Printable View
http://pic.xfastest.com/sxs112/NV/8600Series/8600GT.jpg
Replace the 7600GT,G84-300 GPU 540MHz and 128-bit GDDR3 RAM(128MB or 256MB) at 1400MHz ,Price 150~180
http://pic.xfastest.com/sxs112/NV/86...es/8600GTS.jpg
Replace the 7900GS ,G84-400 GPU 675MHz and 128-bit GDDR3 RAM (256MB or 512MB) at 2000MHz ,Price 200~250
techpowerup
just wanted to post the same :p
the cooler of both cards are quite tiny and out of Aluminium, so it looks like the don't need that much energy :)
It seems like 8600 GT's PCB has lots of unused space, so it will probably be available in low-profile version.
Am I mistaken in believing that the 8600GT is likely to be getting '05 scores in the area of an X1900XT?
Bet 8600GT will be great for physics.
you sure? I dunno. It looks like it wont throw much more weight than the 7600GT.
shouldn't the 8600gts have a 256bit interface if its using the same pcb as the 7900gs ?
It's replacing the 7900GS in the price/performance ladder, but it is still a G84Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades
built on the 7600-series pcb, with 128bit ( :( ). The 8900GS will have 256bit
IIRC/if teh sources are right.
were does it say it uses the same pcb as the 7900gs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggy McShades
it only says that it will replace the 7900GS in Nvidias lineup
Cheap DX10 thrills. 8600GTS doesnt look that bad if you are on a small budget.
They are not built on 7000 series PCB's. You can't put a chip on a PCB designed for totally different chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
those look identical to the 7000 series pcbs.
IMO 8800GTS 320MB 2 weeks ago better than 8600GT next month
Of course it's modified, but the gpus are pin-compatible; with the pcbs beingQuote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
similar, they could ramp production quickly.
if the GTS is 250...
the the pricing can't eb right, because the 320mb version of the 8800GTs should be falling to around that level soon, especially considering that it now has DX10 competition.
just like how you can't place a s939 Athlon x2 in a s939 athlon 64 board....Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
How can you have 512mb of ram if you have a 128bit interface???
to my understanding, you can't...
how can you have 512mb with a 64 bit interface?Quote:
Originally Posted by squilliam
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814141054
:slapass:
the capacity of the ICs has relatively little to do with the MC controlling them.
Ew 128bit ram. if it was 256bit/512mb it would be a nice step up from a x1900 or a 7900. Though I am curious to how they bench... Maybe these will be a good as the 6800U/9800XT Generation was compared to the FX series... lol
Personally Im waiting for R600 to hit the market. Im hoping that competition will drive last gen prices down even further. $250 or less 1900XTX 512mb or a 7900GT Sli setup would be lovely, since I have no interest in DX10 games at the moment. My X850XT is enough for everything I play.
If u play in low res and without aa/af you danot have to care about 128Bit.
It supports the API but won't have enough power to push it in a truly next-gen game, as with all budget cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron
But hey, at least "DX10" makes it looks good on paper to the guys who walk in to Best Buy not knowing any better paying $299 for them.
I don't know that the PCB is identical, but there was a pretty big thread on this a month or so ago, I think there was some indications that Nvidia is planned to share a lot of the PCB as a cost saving implementation.Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
Yeah, I hate it when Nvidia does that, the 256meg Geforce 5200 comes to mind. DX9 with barely enough power to run the DX8 path of any game designed 2 years before it. And no possible way to turn up the graphics high enough to utilize all of that RAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulburner
i will be interested to see how these perform with only 128bit but i might step up a 7600gt to the 8600gt without much of a cost hit. even with the 128bit i think the 8600gts will out do the 7900gt and maybe trade punches with the 7900gtx and 1900 series after you oc it a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by falqon
they both do it (nvidia and ati)
its partialy to sell cards to those idiots that think the amount of RAM is the most imporant bit on a grafix card.
That's right mate. I know a lot of people that still think the amount of ram is what matters in a Videocard :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
Do they have IHS like 8800?
Will a Maze 4 Fit on them? :fact:
How do you know they are pin-compatible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank M
Damn, I completely missed the 128 bit thing.
Oh well, looks like the 8800GTS 320 is the best bet for GF's upgrade.
$250 for a 128 bit card??
someone send me some of whatever the Nvidia Marketing departments smoking, cause I bet I could make a fortune selling it here in alaska.
no 256 bit cards?
thats a HUGE mid range performance gap to leave open.
