Printable View
July is actually looking quite solid. I'm not so sure if it's a very hard launch though. Yields have been rather poor with G92, until the lastest revision, and I can't imagine they are any good with GT200.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundamit
//Andreas
Even a soft launch with in July with price gouging > no launch in Q3.Quote:
Originally Posted by NH|Delph1
You've gotta wonder, how long until we get a solid benchmark of GT200?
I'm rather suspicious of the fact that we've got nothing now... If the speculation is true, and GT200 is another 8800 series-esque monster, you'd think Nvidia would want to brag about it.
On the other hand, perhaps Nvidia doesn't want to let ATI on to what they've got, and are going to keep the info private as long as they can. That could explain the oddly inconsequential name, 9900 GXX as opposed to 10800 or something.
Now I could be completely off... Maybe Nvidia isn't lulling AMD into a false sense of security before launching a jaw-dropping card, but I sure hope I'm at least partially right.
I think us enthusiasts have waited oh... about 14 months too long for a truly brand new high end. I rest assured most of you would probably agree with me.
Another proof GPUs have hit the wall. G92b for the 9800GT. That doesnt sound well for the GT200, plus its yet a microscopic upgrade. Seriously, those people with an E6600 and a 8800GTX from 2006must still be laughing. Its the longest highend rig ever.
Well the sam thing happened with G80, so it can mean anything really. Anyone remember the rumor that G80 might have needed watercooling for the GTX part? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
I love how everyone exaggerates so much.. November 2006 was G80 launch. Followed by the Ultra a couple months later. It's been 16 months since Nov 2006.. are you saying they should've released a new high end architecture 2 months after G80 came out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I didn't use the word "about" or anything. Point, is I did exaggerate yes, but let's be honest here. Every enthusiast here is ready for the next big thing 2 months after it launches anyways haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
Just saw this at Engadget:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...25-08-9900.jpg
I have no clue as to how legitimate it is, or WHAT it is exactly, but I figured perhaps someone would find it interesting.
Its a geforce 4 or 5, cant even remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Ah, that makes sense. I found it odd that Engadget of all places would have the pic and that there would be so few capacitors on a GT200 card :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
new financial year prezzies:woot: might just bung one of these on one of my credit cards :lol:
And you didn't find it odd that they'd use molex power connectors and an AGP connector?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Didn't even occur to me. I saw the pic, immediately thought of XS, and posted it. Upon closer examination you're right, it is painfully obvious it's not a new card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
We already have a sticky for this.
MERGED.
Perkam
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...25-08-9900.jpg
this is from x800 time i think..oops even b4 that: 9800pro time.
Uhhh no, that's clearly the 5800 "dustblower" UltraQuote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
yes i know; 9800pro was the contemporary ati card:rolleyes: i remember looking at 9900 , and there was a 9999 also, but the ati 9800 was better, then the x800 series came out.......
I think you mean it was the "equivalent" card. And no, it was the 9700 pro, not the 9800 pro.Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
contemporaneous
actually
please supply the exact release dates if yr gunna be so pedantic.
im just going by memory
although i think 9700 predated 5800 ultra.
'Dustbuster' :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sr7
Got one right here in my GFX card collection.
I think changing to the 9 series is that NVIDIA wants to change their GPU hierarchy. They want affordable performance cards(9600GT, 9800GTX) that can play everything and are midranged enough that they can at least do med-high, and ultra high end for the enthusiast
Ah yes I've combined it's two affectionate nicknames into one... leafblower + dustbuster = dustblower :shrug: oopsQuote:
Originally Posted by Tim
stale quote, dun care.
Well there sure as heck would not be that much of an improvement without them. 256bit is tired and done in the topend and as the 9800GTX demonstrated, these cores cannot truly stretch their legs without a wider bus. GDDR5 alone would be such a half baked measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dainas
Don't they come to, roughly, the same end?
.512*2200/8 =140.8Gbps
.256*4000/8=128Gbps
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3...25f2f92xh6.jpg
1.6 TeraFLOPS
160GB/s bandwidth
DirectX 10.1/Shader Model 4.1
:eek: nearly doubled the shaders and nearly 400mhz faster shader clock then a 9800gtx... if its true that thing is a monster, cant wait to get my hands on it. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by w0mbat