Nvidia GT200-successor on 22th October?

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

09-19-2008, 04:06 PM
foch3 -USA-

there is always Cuda-pi or what ever it will be called.
09-19-2008, 04:54 PM
grimREEFER

i have the feeling its just gonna be 2 gtx 280's or gtx 260's in some form.
09-19-2008, 05:01 PM
YukonTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat

did i just read an article written by Yoda ?? sure sounded like it

Yoda overdosing on amphetamines and a poor track record in English classes.
09-20-2008, 05:02 AM
cowie

i thuoght that nv only must get close to the price/performance of the 4870x2 to beat it?
as per say the 4870 to the 280.but anyways will see
09-20-2008, 06:17 AM
ahmad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macadamia

oh wait, where's CUDA now?

What do you mean exactly by this statement?
09-20-2008, 07:03 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macadamia

I don't think they even had the GDDR5 memory controller finalized when it was July. Whatever reason they didn't do it before, I'm very inclined to say it's technical. Otherwise even with existing GDDR4 they wouldn't have been so shortsighted with the GT200 obviously.

nVidia really did NOT knew about this one. They thought the 4870 was going to be like the 3870, excessive waste on bandwidth.

Plus they have a lot of other fish to fry too, including shader density, keeping the core clock >700Mhz, and oh wait, where's CUDA now?

GDDR4 is and was a failure. So lets drop that part.

GDDR5 is still in low supply. If nVidia had gone GDDR5 aswell. There would be a huge supply issue. And AMD already got all the supply. In short, until GDDR5 gets enough volume and gets cheap enough. 512But GDDR3 or 256bit GDDR5 is basicly the same in all aspects. 256bit GDDR5 is the winner in the long run tho when GDDR5 prices comes down and supply increases.

So its not a matter of if GT200 supports GDDR5 or not. Bandwidth doesnt matter atm.

nVidia failed because they thought AMD would go the cheap small route again. So they put their money on 480SP or so. Not 800.
09-20-2008, 07:11 AM
BenchZowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

GDDR4 is and was a failure. So lets drop that part.

GDDR5 is still in low supply. If nVidia had gone GDDR5 aswell. There would be a huge supply issue. And AMD already got all the supply. In short, until GDDR5 gets enough volume and gets cheap enough. 512But GDDR3 or 256bit GDDR5 is basicly the same in all aspects. 256bit GDDR5 is the winner in the long run tho when GDDR5 prices comes down and supply increases.

So its not a matter of if GT200 supports GDDR5 or not. Bandwidth doesnt matter atm.

nVidia failed because they thought AMD would go the cheap small route again. So they put their money on 480SP or so. Not 800.

Totally correct, and agreed.
09-20-2008, 07:15 AM
spoof

It really does not matter, how will the new video card perform. The interesting think is does AMD have some hidden cards with the PLX chip on 4870x2 board and the inactive functions.
09-20-2008, 07:38 AM
Blacky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

GDDR4 is and was a failure. So lets drop that part.

GDDR5 is still in low supply. If nVidia had gone GDDR5 aswell. There would be a huge supply issue. And AMD already got all the supply. In short, until GDDR5 gets enough volume and gets cheap enough. 512But GDDR3 or 256bit GDDR5 is basicly the same in all aspects. 256bit GDDR5 is the winner in the long run tho when GDDR5 prices comes down and supply increases.

So its not a matter of if GT200 supports GDDR5 or not. Bandwidth doesnt matter atm.

nVidia failed because they thought AMD would go the cheap small route again. So they put their money on 480SP or so. Not 800.

^^ this
09-20-2008, 08:02 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

GDDR5 is still in low supply.

AMD get all the GDDR5 stock so there is no low supply.
HD 4870 512Mb GDDR5 despite being launched later then GTX260, it came up on market first.

AMD is selling right now:
- HD 4870 512Mb GDDR5
- HD 4870 1Gb GDDR5
- HD 4870X2 2Gb GDDR5

And there is supply for everyone in every markets and many brandings.
256bit + GGDR5 was a very very smart move....

For Q1 2009 they can simply shrink RV770 to 40nm still using 256bit and jump to 5Ghz++ GDDR5.
09-20-2008, 08:10 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

AMD get all the GDDR5 stock so there is no low supply.
HD 4870 512Mb GDDR5 despite being launched later then GTX260, it came up on market first.

You are counteragrueing yourself. No low supply, AMD get all there is and only 3 lowvolume cards with GDDR5.

See it? :rofl:

And right now, even with a shrink, faster GDDR5 speeds doesnt matter much if any. Maybe on RV870+

But hopefully AMD and nVidia will jump on the same wagon as Intels Larrabee.

http://www.techarp.com/article/Intel.../bandwidth.jpg
09-20-2008, 08:27 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

You are counteragrueing yourself. No low supply, AMD get all there is and only 3 lowvolume cards with GDDR5.

