nVidia GT200 Series Thread

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: nRollo
That is not the GT200, this is the GT200

Oho, nicely done. Love the nail holding the IDE cable onto the board.

Truly classic!

Yeah the nail is what got me :laugh:

They are special non conductive nails.....

They wanted to release these last year, but there was a shortage of 2X4s.

:laugh:

 

[Cookie Monster]

It seems like CUDA could potentially be the advantage nVIDIA needed in the war between them and Sauron o i mean intel. Not to mention that CUDA will work on AMD cards as well!

 

[semisonic9]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

I have a request for you as the OP of this thread... Since this is the only thread on GT200, the first post should have all the links to the spy pics and info contained in within this thread... I realized this when I tried to pop into the 4870 thread, and was like "forget it"... It's like 30 pages by now. No way I want to wade through that just to find the actual info.

I agree. That's kind of a pitfall of forcing these kind of "monster threads" instead of just letting the forums sort themselves out naturally.

It's tough to fish out all the new info when everything is being funneled through 2 massive threads. I don't want to have to dig through pages of nerd arguments or "zomg I can't wait for this to hit the market" posts just to get the latest news.

If nothing else, if a moderator could link all the up to date information in either thread, make a new post, and lock the old threads, that would be helpfull. Maybe, in the first thread, request that new links/reviews/etc be sent via PM to the moderator (the OP of the new thread) so they can be edited in?

~Semi

 

[BFG10K]

Final specs here:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2092

I guess the high thermals must be keeping down the clock speeds.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Final specs here:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2092

I guess the high thermals must be keeping down the clock speeds.

Looks like a massive disappointment unless there is a huge per-clock increase in performance or those specs are BS.

No way am I stepping up to a $449 GTX 260 if it is going to have a 1GHz shader clock, when my 8800GTS 512MB reaches 1.9GHz easy. Heck even G80 GTS, with insanely low clocks, had 1.2GHz shader and that's @ 90nm. Unless it is an absolute monster overclocker, but I doubt it given those clocks.

Given those GTX 260 specs, I could actually see an HD 4870 possibly being equal or faster, and we know it will cost considerably less than $449.

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Rusin

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: BFG10K
Final specs here:

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2092

I guess the high thermals must be keeping down the clock speeds.

Looks like a massive disappointment unless there is a huge per-clock increase in performance or those specs are BS.

No way am I stepping up to a $449 GTX 260 if it is going to have a 1GHz shader clock, when my 8800GTS 512MB reaches 1.9GHz easy. Heck even G80 GTS, with insanely low clocks, had 1.2GHz shader and that's @ 90nm. Unless it is an absolute monster overclocker, but I doubt it given those clocks.

Given those GTX 260 specs, I could actually see an HD 4870 possibly being equal or faster, and we know it will cost considerably less than $449.

Well Nvidia has stated that GTX 260 and 280 will sport 2nd gen shaders which should be around 50% more effective than first gen found on G80 and G92. So 192 SP on GTX 260 should equal to 288 on G80/G92 and GTX 280's 240SP equals to 360SP on G80/G90

How much faster HD4870 is than HD3870 X2? 9800 GX2 won HD3870 X2 by 40-55% even in timedemos..not to mention game performance and with those specs and remembering that shader update GTX 260 should beat 9800 GX2 hands down. Remembering that 9800 GX2's main problems were frame buffer; only 512MB when GTX 260 has 896MB and memory bandwidht; only 64GB/s compared to GTX 260's 100GB/s.
----
Since HD4870 will have 157W TDP then it brings questions about clock frequencies on HD4870 X2. If you calculate 2xHD4870 you'll get 314W. Wonder if they have found something new since in last generation 2xHD3870 actually consumed less than HD3870 X2.
That GDDR3 -> GDDR5 change could bring it to 300W level if we aren't too optimistic here.

Even if you factor in the shaders being 50% more efficient....

128 shaders * 1688MHz = 216,064
192 shaders * 1000MHz * 1.5 = 288,000
GTX 260 = 1.33x 9800GTX

Granted it is an increase, but not too much and that's assuming that the shaders will really be 50% faster per clock (that might be under only ideal situations).

The GTX 260 & 280 should still be good cards; the G92 cards can not utilize their full shader/texture performance because of the low memory bandwidth / pixel processing performance. With 448-bit/28 ROP & 512-bit/32 ROP, GT200 should be much better in this category.

