Nvidia Geforce 9800GTX Specifications released!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowmage

That's pointless, since then NVIDIA will receive lots of bad press for neglecting a segment of the market. Increasing the number of stream processors, etc is much better, since it improves performance across all segments.

---

yes but edram is more efficient than increasing the number of stream processors in term of aa performance. also they may have "too many" stream processors to that other things like the memory, ROP's or TMU's can't keep up so the extra's are wasted. or they could use it to store something that is being used heavily in the game (certain effects of textures eg. the texture of the ground on in an RTS game) or they could use it to deliver free AF up to 8x or maybe 16x as form what i know it uses less memory than AA. i think EDRAM will be the next big step in architecture. look at cpu's think of how slow they would be without cache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

yes but edram is more efficient than increasing the number of stream processors in term of aa performance. also they may have "too many" stream processors to that other things like the memory, ROP's or TMU's can't keep up so the extra's are wasted.

---

I thought the unified arch fixed that. I'm not much of a microarchitecture specialist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Ryan

1. I realy don't think the card's name will be 9800GTX .
2. I am holding hard out til november to buy 2xG92 + Quadcore(maybe a Wolfdale)
3. I wil mout the cards on my 680i SLi (2x16X bandwith it's ok. PCIe2.0 hase a bit more bandwith and 35W of power... that's all)
4. If sombody cold re send the card's from SUA to Europ it wil be a barghen...
5. At 1Tflop Nvidia Kik's big DAAMIT ass.

Here comes the annual $300 GPU fee...

I really don't have any complaints about the 8800 tho. There's no game I play that makes me think, "Damn, if I could just get it to run a little bit faster." Of course this may all change in the holiday season w/ UT3, Crysis, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

yes but edram is more efficient than increasing the number of stream processors in term of aa performance. also they may have "too many" stream processors to that other things like the memory, ROP's or TMU's can't keep up so the extra's are wasted. or they could use it to store something that is being used heavily in the game (certain effects of textures eg. the texture of the ground on in an RTS game) or they could use it to deliver free AF up to 8x or maybe 16x as form what i know it uses less memory than AA. i think EDRAM will be the next big step in architecture. look at cpu's think of how slow they would be without cache.

---

eDram is nothing more than ram. You can't get "free" aniso from fast ram, as it's a filtering operation. Some could argue that you could get "free" AA, but with today's AA ops as complex as they are that's overly simplistic. Also take into account that while a common target for eDram used to be the frame buffer, today's popular resolutions have grown too high to make it cost effective. Take for example 1680x1050x32bpp w/ NO AA, standard front and back buffer.... the front buffer alone is be 56,448,000 uncompressed. (56MB)

eDram is nothing but a waste of transistors for any decent size resolution, and therefore this looks entirely fake. The only possibility is that this could be closer to realistic now that transistor counts in the last gen have already gotten ridiculous, but I still don't think anyone would waste space on eDram for PC resolutions.

P.S. Both ATI and Nvidia designs have had L1 and L2 cache for quite some time now.

Wow... and how ATi hopes to top this with a multi-core version of the R600... that beats me quite frankly.
I'm an ATi fan, but this is just too sheer to ignore. When is this coming out?

With memory bandwidth reaching 150gb/s with the 512bit memory and GDDR4 Ram, I don't think eDRAM is any a necessity >_>.

Still, it's better then not having it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ColonelCain

Wow... and how ATi hopes to top this with a multi-core version of the R600... that beats me quite frankly.
I'm an ATi fan, but this is just too sheer to ignore. When is this coming out?

---

by the end of this year

Nice specs (again). It seems that the new generations nowadays always give a two fold performance increase. I think that they can do better (less energy consuming chip) by taking a longer time for designing, but it seems that they rather bring out a new series every 9-12 months?

Maybe nvidia should let us fold on our 9800GTXs.

It's only 4-5 months away from now... I think I can wait a little longer and grab me one of these..
I've lost all faith in ATi with their driver support and with this around the corner a 8800 seems a little waste of money...