I mean, top cards are 384 and 320 bit, and mid range to low range only 128 bit??
if they really do ignore the mid range so much, then this leave a huge gap for ATI to come in with a successor to the X1950 pro, which is already a 256 bit card for the mid range, and do some major damage to Nvidias market share.
low to mid range products outsell high end products by like 10 to 1 or something crazy like that.
if Nvidia leaves such a obvious gap in performance potential open, I hope ATI jumps all over it. they need all the help they can get these days (AMD that is)
yeah, for mid range i guess 8800GTS 320MB is prolyl a much better solution ... only $299 in frys here, and some sites have it close to $250 ... cuz $199 cant relaly buy u much
^^ I hope ATI punches um in the gut with that move. These video cards look "cute" for some reason:p:
*pulp fiction mode*Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
News. Do you read them?
It is... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CedricFP
None under 8800/2800 level. 8900GS and 2800GTO are supposed to be 256bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
Unfortunately, ATi's 2600 series will be 128 too :(
this is why i always go for high end cards.
Funny Prices for these low-end cards :D i think nvidia must dream or don't see the street prices for the 8800gts 320m
Before everyone starts freaking out remember the 6600 was 128bit and it did pretty well. This lineup would fit well with the 6x00 series. 8800GTX(6800U), 8800GTS(6800GT), 8800GTS 320mb(6800), and the 8600GTS(6600gt) and 8600gt(6600).
If they 8600GTS comes out at $250 or doesn't perform i'll pick up the 8800GTS 320mb but otherwise I think the 8600 GTS will be my choice.
people said the same about the 7600GT is im not mistaken.
that 128bit wouldnt be enough etc and the 7600GT turned out to be a pretty good card.
edit:
if the 8600 really is 128bit it will most likely be done to lower production costs. Im guessing they are waiting with 256bit mid-end until they can make chips on 65nm.
and its likely that they first pump out a cheap to produce card and wait how wel the x2600 will perform. and if the x2600 turns out to be ebtter they come with a faster and better card.
Because nVidia has said so themselves. If you wanna get right down to it, these chips have been "pin-compatible" since the release of the 6600 series.Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
I agree but then again, these rumors coming from non-legit places tend to be highly innacurate. I remember not too long ago when people swore up and down claiming that the 8900 series was going to be released soon. Infact I was laughed at when I insisted they didnt exist. My guess is that just like the 8900 series, these card's pricing is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kunaak
I wouldnt be at all suprised if nVidia leaks information like this to see what the public reacion would be and they change their prices accordingly, thats pretty typical in terms of pricing tactics.
I will say this however, if it is infact 128bit RAM, it had better be high speed GDDR3 or GDDR4 to offset the loss of birate. There's no way a 1.3ghz 128bit ram chip on any mid range card is going to hack it. It will have to be atleast 2ghz otherwise ATi will just make a card that uses GC20 or GC16 @ 256bit (which I assume is the same price as the higher end 128bits) and simply slaughter the nVidia offerings.
Oh no no, that has nothing to do with it. I can promise you the reason they are using 128bit ram is because they are afraid that the card is powerful enough that when given 256bit RAM it can match the peformance of many of the higher end cards at lower resolutions (say 1076/768 etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
If a card half the price of their main ones is capable of doing that for I'd say 99.9% of their customers it would be a simple decision as to which card they are going to buy, ie *not* the 8800 @ $400 or the cutdowns at $250-300. By handicapping the RAM significantally it puts enough distance between it and the 8800s to justify people purchasing them over their crippled cousins.
In terms of sales a 256bit card with that kind of GPU would be disasterous to their high end modles. The only way they are going to make a true cutdown like the 7900GS is at EOL when they are trying to clear inventory at any cost.
if you actually read the first post you will see that the 8600gts does have 2ghz mem . so the bandwidth should not be TO bad but still not enough.
Quote:
G84 supports 3840x2400 resolution
Geforce 8600 GTS / GT have the power
It looks like that resolutions are doomed to grow. An average gamer plays on the 19 inch 1280x1024 display, some lucky ones have 1650x1080 resolutions on their big wide sceens and only a few rich ones can afford a 30 inch display and pay up to $2000 for 2650x1600 resolution.
