AMD's problem wasn't the 512bit bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Printable View
AMD's problem wasn't the 512bit bus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Did I say it hurt performance? Try $.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
There is a reason 9800GTX/HD3870 etc is 256bit
When you say neckbreaker, you are making it sound like (even if unintentionally) it is going to hurt performance. Sorry, your words, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
You say 512bit is expensive, but do you think DDR5 is cheap for ATI?
Regardless whether it's expensive or not, it's the way forward, we had 256bit bus since forever.
And I'm sure that the 512mbit bus on the R600 wasn't what made it so expensive, rather poor yields had more to do with it I reckon.
RV770 having the ability to scale from mobile, midrange to perf highend is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
DDR5's lower margins are probably offsetted by NOT requiring to tape off a gazillion chips, and then some.
What does that have to do with anything? Both companies taped out chips for this gen obviously.. whether it's DDR3 or DDR5 just becomes a matter of cost then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
By the way, changing memory as a method of avoiding taping out an extra chip makes no sense at all.
You really think the chip is going to be the identical chip that ends up in a laptop?
Neckbreaker and AMD is usually refered to as economics. And since RV670 is basicly a R600 with half the bus you should eb able to put 2 and 2 together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
GDDR5 will be cheap enough for the cards needing it. And its cheaper than going 512bit. AMD went 512->256bit. nVidia went 384->256bit. Notice the trend?
That doesn't mean its not necessary... we've seen cases where 256-bit hurts performance vs. 384-bit and 512-bit. It's not much of an obvious need-based trend when you're talking about each company needing to keep up with their competition in terms of costs for their products. If they choose to go the costlier route, they automatically lose out in a price cut war. No one wants that disadvantage, so they happened to match each others 256-bit specs last round because it was the logical thing to do (offer a value card).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
This time it's two different costly approaches to increase back to 512-bit bandwidth levels. So much for any trend..
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
And therein lies the catch- AMD can back off using the SAME CHIP, nVidia has to make a redesign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
http://www.pczilla.net/en/post/11.htmlQuote:
GeForce GTX 280 got 7k+ in 3DMark Vantage Extreme Test
We learn from pcinlife forum that GeForce GTX 280 graphics card can get 7k+ scores in 3DMark Vantage Extreme test, double the score of 9800GX2 in 3DMark Vantage Extreme test. But now we still don’t know the specification of the test hardware and software configurations.
We learn that GeForce GTX 280 graphics card is equipped with 512-bit 1GB DDR3 video memory; it has 240 stream processors with 250W power consumption. GeForce GTX 280 graphics card uses dual slot cooling fan,
We also heard there’s no problem for GeForce GTX 280 graphics card to run 1920x1200 with AA and AF in Crysis.
Nice if it would be true. xD
That would be a huge performance boost jump to today's gpu market. Well if these rumored specs really are true then I don't see why it couldn't. Now this wouldn't necessary mean 2x performance in PC games but it's sure speaks for some nice performance boost in any case.
But that last sentence is a bit fishy to me. If Crysis runs fine at 1920x1200 with AA and AF, either AA & AF is handled severly more effective now (yea SPs numbers have increased a lot) but it would have to increase more than 2x the performance currently to run Crysis 1920 x 1200 fine with AA and AF. 1GB vidmem could help a lot I know here and the high bandwidth, I dunno, I'll just believe it when I see it.
ehh, that sounds like they are just posting what people want to hear to get hits, double the 9800gx2? That's at least 3 times the performance of g80, not going to happen unless if that setup was oc'd to the extreme or was a dual gpu setup
Well I don't think 3DMark Vantage for starters will be a good indicator how PC games will run like which will probably see a less benefit (when I hear 2x higher 3DMark Vantage score my mind goes automaticly like, ok prolly 50 ~ 60% pc game performance advantage) at least today's popular ones but upcoming PC titles might see a little bigger improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
I'd love to see some leaked PC game performance tests. :p:
The 250W alone says its wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Face
hmm 250W... includes H20 cooling. :D
Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
250W against 159W from RV770? That is kind of a big difference there, dont think it will be 250W unless it turns out to be a dual gpu card, which is ofcourse useless (unless u wanna brag about having the fastest card on the market) and a waste of electricity.
Bus size doesn't mean that much at all. My old G80 GTS has 320 bits bus, more than the current GTS with their 256 bits but its a slower card. They need to make the card powerful enough to actually use all the bandwidth in order for the size to matter.
bus size does mean a lotQuote:
Originally Posted by TurboDiv
compare an 8800gtx to a 9800gtx :rolleyes:
512bit MC
1GB DDR3
240 Core
250W
2X performance of 9800GX2 : 7K+ Vantage Extreme preset
Crysis at 1920x1200 with AA/AF no problem
source:
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=277971
More than 7000 points in Vantage Extreme?!! :shocked:
If its true than RV770 and R700 is history.
not really. if the price of the RV770 is lower, then its really a "you get what you pay for" situation.
You're doing your math wrong...Quote:
Originally Posted by prostoman
GT-200 will be high-end, and AMD/ATi plan to aim the 4870x2 at it... Take that 159w for the RV770, multiply it by about 1.8x, and suddenly that 250w on NVidia's side doesn't sound too crazy now does it? ;)
(very) small pix of gt200 pcb
http://www.itocp.com/thread-8904-1-1.html