News: The 7800gtx isn't really the G70....

The R520 is based upon the R420(not the r500) with some major changes, but it is NOT a unified pipeline design, and therefore neither is the R580. The R600 is the WGF 2.0 compliant part.The R600 is the R500 we see in the XBox360. There was alot of articles stating this. Keep in mind microsoft paid ATi and in the contract they can't use any part of the R500 in the R520, and they can't release the architecture on the PC for atleast 1 more you, which will be the R600, and it'll be released winter 2k6, early 2k7.. That was the deal.

If you think that just because it shares the 5 as the first digit it's part of the R500 family, you're dead wrong. Now think, with the R500 being renamed the R600, that means the R520 is no longer part of the same family. May I remind you that the R420 was NOT anything close to the original R400(as the R420 ended up based upon the R3xx series instead), which was then change to the R500, and now the R600. ATi themselves told us the only DX support added by this card is DX9c.

For the R520 to be WGF 2.0, it needs a unified pipeline design, one of which this card does not have. If it did, they wouldn't call it 24 pipes and 10 vs in the VR-Zone preview, now would they? 24 pipes and 10vs points us towards them being locked to being those things, and therefore NOT WGF 2.0 compliant.

You could think that...but you could also think that maybe all the crap about it not being unified was smoke and mirrors for nVidia.


And then again, think about it..RSX has the same stipulations, does it not, on featured tech that goes in the pc market? and if the RSX is the G70 @ 90nm, and the G70 is NV47...then you can figure out the namechange...

Quote:

---

ATi themselves told us the only DX support added by this card is DX9c.

---

or PS 3.0. but would it make sense to release a card not vista compliant? Seeing how ATI and M$ are already partners? not if you ask me. the non WGF 2.0 cards circulating reminds me of the 8x2 pipeline cards that nVidia released before the 6 series...pretty sure that's the aforementioned Shamino article.

but then again, what do i know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

mr_knowitall15 - your 9600 only has a 128bit memory bus, otherwise it would be quite well matched to 97/98 series cards (which are all 8 pipe, not 4 unless a quad is disabled to make it a 9500np).

---

meh, so i had a few things mixed up on some of the older ati cards... none the less, it still proves that the archetecture matters way more than Mhz... but im pretty damn positive that the 9600 series, and im fairly sure the 9700 series had 4 pipes... thats why nvidia and ati were fairly well matched until the 9800XT vs. the FX5900 or 5950, which still had just 4 from what ive read.

Quote:

---

and if the RSX is the G70 @ 90nm, and the G70 is NV47...then you can figure out the namechange...

---

makes sense...nVidia had to make a card very quickly for Sony (as they didn't want to use a GFX in the first place)

So that could be were G70 went...

Those filthy * that are ATI and nVidia, first the GFX that should be for the PC probably G70 that went into PS3....really I'm so freaking pissed after reading that Gears of War will be Xbox360 only....by the freakin words of Epic...EPIC! THE PC MADE THEM who they are now...* ing rats...

tim gears of wars is going to hit PC later as MS for xbox 360 can paid loads of money to get it first and only in theyr console EPIC likes money so they do it.....

pc is just pc there is no company behind pcs that paids loads of money to a game company..... like epic

rsx is g70 90nm i think is more g80 than g70 and the r500 is r600

no actual video card is WGF2.0 they need sm4.0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leviathan18

tim gears of wars is going to hit PC later as MS for xbox 360 can paid loads of money to get it first and only in theyr console EPIC likes money so they do it.....

pc is just pc there is no company behind pcs that paids loads of money to a game company..... like epic

rsx is g70 90nm i think is more g80 than g70 and the r500 is r600

no actual video card is WGF2.0 they need sm4.0

---

I hope so....this quote from Rein isn't really encouraging though..

Quote:

---

Gears of War is an Xbox360 exclusive. We're developing it specifically to take advantage of the power and features of the console. All of the work on Gears between now and when we ship is toward creating the ultimate Xbox360 game.

Could we, in the future, adapt Gears for Windows just as Microsoft did with Halo? Sure we could and, as you can see from J Allard's comments, Microsoft is clearly cool with that idea. But we're a long way off from thinking about that. Right now our only goal is to make Gears one of the "must have" titles for Xbox360 and judging by reaction to our relatively early showing at E3 we're well on our way toward achieving that. One major web site, 1UP.com, already voted us their Best Xbox360 Game in their Best of E3 roundup!

