" HDTV running at 1360x768 and the second monitor is a 20" LCD monitor running at 1600x900.  
 
The reason my HDTV is running at a small resolution is because these damn TV's only have VGA connections. Well, I think that's the problem.

#9 Edited by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@AndrewB said:

" Hell, the 8800 series is similar architecture, and I'm still rocking the 8800GT just fine. I won't be feeling the pressure to upgrade until the next generation of engines. Rage and Unreal Engine 4.  Also, the trick is to overclock. "

Based on the same tech but not the same tech.  There's a die shrink and added full H264 acceleration between the two.  The 9800 series also have a much lower TDP and work with higher resolutions more efficiently.
#10 Posted by ShaunassNZ (2128 posts) -

HD 4850 rules.

#11 Posted by B0nd07 (1697 posts) -

My 9800 GT ran great for the first year and a half.  It crapped out on me early this year and the replacement only lasted a month or two.  I think that was mostly XFX's fault though.  Their 9800s run hot and have tiny fans compared to other manufacturers.  Now I've got a GT 240 that they sent me instead.

#12 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@B0nd07: Isn't the 250 the 9800GT?  Why would they give you a lesser card?
#13 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -
@KaosAngel: The "new" 9800 GT cards you could find now on sale are stocked cards, production stopped a long time ago so they gave him a new card with similar raw power I assume
#14 Edited by B0nd07 (1697 posts) -
@KaosAngel: Overall, they are actually very similar, but the GT 240 has a slight edge on the 9800 GT.  For example, my 9800 had 512MB memory, while the 240 has 1GB.  The 240 also has a larger fan allowing it to run much cooler and it draws less power.  So, in the end, I actually got a slight upgrade.

XFX specifications: 9800 GT / GT 240
Nvidia specifications:  9800 GT / GT 240
 
@Valkyr said:
" @KaosAngel: The "new" 9800 GT cards you could find now on sale are stocked cards, production stopped a long time ago so they gave him a new card with similar raw power I assume "
Also, this.
#15 Edited by Mcfart (1549 posts) -

My 8800GT's still rocken hard at 1080p on Medium-high on most games (I can't complain at medium at this resolution with a 3 year old card and CPU). Graphics tech has definitely slowed this generation, since most PC games are console ports. Tis okay with me though since console games still look good, and the PC only makes em look better.

#16 Posted by JJOR64 (18907 posts) -

I have a 8600 GT.  That's good right?

#17 Posted by FourWude (2261 posts) -

Ah yes the ATi Radeon 9800 series. A landmark in GPU's. Rarely has a GPU lasted so long maintaining performance and value.

Suck on that NVidia FANBOY!

#18 Posted by Kazona (3059 posts) -

I'm still running a 8800GTS 512, and only now is it starting to show its age. 

#19 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@B0nd07 said:
" @KaosAngel: Overall, they are actually very similar, but the GT 240 has a slight edge on the 9800 GT.  For example, my 9800 had 512MB memory, while the 240 has 1GB.  The 240 also has a larger fan allowing it to run much cooler and it draws less power.  So, in the end, I actually got a slight upgrade.

XFX specifications: 9800 GT / GT 240
Nvidia specifications:  9800 GT / GT 240
 
@Valkyr said:
" @KaosAngel: The "new" 9800 GT cards you could find now on sale are stocked cards, production stopped a long time ago so they gave him a new card with similar raw power I assume "
Also, this. "
Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but the GT 240 is often slower than the 9600 GT, let alone the 9800 GT.  More RAM doesn't equal more performance.
#20 Posted by sodiumCyclops (2644 posts) -

they were ok cards but not worth the money over the 880GT or GTX. Running a GTX 275 here.

#21 Posted by MB (11971 posts) -

If your motherboard supports SLI, you could always pick up a second 9800 for cheap and really step up your PC's performance. 

