nVidia GT200 is ready & will launch in 3 month

[wolvers69]

I really do hope this is true, and not another tease.

Me too. They've gotta of been doing something for the last year!

[twwen2]

Hopefully the GT200 is the card we've all been waiting for. I wonder what it'll be called, 9900GTX maybe?

[yaddam205]

Hopefully the GT200 is the card we've all been waiting for. I wonder what it'll be called, 9900GTX maybe?

I'd hope it will either be a 10xxx series or G1000.

[yaddam205]

I hope the come out with a new naming convention.

Go back to their purchased roots (3dfx) go back to GeForce 1 lol.

[RAW-Raptor22]

I hope the come out with a new naming convention.

They wont, they cant think past X200, X600, and X800 for the cards names, same naming conventions layed down by the Radeon 9000 line and the GF4 line will stay...

[hecktic]

june huh.. let the countdown begin then... 84 days!!

on another note, I have to ask, what is the current or soon to be best workstation flavored video card from Nvidia ? (PaliT seems to be the best brand since they are the only ones offering the display port capability plus HDMI AND Dual DVI on their 9600gt cards... reason I say this is because I am in the market for a display port capable monitor anyways, so I might as well take advantage of the new technology)

[Decami]

Doubtful they will get it moving that fast. I'd guess that's an internal target date. If it would have been ready that fast there would be little need to have upgraded to the 9800 GTX.

The R700 probably would be ready by then which is why these "leaks" happen, mostly because AMD has a lot to regain and has been working quite a while on the R700.

so what your saying is ATI has been working hard on the R700 and Nvidia has been taking 3 hour lunches and using the rest of the work day to sit in the utmost concentration staring at the G92 thinking, could we clock it higher?

........sounds about right to me. But i dought it, they have been doing something for 1 1/2 years, im sure they will be ready. Can you not see the marketing in this? Its pretty obvious what Nvidia is doing. If R700 rolls around and they arent ready, someone is getting fired, believe that.

as for the name, im guessing Geforce 9800GTX-R Ultra FX-9

[dengyong]

It will be called 8800gts g92 the third.

[rockqc]

It will be called 8800gts g92 the third.

[bill_d]

9800gtx 400+, 9800gx2 600+, whats the gt200 going to cost 1000+

[Loque]

bet won't go over 15k 3d2k6 marks.

[RPGWiZaRD]

bet won't go over 15k 3d2k6 marks.

I bet it will do around 20k 06 marks stock (serious answer).

[RAW-Raptor22]

I bet it will do around 20k 06 marks stock (serious answer).

I think so too, this isnt just another 'product refresh' chip.

[WeaponX]

I bet it will do around 20k 06 marks stock (serious answer).

Elaborate por favor.

[Ubermann]

My guess is just a tweaked 8800..nothing amazing.
And they will release midrange first and wait for ATI.

[RPGWiZaRD]

Well my insight about GT200 is that you can't look at G92 and the 9800 cards to know what to expect at all. These are cards that appeared as a reaction to ATIs lackluster release again and just further span the cash milking GeForce 8 series sales and eventually to have something in response to ATIs X2 offer. GT200 however is probably the what should have been next highend series if ATI wasn't doing so poor.

Furthermore NVIDIA needs something to battle R700 too right? It certainly won't be able to with 9800 series and not offering a competitor a competition is suicide in this business if you don't wanna sell cards for utterly low prices in order to get some sales although no profit (but still having sales number would be better than getting no sales or profit at all). Since NVIDIA shouldn't be able to know what R700 performs like (but perhaps the NVIDIA spies knows quite a lot about it already though) they just have to aim for a reasonable performance boost over current gen which I think talking 3DMark06 numbers only would be in the 20 - 21k range at stock in this case. What that translates to in actual gaming performance I don't know. lol

[Loque]

most likely GT200 will be a new gen budget card at 200$~ range price

[Bo_Fox]

It looks like the GT200 will *NOT* feature DX10.1 support.

That would really suck because DX10.1 has my dream features like incorporated (improved) FSAA support in all games, and many more.

Yeah, perhaps the GT200 was preemptively designed against ATI's upcoming R600 and then Nvidia just decided to hold on to that design (since the HD2900XT sucked so bad) and work on a lower-profile 65nm G92 design to replace the 8800GTX's high manufacturing costs. And then the R670 was released by surprise with DX10.1 support.

