Nvidia reveals Specifications of GT300

[evolucion8]

The Sarcasm Meter is detecting ...

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Add to the fact they have only the 4th fastest GPU in games and your point is pretty much lost.

About 1 more month, they will have the fastest.

AFAIK its GTX295 > 4870X2 > GTX285 > HD4890

Soon it will be HD4890X2 > GTX295

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Add to the fact they have only the 4th fastest GPU in games and your point is pretty much lost.

About 1 more month, they will have the fastest.

AFAIK its GTX295 > 4870X2 > GTX285 > HD4890

Soon it will be HD4890X2 > GTX295

Seems like a waste of time. I think most of us are interested in the next big thing, not these re-hashes that have dominated the marketplace for the past couple months.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
For the general discussion of performance per transistor. Take a look at the 4770, weighs in at a very light 137mm sporting 826Million transistors. The 9800GT OTOH, has a mere 754Million transistors but takes up 276mm. Better performance per transistor? Hands down the 9800GT. More efficient design? 4770 by a long shot. The 9800GT itself takes up slightly more die space with 200Million less transistors then the 48xx parts at the same build process.

While in the abstract performance per transistor is obviously of some importance, overall design architecture is going to trump it, by a lot. Die size is more important then actual transistor count from a business perspective by a long shot, and performance per watt is the only element which is really going to effect us as end users.

In deisgn philosophy, I would be curious as to which people would think would be better for a high end part. 4770x4 on one die, or 4770x2-x2? Obviously increased memory bus to go along with the rest. I'm not certain either way, other then the fact that ideally I'd rather have single chip solutions to avoid game issues not scaling with multi GPU setups and microstutter- yes both of these are less frequent now then they used to be, but they still do crop up from both camps.

Doesn't performance per transistor relate to power efficiency?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
I am just ranting? AVIVO, as I have said, was faster. But the IQ was very poor, and had pixelated blocks in the finished product. Could be the reason it was faster. It didn't do the right job. Sounds very logical to me, how bout you? Am I ranting?

What does F@H not currently using the Global Data Share mean to us? Face it Evolution, if they could code F@H to run faster on ATI hardware, they would have by now. If they could have, they would have. We've just got finished talking about how much more difficult it seems to be to code for ATI architecture. And if the rumored R8xx is still the same 1+4 shader architecture the R7 series is albeit more of them, I don't see anything changing for the next two years at least. Many devs are probably just abandoning the effort because an easier solution is available. Could be? Doesn't sound like I'm ranting.
Hmm. Is F@H, or BOINC a part of the "TWIMTBP" program?
You might as well list the other hundreds of games listed under TWIMTPB. Why stop there? LOL. Blocky heads. That was funny.

Originally posted by: dguy6789

It's more accurate to blame the FAH people than ATI. They can't even make a non beta properly working multicore client that has a gui installer yet. They've also been working on an Xbox 360 client for years now with nothing to show for it still. They definitely don't get anything done in a timely manner.

Hmmm.. They got the NV folding client out in a timely manner. Several versions IIRC.

Until this is accomplished, of course there will be doubts. If it could have been done, it would have been done. Simple. You guys are hysterical.

I might be reading the article wrong, but is there the possibility of ATI being the faster GPGPU at MW@H because there is no Nvidia client for it yet? I am not sure. But what do you think would happen if this same dude downloaded the CUDA SDK and created a client for MW@H? I think I know what would happen. Double precision? I thought GT200 supported it? Am I wrong?

Anyway, if you called my post a rant, what the heck would you call yours? Babble?
Blocky heads. Still making me chuckle. Thank you. :thumbsup:

What a load of bloatware, you just ignored all my links and information stated and replied with a very cheap nVidia marketing stuff. AVIVO artifacts issue was AN ISSUE OF CATS 8.12, thank you. They could code the F@H client to run faster on ATi hardware, but they haven't even finished the SMP version in which had been kept in beta stage for ages, could it be because is very hard to code for Intel and AMD CPU's? Well it could be if I use your same distorted point of view like you did with the GPU client. Look how bad you look stating that there's an nVidia client, that's completely wrong, the very same GPU client works on nVidia and ATi hardware and was created ages ago for the X1900 series and then modified to work on the HD 2xxx, HD 3xxx and nVidia GPU's at the same time using OpenCL, got it? And if it was true that's very hard to code on ATi hardware which is a lie, then the client would be released first on nVidia GPU's and later on ATi hardware, so you are just ranting. And to ease your pain, ATi's HD 4870/4890 Double Precision performance is at least 4 times faster than the GTX 280/GTX285 could ever dream of.[/quote]

Actually you're right........now. A while back there were several clients. Now they have one client for both. And ATI still trails heavily. You should address that instead of worrying about how bad I look. Now, what about your claim of MW@H running better on ATI hardware? Where is the CUDA client for comparison? On the site you linked to, I see an ATI client vs. and Intel CPU. If all you meant was that ATI GPU's were faster than CPU's, then yes, I would say that's true.

