nVidia GT200 Series Thread

[HOOfan 1]

Well considering it is being published by Ubisoft, who only did the console versions of Far Cry...I would say that Far Cry 2 will suffer from having to scale down for consoles

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Rusin
http://img175.imageshack.us/im...805201808234174cz4.png

I'm sure nobody is intrested of this, but..there you have small picture of Geforce GTX 280

16/32 Vmem spaces = 2gb video memory & 512bit bus w/ 32bit mem. Pretty large core as well. New power circuitry is similar to 9800gtx PCB. gt200 = full featured g92b @ 55nm, or completely new core mArch?

 

[hooflung]

You have to remember the GTX is at a level of performance the 4870 might just see now, and personally I doubt the R700 will be significantly faster than a 9800GX2.

Bandwidth has never been the R6XXs problem, and adding another cluster of VLIW shaders and doubling the TMUs isn't going to all the sudden make that core twice as fast across the board.

Thank you for your unbiased opinion on why AMD tech doesn't or, won't, live up to your expectations. :disgust:

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: 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.

The engine looks like utter crap for any SINGLE card GPU on the market. While it might be beutiful to look at if rendered on multi GPU setups, when you lower the settings to medium (playable on high end single cards) then there are many MANY games out there that look MUCH better on the same single card.

The witcher, Assassins creed, Bioshock, Sins of a Solar empire... those games are beautiful to play on my 8800GTS 512 with e8400... but when I lower the settings on crysis enough to make it playable it looks like something that came out of a cat's ass.

It has a truncated plot ending in the middle, 6 hours of gameplay, no multiplayer value, and combat sucks because 1. Lag 2. Enemies have way too much health, even on easy, you either have to shoot them 10 times so that they die, or you just choke the to death... Very quickly I was just running between enemies and choking ALL of them to death.

 

[dv8silencer]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11842

 

[Piuc2020]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: 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.

The engine looks like utter crap for any SINGLE card GPU on the market. While it might be beutiful to look at if rendered on multi GPU setups, when you lower the settings to medium (playable on high end single cards) then there are many MANY games out there that look MUCH better on the same single card.

The witcher, Assassins creed, Bioshock, Sins of a Solar empire... those games are beautiful to play on my 8800GTS 512 with e8400... but when I lower the settings on crysis enough to make it playable it looks like something that came out of a cat's ass.

It has a truncated plot ending in the middle, 6 hours of gameplay, no multiplayer value, and combat sucks because 1. Lag 2. Enemies have way too much health, even on easy, you either have to shoot them 10 times so that they die, or you just choke the to death... Very quickly I was just running between enemies and choking ALL of them to death.

What? Just lower the resolution, I can play Crysis up to 1680x1050 on High with a 8800GT... if I want pretty smooth gameplay I just turn shadows to medium and turn the resolution to 1280x1024, no need for low or medium, at those graphics Crysis still looks better than UT3 or Bioshock maxed out at 1680x1050.

I'm not going to argue on the gameplay things because that's personal opinion but seriously, on a $150 card like the 8800GT you don't need to play Crysis at medium...

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: taltamir

Originally posted by: 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.

The engine looks like utter crap for any SINGLE card GPU on the market. While it might be beutiful to look at if rendered on multi GPU setups, when you lower the settings to medium (playable on high end single cards) then there are many MANY games out there that look MUCH better on the same single card.

The witcher, Assassins creed, Bioshock, Sins of a Solar empire... those games are beautiful to play on my 8800GTS 512 with e8400... but when I lower the settings on crysis enough to make it playable it looks like something that came out of a cat's ass.

It has a truncated plot ending in the middle, 6 hours of gameplay, no multiplayer value, and combat sucks because 1. Lag 2. Enemies have way too much health, even on easy, you either have to shoot them 10 times so that they die, or you just choke the to death... Very quickly I was just running between enemies and choking ALL of them to death.

That's just not true at all. It's very playable on my 8800GTS 512MB, a very affordable (~$200) card. 1680x1050 w/ high (DX9) is 100% playable and right now I'm experimenting with a mix of high/very high (DX10). Even at just high, there is no game that comes close at this time.

If you're having trouble killing enemies you must be doing something wrong, because they drop like flies in my experience (playing on hard). Go into strength mode, pop a headshot, and they're dead. Or go into stealth mode, with a silenced rifle, go for the headshot, and then slip away before any of the other guys know what happened. Heck 99% of the time you don't even need to do that, just take the rifle in automatic mode and fire a burst.

 

[taltamir]

Snow level, the first half of the game was "playable" (but no way smooth) on a low resolution and high setting, but it was stuttering too much later on, so i lowered it to medium.
And really, there is no justification for such atrocious quality. All the games I mentioned play at absolute max settings (maybe with AA being lower then max) at 1920x1200 and are smooth as cream. Crysis is simply not optimized for this generation of cards. It might be nice to play on a G200 when they come out, but it looks much MUCH worse then any other game I own on an 8800GTS 512.

