Quote Originally Posted by Barys View Post
What are you talking about? Did you read his posts about 1,5 year ago and about month before G80 was released? He gave some 3D Mark results of G80 which were unbelievable for many at first but they were true.

The same is when there were rumours about G92. He first said that G92 WON`T be a high-end part GPU but "only" performance-mainstream and it was true too.
He said a few months ago GF9800GTX will be based on G92 and he was right. The same is about G94 aka GF9600GT.

So i`dont understand why do you think what he is taling is BS.
I don`t say he is most reliable person in the world and what he says is always 100% true but i based on what he said in the past and it was true so i don`t have any reason to not believe him at all. Maybe some details will be different in GT200 when released i don`t know but there is possibility that what he has said it`s true.


PS. Once again about GT200 performance. When i have written GF9900GTX SLI runs Crysis at 2560x1600 VH det. and 4xAA smoothly i have thought there will be about 40-50 fps at least but it seems PHK was talking about 25-30fps which means it will only playable at this resolution with those cards. Too bad but it still seems to be very powerful.
Everyone can repeat truths. G92 and G94 were squarely predictable (the duh kind). G80 was available for developers before so it's fairly easy to get an approximation.

When everyone is aiming at that ballpark in performance, everyone's basically gotta be right. If we go by classic nVidia, GT200 should not be 9900. 9900 should be G92b (55nm) "refreshes" to bump up clocks and all. G92b is a very expandable asset, if RV770 comes too fast then they'll release GT200 and probably steer away the hype.

It does kinda pester me that Crysis 2560 4x needs 2 cards for just 30fps, given that I was personally giving 1 GT200 the expectation of 1920 4x. (It's one GT200 or 2 RV770, no hotter than that for me)