---

Quote:

---

Gears of War on PC?

A PC version of Gears of War has been confirmed by Epic Games, possibly featuring some bonus content not seen in the Xbox 360 version. However, with the PC port not taking place until after the Xbox 360 version's release (expected in late 2006), its likely that we won't see Gears on the PC until 2007.

---

Bastards :slapass: :D :D

But enough off-topic :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leviathan18

no actual video card is WGF2.0 they need sm4.0

---

uh, SM4.0 is unified shading...Xenos is WGF 2.0 compliant. :rolleyes: :stick:



No offense intended, really, but just out of couriosity, how old are you? :D i tend to research before posting...'cause the crowd here will pick ANYTHING apart. Seeing how you have that little news thing under your name, you should be too. :slapass:

Well actually no *available* video card does support Unified Shaders (SM 4.0). Video cards generally mean PC parts don't they? They wouldn't be a card if we are talking about consoles (built into the hardware). And if we do mean consoles, well XBOX 360 isn't out yet ;) So his comment is correct. I don't see why you ask about his age.

D

LoL...just being a jerk.

but however, he posted this, which says nothing about availability:

Quote:

---

no actual video card is WGF2.0 they need sm4.0

---

so, i fail to see your point. his post made it sound to me like he didn't even know what SM4.0 is...and because we do not really know that the R520 isn't built on the unified platform, he cannot rightly say what he did(if he would put "IMHO" after that statement i woulda left him alone. that tag under his name lends weight to his words for those that are unaware). The ARE cards out there that are compliant, how do you think they test the software? They just aren't available to the general public...but if you happen to be a developer...there are alot of products available to you that never make the light of day.

cadaveca you really need to chill go and drink some beers my age is no concern for this but IM 19 years old and I research to do my post

i just pointed out that wgf uses sm4.0 and ATI is celebrating their pass to sm3.0 if they were using unified shaders they are going TO SHOUT IT to everybody but useless to add it NOW when windows vista is due to late 2006 and then they will have r600 out and nvidia is going to have g80 out.....


so more respect please im not a 12 years kid talking for talking, and is more difficult to me to be VERY clears as im not native english speaker.

dnavarro thanks to point that out :toast:

peace everybody

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leviathan18

i just pointed out that wgf uses sm4.0 and ATI is celebrating their pass to sm3.0 if they were using unified shaders they are going TO SHOUT IT to everybody but useless to add it NOW when windows vista is due to late 2006 and then they will have r600 out and nvidia is going to have g80 out.....

---

No your age is of no concern, i was just curious. :fact:


Sry, but i don't drink alcohol. It's poison, you know.


:D

Um, has ATI said ANYTHING officially? maybe they'll start screaming it when they have an actual release.

My point is, that regardless, unless you get info direct from the source, you cannot count it as true. YOU don't know whether it will be unified or not, do you? 100% for sure?


I don't.

Quote:

---

ATI Technologies’ developer relations manager Richard Huddy said during a conference in November, 2004, that the company’s future visual processing units would feature unified pixel and shader processing. While he declined to elaborate on the timeframes for such chips, he said unified pixel and vertex data processing was a required capability for Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 that comes out together with Microsoft’s next-generation operating system called Windows Longhorn. On of the benefits the unified approach brings is ability to dynamically allocate chip resources depending on the demand for pixel and vertex processing, Mr. Huddy said. Another one is simplified software development.

---

Xbit labs.

you just have to take some points in consideration

1 they had problems with this card
2 they are releasing SM3.0 with this generation
3 why release something this early when is going to be used almost one year later?

besides they cant use the desing of the r500 for pc in some time they said we will see something similiar to r500 in 2006 so that is OK just in time for windows vista wgf 2.0 so it will have unified shaders

same thing for nvidia......

but you dont have to bash me like that.....

