FAQ (with answers) on the new GTX 260 with 216 cores

[Zap]

I got this information from a contact at NVIDIA. This should put to rest some of the common questions regarding various things such as 55nm and naming conventions. FAQ is pretty much verbatim, with a minor edit to remove unnecessary parts.


Here's my cliffs:
- Not 55nm, still 65nm
- Yes, will SLI with 192 core version
- No new name
- 192 core version is not EOL
- 216 cores 5-10% faster than 192 cores
- Similar to HD4870 in performance

Q: How will board vendors differentiate GTX 260 with 192 cores from the new GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: AIC partners will have special board names for their 216 core versions. It will be similar to how partners brand their overclock edition SKUs. Please consult the AIC partners for details.

Q: Can you run the new GeForce GTX 260 w/216 cores in SLI with an existing GTX260?
A: Yes.

Q: Is the GTX260 w/216 Cores based on 55nm?
A: No, it is 65nm.

Q: Why are you introducing a new GTX260 and not calling it something like GTX270?
A: We decided to leave the branding up to our AIC partners to allow them to provide unique product offerings rather than create a new GPU marketing brand.

Q: Which partners will be offering the GTX260 w/216 Cores?
A: You should expect to see 216 core versions from most of the same partners who are offering 192 core versions today. This includes BFG and EVGA in the US.

Q: Does the GTX 260 w/216 cores replace the original GTX 260?
A: No, both products will continue to be offered. The GTX 260 with 216 cores will be a premium version that offers higher performance.

Q: Has the original GTX 260 been discontinued?
A: No, the original GTX 260 product will continue to be offered. The GTX 260 with 216 cores is a premium version of the original that offers higher performance.

Q: Will the original GTX 260 have a new price drop?
A: We are not announcing any price changes for GTX 260. Please consult our AIC partners to get the latest prices for both 216 and 192 core offerings.

Q: What prices should we expect for the new GTX 260 w/216 cores?
A: Please consult our AIC partners for pricing.

Q: What is the board power for GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: Maximum board power is 183W, just slightly above the original version.

Q: What is the performance gain of GTX 260 with 216 cores over the original?
A: GTX 260 with 216 cores delivers 5 to 10% higher performance over the original.

Q: What is official product name of GeForce GTX260 with 216 cores?
A: We decided to leave the branding up to our AIC partners to allow them to provide unique product offerings rather than create a new GPU marketing brand.

Q: When is the embargo date?
A: Since this is an AIC launch, there is no official embargo date per se. Reviews can happen anytime after the AIC has seeded their new boards to the press.

Q: Is the price position of GeForce GTX260 with 216 cores higher than GeForce GTX260?
A: AICs set their own pricing and depending on their configuration, product line up, and clock speeds, prices will vary.

Q: What is the key message of GeForce GTX260 with 216 cores?
A: This new GPU offers amazing bang for the buck, offering higher performance than the original GTX 260 for a hundred dollars less. Besides comparing just performance and price, please don?t forget that only NVIDIA GPUs support CUDA and PhysX. We believe these technologies will make the end user experience much more rewarding in the coming year.

Q: Is Radeon HD4870 competitive product against GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: From a simple rendering perspective, these boards are in the same class. However, only NVIDIA GPUs support advanced features such as CUDA, PhysX, and 3D Stereo.

Q: What is the major difference between current GTX260 (192 cores) and new GTX 260 (216 cores) besides # of cores?
A: The GPU is based on the GT200 chip, implementing 9 texture processing clusters (TPCs). This gives the chip an additional 24 processor cores and 8 texture processors over the regular GTX 260.

Q: Does the 216 core version look different than the original GTX260?
A: The chips look the same.

My personal thoughts on this:

It should have been called GTX 270. However, I can understand why it stays the same, partly for SLI compatibility similar to how a 9800 GTX and 9800 GTX+ can SLI together.

Don't know why people take this as an opportunity to bash NVIDIA besides the fact that all the cool kids bash NVIDIA these days. It seems to me just to be another strategic move. No "act of desperation" or anything like that.

FYI NVIDIA "officially" doesn't name it differently from a "normal" GTX 260, but leaves it up to AIC partners. The BFG version is called Maxcore and the EVGA version is called Core 216. I think "Maxcore" sounds catchier, but GTX 270 would have been more logical.

 

[HOOfan 1]

It doesn't really add enough of a performance boost over the original GTX 260 to warrant something like a GTX 270 name IMO. Maybe GTX 265...

 

[plion]

gtx260+ ?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: plion
gtx260+ ?