Is not so Low Volume cards because HD 4870 is almost in the sweet spot of 200 euros (in Euroland).
The HD 4870X2 is the very low volume card.

Despite the lower supply it´s more then enought for AMD pourposes and strategy ;)
As I said, AMD strategy worked in perfection.
09-20-2008, 09:56 AM
r4gm4n

Am I the only one that doesn't want a major performance increase in terms of numbers in apps and games?

I would rather see currently performance levels to stay somewhat the same and have something that focuses more of significantly reduced heat and power consumption. Games arn't increasing in performance requirements at the moment. Surely that with reduced heat and power consumption this would in the end game provide much much profit for the companies?
09-20-2008, 10:01 AM
YukonTrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by r4gm4n

Games arn't increasing in performance requirements at the moment.

:wth:

Games are increasing in performance requirements all the time.
09-20-2008, 11:40 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by r4gm4n

Am I the only one that doesn't want a major performance increase in terms of numbers in apps and games?

I would rather see currently performance levels to stay somewhat the same and have something that focuses more of significantly reduced heat and power consumption. Games arn't increasing in performance requirements at the moment. Surely that with reduced heat and power consumption this would in the end game provide much much profit for the companies?

Me too. Its pretty sad that you can have a 50W rig, and then some semicrap 100-150W GFX card in.
09-20-2008, 01:02 PM
Leeghoofd

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

As I said, AMD strategy worked in perfection.

It has to work once in a while... good for them otherwise they would have sacked employees instead of Nvidia :rolleyes:
09-20-2008, 01:31 PM
largon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Its pretty sad that you can have a 50W rig, and then some semicrap 100-150W GFX card in.

True.
Hehe, I remember back in the day when fans first started appearing on video cards. Now look at where we are - single GPU abominations with 180W of actual power consumption.
09-20-2008, 01:58 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by largon

True.
Hehe, I remember back in the day when fans first started appearing on video cards. Now look at where we are - single GPU abominations with 180W of actual power consumption.

Oh ye...I want the old cards back.

TNT2 ULTRA!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...180px-TNT2.jpg

GFX cards is also the only things keeping us in large cases.
09-20-2008, 02:05 PM
bedlamite

Quote:

GFX cards is also the only things keeping us in large cases.

Well, I think that CPU coolers and three memmory channels do that quite well ;)
09-20-2008, 02:05 PM
v_rr

Someone missed the HD 4600 series.
Low power-consuption, high performance, no aditional power conector, DX_10.1, tesselation, UVD2.0, Opengl 3.0, etc
09-20-2008, 02:14 PM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Someone missed the HD 4600 series.
(Alot of commercial crap)

Nope, still too much power drawn, still too big cooler, still too big card.

Some HD4550/9400GT cards...

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-11/29a.png
09-20-2008, 02:18 PM
Swatrecon_

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

Oh ye...I want the old cards back.

TNT2 ULTRA!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...180px-TNT2.jpg

GFX cards is also the only things keeping us in large cases.

that thing was the :banana::banana::banana::banana:! I had one in an old Dell XPS and it played my games for at least 5 years.
09-20-2008, 02:21 PM
insurgent

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

It has to work once in a while... good for them otherwise they would have sacked employees instead of Nvidia :rolleyes:

So it's a fluke! LMAO, and you were saying you were objective, funneh.
09-20-2008, 02:48 PM
Cybercat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

But hopefully AMD and nVidia will jump on the same wagon as Intels Larrabee.

http://www.techarp.com/article/Intel.../bandwidth.jpg

Pardon my ignorance, but is that pic illustrating the bandwidth usage difference between tile based rendering versus total fragment rendering?
09-20-2008, 02:50 PM
STaRGaZeR

Quote:

Originally Posted by r4gm4n

Am I the only one that doesn't want a major performance increase in terms of numbers in apps and games?

I would rather see currently performance levels to stay somewhat the same and have something that focuses more of significantly reduced heat and power consumption. Games arn't increasing in performance requirements at the moment. Surely that with reduced heat and power consumption this would in the end game provide much much profit for the companies?

I will want more perfomance until they reach the level of 4xAA or 8xAA plus sustained 60fps (in a 60Hz monitor), 75fps (in a 75Hz monitor), etc. in all games. Only then me and probably most people in this forum will be happy with their gaming perfomance. Don't misunderstand me, I want the lowest possible power consumption, specially at idle because most of the time is spent idling, but when gaming I only care about those dreamed constant 60/75fps.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page