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

Guys, this is 100% my story, no hardware site has it posted, so if there's any complaints, take it up with me directly.. I'm still digging for more info, so this will be updated... Either way, it IS news, so don't move it!

First, I'll start you guys off with this...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/d...110034348.html
http://translate.google.com/translat...ial_s%26sa%3DN
http://translate.google.com/translat...ial_s%26sa%3DN
As you can see from that, this summer, ORIGINALLY, the NV47 was suppose to release, being 24 pipelines, 8 vertex shaders, and 110nm design. The chip was a MASSIVELY revamped NV40.... The chip was then supposidly cancelled so that NVidia could concentrate on the G70, a core that was suppose to be in the works along side the NV47, however, it turns out the NV47 was never actually cancelled... The 7800gtx IS INFACT THE NV47.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit's A and B are the attachments you'll see at the bottom of your screen. Notice that both Rivatuner AND NVidia's own Development software BOTH call the core the NV47.. If this core was infact the G70, wouldn't NVidia have had it hardcoded to say it was rather than the NV47? Didn't NVidia say this so-called NV47 was cancelled?

Exhibit C...Please look at the picture of the G70 core very closely while reading this one...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...g70-part2.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digit-life

According to its designation, the chip is manufactured or packaged in Korea. That's confusing. It's well known that TSMC has its own facilities for packaging dies, that's why the die should have been stamped TAIWAN, if manufactured by TSMC. There is a packaging plant in Korea, but it mostly processes dies from IBM. Has the American blue giant taken up NV47\G70 manufacturing again? The matter is left open.

---

Now, We all know that TSMC produces the G70 core, right? Well, TSMC DOESN'T HAVE FABS IN KOREA! IBM uses korea, and IBM isn't making these cores... What does this have to do with anything you ask? THE STAMPS ARE ADDED BY NVIDIA AFTER THE CHIP IS PRODUCED! NVidia messed up by leaving it to say Korea instead of Taiwan. A mistake only very few people would notice, as most people don't take the heatsink off their videocard, and even less know where TSMC's fabs are.

Now, there's the news part out of the way.. The 7800gtx is NOT the G70, but the NV47, which officially leads us to the speculation part...

Why would NVidia lie about the core being the G70, and even more-so, what would they have to gain from such a claim? They could've easily told everyone it was going to be the NV47, and no one really woulda cared, as long as the performance numbers are what we're looking at now(and they are SWEET!), so why lie about it?

My theories on this are the following...
1.) The actual G70 wasn't finished in time, therefore NVidia went with what they already had done, the NV47, while they finish up the G70, making it either 90nm, 32 pipes, or both. Giving ATi a false sense of hope that the NV47/g70 is the best they have at the same time.
2.) They're sittin on the G70, as they knew the NV47 could make some major sales, realizing there was huge delays with the R520. Thus, changing the G70 name to G71, and using the NV47 to make ATi show their hand.
3.) There never was a G70, NVidia just threw out the name, replacing the NV47 name, to really throw a curveball at ATi... Increasing the pressure on them, essentially, bluffing.

Regardless, NVidia is going thru ALOT of trouble to hide the core's true name if it's number 3...So 1 or 2 is the more probable answer.

Let me know whatcha think guys, I'm going to continue to dig up info and see if I can get to the bottom of this. I've also emailed NVidia about this, and if they give me an official answer I will post it here asap... Again, the part of the 7800gtx not really being the G70, but the NV47 with a fake stamp on it IS news, so please do not move or delete this thread, it WILL be updated.

That is a lowball trick if it is right. This is why I buy last-gen cards becuase of scandals like this.

Oh, it's right... NVidia's developer control panel AND rivatuner both state the 7800gtx is infact the NV47, and read any ATi core for, they all state taiwan for place made, because that's where TSMC's fabs are... Why does the G70 say korea when the only GPU people who make cards there are IBM, while NVidia specifically stated they're going thru TSMC this round.

The proof is all laid out in the post.

Smart move by Nvidia if what you say is true. This is also why I just bought a 6800GT - maybe the "real" G70 will be unveiled when ATI launches their new product. I certainly hope so!

-k0nsl

mmmm so this why they could have in masses for launch date smart move they used the project they cancelled to gain some time for g71

so they have an As under the sleeve or maybe they were having the same problems as r520 with the pipes and 90nm process

I'm glad to see people aren't taking this story as flamebait, or complaining calling it a theory. Really nice to see that members here actually read instead of skimming thru a couple of lines and calling it BS, when honestly, it's clear as day that it's all true.

The question remains though, why is NVidia going thru so much trouble as to make it out to be the G70 when it's really the NV47?.. I have emailed NVidia, as a News member of this forum, asking for an answer. Hopefully I get an actual reply and not an automated response, considering if I do get a response it WILL be posted on here asap. If I don't get a response I'll post this thread on their forums until I finally do get an answer.

I *WILL* get to the bottom of this... If anyone else finds ANYTHING out, please post it in this thread. Thank you in advance.

i dotn know perhaps they just tape out the nv47 as a g70 cuz they were having troubles like ati right now

so the real g70 will be the g71 but they are dead silent with the g71

weird thing to do

I believe it. I think there is something to this story!

If it turns out to be all true it's a brilliant plan. They bate ATI with the NV47 while they secretly work on the G70 to combat the R520.

Is it not possible that some components of the cancelled NV47 were carried over to the G70? I mean, they had some good engineering obviously, why start from scratch? I think the G70 IS totally based off the NV47 core that was never actually built. Why change what the chip is reported as in development tools? It's probably too much work for no real gain considering they were half way done when they stopped.

That makes logical sense, moreso in my opinion than than having unused technology lying around, the board of directors would fire them all for wasting bucks otherwise.
UnG

so the true new gen is the g71 not the g70

Also, maybe the missing key is that ATI already knows this! That's why they don't feel rushed to release Fudo. They KNOW that it will crush the NV47/"G70" and therefore don't need to take the bait. That would certainly explain the reports of the R580 core being tapped out. NV47, followed by R520, QUICKLY (before Xmas 2006) followed by the "G71" and R580!

