New 8600 GT/GTS photos + info

[Cookie Monster]

Link

Here's some interesting info that forum member makler pointed out on the upcoming NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT and GTS, CeBIT is coming this week and you'll know what they'll be showing everywhere

GeForce 8600GT

The GPU used is labelled G84-300. The GPU clock runs at 540MHz and GDDR3 at 1400MHz. G84 does not support HDCP. There is another version G84-305 comes with HDCP support.

The 8600GT is supposed to take over the mainstream market of the 7600GT and 7600GS from May 2007. There will be 128M and 256MB versions of the 8600GT cards. Both cards will support GDDR3 128bits Dual DVI, HDTV and HDCP.

The card looks like the normal 7600GT. THere is no 6 pin aux power connector. There is two DVI-I and a SLI connector Slot on top.

The 8600GT and 8500GT will be announced on the same day but will be on sale from 1st may 2007.

GeForce 8600GTS

The GPU used is labelled G84-400. The GPU clock runs at 675MHz and GDDR3 at 2000MHz. The card is HDCP Ready.

The DX10 card, 8600GTS is supposed to take over the performance market of the 7900GS and 7950GT. from 17 Apr 2007. There will be 256MB and 512MB versions of the 8600GTS cards. Both cards will support GDDR3 or GDDR4 128bits and comes with Dual DVI, HDTV and HDCP.

The card is slightly longer than the 8600GT. It also comes with a 6 pin power connector. There are two DVI-I and a SLI connector Slot on top.

The 8600GTS will be announced and available from 17 Apr.

Pricing of 8600GTS is around $200-250
8600GT is around $150-180
8500GT is around $90

8600GTS looks quite a powerhouse.

 

[fliguy84]

Wow the GTS as a replacement for 7950GT? Must be a real deal for that price.

 

[Aberforth]

crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

The 320mb version of the 8800GTS appears to match your card for $100 less in almost every circumstance.

Also, these new cards may be very fast and could in fact match your card for $150 less, depending on how well they perform.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

Your logic is flawed. How do know its crappy or not? Have you seen the benchmarks?

Spend a few bucks? the lowest 8800GTS 640mb i can find without AR $371 dollars. So around $140 dollars is worth a "few bucks" to you?

The 320mb version isnt as fast as the 640mb, especially high res/AA and AF. Cheapest is 270ish, and thats around 20~maybe 50 dollars difference to the 8600GTS.

Until we see how fast the 8600GTS is, dont jump to conclusion. Its performance could be near that of the 8800GTS 320mb, and could be a replacement. Its single slot, lower power consumption, and will produce less heat thanks to being 80nm. So it has its pros. The bolded bit is also rather confusing. I dont think mid range cards were ever targeted to play future games at MAX settings. (thats for the high end) Unless youve seen the benches already..

Following your logic i dont see why nVIDIA and ATi even bother releasing low/mid end cards all together. They must think all the consumers are going to shell out for high end cards. :roll:

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Cookie Monster

Originally posted by: Aberforth
crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

Your logic is flawed. How do know its crappy or not? Have you seen the benchmarks?

Spend a few bucks? the lowest 8800GTS 640mb i can find without AR $371 dollars. So around $140 dollars is worth a "few bucks" to you?

The 320mb version isnt as fast as the 640mb, especially high res/AA and AF. Cheapest is 270ish, and thats around 20~maybe 50 dollars difference to the 8600GTS.

Until we see how fast the 8600GTS is, dont jump to conclusion. Its performance could be near that of the 8800GTS 320mb, and could be a replacement. Its single slot, lower power consumption, and will produce less heat thanks to being 80nm. So it has its pros. The bolded bit is also rather confusing. I dont think mid range cards were ever targeted to play future games at MAX settings. (thats for the high end) Unless youve seen the benches already..

Following your logic i dont see why nVIDIA and ATi even bother releasing low/mid end cards all together. They must think all the consumers are going to shell out for high end cards. :roll:

I only meant instead of spending money on these cards you can save your money and buy 8800 GTS/X in future. These are mid-range cards as you say- i'm 90% sure its not going to beat 8800 series in benchmarks or else Nvidia would have sold G80 for 200 bucks, you won't be able to play games like Alan Wake, Unreal, Crysis at maximum settings and you will be surely dissapointed, Alan Wake for example requires a Quad Core CPU (for optimal performance) and a powerful GPU for heavy texture processing, the 8600 won't even stand a chance at max. I'm not against 8600, its still a good deal if you want to buy a new card every 6 months considering the rate at which the new games are coming.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

Agreed but I'd compare it to the 320 GTS.

