[Updated]Geforce 8950GX2/8900GTX/8900GTS/8900GT/8900GS Details + 8600/8300 Series

There is NO G81 only improved G80 with 80nm Core would be 8900 Series

Quote:

---

JUST A DAY after we uncovered the existence of Nvidia's Geforce 8950 GTX and Geforce 8900 GTX, our friends in Taiwan confirmed the news. You can read our original stories here and here.
The Geforce 8950 GX2 is a dual-chip card based on a new 80 nanometre G80 chip, probably codenamed something else. Both GX2 GPUs are clocked at 550MHz and the difference is GDDR4. The card comes with 2x512MB of 256-bit GDDR4 memory clocked at 2000MHz. The card has 96 Shaders, per chip. It will be priced at $600.

The second in Nvidia's spring line-up is the Geforce 8900 GTX clocked at 700MHz GPU and 2200MHz memory. The chip still has a 384-bit memory interface and comes with 768MB of memory. The card uses a new 80 nanometre chip and has 128 Shaders. Compared to the Radeon X2800XTX it will end up shorter on clock and memory interface. You can compare them here.

The Geforce 8900 GTX is priced at $550.

Meanwhile, the Geforce 8900 GTS is a new card clocked at 600MHz GPU with 2000MHz GDDR4 memory. It supports the 320-bit memory controller and comes with 640Mb of memory. This card should cost $500 and it is using the 80 nanometre chip. This card will still have 128 Shader units.

The current king of the crop, the 8800 GTX will drop in price to $450, while the Geforce 8800 GTS loaded with 640MB of memory stays up in the $400 price range.

Nvidia has two more 80 nanometre cards. The Geforce 8900GT with 600MHz core and with a 256-bit memory interface comes with 512MB of 1800MHz GDDR3 memory. It has 96 Shaders and is built on a 80 nanometre process and will cost $400.

The 8900 GS will be the cheapest G80-based card. The 80 nanometre based beast is clocked at 550MHz core and 1600MHZ memory. The card has the 256-bit memory controller and comes with 256 or 512MB of GDDR3 memory. It also has 96 Shaders. The 256MB version will cost $200 while 512MB incarnation will end up at around the $250 price mark.

The apparently-leaked document mentions G84 and G86 chips but we have some details to confirm. The original story with document is here. µ

---

Compare :

http://www.persianpcshop.com/g80.jpg

Source1
Source2

Now Whats your Choice!!

8950GX2 and 8900GTX :slobber:

F*ck those,look at 8900GS :)

8900gs sli vs 8900gtx, I wonder.... :D

8900 GS for 200$ ! my next card for sure.

8900GS for me also, 512MB version...i bet it'll OC to GT levels at least.

Source?

fake news all over the world:mad:

none is trustable:(


http://www.iopanel.net/forum/showthread.php?t=866

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6859/dddog5.jpg


http://resources.vr-zone.com/newzhunter/G8x.gif

there´s already a thread here >> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=73



cheers

The mainstream battle will be between the 8900GS 512MB and the 8800GTS 320MB...

BAH!

I rather get me self a x2800XTX :D

I'm sick of 256-bit interfaces (or slight bumps such as 3xx-bits)
I wanna card with 512-bit memory interface :p:

But the GS does look like a good bargain :rolleyes:
Same launch prices as x1950Pro

8950GX2 :slobber: :slobber: :slobber:

Quote:

---

tcG
The mainstream battle will be between the 8900GS 512MB and the 8800GTS 320MB...

---

clearly 8900GS is Winner

8950... :slobber:

If I understood right some of the most technical reviews of the G80, it's not a bandwidth starved architecture at all. If a 256-bit 8900GS comes at $200, it'll be the deal of the century.:woot:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

clearly 8900GS is Winner

---

according to that table (if not fake) the differences between 8900GS and 8800GTS 320mb are



8900GS ---- 80nm // 256 Bit interface // 512mb

8800GTS --- 90nm // 320 Bit interface // 320mb



cheers

christ, evga's stepup is only 3 months? guess that's ending for me. oh well, i thought my 7900gs was a great deal. definitely going to have to step up to 8900gs and try to sell the 7900gs before it loses more value

whats EVGA StepUp?!!