-FCG

i want to see the mainstream product nvidia has to release to compete against ati

um...rivatuner identifies my 7800GTX as NV47, revision A1....i've seen mostly A2 chips on the net....mine is most likely a real nv47, as it is rom strapped from device ID "0090" to "0091"....0090 was the NV47, i think, and "0091" is the string to name is 7800GTX.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freecableguy

Also, maybe the missing key is that ATI already knows this! That's why they don't feel rushed to release Fudo. They KNOW that it will crush the NV47/"G70" and therefore don't need to take the bait. That would certainly explain the reports of the R580 core being tapped out. NV47, followed by R520, QUICKLY (before Xmas 2006) followed by the "G71" and R580!

-FCG

---

Then the G80(which is NVidia's counter to the R580), which is also reported to be taped out, and was not even 2 weeks after the 7800gtx launch. Of course, ATi have already stated they will not release the R580 until next spring/summer, as they cannot afford to take sales away from the R520 due to the sheer amount of cash sank into that project. It has to be able to sell for top dollar for it's timeline, or they're going to take FAR more losses than they will gains on that card. Again, ati is already being sued for lying to it's shareholders, they cannot afford to do the same again.

Also, UnG, even if you were right(albeit the G70 specs match the NV47 specs TO A T!), that STILL wouldn't explain the obviously fake stamp on the G70 stating it's made in korea when TSMC's fabs are in taiwan. NVidia are really trying to cover this all up here. Also, it's not the code in the developer tools nor Rivatuner that's the issue, it's the hardcore on the core of the NV47/G70 itself that's reading as NV47. Using the same components wouldn't explain why they're being hardcoded as NV47 in the slightest. Also, as I stated, the specs match up to a T, from the process, to the vertex shaders, to the pipelines... Every review site has said it highly resembles the NV40, which the NV47 was a massively revamped NV40... This IS the NV47, not just based on it, but it actually IS that core.

um...rivatuner identifies my 7800GTX as NV47, revision A1....i've seen mostly A2 chips on the net....mine is most likely a real nv47, as it is rom strapped from device ID "0090" to "0091"....0090 was the NV47, i think, and "0091" is the string to name is 7800GTX.


pulled from rivatuner:

Quote:

---

$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff Display adapter information
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$0000000000 Description : NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GTX
$0000000001 Vendor ID : 10de (NVIDIA)
$0000000002 Device ID : 0091
$0000000003 Location : bus 1, device 0, function 0
$0000000004 Bus type : PCIE
$000000000f PCIE link width : 16x supported, 16x selected
$0000000009 Base address 0 : d0000000 (memory range)
$000000000a Base address 1 : c0000000 (memory range)
$000000000b Base address 2 : none
$000000000c Base address 3 : d1000000 (memory range)
$000000000d Base address 4 : none
$000000000e Base address 5 : 0000a000 (I/O range)
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff NVIDIA specific display adapter information
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$0100000000 Graphics core : NV47 revision A1 (24x1,8vp)
$0100000001 Hardwired ID : 0090 (ROM strapped to 0091)
$0100000002 Memory bus : 256-bit
$0100000003 Memory type : DDR3 (RAM configuration 07)
$0100000004 Memory amount : 262144KB
$0100000100 Core domain 0 : 275.400MHz
$0100000101 Core domain 1 : 275.400MHz
$0100000102 Core domain 2 : 275.400MHz
$0100000006 Memory clock : 326.250MHz (652.500MHz effective)
$0100000007 Reference clock : 27.000MHz
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff NVIDIA VGA BIOS information
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$1100000000 Title : ASUS EN7800GTX VGA BIOS Version 5.70.02.11.AS01
$1100000002 Version : 5.70.02.11
$1100000100 BIT version : 1.00
$1100000200 Core clock : 275MHz
$1100000201 Memory clock : 1200MHz
$1100010000 Perf. level 0 : 275MHz/600MHz/1.20V/100%
$1100010001 Perf. level 1 : 415(+35)MHz/600MHz/1.40V/100%
$1100010002 Perf. level 2 : 430(+40)MHz/600MHz/1.40V/100%
$1100020000 VID bitmask : 00000011b
$1100020100 Voltage level 0 : 1.20V, VID 00000000b
$1100020101 Voltage level 1 : 1.30V, VID 00000010b
$1100020102 Voltage level 2 : 1.40V, VID 00000001b
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$ffffffffff NVIDIA graphics processor registers
$ffffffffff ---------------------------------------------------
$020100003c CR3C : 00000070
$0200000000 NV_PMC_BOOT_0 : 047100a1
$0200001080 NV_PBUS_DEBUG_0 : 00000000
$0200001084 NV_PBUS_DEBUG_1 : 00205649
$0200001088 NV_PBUS_DEBUG_2 : 000211f0
$020000108c NV_PBUS_DEBUG_3 : 00000090
$02000010f0 NV_10F0 : 00007fff
$0200001218 NV_1218 : 00000000
$0200001540 NV_1540 : 73ffff3f
$02000015f0 NV_15F0 : 00000000
$02000015f4 NV_15F4 : 00000000
$02000015f8 NV_15F8 : 7fffffff
$0200004000 NV_4000 : 8000011c
$0200004004 NV_4004 : 01013305
$0200004008 NV_4008 : 01c01f02
$0200004010 NV_4010 : c001011f
$0200004014 NV_4014 : 011f1002
$0200004018 NV_4018 : 0005001f
$020000401c NV_401C : 0e021104
$0200004020 NV_4020 : e400001c
$0200004024 NV_4024 : 1d030a02
$020000402c NV_402C : e400001c
$0200004030 NV_4030 : 1d030a02
$0200004038 NV_4038 : e400001c
$020000403c NV_403C : 1d030a02
$0200004044 NV_4044 : e400001c
$0200004048 NV_4048 : 1d030a02
$0200004050 NV_4050 : 00000000
$020000c000 NV_C000 : 00020010
$020000c010 NV_C010 : 00000080
$020000c014 NV_C014 : 00000000
$020000c018 NV_C018 : 00000080
$020000c01c NV_C01C : 00000000
$020000c020 NV_C020 : 00000001
$020000c024 NV_C024 : 00000000
$020000c028 NV_C028 : 00000001
$020000c02c NV_C02C : 00000000
$020000c040 NV_C040 : 3c03c333
$020000c04c NV_C04C : 10101010
$0200100200 NV_PFB_CFG : 43003073
$020010020c NV_PFB_CSTATUS : 10000000
$0200100220 NV_PFB_TIMING0 : 0813211b
$0200100224 NV_PFB_TIMING1 : 0a01060a
$0200100228 NV_PFB_TIMING2 : 20270509
$02001002c0 NV_PFB_MRS : 00000202
$02001002c4 NV_PFB_EMRS : 00100088
$0200100474 NV_100474 : 11110004
$0200101000 NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT_0 : a34ede9f
$0200101004 NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT_0_AND : 7e2fce3f
$0200101008 NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT_0_OR : 01401080
$020010100c NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT_1 : 80008490
$0200101010 NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT_1_AND : 7fffffff
$0200101014 NV_PEXTDEV_BOOT_1_OR : 00000000
$020060081c NV_PCRTC_GPIO_EXT : 62600622
$0200680500 NV_PRAMDAC_NVPLL_COEFF : 00000000
$0200680570 NV_PRAMDAC_NVPLL_COEFF_1 : 00000000
$0200680504 NV_PRAMDAC_MPLL_COEFF : 00000000
$0200680574 NV_PRAMDAC_MPLL_COEFF_1 : 00000000
$020068050c NV_PRAMDAC_PLL_COEFF_SELECT : 00000204