128-bit memory at 1GHz will be 32GB/sec. Very disappointing as its not even upto 7950GT, forget beating 7900GTX.

I will either get a 320 GTS in July or look at AMD's offerings in a similar price range.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Aberforth
crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

Agreed but I'd compare it to the 320 GTS.

128-bit memory at 1GHz will be 32GB/sec. Very disappointing as its not even upto 7950GT, forget beating 7900GTX.

I will either get a 320 GTS in July or look at AMD's offerings in a similar price range.

He dosent know that though, hes just tearing into the 8600 because his has a higher number :roll:

 

[otispunkmeyer]

april, nice.

this is a mid range card for mid range people

this will probably do nicely at 1280x1024 with max settings/AA/AF for a while, before having to tone it down a few months later. 1680x1050 might also be a place this card will be decent at

forget 1600x1200 + for any length of time.

 

[BernardP]

The cards are coming soon, but the tech info keeps changing. A short while ago, clocks were supposed to be 600/1400 for the GT and 700/2000 for the GTS. Now, they seem to have been downgraded a bit.

It seems surprising that the 8600GT w 80nm process will have slower core clock (540 Mhz) than the 90 nm 7600GT (560 Mhz)

Also, considering that the 8600GT will be an upgrade to the 7600GT, it should be expected to perform at least at the level of the 7900GS and 1950 Pro. The 8600GTS should have even higher performance.

The 8600GT is a very compact, low-power card with adequate performance that will fit nicely in smaller/lower powered systems...such as mine. The choice may be difficult between the high-strung 8600GTS and the low-range of the upcoming 8900 line.

 

[chizow]

At $200-250 I wouldn't bother with the 8600GTS, 128-bit memory interface and 64 shader units compared to the 320MB 8800GTS ($260-300 AR) which has a 320-bit mem interface and 96 shaders. I don't think that extra bandwidth on the 8800GTS is that important but it could easily bottleneck the 8600GTS. Relative 8600GTS performance will depend a lot on OC'ing headroom but the 8800 on a 90nm process isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to OC'ing either.

Also, whoever said the 320MB GTS is slower than the 640MB GTS is only partially correct. It performs as well or faster than the 640MB version until you run higher settings w/ AA and the frame buffer spills into system memory, but otherwise it performs identically to the 640MB. When comparing the resolutions the 320MB GTS starts to stumble against an 8600GTS, I'd expect similar performance penalties despite the 512MB local memory on the high-end 8600 due to its lack of shaders and 128-bit bus. The 8900GS should provide a better match against the 320MB GTS in the $200-300 performance category.

When comparing the 8600GTS to last-gen cards like the 7800/7900s, don't forget architecture matters and not just clock speeds and memory bus sizes. 64 unified shaders compared to 16 vertex and 24 pixel shaders (I think) means the 8600 is going to be more efficient per clock. Still, the 128-bit memory bus could be a concern, especially at higher resolutions. I expect core OC'ability to heavily impact the 8600 performance relative to older cards, since memory clocks have little impact on overall performance on the 8800.

 

[ArchAngel777]

I have not looked through this data thorough, but my initial thoughts on this (based on paper performance) is that nVidia is purposely crippling these new cards. The midrange cards from last generation were 256 bit interface. These ones are taking a step backwards? To 128? It seems to me that nVidia didn't think this one through so much. They release so many odd models that there is some toe stepping going on. So, it is of my opinion that they probably were going to release the card as 256 bit, but realized that it might outperform the 320mb GTS model. So, they decided to cripple the card with the 128 bit memory interface. Again, this is just speculation, but from what I have read thus far, it wouldn't surprise me. Have to wait and see in April...

 

[Munky]

Last gen midrange cards like the 7600gt and the x1650xt are also on a 128-bit bus. I'm not going to judge performance before the benches are out, but these are midrange cards nonetheless, which may or may not outperform last gen high end cards. I bet Nvidia is not worried about outperforming a 7900gtx, they're mainly concerned with maximizing profit on these 8600-series cards, hence the smaller number of shaders and a 128-bit bus.

