G84 and G86 to hit in Q1 07

[jrphoenix]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Of course 8800 GTX is in low demand, its priced pretty high and there are no new compelling games to take advantage of all its power. Furthermore Vista and DX10 games are still not here yet so its pointless buying this card especially considering R600 will be released around the same time Vista/DX10 become available along with some new games. I passed up this card in favor of the XBox 360 and am glad I did because I get a lot more gaming time from it than I do my PC at the moment. I guess my sig turned out to be the popular opinion amongst gamers that have become jaded with paying for high end cards and not having any new games to utilize them--raising your AA/AF in existing games for a bigger e-penis gets old fast.

I too won't buy until the 600 / Vista are out / DX 10 games to see whats what. I bought a 360 too this weekend & I'm enjoying the games.. NCAA 2007, PGR, Oblivion, Gears of War, GRAW...

 

[josh6079]

...paying for high end cards and not having any new games to utilize them...

Why is it all of the sudden a bad thing to have fast frames and the highest image quality? There are several gamest that could really use the extra performance of this true single card rather than having to slap two cards together and deal with dual-GPU problems.

I'm enjoying Everquest II a lot now and even though it is a dated game it's visuals are amazing and it stresses my rig even for it being one made two years after its debut. I could use more graphics processing power, more bandwidth, etc...the G80 for it.

I will agree though that only good things will come from waiting until the R600. Prices will decline, technology will advance, and competition will really start to begin again.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: josh6079
Why is it all of the sudden a bad thing to have fast frames and the highest image quality? There are several gamest that could really use the extra performance of this true single card rather than having to slap two cards together and deal with dual-GPU problems.

Agreed.

As much as we'd like to think everyone plays on their 800x600 15' CRT with no AA and IQ set to low, the reality is higher resolutions are becoming more adopted, and with taxing games + higher levels of IQ available, I think the whole "but it's too powerful" argument is a little frivoulous, to be honest.

But I actually think that's the best the "anti-nV" crowd can come up with to counter G80 for now, and so we're hearing it uttered as if it's a bad thing. :roll:

Nelsieus

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
there are no new compelling games to take advantage of all its power.

That really is the issue! Hell I would settle for any compelling new game.

Congrats Apoppin, being political here is brave! I must admit to agreeing though. Canada is also involved in a dumb war that is draining any responsibility to kyoto. We are one natural f -up from not having the infrastructure to play computer games online.

$50,000 a year is no big deal - lots to spend your money on that doesn't include having the fastest rig on Anandtech - like summers in Montreal! Or winters in Toronto.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Acanthus.. dont i recieve a full post of your apology about G80 being a single core rather than "dual" core as you suggested?



They fitted 680million transistors using 90nm process. No wonder the chip idles around 50~60 degrees or higher.

 

[Nelsieus]

Originally posted by: josh6079
IMO, PC gaming has always paled in comparison to the kind of sales consoles get. This was happening before the G80.

I really hope Microsoft's new initiative "Games for Windows" will change this, and I have high hopes it will. PC Games are, in my opinion, quite superior to most console games (obviously I'm PC biased, too, though ). So I think a strong, solid enforcer like Microsoft, added with a lot of eye appeal (the kiosks and computer setup in stores) can turn things around, and I think we all agree a turnaround is needed. It'll be nice to see PC games in the limelight for once.

Originally posted by: josh6079Not that launching the G80 when the PS3 and Wii debuted was a completely good idea, it will help them possibly have a more stable/popular card out to battle the R600. Besides, it was time for a new card. That deadline was way overdue.

Not necisarily time for a new card, but definately for a new architecture, *especially* from nVidia.

The added three months they'll have over R600 will also do a number of positive things too, despite how high/low demand is at this particular moment. Such as decreasing costs with matured production, a head-start overall in the DX10 / Vista arena, some time to get a strong hold on drivers, etc, and overall establishing a mindset that "we were here first so we're better" (which all educated consumers know isn't always the case).

And I'm not sure I'm still buying the low demand thing. I continue to search on Tiger Direct and Price Grabber, and the Geforce 8800GTX seems to dominate on the "Most Popular" lists. Though I haven't seen 8800GTS (not sure why).

Anywho, need to be going.
Nelsieus

 

[Nightmare225]

Originally posted by: Nelsieus

Originally posted by: josh6079
IMO, PC gaming has always paled in comparison to the kind of sales consoles get. This was happening before the G80.

I really hope Microsoft's new initiative "Games for Windows" will change this, and I have high hopes it will. PC Games are, in my opinion, quite superior to most console games (obviously I'm PC biased, too, though ). So I think a strong, solid enforcer like Microsoft, added with a lot of eye appeal (the kiosks and computer setup in stores) can turn things around, and I think we all agree a turnaround is needed. It'll be nice to see PC games in the limelight for once.

Originally posted by: josh6079Not that launching the G80 when the PS3 and Wii debuted was a completely good idea, it will help them possibly have a more stable/popular card out to battle the R600. Besides, it was time for a new card. That deadline was way overdue.

Not necisarily time for a new card, but definately for a new architecture, *especially* from nVidia.