If you buy an evga card, and within 3 months want to go to a better card, you return the old card for what you purchased it for and get credit towards a better card. At least that's my understanding of it.

http://www.evga.com/stepup/default.asp?switch=3

if nvidia give the 8600 series a 128bit memory bus i will find them hunt them down and punch them in the face! that would totally screw your dx10 fun with only like max 30gbs bandwidth. i don't think these are real numbers. i want to see some form nvidia themselves before i say im buying anything.

Geforce 8600 is no faster than the 7900GS


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37697

G84, Geforce 8600 to score 4500 in 3Dmark 06
Core scores at 80 nanometre

It's fun to dream... :toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squilliam

It's fun to dream... :toast:

---

yeah

now I cant believe any news unless the real things release with pics/benchmarks screen shot


too many fake news on the internet

8900GS 512 for mee

We can't use any of this for anything... It's like reading the bible, nobody can prove that what it says is completely true... I'm still waiting for hard evidence/launch...

Best Regards :toast:

Quote:

---

Geforce 8600 is no faster than the 7900GS

---

100% true! My 7900GS @ 645/1680 can do 5600 Score in 3DMark06

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

100% true! My 7900GS @ 645/1680 can do 5600 Score in 3DMark06

---

And nobody knows what an 8600 does, especially not an OC'ed one... So all these posts are completely irrelevant until we see some hard numbers on the cards :stick: :slapass: :fact:

Best Regards :toast:

Agreed. I want to see some scores on the cards before I go buying. I definitely want something with more than 256mb. It just isn't cutting it anymore. It looks
like if there is a 512mb 8600, then it will be a tos-up between that and the 8800gts640. Money is a big factor, so I would like to save If I can.

I'd go for the 8900GTX, or the 8950GX2

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

100% true! My 7900GS @ 645/1680 can do 5600 Score in 3DMark06

---

But where's your DX10 support? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NiCKE^

But where's your DX10 support? :rolleyes:

---

NiCKE's got a point. 7900GS is great for DX9, but it's not futureproofed. That's where the value of the 8600s comes in.

Passed on the 8800gtx. If it turns out true, the 8900gtx is more what I was willing to pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NiCKE^

But where's your DX10 support? :rolleyes:

---

Did you remember first shader model 3.0 GPU? it was 6800 Ultra but how was 6800 Ultra in real SM3.0 games like Age of empires 3?
you can play 1024x768 + 16AF nothing more!! but with G70-G71 you can play 1600x1200 + 16AF

repeating history!

G80 is very Great for DX9 and if you want full support of DirectX10 you should wait until G90

G90 can run Crysis with 1600x1200 16AA 16AF not 8800GTX :D :fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arisythila

I'd go for the 8900GTX, or the 8950GX2
~Mike

---

You are Rich! :slobber:
tons of us dont have money for 8950GX2!! :stick: :cool:

am I like the only one who has seen this....
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/755/755284p1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Halvie

am I like the only one who has seen this....
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/755/755284p1.html

---

You would be the last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DTU_XaVier

We can't use any of this for anything... It's like reading the bible, nobody can prove that what it says is completely true... I'm still waiting for hard evidence/launch...

Best Regards :toast:

---

Amen to that!.......


...pun intended:D

I must be the last to see it considering how many posts are made about playing crysis on 8800 cards..swell point.

I just hope if 8900GTX turns out a lot better than 8800GTX, I won't lose too much money upgrading as I bought my 8800GTX last week (and I still haven't installed it).

I just wonder, how come 8900GTS with ~7.7% lower theoretical bandwidth, ~17% less memory and only ~4.3% increase in clock speed compared to the 8800GTX is supposed to carry a $50 higher price tag. I mean WTF? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If this is true, this 80nm process better bring something nice. Or is GDDR4 that superior to GDDR3 clock-for-clock (latency wise)?
None else thought of this?

