NVIDIA Roadmap Outline for 1H08

Last night I started to debate if my 8800 GT's in SLi were really doing crap at 1920x1200.

I tested COD4 by playing the first ship level twice, once in SLi, and then again with SLi disabled and the card physically out of the computer

So my first on in COD4 with SLI I kept everything on high including AA, I was getting between 80-110 FPS with SLi, A couple of times it dipped to 50 but even then that would've been more than enough. At the end of the ship level as the ship was sinking it stayed from 60-80 which was fantastic.

Tried it with HL2 pretty much same deal never dipped below 60, I should have tried Company of Heroes, but didn't think of it.

i've been told since I got these things that my AMD 64 windsor @3.0 was holding me back (and the benchmarks proved it, i mean 13k in 06? thats rediculously low) so I disabled SLi, and actually removed the second card out of the computer to test, my frame rates dropped and HARD. I was never getting above 60 in COD4, it liked to hang around 45ish at most of the time at the end of the ship level it stayed at a rock hard 30 as the ship was sinking.

Doing those tests made me absolutely love SLi, And now I can be for certain that my Setup isn't bottlenecked near as much in 1920x1280 with full AA, as compared to 1280x1024 etc.

I'm thinking of doing some tests soon with graphs etc etc to show exactly how much I'm gaining and losing with SLI on/off. anyone think it'd be a good idea? after seeing that I'm not paying attention to Benchmarks anymore, only reviews with actual gameplay. my 3D06 scores do not reflect my gameplay scores in the least.
 
@ChristmasGT - I'm even beyond that. I'm just interested for a game to run without issues and noticable slowdowns on a resolution that I play. That's it.. I've never seen any use of 110 vs 30 fps, as long as those 30fps aren't dropping to tens every few steps i nthe game.. So if I can get anything over 30fps, with minimums around 25, I'm fine with it.

And that's why I'm quite satisfied with my X1950 at the moment, since I've got display that can't show anything over 1280x1024 (it can, but I'm not playing on 60Hz :p ), and as long as I'm staying away from Crysis - I'm doing ok :) Soooo.. since my "good old CRT" is keeping me on lower resolution, it's mostly same if I've got GT/GTS/GTX or Ultra. And SLI is overkill..

Looking at your numbers, I don't get it why are you so bothered with "rock hard 30".. Do you SEE any difference? If not, turn off those FPS counters and play, and enjoy ;)
 
LuxZg said:
Looking at your numbers, I don't get it why are you so bothered with "rock hard 30".. Do you SEE any difference? If not, turn off those FPS counters and play, and enjoy ;)
Click to expand...

While i agree with turning FPS counters off...

I think that you can definitely feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps, and even 120fps. At least, I feel that i can feel the difference with mouse movements. I realize my monitor can only display 60fps, but 60-80 fps in Bioshock or CO4 just does not feel the same as 200+ in CSS when im playing and need to react. My eyes may not percieve the difference, but theres a certain sluggishness i can percieve from the movement of my hand in correlation with what im seeing.
 
nissanztt90 !!! exactly. It seems not everybody is so sensitive, if they are talking about smooth play at AA enabled, sure...
 
Zorachus said:
Do you have a link to that card ? That would be faster than the current 8800Ultra or so ?

And again there is no freaking way nVidia would be so dumb to release a new "9800GTX" that is only a revised core, and just be slightly faster than the current 8800GTX like only 10-20% :rolleyes: With that kind of attitude you will awaken the sleeping giant = ATI's R700 to wipe the floor with this slow "9800GTX"

The 9800GTX will have to be at bare minimum 30% faster than the 8800GTX, I would think since it took almost two years since the 2006 8800series launch, and nothing new since then, this next generation would have to be 100% faster, anything less is a major letdown

History show every new named generation nVida product was at LEAST 30% faster than previous usually 50% or even 100% faster. The 6800Ultra was like 50%+ the 5900, the 7800GTX vs 6800Ultra was 25-30% faster, the 8800GTX vs 7800GTX was 100% faster
Click to expand...
When you look at these new cards beat old models with margins larger than 30%. Here is little comparison with price relatives (original price)

Geforce 9800 GX2 vs. 8800 Ultra (more than 30% difference)
Geforce 8800 GTS 512 vs. 8800 GTS 640 (more than 33% difference)
Geforce 8800 GT 512 vs. 8800 GTS 320 (in few occasions GTS 320MB just dies when GT goes on..difference mostly is over 30%)
Geforce 8800 GT 256 vs. Geforce 8600 GTS (Clearly more than 30% difference)
Geforce 9600 GT 512 vs. Geforce 8600 GTS (Better than 8800 GT 256)
Geforce 9600 GT 256 vs. Geforce 8600 GT (Haven't seen test of 9600 GT 256MB, but..)
Geforce 9500 GT vs 8500 GT (9500 GT has double amount of processing units + 45% higher clocks..)

