512-bit bus? Like doubled SPs? Will be pain in the butt to manufacture, I think. Die size like 600mm²? :P
...the rumours of the 250 watts TDP weren't false....
Printable View
512-bit bus? Like doubled SPs? Will be pain in the butt to manufacture, I think. Die size like 600mm²? :P
...the rumours of the 250 watts TDP weren't false....
Here's to hoping that the new core is out of this world.
Have you seen this?
http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=en&ie=UTF-8
This guy said that he has been to Singapore and saw a few boxes with new NVIDIAs GPUs with these specs
-GeForce XXXX
-2x GT200 55nm
-1536MB GDDR3
-384bit
So at now we have 3 or 4 different GT200 possible specs - which is true? :)
sounds like two 8800 GTX on one card...:D just on 55nmQuote:
Originally Posted by Barys
Just went to the original German version of the forum, many posters don't believe the guy...I guess we're gonna have another hundred other news like that until the cards are actually out...
B*llocks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Barys
So you are saying these specs he has said is BS?Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
Hmm if we take all GT200 specs which appeared in last few weeks then we can say that specs from your source and PHKs are almost similar so i believe that these specs are exactly true;)
There's no dual GT200 card now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barys
And for the 29323023 time, there is no 55nm GT200.
Patients my friends, PATIENTS!!!
lol
AAHHHH HELP ME DOCTOR!! THE PATIENTS ARE ATTACKING!! :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by GAR
Eye huv two wurk naow, stop duing dat! :D
How could nvidia even fathom of implementing a dual gt200 design anyways? That's like putting 2 r600s on a single pcb, to make it blunt, it wouldn't work out for either end (consumer and nvidia)Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchZowner
LOL... I always wonder how people mix up words like those ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yukon Trooper
what's coming after gt200? :lol: ? & is there a firm date for that one? :ROTF:
:|
With the new transparency in their product ranges, maybe a totally new line of GeForce's signified by sth more than just numbers.. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by adamsleath
Dunno, I'd be thrilled of a number upgrade. And I think that's what we'll get.
Seriously, what do people expect a new generation GPU would be like? The power of a GPU is measured in pure numbers, power efficiency is pretty much the only thing they could improve with a new gen chip but still it would have to have more SPs, TMUs, ROPs, bandwidth and higher frequency to beat it's predecessor. G80/G92 has a quite good architecture, there's no obvious bottlenecks so it performs great. There's nothing out there that can beat it thus it would be bad business to dump it and spew tons of R&D money to force out a totally new chip.
People don't realize that AMD/ATI/Nvidia/Intel are here just to make money, not to please the customers. If they get more money by releasing a bad product, then they will do so, no matter what the customers think about it because the companies couldn't care less what you think about them as long as the sales go high. ;)
Define bad product plz... most CPU, GFX cards and mobo updates are evolutions not revolutions !!
Well, "bad" being something worse than people have expected from the company. e.g. What nvidia has been doing since G80, just a dieshrink + bumped clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I dunno bro, I personally think the rv670 and g92 were an amazing upgrade for the performance section. Problem is, they just aren't enough to really constitute as a new highend (and that's where nvidia is running into problems with geforce 9, they should have had a 8900gtx refresh instead of a 9800gtx)Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Dieshrink + bumped clocks in 18 months isn't realyl what Nvidia could've done, if there was serious competition. Or is ATI leading in the imprivements? IMO R600 -> RV670 was far better improvement what G80 -> G92 was.Quote:
Originally Posted by AliG
perhaps, but still, they were revolutionary performance cards, never before has a performance card outperformed a high end. As I said, they just aren't good enough for a high end like the nvidia is trying to make the 9800gtx seem like it is
Thats what I meant really. People (here) want the XTREME performance, not cheap mid-end cards. :P Difference between G80 and G92 is rather slim, compared to what Nvidia could've done. But yeah, this way they gain more money as they put less money on "useless(at this point)" R&D.
If you compare the performance eg 9800GTX gives for 240 euro's I think it's still a pretty good card... top card is X2 revolutionary and powerfull enough ? And even that card I can buy now at a lesser price then what I 've payed for my 7800GTX; 7900GTX 512, 7950X2, 8800GTX... Naming wise 9800GTX is wrong , price taken into consideration pretty good bang for the buck...
We get more and more performance for the buck, yet peeps expect each time 30% increase it seems... and the only game they compare new cards with is crappy coded Crysis... (I wonder who will play that game next year when even midrange cards can display it fluidly on our TFT's....)
And really we are at extreem here, we all are quite aware before launchdate if it is a performance beast or just a marketing gimmick...
It's the same discussion as why Intel doesn't release a medium priced 3.6Ghz quad ? Because they don't need too (yet) , but technology is (t)here to counteract whenever the competition seems ready...
I could write the word Monkey-Chicken in brown color size 55 font, and it would not be any less pointless than the posts in this and the ATI thread, considering the lack of official specs.
Perkam