Hopefully overclocking will be the savior on these parts.... interestingly G80 has been one of the best overclockers I ever had, and it was a chip w/ low clocks. My G80 GTS did 612MHz, ~22% higher than stock, and many did 625-650MHz. So hopefully these low clocks are artificial limits based on TDP and not based on what the chips are actually capable of.

The HD 4870 should be 2x+ the performance of the HD 3870, which would put it ahead of the 9800GTX/8800 Ultra by a good margain. And it should be under $350, while GTX 260 will be $450. The GTX 260 might beat the 9800GX2 in ultra-high res w/ AA or when SLI doesn't work, but otherwise I would think the 9800GX2 should win.

Hope everything turns out to be great, because I'm looking to step up to one of these cards. No way am I spending $200 to step up if they don't perform well though.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Looks like a massive disappointment unless there is a huge per-clock increase in performance or those specs are BS.

No way am I stepping up to a $449 GTX 260 if it is going to have a 1GHz shader clock, when my 8800GTS 512MB reaches 1.9GHz easy. Heck even G80 GTS, with insanely low clocks, had 1.2GHz shader and that's @ 90nm. Unless it is an absolute monster overclocker, but I doubt it given those clocks.

Given those GTX 260 specs, I could actually see an HD 4870 possibly being equal or faster, and we know it will cost considerably less than $449.

lest you forget, how much faster than a Pentium EE 3.73Ghz is a Core 2 Duo E6600 at 2.4Ghz?

 

[dv8silencer]

no matter what we think about the new cards performance-wise and what the performance/price will be.. the market will fix things. I don't see a product selling for $250 of company A being close to performance of a $450 card of company B. B will just have to make the price reasonable...

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
Looks like a massive disappointment unless there is a huge per-clock increase in performance or those specs are BS.

No way am I stepping up to a $449 GTX 260 if it is going to have a 1GHz shader clock, when my 8800GTS 512MB reaches 1.9GHz easy. Heck even G80 GTS, with insanely low clocks, had 1.2GHz shader and that's @ 90nm. Unless it is an absolute monster overclocker, but I doubt it given those clocks.

Given those GTX 260 specs, I could actually see an HD 4870 possibly being equal or faster, and we know it will cost considerably less than $449.

lest you forget, how much faster than a Pentium EE 3.73Ghz is a Core 2 Duo E6600 at 2.4Ghz?

We're not comparing single-core Netburst to dual-core Conroe here. We're talking G80 architecture with IPC enhancements. GT200 is not a totally new core.

 

[HOOfan 1]

Originally posted by: Extelleron
We're not comparing single-core Netburst to dual-core Conroe here. We're talking G80 architecture with IPC enhancements. GT200 is not a totally new core.

Umm..the Presler Pentium EE 3.73Ghz was dual Core.

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: Rusin
I'm still wondering how they will overcome that power consumption thing in HD4870 X2? even if they can get both GPUs to consume 25W less than in single HD4870..it would still consume more than GTX 280.

Remember that both the 4870 and 4850 should have high shader clocks (compared to R6xx), maybe (800-1000MHz), this will also help in the fight against the GT200.

ATI could lower the clocks a bit for the 4870x2 to make such a card possible at 55nm. We just have to wait and see how a single 4870 performs against the GTX280, if it is say 30% slower, then a 4870x2 should easily win in many/most most games even if it is clocked lower than the 4870.

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Kuzi]

I've seen a couple of websites state that the GTX260 has the shader running at 1000MHz, that is 500-600MHz less compared with the 8800/9800 speeds. Of course it will still beat these older cards because it has 50% more shaders, higher memory bus and better efficiency.

But I see the 4870 perform very similarly to the GTX260, maybe just a little slower (10-15%). We should also keep price in mind, the 4870 should be cheaper too.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
We're not comparing single-core Netburst to dual-core Conroe here. We're talking G80 architecture with IPC enhancements. GT200 is not a totally new core.

Umm..the Presler Pentium EE 3.73Ghz was dual Core.

People always forget this. I dont blame them though.

Core 2 quads are exactly what presler was. Package 2 cpu dies (conroes) to produce a quad and call it a day.

Anyway, i cant wait for the benchmarks for these. I hope they also bring back alternative SS modes, or new AA modes that can take advantage of the bandwidth and framebuffer.

