Anandtech article up on 512GTX

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
Rollo is vindicated. ATI took the crown from NVidia, and now NVidia has taken it back. Competition is great. Now let the prices drop.

you could argue ATi never took it from nvidia as the X1800XT wasn't available.

I could just as easily question this thing's availability. And look - nobody is whining about it's heavy power draw or dual slot cooling! Must not be important anymore starting today... :roll:

Not as heavy as Ati's power draw...

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphi...14/nvidia_geforce_7800_gtx_512-05.html

Counterpoint

There's good news and bad news here, I suppose. The bad news is that the GeForce 7800 GTX 512 requires an awful lot of power?nearly 30W more than the Radeon X1800 XT when running our test scene.

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-7800gtx-512/index.x?pg=12
mirrored by our own AT: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2607&p=2

Techreport:

X800XT load = 246
GTX 512 load = 274

GTX 512 consumes 28W more

AT:

X1800XT load = 262
GTX 512 load = 284

GTX consumes 22W more

This to me is not a mirror but indicates discrepancies. No telling which site is correct or incorrect.

I kind of like Toms graphs only because it shows power usage for each card under many games. Interesting way to do that.

Mirrored in the sense that it consumes more power. Ofcourse different configurations would account for the 6W difference between the two.

Toms' review is the worst review I've seen so far. Only 2 resolutions (including 1024x768 is a joke, especially for this card) and 4 games of which one is UT2004 & HL2 (which looks capped at 100fps). Figures. :laugh:

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Rollo and I have 4 words to say. Take them for what they're worth.

"We told you so"

We already know ATi is going to counter, as they've authorized a core/mem bump on their cards, but for the numbers we're talking about, they're going to need more than a 25MHz bump here and a 25MHz bump there. It's not going to cut it.

4 more words for you, actually.

"nVidia isn't done yet"

Don't think for one second this is all they've got.

The only really important thing is that both ATi and nVidia stays in business. Who win a certain round is not that important compared to that.

 

[Munky]

Toms reviews are best served with a generous grain of salt and a touch of skepticism.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

I kind of like Toms graphs only because it shows power usage for each card under many games. Interesting way to do that.

Mirrored in the sense that it consumes more power. Ofcourse different configurations would account for the 6W difference between the two.

Toms' review is the worst review I've seen so far. Only 2 resolutions (including 1024x768 is a joke, especially for this card) and 4 games of which one is UT2004 & HL2 (which looks capped at 100fps). Figures. :laugh:

I meant just the power consumption graphs from Tom's. Sorry, should have specified.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: biostud
The only really important thing is that both ATi and nVidia stays in business. Who win a certain round is not that important compared to that.

Both nVidia and ATi would disagree with you. Why? It comes down to market share and earnings. Why do you suppose nVidia came out with the 512MB GTX? Because they could? Hardly.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, competition is healthy, and the consumers benefit in the long run, so staying in business is certainly important. But it's those 'rounds' that dictate how things progress in that quarter/bi-annual/fiscal year.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: Ronin

Originally posted by: biostud
The only really important thing is that both ATi and nVidia stays in business. Who win a certain round is not that important compared to that.

Both nVidia and ATi would disagree with you. Why? It comes down to market share and earnings. Why do you suppose nVidia came out with the 512MB GTX? Because they could? Hardly.

Don't get me wrong. Obviously, competition is healthy, and the consumers benefit in the long run, so staying in business is certainly important. But it's those 'rounds' that dictate how things progress in that quarter/bi-annual/fiscal year.

There are two different points of view. ATi and NV have one and consumers have another one. We as consumers want to see both companies engaged in a fearsome competition. That's the best for us.

 

[Ronin]

I think you'd be surprised at how much the POVs are similar. The difference is, the consumers tend to not understand the technology behind the product, and what it takes to get there.

 

[Janooo]

Originally posted by: Ronin
I think you'd be surprised at how much the POVs are similar. The difference is, the consumers tend to not understand the technology behind the product, and what it takes to get there.

You are right. Nevertheless most consumers watch the money. Their happiness grows with cheaper products

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Ronin
Rollo and I have 4 words to say. Take them for what they're worth.

"We told you so"

We already know ATi is going to counter, as they've authorized a core/mem bump on their cards, but for the numbers we're talking about, they're going to need more than a 25MHz bump here and a 25MHz bump there. It's not going to cut it.

4 more words for you, actually.

"nVidia isn't done yet"

Don't think for one second this is all they've got.

More clocks or more pipelines?

 

[crazydingo]

Ronin, remember our deal?

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Ronin
I find it highly unlikely that a pair of GTs will outperform the 512MB GTX, if the clock speeds fall in line.