---

i dunno...but it seems pretty obvious to me that when they annouced they cancelled the NV47, that info came from TSMC....TSMC wasn't making the chip anymore, so the rumour proved true. But now it has come to light that nVidia simply moved the production to IBM fabs, either because of the yeild issues that TSMC has had as of late, or just simply to try to confuse ATI's insider @ TSMC....either way, there is more than meets the eye in the G70 story.



So, the G70...it's still out there...it's the 7800U. 32pp, 10vs. I bet IBM are producing those chips right now....7800U was cancelled...lol...like the NV47!:fact:

Great post Dil, we already knew it from EOCF, but it's good to see responses here..... If nVidia has something (as something is really, I mean really fishy here) they will no doubt release it after the launch of the X1800 series....

So if true, this thread becomes part of GFX history....and the guy who "figured it out".

:toast:

Edit: wow there you have it :D

Quote:

---

$0100000000 Graphics core : NV47 revision A1 (24x1,8vp)

---

Quote:

---

7800U was cancelled...lol...like the NV47

---

Exactly :fact:

I always knew my attention to detail would come in handy some day...
:fact: :woot: :banana: :banana: :banana: :toast:
Anyway, thanks for the compliments Tim, you know I did ALOT of digging to piece this all together, and of course, you got to watch me do it all on EOCF.

Either way, I thought for sure Mesce was going to close the thread on me. :rotf: :rotf: :ROTF: :ROTF: :hehe:

um, digitlife produced that article in june, and this beyond3d article claimed tha same in june as well:

Quote:

---

None the less, it is always an inevitability that new products will eventually become available and NVIDIA have tried to keep people guessing a little by the change of internal codenames. Initially indications were that NV47 would be NVIDIA's next high end chip update, with suggestions of it increasing the number of internal pipelines and being based on a 110nm process. Of course, before "NV47" could come to the market codenames of G70 and G80 surfaced which possibly threw people off the scent

---

http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/g70/


This is not new news, but the proof and format is new. Well done Diltech! i had thought something was fishy when i got rivatuner yesterday....guess we can confirm it now.

its not cancelled is just delayed why affect 7800gtx sales when they are making money with them and there is not real competition until next month?

Nowhere in there does it say the 7800gtx is the NV47, just that codenames of G70/G80 surfaced before the NV47 could be released. It should also be noted that NVidia stated the NV47 was cancelled completely, and therefore that makes the fact that it turns out the 7800gtx IS the NV47 news, and since no site has posted the truth, that makes this New News... Othersites only posted suspicions, I posted everything with proof.

Delayed or postponed? That's the question. Big difference.

is quite the same

delayed the launch date until there is a better card from ati or postponed until the same thing

if there is any difference tell me xD

My theory is simple...

ATi announce major delays, NVidia cease opportunity by launching the NV47, to make back R&D money spent. ATi still don't have card ready, but should soon, NVidia announces G71/7800ultra cancelled(to sell cards to people who *were* going to wait for it). ATi releases R520 and beats NV47, NVidia releases G71(the REAL G70!) and beats R520.

This leaves ATi in quite a bind, as it gives them 2 options, and one of which they cannot afford to do.
1.) They can take a HUGE 7 - 8 figure loss on the R520 by releasing the R580 and killing their own R520 sales, not to mention have to lower the price on the R520.
2.) take the loss of the performance crown and still sell enough cards to break even to their fanboys, as we all know fanboys don't care who's faster as long as the card is made by their favorite company...

This is my theory on the situation anyway.

Quote:

---

Either way, I thought for sure Mesce was going to close the thread on me.

---

That just totally made my day ROFL! :lol: :rotf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Nowhere in there does it say the 7800gtx is the NV47, just that codenames of G70/G80 surfaced before the NV47 could be released. It should also be noted that NVidia stated the NV47 was cancelled completely, and therefore that makes the fact that it turns out the 7800gtx IS the NV47 news, and since no site has posted the truth, that makes this New News... Othersites only posted suspicions, I posted everything with proof.