So even when these cards have been only slightly updated from old models they have presented over 30% performance increase. 8800 GTX and Ultra are so close to each other that there's nothing wrong to replace it with only one card.
----
Note:
Geforce 9800 GX2 will be Nvidia's next top product, but it won't fight against R700. Geforce 9800 GX2 is supposed to fight only against AMD's current generation, HD3870 X2. Nvidia's next gen, G100, should arrive around same time as AMD's next gen, R700.

Note2:
It's always about competition.. if there's no need for next gen cards then just deal with current generation and save some money. For example it took little less than two years for ATi to bring new generation cards out after Radeon 9700 Pro (July 2002 - April 2004). This was due that Nvidia's Geforce FX was late and when it arrived..it sucked. Geforce 6 came one year later and suprisingly ATi released X800 series around same times.
 
Zorachus said:
Do you have a link to that card ? That would be faster than the current 8800Ultra or so ?

And again there is no freaking way nVidia would be so dumb to release a new "9800GTX" that is only a revised core, and just be slightly faster than the current 8800GTX like only 10-20% :rolleyes: With that kind of attitude you will awaken the sleeping giant = ATI's R700 to wipe the floor with this slow "9800GTX"

The 9800GTX will have to be at bare minimum 30% faster than the 8800GTX, I would think since it took almost two years since the 2006 8800series launch, and nothing new since then, this next generation would have to be 100% faster, anything less is a major letdown

History show every new named generation nVida product was at LEAST 30% faster than previous usually 50% or even 100% faster. The 6800Ultra was like 50%+ the 5900, the 7800GTX vs 6800Ultra was 25-30% faster, the 8800GTX vs 7800GTX was 100% faster
Click to expand...

Dude, get this through your f-ing head:
the 9800GTX would provide a good performance boost over the 8800 Ultra and cost roughly the price of the 8800GTS 640mb (or, quite possibly, if prices for the 8800GT and 8800GTS are really falling, less) at launch. That may not necessarily be a big performance increase, but it's a huge price/performance increase. And that's really what the 9800 series is all about. ATi has already put out its offering that is competing w/the 9800 series (the HD 3870X2), and nVidia has definitely hinted that they already have a whole new animal up their sleeve to go against ATi's offering.
 
nissanztt90 said:
While i agree with turning FPS counters off...

I think that you can definitely feel the difference between 30fps and 60fps, and even 120fps. At least, I feel that i can feel the difference with mouse movements. I realize my monitor can only display 60fps, but 60-80 fps in Bioshock or CO4 just does not feel the same as 200+ in CSS when im playing and need to react. My eyes may not percieve the difference, but theres a certain sluggishness i can percieve from the movement of my hand in correlation with what im seeing.
Click to expand...

Well, there probably are people (like you) who can notice these things.. I've seen "scientific" articles where they calculate that better FPS means less lag from mouse-to-screen reactions, in like 2-3 frames time (real time duration depends on framrate used of course).
But I'm neither high-end player, never had real high-end machine, and I don't play online/multiplayer shooters too much so I'm maybe not the best "speciment" :)
What I can say is that I've enjoyed playing all single player games, including shooters, and never been set back by the fact that most of the time I've played on 30fps (sometimes probably even lower). And maybe there IS difference between 30&60&100fps, but that also depends on refresh rate used etc.

But let's get back to what I ment above - 30fps is not going to stop me to play and enjoy some game, while lower framerates than those will. And when I can play with at least solid 30fps, I'm going to play that game. Cos I can enjoy it on 30fps, and I won't be frustrated or mad or anything like that. What I say is, 30fps is good enough, and 30 vs 100 won't be that bad even to you, while <20 will be unplayable for everyone (including my "cursed" eyes used to slow frames).

In that relation, just a question - I doubt any of you have a setup that can play Crysis on 100, 60, or even 45fps. So what did you do? Not play a game? Played it on low details so it has 100fps? Or played it on 800x600 on your 30" screen? I doubt it, and I can bet most of you played it, or at least played the demo (like me), and if it didn't lag on 15fps you've been happy enough :)

Thus to get back to this thread - I won't expect 9800GTX/GT200/R700 to play Crysis on 100fps, but if it plays 35fps on your screens resolution, on highest details, we'll all be fine and happy.
 