Now it doesn't bother me that it is called medium and not max... it bothers me that the "medium" settings that gets as much FSP as "max" on another game looks much worse then the max... high looks comparable or better to other games, but has atrocious FPS. and very high looks better then anything else, but is a slideshow.

If they only put in more effort on optimizing the medium setting, the one that the vast majority of people can play at, then they would have had a much better product.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: dv8silencer
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11842

Nice.

So the rumored specs were correct.

Either card looks pretty damn good on paper, but only time will tell whether the paper performance translates into real world.

 

[dv8silencer]

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37554/135/

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[TraumaRN]

Originally posted by: Rusin
Someone with technical knowledge:
240SP (240FP 240MADD) Those two figures after SP. What does they tell us and how does it compare to G92 and G80?

Its the same IIRC. FP=floating point, MADD=Multiply-ADD.

Nvidia stated that those new stream processors are 50% 'better' than the ones in G80, plus there are more alot more...240 vs 128.

So...technically speaking this card should be a beast, especially with the 512bit memory bus

 

[Rusin]

Nothing

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Snow level, the first half of the game was "playable" (but no way smooth) on a low resolution and high setting, but it was stuttering too much later on, so i lowered it to medium.
And really, there is no justification for such atrocious quality. All the games I mentioned play at absolute max settings (maybe with AA being lower then max) at 1920x1200 and are smooth as cream. Crysis is simply not optimized for this generation of cards. It might be nice to play on a G200 when they come out, but it looks much MUCH worse then any other game I own on an 8800GTS 512.

How is that in any way related to quality? Just because you haven't spent enough money to have a GX2 doesn't make the game's quality any different...

People grumbled about Oblivion the same way for the first year it was out, it brought the entire then-current generation of video cards to their collective knees. It wasn't until the launch of the 8800GTS/X and the 2900 series cards that we could really play Oblivion at high res with eye candy turned up.

The new 48x0 and GTX 280/260 cards should provide enough performance to play Crysis reasonably well on a single GPU. And there will be much rejoicing.

 

[ajaidevsingh]

Originally posted by: DeathBUA

Originally posted by: Rusin
Someone with technical knowledge:
240SP (240FP 240MADD) Those two figures after SP. What does they tell us and how does it compare to G92 and G80?

Its the same IIRC. FP=floating point, MADD=Multiply-ADD.

Nvidia stated that those new stream processors are 50% 'better' than the ones in G80, plus there are more alot more...240 vs 128.

So...technically speaking this card should be a beast, especially with the 512bit memory bus

Nvidia's 9600 GT's allready have great SP's as compared to 8800 GTS 320/640MB.. I am a little sad that this was not all that true for 9800 GTX vs 8800 GTX!!!

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: dv8silencer
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37554/135/

...GT200 (NV60) core and will be built using a 65 nm manufacturing process at TSMC. ... Nvidia has come up with a huge die measuring 24 x 24 mm, resulting in a die area size of 576 mm2.

Is only ATI fabbing at 55nm? Power consumption and heat from these is going to be a bitch!

 

[Kuzi]

From the looks of it, GT200 specs having: 87% more SPs (240 vs 128), 100%? more TMUs (128? vs 64), 512bit memory bus, higher performance SPs (50%? higher). So it's probable that the high end GT280 may be around double the performance of 8800GTS/GTX.

The GT260 will probably be 25-30% slower, and this is the part that I think will compete with ATIs new 4800 series cards.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Foxery

Originally posted by: dv8silencer
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37554/135/

...GT200 (NV60) core and will be built using a 65 nm manufacturing process at TSMC. ... Nvidia has come up with a huge die measuring 24 x 24 mm, resulting in a die area size of 576 mm2.

Is only ATI fabbing at 55nm? Power consumption and heat from these is going to be a bitch!

Yes only ATI at this time, this will be a nice advantage for them while it lasts. My guess is Nvidia will have GT200 at 55nm for the fall refresh (Ultra )

 

[Grinja]

Originally posted by: Kuzi
From the looks of it, GT200 specs having: 87% more SPs (240 vs 128), 100%? more TMUs (128? vs 64), 512bit memory bus, higher performance SPs (50%? higher). So it's probable that the high end GT280 may be around double the performance of 8800GTS/GTX.

The GT260 will probably be 25-30% slower, and this is the part that I think will compete with ATIs new 4800 series cards.

And hopefully this means we will have options at the mid to high range which were severly lacking before the 8800GT showed in the 8800 GTX era ...

 

[Genx87]

Any timeline on when these will show up? Not that is matters but I'd like to get the next generation version of this card when I build a new game rig in the summer\fall of 09.

 

[Foxery]

Genx87: June 18th-20th, or thereabouts. ATI's 4000 series is expected at the same time, give or take a few days.

 

[Genx87]

Damn, I just got an E8400, tempted to ebay my 8800GTS 640 for ~100 bucks and grab one of these. My system is actually pretty decent right now. Guess it depends one what my gaming habits will be. Unfortunately kind of slow right now