At least I'm slightly relieved it doesn't seem like the new 8900GTX has 32 extra secret SPs, as that'd have pissed me off big time. Either way either this new 89GTX or R600 seems to be the thing.

~ Kris

Why is everyone drooling over the 8900GS?

8800GTS 320mb > 8900GS

And by the time the GS is out, the GTS 320 will probably be the same price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Why is everyone drooling over the 8900GS?

8800GTS 320mb > 8900GS

And by the time the GS is out, the GTS 320 will probably be the same price.

---

ya thats what ive been thinking too.. im so confused, i just want to see the benchmarks already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Why is everyone drooling over the 8900GS?

8800GTS 320mb > 8900GS

And by the time the GS is out, the GTS 320 will probably be the same price.

---

Cuz it's 80nm with 10% higher core clocks, has 512MB VRAM while, if the information is correct, still being priced ~$100 lower than the 320MB 88GTS version. (From 88GTS 640MB @ $400+ remove ~$50 for 320MB. 89GS 512MB is $250 and 256MB is $200.)

Now that's a very good deal seeing the only drawback compared to the 88GTS 320 is "only" -20% peak theoretical bandwidth. As the 89GS 512MB offers 60% more memory, 10% higher core clocks, ~30% lower price, hopefully runs cooler and overclocks better due to 80nm, you gotta admit it's a fine bargain. You could even put two of these in SLI (if nVidia ever gets it's driver act together, which it should've by the time 8950GX2 comes around) and get some nice, relatively cheap performance for the price of a single 89GTS.

~ Kris

You are forgetting that the GTS is 320-bit and the GS is only 256-bit. That is why the memory is in multiples of 256, 512 instead of 320, 640.

The EVGA "Superclocked" 8800GTS 320mb is $299 right now. It is clocked at 576/1700 with a 1350 shader clock. I don't see the 8900GS beating it price/performance wise, especially considering the expected release price is the same, at $299 at which time the 8800GTS will be cheaper. We will have to see what happens.

Come on people what Nvidia is doing?

Do they really think can still be the market leader?

The G8 specs are a joke.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

The G8 specs are a joke.....

---

Care to explain why you think that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

Care to explain why you think that?

---

I just was expecting Nvidia would make front to ATI and face it. What I see is that they are standing back. Don't you see it? Check both numbers again and see what both are offering to its customers, so doing that you will see what is the black sheep. Yeah right got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

Come on people what Nvidia is doing?

---

GPUs and chipsets.

Quote:

---

Do they really think can still be the market leader?

---

They don't think! They are.

Quote:

---

The G8 specs are a joke.....

---

:rolleyes: What do you mean?
Chips that have no competition and are performing more than 500 gigaflops are a joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

GPUs and chipsets.

They don't think! They are.

:rolleyes: What do you mean?
Chips that have no competition and are performing more than 500 gigaflops are a joke?

---

You really did not understand anything. There is no reply to you.

....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

You are forgetting that the GTS is 320-bit and the GS is only 256-bit. That is why the memory is in multiples of 256, 512 instead of 320, 640.

---

Who was this directed at? If it's at me, now that's the sort of comment that upsets as I clearly did NOT forget about that fact, if you had actually read my post. Now, try to go read it this time. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The EVGA "Superclocked" 8800GTS 320mb is $299 right now. It is clocked at 576/1700 with a 1350 shader clock. I don't see the 8900GS beating it price/performance wise, especially considering the expected release price is the same, at $299 at which time the 8800GTS will be cheaper. We will have to see what happens.

---

You are quite right here about prices, MSRP for 88GTS 320MB is $20-$50 lower than I thought (MSRP is indeed $329-$299, not $350 as I claimed ... on a side note, I'm not sure why the MSRP is specified as a price range?). My bad.