LuxZg said:
an those willIn that relation, just a question - I doubt any of you have a setup that can play Crysis on 100, 60, or even 45fps. So what did you do? Not play a game? Played it on low details so it has 100fps? Or played it on 800x600 on your 30" screen? I doubt it, and I can bet most of you played it, or at least played the demo (like me), and if it didn't lag on 15fps you've been happy enough :)
Click to expand...

I play every game 1680x1050 or 1920x1200.
I don't give a f1ck about crysis, i play "only" online and 30fps is unacceptable. It's sure not for everyone, maybe you need to have a little over avarage senses or something like that.
Play the days back CS1.5 on 30fps, play today ETQW at 30fps... sure you can play it, but the result is clear, today is 60fps (or more) without AA the best option.
 
Niceone said:
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7327.html
If this story is right Geforce9-chips would increase clock frequencies and wouldn't use so much power as GF8-chips. They still wouldn't be true next gen chips.
.
Click to expand...


That is my big beef then, why will nVidia give these new cards a true next generation name of "9800" if they are just a refresh ? Should really be named 8900 series.

Because in most of nVidia's history every card with a higher number in front was a HUGE jump in performance, like I listed earlier, at least 30% faster than previous generations sometimes 100% faster. But if this new set if 9800GTX's come out only like 10-15% faster than the 8800GTX it will blow my mind on the stupidity. It truly does NOT deserve a 9800 name but instead a 8900 name.

If this all goes down I see the beginning of the end for nVidia coming sooner rather than later. ATI will finally have some real competition this Summer with R700, and then Intel will wipe the floor with both of them in 2009 and their first card. nVidia is silly to think they can just put out a average VideoCard due to no competition right now, that is how people get caught sleeping, and then before you know it they are way behind.

If you have a top of the line card ready you release it, don't keep it up on some shelf waiting for something better that is a waste of R&D
 
Maybe becouse the next name won't be 10800GTX, but some new name and 9800GTX will be the last one? Who knows :).
 
Zorachus said:
That is my big beef then, why will nVidia give these new cards a true next generation name of "9800" if they are just a refresh ? Should really be named 8900 series.
Click to expand...

I agree. What I've heard is that, after well over a year of the 8000 series, some OEM's, which I'd guess to be Alienware, Falcoln NW, et al. as your average Dell/HP/Gateway buyer wouldn't know a graphics card from a hole in the head, wanted larger numbers to impress customers. :rolleyes:
 
Zorachus said:
That is my big beef then, why will nVidia give these new cards a true next generation name of "9800" if they are just a refresh ? Should really be named 8900 series.

Because in most of nVidia's history every card with a higher number in front was a HUGE jump in performance, like I listed earlier, at least 30% faster than previous generations sometimes 100% faster. But if this new set if 9800GTX's come out only like 10-15% faster than the 8800GTX it will blow my mind on the stupidity. It truly does NOT deserve a 9800 name but instead a 8900 name.

If this all goes down I see the beginning of the end for nVidia coming sooner rather than later. ATI will finally have some real competition this Summer with R700, and then Intel will wipe the floor with both of them in 2009 and their first card. nVidia is silly to think they can just put out a average VideoCard due to no competition right now, that is how people get caught sleeping, and then before you know it they are way behind.

If you have a top of the line card ready you release it, don't keep it up on some shelf waiting for something better that is a waste of R&D
Click to expand...

I knew clicking "view post" was a bad idea... because now I feel obliged to reply.

FarFromeHome is right. If they named these cards "8900" then they probably wouldn't sell as many. nVidia is in business to make money, and if Intel's first high end adaptor is going 'wipe the floor' like you say, nVidia needs all the money they can get right now. Naming these cards as 9-series will help boost sales, so stop being so offended that they're 'misleading' you with the naming.

And you know what else will help them drive sales? TerranUp16 is right - these cards will probably be cheaper than the 8-series were. It's common knowledge that nVidia and ATi make most of their money on their mid-range parts where the margins are more favorable. I think nVidia stands to make more money per sale on 9-series hardware than they did on 8-series stuff, even though it's cheaper for the consumer.

You seem to think it's nVidia's fault for not releasing faster stuff already and that they have stuff 'sitting on shelves'. I'm pretty sure making new innovations and improvements to GPU architecture is hard work, and maybe some years its harder than others. Just because nVidia has had 16 months or so since G80 came out doesn't necessarily mean that have made huge advancements, and I really don't think they're just resting on their laurels. If R700 comes out and demolishes the 9800GX2 (and I hope it does) and nVidia doesn't suddenly drop a 'G100' bomb on us, then maybe they simply don't have anything to fight back with yet. That won't be the end of nVidia, not by a long shot. Remember the FX series? They'll survive and adapt.
 
