Printable View
Has this already been posted?
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/819...secret15tz.jpg
Is it fake?
It was one of those things that made me go...WTF?
But I could see with basically a 1/3-1/2 increase in arch and a 35% increase in clockspeed how AIB peeps could be disappointed, even if it performs well.
I'm also hearing 6500 one card in 06...Mix that with what he said, and things are becoming very clear. Perhaps 24rops, 2 shaders per rop? How they'd fit all that on 90nm and that size...I dunno.
maybe they're leveraging their two shader units per pipe architecture for marketing against the R580.
Oh absoutely, that's what it looks like.
But sheesh, that's like:
50% more rops
50% more tmus
200% pixel shaders (Or not...same amount of pixel shaders)
(50% greater clocks)
from 7800gtx on 110nm to 7900gtx on 90nm.
on a die almost half that of R580, when both are 90nm. How the hell...?
I mean, kudos to them for making a small chip with a bunch of tech on it, obviously saves costs and helps the return factor...also explains the limiting of clock potential....but how is that even possible? 55% the size of R580?
Edit: Oh...touche'....I get what you mean. It's always been 1 main ALU and 1 lesser ALU....So it's always been 2 ALUs. So really, no differance.
compusa.com has pny 7900gt's for $349 450/1400 are the clock speeds. anyone with a 7800gtx 256 that can do those clocks want to let us know what your card does? should score identical.
http://www.compusa.com/products/prod...181&pfp=BROWSE
it says coming soon.. lets hope so.. and lets hope that it kicks some serious ass
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=1121
3dmark scores for the 7900GTX and GT.
System Configuration:
Athlon 64 FX-55
1GB DDR400 (2x512MB)
nForce4 motherboard
All tests were performed with a 1280x1024 resolution. The cards tested claimed 1.2ns DDR3 for both cards. ForceWare 84.12 was used for testing.
GeForce 7900GTX 512MB
650mhz core clock, 1600MHz memory clock
3dmark 03: 17800
3dmark 05: 7600
3dmark 06: 5200
GeForce 7900GT 256MB
450mhz core clock, 1300MHz memory clock
3dmark 03: 13800
3dmark 05: 7000
3dmark 06: 4550
Why 1280*1024 :confused: ?
yeah.
i only got the free 3dmark05 so i cant change res.
so i have nothing to compaire.
edit: found a 3dmark06 review were they ran 33mark96 with a AMD64 4000+
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...dmark06_9.html
7800gt makes 3396
7800gtx 3812
7800GTX512 4542
x1900xtx 4823
x1900xt 4662
x1800xt 3672
Hey starscream.
Default on 3dmarks up to 05 was 1024x768, then they bumped it to 1280x1024 in 3dmark06. If you lend me a 7900gt i'll run it @ 1280x1024 in 05 ;)
these
7800gt makes 3396
7800gtx 3812
7800GTX512 4542
x1900xtx 4823
x1900xt 4662
x1800xt 3672
are 2006 3dmark
so both 7900gt and 7900gtx are faster than any video card out there
@Weee
i know, the 3dmark05 scores at dailytech are done @1280x1024
i got the free version so cant change my res to compaire my 7800GT.
@leviathan18
ya them scores arent half bad.
the 7900GTX scores slightly above the x1900xtx and the 7900GT scores slightly below the X1900xt.
so for below 300 dollars a 7900gt that can compete with a X1900XT.
that is fi these 3dmark06 scores give us any input on how they behave in games.
Remember ATI's X1800/X1600/X1300 SLides ? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by leviathan18
Far too premature for that statement, especially since the use of 1280x1024 instead of default res for 03 and 05 might be a sign ;)
Plus...with the 7900GT at $349, so is the X1800XT 256MB...and the X1900XL has yet to show up...so the 79xx is far from the last laugh...and it wont even be that with similarities to 78xx line.
However, turtle has uncovered interesting information regarding TMUs on the 79xx that werent there with the 78xx. So they will definitly put up a fight :)
Perkam
Also remember that 3dmark06 biases against NVIDIA pretty heavily, eg X1800XT loses to 7800GT.
that is Biased in favor.. and that is because they amount of OpenGL built into the games..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
I thought it was a Direct3D benchmark. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by nn_step
In any event, 3dmark06 has the worst comparability of any 3dmark and the worst representation of future in game performance. 3dmark05 is ahead in both of those areas...so it has a long way to go.
Perkam
Definately agree with that..Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Personally I thought its shader dependency, rather than 05's vertex dependency seemed very realistic for future games. Plus, you know, it's not held back by the CPU so much.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle
Easy... The biggest part of the R520/R580 is their memory controller, THAT'S how NVidia's chip is so much smaller. The Ringbus controller is close to 100 million transistors alone IIRC.
As for how they could go 48 shaders, just expand their 2 mini ALU's per pipe that they already had to full ALU's(there are more transistors in G71 than G70) and they'd have 48 shaders as well. Wouldn't take up that much more room to do so.
lol @ Inq.
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/ar.../redgreens.gif
Seeing as ATI and Nvidia will both deny any involvement, the inq is free to parade this as an exclusive. It's quite funny, except it doesn't help ATI...I've seen XTXs doing that score on air.
Perkam
X7900 GTX? This slide is defintely not made by Nvidia :)
mwave does it again......$795.00????
http://www.mwave.com/mwave/DeepSearc...GTX&ALL=y&TP=2
in 3dm05(1280x1024) xt got ~9500 ( a guy with 4000+ stock cpu)Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
in 3dm06 xtx with x2 4400+@2.64 got 6,133(10,841 - 3dm05) ( though it would be interesting to know how much 7900gtx would gain from 5200 by addin' 2nd core CPU)
what the fsck.. that is almost double MSRP..Quote:
Originally Posted by wkmgt
its theinq so :)Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
and for Mwave:
it seems some companys dont want to make any money