Do you even realize how fast cpu you need? :p:

im gonna buy a ati 9800 now and sell it in a couple of months for loads on ebay then laugh when the idiot buyer realises what he's done
[/joke]

although im sure it will happen with a few people

I never have the money to buy one, but i still can say i had an 9800, W00t!!
Who has E-PENIS now! :p:

9800pro days where really good.

*sarcasm* To me it looks like Intel and NVIDIA are joining forces to take down DAAMIT by having a very aggressive release schedule towards the smaller company which simply hasn't got enough resources to follow the same pace. By the time DAAMIT releases something new the big bad guys both NVIDIA and Intel already has something to counter attack, they are like always one step ahead. :shakes:

Like Vegas Hold em' I'm all in for the 9800GTX :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

Do you even realize how fast cpu you need? :p:

---

Maybe Penryn and Barcelona can keep up with it... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NightCrawler™

Maybe Penryn and Barcelona can keep up with it... :shrug:

---

Not in raw power... the fastest CPU reaches 30 Mflops in the better situations :up: At my know, the GPU are way too :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing powerful compared to moder CPUs:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

*sarcasm* To me it looks like Intel and NVIDIA are joining forces to take down DAAMIT by having a very aggressive release schedule towards the smaller company which simply hasn't got enough resources to follow the same pace. By the time DAAMIT releases something new the big bad guys both NVIDIA and Intel already has something to counter attack, they are like always one step ahead. :shakes:

---

the only problem with that is that if amd/ati goes down intel and nvidia wont have any competition and due to that not one reason to ever develop a new product again....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiwi

Do you even realize how fast cpu you need? :p:

---

A decent X2, or Conroe.:)

Whats Happend? I dont play any game with my 8800GTS yet!!

I can say only Damn to This World!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejavuxx

That doesnt even make sense especially when the 8800gts is 320bit it'll more be a 384bit like the 8800gtx. Com on guys this is the 9xxx sewries oh well it about may 08 before i buy my pc.... yorkfield will be out then with my NF780I 4gb of ram good to go for crysis eventually
;)

---

Generally makers go for RAM/2. Sometimes they do full on ram on high end parts, but I've only seen that in the x1950 series.

768ram = 384bit
640ram = 320bit

the gts version of this part will most likely be 512 = 256bit


Thats why it makes sense.

DAAMIT's ass is toast if those specs are true

Time to save money till this beast shows up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataNusse

DAAMIT's ass is toast if those specs are true

---

really? because if I remember correctly, AMD/ATi does continue to spend money on R&D and typically speaking such funding creates new and better products :rolleyes:

Guys, please consider the possibility that these specs are fake. The eDram piece is a huge indicator to me that someone made these specs up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer

lol.. they are coppying the name of one of the most successful video cards ever created... Good ole' 9800XT..

---

If NVIDIA's version is as successful as ATI's, I'm naming my kid 9800

OMG..:eek:.. this is unreal :)

I will start saving up :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

really? because if I remember correctly, AMD/ATi does continue to spend money on R&D and typically speaking such funding creates new and better products :rolleyes:

---

Well of course they do. But can they keep up with nVidias time schedule. And if they do, is there a possibility that they will mess up, again.

If those specs are true and the card will be released in the end of this year, then ATI is toast. Because by the end of this year i cant see ATI comming with something new beside a 65nm of R600 card.

But again the spec of this 9800GTX can be fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DataNusse

Well of course they do. But can they keep up with nVidias time schedule. And if they do, is there a possibility that they will mess up, again.

If those specs are true and the card will be released in the end of this year, then ATI is toast. Because by the end of this year i cant see ATI comming with something new beside a 65nm of R600 card.

But again the spec of this 9800GTX can be fake.