The new Nvidia card will let you play at 3840 × 2400 but only at 30 Hz which is two times 1900x1200 resolution. I am not aware of any display or device that can bennefit from this Dual link DVI-I output but obviously there will be a purpouse for such a resolution. It is a cool pixel number but un cool refresh rate as you need at least 60 Hz to make your eyes feel good.
In worst case scenario it is a nice tick box feature, that you can state on the box and impress anyone.
Quote:
Geforce 8600GTS works at 675 MHz
80 nanometre can push it high
We found out that chip that use to be codenamed G84 will end up with much higher frequencies than we originally expected. G84 based Geforce 8600GTS, a top of the mainstream offer will end up clocked at 675 MHz core. We still don’t know the memory clock but we are sure that Nvidia plans to use the GDDR 3 memory with speeds higher than 1600 MHz, if not even higher.
G84 will be fastest clocked chip from Nvidia to date and the clock comes in such a high speed only thanks to the 80 nanometre marchitecture. G80 works at at default at 575 MHz but G80 is 90 nanometre, not 80 as G84.
This is very close to the limit of the technology as you can not clock 80 nanometre chips at much higher frequency than 700 Mhz. Obviously Nvidia has to think about shrinking the chip to 65 nanometre but this won’t happen anytime soon as least not that we know off.
We already said here that the launch date is April, middle of the month.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...id=98&Itemid=1
regards
Looks like the mounting holes are the same as the 6x & 7x series, so is it foolish to home that my VF900 will mount?
Also, will these new cards be 10.1 compatible? I read some news that the R600 cards WILL support 10.1. But then, I also read some news that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons...
so it's 128bit instead 256bit?
i'll forget it..and wait for 8300 :D
while on the subject of new cards, does anyone know when ATI or Nvidia will come out with physics drivers so I can use one of these crappy little cards for dedicated physics? ive been itching to know when the drivers come out cus i want a actual physics card so it doesnt leach power from my processor or 8800GTX, cus once i get my new monitor (30" lcd, 8ms response and 2560x1600 res) i wont have power to spare from the rest of my system plus ill be getting either another 8800 or upgrade to two of the next Nvidia cards whatever they decide to name them to just support that damn big monitor
If it supports 3840x2400 resolution doesn't mean it's playable, even current cards from low end class support 2048x1536 but how many games can't be played at that resolution, anyway guess it's good for a big monitor in a company but even there instead of buying a expensive LCD screen that supports that resolution they wouldgo for a projector. :)
Cool your jets there big guy. PM sent.Quote:
Originally Posted by oshox
Ryan
Quote:
Geforce 8600 GTS details out
675 MHz core / 2000 MHz memory
We have the final details about G84 based cards. Geforce 8600 GTS will be the fastest mainstream card from Nvidia in sub € / $200 price range. Of course, it is a Direct X 10 compatible and it is scheduled for middle April announcement.
Geforce 8600 GTS, G84 still has 128 bit memory controller, quite unusual for 2007 but there you go. Its GDDR 3 memory works at 2000 MHz so that is the catch. It still guaranties you some performance.
The card comes with 256 MB of memory and we don’t expect to see it at Cebit but there might be miracles. This will finally make directX 10 cards a bit more affordable, and then there is a G86 Nvidia’s entry level part scheduled for later date.
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?op...d=123&Itemid=1
regards
well increased bus sizes DO give diminishing returns.
clock speed increases give mroe or less linear returns to both overall bandwidth and latency.
With any luck, we'll end up with a 8600Ultra or 8900somethign which has a 256bit bus AND GDDR4
call be crazy, but I see memory performance as being about as big of a bottleneck as GPU performance, and I prefer lower latency and higher clocks over straight bus increases.
I'm still waiting for the 8600U.
I think they gave up the Ultra naming scheme. traded it in for something more recognizable (GTX, GT, GTS).
I can't believe we are comparing the 6600 to the 8600. The 6600 had a 128bit interface,
so it's fine that the 8600 has a 128bit. If you keep accepting the same old crap, then how
are we ever gonna get any better?
Ignoring the fact that the 8600 is a DX10 card right :rolleyes:
Judging by the 7600GT's performance, I have high hopes for the 8600GT/GTS, if only because I know Nvidia's consistency will further deter ATI from disappointing fans of the radeon series that want to see a competitive product (x1600xt fiasco).
Perkam
If I stick a sticker on my last poop that says "DX10" on it, would you buy it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timmay
If not, I'd say "Oi! Mate! but it says DX10 on it, so why not?"