The added three months they'll have over R600 will also do a number of positive things too, despite how high/low demand is at this particular moment. Such as decreasing costs with matured production, a head-start overall in the DX10 / Vista arena, some time to get a strong hold on drivers, etc, and overall establishing a mindset that "we were here first so we're better" (which all educated consumers know isn't always the case).

And I'm not sure I'm still buying the low demand thing. I continue to search on Tiger Direct and Price Grabber, and the Geforce 8800GTX seems to dominate on the "Most Popular" lists. Though I haven't seen 8800GTS (not sure why).

Anywho, need to be going.
Nelsieus

Because the performance is nothing really extraordinary. Its like a highly overclocked X1950XTX with DX10 features.

 

[Cookie Monster]

8800GTS should be great because it offers 7950GX2/X1950XTX performance with better IQ and features. It is also almost same in length. But then again, those "most popular" lists arent really indicative on the overall demand for the two cards.

 

[josh6079]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
8800GTS should be great because it offers 7950GX2/X1950XTX performance...

Especially when you overclock it. Most are getting GTX performances from a relatively easy overclock, even with buggy arse drivers.

...with better IQ and features.

The G80's image quality isn't that much more of an improvement for current DX9 games, especially with all of the driver rendering errors that are present in these early versions. The 7 series sports better, albeit heavier, AA. While the 16xQ and C modes are nice it would have been better if they kept their xS modes. The G80 horsepower would have been quite a match for such a demanding mode. It seems as though they sacrificed AA quality for AF quality--which is literally "perfect" if you ask me.

Hopefully this changes in a driver release since combining the G80's AF with their previous xS modes with HDR+AA support would result in undisputed image-quality.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: josh6079

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
8800GTS should be great because it offers 7950GX2/X1950XTX performance...

Especially when you overclock it. Most are getting GTX performances from a relatively easy overclock, even with buggy arse drivers.

...with better IQ and features.

The G80's image quality isn't that much more of an improvement for current DX9 games, especially with all of the driver rendering errors that are present in these early versions. The 7 series sports better, albeit heavier, AA. While the 16xQ and C modes are nice it would have been better if they kept their xS modes. The G80 horsepower would have been quite a match for such a demanding mode. It seems as though they sacrificed AA quality for AF quality--which is literally "perfect" if you ask me.

Hopefully this changes in a driver release since combining the G80's AF with their previous xS modes with HDR+AA support would result in undisputed image-quality.

It is much better actually than what you think. AA quality is the same if not much better with the introduction of AA. (the xS modes will be back)

Both SSAA and MSAA have their trade offs but the consequences of using SSAA are really huge.

Heres abit of discussion talking about AA

Link

As you see SSAA is really hampers down your fillrates and the prospect of using SSAA is really low. I wanted to link about G80s IQ investigated by chrisray but it seems rage3d is down. Now that IQ comparisons show just how useful CSAA is because not only your getting more samples and high level of AA but you arent losing much performance unlike the other AA methods.

So in this case, nVIDIA truly is one step in front of ATi with AA. They are offering the end user to use 16xMSAA with a performance hit of more traditional 4xMSAA. (8xQ and 16xQ are real 16xMSAA and 8xMSAA because they both use 16 and 8 samples)

MSAA is much more usable than SSAA due to lots of different reasons as explained. You can see why G80 is the IQ king. Its offering end users with HDR plus higher level AA, while having almost perfect "AF". The CSAA made AA modes over 4x MUCH more usable. Although 8xS is nice, when your comparing 16xTRSS QAA 16xAF compared to the competitions 6xAA or 8xS by the G7x (which was only usable with SLi or GX2 setups which did take a massive performance hit in many modern games), its quite certain that the G80 is the undisputed king of IQ.

 

[josh6079]

MSAA is much more usable than SSAA due to lots of different reasons as explained.

It's also not as good.

You can see why G80 is the IQ king...its quite certain that the G80 is the undisputed king of IQ.

Except when in comes to an AA quality comparison. The fact of the matter is that the 8 series offers a lesser quality AA than the 7 series so far. One of the reasons why the G80 gets better performance with 8xQ/16xQ AA is because 8xQ/16xQ are totally inferior to 8xS.

These are some of BFG10K's screenshots comparing 16xQ to 8xS.

16xQ | 8xS

I wouldn't call it the king considering the 7 series rendered those pictures better.

As you see SSAA is really hampers down your fillrates and the prospect of using SSAA is really low.

Irrelevant. They didn't use that excuse when letting the 7 series support it and it's fill rate was less than the G80's.

CSAA is [more useful] because not only your getting more samples and high level of AA but you arent losing much performance unlike the other AA methods.

True, but all those modes are doing are multiplying edge samples while sacrificing texture samples.

So in this case, nVIDIA truly is one step in front of ATi with AA.

And one step behind their former product. I was never debating their lead when comparing ATi's AA.

They are offering the end user to use 16xMSAA with a performance hit of more traditional 4xMSAA.

Part of that is due to less ROPs being needed, which is yet another reason why SSAA would benefit more from a G80 architecture than it ever could have from the G71 architecture.

Although 8xS is nice, when your comparing 16xTRSS QAA 16xAF compared to the competitions 6xAA...

Where was I talking about ATi's AA?

or 8xS by the G7x (which was only usable with SLi or GX2 setups...

Considering the G80's performance rivals those I still don't see a reason why the SSAA modes were taken away.