Lazy Nvidia resting on its laurels was not prepared for this, so had to release its current "prototype", the 8800GT. Notice the naming scheme? Just a GT, not even a GTS. The 9800GTX was supposed to be just a die shrink that replaced an 8800GTX, with equal performance--to be called something like 8800GTX 512 or 8800GTX 1GB.

Why is Nvidia being so slow right now, after the 8800GTS 512 in December? The design of that G92 was not yet ready for Nvidia's planned dual-chip GX2 card. ATI's jumping the gun on 850Mhz 3870X2 cards showed Nvidia that they could not clock their GX2 G92 chips at like 500-550 Mhz as planned. Now that Nvidia has to up the voltage and clock it at least 600 MHz, Nvidia is pretty stifled with how to cool it properly and make the design stable enough at those speeds without enormous power consumption.

That, with Nvidia's policy that the GX2 *has* to be released before the new GTX--pretty much explains it all, IMHO.

Meanwhile, Nvidia has been tweaking and optimizing the GT200 core ever since but perhaps they did not have enough time to incorporate DX10.1 support due to the headaches on that 9800GX2? Let's see...

[Jimmer411]

It looks like the GT200 will *NOT* feature DX10.1 support.

That would really suck because DX10.1 has my dream features like incorporated (improved) FSAA support in all games, and many more.

Yeah, perhaps the GT200 was preemptively designed against ATI's upcoming R600 and then Nvidia just decided to hold on to that design (since the HD2900XT sucked so bad) and work on a lower-profile 65nm G92 design to replace the 8800GTX's high manufacturing costs. And then the R670 was released by surprise with DX10.1 support.

Lazy Nvidia resting on its laurels was not prepared for this, so had to release its current "prototype", the 8800GT. Notice the naming scheme? Just a GT, not even a GTS. The 9800GTX was supposed to be just a die shrink that replaced an 8800GTX, with equal performance--to be called something like 8800GTX 512 or 8800GTX 1GB.

Why is Nvidia being so slow right now, after the 8800GTS 512 in December? The design of that G92 was not yet ready for Nvidia's planned dual-chip GX2 card. ATI's jumping the gun on 850Mhz 3870X2 cards showed Nvidia that they could not clock their GX2 G92 chips at like 500-550 Mhz as planned. Now that Nvidia has to up the voltage and clock it at least 600 MHz, Nvidia is pretty stifled with how to cool it properly and make the design stable enough at those speeds without enormous power consumption.

That, with Nvidia's policy that the GX2 *has* to be released before the new GTX--pretty much explains it all, IMHO.

Meanwhile, Nvidia has been tweaking and optimizing the GT200 core ever since but perhaps they did not have enough time to incorporate DX10.1 support due to the headaches on that 9800GX2? Let's see...

I honestly see GT200 being a G92 based card with GDDR5 and a few more SP added. Throw in a 3 slot cooler and add 2 inches to the PCB length and width and your set.

[AliG]

It looks like the GT200 will *NOT* feature DX10.1 support.

That would really suck because DX10.1 has my dream features like incorporated (improved) FSAA support in all games, and many more.

Yeah, perhaps the GT200 was preemptively designed against ATI's upcoming R600 and then Nvidia just decided to hold on to that design (since the HD2900XT sucked so bad) and work on a lower-profile 65nm G92 design to replace the 8800GTX's high manufacturing costs. And then the R670 was released by surprise with DX10.1 support.

Lazy Nvidia resting on its laurels was not prepared for this, so had to release its current "prototype", the 8800GT. Notice the naming scheme? Just a GT, not even a GTS. The 9800GTX was supposed to be just a die shrink that replaced an 8800GTX, with equal performance--to be called something like 8800GTX 512 or 8800GTX 1GB.

Why is Nvidia being so slow right now, after the 8800GTS 512 in December? The design of that G92 was not yet ready for Nvidia's planned dual-chip GX2 card. ATI's jumping the gun on 850Mhz 3870X2 cards showed Nvidia that they could not clock their GX2 G92 chips at like 500-550 Mhz as planned. Now that Nvidia has to up the voltage and clock it at least 600 MHz, Nvidia is pretty stifled with how to cool it properly and make the design stable enough at those speeds without enormous power consumption.

That, with Nvidia's policy that the GX2 *has* to be released before the new GTX--pretty much explains it all, IMHO.

Meanwhile, Nvidia has been tweaking and optimizing the GT200 core ever since but perhaps they did not have enough time to incorporate DX10.1 support due to the headaches on that 9800GX2? Let's see...

I like your answer a lot, it explains many things rationally unlike some of the other possibilities. I especially agree that Nvidia was planning on riding on the g92 chip as an 8800gtx refresh, remember how there has been talk about a 65nm gtx since the launch of the r600? Nvidia most likely was expecting the r600 to perform better than the 8800gtx since it was taking so long and to be released on a 65nm manufacturing process, and thus needed a cheaper way to produce the g80 die. Though with the r600 flopping, they decided to pull an amd and ride the wave until ati surprised them with a 55nm r600 variation priced at a mere $220 and thus they were forced to release a prototype they never planned on launching to keep the cash coming.

Think about it. G92. Not G90. G92 was never meant to be the next high end part imo, my guess is that they wanted to have a low clocked dual card that used slightly weaker and less power consuming dies for the gx2 like they did with the 7950gx2 until ati revealed they could put in full fledged rv670 dies with clocks without any problems.


A possibility is that gt200 ended up being more powerful than the dual g92 card so they made a suped up version of the g92 card be the 9800gtx (instead of gt200) as no one would waste their money on the 9800gx2 if the 9800gtx was more powerful (unless they priced it less, but knowing nvidia they want to capitilize on profits).

[RPGWiZaRD]

^ yea your reasoning sounds very plausible I have to agree, oh well I'm sure we will hear more about this chip within 3 months time and see how it turns out but I hope you're wrong lol.

[Bo_Fox]

Yeah.. G92 usually being the performance number whereas the G90 shoulda been enthusiast! The G90 must have been designed in case the R600/R670 would be faster than an 8800GTX.

It would be interesting to see how many "design" strategies Nvidia had against ATI in 2007. Seeing how Nvidia or any other tech companies do not want to talk about their plans for the future, why not let us know what they worked on in the *past*, just for heck's sake? What was your Plan B? Plan C? LOL.. History buffs would love to know!

Now, that I think about it, the 8800GT was most likely designed to be an 8900GTS with 112 SP's, due out in December (if ATI either released their R670 on 65nm instead of 55nm OR delayed R670 to like Feb. 2008). And the upcoming 9800GTX was supposed to be an 8900GTX, in 512MB and 1GB variants. Plus the 8900GX2 cards would have been released in Jan or Feb at 500-550MHz clocks, a few weeks before 8900GTX (now wrongly called 9800GTX).

There goes a history lesson for you folks! LOL... not that all history teachers are 100% correct, ever!


HONESTLY, I think that Nvidia was so pissed off at ATI's naming scheme when they decided to name those R670 cards the 38xx series, when it was not any faster than a HD2900XT. So, Nvidia just decided to name their sawed-off G92 an 8800GT in spite that it was actually faster than an 8800GTS 640MB, in some kind of vengeance on the naming scheme. There was a small chance that Nvidia actually thought 8800GT sounded better than 8900GT, but that just goes against the pattern from all those years, so I can safely assume that Nvidia was genuinely pissed.

And Nvidia has not yet cooled off, deciding to give their upcoming cards a new generation of 98xx naming scheme (maybe because they did not like how ATI's 38xx cards were selling so well and thought it had too much to do with the number change). WAIT A MINUTE, NVIDIA... ATI actually incorporated several new features including DX10.1 support. What new feature did Nvidia include in their G92 chips that warrants a whole number generation leap? Nothing worthy of mention, except for a die shrink to 65nm, which was never enough for a generation change unless the number of transistors doubled or something like that.

Bottom line: The 9xxx series from Nvidia is the most disappointing one ever, Nvidia. And the most lame one ever.

[Indes]

Honestly, I am glad to see ati finally looking good since they were aquired by amd. This is really a full circle slap in the face after seeing what amd did when they sat on a lead >.< Competition is always a good thing for us =D all we can do is wait and see i suppose. Speculation will only get us so far.