If the 8600GT is a successor to the 7600GT, as the 7600 was to the 6600, then we'll be expecting at least a ~8-10 fps increase in 1280x1024 and lower resolutions, which is quite substantial when you factor in the ability to render dx10 effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by squilliam
We'll be expecting 7900GT/X1950Pro performance from both the 8600GT and the X2600XT...so its going to be far from calling it poop.
Perkam
I figure with DX10 being some estimated 40% more efficient by cutting out most of the middleman software, the cuts on performance should be made in the core, not the memory or memory bandwidth. After all, we're still dealing with textures and such of the same magnitude.
Ryan
So your saying that there will be no performance difference between a 6600 and a 8600 other then DX10 http://ogaclan.com/forums/style_emot...coal/laugh.gifhttp://ogaclan.com/forums/style_emot...coal/laugh.gifhttp://ogaclan.com/forums/style_emot...coal/laugh.gifhttp://ogaclan.com/forums/style_emot...coal/laugh.gif:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by squilliam
no, I think he was exagerrating his point in an attempt to remove the 'blur' of his point.
Ryan
It's like comparing a 1940's 1.8L 4Cyl car to a brand new 1.8l Honda VTEC, just because its the same size doesn't mean it hasn't been improved a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4775Quote:
GeForce 8600 GTS & GT; Plain Outside But Lethal Inside
8600 GTS
http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspi...12/8600GTS.jpg
8600 GT
http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspi.../12/8600GT.jpg
Looks Plain On The Outside But Lethal Inside
NVIDIA DX10 offerings for the mainstream market are definitely not to be missed and we will be seeing them on display over at the CeBIT in 2 days time. NVIDIA is still right on schedule for G84 launch on April 17th thus beat ATi to deliver DX10 mainstream products. We took an early look on G84 in Feb and we saw some changes on the core clock when we revealed the specs earlier.
Now, the final core clock of 8600 GTS is at 675MHz while 8600 GT is at 540MHz, both lowered from the earlier specs we have seen. The memory clock for 8600 GTS stood at 1GHz using 1ns 256MB GDDR3 memories while memory clock for 8600 GT stood at 700MHz using 1.4ns GDDR3 memories. GeForce 8600 GTS has 8 layers PCB based on P401 design kit while 8600 GT has 6 layers PCB based on P402 design kit. 8600 GTS requires an additional power with the TDP at ~71W while 8600 GT which doesn't requires external power is rated at ~43W TDP.
As promised, we will provide you some glimpse on the performance of the upcoming GeForce 8600 GTS and 8600 GT graphics cards. On a Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor, GeForce 8600 GTS scored a pretty impressive 5,7xx pts in 3DMark06 which is slightly faster than the 7950GTwhile 8600 GT churned out 4,7xx pts in 3DMark06 overshadowing a 7900GS. It seems that a 128-bit memory interface is not stopping 8600 series from churning out some nice performance.
Ty Black. :)
ATI, Nvidia has shown their hand, and the GTS is a full house as far as your x16xx series was concerned, pls do not dissappoint.
How other cards perform with X6800 Setup:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ages/3dm06.gif
6k with small oc in 06 will be INSANE !!! :slobber:
Perkam
I was pointing to the fact that people were comparing the 6600 to the 8600.
I wanted to get it across to you that there is no comparison. Of course the 8600 isn't a crap card, but I'd like to see some evolution in the 2nd generation from the 6xxx series.
I wanted a bigger interface and a bigger amount of memory. i just think it is crap that they are trying to cut some corners by sticking us with something that could be better.
Alas, that is how things work in the world...
Then i guess you'd want the GDDR4 X2600XT ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by squilliam
Perkam
If you want wider bandwidth for memory then get the 8800GTS, that's not that expensive now. These cards should be pretty cheap so you have to make sacrifices somewhere. As games go more shader based rather than textures then it would pay to concentrate on the gpu, but there will always be a trade off.
We need to see the benchmarks before saying the 128bit bus is a bad mistake for a midrange card.
Having said all that I am in no hurry to upgrade from 7900GS to one of these at the moment.
Regards
Andy
5.7K is almost 2.2-2.3K in both SM2 and SM3 just a hair behind 7900GS overclocked on air , so the question is how high will it go ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
uhh the x1600XT was somewhat decent...
it had 8 pipelines unlike the rest of the x1600s which had 4.
x1600XT and x1650XT both outperform the 7600GT
by 6month agos standards, its a highend card though and there IS a diferenceQuote:
Originally Posted by zakelwe
Well the line-up is looking nice,and although in 3DMARK 06 a 8600GTS scores slightly higher than 7950GT in games that will require heavy shading power it will be over or ~ the same as 7900GTX since we know that the last Nvidia line-up didn't excel in that area.
what do stock clocked 8800gts and 8800gtx ring up?
