GeForce 9900 GTX & GTS Slated For July Launch

Printable View

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

05-27-2008, 10:09 PM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

some people seem to be forgetting that it is rumored to have the second gen shadders which are up to 50% faster clock per clock tot he old ones. so you take way more shadders, faster clocj per clock shadders, more TMU's, more ROP's and bigger bus width. that's one HECK of a card you have.

No, it just means they finally got the MUL working constantly...
Which should have happened over 18 months ago.:down:
05-27-2008, 10:19 PM
god's_gift

well at extreme high setting and aa on crysis is giving 43 fps with 280 in sli configuration and some quad core (no exact info) 1920x1200 resolution (dell monitor i guess it is 24")

BTW this is my 1st post
05-27-2008, 10:34 PM
Bo_Fox

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

I hope this post is a joke. In case it isn't, I'll respond. With the dollar depreciated, it matters a lot more on price. The line of "there's a higher card priced above that" is bull, marketing hook line and sinker.

As far as card prices? My 9700 pro ran me $320 on launch day. My Ti200 ran me about $220... my Voodoo 3 3000 ran $299, my V5 5500 ran about $350, my GF4 Ti4200 ran me about $200, I skipped the 5/6 series, 7900GT ran $250 for me at launch, 8800GTS 640 was the most expensive I ever bought at $380 and it seemed out of this world expensive. Since then I've bought a pair of 8800GT 512 cards for $250 total after a $30 rebate for SLI. The whole "but they've always been expensive!" thing is absurd and reeks of buying into marketing hype that spins things like a top.

Again, cards should not run $650... it's a *RECENT* trend with the 8800GTX and probably this GTX 280, not a long-term thing that should be coddled and appreciated for giving us tech "early" (yeah, right! early my arse). As consumers we should be appalled at such absurdly high prices... it's not like the economy is in a great time period, either, let alone the fact that it's basically ripping you off at those prices.

Try again with something reasonable, please, as to why video cards should run $650 for the high-end when they never have/had in the past?

Well, that's silly to do when the Ti200's were around $220 on Black Friday deals near launch and performed nearly as well when overclocked :). It doesn't make it any less of a rip.

No, the Voodoo3 3000 was never $299. I know, because I bought it at launch day for $200 from CompUSA in April 1999. Unless you were an idiot... LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650

i hate to say it but.

6800 ultra was over $600
7800gtx was over $600
7800gtx 512 was over $700
7900gtx was close to $600
7950gx2 was over $600
8800gtx was over $600
8800 ultra was over $800
9800gx2 was about $600

granted the prices dropped (some fast) but at launch even the good e-talliers were at those prices. all newish Nvidia high end cards have been at over over $600 at launch and with the specs the GTX 280 is boasting i will gladly pay over $600 for that beast of a card. some people seem to be forgetting that it is rumored to have the second gen shadders which are up to 50% faster clock per clock tot he old ones. so you take way more shadders, faster clocj per clock shadders, more TMU's, more ROP's and bigger bus width. that's one HECK of a card you have.

Not just Nvidia!!! ATI's X800XT was at the same $500+ price point, with the rare platinum edition running at well over $650. I got my X1900XTX at $500 off Ebay when it was selling for $599 at CompUSA for many months later.

But, if you gotta blame it on Nvidia, you can say that the first $500 gaming card ever was the GeForce 2 Ultra! Remember that? Voodoo2 SLI was $500, but that was for 2 separate cards...
05-27-2008, 11:17 PM
adamsleath

yes, the sad truth of high end cards is their price :D
05-28-2008, 01:29 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by god's_gift

well at extreme high setting and aa on crysis is giving 43 fps with 280 in sli configuration and some quad core (no exact info) 1920x1200 resolution (dell monitor i guess it is 24")

BTW this is my 1st post

:welcome:

Would you like to be a little more detailed about what you're saying? I bet everyone's interested :D
05-28-2008, 06:30 AM
[XC] hipno650

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bo_Fox

No, the Voodoo3 3000 was never $299. I know, because I bought it at launch day for $200 from CompUSA in April 1999. Unless you were an idiot... LOL!

Not just Nvidia!!! ATI's X800XT was at the same $500+ price point, with the rare platinum edition running at well over $650. I got my X1900XTX at $500 off Ebay when it was selling for $599 at CompUSA for many months later.

