nVidia GT200 Series Thread

[OmegaShadow]

Maybe if there's a more demanding game than crysis then people will buy the gt200?

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[BFG10K]

Official specs (if they're to be believed):

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=276923

 

[KyleGates]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Official specs (if they're to be believed):

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=276923

Wait...wouldnt "Offical" kinda HAVE to be believed??? lol

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: KyleGates

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Official specs (if they're to be believed):

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=276923

Wait...wouldnt "Offical" kinda HAVE to be believed??? lol

wouldn't official kinda have to come straight from the horse's mouth and not some random poster on a message board *cough* TulipGTX*cough*

also I believe some people may be misinterpreting this

2nd gen Unified architecture delivers %50 more gaming performance over 1st generation through 240sp

apparently some people think they are refering to the GT200 as another generation of G80, or that the 50% more performance refers to a specific card.

The G80 cards were nvidia's first with a unified architecture...thus this was their first generation of unified architecture, I am taking the 50% higher 2nd generation to mean that nvidia has refined their unified architecture and has been able to get more performance from each stream processor...and that there are 240 Stream processors that each get 50% higher performance over the last generation's stream processors.

 

[BFG10K]

Wait...wouldnt "Offical" kinda HAVE to be believed??? lol

Yep, a bit like this official picture I managed to obtain from nVidia HQ:

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6543/gt200vf0.png

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Wait...wouldnt "Offical" kinda HAVE to be believed??? lol

Yep, a bit like this official picture I managed to obtain from nVidia HQ:

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6543/gt200vf0.png

The MS Paint skills are strong with this one.

 

[n7]

There will always be a market for higher end cards, even the high priced ones. (Though it may be small.)

For those of you who think current GPUs handle current games just fine...you're mostly right, but only at your resolutions

Get yourself a 30" & you'll understand why i've been so annoyed with in every single card [from both nV/AMD] released since the 8800 GTX...

2560x1600 is a very different world to play in.

It's nice that the 4870 is supposed to be a decent jump faster than the 9800 GTX, but that's far below the kind of jump i'd be happy with.

So i'm personally really hoping the GTX 280 is truely a monster, far faster than the 9800 GTX.
A lot faster than the GX2 would be nice.

If it's not...i'll be disappointed once more.

 

[oddity21]

I'm still maxing things out comfortably (except Crysis, obviously) on my 22" panel with a single stock 8800GTX. I don't have any plans to go for a bigger monitor, so the GTX 280 is probably overkill for me.

 

[KyleGates]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Wait...wouldnt "Offical" kinda HAVE to be believed??? lol

Yep, a bit like this official picture I managed to obtain from nVidia HQ:

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6543/gt200vf0.png

Yeah, thats what I was driving at.....if it is actually "Official" its gotta come stright from the NV.....anything else can hardly be dubbed as cannon.

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: n7
There will always be a market for higher end cards, even the high priced ones. (Though it may be small.)

For those of you who think current GPUs handle current games just fine...you're mostly right, but only at your resolutions

Get yourself a 30" & you'll understand why i've been so annoyed with in every single card [from both nV/AMD] released since the 8800 GTX...

2560x1600 is a very different world to play in.

It's nice that the 4870 is supposed to be a decent jump faster than the 9800 GTX, but that's far below the kind of jump i'd be happy with.

So i'm personally really hoping the GTX 280 is truely a monster, far faster than the 9800 GTX.
A lot faster than the GX2 would be nice.

If it's not...i'll be disappointed once more.

This is why I ordered a 25.5" LCD with a 1920x1200 resolution. I figured it would be difficult to maintain a system that could run 2560x1600 well.

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Quiksilver

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Quiksilver
More GT200 Drawings

Whats that chip on the left? Odd if you ask me.

Physx processor? idk.

no, physx would be done in CUDA. Which means in the shaders of every nvidia DX10 capable video card. The first beta was out 1 month after the purchase of ageia. They are now in v2.0 of CUDA physx but still as a beta for the driver integration part. You can download it from nvidia's website and try it yourself if you want. But I am waiting for it to be officially integrated (which should be soon).

EDIT: there is no readily available link, it took me some time to find it last time, and now I am having trouble finding it again. If someone would dig through the nvidia website and find the driver and post it...

It is a 174 driver + cuda physX, it will NOT work if you install it and then update to the new 175.16 WHQL driver.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: ddarko

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Rusin

Originally posted by: nitromullet
If the GTX 280 comes in at $500 I don't think it will be the monster most are hoping it will be. NVIDIA has consistently shown that they'll easily charge $600+ when they have a card that performs. For them to slot a new architecture beneath the going rate for most name brand GX2s wouldn't be a good sign. It's all just rumor, but I'm hoping it will be a $600 card that's worth every penny like the 8800GTX was when it launched.