Ryan
xlink, consider yourself poked with one of these:Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
http://img.costumecraze.com/images/v.../1491-main.jpg
I had been waiting for ATI for 3 years now to come up with a mainstream solution as good as the X800GT, the x1600xt was utter crap and had 4 pipelines, the X1650XT had 8 yet still fell behind the 7600GT, and performance fell into unplayability even in crossfire when AA and AF was turned on, and it came out a year after the 7600GT, at which point in time the 1950pro was out, making it a worthless pos. I'm not going to ask you where you saw the x1600xt outperforming the 7600GT, because it was the biggest dissappointment from ATI in a LONG time, from the a company that gave us the 9600, a card to this day is better than the 7300.
Please don't talk to me about ATI's mainstream offerings in last two years, they've all sucked bar none.
Perkam
you shure about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
i thought that the x1600XT had 4 pixel pipes with 3 shaders per pipe.
the diffrence being higher clocks and GDDR3.
and that only the X1650XT has 8 pixel pipes.
a further problem at launch being that several partners were kind of slow with launching the Xts and ofc the fact that at launch the X1600pro was barely faster then a 6600GT but cost way more in price.
anyway the last 2 gens ATi launched pretty bad mid-range cards (X700 and X1600) wich were beaten by Nvidias mid-range cards in price and performence.
months afterwarts ATi had good cards in the mid-range (X800GTO and X1650xt and X1900gt) but that was mostly to late for alot of customers.
so i also hope that this time around they do a good job from the start.
@perkam
ive never seena review but i kind of doubt that a 9600 can beat a 128bit 7300.
Well with ATI now in AMD's hands, they'll have less opportunity pass off cards with that many defective pipes as a serious mainstream contender...Hector Ruiz pwnz Dave Orton when it comes to quality control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
Perkam
That depends on many aspects, there still are people out there, that don't have 20+ Monitors and still go with a CRT, at 800x600 (32 Bit) most games (if not all) look more then decent and move alike with a X1600 (I own one so I talk about facts), now it's true that a GF7600 GT was better at that time, but some developers like Palit released an Hybrid like X1600 Pro with GDDR3 at 170$ wile a GF7600GT was 250$ (same as XT) - at that time 7600GS from Gainward wasn't available and the versions with GDDR2 weren't very promising - I made a comparison between this two - and even with 4 pipes the GDDR3 looked more promising, among 7600GS based on GDDR2 (at same price).
This is wrong, GF 7600GT was sometimes 20% - 30% better in FPS then the alternatives from ATi, but all depends on peoples needs and obsessions, cause I Honestly can't understand the people that like to play games at 1600x1200 with all at max, as an ex professional gamer (still am gamer, but not professional) I say 800x600 and 1024x768 at 32 bit is more then enough for a decent play if you own a CRT, on LCD-s 1280x1024 would be a native resolution and that's another point of view but 1600x1200 is insane, an obsession for max resolutions. :)Quote:
x1600XT and x1650XT both outperform the 7600GT
A slight OC will give you X1900XT power. Not bad at all.
I dunno, now that futuremark will no longer honor those resolutions, as reviewers follow suit save for ones like firingsquad that still cover them, its pretty hard to avoid viewing 1280x1024 as the new minimum satisfactory resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by XSAlliN
Not to mention that if one is looking for 30fps+ playability, he/she'll look at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf benchies at most when buying new hardware, even if on a budget, seeing as playability below that is irrelevant to most.
Perkam
Hopefully they will OC like the 7600s did :)
yeah, I'm still at 1024x768... it's really a great gaming res for performance and price. Looks sharp on a 15" LCD.
Ryan
Benchmark is not a game (most gamers agree with that) - plus most of the times the problems with low FPS is relater to poor or no optimizations of games and VGA Drivers (as you can see they increase with every release).Quote:
I dunno, now that futuremark will no longer honor those resolutions, as reviewers follow suit save for ones like firingsquad that still cover them, its pretty hard to avoid viewing 1280x1024 as the new minimum satisfactory resolution.