Kaldskryke said:
FarFromeHome is right. If they named these cards "8900" then they probably wouldn't sell as many. nVidia is in business to make money, and if Intel's first high end adaptor is going 'wipe the floor' like you say, nVidia needs all the money they can get right now. Naming these cards as 9-series will help boost sales, so stop being so offended that they're 'misleading' you with the naming.
Click to expand...


I just do not like this kind of marketing bullsh!t, just so the dumbass at WorstBuy can walk into the store and see a 9800GTX named product and go whoah a brand new generation came out I must buy this A.S.A.P. :rolleyes: Little does he realize it is not even notably faster than his 8800GTX.

My point is the people who do buy these high end $400-$600 cards are very informed buyers and not stupid, they will check reviews not just buy a product based on the new name sitting on the store shelf or because AlienWhore markets it as the new bad ass system. People will not throw their cash around that easily because of just a name.

Also I am surprised nVida would even do this, because their history shows them never doing this before. The 6800Ultra vs 5900 was like 50% faster, the 7800GTX vs 6800Ultra was like 30% faster, the 8800GTX vs 7800GTX was almost 100% faster. My point is every new named generation product the last 5+ years was a significant upgrade, so this would be very odd of nVidia to pull a stunt like this, and I will lose faith in them and switch to R700 in Summer if they really do this. But I still think the "9800GTX" due out this Spring will be a big upgrade, at least 30% faster than the 8800GTX maybe 50%+
 
And the 9800GTX would likely be 20-30% faster than the 8800GTX (if it exists), so... Not to mention, if it doesn't, the 9800GX2 will be 40-60% faster than the 8800GTX. Therefore, you've just qualified nVidia's reasoning.
 
TerranUp16 said:
And the 9800GTX would likely be 20-30% faster than the 8800GTX (if it exists), so... Not to mention, if it doesn't, the 9800GX2 will be 40-60% faster than the 8800GTX. Therefore, you've just qualified nVidia's reasoning.
Click to expand...
Don't bother..I pointed out that same thing yesterday and he's again questioning Nvidia's reasoning on this..
 
Zorachus said:
I just do not like this kind of marketing bullsh!t, just so the dumbass at WorstBuy can walk into the store and see a 9800GTX named product and go whoah a brand new generation came out I must buy this A.S.A.P. :rolleyes: Little does he realize it is not even notably faster than his 8800GTX.
Click to expand...

Oh, I dislike it too. 8900 would have been much more appropriate for G92, and 8700 for G94, etc... Just telling you what I heard.

Zorachus said:
My point is the people who do buy these high end $400-$600 cards are very informed buyers and not stupid, they will check reviews not just buy a product based on the new name sitting on the store shelf or because AlienWhore markets it as the new bad ass system. People will not throw their cash around that easily because of just a name.
Click to expand...

People that buy the cards by themselves, sure. I doubt many people that build their own computer don't research things on their own, and many do so specifically to save money over buying expensive pre-built gaming computers. Alienware and other boutique gaming computer makers though...they specifically market to people with money just burning a hole in their pocket. They're the prime target for these kinds of marketing shenanigans. :p
 
TerranUp16 said:
And the 9800GTX would likely be 20-30% faster than the 8800GTX (if it exists), so... Not to mention, if it doesn't, the 9800GX2 will be 40-60% faster than the 8800GTX. Therefore, you've just qualified nVidia's reasoning.
Click to expand...


the 9800GX2 is not even in the picture, that is 2 VideoCards taped together, I wouldn't buy it if it was $200. I am only talking about single cards, like I posted before all the other single card generations vs new single cards, NOT the dual GPU's.

So since like the 5900 series every new single card generation has at least been 30% faster than the previous single card GPU, but going back to the original link Kyle posted was that the 9800GTX single card would not be taking over the 8800Ultra but just the 8800GTX, the 9800GX2 was to overtake the 8800Ultra, so to me that sounds like this new 9800GTX will not even beat the 8800Ultra ? And a lot of rumors point to this 9800GTX being only 10-15% faster at most than the 8800GTX.
 
Zorachus said:
the 9800GX2 is not even in the picture, that is 2 VideoCards taped together, I wouldn't buy it if it was $200. I am only talking about single cards, like I posted before all the other single card generations vs new single cards, NOT the dual GPU's.