 

[superbooga]

128-bit is fine. It is usually cheaper to increase speed by increasing frequency rather than bus width. The 6600GT and 7600GT outperformed 256-bit cards from the previous generation, so I don't see why it won't be the same for the 8-series.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
I have not looked through this data thorough, but my initial thoughts on this (based on paper performance) is that nVidia is purposely crippling these new cards. So, it is of my opinion that they probably were going to release the card as 256 bit, but realized that it might outperform the 320mb GTS model. So, they decided to cripple the card with the 128 bit memory interface. Again, this is just speculation, but from what I have read thus far, it wouldn't surprise me. Have to wait and see in April...

They're not really "crippling" their cards for the sake of crippling them to meet a market performance/price segment. The G84s, unlike the GTS G80s, are going to be physically different and not just laser-locked to reduce performance. Afaik all of the G84s will be 128-bit and 64 shaders which will significantly reduce the price of both the core and PCB. The GTS G80s on the other hand have all 128 shaders on the core and 12 x 32-bit bus traces, but they're crippled by laser locking 1 shader quad (32 shader units) and 2 x 32-bit bus traces are unused (there's 2 more PCB traces and slots for 2 more memory modules).

I'd guess NV decided to go with a 128-bit bus though for the same reason others have guessed. It doesn't adversely affect performance enough for them to hit target performance figures. Will be interesting though, the 320MB GTS has already shown the G80 doesn't behave like previous generation cards (256MB vs. 512MB parts etc.) and we won't really have a good idea of how important memory bus is until the 8900GS is released (96 shaders, 256-bit interface, 256/512MB memory configurations) and compared to the 320MB GTS.

 

[Keysplayr]

The 8900GS would seem to be the card to wait for. 80nm, 96 shaders, 256 or 512 MB of 256-bit mem. Not sure what the clocks were again, but it may be worth it to wait for this card over an 8600GT/GTS. IMHO.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: BernardP
The cards are coming soon, but the tech info keeps changing. A short while ago, clocks were supposed to be 600/1400 for the GT and 700/2000 for the GTS. Now, they seem to have been downgraded a bit.

It seems surprising that the 8600GT w 80nm process will have slower core clock (540 Mhz) than the 90 nm 7600GT (560 Mhz)

Also, considering that the 8600GT will be an upgrade to the 7600GT, it should be expected to perform at least at the level of the 7900GS and 1950 Pro. The 8600GTS should have even higher performance.

The 8600GT is a very compact, low-power card with adequate performance that will fit nicely in smaller/lower powered systems...such as mine. The choice may be difficult between the high-strung 8600GTS and the low-range of the upcoming 8900 line.

The 8600 GT is a 7600 GS replacement in terms of price but has the performance of the last generation 7600 GT.

Sort of like how the 7600 GS is a 6600 Vanilla replacement in terms of price but has performance above the level of the 6600 GT.

The 8600 GTS is the true 7600 GT replacement in terms of price and will perform greater then the 7900 GT and likely somewhere in the ballpark of the 7950 GT.

This leaves the 8800/8900's Series comfortably ahead at 7900 GTX or higher levels of performance.

On another note it seems the 8500 GT is a 7300 GS replacement in terms of price but outperforms the 7600 GS.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Aberforth
crappy card compared to mine, spend few more bucks and get a 8800GTS 640, its a waste of money otherwise. New games are going to kill 8600 GT card at max and I ask why waste money on something thats nothing? Again people are going to disagree..but i don't mind.

Agreed but I'd compare it to the 320 GTS.

128-bit memory at 1GHz will be 32GB/sec. Very disappointing as its not even upto 7950GT, forget beating 7900GTX.

I will either get a 320 GTS in July or look at AMD's offerings in a similar price range.

This is about right, the 7600 GT had bandwidth levels not up to the 6800 GT, but outperformed the 6800 Ultra overall.

Given that it's around where it should be about 70% of the bandwidth of the 7950 GT, it has a chance of outperforming it due to more advanced shader technology and higher clock rates.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
The 8900GS would seem to be the card to wait for. 80nm, 96 shaders, 256 or 512 MB of 256-bit mem. Not sure what the clocks were again, but it may be worth it to wait for this card over an 8600GT/GTS. IMHO.

Yeah that is the card I would like to own, probably a 512MB version.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Well, I am holding out for the X2800 XTX version personally... However, if ATi lets me down, I might just hold off buying a video card until nVidia releases the new set of GPU, in other words, Q1, 08 :-(

 

[bigsnyder]

Do we officially know that a 8900GS or similiar coming out? No sense in holding out for something that
might not even come out since the 8800 320MB just came out.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 8600 GT is a 7600 GS replacement in terms of price but has the performance of the last generation 7600 GT.

The 8600 GTS is the true 7600 GT replacement in terms of price and will perform greater then the 7900 GT and likely somewhere in the ballpark of the 7950 GT.

Considering the 8600GT has more shaders (confusing because architecture/terminology have changed) than 7600GT, with similar clocks, I will be disappointed if the 8600GT is not significantly faster than the 7600GT. Look at the price range compared to present 7600GT pricing.

I agree with you for 8600GTS probable performance, but its price is near the 7600GT's price when it first came out.

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: BernardP

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 8600 GT is a 7600 GS replacement in terms of price but has the performance of the last generation 7600 GT.

The 8600 GTS is the true 7600 GT replacement in terms of price and will perform greater then the 7900 GT and likely somewhere in the ballpark of the 7950 GT.

Considering the 8600GT has more shaders (confusing because architecture/terminology have changed) than 7600GT, with similar clocks, I will be disappointed if the 8600GT is not significantly faster than the 7600GT. Look at the price range compared to present 7600GT pricing.

I agree with you for 8600GTS probable performance, but its price is near the 7600GT's price when it first came out.

Well, it's not directly comparable exactly to the 12 Pixel Shader and 5 Vertex Shaders of the 7600 GT, but overall I would expect the 8600 GT to be at least a tad faster then the 7600 GT. As the last generation 7600 GS did outperform the 6600 GT but not significantly.

And yes, I should have clarified, that I am talking about the 7600 GT MSRP compared to the 8600 GTS MSRP, and not what the current price has fallen too on the 7600 GT.

Edit: Fixed mistype.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: bigsnyder
Do we officially know that a 8900GS or similiar coming out? No sense in holding out for something that
might not even come out since the 8800 320MB just came out.

Nothing "concrete" yet, but there is quite a lot of buzz. Just google 8900GS.

Nvidia will also show off the new 8900GS which is really one core from the 8950GX2, core clock will be set at 550Mhz and will run on the slightly slower GDDR3 memory clocked at 1600Mhz. Expect to see a 256MB and a 512MB version of these cards priced from $200-$250 range, Making it the cheapest card of the 8900 series.

The 8900 GS will be the cheapest G80-based card. The 80 nanometre based beast is clocked at 550MHz core and 1600MHZ memory. The card has the 256-bit memory controller and comes with 256 or 512MB of GDDR3 memory. It also has 96 Shaders. The 256MB version will cost $200 while 512MB incarnation will end up at around the $250 price mark.

Word around Taiwan is that the cards are basically ready and nVidia is just waiting for AMD to take the covers off their range of upcoming R600 graphics cards.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: coldpower27

Originally posted by: BernardP

Originally posted by: coldpower27
The 8600 GT is a 7600 GS replacement in terms of price but has the performance of the last generation 7600 GT.

The 8600 GTS is the true 7600 GT replacement in terms of price and will perform greater then the 7900 GT and likely somewhere in the ballpark of the 7950 GT.

Considering the 8600GT has more shaders (confusing because architecture/terminology have changed) than 7600GT, with similar clocks, I will be disappointed if the 8600GT is not significantly faster than the 7600GT. Look at the price range compared to present 7600GT pricing.

I agree with you for 8600GTS probable performance, but its price is near the 7600GT's price when it first came out.

Well, it's not directly comparable exactly to the 12 Pixel Shader and 5 Vertex Shaders of the 7600 GT, but overall I would expect the 8600 GTS to be at least a tad faster then the 7600 GT. As the last generation 7600 GS did outperform the 6600 GT but not significantly.

And yes, I should have clarified, that I am talking about the 7600 GT MSRP compared to the 8600 GT MSRP, and not what the current price has fallen too on the 7600 GT.

All of this is taking sooo damn long to come to pass, but most likely, the 8600GTS will offer performance over a 7600GT similar to what the 8800GTS offers over a 7900GTX.

7900GTX 24 pipes 8 vertex shaders 512MB 256bit 650/1600
8800GTS 96 shaders 640MB 320bit 500/1600

7600GT 12 pipes 5 vertex shaders 256MB 128bit 560/1400
8600GTS 64 shaders 256/512MB 128bit 675/2000

Actually, with these clock speeds, I think the 8600GTS will throttle a 7600GT by a significant margin and maybe even outperform a 7900GT.