Everything I italicized though, does indicate you're taking all of this personally. Don't do that man. It's video cards and what they can do. Not how bad somebody looks.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD actually has the 2nd or maybe 3rd fastest GPU when you look at it objectively.

The majority of reviews/benchmarks give a slight edge to the GTX275 over the 4890, which would also place it behind the 280 & 285. So looking at it "objectively" would make it 4th.

I don't believe you. The 4890 and 275 are tied by all accounts.

I know you and Wreckage just went through this with the GTS250 and the 4770/4830 in another thread, but in this instance, 275 vs 4890, and viewing an accumulation of benchmarks from a broad variety of web site reviews, the 275 has the slight performance advantage over the 4890. And I can't emphasize the use of the word "slight" any greater than I am now.

The cards are close. "by all accounts" is relative to the person using the term. If you mean "by all accounts" the 275/4890 are too close to call, then you're right. If you mean it in terms of which card actually is overall a faster performer, then you would be incorrect. If you want to get into the nitty gritty details of course.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD actually has the 2nd or maybe 3rd fastest GPU when you look at it objectively.

The majority of reviews/benchmarks give a slight edge to the GTX275 over the 4890, which would also place it behind the 280 & 285. So looking at it "objectively" would make it 4th.

I don't believe you. The 4890 and 275 are tied by all accounts.

I know you and Wreckage just went through this with the GTS250 and the 4770/4830 in another thread, but in this instance, 275 vs 4890, and viewing an accumulation of benchmarks from a broad variety of web site reviews, the 275 has the slight performance advantage over the 4890. And I can't emphasize the use of the word "slight" any greater than I am now.

The cards are close. "by all accounts" is relative to the person using the term. If you mean "by all accounts" the 275/4890 are too close to call, then you're right. If you mean it in terms of which card actually is overall a faster performer, then you would be incorrect. If you want to get into the nitty gritty details of course.

I do. Please read the latest AT review of the 4890 w/ overclocking. It was overall faster even at stock speeds in a vast majority of the tests.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Everything I italicized though, does indicate you're taking all of this personally. Don't do that man. It's video cards and what they can do. Not how bad somebody looks.

Italiced or bolded, and I'm not taking it personally really, is just that I don't like the spread of misinformation and lots of people biased toward a brand without using some common sense or a sense of fairness and see that both videocards companies are great, having only 1 of them no matter who it is, will stagnate the progress and will monopolize the market. If it wasn't because of AMD, we would still using Pentium 4's, if we wasn't because of Intel, we would still be using Athlon 64 single core, if it wasn't because of nVidia, we would still be using R4x0 hardware derivatives, if it wasn't because of ATi, we would still be using NV4x derivatives.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD actually has the 2nd or maybe 3rd fastest GPU when you look at it objectively.

The majority of reviews/benchmarks give a slight edge to the GTX275 over the 4890, which would also place it behind the 280 & 285. So looking at it "objectively" would make it 4th.

I don't believe you. The 4890 and 275 are tied by all accounts.

I know you and Wreckage just went through this with the GTS250 and the 4770/4830 in another thread, but in this instance, 275 vs 4890, and viewing an accumulation of benchmarks from a broad variety of web site reviews, the 275 has the slight performance advantage over the 4890. And I can't emphasize the use of the word "slight" any greater than I am now.

The cards are close. "by all accounts" is relative to the person using the term. If you mean "by all accounts" the 275/4890 are too close to call, then you're right. If you mean it in terms of which card actually is overall a faster performer, then you would be incorrect. If you want to get into the nitty gritty details of course.

I do. Please read the latest AT review of the 4890 w/ overclocking. It was overall faster even at stock speeds in a vast majority of the tests.

I don't because it's been done to death. And you can't just use one review SB, you should know this by now. When this was previously discussed, MANY resources/reviews were used to come to this conclusion. Be happy with it.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: Keysplayr
Everything I italicized though, does indicate you're taking all of this personally. Don't do that man. It's video cards and what they can do. Not how bad somebody looks.