So since like the 5900 series every new single card generation has at least been 30% faster than the previous single card GPU, but going back to the original link Kyle posted was that the 9800GTX single card would not be taking over the 8800Ultra but just the 8800GTX, the 9800GX2 was to overtake the 8800Ultra, so to me that sounds like this new 9800GTX will not even beat the 8800Ultra ? And a lot of rumors point to this 9800GTX being only 10-15% faster at most than the 8800GTX.
Click to expand...
9800 GX2 is one video card with two GPUs and PCB's. It uses one PCI-e slot and will take same room in your case as 8800 GTX/ultra.It shouldn't matter wheter it will have one GPU or ten of them. Only things that matters:
-Performance
-Heat output
-Noise
-Image quality
-Price

To name a few
----

If this 9800 GTX is 10-15% faster than 8800 GTX it would beat 8800 ultra also( 88GTX and Ultra has like 7% difference between them).
----

Problem starts when you ignore for some uknown reason 9800 GX2. I pointed you other cards as well; there was more than 30% difference between them and their last gen equivalents. If you would try to accept GF 9800 GX2 it would be over 30% stronger than 8800 ultra.. and since GTX/Ultra are so close to each other it wouldn't be weird if they would replace them with one card.
 
Niceone said:
9800 GX2 is one video card with two GPUs and PCB's. It uses one PCI-e slot and will take same room in your case as 8800 GTX/ultra.It shouldn't matter wheter it will have one GPU or ten of them. Only things that matters:
-Performance
-Heat output
-Noise
-Image quality
-Price

To name a few
----

If this 9800 GTX is 10-15% faster than 8800 GTX it would beat 8800 ultra also( 88GTX and Ultra has like 7% difference between them).
----

Problem starts when you ignore for some uknown reason 9800 GX2. I pointed you other cards as well; there was more than 30% difference between them and their last gen equivalents. If you would try to accept GF 9800 GX2 it would be over 30% stronger than 8800 ultra.. and since GTX/Ultra are so close to each other it wouldn't be weird if they would replace them with one card.
Click to expand...

One MAJOR thing about this 9800GX2 it is like an SLI setup, games need to take advantage of SLI to make this card a real winner. Look at the 3870x2 it is a nice card, but not all game benefit from it the same as a single brute force GPU would. Look at WoW an SLI get -1% the game does not see the second card, I would like to see this 9800GX2 benched in that game.

I will always go for the fastest single GPU card over a dual GPU that needs SLI or CrossFire driver's

Lastly the 8800Ultra is on average like 10-15% faster than a 8800GTX, so if this 9800GTX is just the same difference it is shocking it took nVidia almost 18months and the best they can do for their high end single GPU is only 15% faster that is pretty sad
 
Zorachus said:
One MAJOR thing about this 9800GX2 it is like an SLI setup, games need to take advantage of SLI to make this card a real winner. Look at the 3870x2 it is a nice card, but not all game benefit from it the same as a single brute force GPU would. Look at WoW an SLI get -1% the game does not see the second card, I would like to see this 9800GX2 benched in that game.

I will always go for the fastest single GPU card over a dual GPU that needs SLI or CrossFire driver's

Lastly the 8800Ultra is on average like 10-15% faster than a 8800GTX, so if this 9800GTX is just the same difference it is shocking it took nVidia almost 18months and the best they can do for their high end single GPU is only 15% faster that is pretty sad
Click to expand...
Old games doesn't necessary need SLI profiles. Geforce 7900 GTX already makes WoW work with 1920x1200 + 4xTR ssaa 16xAF level and last time I checked 8800 GTS 512 was little bit faster card.

Yes I read this review were they had 8800 GT 512 SLI. They had many popular games of today and Geforce 8800 GT 512 SLI beated 8800 GTX on almost all occasions:
In UT3 with low resolutions without AA/AF GTX was able to beat 8800 GT 512 SLI with less than 1 fps difference. But with 1920x1200 + 4xAA 16xAF 8800 GT 512 SLI beated 8800 GTX with 58% difference.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_gt_performance/
----

Well 8800 Ultra has 6,4% higher core clock and 11,1% higher shader clock and 20% higher memory clock (please not that GTX didn't have any bottle neck regarding memory issues..86.4GB/s was more than enough). This translates in to a roughly 7.5% difference:
http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/artikkelit/naytonohjaimet/nvidia-geforce-8800-ultra,2
----

Why do you think that best single GPU solution that Nvidia could do in 18 months would be just marginally faster than previous one? We have said it to you many times already, but Nvidia's (and AMD's) only goal is to make as much profit as possible and this doesn't always happen by bringing faster and faster chip.

With 8800 GTX/Ultra they used freaking large GPU (480mm^2), which didn't even have nvio-chip integrated. PCB was large, they had to use big amount of money etc. On other words card was expensive to make. Now 8800 GTS 512 is more than 30% faster than 8800 GTS 640..this new G92-based card is much cheaper to make allowing Nvidia to continue to make huge profit.