That's exactly what I would have called it, but then again, they'd be getting bashed because "We thought that meant it was 55nm, like the 9800GTX+. I want a refund.", so maybe that isn't such a great name, afterall.

 

[taltamir]

yea, GTX260+ or GTX265, to indicate it can SLI with GTX260, but to differentiate it and to make a single name... they are letting EACH partner come up with their own name.... good luck searching for it by MODEL on newegg instead of by manufacturer...

Calling it GTX260+ would have left room for the GTX270 and GTX290 to be 55nm versions of the chip. Although heck, just go ahead and call those GTX 360 and GTX 380. (and considering its die shrunk and has new features like DX10.1... it deserves its own name)

On the one hand, their naming scheme is exploitive and pisses me off. On the other hand, their naming scheme means that less informed customers pay extra, but those in the know can find the absolute best deals, even beating out AMD in bang per buck. (GTX260 SC for 220$... which is what I use... or the nice 9800GT for 110$ right now)

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
It doesn't really add enough of a performance boost over the original GTX 260 to warrant something like a GTX 270 name IMO. Maybe GTX 265...

Well, based on number of cores it is exactly in-between the 260 and 280, so why not 270?

However, based on core/shader/memory clocks and memory bandwidth, it is exactly the same as the 260.

No easy answer on that one.

Anyways, I just thought I'd post the "official" word since there's been a lot of speculation and discussion, especially over manufacturing process and part naming. Guess having an "official" answer doesn't stop the questions.

 

[ViperV990]

Is it just me or is Nvidia's usage of "core" already getting tiresome?

Next thing you know ATI will label the Radeon 4800 as having 800 cores.

 

[Aberforth]

Q: Is Radeon HD4870 competitive product against GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: From a simple rendering perspective, these boards are in the same class. However, only NVIDIA GPUs support advanced features such as CUDA, PhysX, and 3D Stereo.

Yeah....and ignore all the minor features like DirectX 10.1. I hope developers don't fall for your self-promoting rant, you can't dictate what we want to do.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Q: Is Radeon HD4870 competitive product against GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: From a simple rendering perspective, these boards are in the same class. However, only NVIDIA GPUs support advanced features such as CUDA, PhysX, and 3D Stereo.

Yeah....and ignore all the minor features like DirectX 10.1. I hope developers don't fall for your self-promoting rant, you can't dictate what we want to do.

duh... what do expect from NV PR?

 

[ginfest]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Q: Is Radeon HD4870 competitive product against GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: From a simple rendering perspective, these boards are in the same class. However, only NVIDIA GPUs support advanced features such as CUDA, PhysX, and 3D Stereo.

Yeah....and ignore all the minor features like DirectX 10.1. I hope developers don't fall for your self-promoting rant, you can't dictate what we want to do.

Looks like 10.1 is as you described "a minor feature" and should be ignored
The DX11 SDK is due in Nov (2008) and NV has already said that their next gen parts will support it. So it appears that DX 11 will be out before 10.1 is even commonplace in games, relegating 10.1 to be obsolete before it's time

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Q: Is Radeon HD4870 competitive product against GeForce GTX 260 with 216 cores?
A: From a simple rendering perspective, these boards are in the same class. However, only NVIDIA GPUs support advanced features such as CUDA, PhysX, and 3D Stereo.

Yeah....and ignore all the minor features like DirectX 10.1. I hope developers don't fall for your self-promoting rant, you can't dictate what we want to do.

Developers would know better... it's the average Joe who's more likely to fall for those.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1
It doesn't really add enough of a performance boost over the original GTX 260 to warrant something like a GTX 270 name IMO. Maybe GTX 265...

Well, based on number of cores it is exactly in-between the 260 and 280, so why not 270?

However, based on core/shader/memory clocks and memory bandwidth, it is exactly the same as the 260.

No easy answer on that one.

Anyways, I just thought I'd post the "official" word since there's been a lot of speculation and discussion, especially over manufacturing process and part naming. Guess having an "official" answer doesn't stop the questions.

it sounds like your contact is in marketing

i think we figured all of this out, but it is nice to have it all in one place. thanks

As to "core" .. i understand Nvidia wants to differentiate their GPU as being "hard core" - as opposed to AMD's "softcore" offerings

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
I hope developers don't fall for your self-promoting rant, you can't dictate what we want to do.

Not mine and not a rant. Probably just marketing talk.

As for DX 10 versus DX 10.1... most devs are still supporting DX 9 to ensure biggest potential user base. Also, didn't seem to hurt ATI a huge amount when their x800 series didn't support SM3.

In any case, I'm not a developer and I don't work for NVIDIA, so I can't comment as a representative from either.