I'd say 649$
Printable View
I'd say 649$
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Ron7aldo
Yes it got twice as much as 9800GX2 in one of the 3dm vantage tests. (According to pczilla.net).
Yes you don't seem to have a complete picture of how nvidia and ati architectures differ from each other.
Sub 1 Tera flop
Meh..
If the Ultra can get 12 fps on Crysis @ 1920 by 1200, very high, 8 AA & AF on Q9650 @ 4.0ghz
What will the Gtx280 get?
23fps
AFAIK the 933 GF specs come from charlie at theinq, which is a pro-ati biased source.Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kbos
Besides, the GTX 280 should get about 30 fps at the settings you mentioned.
649$ is what nvidia high end has costed in the past, seems reasonable that 600+ would be just that.
You can't scale flops exactly. ANd 933 Gflops IS the number - its calculated by 3 (2 MADD + 1 MUL) * 1300 Shader Clock * 240 SP = 933 GFlops
But on the other hand, apparently G80 MUL wasn't working 75% of the time so it was closr to 2 * 1500 * 128 = 350ish Gflops rather than the theoretical 581
Also, thats why you cant compare numbers directly over different architectures, even within derivatives (such as G80 Ultra vs. G92 GTX, where clearly the G92 GTX architecture has some memory bottlenecks and performs up to G80 ultra performance at higher resolutions, and even loses some when AA and other things are on at higher res)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
So you trust INQ on that matter? And now suddenly after that article everyone seem so sure that the clocks are that low which were claimed by by theinq.
Because very good sources confirmed the clocks... such as CJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuker_
FYI- That was BEFORE TheInq's article.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...=7523&Itemid=1
If fud is right, we're looking at 600mhz for the core, which seems pretty high considering how large the die is, definitely going to run very hot. That, and that means what the inquirer has said is impossible to happen because 1296mhz just can't happen now for the shaders (unless we're looking at something like a 2.xxxx shader domain lol) and it never could for the core, plus I think its safe to say gt200 won't be spanked by the r700
Yep as LordEC911, CJ had already stated those numbers before Fud ever got a hand on them, and more than a few sources besides TheInq has quoted them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuker_
And that's how the math for counting flops has been done for some time. Lower clocks doesnt mean anything bad - they're just saving us from excessive heat and power draw and the fact that these shaders might have the full 3 operations / sec and you have 240 of them means that you will still get tons more performance from shaders
Have I ever said I question the maths? No... Why do you keep ranting about it then? I undersstand how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Well your saying do I trust those numbers, and those numbers are what were calculated out before Inq ever got his fingers on them, so yes I do actually believe those numbers. What they actually translate to in the real world though, he has no clueQuote:
Originally Posted by Nuker_
Insane :down: .Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Same price as 8800GTX launched at IIRC, and any other previous high end pieces of hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
And with 50% morre efficient shader units, do they mean 50% improvisation in performance per transistor, or 50% higher transistor count, as in more raw power? If the latter was true, wouldn't the maths have to be adjusted for the flop-count, making it well beyond 1 Tflop?
The 50% means the MUL is working constantly now...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuker_
Please see this post-
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
And how much performance will able to bring "the missing MUL component" ?
This post could probably tell you something: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=1548Quote:
Originally Posted by whocaresbg
Damn power consumption is just increasing and increasing. :(
80 ROPs :shocked:
BTW what do you guys mean the MUL wasnt working 75 percent of the time? Do you mean the third shader can do additional operations now?
Yep essentially the shaders can do all full 3 operations rather than the 2 previously.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
Also, it's not 80 ROPs, its 32 ROPS.
Like G80 architecture, its 4 ROPS per 64-bits of memory bus hence 512-bit bus -> 32 ROPS, 448-bit bus -> 28 ROPS
And it looks like the ratio is 24 SP's per 8 TMU's as well which isn't quite the 2 to 1 for G92 but better than the 4 to 1 on G80 (though it was 32TA, 64TF)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrowncoatGR
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=625
:up:
whats the story with the 260 shader clock, some sources say 1240 others say 999
Actually I recall $300-400 high-end cards being the norm not so long ago. In this economy especially, $650+ for a card seems WAY out of line where money is tighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuker_
Isn't it kinda weird that there is virtually no reviews with definitive numbers for a graphics card that is scheduled for a July release date?
that's because it's still under NDAQuote:
Originally Posted by SamHughe
What he means is: If I didnt have to sign/agree an NDA could actually tell you some numbers.....Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22