You have been bad mouthing about Nvidia's progress on single GPU solution, but what about AMD? Their best single GPU solution loses against 8800 GT 512, which loses 8800 GTS 512. 8800 GTS 512 is best single GPU solution that's still being manufactured..This card loses against 8800 GTX, which loses against 8800 ultra. To simplify:
HD3870 < 8800 GT < 8800 GTS 512 < 8800 GTX < 8800 Ultra. There's still 4 different Nvidia single GPU solutions that beat AMD's best in that front. They simply don't need that fast single GPU solution right at this moment.

One reason for Geforce 9800 GX2 is that it's cheap to develope since it's basically just 8800 GTS SLI on one card. And since HD3870 X2 is dual GPU so only thing they need is to bring similar system that just beat AMD's counterpart.
-----

G100 is still based on G80 architecture [should be much bigger revision than G92] and will be single GPU solution.AMD's best cards will still implement two GPU (2xRV770)
 
But I think the R700 will do multiple GPU's on a single card without Crossfire needed, that is the big deal, it will act like a single chip card to the motherboard and games. If nVidia can do that too I am all for it then.

Maybe I am just so used to nVidia coming out with a new named generation approx once a year and each new generation single chip card blows away the previous gen. I just thought this new "9800GTX" should blow away the 8800GTX like history shows it should from nVidia

Time will tell...just weird we have not seen any concrete rumor on the real 9800GTX, we see a ton of info on the 9800GX2, but nothing on the next generation GTX yet ??
 
Zorachus said:
But I think the R700 will do multiple GPU's on a single card without Crossfire needed, that is the big deal, it will act like a single chip card to the motherboard and games. If nVidia can do that too I am all for it then.

Maybe I am just so used to nVidia coming out with a new named generation approx once a year and each new generation single chip card blows away the previous gen. I just thought this new "9800GTX" should blow away the 8800GTX like history shows it should from nVidia

Time will tell...just weird we have not seen any concrete rumor on the real 9800GTX, we see a ton of info on the 9800GX2, but nothing on the next generation GTX yet ??
Click to expand...
How will they do that without Crossfire? How will those two GPU communicate between each other?.

Next generation "GTX" should be coming early Q3..so that's why there's not much info about that. I think Nvidia will just release Geforce 9500 GT, 9600 GT and 9800 GX2. There have been much info from these cards and these are actually those models that Nvidia right now needs..more than "9800 GTX".

Yes..performance advancing on high end has been slow, but that's not the case on entry level or mid range. Geforce 9500 GT should be like three times faster than 8500 GT and Geforce 9600 GT should be 90% faster than 8600 GTS.
 
Niceone said:
9800 GX2 is one video card with two GPUs and PCB's. It uses one PCI-e slot and will take same room in your case as 8800 GTX/ultra.It shouldn't matter wheter it will have one GPU or ten of them. Only things that matters:
-Performance
-Heat output
-Noise
-Image quality
-Price

To name a few
----

If this 9800 GTX is 10-15% faster than 8800 GTX it would beat 8800 ultra also( 88GTX and Ultra has like 7% difference between them).
----

Problem starts when you ignore for some uknown reason 9800 GX2. I pointed you other cards as well; there was more than 30% difference between them and their last gen equivalents. If you would try to accept GF 9800 GX2 it would be over 30% stronger than 8800 ultra.. and since GTX/Ultra are so close to each other it wouldn't be weird if they would replace them with one card.
Click to expand...

Image quality is not an issue. 9800 GX2 will have the exact same standards as any G80 chip, which already applies a near perfect filtering.

As for the rest, especially heat output and noise, I agree. They are extremely important, in a card such as this one.

As for the 9800 GTX, it will not be "only" 10-15% faster than a 8800 GTX. It will NOT just be a G92 chip with higher frequencies. It will be based on G92 no doubt, but with a different memory interface and a higher count of Stream Processors. I'm betting on 192, but 160 also seems plausible. This alone, should provide a 20-30% boost in performance, over the current 8800 GTX. Couple this with higher frequencies and a 30-40% boost in performance should be a reality. 192 Stream Processors, should yield a 60-70% boost in performance.
 
Silus said:
Image quality is not an issue. 9800 GX2 will have the exact same standards as any G80 chip, which already applies a near perfect filtering.

As for the rest, especially heat output and noise, I agree. They are extremely important, in a card such as this one.

As for the 9800 GTX, it will not be "only" 10-15% faster than a 8800 GTX. It will NOT just be a G92 chip with higher frequencies. It will be based on G92 no doubt, but with a different memory interface and a higher count of Stream Processors. I'm betting on 192, but 160 also seems plausible. This alone, should provide a 20-30% boost in performance, over the current 8800 GTX. Couple this with higher frequencies and a 30-40% boost in performance should be a reality. 192 Stream Processors, should yield a 60-70% boost in performance.
Click to expand...
Wehere do you get this info that they'll build new chip and some why they would call it G92 even when it's different?
 