As for "Superclocked" (factory/stock overclocked) versions, you really didn't notice how they've managed to show up for every other card in the 8xxx series as well? Just like always? I bet a cookie there'll be at least one stock overclocked version of 89GS (be it eVGA, XFX, BFG or whatever), want part of that action? :p:
Anything G80 @ 90nm can do, 80nm should do better. (Of course this could turn out wrong, if nVidia or TSMC screws up something with the 80nm process, but why then release 89GTX and 8950GX2 with 80nm cores?)

At the end of the day, it'll probably end up at whether you wanna pay $50 more for a lower clocked, hotter-running core (surely you agree this makes sense), with 37.5% less memory ironically providing 25% extra bandwidth.

Where the extra 192MB memory isn't being utilized, the 88GTS 320MB will certainly shine as the better card. (Unless 80nm process turns out to be really something.) However, as last gen's cards offered 512MB and this gen offers 768MB already, and is even set for 1024MB (R600XTX), 320MB probably won't be enough in all scenarios (i.e. newer games with high-res textures, or modern games with some eye-candy applied). On the other hand, nVidia's cards have traditionally been much better than ATI's at handling on-board memory-limitations. So it may be that 88GTS 320MB is better even here, and although I doubt it, only future will tell.

Either way, I still think 89GS value is just excellent.

Sorry for the long post.


Metroid, lol, that's one problem with attitude you got there man.

~ Kris

Price/performance ratio...8900GS is a winner, if specs are correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Dower

Price/performance ratio...8900GS is a winner, if specs are correct.

---

Exactly! also 8900GS is 80nm and have very better OC ability + so many cooler than 8800GTS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metroid

I just was expecting Nvidia would make front to ATI and face it. What I see is that they are standing back. Don't you see it? Check both numbers again and see what both are offering to its customers, so doing that you will see what is the black sheep. Yeah right got it.

---

Yeah, because higher numbers automatically translate to higher performance. P4 anyone? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HamidFULL

Exactly! also 8900GS is 80nm and have very better OC ability + so many cooler than 8800GTS

---

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how mature the technology is for them when they put it out. Although, at this time, it would seem that 80nm should be more than mature. And that is exactly what we are hoping for :). I can't wait for cheap 8900gs's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how mature the technology is for them when they put it out. Although, at this time, it would seem that 80nm should be more than mature. And that is exactly what we are hoping for :). I can't wait for cheap 8900gs's

---

Exactly....a smaller process doesn't mean better OCing, anybody remember 110nm X800XL? Stock core = 400, great OC was 450 on air....didn't have much headroom past that on any cooling :-/

I will buy one of the new top line cards ONLY if the power consumption and thus heat output is more acceptable compared to current G80.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Exactly....a smaller process doesn't mean better OCing, anybody remember 110nm X800XL? Stock core = 400, great OC was 450 on air....didn't have much headroom past that on any cooling :-/

---

Yeah, but R430 @ 110nm was not intended to boost some great clock speeds, rather affordable performance was the goal.

There's a crucial difference right here between the G80 @ 80nm and R430 @ 110nm - the high-end product back then (X850XTX) was based on a totally different core (R480) on a totally different manufacturing process (130nm Low-K). This time, again only if the rumors in the OP is true, this 89GS will share the very same core and manufacturing process as the top-end SKU - let's call the core G80nm. :D As you can see, affordable performance is NOT the intention here, as 89GTX's stated MSRP is a quite notable 2x X800XL's original MSRP of $300. ;)

Still die shrinks aren't always "lucky", but the R430 parallel just doesn't make any sense to be honest.

~ Kris

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krille

At the end of the day, it'll probably end up at whether you wanna pay $50 more for a lower clocked, hotter-running core (surely you agree this makes sense), with 37.5% less memory ironically providing 25% extra bandwidth.