It wasn't meant as a bash... again, when i posted a question for clarity's sake. Again, i mean no offense in my questions. You know you always have the choice to ingore them, right? At least i can get info from real sources, i think, or at least people quoting real sources... :rolleyes:

Anyway, way back in December, XBit also has this to say about the NV47, the chip now called the G70, the reason of which i'm pretty sure about. the G70 was just to differentiate between the desktop and console versions of the chip:

Quote:

---

While NVIDIA remains extremely tight-lipped over its future products, it is known that the company is readying its code-named NV47 visual processing unit, a massively revamped GeForce 6 architecture with 24 pixel pipelines. The NV47 is expected to be released sometime in Spring, 2005, but it is unknown whether NVIDIA is ahead, or behind ATI’s R520 product. NVIDIA also reportedly plans to release a chip called NV48 in Q2 2005.

---

THis news was reported back last december. that this chip on the 7800GTX board is NV47, is really no surprise to me, as no company can make changes like is purported to ahve happened, in such a short timeframe. The chips on these cards didn't spring outta nowhere..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_knowitall15

meh, so i had a few things mixed up on some of the older ati cards... none the less, it still proves that the archetecture matters way more than Mhz... but im pretty damn positive that the 9600 series, and im fairly sure the 9700 series had 4 pipes... thats why nvidia and ati were fairly well matched until the 9800XT vs. the FX5900 or 5950, which still had just 4 from what ive read.

---

Tha't a no-no, 9700 series had 8 pipes, that's why nvidia got stomped at every turn during the time of the 9700 and 9800 series. ;)

The 5900 and 5950 had 8 pipes as well I think. Nvidia just did an all around terrible job on the fx series. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

No your age is of no concern, i was just curious. :fact:


Sry, but i don't drink alcohol. It's poison, you know.


:D

Um, has ATI said ANYTHING officially? maybe they'll start screaming it when they have an actual release.

My point is, that regardless, unless you get info direct from the source, you cannot count it as true. YOU don't know whether it will be unified or not, do you? 100% for sure?


I don't.




Xbit labs.

---

That x-bit labs quote was from 2k4, BEFORE they signed the contract with microsoft to give them exclusivity to the R500, making them switch to the R520(which IS based on the R420). The R500 is now the R600, and it will have unified shaders. The R520 will not, you can quote me on that in 1 months time, it's a promise...I have my sources.

The R520 will ONLY add sm3.0 support, not SM4.

is logical WHY add sm4.0 or unified shaders at this moment when even sm3.0 is almost not used?

why add more complications to a design that gave so many troubles to ATI?

even nvidia that released SM3.0 a year ago didnt use sm4.0 for the 7800gtx

Um, the chips may be bios locked. not hard to assign each pipe a specific action...would only have to be in the driver, methinks. Anyway, as i said earlier, i dunno what the new card will be composed of. We all hsve the same sources, i'm pretty sure, when it all comes down to it, and we have all seen the conflicting reports.

But i tell ya what, I have know about the xbox2 featuring an ATI r5xx unit for a LONG LONG time..like back in 2003, when the deal was really struck. The exclusivity deal you are talking about is one that leave the R520 unable of changing the pipe association, but this does not mean the the GPU is not capable. :D

Here's a quote from 2003, when ATI and Microsoft first started development on this chip together. Most products are 18-24 months in concept before hitting market.

Quote:

---

We’re proud to bring you today the very first info on the Xbox 2 GPU. Our highly placed source within the industry informed us that the graphic technology powering the Xbox successor is a derivative of the R520, the successor of the R420 to be unveiled later this year at Comdex.

---

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/4811/F...-Xbox-2-Part-1

You see, my first "game system" was a Commodore64, and i've been watching the entire industry ever since. you have your sources, i have mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

Um, the chips may be bios locked. not hard to assign each pipe a specific action...would only have to be in the driver, methinks. Anyway, as i said earlier, i dunno what the new card will be composed of. We all hsve the same sources, i'm pretty sure, when it all comes down to it, and we have all seen the conflicting reports.

But i tell ya what, I have know about the xbox2 featuring an ATI r5xx unit for a LONG LONG time..like back in 2003, when the deal was really struck. The exclusivity deal you are talking about is one that leave the R520 unable of changing the pipe association, but this does not mean the the GPU is not capable. :D

Here's a quote from 2003, when ATI and Microsoft first started development on this chip together. Most products are 18-24 months in concept before hitting market.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/4811/F...-Xbox-2-Part-1

You see, my first "game system" was a Commodore64, and i've been watching the entire industry ever since. you have your sources, i have mine.