---

ATi isn't going to be toast, it is going to counteract and outperform it

We should edit the original post to let people know its some comment left a month and a half ago, not any fact...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

ATi isn't going to be toast, it is going to counteract and outperform it

---

Yea, just like they did with R600 after they saw G80. :rolleyes:

KoHaN69 - why not name it HAL 9000 ? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

really? because if I remember correctly, AMD/ATi does continue to spend money on R&D and typically speaking such funding creates new and better products :rolleyes:

---

Well the way I remember, AMD was toasting Intel for 3 years, but instead of working on K10 when they had money, they've been...?

I can't remember who said it here, but something like "Looks like AMD spent their R&D budget on booze and hookers for the last 3 years". Don't get me wrong I love AMD to bits, but because of their poor foresight they're getting spit-roasted by Intel and nV at the moment :shakes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sumanji

Well the way I remember, AMD was toasting Intel for 3 years, but instead of working on K10 when they had money, they've been...?

I can't remember who said it here, but something like "Looks like AMD spent their R&D budget on booze and hookers for the last 3 years". Don't get me wrong I love AMD to bits, but because of their poor foresight they're getting spit-roasted by Intel and nV at the moment :shakes:

---

http://redhill.net.au/c/c-8.html
Scroll down and look at the chart for a couple minutes and realize that even though they haven't always had the performance crown doesn't mean that it killed them nor did it mean they weren't working their ass off.
Heck their "failed" K5 was the key to their Famous K6 procs, after they gleaned some alternate experience from nexgen (which was considered a horrid idea by the industry but proved to be genius) or how about how they picked up the DEC alpha team at huge expense and once again thought as an absolute failure (atleast until K7 and K8 came out and changed the industry) and NOW... AMD bought ATi and people are screaming how horrid of an idea it is but I honestly Question people who don't look at AMD's history and see how often that was exactly perfect for their future plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi

I thought the unified arch fixed that. I'm not much of a microarchitecture specialist, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Ryan

---

well im not expert either but what i under stood is the unified shader architecture took the pixel pipelines and vertex shaders and made a one size fits all processor but the ROP's and TMU's still are on there own. that seems to be the 2900xt's biggest weakness it has less than the 8800gtx and gts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Truckchase!

eDram is nothing more than ram. You can't get "free" aniso from fast ram, as it's a filtering operation. Some could argue that you could get "free" AA, but with today's AA ops as complex as they are that's overly simplistic. Also take into account that while a common target for eDram used to be the frame buffer, today's popular resolutions have grown too high to make it cost effective. Take for example 1680x1050x32bpp w/ NO AA, standard front and back buffer.... the front buffer alone is be 56,448,000 uncompressed. (56MB)

eDram is nothing but a waste of transistors for any decent size resolution, and therefore this looks entirely fake. The only possibility is that this could be closer to realistic now that transistor counts in the last gen have already gotten ridiculous, but I still don't think anyone would waste space on eDram for PC resolutions.

P.S. Both ATI and Nvidia designs have had L1 and L2 cache for quite some time now.

---

i see your point and you seem to be right. i did not know that you would need that much edram in order to make it work on higher res screens. but surely edram could be used to speed something up. but i guess it's far to "big" to fit on a die and offer good benefits compared to more stream processors, ROP's and TMU's.

on another note it says "next gen unified shader" could that combine the ROP's and TMU's into the steam processors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

http://redhill.net.au/c/c-8.html
Scroll down and look at the chart for a couple minutes and realize that even though they haven't always had the performance crown doesn't mean that it killed them nor did it mean they weren't working their ass off.
Heck their "failed" K5 was the key to their Famous K6 procs, after they gleaned some alternate experience from nexgen (which was considered a horrid idea by the industry but proved to be genius) or how about how they picked up the DEC alpha team at huge expense and once again thought as an absolute failure (atleast until K7 and K8 came out and changed the industry) and NOW... AMD bought ATi and people are screaming how horrid of an idea it is but I honestly Question people who don't look at AMD's history and see how often that was exactly perfect for their future plans.

---

:up:

+100000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

http://redhill.net.au/c/c-8.html
Scroll down and look at the chart for a couple minutes and realize that even though they haven't always had the performance crown doesn't mean that it killed them nor did it mean they weren't working their ass off....

