Once the original GeForce appeared, the competition kind of vanished. Lots of companies gave up or retreated to the Integrated Graphics Processor sector. Only ATI was there to hold the battle. Now that nVidia feels less pressure coming from that front, Intel wants a piece of the discrete graphics pie.

Bit-tech has something to say about the next graphics processor from the CPU giant and the strategies linked. The last time they made a serious attempt at getting a share of the graphics market, with the i740, things were quite different. Back then, you didn't have to deal with what you could call a "GPU", and the scene is bound to change yet again in a few years. AMD is prepairing Fusion, and nVidia has already made progress with Tesla. It's at this point that Intel wants to get back in the game, a place they feel more comfortable with.

Larabee will be more CPU-like: “a highly parallel, many core product comprised of an array of Intel architecture cores” and if you think future games won't take advantage of those qualities because they favor FPU power, think again. Just prior to this announcement, Intel bought the best physics engine out there (by acquiring Havok). Coincidence?

The GeForce 8800 Ultra is the best graphics cards out there, hands down, but when you want to run a SLI configuration under Windows Vista you still get problems (regardless of the recently released Microsoft patch). What's the best next option available? The HD 2900 XT with one gigabyte of memory (the unofficial XTX). X-bit labs took a couple of them through all the tests you can imagine to see if they are any better than a single 8800 Ultra.

Results are somewhat mixed, while games like "Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter" show a huge boost under CrossFire (specially when enabling HDR), others take a hit from adding the second card. This is probalby a driver issue, but why expend your money before they fix that?

Considering the performance of the "regular" 512Mb XT version, I wouldn't even think twice about saving like $300 for a pair of these cards. If the games you play are those favored by the CrossFire tandem, check prices for the Radeon HD 2900 XT and see if they are a better offer than a lone GeForce 8800 Ultra.

The "bigger is better" motto isn't always correct, not even when we talk about PC components. Having a balanced system is what should bother you, most of the time. Graphics cards almost single-handedly deliver 3D performance, and that  confuses many users who believe that the "balance" law just doesn't apply here. They are wrong.

On the card's PCB we have a GPU and an amount of RAM that must be enough so it doesn't end up being a bottleneck for the GPU. But enough is enough, adding memory past that sweet point is useless and, unless it comes for free, a waste of money. Case in point: eVGA's "GeForce 8600 GTS 512MB Superclocked".

Hardware Enthusiast was also suspicious about so much memory being installed on a mid-range offering and found out it's performance benefits a rather small. They go even further:

"The performance just isn’t there to allow you to increase your in-game settings to the levels that 512MB of RAM will help you. We looked closely at the latest games like BioShock, Lost Planet and Lord of the Rings Online. We know these games benefit from more RAM, but at the levels we had to play them at on the GeForce 8600 GTS that isn’t the case. You have to run these games at their highest in-game settings in order to experience the benefits of greater RAM on your video card. The GeForce 8600 GTS GPU simply does not have enough horsepower to pull that off."

Our recommendation is clear, then: don't buy it if it's going to cost you more than a regular 8600 (and it will). 

Do you remember when both graphics cards companies introduced two new series of products every year? Looks like a long time ago now, doesn't it? The usual "a new generation now, a refresh in six month" is dead and buried in the aftermath of ATI's acquisition from AMD. Not that this hectic pace was always observed, but it wasn't usual to skip a cicle; at most, either one or the other would exchange spring for autumn as the season for the technology leap after missing one of the steps.

When nVidia releases G92 on the 12th of November (I'm taking X-bit labs word), it will be a whole year since the launch of the 8800 series, and we are just talking about a refresh here! It has a lot of improvements, but it's not a 9800 (as some sites have dubbed it):

- 65nm process technology at TSMC.
- Over one billion transistors.
- Second Generation Unified Shader Architecture
- GPGPU native.
- 512-bit memory interface.
- 1024MB GDDR4 graphics memory.
- DirectX 10.1 support.
- OpenGL 3.0 Support.
- PCI Express 2.0 bus.

You better start buying ATI hardware or the lack of competition will lead us to a lack of innovation. And while you are at it, buy AMD too, because I don't think Intel will keep scratching their butts for much longer if they aren't faced with GHz opposition.

Your integrated graphics processor isn't Aero compatible? Don't you have any x16 slot for upgrade or replacement? Feeling so restrained around the CPU and northbridge area that you can't get that big cooler you like installed? All of those problems are gone as long as your motherboard DOES have at least one x1 PCI Express slot free.

Japanese company Kuroutoshikou has come up with a little adaptor that solves the physical part of the problem. Now you can plug, not only hard to find x1 cards, but x16 graphics cards into any PCI Express slot you want. Of course, bandwith will go all the way down to 500 Mb/s, so don't go buying a DX10 powerhouse.