Problem with $600+ prices are that even if that card would be monster performer, too few people will buy it

Yeah, because no one bought a $600+ 8800GTX or Ultra, right? People will pay for performance...

Frak, what is so hard for you to understand? He didn't say no one buys $600 cards. Obviously, some people do. He only say that very few people spend $600 on a graphics card, which is an empirical, documented FACT. SOME people will pay for performance but MOST, the VAST majority, don't and won't. Seriously, why is this fact so hard to accept and why are you act like stating this simple fact, as Rusin did, is somehow an insult? It's the truth that the VAST majority of cards sold are cheap cheap cheap. In fact, the vast majority of cards are pre-installed OEM cards. Very few people actually even buy add-in cards.

And it's also the truth that no company can survive solely by selling $600 cards. The vast majority of profits and revenue comes from the cheap cards, which are the bread-and-butter. The high end cards aren't self-sufficient, meaning they don't generate enough revenue on its own to support the day-to-day operation of the company as well as the hundreds of millions of dollars that goes making the next gen product. Nvidia and ATI need the low end stuff that sells in massive volume to generate the cash. $15 OEM chips pre-installed in 15,000 computers makes far more money than a $600 card bought by 5 people at retail. They're not sexy but they're the lifeblood of Nvidia or ATI.

The high end stuff is glamorous and higher margin but they're a tiny segment of any company's overall revenues. Acknowledging the reality of this situation is no slur. Pretending that it's not the truth only leads to erroneous analysis of the graphics market because Nvidia and ATI business strategies are driven by the low-end and middle stuff, NOT the high end stuff.

I get it. I also get that most people won't buy a flagship card. There is nothing wrong with that. However, I still want to see NVIDIA or ATI come out with a high performing card that is worth a hefty price tag because it offers significant performance gains over any current offering. Of course, I don't want to see anyone charging a high price for a card that simply isn't worth it.

IMO, I think if NVIDIA and ATI continue to compete based primarily on value/price it will only be because neither of them has made a significant leap in technology/performance.

The fact of the matter is that the technological breakthroughs that are made on the high end trickle down to the mid-range cards, so these advancements benefit all market segments interested in buying a discrete video card. The desire to see a monster card come out this summer is essentially the same desire to see the same technology applied to a more value oriented card later this year.

The other fact is that video cards (like all technology based products) need the relatively few early adopters to spend the big money on new, expensive tech. I'm willing to do my part with purchasing a $600 GTX 280 if it provides a gain over my current GX2, but I'm not willing to shell out $400 for a blu-ray DVD player. So, someone else can champion that cause, and I'll buy one when they hit $200ish.

nvidia got away with pricing the 8800gtx at $600 b/c of its lack of competition. A $500 card released by both camps today would be a serious performance increase. Even 4870 at $369 would be nice imho. of course, I don't have an 8800gtx right now...

 

[LittleNemoNES]

This is why I ordered a 25.5" LCD with a 1920x1200 resolution. I figured it would be difficult to maintain a system that could run 2560x1600 well.

I'm using the 2690WUXi and it still does fine even with Crysis.
This is the only game where the FPS drops to 20 routinely but it still feels smooth. (prob motion blur?)

 

[taltamir]

I agree with bryanW1995... When you have the fastest 3 cards on the market, you can price a 10% faster card 100% more (as long as it is one of those 3). But when its a close run for every step of the way, then you will see more reasonable high end prices.

 

[bryanW1995]

well put taltamir!

 

[Nathelion]

So, I can't help but wonder.... does anyone think AMD will put some HTT links onto their graphics cores, to speed up their X2 cards?

 

[Keysplayr]

GPU cores already have their memory controllers built in. Been this way ever since I can remember.

 

[Zoide]

Originally posted by: OmegaShadow
Maybe if there's a more demanding game than crysis then people will buy the gt200?

Umm.... this?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/farcry2/index.html

 

[Brunnis]

Originally posted by: Zoide

Originally posted by: OmegaShadow
Maybe if there's a more demanding game than crysis then people will buy the gt200?

Umm.... this?

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/farcry2/index.html

Probably not. By all indications, FarCry 2 will not be as demanding as Crysis.

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[taltamir]

forget crysis, not even a good game, or a good engine.

There are plenty of other games that ARE good though... and physX is finally shaping up to be a success.

 

[ronnn]

So lets see the games! Hell my son does better for games with his xbox.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: taltamir
forget crysis, not even a good game, or a good engine.

There are plenty of other games that ARE good though... and physX is finally shaping up to be a success.

That's your opinion, to me it is one of the best games ever released. Certainly has a lot of replay value; I've played it twice now and plan on playing it again when I get a GT200 card.

And the engine is the best currently available; hardware requirements are steep but nothing comes close in terms of visual quality. UE3 just isn't comparable.

 

[Rusin]

nothing