---

And my point is that over the past 3 years we have seen NO major architectural improvements in AMD processors at all. Higher clocks, DDR2 support, 65nm shrink (and a not very successful one it seems). Maybe it's too much to expect revolutionary change, but that list is evolutionary at the bare minimum imo.

K10 should have been out a year ago, giving Intel a worthy competitor to Conroe.


By the way, these specs are quite obviously made up. We go through the same thing EVERYTIME whenever we start to smell a new graphics card release. Some jackass pieces together rubbish from the Inq and Fudzilla and adds some "common sense" evolutionary bits to the spec, along with an arbitrary clock speed guess, and this makes us all shout "zomfgwtfbbq" and cream our pants.

Sorry I'm not biting on this one! :cussing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sumanji

And my point is that over the past 3 years we have seen NO major architectural improvements in AMD processors at all. Higher clocks, DDR2 support, 65nm shrink (and a not very successful one it seems). Maybe it's too much to expect revolutionary change, but that list is evolutionary at the bare minimum imo.

K10 should have been out a year ago, giving Intel a worthy competitor to Conroe.


By the way, these specs are quite obviously made up. We go through the same thing EVERYTIME whenever we start to smell a new graphics card release. Some jackass pieces together rubbish from the Inq and Fudzilla and adds some "common sense" evolutionary bits to the spec, along with an arbitrary clock speed guess, and this makes us all shout "zomfgwtfbbq" and cream our pants.

Sorry I'm not biting on this one! :cussing:

---

one silly stupid thought but, have you considered that during those 3+ years that AMD has been developing a new design to such a degree that little to none of the features came out in existing products.
Kinda like how K6 never had K7's improved Floating point performance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

one silly stupid thought but, have you considered that during those 3+ years that AMD has been developing a new design to such a degree that little to none of the features came out in existing products.
Kinda like how K6 never had K7's improved Floating point performance

---

A) AMD have already stated that K10 will be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
B) Let's wait till September ;)
C) Let's get back on topic :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sumanji

A) AMD have already stated that K10 will be more evolutionary than revolutionary.
B) Let's wait till September ;)
C) Let's get back on topic :p:

---

1) I wouldn't call significant modifications to instruction dispatch a minor evolution, rather a significant evolutionary step
2) Works for me
3) Wait you mean this isn't like the WCG? :rolleyes:

we're off topic

back on topic: when is the approx release date for this "9800GTX?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KoHaN69

If NVIDIA's version is as successful as ATI's, I'm naming my kid 9800

---

That's one of the better posts I've read around here in a while.

I can't believe people are already wetting themselves over these specs.

I'd say theres a 99.9 percent chance those specs are complete BS.

I was discussing this with Mav on MSN earlier...I thought the Audio chip and the GDDR4 sounded a bit dodgy, but maybe GDDR4 will be really decent by then?

How would a sound chips outputs be dealt with? ribbon cable and a PCI-slot for the jacks? adjust the heatsink so theres space for them on the 2nd half of the I/O-PCI plate? (Which would strongly suggest the HSF will not disperse heat out the back of the case)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

I was discussing this with Mav on MSN earlier...I thought the Audio chip and the GDDR4 sounded a bit dodgy, but maybe GDDR4 will be really decent by then?

How would a sound chips outputs be dealt with? ribbon cable and a PCI-slot for the jacks? adjust the heatsink so theres space for them on the 2nd half of the I/O-PCI plate? (Which would strongly suggest the HSF will not disperse heat out the back of the case)

---

Sound chip will be small and only to use sound over the HDMI cable IMO like how Ati does it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Verisimilitude

Generally makers go for RAM/2. Sometimes they do full on ram on high end parts, but I've only seen that in the x1950 series.

768ram = 384bit
640ram = 320bit

the gts version of this part will most likely be 512 = 256bit


Thats why it makes sense.