This is estrictly for those who don't give a damn about 3D games and don't need the performance. SLI operation is also out of the question. Multiple monitor support? That's more like it.

Link: BeHardware.

DX10 has been a fiasco so far, 8800 owners doesn't feel happy about that but, is that all there is to the Geforce 8 series? If you want a decent GPU for today's games, maybe you should aim a little lower.

Most reviews place the performance of the 8600GT nowhere as high over it's predecesor as we expected. As always, it depends on the games you play or use for testing. MadShrimps assembled several titles and used reallistic settings for cards in this price range (>100).

Pitting an XFX 7600GT (650/800) against a Sparkle 8600GT (540/700), both with 256Mb, gives these minimum frame rates (the ones you should care about):

Fear @ 1280x1024, no AA, 4xAF, HighQ: 25 vs. 34.

Rainbow Six Vegas @ 1280x1024, no AA, HDR, MediumQ: 12 vs. 12.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 @ 1024x768, no AA, MediumQ: 28 vs. 34.

Colin McRae DIRT @ 1024x768, no AA, MediumQ: 19 vs. 24.

The Elder Scrolls : Oblivion @ 1280x1024, no AA, 4xAF, HDR, MediumQ: 34 vs. 41.

As you can see, the old card doesn't win a single time. It's worth noting that it doesn't use more power and, thus, you can mount at least a Zalman VF900 on the Sparkle 8600 GT video card even if it's not yet in their compatibility list. That would do nicely for any noise problem.

What does it take for a 2900XT to become a 2900XTX? Basically, more memory, faster memory. When the DX10 parts were made available from AMD, back in May, you couldn't find this product anywhere. Without explanations, their top of the line card had disappeared, but someone felt it didn't have to end that way. Enter Diamond.

They have done just what needed to be done,  giving the 2900XT a double dose of memory. This places the Diamond Viper at a full 1GB of GDDR4 running at 1100Mhz (up from 512MB of GDDR3 at 825 MHz).

Take a look at the benchmark results PC Perspective has collected, and maybe you will start to understand why AMD just left the 2900XTX in the closet. For a graphics card that's close to the $500 mark, it doesn't provide much of a performance increase over the 512Mb model, and it's still behind nVidia's 8800 GTX. Could DX10 titles or better drivers help it enough to be number one? Time will tell.

I don't know how much time this has been on sale, but surfing through Asus website I couldn't help reporting this gadget. Seriously, we will soon run out of 5.25" bays if every manufacturer insist in bundling their products with a self-monitoring LED display. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool thing to do, but not everybody has space in the desk for a server case.

Apart from that, it's always nice to see how the GPU speed, the GPU temperature, FPS and fan speed are doing. I can't really say the same about the system master volume (?!). One thing that I wonder about this "gear" is how accurate it's readings will be. Temperature will be no more, no less than what the sensor indicates and fan speed can't really be contradicted unless you expend some money on a laser-based digital tachometer. But what of FPS? Will those readings be consistent with what software reports? That could prove to be entertaining.

For months, you've had either an Nvidia or an ATI multi-GPU setup. You made the final migration to the new OS from Microsoft. You were ready to play with one of the (few) recently released DX10 games... but something was wrong. Performance wasn't up to your expectations, in fact, it looked as if there was no improvement at all. Because there was none.

Most performance issues are usually driver related, but in this case, Nvidia/ATi were not the guilty ones, but Microsoft. Windows Vista, from time to time, would not pass instructions for the 2nd GPU to the driver,  leaving SLI/CrossFire configurations to work as a single chip card. Last Wednesday, a hotfix was posted for both 32 and 64-bit versions of the OS.

PCPerspective is one of the sites that has considered these products from a price / efficiency point of view, and their conclusions don't bode well for AMD.

The 2600 XT, that was supossed to be direct competition of nVidia's 8600 GT, is in fact around the price of an 8600 GTS (when, in most cases, the 8600 GT is already able to outperform it). The Radeon HD 2600 Pro was pitted, in theory, against the 8500 GT. You can find 8600 GT cards for about $100 though. The 2600 Pro doesn't stand much of a chance against the 8600 GT, in the same way that the 2600 XT couldn't beat the 8600 GTS. The Radeon HD 2400 XT is a budget card, and as such it will have to go head to head with the 8400 (once it's available for review).

If we consider the "power" factor, things look more or less the same. The numbers you will see around the web are very much like the ones from the 8600 cards, and those weren't exactly "power efficient". Maybe I overestimated what the 65nm parts (2600 and 2400 cards) would be able to do, maybe it's a yields problem that will get sorted out as the manufacturing process matures...

Until now, I would have recommended you to wait if you were into DX10 gaming, but as soon as "real" DX10 titles start to hit the shelves, the waiting will get anxious.