Moderator
#22 Posted by AlisterCat (5481 posts) -
@KaosAngel:  Hey, I was still running a 8800GTX until recently. Those buggers can really work miracles. I didn't think I'd be able to run games at max in 2010 with a 5 year old card.
#23 Posted by jayjonesjunior (1086 posts) -

playing Civ 5 and F1 2010 maxed out 1680x1050 but i too think the 8xxx series were much better when they first came out.

#24 Posted by wolf_blitzer85 (5250 posts) -

I just found my 9600gt laying out in the closet. It served me well when I was running at 1280x1024 native. Now my GTX 260 is carrying the torch. I'm thinking about just popping the 9600 in and use it as a physx card, and I just want to see what my case looks like with 2 GPUs in it.
 
I bet it looks awesome.

#25 Edited by Korwin (2828 posts) -
@SeriouslyNow:  Actually due to the shrink in ram and bus size the 9800GTX wasn't as good at high resolutions over the 8800GTX if memory serves, the extra wiggle room on the 8800gtx made it a little better at 1920x1200(at least in my experience).
 
I also have an entirely different "9800" sitting in one of my many boxes of PC parts which I consider to be the superior one :P
#26 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Korwin said:
" @SeriouslyNow:  Actually due to the shrink in ram and bus size the 9800GTX wasn't as good at high resolutions over the 8800GTX if memory serves, the extra wiggle room on the 8800gtx made it a little better at 1920x1200(at least in my experience).  I also have an entirely different "9800" sitting in one of my many boxes of PC parts which I consider to be the superior one :P "
Depends, they jumped the GTX+ and then to GTS250 pretty quickly and both of those cards trump 8800GTX in almost every benchmark.  The 768MB B/W of the 8800GTX was pretty nifty for sure but then a lot of game devs used 'profiling' to specifically tune performance for the 8800GTX and once those profiles are overridden the 8800GTX doesn't actually perform any better than the 9800GTX+.  
 
I had an ATI 9800XT too.  Hated it, or rather despised its drivers.
#27 Posted by Korwin (2828 posts) -
@SeriouslyNow: You know I don't think I ever had any major driver grief on my 9800 Pro, not even close to the hoops I've had to jump through with my 5870's.  I installed a nice fat 2 slot cooler on that thing and it chugged along just fine, until the molex connector burnt out... still works through (at least it did the last time it was used).
#28 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4283 posts) -

Damn straight. Still rocking the 9800GTX listening to my fans kick into overdrive when I try to max out anything these days lol. Might finally make the jump to a whole new system next year, but we'll have to wait and see.

#29 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

I'm cool with my 5870 though.

#30 Posted by ShockD (2393 posts) -

Sorry, but the 8xxx series are older and as powerful. So yeah, sit back.

#31 Posted by arab_prince (2053 posts) -

I was bout to come in here all proud but then I realized I have a 9600 :( poo

#32 Posted by ComradeKritstov (693 posts) -

9800GT REPRESENT!

#33 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -

9800gtx owner here. 
 
Overheats like a bitch.

#34 Edited by TheIneffableBob (243 posts) -

I thought this thread was about the ATI Radeon 9800 series.

#35 Edited by Devildoll (877 posts) -

when it comes to the 9800gt , its just a 8800gt with another sticker.  9000 series in general weren that big a leap from the 8000 series .
 
8000 series on the other hand , were a big leap from the prior generation , and the first generation to use shader processors

#36 Posted by Badhands (399 posts) -

I'm currently running on a 9800 gtx+ and the only game I have run into that I can not play highest settings and rez at 60 fps is crysis.