 

[Rusin]

http://news.mydrivers.com/img/20080526/11132493.png
Well I have seen different stories..those are telling that GTX 260 will have 1240MHz and GTX 280 1300MHz. We already know that GT200 has 2nd gen shaders when G80/G92 had 1st gen. Nvidia stated that 2nd gen shaders are 50% more efficient than 1st gen. If that holds truth then that 1240MHz of GTX 260 would be big number. So to compare to last generation one could do calculations few ways: 288 SP * 1240MHz or 192 SP*1860MHz.

 

[Aberforth]

NV GTX280/60 Specs and Pricing: http://www.techpowerup.com/612...s_Unveiled_Part_2.html

 

[nitromullet]

The prices are 449 U.S. dollars for the GTX 260 and more than 600$ for the GeForce 280 GTX. That's all for now.

...that was a surprise... (Frak)

 

[Kuzi]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

The prices are 449 U.S. dollars for the GTX 260 and more than 600$ for the GeForce 280 GTX. That's all for now.

...that was a surprise... (Frak)

Expect the OC versions of the GTX280 to cost even higher, maybe 650-$700.

The GTX260 at $450, then it better be much faster than the 4870.

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Rusin
Well if it's 20-30% faster than 9800 GTX then it's still 10-20% slower than 9800 GX2 which will lose against GTX 260.
GTX 260's mrsp. will be 28.5% higher than HD4870's.

Please . DO tell . You got a link for those benchmarks? Or are ya so blind all ya see is green. This stuff is pure BS. If the ATI specs are true and the very doubtful benchies we have seen are true . Were are you getting your info from . Because so far all I have seen from ya. Is Brown from all the shit you been pulling out of your ass.

Lets just wait A few more weeks . I think ATIs hype is less than the Hype put out by nv. ATI doesn't pay people to spread fud in the forums NV does. Skunk can't help that he is a skunk . Nor can a Skunk change its stripes. For me it doesn't matter. I will by the best high performance low power draw card available when its released.= ATI 4870. Maybe if its as good as I believe it will be . The power hungry 4870x2 will be a good buy.

 

[Rusin]

nothing

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: HOOfan 1

Originally posted by: Extelleron
We're not comparing single-core Netburst to dual-core Conroe here. We're talking G80 architecture with IPC enhancements. GT200 is not a totally new core.

Umm..the Presler Pentium EE 3.73Ghz was dual Core.

Yeah I misread what you said. Pentium 4 EE is 3.73GHz/Prescott 2M based (90nm).
Then Pentium EE 965 is Presler 65nm (2x Cedar Mill). Intel didn't name their processors by frequency by the time that the dual cores were released.

 

[KhadgarTWN]

I have to say, compare with TDP, is risky, especially in AMD part
recall the last generation of both side: (3D load from Xbitlabs)
nVidia: G80GTX, G80GTS, G92GT, G92GTS, G94GT
AMD: R600XT, RV670XT(3870), RV670P(3850)
G80GTX: TDP 175W, 3D load: 132W
G80GTS: TDP 140W, 3D load: 105W
G92GT : TDP 110W, 3D load: 78W
G92GTS: TDP 140W, 3D load: 100W
G94GT : TDP 100W, 3D load: 60W
========================
R600XT: TDP 180W, 3D load: 162W
RV670XT:TDP 125W, 3D load: 81W
RV670P: TDP 95W, 3D load: 60W

so, what about 236W of GTX 280 and 182W of GTX 260
and what about 157W of 4870?

I don't jump into any conclusion, but I have to say the reality may vary with what we thought and discussed of TDP now.

RV 670 did well in term of power consumption, BUT, in fact, G94GT supress RV670 XT in term of perf/power because it achieved the same level of perf with 20W less.

R600XT, while only 5W more cf. G80GTX in TDP, actually comsumed 30W more in reality, not to mention its miserable performace (which is on par with G94GT at best)

I believe TDP to real 3D load ratio of RV 770 is much like the patterns of RV 670
but if it is like the ratio of R600XT, then I won't be surprise if 4870 outnumbered GTX260 in power comsumption.

What I cannot figure out is
Despite of 4870 may have much lower perf/power ratio then GTX260, someone still claimed that 4870 is suprior in term of best perf: Power balance

AMD did have some amazing part of its GPU, but while talking about performance
Why someone just think 4870 would stand on the sweetest point of perf/ power?
not 8800GTS or GTX 260? it is just irrelevant.