Italiced or bolded, and I'm not taking it personally really, is just that I don't like the spread of misinformation and lots of people biased toward a brand without using some common sense or a sense of fairness and see that both videocards companies are great, having only 1 of them no matter who it is, will stagnate the progress and will monopolize the market. If it wasn't because of AMD, we would still using Pentium 4's, if we wasn't because of Intel, we would still be using Athlon 64 single core, if it wasn't because of nVidia, we would still be using R4x0 hardware derivatives, if it wasn't because of ATi, we would still be using NV4x derivatives.

Good! I'll hold you to this! :thumbsup:

 

[Nemesis 1]

Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

:thumbsup:

Well this would be close:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143184

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

:thumbsup:

Well this would be close:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143184

That would beat it. Plus where is a link to buy the Sapphire card?

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

What?

Overclocking a 4890 does not magically make it jump ahead of 280 and 285. You can overclock those as well

Unless you mean "fastest" as in core speed.....

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

:thumbsup:

Well this would be close:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143184

That would beat it. Plus where is a link to buy the Sapphire card?

Why the hell would you want to buy a Sapphire card? :Q



:brokenheart:

 

[alyarb]

no, but at 1 ghz you have to be doing 1.5 teraflops easily with about 200 watts. nvidia hasn't done that on 55nm. whatever happens it'll be nice to see how these architectures behave once they are scaled up and working on something universal like OpenCL.

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: zenie
planned to get an nVidia at high end for my gaming PC... please suggest any good GPU..

_______
Zen
anadrol 50
personalized wine

gtx 285 single gpu

gtx295 multi-gpu

core 216 sli, gtx280 sli, gtx275 sli, gtx285 sli

GTX285 SSC Tri-SLI if you have the cash.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Why the hell would you want to buy a Sapphire card? :Q



:brokenheart:

What's wrong with the Sapphire brand, I owned a Sapphire X800XT which I flashed to PE edition and it still working, also my current HD 4870 is Sapphire and works like a dream. Their warranty fee sucks, but I can't do nothing about it.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: evolucion8
What's wrong with the Sapphire brand,

I think he was referring to why Wreckage wanted a link to an ATI card. But I think SickBeast mistakenly (or maybe not) thought Wreckage was actually looking for a link when he really wasn't (instead of just saying it's not for sale yet). All a misunderstanding.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

:thumbsup:

Well this would be close:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143184

That would beat it. Plus where is a link to buy the Sapphire card?

Why the hell would you want to buy a Sapphire card? :Q



:brokenheart:

Stop baiting beast. Enough playing games. I've noticed you're following wreckage around.
Find another hobby please?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: thilan29

Originally posted by: evolucion8
What's wrong with the Sapphire brand,

I think he was referring to why Wreckage wanted a link to an ATI card. But I think SickBeast mistakenly (or maybe not) thought Wreckage was actually looking for a link when he really wasn't (instead of just saying it's not for sale yet). All a misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding. It was bait.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

:thumbsup:

Well this would be close:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143184

That would beat it. Plus where is a link to buy the Sapphire card?

Why the hell would you want to buy a Sapphire card? :Q



:brokenheart:

Stop baiting beast. Enough playing games. I've noticed you're following wreckage around.
Find another hobby please?

Or you could stop propping Wreckage up....



I'd prefer that you stop jumping into threads in Video with nothing useful to contribute, and with no purpose other than to try to stir things up.

AmberClad
Video Moderator

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: Keysplayr

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: jaredpace

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Here is the fastest single card you can buy with 1 gpu . None can beat it!

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=223349

:thumbsup:

Well this would be close:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814143184

That would beat it. Plus where is a link to buy the Sapphire card?

Why the hell would you want to buy a Sapphire card? :Q



:brokenheart:

Stop baiting beast. Enough playing games. I've noticed you're following wreckage around.
Find another hobby please?

Or you could stop propping Wreckage up....

In all these linked posts I don't see anything that has to do with the thread title.

Topic: Nvidia reveals Specifications of GT300

If Keys is guilty of doing anything here it is the attempt to maintain some level of civility as the OT side-ramble spirals into another personal-attack mess of the very nature you are now taking it.

 

[coolamasta]

Interesting thread although didn't read it all because it got way too political/off topic etc but does anyone have any idea when its being released?

Im in the market for a new Graphics card but im thinking about waiting for one of these...

Just hope now that its not going to be a massive power hungry heat machine lol

 

[error8]

Has anyone seen this? GGDDR5 with 512 bit bus!!!!

That would put this videocard at almost 300 GB/sec. If Nvidia needs such a big memory bandwidth, then it means they have one frickin fast GPU. Hope this comes out true.