---

I believe it will be the other way around. According to those charts the 8900GS 512mb will come in at $299. That is the current price of the 8800GTS 320mb and it isn't staying there. I would venture to say that its 8900GS that will cost you $50 more at the time of release. Now you are paying an extra $50 for a 256-bit memory interface (but yes, more total memory) and potentially higher clocks. I say that because we will just have to see what happens. This is all just educated speculation...is there a term for that?

to me, the potential of overclocking the 8800GS is very good. without looking at how the actual cards look like, and just looking at the chart on the first page. the 8800GT has 96 shaders, 512mb, 256bit w/ 600/1800 clocks and its $100 more than the 8800GS 512mb. so unless the cards have a different layouts, it would be safe to say that you can get a 8800GS 512 and overclock it to 8800GT speeds or higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulburner

I believe it will be the other way around. According to those charts the 8900GS 512mb will come in at $299. That is the current price of the 8800GTS 320mb and it isn't staying there. I would venture to say that its 8900GS that will cost you $50 more at the time of release. Now you are paying an extra $50 for a 256-bit memory interface (but yes, more total memory) and potentially higher clocks. I say that because we will just have to see what happens. This is all just educated speculation...is there a term for that?

---

Educated guess? Guesstimate? Speculation per se is "guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence" according to princeton. :)

Anyway, according to Inq (the text) the information in the table is older. But if it goes your way, I can easily see you wouldn't want to pay $50 more for something potentially less.

~ Kris

i feel refreshes are more a trait of the dx9 generation, when video chipset makers had to make new cards for the same api cause vista wasnt out yet. i bet nvidia will just not do anything until the geforce 9 series comes out with dx 10.1 support. just like before dx9. well, at least iirc. i mean, there was no real geforce 4 refresh cards, they just went straight to geforce fx.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i feel refreshes are more a trait of the dx9 generation, when video chipset makers had to make new cards for the same api cause vista wasnt out yet. i bet nvidia will just not do anything until the geforce 9 series comes out with dx 10.1 support. just like before dx9. well, at least iirc. i mean, there was no real geforce 4 refresh cards, they just went straight to geforce fx.

---

That way everything would just be so much easier... I wish. Doubt it though, as refreshes are excellent opportunities to make some extra buck (for them).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aiya

to me, the potential of overclocking the 8800GS is very good. without looking at how the actual cards look like, and just looking at the chart on the first page. the 8800GT has 96 shaders, 512mb, 256bit w/ 600/1800 clocks and its $100 more than the 8800GS 512mb. so unless the cards have a different layouts, it would be safe to say that you can get a 8800GS 512 and overclock it to 8800GT speeds or higher.

---

thats exactly what i was just thinking, and i definetly hope its true. the 512mb or vram i think is what will make the difference to most people so even if the 89GS is slightly slower than the 88GTS, i will most likely still get the 89GS. especially if it is less hot and quieter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

That's not necessarily correct. It depends on how mature the technology is for them when they put it out. Although, at this time, it would seem that 80nm should be more than mature. And that is exactly what we are hoping for :). I can't wait for cheap 8900gs's

---

And a little bird told me that 80nm G8x cards will OC more and consume less power. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i feel refreshes are more a trait of the dx9 generation, when video chipset makers had to make new cards for the same api cause vista wasnt out yet. i bet nvidia will just not do anything until the geforce 9 series comes out with dx 10.1 support. just like before dx9. well, at least iirc. i mean, there was no real geforce 4 refresh cards, they just went straight to geforce fx.

---

wow, that was eerily accurate. except the dx10.1 support isnt confirmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

And a little bird told me that 80nm G8x cards will OC more and consume less power. :D

---

you dont need a little bird to know that,
it is kind of a given that the 80nm version on average will clock higher and will use less energy but will the diffrence be substantial thats the question.

and btw Little birdies have been wrong in the past so id just shoot the damn bird.

more oc , less heat.Lets just wait for the products to show up :stick:

I couldn't tell by the charts, but when are these coming out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deeznuts

I couldn't tell by the charts, but when are these coming out?

---

2-3 Month Later