Official 8800 Ultra Review Discussion Thread

Printable View

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

04-30-2007, 02:51 PM
theteamaqua

Quote:

Originally Posted by fornowagain

All it does is increase the rating of the plug from 75w to 100w. A normal 6 pin (3x12v conductors) can supply loads more than the 75W as rated. All it means is that the overclocked 2900XT must be using more than 225W.

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/4...age1el7.th.jpg

oh .... wait so if u have 6+8.. thats 100+75=175W ... how u get the 225w??

or does it outputs 175w but draws 225w??
04-30-2007, 02:51 PM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

You`ll need 8-pin connector to use Overdrive feature. Nobody sad that you won`t be able to OC the card using 2x6-pin connectors and a 3rd party tool

As for a 3rd party app, thats speculation. The OC limit may well be bios embedded for all we know. For now all we know is the card senses the 8 pin connection.
04-30-2007, 02:55 PM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by theteamaqua

oh ..

Good eye. A clear example.

Same here. http://www.jonnyguru.com/review_details.php?id=103

Quote:

One nice thing about the X3 is that it has native support of the upcoming 8 pin PCI-e standard. No adaptors needed for this baby although as of now the 8 pin cables feed off a 6 pin plug on the unit. A little birdie tells me that Ultra has a redesign in the works which will put the 8 pins on native 8 pin plugs on the PSU body and two of the 6 pin cables will adapt down from them instead of it being the inverse as it is now. Does it make much of a difference? Not really owing to the fact that as of now the extra two pins on the 8 pin plugs are grounds. There's all this hoopla over the 8 pin handling more wattage when in fact there are still three 12V power leads and five grounds rather than three +12V and three grounds. The new standard will eventually implement a 12V sense where the new grounds reside. How this equals more power capacity I really don't understand but I suppose that better minds than mine have decided it will work so that's all that matters
04-30-2007, 02:56 PM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by theteamaqua

oh .... wait so if u have 6+8.. thats 100+75=175W ... how u get the 225w??

or does it outputs 175w but draws 225w??

The PCI-e slot = 75W
04-30-2007, 03:00 PM
theteamaqua

gotcha, so 100 from 8pim + 75 from 6pin + 75 from PCI-E = 250W , but if it only has 2 x 6 then thats 3 x 75 = 225W .. which is not enough if the card draws 225W
04-30-2007, 03:01 PM
Cooper

pci-e slot has power lanes too ;)

And if I`m not mistaken this thread is about 8800Ultra results, ain`t it ?

So please continue the conversations upon ATI products in related threads.
04-30-2007, 03:06 PM
Metroid

Well I discussed these advantageousness graphs stealer's some time ago. Well that happens when they get a free card from Nvidia and in exchange they have to say misleadings performances to dumb customers. Completely anti-professional lamers.
04-30-2007, 03:11 PM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooper

And if I`m not mistaken this thread is about 8800Ultra results, ain`t it ?

There's also some results talk in the sticky
04-30-2007, 03:14 PM
Nanometer

Sorry, that's for specs and pictures, this thread is for the results like cooper said.
04-30-2007, 03:15 PM
Iconyu

Whats with these barely literate people telling us that the R600 is dead, and the Ultra is the fastest card until the end of the year? I've put up with better adverts from gold farmers...
04-30-2007, 03:27 PM
fornowagain

Getting back to the review topic. Did anyone notice the extra space provided in the Ultra casing for an 8 pin plug? Maybe some initial concerns about power?

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/9...8501lx9lu1.jpg
04-30-2007, 03:38 PM
mascaras

Quote:

GeForce 8800 Ultra on the 2nd

NDAs about the GeForce 8800 Ultra will expire on the 2nd of May. The final speeds of the card will end up at 612 MHz for the core and 2160 MHz for the memory. The original plan was to have the chip running at 650 MHz, but it looks like NVIDIA didn't push the limits as far as expected.

The shaders of this card will run at 1.5 GHz, which will make them faster than the R600 shader units. The card should end up with a $900 price tag.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=30381

regards
04-30-2007, 06:10 PM
fornowagain

Results eh? Yes I know its in the sticky as well.

Link

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6...znjyzm2en0.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1...nm5j2ekzv9.jpg

Trying to figure out the clocks, looks like 720 core. But thats a very high score for an air cooled card. A GTX @ 660/2200 gets about 13K in 06 with the same CPU speed. They're saying good yields for launch and I haven't seen many unmodified GTX getting this high on air, so unlikely cherry picked GTX. Maybe a new revision core or board?

Another.

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/3...emymdkuii2.jpg
04-30-2007, 06:12 PM
Daveb2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by [XC] MarioMaster

those charts don't really show the actual performance ratio, if they both started from zero it would provide a better comparison

I know its funny the scale they use is in increments of 100, I'm suprised they didn't just do 10s and make the ultra looks even more insane.
04-30-2007, 06:14 PM
Cybercat

Quote:

Originally Posted by fornowagain

Results eh? Yes I know its in the sticky as well.