#37 Posted by Finstern (639 posts) -

Stil rockin a 9800GTX+ Full 60fps in Dead Rising 2, Medal of Honor BETA, L4D1&2, MW2, Just Cause 2 at 1920x1080 Crysis on High at 30fps with aa turned off :P

#38 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@Finstern: ...damn, so DR2 and JC2 run fine?  I haven't gotten them yet, but Civ 5 starts to choke at times, but I was insanely surprised I could run MoH at max settings at my highest resolution.  :D
#39 Posted by Finstern (639 posts) -
@KaosAngel: Yeah, DR2 drops to 30ish when I go outside in the day but thats still perfectly fine for me, JC2 looks and runs amazing. Civ5 I think is more a problem with my processor, which is a q6600 2.4ghz quad core. Even though it surpasses the recommended requirements on large games it slows down a crap ton during turns but otherwise I get a solid 40 - 50 fps
#40 Posted by RaceKickfist (218 posts) -

itd be the perfcet card if only the series was qualified for maya. really should have checked that out before i built this rig. big fail for crashing when i try to display textures in hardware mode.

#41 Posted by ch13696 (4582 posts) -
#42 Posted by KaosAngel (13765 posts) -
@ch13696: Yo, live in it's memory and pick up the 250 then.  It's the 9800GTX but as a 200 series.
#43 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Okay i'll bite, I used to use a 9800GTX, damn card was really big though, replaced the heatsink. Also I used to use a 9800GX2.

#44 Posted by Skunkboy72 (128 posts) -
@FourWude: 
I read this and grinned.  Cause it's true.
#45 Posted by RVonE (4603 posts) -

8800GTS is where it's at! I've been rocking that card for a couple of years and could still run most recent stuff at 1920*1080 @ medium or higher settings. 
 
Anyway, I've since moved on to the GTX460.

#46 Edited by AnnouncerGXZ (702 posts) -

9800 series is not a little card. 9800 series is 9,000 times stronger and faster than your niece's 5450.
 
8800 series is powerful too. 8800 GTS 512mb kick the fuck out of 4650 and 8800 GTS 512mb is about 7% faster than 8800 GT
 
who already got 8800 Ultra then so called upgrade to 5450 is a fucking idiot.
 
console vs pc? pc gaming is only for benchmark and hardware nerds. pure gaming cant beat console with its varieties of genre and titles.
 
pc gaming is pretty dead but pc performance hardware is not dead.... lot sof nerds includes myself. i like to fuck around with it and use crysis and other games for benching.
 
7900 GTX kick you 4650 goodbye.
 
8800 ultra kick you 5450 goodbye.
 
X1950XTX kick you 9500 GT goodbye.
 
8600 GTS kick you 4550 goodbye. 
 
X850 XT kick you 4650 goodbye.
 
4670 kick you 5450 goodbye.
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

@JJOR64

said:

" I have a 8600 GT.  That's good right? "

  thats baddish. 8600 GT is slow but 8600 GTS is fast. 8600 GT and 8600 GTS is big gap apart. if you have any any dual core or mroe core cpu combine with 4gb ram with win xp then your good to go.  or 8600 GTS with any dual core, 8gb ram and win7 64bit.
 
fx-74 - 8gb ram - two 8600 GTS in sli kill core 2 E8600 - 2gb ram - 4890
#47 Posted by Forderz (247 posts) -

FUCK YEAH!  Staying loud and proud with my Nvidia 9800GTX+, running everything on medium high at 1650 native resolution!

#48 Posted by monkeyroach (175 posts) -

That card has been so good , nvidia has re-branded it like 8 times.

#49 Posted by BaconGames (3292 posts) -

I thought I was the only one still jammin' with a 9800 GT.  Except for Civ 5, I it plays anything on at least medium settings at my monitor's native resolution of 1680 x 1050.  I'm tempted to get me a 400 series card but so far this fucker refuses to give.  Best card I've ever had to be honest.  Shit I bet there will be plenty of games within the next year that it could run just fine because it sits right at the middle between the extreme low and high for what cards games have to be optimized for.  Although the fact that a game came out and it chugged a bit tells me that it isn't getting any younger.  Another calender year before I give 'er the boot.

#50 Posted by RsistncE (4496 posts) -
@Computerplayer1 said:
" I still use sli 9800gt sc cards from evga.   I play most games on high at 1920x1200. Cards are unreal. "
Yeah my 9800GX2 still manhandles every game out there on high. I see no reason at all to upgrade anytime soon.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.