Not to mention that if one is looking for 30fps+ playability, he/she'll look at 1280x1024 4xaa 8xaf benchies at most when buying new hardware, even if on a budget, seeing as playability below that is irrelevant to most.
When games have poor optimizations they get low FPS for what they are capable even with High-End Cards, so it's stupid that we have to pay the price (the gamers), for game developers that aren't capable to put together a decent playable game.
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4...06tjkjhvh7.jpg
The one above (from FlatOut2 runs at 70+ (FPS) with most on max (as you can see looks nice), even other famous games like Quake IV, HL2, etc get +50 FPS at high settings with a AMD64 2800+ (ClawHammer) at default frequencies + X1600 Pro (like Palit with 256 GDDR3), with some smart tweaks I played even Oblivion, NWN2 (at High settings) and others for which gamers with High End systems complained not running decent - cause they tried playing them at 1600x1200 (or even lower resolutions) with all on MAX and they didn't even knew what most options on MAX can give, which is mostly low performance cause there aren't any NOTICEABLE IMPROVEMENTS, I know this cause I tried the same games on a Mainstream (tweaked - with High Setting on 1024x768) and High-End system (normal - High Settings at 1280x1024/1600x1200). :)
PS.Don't get fulled by marketing, my biggest obsession is "Logic". ;)
there's just something too cool about passive cooling with one or two 120mm case fans.
Ryan
Quote:
INQ strips down Nvidia 8600GT/GTS, 8500GT
NVIDIA DECIDED TO launch its mainstream cards in the second part of April, thus leaving CeBIT dry from all the news that was supposed to happen. But, as usually happens, we saw several R600 G84 and G86 boards, alongside tons of unreleased chipsets from Intel and Nvidia.
But, that's beside the point. In this article we are going to disclose the looks of GeForce 8600GTS, 8600GT and 8500GT. The 8500GT is based on G86-300 rev A2, while G84 powered 8600 boards.
GeForce 8600GTS
http://aycu17.webshots.com/image/104...9952115_rs.jpg
PCB is shorter than 7900GT, yet performance should be way better than partners previously expected
http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/113...6673981_rs.jpg
External power guarantees stable power delivery to highly clocked GPU and memory
Nvidia's pride and joy for $200 will be based on 256MB of GDDR3 memory, either from Samsung or Qimonda. The clock for the GPU is set at 675MHz, while the memory works at a cool 1000MHz DDR - that's 2 GHz in marketing lingo, 200 MHz faster than on the 8800GTX. This is possible because G84 GPU uses 128-bit memory controller and does not load the memory hard, so memory errors are much likely to occur and partners will be able to clock them even faster than current default clock.
You can see that this part iseating a lot more power than previous 7600GT, so external power has to be connected via 6-pin PCIe connector, and PCB has been changed from classical 7600 one to a new, 8-layer heavy one.
The biggest SNAFU that Graphzilla has right now is the situation with HDCP, or the lack of it. G86 supports HDCP native, G84 has issues. Thus, partners will have to buy additional Encrypto-key EEPROM chips in order for GF8600GTS to have a support for practically any HD content out there.
GeForce 8600GT
http://aycu26.webshots.com/image/135...0081842_rs.jpg
Ole' 6600/7600 PCB got a fresh look and is ready to go for the third time
http://aycu23.webshots.com/image/135...9129344_rs.jpg
No external connector here, so you're on the mercy of your motherboard
GeForce 8600GT is your typical 150 Dollar/Euro solution, but offers quite a decent performance boost over 7600GT, yet alone 7600GS and similar variants.
This one is based on typical 7600 PCB, so you can see affordable pricing due to low-cost six-layer PCB. Having a well-known PCB design to partners enabled those companies to be flexible with work speeds, so you will see a lot of "Golden Samples" coming in late April/May timeframe.
Memory clock has been cut down to 700 MHz DDR (1.4 GHz) and memory type is of course, GDDR3. GPU itself is clocked at 540 MHz, but being the same as one inside 8600GTS, your overclocking headroom is limited only by available power coming from the PCIe x16 slot (75W max). Power is designed around 43W mark, so GPU should be able to hit 600 MHz or more.
GeForce 8500GT
http://aycu02.webshots.com/image/100...3150212_rs.jpg
New Entry level model comes with 128MB or 256MB of memory, and partners said it is using 128-bit bus... which collides with some information we have from before
GeForce 8500GT is based on G86 chip, which made all the way to final A2 revision. Even though nV likes to cover all of the details about this entry-level GPU, we managed to find a lot of interesting details. Memory controller should fix the error company made with 7300 chips (in this area, G86 holds firm ground against RV610) and that wide bus will be connected to either GDDR3 and DDR2 memory (expect very few GDDR3 ones).