---

Geez dude...relax...slow down and read my post:

Quote:

---

This is not new news, but the proof and format is new. Well done Diltech! i had thought something was fishy when i got rivatuner yesterday....guess we can confirm it now.

---

:slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metro.cl

weird thing to do

---

yeah....... :stick:

this is fascinating.. can anyone with more "acess" confirm this story?

Props for following through on this, Dil-tech.

I watched through your thread on EOCF, I must say it was pretty funny :lol:

I responded a few times, but it was more interesting to just watch. If this isn't the G70, then what should be the specs of it? 32pipes / 90nm / ___ shaders / etc...?

Thanx magg, I've put quite a bit of work into all this, I'm definitely gonna ignore anyone who doesn't seem to get the whole point of this.

The way I see it , I stumbled onto something that a few sites only hinted at, but no one ever got really indepth. I'm also stuck sittin here burning cds all day for a local dj, so I've got nothin better to do than look things up while I sit here and change cds out, thus I was curious... This time, curiousity didn't kill the cat, but rather got it stuck chasin a mouse thru a cheese maze... Hopefully soon enough we'll find that rodent... I'm gonna talk to my "source" when I go work at my sidejob next week, if anyone can tell me something, it's him...

Either way, where's shamino or OPP... they'd probably know something about all this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ugly n Grey

Is it not possible that some components of the cancelled NV47 were carried over to the G70? I mean, they had some good engineering obviously, why start from scratch? I think the G70 IS totally based off the NV47 core that was never actually built. Why change what the chip is reported as in development tools? It's probably too much work for no real gain considering they were half way done when they stopped.

That makes logical sense, moreso in my opinion than than having unused technology lying around, the board of directors would fire them all for wasting bucks otherwise.
UnG

---

that's wat i thought, too.

after i got my 7800gt i was wondering why rivatuner reports it to nv47. but there are many people out there who say, that the previous name of the g70 was nv47.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

that's wat i thought, too.

after i got my 7800gt i was wondering why rivatuner reports it to nv47. but there are many people out there who say, that the previous name of the g70 was nv47.

---

Read thru my original post, it's not just rivatuner, it's their NVidia's own development tools too. The codename NV47 is hardcoded into the supposed "G70" core, the specs match the rumored "NV47" specs, and we have a korea stamp on a core that's suppose to have been produced by taiwan fabs run by TSMC...

Hmm interesting, I wonder if its possible though that the NV47 had a weird defect and Nvidia decided to rengineer it to the g70 and then someone in the coding department forgot to update it to g70 also. A good way to check is if this blows up huge will these should start being reported as g70s in rivatuner becuase Nvidia wants to cover there engineering department.

Well, i'll tell ya what...15.6 reports my core as G70....

Quote:

---

coding department forgot to update it to g70 also.

---

Highly unlikely

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by live2game2003

That is a lowball trick if it is right. This is why I buy last-gen cards becuase of scandals like this.

---

i dont see this as low at all, why would ati need to look at what nvidia is doing to compete with them. They should be making as much advances as they can instead of looking at what advances they can cut out ala sm3.0 and fp32 hdr.

dumb question...

but who cares?

I mean, they can call it a R521 ATi2 for all I care.

it has 24 pipelines, it has 8 VS, its clocked high.
performs high...
it's a definate leap over the 6800 series...

it's a definate "next generation" card.
so, why would it matter what they call it??

Wait a sec... Hmmmm :idea:

If its based on the nv45 and the nv47 is a improved nv45 (6800 Ultra) with more pipes and stuff, then thats why the texture quality problem is simmilar to that of the 6800 Ultra when first released.

BTW, didnt the nv45 have problems with texture compression in games like Doom3 and FarCry (They looked less compressed) and was the main cause of why the nv45 had an advantage in these games?
nVidia sacrificed image quality for performance, wile ATi stayed with image quality and performed simmilar or even better.

The r520 may have a chance here. Maybe afther they fix the High res problem, at high resolutions the 7800 may lose performance and the r520 may outperform it at the same image quality

That reminds me how the Prescotts back then had more pipelines than the FX and because of the excessive pipelines they were slower.
Maybe more pipelines isnt better, and ATi is doing the right thing by sacrificing the expensive pipes for more clocks.



I got an idea: :idea:

Has anyone tryed testing Pipes vs Mhz?
How large was the jump by unlocking 12 pipes to 16 pipes on the x800 pro?

Could anyone compare the following:

7800 GTX *speed:
Clocked at 450/1200 with 24 pipes
--------------------Vs--------------------
Underclocked at 200/800 with 24 pipes

AND

7800 GTX pipes:
Clocked at 450/1200 with 24 pipes
--------------------Vs--------------------
Underclocked at 450/1200 with 16 pipes



Compareing these *speed would be like compareing a nv47/"g70" 450/1200 vs a r520 possibly 700/1400

IF the gap between 200/800 Mhz and 450/1200 Mhz is greater in % performance than the gap between the 16 and 24 pipes, THEN the r520 may have a chance of winning.

If someone is going to try this, please make a new thread about it

Me thinks G70 is a renamed NV47 (of which they already had a bunch produced) and was considered good enough (and different enough) to be renamed in a completely different series. G71 (the short-rumored NV48) will be a revamp of this on 90nm with an unknown number of pipes while G80 is the old NV50. No scam here, just codename renaming and resorting.

I agree with other people here in saying that this was done because of ATi's delays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turok

I got an idea: :idea:

Has anyone tryed testing Pipes vs Mhz?
How large was the jump by unlocking 12 pipes to 16 pipes on the x800 pro?

Could anyone compare the following:

7800 GTX *speed:
Clocked at 450/1200 with 24 pipes
--------------------Vs--------------------
Underclocked at 200/800 with 24 pipes

AND

7800 GTX pipes:
Clocked at 450/1200 with 24 pipes
--------------------Vs--------------------
Underclocked at 450/1200 with 16 pipes



Compareing these *speed would be like compareing a nv47/"g70" 450/1200 vs a r520 possibly 700/1400

IF the gap between 200/800 Mhz and 450/1200 Mhz is greater in % performance than the gap between the 16 and 24 pipes, THEN the r520 may have a chance of winning.