But, if you gotta blame it on Nvidia, you can say that the first $500 gaming card ever was the GeForce 2 Ultra! Remember that? Voodoo2 SLI was $500, but that was for 2 separate cards...

oh you misunderstood me. i had no intention of bashing nvidia. and i could have done the same thing with older ATI cards as well

X850XT PE over $600
X1800XT 512 over $600
X1900XTX over $600
X1950XTX over $550

the only reason that the new ATI cards have not been the same way (2900xt and 3870X2) is because sub par performance would mean no one would pay over $600 for them.

people just need to realize that most top of the line cards are over $600 at launch. sure you can get good cards for $300 but there not top of the line. you want the big performance you pay the big bucks.
05-28-2008, 06:31 AM
mascaras

Quote:

Originally Posted by god's_gift

BTW this is my 1st post

:welcome:

Quote:

Originally Posted by god's_gift

well at extreme high setting and aa on crysis is giving 43 fps with 280 in sli configuration and some quad core (no exact info) 1920x1200 resolution (dell monitor i guess it is 24")

Source ???

My system with 9800GX2 @ Crysis :

E8400@4Ghz
4Gb Gskill 8000 PQ
NVidia 9800GX2
TFT 22" @ 1680x1050
VERY HIGH Settings
AA = OFF
Vista 64bit @ DX10
Average = 35.5 FPS

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/6...yhighocmy8.jpg

regards
05-28-2008, 06:58 AM
DilTech

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordEC911

No, it just means they finally got the MUL working constantly...
Which should have happened over 18 months ago.:down:

No... The MUL would only account for a 33% increase(MADD = 2, MUL = 1), so there's more to the story than just the MUL working now.
05-28-2008, 07:21 AM
god's_gift

source is well .... a asic designer in MCP group........... with some chance it being myself :D

i am vacationing......no one can tress my ip

i do not have a lot of 1st hand info on this beyond design and simulation stage

initial design goal was 100% improvement on previous generation mostly through better shader structure

but there was some setbacks in doubling the shader performance and scaling for more than 200(initially thought) shaders

the quad core was probably qx9650 for the test rig on 790i

and i told that there was some aa involved for maximum stress test

unfortunately i do not have info on aa level

BTW mascaras are you using some tweaked thing for crysis?

why do not you check fps at 1920x1200 maximum setting and some varying level of aa
05-28-2008, 07:24 AM
MrHydes

Quote:

9600 GT Matrix

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8...thybridmk7.jpg
Hybrid cooling tech.

Source: nordichardware

Stock Clocks

Asus latest baby (road to Computex 08)

sorry the offtopic :p:
05-28-2008, 07:44 AM
mascaras

Quote:

Originally Posted by god's_gift

source is well .... a asic designer in MCP group........... with some chance it being myself :D

i am vacationing......no one can tress my ip

i do not have a lot of 1st hand info on this beyond design and simulation stage

initial design goal was 100% improvement on previous generation mostly through better shader structure

but there was some setbacks in doubling the shader performance and scaling for more than 200(initially thought) shaders

the quad core was probably qx9650 for the test rig on 790i

and i told that there was some aa involved for maximum stress test

unfortunately i do not have info on aa level

BTW mascaras are you using some tweaked thing for crysis?

why do not you check fps at 1920x1200 maximum setting and some varying level of aa

nope , no tweak !

i dont have GX2 anymore to check at 1920x1200 (waiting for new card @ review)

i also bought a new HP 23" @ 1920x1200 two days ago !

i think ~40 fps crysis with 2x GTX280 @ SLI (~1200$) @ 1920x1200 is nothing special , i hope they are better ......

regards
05-28-2008, 07:48 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by mascaras

~40 fps crysis with 2x GTX280 @ SLI (~1200$) @ 1920x1200 i think is Low ......

I believe it's just too soon to make such an assumption, we should wait for reviews and trusty sources.

And he doesn't know AA level used in that "bench", so we cannot assume it's good or bad, i think...
05-28-2008, 08:10 AM
jas420221

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

I believe it's just too soon to make such an assumption, we should wait for reviews and trusty sources.

And he doesn't know AA level used in that "bench", so we cannot assume it's good or bad, i think...

If thats true, it better be AT LEAST 4X...
05-28-2008, 09:05 AM
Leeghoofd

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

We used to be able to buy top-end cards for $300 only a few years ago :shrug: so this new trend of stupidly high prices SUCKS. The G92 was more in-line with historical pricing.