Pricewise, company wants to sell 256 MB models for around 100 Dollar/Euro, while 128MB should retail for 79.
All in all, April will be the DirectX10 month. µ
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38258
regards
Why the covered markings? :confused:
NDA on what chips etc.. they are using atm :S ??
I think its to cover company name or reference numbers
regards
I would agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by hipno650
anyone notice how they got the pictures mixed up? :p
Ryan
Yeah I noticed that too, no external power on the GTS but on the GT.
And here http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38291 - look at what they're claiming to be RV610. Then, look at the same pic here.
It's a MSI attack! they are all over the net, lol...
TBH there's no proof it's either GF8500 or R610. I can't see any nvidia-specific marks on the photo.Quote:
And here http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38291 - look what they're claiming to be RV610. Then, look at the same pic here.
Maybe they're the same thing:eek: !Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
there is a picture of an RV610 (sticker on the card itself) and the PCB layout is significantly different.Quote:
Originally Posted by xoqolatl
Also why look at the display numbers, why would there be an ATI card slap bang in the middle of Nvidia cards.
I wonder why they haven't made a 8600 card with HDMI? Would be lovely with a 8600GTS + HDMI.
Oh now I see, there's a NVIDIA logo in upper right corner of the paper. Its so big I don't know how could I miss it.Quote:
there is a picture of an RV610 (sticker on the card itself) and the PCB layout is significantly different.
Also why look at the display numbers, why would there be an ATI card slap bang in the middle of Nvidia cards.
http://resources.vr-zone.com//newspi...6/IMG_4784.jpg
8600GT w/ HDMI + HDCP. Looks nice and if it outperforms 7900GS it will be my next GFX.
Same for me, probably... but not from MSI. I'll get Gainward's Golden Sample :DQuote:
8600GT w/ HDMI + HDCP. Looks nice and if it outperforms 7900GS it will be my next GFX.
8600GTS will replace this 7600GT. i need a single slot cooled video card since im on a matx mobo and both pci slots are being used :( ill be happy with it as long as i can play supreme commander with medium settings @ 1280x1024. my current 7600gt has trouble playing at that resolution on low (after the unit count gets to about 300) (system specs are A64 3000 754 venice, 2gb DDR400, 7600gt on a biostar tforce 6100)
It's the processor at that point. I have the 7600GT and I have no issues on 1680x1050 (medium settings). I still get the full 30FPS
i don't know if this was posted before , but who cares
Quote:
We have obtained some information on performances of middle line and entry level GeForce 8: the GeForce 8600 GTS, 8600 GT and 8500 GT. These performances are restricted to 3DMark 06 and have to be put into perspective since the benchmark isn't always representative of performances in games.
With the same platform, if an 8800 GTX would obtain 11900 points, a GeForce 8600 GTS would obtain 7000 points or an identical score to the Radeon X1950 XTX. The GeForce 8600 GT with 5800 points would be slightly faster than the Radeon X1950 Pro and GeForce 7950 GT whereas the GeForce 8500 GT (2800 points) would be a little less performing than the Radeon X1650 Pro.
We noted that, for once, Nvidia has given a higher number to the entry level (based on G86). The card name is GeForce 8500 and not "GeForce 8200". Let's hope that this new approach isn't made to rename old products in GeForce 8xxx or have more entry level products and even less performing GeForce 8…
http://www.behardware.com/news/8684/...formances.html
there is one thing that i dont understand..
why in the hell do they use 2000Mhz ddr3 @ 128bit??
isn't +/-1000Mhz ddr3 @ 256bit or so cheaper, while its performence would be pretty much identical? (not sure about this)
with that ddr3 pushed to 2000Mhz i dont think there is a lot of room for overclocking the ram, which would suck pretty hard..
nice cards though :)
i realise nobody takes the inquirer seriously, thats why im not making my own thread about this.anyway this really has me worried:http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38346
according to this the 8600 series doesnt like heavy textures and i just so happen to like having large textures in my games.
What does the moronic Inq mean by "heavy"? Does that mean Quake Wars will run s*hit slow cos of megatextures ???
Perkam
i was thinking more like the large textures in oblivion.