Niceone said:
Wehere do you get this info that they'll build new chip and some why they would call it G92 even when it's different?
Click to expand...

You are the only one calling it G92. The codename can be different or, simply, the G92 chip in 8800 GTs and 8800 GTSs 512, has some disabled components. Bottom line is, the 9800 GTX will NOT just be an overclocked 8800 GTS 512.
 
Ok, Silus, we've got that. But it's also not coming in Feb/March than, that's NOT the card Kyle was talking in the first place.

In Feb (19th-21st) we'll be having 9600GT launch, and on CeBIT we'll see GX2 officialy (if they don't postpone it even more). And than I think you can forget about any new cards until April, and that's already too close to GT200 to be having a new card on market just for a month or two..
 
Silus said:
Image quality is not an issue. 9800 GX2 will have the exact same standards as any G80 chip, which already applies a near perfect filtering.

As for the rest, especially heat output and noise, I agree. They are extremely important, in a card such as this one.

As for the 9800 GTX, it will not be "only" 10-15% faster than a 8800 GTX. It will NOT just be a G92 chip with higher frequencies. It will be based on G92 no doubt, but with a different memory interface and a higher count of Stream Processors. I'm betting on 192, but 160 also seems plausible. This alone, should provide a 20-30% boost in performance, over the current 8800 GTX. Couple this with higher frequencies and a 30-40% boost in performance should be a reality. 192 Stream Processors, should yield a 60-70% boost in performance.
Click to expand...
and where exactly are you getting this from?? for the HUNDREDTH TIME there is NOTHING left in G92. the G92 8800gts already uses ALL eight SP blocks and ALL four 64-bit memory controllers that the G92 has to offer. regardless of what you "think".. there is NO magic G92 out there and there has been NO mention of a G91 or G90 since the G92 was released. if there was Nividia wouldnt be wasting their time with the GX2 if they had a stronger single card available. there is absolutely NO proof that there will be a 9800GTX.
 
Agreed that they couldn't use G92 for that. It would probably be a new but related core, which I'd probably label G90 (as lower is better in NVIDIA parlance). While possible, I also agree that it seems very unlikely if they're bothering to put a GX2 card out there and GT200 is rumored to come out sometime in the second half of this year. Even hearing rumors of GT200 at this point makes it more likely than a "G90" we've heard nothing about.

Note: cannondale06 hadn't mentioned the possibility of a G90 or G91 when I was writing this
 
Silus said:
As for the 9800 GTX, it will not be "only" 10-15% faster than a 8800 GTX. It will NOT just be a G92 chip with higher frequencies. It will be based on G92 no doubt, but with a different memory interface and a higher count of Stream Processors. I'm betting on 192, but 160 also seems plausible. This alone, should provide a 20-30% boost in performance, over the current 8800 GTX. Couple this with higher frequencies and a 30-40% boost in performance should be a reality. 192 Stream Processors, should yield a 60-70% boost in performance.
Click to expand...

I really wish we had more of a rough idea when nVidia would get the 9800GTX out the door...

It is the one I am waiting on. :)
 
TalonMan said:
I really wish we had more of a rough idea when nVidia would get the 9800GTX out the door...

It is the one I am waiting on. :)
Click to expand...
I wouldnt count on seeing a 9800gtx. Silus seems to live in a world of his own when it comes this imaginary card and is just making up his own specs. there is no evidence that there will be a 9800gtx.
 
GT200 is real and whatever they call their next card to compete with ATI's 770 gpu is real... so its coming just depends on when!
 
cannondale06 said:
I wouldnt count on seeing a 9800gtx. Silus seems to live in a world of his own when it comes this imaginary card and is just making up his own specs. there is no evidence that there will be a 9800gtx.
Click to expand...

How fucking dumb are you? Do you really think you know more than Kyle? If Kyle suggests there is going to be a 9800 GTX, i think most people are going to believe him over you, myself included. A report by [H] is plenty of evidence.

You seem to be living in a world that mainly entails you walking around with your head up your ass, making up shit like "there is no evidence this card will exist"....yeah except for the article in the beginning of this thread.
 
nissanztt90 said:
How fucking dumb are you? Do you really think you know more than Kyle? If Kyle suggests there is going to be a 9800 GTX, i think most people are going to believe him over you, myself included. A report by [H] is plenty of evidence.