Link

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6...znjyzm2en0.jpg
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/1...nm5j2ekzv9.jpg

Trying to figure out the clocks, looks like 720 core. But thats a very high score for an air cooled card. A GTX @ 660/2200 gets about 13K in 06 with the same CPU speed. They're saying good yields for launch and I haven't seen many unmodified GTX getting this high on air, so unlikely cherry picked GTX. Maybe a new revision core or board?

Hmmm, supposing there is significant overhead added to the G80 with the Ultra, maybe the only reason NVIDIA keeps the stock so low is to give vendors room to differentiate their cards with their clockspeeds. I guess NVIDIA listens to their pleas, heh.
04-30-2007, 06:18 PM
Daveb2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by wickedld9

I fixed it for them... much better now! OMG Ultra!!!!! That's so worth $1,000.:rolleyes:

THE GTX KILLER!!
04-30-2007, 06:26 PM
hipro5

Good thing about them will be that the cores will be "handpicked" somehow so to go higher and IF anyone have noticed, the rams are used are samsung 0.8 and not 1 or 1.1 ...... ;) So they have potential to go way higher under cold..... ;)
04-30-2007, 06:26 PM
fornowagain

In the UK one of the main vendors is saying this Ultra will be in £400/£500 range. That's not that far above the current stock GTX £370 mark and comparable in price to some of the OC versions. That's like a $100 difference. Obviously favorable exchange rates etc, buy in price of the older stock being higher as well. But still, not so bad.
04-30-2007, 06:35 PM
fornowagain

Quote:

Originally Posted by hipro5

Good thing about them will be that the cores will be "handpicked" somehow so to go higher and IF anyone have noticed, the rams are used are samsung 0.8 and not 1 or 1.1 ...... ;) So they have potential to go way higher under cold..... ;)

Yeah, I pointed that out to Gibbo of the vendor OcUK

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...9&postcount=36

He's not so sure.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fornowagain

According to that review the Ultra has a lower TDP (2W) at higher clocks than the GTX (talk of a Vcore bump as well). Using improved transistor design, so maybe a core revision. It also says the Ultra uses 0.8ns GDDR3, to get 2.2GHz mem speed (should reach 2.5Ghz easily), while the GTX uses 1.1ns. Basically it'll overclock higher than the GTX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gibbo

HI there

Not sure about the 0.8ns as EVGA quoted 1ns to myself but specification is still to be confirmed so we will see. If it is indeed 0.8ns then that is good as should be nice and clockable.
Money wise they are not as expensive as originally planned, expect them to be around £400-£500 tops. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by fornowagain

Seems it can vary. I have an early GTX which uses K4J52324QE-BJ1A, 1ns. Some of the later GTX's I've seen have Samsung K4J52324QC-BJ11 1.1ns. The XFX sample in the review has K4J52324QE-BJ08, 0.8ns/1250Mhz. Hopefully they all stick to the faster stuff.

Link
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4442/image013pd8.jpg
04-30-2007, 11:45 PM
Nanometer

So basically the extra charge is for an extra 150MHz in shader clock speed, and .8ns GDDR. I'm not buying that cherry picked core baloney.
04-30-2007, 11:48 PM
virtualrain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanometer

So basically the extra charge is for an extra 150MHz in shader clock speed, and .8ns GDDR. I'm not buying that cherry picked core baloney.

I agree... especially if the factory core clock is only 37MHz above a GTX.
05-01-2007, 12:32 AM
enz660

$900 F***IN DOLLARS?!?!?

Nvidia can go shove that thing you know where..

8900ultra:
price - YOUR LEFT ARM
05-01-2007, 12:37 AM
theteamaqua

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanometer

So basically the extra charge is for an extra 150MHz in shader clock speed, and .8ns GDDR. I'm not buying that cherry picked core baloney.

i think its ratio is a bit higher than GTX

1500/612 = 2.4509803921568627450980392156863
1350/575= 2.3478260869565217391304347826087

so both at say 650 core ... Ultra will ahve slightly higher shader speed ...

but again that very little performance gain DOES NOT justify about 850 ( according to inq) - 550 = 300 ... does not worth 300 bux
05-01-2007, 12:40 AM
Nanometer

Quote:

Originally Posted by virtualrain

I agree... especially if the factory core clock is only 37MHz above a GTX.

haha, that's even worse!

Nvidia's idea of "cherry picked cores" has stayed the same for the last 3 years.
This is how they pick the cores. Roll a dice to choose the core out of a bin, mod the bios and swap a resistors to give a .1 VGPU over volt. Better off spending 75 bucks more and getting dual 8800GTXes.
05-01-2007, 12:43 AM
enz660

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nanometer

haha, that's even worse!

Nvidia's idea of "cherry picked cores" has stayed the same for the last 3 years.
This is how they pick the cores. Roll a dice to choose the core out of a bin, mod the bios and swap a resistors to give a .1 VGPU over volt. Better off spending 75 bucks more and getting dual 8800GTXes.

wouldnt two 640mb 8800gts' be faster than this one card? (and cheaper)

2x $359 ($718) vs 850-900 dollars?

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