---

They were wrong...

The R500 is what's in the Xbox360, the R500 was ORIGINALLY the R400, which was made BEFORE the R420. The R420 was ATi's backup, which was kinda pulled like a rabbit from a hat when NVidia threw out the NV40(which WAS a surprise to literally everyone), as the R400 wasn't twice as fast as the R360, just had far more features/functionality. The R500 was still meant to be the successor to the R420 until the XBox360 deal, which Microsoft made them sign an agreement stating NO PART of the R500 can be in their desktop gpu's until one year after the Xbox360's release....

Due to this, the R500 became the R600, and they then based the R520 on the R420. It's just FAR more advanced than the R420, with quite a few enhancements to the design. Sort of the same way the R420 was based off the R360 with quite a few enchancements to the basic design as well.

The R520 is in no way, shape, or form WGF/DX10/Avalon compatible.

As for my sources, you obviously haven't heard what my side-job is...I can guarentee you my source knows more about what every card is capable of than anyone on this site...Released or not... Of course, I'll end it at that, as those who know KNOW, and I don't really feel like arguing. Lets just say that I have access to info that's not posted on these websites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_knowitall15

meh, so i had a few things mixed up on some of the older ati cards... none the less, it still proves that the archetecture matters way more than Mhz... but im pretty damn positive that the 9600 series, and im fairly sure the 9700 series had 4 pipes... thats why nvidia and ati were fairly well matched until the 9800XT vs. the FX5900 or 5950, which still had just 4 from what ive read.

---

Actually 9700 and 9800 were very very close in performance. 9800 standard was just a 9700 pro with a few optimizations, and 9800 pro was just a bit overclocked, 9800 xt a bit more with a couple more optimizations.


9700 kicked the tar out of the 4600 (Nvidia's offering at the time) once you got to the point where gfx was the bottleneck.

This thread no longer seems to be a news story. In fact I do not think it was ever a news story as there is no actual proof of anything apart from a supposition on the initial poster. The only physical evidence was KOREA on TSMC produced chips which was suggested impossible but that turns out not to be true.

Regards

Andy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakelwe

Here's a picture of another TSMC 110nm part, nv44

http://www.overclockercafe.com/Revie...6200A/1008.htm

which country is on the packaging ? ;)

Regards

Andy

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zakelwe

This thread no longer seems to be a news story. In fact I do not think it was ever a news story as there is no actual proof of anything apart from a supposition on the initial poster. The only physical evidence was KOREA on TSMC produced chips which was suggested impossible but that turns out not to be true.

Regards

Andy

---

I'm sorry to have to do this to you, but you're dead wrong...

Here's the NV44 in my attachment, and here's a site which will show you another NV44, also saying "Taiwan" on the core.
http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcom...r=Order&cname=

The NV43 originally wasn't made by TSMC, but by ibm(proof here ), they later switched over to TSMC, which is why the originals, as well as the 6200agp(which was the NV43 rev A1-A4, A4 being the hardlocked core), said NV43. The NV44 was the TC model, and was made only by TSMC...Look at the picture.

Word of advice...Please, research before you post, especially when dealing with me, because I WILL. :slapass: :woot: :fact:

Therefore, mr. zakelwe, this is still news, and the korea stamp still remains evidence, thank you very much.

Interesting read.

Was the NV47 chip origanally planned for the PCI-E interface?

Dil-tech...it never occured to you that they had the pre-production models made at another fab than production models? and the pics that are around are from those? I'll pull my heatsink and check my core, but i don't remember it saying Korea.


Besides, as you have just posted, they sometimes use other fabs. The korea chips could have been an additional run becuase TSMC was not able to produce enough chips for the release...nVidia is not TSMC's only customer, and i doubt that nVidia have 100% of the TSMC fab machines running thier chips....

Anything you posted anyone can find..pretty much on the first page of a proper google search...

search a little more, and you'll find that the renaming of chips is highly due to what products microsoft has on the market...

This thread is a little on the conspiratorial side with a lot of info outright missing or surmised. Wish I was a little bird sitting on the shelf in the Nvidia meeting rooms.

^^ a little ungly and grey bird in the self xD omg so funny