You seem to be living in a world that mainly entails you walking around with your head up your ass, making up shit like "there is no evidence this card will exist"....yeah except for the article in the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...
Well thanks for showing me just how mature you are with all your cussing and insults. :rolleyes:

Maybe Kyle was lead to believe that at the time but other than that little line mentioning the 9800gtx theres has been NOTHING else from ANY other source to indicate there will actually be a 9800gtx. Plans change and Kyle doesnt always know or update every little detail about everything. Kyle list stuff incorrectly sometimes even in that article at the beginning of this thread. For example Kyle says "The 8800 GS is 192-bit bus and will ship in 320MB, 512MB, and 640MB versions with a trimmed down number of stream processors as well." I tried to correct him because everyone knows the 8800gs is 384MB or 768MB but he refused to change it. Also in a recent article Klye said the 8800GTS 512MB had 112SP and I brought it to his attention TWICE and he still never corrected that either. Kyle is not perfect so get over it.

I will say the same thing I have said million times. We know/knew about the 8800GT, 8800GTS 512mb, 8800GS, 9600GT, and 9800GX2 for many weeks or months before they were/are released because you cant keep something like that a secret. There is absolutely NO hint of a 9800GTX by any of the usual suspects so theres NO way in hell a 9800GTX will be appear out of thin air next month.

The G92 8800gts already uses ALL eight SP blocks and ALL four 64-bit memory controllers that the G92 has to offer. Regardless of what you "think".. there is NO magic G92 out there and there has been NO mention of a G91 or G90 since the G92 was released. If there was Nividia wouldnt be wasting their time with the GX2 if they had a stronger single card available. There is absolutely NO proof that there will be a 9800GTX.
 
cannondale06 said:
Well thanks for showing me just how mature you are with all your cussing and insults :rolleyes:. Maybe Kyle was lead to believe that at the time but other than that little line mentioning the 9800gtx theres has been NOTHING else from ANY other source to indicate there will actually be a 9800gtx. Plans change and Kyle doesnt always know every little detail about everything.

I will say the same thing I have said million times. We know/knew about the 8800GT, 8800GTS 512mb, 8800GS, 9600GT, and 9800GX2 for many weeks or months before they were/are released because you cant keep something like that a secret. There is absolutely NO hint of a 9800GTX by any of the usual suspects so theres NO way in hell a 9800GTX will be appear out of thin air next month.

The G92 8800gts already uses ALL eight SP blocks and ALL four 64-bit memory controllers that the G92 has to offer. Regardless of what you "think".. there is NO magic G92 out there and there has been NO mention of a G91 or G90 since the G92 was released. If there was Nividia wouldnt be wasting their time with the GX2 if they had a stronger single card available. There is absolutely NO proof that there will be a 9800GTX.
Click to expand...

When will you learn that your not calling the shots at nVidia and there is no way you can say any of all the bullshit youve spewed in this thread with any certainty? Silus fully admits he is simply speculating, but you just seem to know everything dont you...:rolleyes:
 
Kyle's information came from a source that's given correct information to him in the past.
Nvidia might have decided to delay the GTX replacement or scrap it.
 
nissanztt90 said:
How fucking dumb are you? Do you really think you know more than Kyle? If Kyle suggests there is going to be a 9800 GTX, i think most people are going to believe him over you, myself included. A report by [H] is plenty of evidence.

You seem to be living in a world that mainly entails you walking around with your head up your ass, making up shit like "there is no evidence this card will exist"....yeah except for the article in the beginning of this thread.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as calling him dumb. The fact is that the article starts and ends saying that it is "incomplete." Furthermore the information on the 9800GTX is very sparse. And lastly, Kyle, while usually right, has made a mistake or two before. He's human, afterall. You simply can't say that the roadmap article counts as PROOF towards anything.

And when you think about it, has there been anything official that talks about a 9800GTX? No. The only reasons we have to believe that there will be a 9800GTX is because
1) They've had a "GTX" model for the last two years.
2) Kyle anticipates that there will be.

Personally I'd be very surprised if there isn't a 9800GTX. But don't go insulting people because they're not going to blindly believe everything Kyle says. The world needs more people who think for themselves, even if they're not always right.
 
cannondale06 said:
I wouldnt count on seeing a 9800gtx. Silus seems to live in a world of his own when it comes this imaginary card and is just making up his own specs. there is no evidence that there will be a 9800gtx.
Click to expand...


Per Kyle the 9800GTX is just a few weeks away, he said Feb/Mach;

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQ0MCwsLGhlbnRodXNpYXN0
The GeForce 8800 GTX will be replaced by the GeForce 9800 GTX in February / March timeframe. This card will support Tri-SLI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top