A pairt of GTs will outperform the 512MB GTX even if those clock speeds fall in line.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
Rollo is vindicated. ATI took the crown from NVidia, and now NVidia has taken it back. Competition is great. Now let the prices drop.

vindicated how? everyone knew the "ultra" would beat the x1800xt.
[duh]

I'm vindicated because in my original thread about this card, posted before all the rumor articles I might add, I was correct in that I said:
1. No one would want a X1800XT after this card comes out
2. Even if the XT makes it to market first, this will be hot on it's heels
3. This would be competitive pricewise with a X1800XT
4. The specs on the card are shockingly good, should dominate benches

Of course, some doubted me saying I had made a mistake about the PVP, even though it's pretty easy to see why I did, and now I'm vindicated because I posted this before the Inquirer or anyone else I know of.

You see Apoppin' if I hadn't posted that some unfortunate people might have actually ordered X1800XTs they thought would be a little faster than 256 7800GTXs.

If they believed me, they knew they better wait a bit to buy the real high end card of 2005, not the 16 pipe wannabe.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Rage187

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Frackal
Where's M0rph today

Don't start. Keep it cool.

He's busy editing out all his posts where he called Rollo out, and where he said the GTX 512 wouldn't be clock as high as it is.


OK, I'm done.

LOL

Yeah, they won't be clocked that high, or available in volume.....

Oooops.

 

[JackBurton]

Damn, my 6800GT just got put in the mid-range video card category.

 

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Who here besides Rollo is going to buy one or two of these cards?

I never said I had any plans to get these cards? (I don't)

I'm gaming at my monitors limits on my 6800GT SLI and 256 7800GTX SLI already.

Besides, Mrs. Rollo says four SLI rigs this year is my limit.

All hail to the Uber-Masters who get them though!

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: crazydingo
Ronin, remember our deal?

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Ronin
I find it highly unlikely that a pair of GTs will outperform the 512MB GTX, if the clock speeds fall in line.

A pairt of GTs will outperform the 512MB GTX even if those clock speeds fall in line.

B&W2: @ 2048x1536 no AA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 2.8fps
B&W2: @ 2048x1536 with 4xAA, a single 512MB GTX bests the SLi GTs by 4.6fps
DoD:S @ 2048x1536, a single 512MB GTX bests the SLi GTs by 5.2 fps
DoD:S @ 2048x1536 with 4xAA, a single 512MB GTX bests the SLi GTs by 7.7fps
D3 @ 2048x1536 with no AA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 12.6fps
D3 @ 2048x1536 with 4xAA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 9fps
F.E.A.R @ 2048x1536 with no AA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 1fps
F.E.A.R @ 2048x1536 with 4x AA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 1fps
Q4 @ 2048x1536 with no AA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 21.7fps
Q4 @ 2048x1536 with 4xAA, SLi GTs best the 512MB GTX by 9.8fps

So, D3 and Q4 seem to be big losers by going with a single 512MB GTX. F.E.A.R. is a wash, DoD:S has the 512MB GTX ahead, and in B&W2, the 512MB GTX scales better.

Tally

SLi GTs: 5
512MB GTX: 3
Draw: 2

So, the SLi GTs come out on top (predominantly due to Q4 and D3, where they stomp the 512MB GTX, but where the 512MB GTX closes the gap by a fair amount at max res).

So, here's the question. Is it worth it to buy 1 512MB GTX over 2 7800 GTs?

The cheapest GT on Pricewatch right now shows $330, so that's $660. The cheapest 512MB GTX right now is $699.

Comes down to a personal choice, I'd say. Personally, I'd take the opportunity to have 2 512MB GTXs over 2 GTs.

BTW, I'd like to see the results @ 900MHz memory, since that was the original estimation overall.

(results taken from the article here, as I didn't want to go through every other site for comparisons).

 

[Cookie Monster]

Ronin are you talking about the 7800GS?

 

[toyota]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Janooo

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Frackal
Edit, 10393 not 10939

Not bad though

No look again it's 10939...

I'm seeing 10393... ??


Edit... OH that's stock :0

11k on Air!!

The screenshot shows 10393 with the overclock.

Its deceptive, in the text they state the OC is 10939, the screenshot is stock

On XS guys are getting 11k on stock air w/ a 2.97ghz cpu

no the screenshot is NOT for stock. are you guys that blind? the 10393 is for the overclock. the 10939 is a misprint in the text. the screenshot is correct at 10393. stock was 9538. open your eyes.

 

[nts]

Originally posted by: Rollo
1. No one would want a X1800XT after this card comes out

From a purely development perspective (I dont game very much) the X1800XT is still the more interesting part unfortunately. I still want one

3. This would be competitive pricewise with a X1800XT

Well i see the X1800XT go for ~540 lowest and i see this card go for ~750...

If they believed me, they knew they better wait a bit to buy the real high end card of 2005, not the 16 pipe wannabe.

Not to drag this into the thread but please respond to my PM about the 16-pipes.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: toyota

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Janooo

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Frackal
Edit, 10393 not 10939

Not bad though

No look again it's 10939...

I'm seeing 10393... ??