If someone is going to try this, please make a new thread about it

---

I'm not going to sort through what you said--it makes little sense and I'm quite sober right now--but I know my 7800GTX was completely unstable below 320MHz, this is likely true for others.

I don't follow your math either, why such a HUGE clock drop? Why a memory clock drop? Are you just spitting out random numbers?

EDIT: and what does this have to do with a card that we have little information about other than the name (R520/X1800)???

NV48 was only a 16 pipelined part, it was the refresh to the 6800nu, not a higher end NV47, despite the massive confusion that was caused... My guess is that the G71 is actually what the G70 was originally suppose to be, as NVidia saw an opening where they could simply release the NV47 and make massive sales doing so, as ATi wouldn't have a counter for almost a full quarter.. Looks like it paid off.

A for Kunaak, the reason this actually matters is this. The word was the NV47 and G70 were being worked on Side-by-Side, which there-fore would mean that since this is the NV47, the G70 still exists in another form. Likely in the form of the ultra, the 90nm part rumored to be 32pipes....

Now, we all heard the news that "the ultra was cancelled", but then again, so was the NV47, yet we see it here today. This is ALOT of work to simply make the NV47 look like the G70, now isn't it?... Something is going on in NVidia land, the question is what...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turok

That reminds me how the Prescotts back then had more pipelines than the FX and because of the excessive pipelines they were slower.
Maybe more pipelines isnt better, and ATi is doing the right thing by sacrificing the expensive pipes for more clocks.

---

Its nothing like cpu's what so ever. Basicly a cpu has one pipeline, on that pipeline it has so many stages, the Prescotts have a load of stages somewhere in the 20's which allows for massive clock speeds but it takes longer delivering them. The Amd is a lot more efficient, a lot lower stages and now we are seeing higher clocking Amd's into 2.8 and soon 3ghz with the fx-59.

um...heh.


G70 codename=Geforce 7 series. It's may just simply be another name. The "G71" is most likely the Ultra, 32PP,10VS. This chip is the NV50, which was rumoured to be cancelled way back in december/january, like the NV47. At the time, The first R520 units started floating around looking for cooling solutions, and nVidia found that they needed to bring something faster than the NV47/NV50, and they scraped the NV48 @ the same time...remember the 512mb 6800Ultra's? those were NV48.

Here's where it gets strange...to me it seems as though nVidia paid TSMC to fubar ATI's chips, so that Nvidia would have time to finalize thier 90nm designs.

A wild accusation, i know, but with ATi moving to new fabs recently, giving them easy projects like mobile phone chips, it seems to me that they are testing the waters looking for a replacement for TSMC.

nVidia has shyed away from TSMC with final production of chips due to lack of security, i think. They have always been tight about thier products, but alot of info has been leaked in the last 18 months or so. The most obvious source would be someone related to the goings-on at that level, and TSMC to me is most obvious becasue of relations to both companies, as well as the major CPU designers.


Anyway, becasue of the leaks, nVidia have taken the new chips elsewhere, and becasue of the loss, TSMC have been very tight-lipped about ATI's current project...possibly chastised by the nVidia move, and maybe also becasue of thier problems in producing the ATI chips.


But hey, what do I know? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

I'm not going to sort through what you said--it makes little sense and I'm quite sober right now--but I know my 7800GTX was completely unstable below 320MHz, this is likely true for others.

I don't follow your math either, why such a HUGE clock drop? Why a memory clock drop? Are you just spitting out random numbers?

EDIT: and what does this have to do with a card that we have little information about other than the name (R520/X1800)???

---

I was comapreing Mhz vs Pipes
Was just saying that if you grap a 7800 GTX and compare 16 pipes less than stock and 250 more/less Mhz than stock, and the performance difference is grater with Mhz than pipes, then the r520 could be faster.

If the 7800 GTX cant be clocked that low, then someone could try compareing half the performance loss or gain
Ex:
Comapre 450/1200 to 575/1300 vs 20 pipes to 24 pipes
Then you would compare the difference in performance between stock and 4 pipes less and 125/100 Mhz less or more than stock

and I know... its a bit off topic because its not related to nv47 and g70 names. Just a thought :rolleyes: :stick:

The Pipes vs Mhz difference was tested here a while ago over the same thing (ATi's next gen GPU :) ) and it seemed clocks rule over pipes IIRC.

So Ati could still beat the NV47/G70 thingy if it appears to have a greater gain when clocked high with less pipes then a lot of pipes clocked lower. Also more pipes = more bandwidth needed to feed the pipes, more MHZ also = more bandwidth needed but not as much because more MHZ can also mean more "normal" calculations like volumetric fog, pixel shaders, vertex shaders etc. While more pipelines = more bandwidth needed because of the increase in texture demand. (and overall data demand also off course)

BTW concerning this G70= NV47 thing....

I don't carre actually... I mean same for ATI they can call their R520 R895472264542484X1337 for all I care, as long as it performs.
BUT
off course one does wonder, if this is the NV47, what happend to the G70. THe G70 = G80? or.....
I mean the G71 could just be a respin of this core to 90nm allowing higher clockspeeds, better cooling .....

Off course, say they DID scrap the NV47, they where halfway someone said. This means they had the main archtitecture completed, including the major components but not "small" things that where to be implementad in a later stage.
Now if you decide to make a completly new GPU then why waiste a architecture already done?
I mean they can still use the "backbone" of the existing archtecture they had and just builth further on that but off course making fundamental adjustments that would allow for the new features/ justify the new name/build/core version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turok

I was comapreing Mhz vs Pipes
Was just saying that if you grap a 7800 GTX and compare 16 pipes less than stock and 250 more/less Mhz than stock, and the performance difference is grater with Mhz than pipes, then the r520 could be faster.

If the 7800 GTX cant be clocked that low, then someone could try compareing half the performance loss or gain
Ex:
Comapre 450/1200 to 575/1300 vs 20 pipes to 24 pipes
Then you would compare the difference in performance between stock and 4 pipes less and 125/100 Mhz less or more than stock

and I know... its a bit off topic because its not related to nv47 and g70 names. Just a thought :rolleyes: :stick:

---

I know what you were trying to do....but there are way too many flaws in your statements and logic, I'll leave my post at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Entity_Razer

The Pipes vs Mhz difference was tested here a while ago over the same thing (ATi's next gen GPU :) ) and it seemed clocks rule over pipes IIRC.

So Ati could still beat the NV47/G70 thingy if it appears to have a greater gain when clocked high with less pipes then a lot of pipes clocked lower. Also more pipes = more bandwidth needed to feed the pipes, more MHZ also = more bandwidth needed but not as much because more MHZ can also mean more "normal" calculations like volumetric fog, pixel shaders, vertex shaders etc. While more pipelines = more bandwidth needed because of the increase in texture demand. (and overall data demand also off course)

BTW concerning this G70= NV47 thing....

I don't carre actually... I mean same for ATI they can call their R520 R895472264542484X1337 for all I care, as long as it performs.
BUT
off course one does wonder, if this is the NV47, what happend to the G70. THe G70 = G80? or.....
I mean the G71 could just be a respin of this core to 90nm allowing higher clockspeeds, better cooling .....

Off course, say they DID scrap the NV47, they where halfway someone said. This means they had the main archtitecture completed, including the major components but not "small" things that where to be implementad in a later stage.
Now if you decide to make a completly new GPU then why waiste a architecture already done?
I mean they can still use the "backbone" of the existing archtecture they had and just builth further on that but off course making fundamental adjustments that would allow for the new features/ justify the new name/build/core version.

---

Thanks for the reply :)
Where was it proven so I can check the performance difference between the pipes and Mhz?

Back to nv47/"g70"....
I also dont care how its called as long as it performs better.
I do care that ATi survives tho, because more competition = better cards for both sides.

Its still a good find tho

DilTech nice work :toast:
But as it was sad here before the G70 and NV47 are pretty similar (if not the same). IMO it`s just marketing move to attract customers. And now when nVidia released this new product (not revolutional, but evolutional) it has plenty of time to make something really new.

Hmmmm so if what ive read is true it really explains r520 being pushed and delayed and nvidia may just have had the same problems... i geuss its just sorta hard to get a huge leap ahead on competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kunaak

dumb question...

but who cares?

I mean, they can call it a R521 ATi2 for all I care.

it has 24 pipelines, it has 8 VS, its clocked high.
performs high...
it's a definate leap over the 6800 series...

it's a definate "next generation" card.
so, why would it matter what they call it??

---

THANK YOU! Who f'ing cares what it's called?

Let me just add to this by saying that they aren't two separate cards, they are simply two separate names. NVIDIA decided to change it late in the development cycle, to coincide with the chipset naming scheme.

All this BS about NVIDIA holding out on the "real" G70 needs to stop. The "real" G70 and NV47 are one in the same. People are reading WAY too much into this.

That's your opinion sir, and you gotta admit that something weird is going on.....

Why you should care....would you care about a possible 90nm 32pipe nVidia part waiting to be released after R520?

signed....... :confused:

i won't even get 11K SLI at stock. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turok

I do care that ATi survives tho, because more competition = better cards for both sides.

---

It also means prices will be lower.

Not necessarily....it just means there will be competition. That competition could bring along anything, but prices are largely controlled by other factors until a product's EOL. Of course, if the price is above MSRP, competition (with a large enough supply) will lower it....we don't have that situation though.

I think prices can only get better as a 20 pipe 7800 GT can be had for only $374 shipped from newegg. We've already seen that no one wants to pay $600+ for a video card so you can be fairly certain that the next gen cards will not exceed that mark as sales will suffer. Of course you will always have those few vendors that just don't get it and will seek to price gauge the consumer.

yes but does it really matter? as long as it performes way over any other card to the day i dont care if the core is called "heheheh9595959"

but nice find ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slider99

i won't even get 11K SLI at stock. :(

---

buhu.. haha i mean cmon... :stick:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybercat

THANK YOU! Who f'ing cares what it's called?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kunaak

Originally Posted by Kunaak
dumb question...

but who cares?

I mean, they can call it a R521 ATi2 for all I care.

it has 24 pipelines, it has 8 VS, its clocked high.
performs high...
it's a definate leap over the 6800 series...

it's a definate "next generation" card.
so, why would it matter what they call it??

---

Let me just add to this by saying that they aren't two separate cards, they are simply two separate names. NVIDIA decided to change it late in the development cycle, to coincide with the chipset naming scheme.

All this BS about NVIDIA holding out on the "real" G70 needs to stop. The "real" G70 and NV47 are one in the same. People are reading WAY too much into this.

---

this answers explains what i totally think about this theory. this theory (for my opinion) is true but as the Cybercat told there is no secret G70. nv47 and g70 are same only reason nvidia changed name nv47 to g70 is to get more attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim

That's your opinion sir, and you gotta admit that something weird is going on.....

Why you should care....would you care about a possible 90nm 32pipe nVidia part waiting to be released after R520?

---

what are you talking about? We don't know of such a thing, and any speculation that the "real" G70 is some sort of 90nm 32-pipe 512-bit 1024MB dual-GPU 32x PCIe super card, or whatever you feel like adding to the specs, is just useless made-up hype.

We have the G70 already. Whether it was originally called the NV47 or not really doesn't matter.

lol you must have a decent amount of free time to even consider giving half a crap about this ;)

-CaT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybercat

what are you talking about? We don't know of such a thing, and any speculation that the "real" G70 is some sort of 90nm 32-pipe 512-bit 1024MB dual-GPU 32x PCIe super card, or whatever you feel like adding to the specs, is just useless made-up hype.

We have the G70 already. Whether it was originally called the NV47 or not really doesn't matter.

---

wow, easy there man, no need to get all cranky on me...I was simply saying that nVidia probably has something up their sleeve...made up hype...definitely not...do I need to remind you about the pulled shamino article..? I hope not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaTalyst.X

lol you must have a decent amount of free time to even consider giving half a crap about this ;)

---

Well he said that he was all day burning CD's...so yeah that gives him some time....you probably enjoyed reading every bit of it....I sure did...was a nice read...and interestingly enough....

Just be glad he took the time

If this is true, I think there is going to one hell of a showing in the next couple of months...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaTalyst.X

lol you must have a decent amount of free time to even consider giving half a crap about this ;)

-CaT

---

It's not the fact they did it that I care about, it's the fact that they tried so hard to cover it up that makes me wonder...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybercat

what are you talking about? We don't know of such a thing, and any speculation that the "real" G70 is some sort of 90nm 32-pipe 512-bit 1024MB dual-GPU 32x PCIe super card, or whatever you feel like adding to the specs, is just useless made-up hype.

We have the G70 already. Whether it was originally called the NV47 or not really doesn't matter.

---

Again, just like I stated in the first post, TSMC's fabs are in taiwan, the stamp on the chip says korea, but IBM produces chips in korea, and IBM didn't make these chips... Also, why be internally coded as NV47, if they're stamped G70? Why take all the time and effort of telling everyone it's going to be the G70 when it's really the NV47?...You don't do that just because you felt like it, you do that when you have something to actually gain from it! The real question here is WHAT IS THAT THEY HAVE TO GAIN?

Yes, you can say "well, they parted out the NV47", inwhich case I'm gonna tell you to have some common sense, and remember that they're coded near the end of the process, NOT AT THE BEGINNING! Using a transistor from the NV47 wouldn't give it the name NV47, now would it? Think back to windwithme's fx-55 that was coded to read as an FX-57...That wouldn't occur just because they used a basic design, that's occuring because they are built from the ground up as a NV47.

Finally, yes, I had alot of time when I wrote this article. My main job is handling studio recording and mass production in my hometown(meanwhile, I end up looking up stuff like this during my side-job), inwhich case there's times(like the day in question), where I'm literally burning thousands of cds... That gives you more than a bit of time to look a few things up when something looks suspicious to you, wouldn't you agree?

If you don't like the article, there's no need to flame. No need to say "you're wrong", without any sort of proof. No need to post "well, I don't care what they call it", when you didn't even read thru it, it's not just the fact that they 7800gtx turns out to be merely the NV47, but why nV went thru all this simply to make it appear NOT TO BE the nV47.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Also, why be internally coded as NV47, if they're stamped G70? Why take all the time and effort of telling everyone it's going to be the G70 when it's really the NV47?...You don't do that just because you felt like it, you do that when you have something to actually gain from it! The real question here is WHAT IS THAT THEY HAVE TO GAIN?

---

You're asking a fundamental question that no one but NVIDIA themselves can answer. Your question essentially comes down to, why use the "G70" name in the first place? Why would NVIDIA change their naming scheme? Well for whatever reason they saw it as being more marketable and that it made sense at the time. Exact reasons are still unknown, but again, I don't think it really matters. NVIDIA would like it to be called the G70, so we'll call it that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

If you don't like the article, there's no need to flame. No need to say "you're wrong", without any sort of proof. No need to post "well, I don't care what they call it", when you didn't even read thru it, it's not just the fact that they 7800gtx turns out to be merely the NV47, but why nV went thru all this simply to make it appear NOT TO BE the nV47.

---

I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to try to argue that this is wrong. I think the evidence is pretty damn consistent with your theory. For all practical knowledge, at one point the G70 was called the NV47. Multiple sources confirm this, and until equally convincing and concrete evidence proves that this is just a glitch or doesn't hold water, like I said, no one in their right mind will try to argue against it.

The only thing I'm arguing against is the speculation that branches off of this fact. Speculation such as that the real G70 is a 90nm 32-pipe card, and that NVIDIA held out on it. Or that NVIDIA jipped us of the real G70, which was a 32-pipe card. Frankly, all that speculation sounds completely bogus to me. I really don't see how it could be any more straight forward. The core was originally to be called the NV47 but NVIDIA later decided to change it to the "G70". No big deal.

As for TSMC not producing the chip... Well I don't think there's enough information to form ANY sort of conclusions from that. It sounds very probable that perhaps TSMC didn't produce the chip. What does that imply? No one can honestly say. For all we know there could be multiple revisions of the G70, some made in TSMC, some not. Are ALL G70 cores stamped with the Korea locale? I certainly don't know. Nor do I see the issue as any sort of significance until more info is revealed.

Problem starts with the NV47 being cancelled, as well as NV50, RSX being Playstation only, and RSX being 90nm G70. So, uh, who's fabbing the Sony chips?

You know cadaveca, I never even thought about that one... The RSX IS a 90nm G70, which thus gives further reason to believe that NVidia may have held back, again though, I'm not saying that is true... It is a VERY good point though.

As for who's fabbing them, I'll have to look into that one, it's a very good question indeed.

As for cybercat, google a search on 7800gtx reviews, every picture seen says korea on the core... That's pretty good odds that all of them are being made there.... Also, I'm not saying any of my theories are correct, other than that the G70 is the NV47, this one is a definite. The only *real* question is why try and cover it up, that part doesn't make sense, as most consumers have no clue what core is what anyway, they just look at the box, so I don't see how saying it was a completely new architechure would really help them sell the cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turok

Wait a sec... Hmmmm :idea:
That reminds me how the Prescotts back then had more pipelines than the FX and because of the excessive pipelines they were slower.
Maybe more pipelines isnt better, and ATi is doing the right thing by sacrificing the expensive pipes for more clocks.
I got an idea: :idea:
Has anyone tryed testing Pipes vs Mhz?

