GeForce 9900 GTX & GTS Slated For July Launch

[NH|Delph1]

So much for GT200 in June. Meh. Q3 just more wishful thinking?

July is actually looking quite solid. I'm not so sure if it's a very hard launch though. Yields have been rather poor with G92, until the lastest revision, and I can't imagine they are any good with GT200.

//Andreas

[gundamit]

July is actually looking quite solid. I'm not so sure if it's a very hard launch though. Yields have been rather poor with G92, until the lastest revision, and I can't imagine they are any good with GT200.

//Andreas

Even a soft launch with in July with price gouging > no launch in Q3.

[Sly Fox]

You've gotta wonder, how long until we get a solid benchmark of GT200?

I'm rather suspicious of the fact that we've got nothing now... If the speculation is true, and GT200 is another 8800 series-esque monster, you'd think Nvidia would want to brag about it.

On the other hand, perhaps Nvidia doesn't want to let ATI on to what they've got, and are going to keep the info private as long as they can. That could explain the oddly inconsequential name, 9900 GXX as opposed to 10800 or something.

Now I could be completely off... Maybe Nvidia isn't lulling AMD into a false sense of security before launching a jaw-dropping card, but I sure hope I'm at least partially right.

I think us enthusiasts have waited oh... about 14 months too long for a truly brand new high end. I rest assured most of you would probably agree with me.

[Shintai]

Another proof GPUs have hit the wall. G92b for the 9800GT. That doesnt sound well for the GT200, plus its yet a microscopic upgrade. Seriously, those people with an E6600 and a 8800GTX from 2006must still be laughing. Its the longest highend rig ever.

[BrowncoatGR]

You've gotta wonder, how long until we get a solid benchmark of GT200?

I'm rather suspicious of the fact that we've got nothing now... If the speculation is true, and GT200 is another 8800 series-esque monster, you'd think Nvidia would want to brag about it.

On the other hand, perhaps Nvidia doesn't want to let ATI on to what they've got, and are going to keep the info private as long as they can. That could explain the oddly inconsequential name, 9900 GXX as opposed to 10800 or something.

Now I could be completely off... Maybe Nvidia isn't lulling AMD into a false sense of security before launching a jaw-dropping card, but I sure hope I'm at least partially right.

I think us enthusiasts have waited oh... about 14 months too long for a truly brand new high end. I rest assured most of you would probably agree with me.

Well the sam thing happened with G80, so it can mean anything really. Anyone remember the rumor that G80 might have needed watercooling for the GTX part?

[Sr7]

I think us enthusiasts have waited oh... about 14 months too long for a truly brand new high end. I rest assured most of you would probably agree with me.

I love how everyone exaggerates so much.. November 2006 was G80 launch. Followed by the Ultra a couple months later. It's been 16 months since Nov 2006.. are you saying they should've released a new high end architecture 2 months after G80 came out?

[Sly Fox]

I love how everyone exaggerates so much.. November 2006 was G80 launch. Followed by the Ultra a couple months later. It's been 16 months since Nov 2006.. are you saying they should've released a new high end architecture 2 months after G80 came out?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I didn't use the word "about" or anything. Point, is I did exaggerate yes, but let's be honest here. Every enthusiast here is ready for the next big thing 2 months after it launches anyways haha.

Just saw this at Engadget:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...25-08-9900.jpg

I have no clue as to how legitimate it is, or WHAT it is exactly, but I figured perhaps someone would find it interesting.

[Shintai]

Just saw this at Engadget:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.en...25-08-9900.jpg

I have no clue as to how legitimate it is, or WHAT it is exactly, but I figured perhaps someone would find it interesting.

Its a geforce 4 or 5, cant even remember.

[Sly Fox]

Its a geforce 4 or 5, cant even remember.

Ah, that makes sense. I found it odd that Engadget of all places would have the pic and that there would be so few capacitors on a GT200 card

[adamsleath]

new financial year prezzies might just bung one of these on one of my credit cards

[Sr7]

Ah, that makes sense. I found it odd that Engadget of all places would have the pic and that there would be so few capacitors on a GT200 card

And you didn't find it odd that they'd use molex power connectors and an AGP connector?

[Sly Fox]

And you didn't find it odd that they'd use molex power connectors and an AGP connector?

Didn't even occur to me. I saw the pic, immediately thought of XS, and posted it. Upon closer examination you're right, it is painfully obvious it's not a new card.

[perkam]

We already have a sticky for this.

MERGED.

Perkam

[adamsleath]

this is from x800 time i think..oops even b4 that: 9800pro time.

[Sr7]

this is from x800 time i think..oops even b4 that: 9800pro time.

Uhhh no, that's clearly the 5800 "dustblower" Ultra

[adamsleath]

yes i know; 9800pro was the contemporary ati card i remember looking at 9900 , and there was a 9999 also, but the ati 9800 was better, then the x800 series came out.......

[Sr7]

yes i know; 9800pro was the contemporary ati card i remember looking at 9900 , and there was a 9999 also, but the ati 9800 was better, then the x800 series came out.......

I think you mean it was the "equivalent" card. And no, it was the 9700 pro, not the 9800 pro.

[adamsleath]

contemporaneous
actually

please supply the exact release dates if yr gunna be so pedantic.
im just going by memory
although i think 9700 predated 5800 ultra.

[Tim]

Uhhh no, that's clearly the 5800 "dustblower" Ultra

'Dustbuster'

Got one right here in my GFX card collection.

[DRCRAWFISH]

I think changing to the 9 series is that NVIDIA wants to change their GPU hierarchy. They want affordable performance cards(9600GT, 9800GTX) that can play everything and are midranged enough that they can at least do med-high, and ultra high end for the enthusiast

[Sr7]

'Dustbuster'

Got one right here in my GFX card collection.

Ah yes I've combined it's two affectionate nicknames into one... leafblower + dustbuster = dustblower oops

[Dainas]

stale quote, dun care.

Only speculation at this point, but that's what I'd bet on.

As far as these being just a G92 refresh, how do you explain the 512 and 448-bit buses? Would there really be that much of an improvement simply through a core refresh that Nvidia needs to increase the bus size?

Well there sure as heck would not be that much of an improvement without them. 256bit is tired and done in the topend and as the 9800GTX demonstrated, these cores cannot truly stretch their legs without a wider bus. GDDR5 alone would be such a half baked measure.

[LordEC911]

stale quote, dun care.



Well there sure as heck would not be that much of an improvement without them. 256bit is tired and done in the topend and as the 9800GTX demonstrated, these cores cannot truly stretch their legs without a wider bus. GDDR5 alone would be such a half baked measure.

How so?
Don't they come to, roughly, the same end?
.512*2200/8 =140.8Gbps
.256*4000/8=128Gbps

[w0mbat]

1.6 TeraFLOPS
160GB/s bandwidth
DirectX 10.1/Shader Model 4.1

[Hornet331]

1.6 TeraFLOPS
160GB/s bandwidth
DirectX 10.1/Shader Model 4.1

nearly doubled the shaders and nearly 400mhz faster shader clock then a 9800gtx... if its true that thing is a monster, cant wait to get my hands on it.