Edit... OH that's stock :0

11k on Air!!

The screenshot shows 10393 with the overclock.

Its deceptive, in the text they state the OC is 10939, the screenshot is stock

On XS guys are getting 11k on stock air w/ a 2.97ghz cpu

no the screenshot is NOT for stock. are you guys that blind? the 10393 is for the overclock. the 10939 is a misprint in the text. the screenshot is correct at 10393. stock was 9538. open your eyes.

Probably right... on XS though 11k is hit with 625/1890 clock w/ 2.9ghz cpu

 

[Cookie Monster]

Right now, i think the MSRP of the X1800XT have been silently upped to $599. The 512mb GTX is $649.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
Rollo is vindicated. ATI took the crown from NVidia, and now NVidia has taken it back. Competition is great. Now let the prices drop.

vindicated how? everyone knew the "ultra" would beat the x1800xt.
[duh]

I'm vindicated because in my original thread about this card, posted before all the rumor articles I might add, I was correct in that I said:
1. No one would want a X1800XT after this card comes out
2. Even if the XT makes it to market first, this will be hot on it's heels
3. This would be competitive pricewise with a X1800XT
4. The specs on the card are shockingly good, should dominate benches

Well, if the X1800XT gets closer to a $500 pricepoint (which is likely once 256MB variants are out and supplies have stablized), and the 512MB GTX stays at $650+, it becomes a different ballgame. It could get very interesting if ATI partners start putting out OCed X1800XTs with the same RAM as the 512MB GTX; a 700/1800 X1800XT could give a 550/1800 7800GTX a run for its money in terms of performance. But with the X1800XT at ~$600, I don't think they'll have many takers with the 7800GTX"Ultra" at $650-700.

I had no doubts that the specs were going to be pretty good (I mean, this is basically a Quadro 4500 with 512MB of 1.1ns GDDR3); it's the pricing and availability that are going to determine whether or not this card actually makes a real impact in the market. At prices north of $650, sales are going to be limited no matter how fast it is and how many of them NVIDIA makes. They'll sell a few hundred to crazy enthusiasts that are made of money, but this is not going to be a 'mainstream' part by any means.

 

[Steelski]

Originally posted by: solofly

Originally posted by: Steelski
by the way, where were the comparisons in farcry?

Here you go...

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051114/images/image009.png

thank you!

 

[Cookie Monster]

OFF topic: WHQL FW driver is out. 81.94..

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: Rollo

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: lifeguard1999
Rollo is vindicated. ATI took the crown from NVidia, and now NVidia has taken it back. Competition is great. Now let the prices drop.

vindicated how? everyone knew the "ultra" would beat the x1800xt.
[duh]

I'm vindicated because in my original thread about this card, posted before all the rumor articles I might add, I was correct in that I said:
1. No one would want a X1800XT after this card comes out
2. Even if the XT makes it to market first, this will be hot on it's heels
3. This would be competitive pricewise with a X1800XT
4. The specs on the card are shockingly good, should dominate benches

Well, if the X1800XT gets closer to a $500 pricepoint (which is likely once 256MB variants are out and supplies have stablized), and the 512MB GTX stays at $650+, it becomes a different ballgame. It could get very interesting if ATI partners start putting out OCed X1800XTs with the same RAM as the 512MB GTX; a 700/1800 X1800XT could give a 550/1800 7800GTX a run for its money in terms of performance. But with the X1800XT at ~$600, I don't think they'll have many takers with the 7800GTX"Ultra" at $650-700.

I had no doubts that the specs were going to be pretty good (I mean, this is basically a Quadro 4500 with 512MB of 1.1ns GDDR3); it's the pricing and availability that are going to determine whether or not this card actually makes a real impact in the market. At prices north of $650, sales are going to be limited no matter how fast it is and how many of them NVIDIA makes. They'll sell a few hundred to crazy enthusiasts that are made of money, but this is not going to be a 'mainstream' part by any means.

I think after the first thousand are sold to enthusiasts willing to pay god forsaken amounts of money, then the price will fall more in-line. I think it also depends on how ATI responds with the pricing of the X1800XT. Upping the MSRP from $549 to $599 isn't going to help ATI or 7800 512mb pricing. ATI needs to lower the MSRP in order for Nvidia to lower theirs. Personally I think the $100 difference between X1800XT and 7800 512 is pretty accurate. I consider the 7800 512 vs. X1800XT performance similar to 7800GT vs 7800GTX.

I personally can't wait till the X1800XTPE comes out. ATI is still gonna lose and the PE will cost just as much as the 7800 512. Then where will the faATIcs retreat to?

 

[n7]

WTF is the drool emoticon we need here so badly

What a beast!

As i kinda figured, 512 MB RAM = marketing, not essential on cards right now.

But OMG teh price

It'll be like $1000 Cdn...just disgusting.
I just hope it pushes down the price of the regular 7800GTX, since even now it's too expensive for me.