---

omg where to start... Prescotts dont have more piplines, just a longer one. 31(IIRC) "stages" if you will, compared to the old Northwoods 20, and A64s 14(?). Look at it like an assembly line, where the pipeline equals a stage in the line, and clock speed as how fast the product moves stage to stage thru the assembly line. Lets say the product is a Car. So if it takes A64 only 14 steps to compete the car, it can (and has to) run at a slower speed than a pressie that takes 31 steps, but at a much faster speed. thats why p4s are clocked higher and can OC to much higher Mhz levels, but the A64 can do the same amount of work at a lesser clock speed. Such as an A64 4000+ running very similarly to a P4 at 4 Ghz.
As for video cards, the number of pipes DOES seem to make the biggest difference. If clock speed mattered more than archetecture (like you seem to think it does), then my old 9600XT at 500 core/600 memory speeds, should have been able to out-do a 9800XT that was clocked at 412/700-800(?dont remeber). The difference is pipelines. my 9600XT had 4, and the 9800XT had 8. It worked faster thru paralelism, being able to do more per clock cycle due to the incresed number of pixel pipelines and vertex shaders. Its the same princeple as dual core cpus being able to do more in less time thru paralelism. If you want to see the difference, search futuremarks ORB or just read reviews. an x800 Pro is the same chip as an x800XT, except for 4 locked pipelines (12 vs. 16) You can OC a pro to speeds faster than a stock XT, and still have much less performance. Look back at past GPUs. theyve all stayed at 200-500 core clock speed since at least the geforce 4 series. The performance gains are coming from added pipelines and better archetecture. Im not sure how many pipes the older cards had, but the GeforceFX series, and the Radeon 9200 thru 9700 had 4 pipes, then the 9800s had 8. now the X800 pro and 6800 plain have 12. the 6800GT and Ultra and X800 XT and X850s have 16. and the very latest generation, the 7800 series, including the GT and GTX Versions have 20 and 24 pipes respectivley. Looking back, it becomes less of a mystery as far as GPU performance goes, doesnt it? :hrhr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

...so I don't see how saying it was a completely new architechure would really help them sell the cards.

---

You don't? :stick:

I think something new would sell better than something old and rehashed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

Exhibit C...Please look at the picture of the G70 core very closely while reading this one...
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...g70-part2.html


Now, We all know that TSMC produces the G70 core, right? Well, TSMC DOESN'T HAVE FABS IN KOREA! IBM uses korea, and IBM isn't making these cores... What does this have to do with anything you ask? THE STAMPS ARE ADDED BY NVIDIA AFTER THE CHIP IS PRODUCED! NVidia messed up by leaving it to say Korea instead of Taiwan. A mistake only very few people would notice, as most people don't take the heatsink off their videocard, and even less know where TSMC's fabs are.

---

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

DIltech...who made the hardwarew to test WGF 1.0? Uh, that would be the 6 series...

what happened to WGF 1.0? It got delayed due to M$ and , well, you know...WGF1.0 was rolled into DX9.0c.

Who's hardware meets WGF 2.0 specs? Not nVidia's.

Who's chips stand to not be up to standard when it comes to WGF 2.0?

for that, i'll point you here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/07...terview/4.html


And finally, to lead you a little further in your investigation, DilTech...

http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/com...idia/g70_spec/


When you put it all together...



:clap:


Again...x800XTPE...bet ya it had it soft ground in the pipeline..

R520 and RV530...soft ground in pipes? Again? different design teams, same issue?


uh, HELLO?

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

DIltech...who made the hardwarew to test WGF 1.0? Uh, that would be the 6 series...

what happened to WGF 1.0? It got delayed due to M$ and , well, you know...WGF1.0 was rolled into DX9.0c.

Who's hardware meets WGF 2.0 specs? Not nVidia's.

Who's chips stand to not be up to standard when it comes to WGF 2.0?

for that, i'll point you here:
http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2005/07...terview/4.html


And finally, to lead you a little further in your investigation, DilTech...

http://www.penstarsys.com/editor/com...idia/g70_spec/


When you put it all together...



:clap:


Again...x800XTPE...bet ya it had it soft ground in the pipeline..

R520 and RV530...soft ground in pipes? Again? different design teams, same issue?


uh, HELLO?

---

Neither does the R520... The NV50 was suppose to be NVidia's WGF 2.0 card, which ironically enough the G80 now is suppose to be. That card is already taped out ready to go for when ATi launch the R580.

Either way, I'm pretty sure I'm onto something with this, it's just a matter of what it is.... The fact that the RSX is a G70 on the 90nm process just points in the right direction even further.

Actually, if the R520 has a unified shader, pipeline, it's good to go for WGF 2.0...and i know that the Xenos chip 100% is unified shader.

r500= xenos
rv515= x1300
r520= x1800
RV530= x1600


to me, they should all be unified shader pipelines. the r520 may not have this functionality enabled...but the r580 should, i would think. they are all the same gen...and ATI is very simple in thier naming scheme...

R= Radeon
RV= Radeon Value

5= fifth generation.

r5xx= "xx"= chip desgin #.


R1800 is WGF 2.0 compliant, by the bittech article, if you read the whole thing. other sources point in this derection as well. Only lately has it been said that the chip features standard pipelines..probably because they have fixed assignments for now until Vista is released, and games can actually take advanatage of the unified shader pipeline. becasue Vista is slated for next year, this makes sense for the r580 to be unfied-enabled, as should be the next-gen chip from nvidia, to be released in the spring, i think.



The NV47 was changed to G70 naming scheme when they decided on the final chip that RSX would be. becaseu RSX is NV47 on 90nm, but intended for the consoles, it stays as RSX nv47, while the desktop pc market gets the G70 NV47...the naming difference is becasue of the design differences, although they do feature the same funtionality....although if you ask me, the GSX will be faster due to less load demand from the memory controller, and the slower membus...which should allow them to clock the chip much higher than it's desktop counterpart.

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