---

I still dont get it, for such a beast of a card it doesnt make sense to have the gts version of a newer card be 256bit when the older is 320bit so is either the GTS version of the 9 series gonna be 768mb and the high end 1gb or it just would not make sense @ all to get the GTS version of the 9 series!!!:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

I was discussing this with Mav on MSN earlier...I thought the Audio chip and the GDDR4 sounded a bit dodgy, but maybe GDDR4 will be really decent by then?

---

They aren't the dodgy bots at all mate... as mentioned already the "sound" bit could just be HDMI audio pass-through as done on teh HD2900, and GDDR4 is surely a logical progression with faster speeds etc?

The EDRAM bit is probably the fishiest item of the list!

But the entire thing is made up anyway so it doesn't matter :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dejavuxx

I still dont get it, for such a beast of a card it doesnt make sense to have the gts version of a newer card be 256bit when the older is 320bit so is either the GTS version of the 9 series gonna be 768mb and the high end 1gb or it just would not make sense @ all to get the GTS version of the 9 series!!!:mad:

---

Agreed. I believe the GTS will be 384-bit. Well, that or 448-bit. Considering performance parts usually replace last-gen flagships (and are a little faster) let's see why 384-bit works:

How many shaders does the GTS now have compared to the GTX?

A. 3/4.

Where are most ATi performance products in specs compared to the flagship?

A. 3/4.

What is 384/512?

A. 3/4

What is 12 ram chips divided by 16 ram chips (4 less chips saving nvidia moneys and perhaps a pcb change from the current 8800's for the GTS)

A. 3/4.

56x? = The answer to the universe

A. 3/4

I was thinking of 9800GX2...
Why no specs for that one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jackies

I was thinking of 9800GX2...
Why no specs for that one?

---

well there's no 8800GX2. I think they learned from the 7900GX2.

One Q: will my PSU (700w) be able to handle this by any chance ?? :eek:

n will it be bottlenecked by my OCed E6400 ?

The specs were "leaked" by a Erik Larsson, same name appears on a comment on TGDaily news piece back in April 20th (AMD’s R600 event – We’re packing our bags for Tunisia):

Quote:

---

AMD's ATI R600 will NOT be any better than GeForce 8800 GTX - NO NEED TO WAIT
Apr 22, 2007 13:12

My cusin is an nVIDIA engineer (and I'll be too) and he told me that nVIDIA got hold of an R600 sample.they tested it,benchmarked it and played with it and found that R600 HD 2900 XT is no better than nVIDIA's GeForce 8800 GTX GPU..Infact the 8800 GTX proved superior to R600 XT in shader intensive apps and pc games due to the G80 better implemintation of the unified shader architecture and also due to the fact the G80 is 100% efficient scalar & streaming design..performance wise, 8800 GTX is 15-20% faster than R600 XT in shader intensive apps and games...so for all ATI fanboys the wait for R600 was for nothing..G80 is much more powerful than R600 from architectural perspective..G80 is scalar vs R600 vector etc...
the only edge R600 XT has over 8800 GTX is its price standing at MSRP of 399 USD...another news is that R600 XTX 1GB will not make it to the public..The retail version of R600,the XT model will have only 512MB GDDR memory (1600DDR) yeilding in at 102.4 GB/s bamdwith..compared to 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3 memory..so in summary :
GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB vs Radeon HD 2900 XT 512MB is a lost fight for AMD/ATI..

Erik Larsson

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ANP !!!

One Q: will my PSU (700w) be able to handle this by any chance ?? :eek:

n will it be bottlenecked by my OCed E6400 ?

---

PSU will be fine, imo 88GTX Is bottlenecked by most Cpu's out there already
So will definitely be Bottlenecked bring on the age of Quad core my friend :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004

PSU will be fine, imo 88GTX Is bottlenecked by most Cpu's out there already
So will definitely be Bottlenecked bring on the age of Quad core my friend :p:

---

Thank You man :D . So i guess i will look forward for upgrading my CPU 1st hand :p: