New g92 gts's revealed

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: HostofFun

Originally posted by: dunno99
Quick question for everyone here:

Why do people believe that they need more ram for higher resolutions? The difference between 1600x1200 32-bit output and 1920x1200 32-bit output is only 1500KILObytes (which is slightly less than 1.5MB). Even if you consider what the OS reserves for the output buffer, double buffering for your game, additional deferred rendering requirements, that's only 6 times more, which is roughly 9MB. How do people think that games out there will actually borderline on that 9MB, and therefore hit the PCIe bus? From my understanding, most of that RAM is used for textures only. If you don't change the quality of of the textures, the game would therefore only take 9MB more going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200. Am I missing something?

What you're saying is true for 2d, but 3d is a whole different ballgame.

And how exactly is it different for 3D? Last I recall, everyone is still using a monitor that is 2D. All textures are still pretty much 2D (no one seriously uses 3D textures...except academics). The output buffers are still 2D as well. The only thing that's 3D are the geometric coordinates, normals, etc... of objects, and that's usually stored in main memory, not graphics memory.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Azn
What's the point of getting these over the gt? Can this play crysis @ very high? No@#$*()~!

No one knows yet. Though I think even if nvidia does release a new high end card that even beats the Geforce 8800 Ultra the real speed king that will really knock all our socks off won't until next year.

Though its a great stepup plan because you get two high end video cards over a short period to give Crysis all the power it needs and even more.

Ill tell you now, No the new GTS wont allow you play Crysis any better than the current 8800, the new 8800GTS should be slightly faster than the GTX and maybe faster than the ultra, so considering that even the 8800GTX and the ultras perfrom shite with Crysis dont get your hopes up.

Its not the graphics cards its Crysis.

The best thing people can do is to play Crysis at Medium settings and enjoy the story or forget Crysis exists untill this time next year when hopfully we should have much faster systems to chew through it.

no, just use your trusty old x1950xt and bust out the 15" crt

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: aiya24
http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_family.html

"HD DVD / Blu-ray Video Playback on NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512MB and 8800 GT is classified as Excellent. HD DVD / Blu-ray Video Playback on NVIDIA GeForce 8800 Ultra, GeForce 8800 GTX and GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB/640MB are classified as Good. "

its at the bottom of the page with the #5 next to it.

pretty much confirms it and that nvidia will be using the 8800 name on this new GTS :roll:

that just makes no sense at all. 8800gts 512 on g92 would absolutely destroy 8800gts 640 on g80...why not just call it 8900 gts?????

 

[LOUISSSSS]

anyone else thinking of using the evga stepup from old gts640 -> new 8800gt?

1. is it possible?
2. which card is faster?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: HostofFun

Originally posted by: dunno99
Quick question for everyone here:

Why do people believe that they need more ram for higher resolutions? The difference between 1600x1200 32-bit output and 1920x1200 32-bit output is only 1500KILObytes (which is slightly less than 1.5MB). Even if you consider what the OS reserves for the output buffer, double buffering for your game, additional deferred rendering requirements, that's only 6 times more, which is roughly 9MB. How do people think that games out there will actually borderline on that 9MB, and therefore hit the PCIe bus? From my understanding, most of that RAM is used for textures only. If you don't change the quality of of the textures, the game would therefore only take 9MB more going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200. Am I missing something?

What you're saying is true for 2d, but 3d is a whole different ballgame.

And how exactly is it different for 3D? Last I recall, everyone is still using a monitor that is 2D. All textures are still pretty much 2D (no one seriously uses 3D textures...except academics). The output buffers are still 2D as well. The only thing that's 3D are the geometric coordinates, normals, etc... of objects, and that's usually stored in main memory, not graphics memory.

The output is 2D, but the calculations are done on a 3d framebuffer, typically with 32-bits of depth on the z-axis. That is what separates 3D graphics from 2d rendering. Also, anti-aliasing samples multiply the size of the backbuffer, and of course HDR means more bits dedicated to color depth as well.

And anyway, 1600x1200 isn't even 17% less than 1920x1080. When people say you need more ram for higher resolutions they are referring differences like 1600x1200 compared to 1024x768, where the former is over double the latter and that difference can easly require over 50mb of RAM. Yeah, textures still use the most VRAM by far. However, if textures are already pushing a card close to it's limit, then running a high resolution requires either turning the texture resolution down a notch so that it all fits or living framerate hitches that come with texture swapping.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
anyone else thinking of using the evga stepup from old gts640 -> new 8800gt?

1. is it possible?
2. which card is faster?

it is possible, it only costs shipping both ways... and for gods sake wait for the new GTS and step up to it... don't waste it on the GT...

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Azn
What's the point of getting these over the gt? Can this play crysis @ very high? No@#$*()~!

No one knows yet. Though I think even if nvidia does release a new high end card that even beats the Geforce 8800 Ultra the real speed king that will really knock all our socks off won't until next year.

Though its a great stepup plan because you get two high end video cards over a short period to give Crysis all the power it needs and even more.

Ill tell you now, No the new GTS wont allow you play Crysis any better than the current 8800, the new 8800GTS should be slightly faster than the GTX and maybe faster than the ultra, so considering that even the 8800GTX and the ultras perfrom shite with Crysis dont get your hopes up.

Its not the graphics cards its Crysis.

The best thing people can do is to play Crysis at Medium settings and enjoy the story or forget Crysis exists untill this time next year when hopfully we should have much faster systems to chew through it.

I play Crysis w/everything on High at 16x12 w/no AA and it's perfectly fine on my GTS640. A faster card like the new GTS will allow either VH settings or AA at my rez with no problems.

Well done, you have the fastest system ever.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
anyone else thinking of using the evga stepup from old gts640 -> new 8800gt?

1. is it possible?
2. which card is faster?

it is possible, it only costs shipping both ways... and for gods sake wait for the new GTS and step up to it... don't waste it on the GT...

So what do we do when we spent @350.00 on a GTS640 and wish to step up to a 270.00 GT512? Will eVGA refund the balance to you? Less shipping? Will eVGA even allow this "step-up"? If so, where is the literature saying so. I can't find it in my brief search. Maybe someone else knows.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
anyone else thinking of using the evga stepup from old gts640 -> new 8800gt?

1. is it possible?
2. which card is faster?

it is possible, it only costs shipping both ways... and for gods sake wait for the new GTS and step up to it... don't waste it on the GT...

So what do we do when we spent @350.00 on a GTS640 and wish to step up to a 270.00 GT512? Will eVGA refund the balance to you? Less shipping? Will eVGA even allow this "step-up"? If so, where is the literature saying so. I can't find it in my brief search. Maybe someone else knows.

They don't which really sucks for Geforce 8800 GTS 640 owners in my opinion. Its like wasting $100 if you step up.

 

[aggressor]

That sucks for me. I have 29 days left on my StepUp on my 8800GTS 640, so I guess I might as well StepUp to the 8800GT Ah well, at least this way I don't have to pay anything extra.

 

[JBT]

why are you guys stepping up to the GT? Like somone else said why not wait for the NEW GTS?

 

[aggressor]

Because Step-Up promotions do not have an unlimited time-frame. I either get the 8800GT, or nothing.

 

[Powered by AMD]

Originally posted by: JBT
why are you guys stepping up to the GT? Like somone else said why not wait for the NEW GTS?

I think that even without step up program, like me cos im in Argentina, we could just buy the GT and in December, when GTS is released, update the BIOS of our GT and make it a GTS.
Well, thats if we dont get a defective 16 shaders unit in the GT. But the bet is there.

I would like to know how many ROPS are hidden, would it go from 16 to 24 just like the GTX?

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: aggressor
That sucks for me. I have 29 days left on my StepUp on my 8800GTS 640, so I guess I might as well StepUp to the 8800GT Ah well, at least this way I don't have to pay anything extra.

try selling your 8800 640 on ebay first. you'll probably make a lot more than the cost of an 8800gt from some mullet who doesn't understand why nvidia would release a gt that is faster than a gts.

 

[Rusin]

Bryan:
Done that on finnish equivalent of Ebay. I first bought 7900 GTO and sold it after six months of usage -> I did get more than I originally payed; basically I got free update from 79 GTO to 8800 GTS 640MB. Now I sold my 8800 GTS 640MB after six month of usage -> I did get more money than I originally payed! Now I got 8800 GT 512MB with that money and like 80? extra cash.

In another words I changed my graphics card to better model and gained 80? by doing so.

(Also I sold my old Athlon XP 2800+ with 100?..and I bought E6300 (140? at that time) to replace it )

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Azn
What's the point of getting these over the gt? Can this play crysis @ very high? No@#$*()~!

No one knows yet. Though I think even if nvidia does release a new high end card that even beats the Geforce 8800 Ultra the real speed king that will really knock all our socks off won't until next year.

Though its a great stepup plan because you get two high end video cards over a short period to give Crysis all the power it needs and even more.

Ill tell you now, No the new GTS wont allow you play Crysis any better than the current 8800, the new 8800GTS should be slightly faster than the GTX and maybe faster than the ultra, so considering that even the 8800GTX and the ultras perfrom shite with Crysis dont get your hopes up.

Its not the graphics cards its Crysis.

The best thing people can do is to play Crysis at Medium settings and enjoy the story or forget Crysis exists untill this time next year when hopfully we should have much faster systems to chew through it.

I play Crysis w/everything on High at 16x12 w/no AA and it's perfectly fine on my GTS640. A faster card like the new GTS will allow either VH settings or AA at my rez with no problems.

Well done, you have the fastest system ever.

Mature response. I wasn't bragging, this is an enthusiast board and lots of people have strong systems. I was responding to your claim that Crysis is unplayable and the new GTS wouldn't help any. On my current GTS I get over 30fps on High, and the GT offers 10-20% increases, so the g92 GTS will almost certainly offer 20-30% or more over my system. So unless VH causes a greater than 30-40% fps hit, then Crysis should be very playable on VH at 16x12. Course, this debate will be resolved in about a month when the card drops.

 

[bryanW1995]

so you basically went from a 7900gto to an 8800gt and made money? life is good.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
anyone else thinking of using the evga stepup from old gts640 -> new 8800gt?

1. is it possible?
2. which card is faster?

it is possible, it only costs shipping both ways... and for gods sake wait for the new GTS and step up to it... don't waste it on the GT...

So what do we do when we spent @350.00 on a GTS640 and wish to step up to a 270.00 GT512? Will eVGA refund the balance to you? Less shipping? Will eVGA even allow this "step-up"? If so, where is the literature saying so. I can't find it in my brief search. Maybe someone else knows.

sell it on ebay FAST... they were going for 350$ a peice on ebay onthe 29th... and I think 300$ on the 30th... if you can unload it on an eSucker fast enough you can actually make money!

The step up in comparison, will require you to pay shipping both ways, and no you don't get payed the difference... and yes they DO allow it!

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Azn
What's the point of getting these over the gt? Can this play crysis @ very high? No@#$*()~!

No one knows yet. Though I think even if nvidia does release a new high end card that even beats the Geforce 8800 Ultra the real speed king that will really knock all our socks off won't until next year.

Though its a great stepup plan because you get two high end video cards over a short period to give Crysis all the power it needs and even more.

Ill tell you now, No the new GTS wont allow you play Crysis any better than the current 8800, the new 8800GTS should be slightly faster than the GTX and maybe faster than the ultra, so considering that even the 8800GTX and the ultras perfrom shite with Crysis dont get your hopes up.

Its not the graphics cards its Crysis.

The best thing people can do is to play Crysis at Medium settings and enjoy the story or forget Crysis exists untill this time next year when hopfully we should have much faster systems to chew through it.

I play Crysis w/everything on High at 16x12 w/no AA and it's perfectly fine on my GTS640. A faster card like the new GTS will allow either VH settings or AA at my rez with no problems.

Well done, you have the fastest system ever.

Mature response. I wasn't bragging, this is an enthusiast board and lots of people have strong systems. I was responding to your claim that Crysis is unplayable and the new GTS wouldn't help any. On my current GTS I get over 30fps on High, and the GT offers 10-20% increases, so the g92 GTS will almost certainly offer 20-30% or more over my system. So unless VH causes a greater than 30-40% fps hit, then Crysis should be very playable on VH at 16x12. Course, this debate will be resolved in about a month when the card drops.

i was being sarcastic mate, because i dont believe you can run Crysis @ High at 16x12 at over 30 fps.

i think a an Ultra or even a GTX struggles to get that.

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: HostofFun

Originally posted by: dunno99
Quick question for everyone here:

Why do people believe that they need more ram for higher resolutions? The difference between 1600x1200 32-bit output and 1920x1200 32-bit output is only 1500KILObytes (which is slightly less than 1.5MB). Even if you consider what the OS reserves for the output buffer, double buffering for your game, additional deferred rendering requirements, that's only 6 times more, which is roughly 9MB. How do people think that games out there will actually borderline on that 9MB, and therefore hit the PCIe bus? From my understanding, most of that RAM is used for textures only. If you don't change the quality of of the textures, the game would therefore only take 9MB more going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200. Am I missing something?

What you're saying is true for 2d, but 3d is a whole different ballgame.

And how exactly is it different for 3D? Last I recall, everyone is still using a monitor that is 2D. All textures are still pretty much 2D (no one seriously uses 3D textures...except academics). The output buffers are still 2D as well. The only thing that's 3D are the geometric coordinates, normals, etc... of objects, and that's usually stored in main memory, not graphics memory.

The output is 2D, but the calculations are done on a 3d framebuffer, typically with 32-bits of depth on the z-axis. That is what separates 3D graphics from 2d rendering. Also, anti-aliasing samples multiply the size of the backbuffer, and of course HDR means more bits dedicated to color depth as well.

And anyway, 1600x1200 isn't even 17% less than 1920x1080. When people say you need more ram for higher resolutions they are referring differences like 1600x1200 compared to 1024x768, where the former is over double the latter and that difference can easly require over 50mb of RAM. Yeah, textures still use the most VRAM by far. However, if textures are already pushing a card close to it's limit, then running a high resolution requires either turning the texture resolution down a notch so that it all fits or living framerate hitches that come with texture swapping.

The calculations are done in 3D, but when they're stored in the memory, they're still stored in 2D space (with usually 24-bits on the depth buffer and 8-bits for the stencil buffer). Nothing really separates 2D and 3D graphics output other than the fact that you have a depth buffer (2D resolution * bits-per-pixel = memory taken) and some projected intermediary data. Sure, anti-aliasing takes up more memory, but that's usually only memory for the framebuffer/depthbuffer, nothing else.

The whole point is that when people on the forums are asking whether or not they need to get the higher memory card for their 1920x1200 monitor instead of their old 1600x1200. Even if that's not the case, I don't think I've even seen any posts about upgrading from 1024x768 in the last few months on these forums, since I don't think most people who're wondering about the difference between 256MB and 512MB was gaming with 1024x768 to begin with. I think the bottom line is that graphics cards are limited by their shading power when going to higher resolutions, rather than by the amount of onboard memory. And in some instances, one *may* encounter the borderline case when the card has to start hitting the PCIe bus...but that depends from game to game, and the settings within the game.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: SniperDaws

Originally posted by: pcslookout

Originally posted by: Azn
What's the point of getting these over the gt? Can this play crysis @ very high? No@#$*()~!

No one knows yet. Though I think even if nvidia does release a new high end card that even beats the Geforce 8800 Ultra the real speed king that will really knock all our socks off won't until next year.

Though its a great stepup plan because you get two high end video cards over a short period to give Crysis all the power it needs and even more.

Ill tell you now, No the new GTS wont allow you play Crysis any better than the current 8800, the new 8800GTS should be slightly faster than the GTX and maybe faster than the ultra, so considering that even the 8800GTX and the ultras perfrom shite with Crysis dont get your hopes up.

Its not the graphics cards its Crysis.

The best thing people can do is to play Crysis at Medium settings and enjoy the story or forget Crysis exists untill this time next year when hopfully we should have much faster systems to chew through it.

I play Crysis w/everything on High at 16x12 w/no AA and it's perfectly fine on my GTS640. A faster card like the new GTS will allow either VH settings or AA at my rez with no problems.

Well done, you have the fastest system ever.

Mature response. I wasn't bragging, this is an enthusiast board and lots of people have strong systems. I was responding to your claim that Crysis is unplayable and the new GTS wouldn't help any. On my current GTS I get over 30fps on High, and the GT offers 10-20% increases, so the g92 GTS will almost certainly offer 20-30% or more over my system. So unless VH causes a greater than 30-40% fps hit, then Crysis should be very playable on VH at 16x12. Course, this debate will be resolved in about a month when the card drops.

i was being sarcastic mate, because i dont believe you can run Crysis @ High at 16x12 at over 30 fps.

i think a an Ultra or even a GTX struggles to get that.

You are correct, I get mid-20s. Still, I played thru the demo at that rez/settings with no problems. I just traded up for the GT but I understand AA causes a huge hit so may have to drop to 1280 to use it.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: dunno99

Originally posted by: HostofFun

Originally posted by: dunno99
Quick question for everyone here:

Why do people believe that they need more ram for higher resolutions? The difference between 1600x1200 32-bit output and 1920x1200 32-bit output is only 1500KILObytes (which is slightly less than 1.5MB). Even if you consider what the OS reserves for the output buffer, double buffering for your game, additional deferred rendering requirements, that's only 6 times more, which is roughly 9MB. How do people think that games out there will actually borderline on that 9MB, and therefore hit the PCIe bus? From my understanding, most of that RAM is used for textures only. If you don't change the quality of of the textures, the game would therefore only take 9MB more going from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200. Am I missing something?

What you're saying is true for 2d, but 3d is a whole different ballgame.

And how exactly is it different for 3D? Last I recall, everyone is still using a monitor that is 2D. All textures are still pretty much 2D (no one seriously uses 3D textures...except academics). The output buffers are still 2D as well. The only thing that's 3D are the geometric coordinates, normals, etc... of objects, and that's usually stored in main memory, not graphics memory.

The output is 2D, but the calculations are done on a 3d framebuffer, typically with 32-bits of depth on the z-axis. That is what separates 3D graphics from 2d rendering. Also, anti-aliasing samples multiply the size of the backbuffer, and of course HDR means more bits dedicated to color depth as well.

And anyway, 1600x1200 isn't even 17% less than 1920x1080. When people say you need more ram for higher resolutions they are referring differences like 1600x1200 compared to 1024x768, where the former is over double the latter and that difference can easly require over 50mb of RAM. Yeah, textures still use the most VRAM by far. However, if textures are already pushing a card close to it's limit, then running a high resolution requires either turning the texture resolution down a notch so that it all fits or living framerate hitches that come with texture swapping.

The calculations are done in 3D, but when they're stored in the memory, they're still stored in 2D space (with usually 24-bits on the depth buffer and 8-bits for the stencil buffer). Nothing really separates 2D and 3D graphics output other than the fact that you have a depth buffer (2D resolution * bits-per-pixel = memory taken) and some projected intermediary data. Sure, anti-aliasing takes up more memory, but that's usually only memory for the framebuffer/depthbuffer, nothing else.

The whole point is that when people on the forums are asking whether or not they need to get the higher memory card for their 1920x1200 monitor instead of their old 1600x1200. Even if that's not the case, I don't think I've even seen any posts about upgrading from 1024x768 in the last few months on these forums, since I don't think most people who're wondering about the difference between 256MB and 512MB was gaming with 1024x768 to begin with. I think the bottom line is that graphics cards are limited by their shading power when going to higher resolutions, rather than by the amount of onboard memory. And in some instances, one *may* encounter the borderline case when the card has to start hitting the PCIe bus...but that depends from game to game, and the settings within the game.

Do you mean saturating the PCIe bus?, i didnt think games were topping the AGP bus let alone twice that?

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: SolMiester

Do you mean saturating the PCIe bus?, i didnt think games were topping the AGP bus let alone twice that?

Yeah, kinda. When data arrays (e.g. textures, color/depth buffers, etc...) can't fit anymore on the video card memory, the driver initiates streaming from main memory over the AGP/PCIe bus (at least in DX10, anyways). For most PC games, this isn't an issue since most games don't use enough textures to fill up the newer graphics cards. If a game ever does overfill the memory, you'll see frame rate drops of an order of magnitude as either the CPU/FSB or the PCIe/AGP bus will get saturated immediately.

The main point about the bus bandwidth is really just for faster transferring of data from system memory to video card memory, GPGPU, or post processing effects that can't be done easily on streaming hardware (e.g. creating sparsely temporal-sampled diffuse maps). For the most part of the processing for a game, the PCIe and AGP busses are really just for faster transferring of transformed API calls, shader code, and input variables for the shaders. This is also true for consoles, but I won't get into that due to NDAs.

 

[SolMiester]

You are under NDA's dunno?...are you an AMD partner?

 

[dunno99]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
You are under NDA's dunno?...are you an AMD partner?

Nope, but I do work on devices that expose the hardware functionality of graphics cards.