This is a very interesting way to think about it but it also holds true. After all, the 7900GS matched if not exceeded the 7800GTX performance in some aspects. If the 2950Pro and the G92 can match if not exceed the 8800GTS, it would also be true.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
2900XT 90nm..............320 shaders............512bit GDDR3...............740/1600....389.00
2950pro 55nm.............320 shaders............256bit GDDR4...............850/2200....250.00
8800GTS 90nm.............96 shaders............320bit GDDR3................500/1600....389.00
G92 (8xxx) 65nm..........96 shaders............256bit GDDR4................750/2200....250.00
Nvidia is pulling the same thing as AMD. Because if AMD hits the shelves with the 2950pro, and Nv has nothing to answer to it, AMD will clean up.
Hey, I'm partially guessing at the figures above guys, but how far off could I be?
I personally believe that both the G92 and 2950pro will best a current 2900XT 512/1GB and a 8800GTS 320/640. The GTX is another story, but then again it would be double the price.
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Maybe it's just me but I wish that $500+ video cards did not exist.
You can't be serious ... within a year the midrange beats the ultra as the technology trickles down
i think you mean 'i wish that the high end was not priced so high.'
-i wish there were $10,000 video cards -- that were worth it
The point I'm trying to make is $500 on a video card is not worth it given the life cycle of these cards. From a personal standpoint anyway.
Back in the day, the top of the line cards barely came up to $400 and hovered around $350ish which is today's midrange prices. New cards didn't show up all that often either. Today it's like every 6 months your $500 card is slow. Slow is a relative term though and I'm not implying that the cards perform poorly just because they are no longer top of the line. I guess what I'm saying is, I would like to see prices not be so steep and the power requirements and heat to go down not up. It seems like video cards get bigger, take more power, and run hotter while CPUs get smaller, take less power and run cooler.
the memory installed on board is now GDDR4. 768MB of GDDR4, to be more precise. The amount of memory discards rumours of 256-bit bus, since it is obvious that Nvidia will keep 384-bit memory controller for the high-end series of products. We would welcome this memory controller in mainstream arena, though.
The bandwidth has now jumped over the 105 GB/s barrier, and it remains to be seen what will be the final clock of the memory ? our estimate is between 1.0 and 1.2 GHz, or 2.0-2.4 GHz, but final clocks are far, far from being decided. The company needs to get the revised chip first, in order to have DisplayPort working nice and cleanly. Display Port is required for this company to get the Dell XPS contract ? a new machine will be launched for Winter 2007/08, probably during CES 2008 in Las Vegas.
Originally posted by: Sable
Good news. honest john is here to tell us the truth.
Wait for it...wait for it...BAM
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42015 (snigger)
the memory installed on board is now GDDR4. 768MB of GDDR4, to be more precise. The amount of memory discards rumours of 256-bit bus, since it is obvious that Nvidia will keep 384-bit memory controller for the high-end series of products. We would welcome this memory controller in mainstream arena, though.
The bandwidth has now jumped over the 105 GB/s barrier, and it remains to be seen what will be the final clock of the memory ? our estimate is between 1.0 and 1.2 GHz, or 2.0-2.4 GHz, but final clocks are far, far from being decided. The company needs to get the revised chip first, in order to have DisplayPort working nice and cleanly. Display Port is required for this company to get the Dell XPS contract ? a new machine will be launched for Winter 2007/08, probably during CES 2008 in Las Vegas.
So, all the trust worthy sites have put their oar in. It's either a highend OR a midrange. I love rumours. :laugh:
edit:
btw, I'm betting on G92 = 8950 refresh part on 65nm. Replacement for the high end. Gonna need some serious price shuffling which could move the 8800GTS 320MB properly into the midrange. Unless they have 2 chips on the go and finally pull and 8700 out of their asses.
Originally posted by: LightningRider
I still hope for 9800GTX by the year's end.
Originally posted by: CP5670
eh, I'm not very interested in this if it's going to be a midrange part. I wanted a 8800GTX replacement, even if it was just a die shrink. Now I have to decide whether it's worth waiting on this or buying something now.
If it's released in October-November, I don't see why not. But I wouldn't make an upgrade plan around very sketchy rumors.Originally posted by: math20
Would EVGA's step-up program cover an 8800gtx to 9800gtx upgrade if the purchase was made around September?
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I know I enjoy reading the sites as it's often an amusing read, but really we should all stop and let them see the hit counter at 'zero'. :beer:
Well typically, they go high end, then midrange, then low end. This time could be an exception seeing as AMD didn't give them much competition and allowed nVidia to potentially skip a product cycle. Normally they would have brought out a new high end card sometime around now. Instead, as you said, they may be able to have the midrange part ready at launch.Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Originally posted by: SickBeast
I know I enjoy reading the sites as it's often an amusing read, but really we should all stop and let them see the hit counter at 'zero'. :beer:
Based on the rumors of HD 2900XT, it was supposed to be a powerhouse delivering 8800GTX speed at $100 lower even days before release. After those rumors it's pretty hard to believe anything until 1-2 days before launch date.
Also the Inquirer itself mentioned potentially 2 cards: G90 (high end) and G92 (mid-range). The codename itself doesn't matter at all. But will Nvidia release a new mid-range card and a high end card? Or only high-end for now and mid-range in Q1/Q2 2008? It seems logical to believe that they'll release both mid-range and high-end to hurt AMD the most. It certainly wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to not have a follow-up of 8800GTX after 1 year of release. Imo there must be a new high end around the corner at least. Whether or not the new high end is called G92 or G90 doesn't really matter - what matters are its specs, performance and release date - all of which are unavailable from any legitimate source.
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Nvidia has been producing G80 90nm cores for almost a year now. I think they will stop production very soon and let the current G80 inventory wittle away at dropped prices. They've made an absolute killing this past year with G80.
What has me a little curious, is that the rumor is G9x High end will have over 1 billion transistors. The current G80 has just under 700 million. What is the other 300+ million transistors for? Another 128 shaders? onboard cache? I mean, that is a lot of transistors.
Originally posted by: ronnn
Hardly surprising considering cpu's have met the same wall.