Think you got Alzheimer mate... all the top end cards I got the last few years, with exception of the 9800GTX were over 450-500 euro's here so about 600 dollars at release date (talking about Nvidia only)
All the cards you bought were surely NOT bought on launch date or you got some direct connect with Nvidia or access to some hidden cargo...

I payed at least twice as much as you...:shrug... and don't talk about online access as I look for those too... on Launch date you pay extra just to have it, if you wait a month(s) or so you can get far better deals... but I don't care for that...

If you got the fastest on the market and demand is there, why not ask for a premium price... would be stupid in a marketing point of view...

I always buy the fastest thing around , I don't know why really as my monitor doesn't support resolutions over 1600 x 1200 lol... I'm just a show off...:ROTF:
05-28-2008, 10:08 AM
Nuker_

Quote:

Originally Posted by jas420221

If thats true, it better be AT LEAST 4X...

I hope it is 16x and VERY bad drivers. It would be pathetic if it did not outperform gx2.
05-28-2008, 10:09 AM
Jacky

I am kinda lazy, so could someone tell me whether it will support double precision? I guess no..
05-28-2008, 10:11 AM
ownage

Vantage Xtreme settings, 1920*1200+4aa+16af

GTX 280 (D10U-30): X4098
GTX 260 (D10U-20): X3782

9800GX2 should score X3600
05-28-2008, 10:14 AM
Nuker_

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacky

I am kinda lazy, so could someone tell me whether it will support double precision? I guess no..

I thought it would be a yes to that q.

Ownage, are you telling me that 280 is going to perform 8% better than 260 for 30% higher msrp? And that it is faster than gx2.
05-28-2008, 10:18 AM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuker_

I thought it would be a yes to that q.

Ownage, are you telling me that 280 is going to perform 8% better than 260 for 30% higher msrp? And that it is faster than gx2.

We already knew both cards would be faster then the GX2. I don't have any experience with Vantage, so don't know if 8% is allot or not.
05-28-2008, 10:21 AM
Nuker_

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

We already knew both cards would be faster then the GX2. I don't have any experience with Vantage, so don't know if 8% is allot or not.

I meant 260. I didn't really think that was going to be faster than GX2. 280 obviously would be faster.
05-28-2008, 10:25 AM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuker_

I meant 260. I didn't really think that was going to be faster than GX2. 280 obviously would be faster.

It was already rumored for a while both cards would be faster then the GX2. These Vantage scores say the same. One thing is sure, these cards are evil!
http://www.pureoverclock.com/images/...vidia_evil.jpg
05-28-2008, 10:28 AM
Nuker_

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

It was already rumored for a while both cards would be faster then the GX2. These Vantage scores say the same. One thing is sure, these cards are evil!
http://www.pureoverclock.com/images/...vidia_evil.jpg

Yeah! Hope I'm not too optimistic, but if the 260 is 10% faster the GX2 the 280 will be like 37.5% better! For 600 $ that's a quite nice price/performance ratio. If this is true, I will probably buy one at launch date, but I wonder how my power supply will handle the beast! Finally I will be able to play crysis at my desktop resolution with something like 40-60 fps, which my hd2900xt does at 8-9 fps.
05-28-2008, 10:57 AM
zerazax

Should be good, though I be people will whine that they were promised 2x GX2 speed :rolleyes:
05-28-2008, 12:03 PM
GoldenTiger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leeghoofd

Think you got Alzheimer mate...
I always buy the fastest thing around , I don't know why really as my monitor doesn't support resolutions over 1600 x 1200 lol... I'm just a show off...:ROTF:

Right, because I remember the past, I have Alzheimer's? Sounds like you do more than me, though personal insults are usually the resort of those who have no other ammo to debate with as you obviously do not. I bought all of the cards within a week or two of their launches always... before the 6800-series and ATI equivalents it was always that way ($300-350 tops, less often). This is a new trend that is ludicrous, $600-650+ is way too much for a card both historically and in modern-day money period. You can buy a whole gaming computer for that which performs 80% as well as a $650 card.

Being a show-off is obvious... you act like getting fleeced is "cool" and "smart" when it is not. :rofl::rofl: :down: :shrug: :ROTF::ROTF:
05-28-2008, 12:07 PM
SimBy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

Vantage Xtreme settings, 1920*1200+4aa+16af

GTX 280 (D10U-30): X4098
GTX 260 (D10U-20): X3782

9800GX2 should score X3600

Hmm GTX 280 only what 13% faster than X2? Is it just me or expectations run much higher?

If those numbers are real then I think some fanboys are gonna be crying.

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