512MB GeForce 7800 GTX [Archive] - Page 3

Mintmaster

07-Nov-2005, 02:02

The problem for the X1300 Pro is that now the 6600 DDR 2 versions are released, and you can get a 450 MHz version for about the same price as the X1300 Pro (both 256 Mb versions). Which makes the X1300 Pro look rather uninteresting:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/xfx_geforce_6600_ddr2/
Wow, that is one seriously potent budget card. Compared to the original 6600, they doubled the memory, used 45% faster memory to boot, and upped the core clock, all the while keeping the price about the same. You rarely see that in a new generation, let alone a refresh!

However, this seems to be the case all the time with budget cards. Give it a few months, and the X1300 will be a lot cheaper. 100M transistors on 90 nm is about half the size of 145M on 110 nm, although according to the B3D chip tables it's 2/3 rather than half (NV43 is relatively dense!). Even so, I think that'll make a notable difference in price.

Too bad firingsquad didn't include the X700 in there as well. It's really cheap now, and on anandtech it was a lot faster than the 6600 non-gt.

Florin

07-Nov-2005, 02:23

Woah nice card for the price. Looks like trouble for the X1300 and the S3 Chrome series alike.

I also liked this detail:

XFX’s new double lifetime warranty: XFX recently launched their double lifetime warranty program. Under it, XFX guarantees not only you a lifetime warranty once you register your card, the lifetime warranty also applies to anyone you may sell the board to in the future once you’re ready to upgrade. All the second card owner would have to do is register the board with XFX for instant lifetime coverage. This new warranty program should appeal to Ebay shoppers.

Hellbinder

07-Nov-2005, 06:14

Moloch

07-Nov-2005, 06:17

The more i think about it the more i think that ATi needs a new Technology planning department. Techology Marketing or whoever it is that keeps thinking that releasing cards with a year old feature set that underperform accross the board against their competition is a good idea.
:lol:
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Do you do parties?
Seriously you're one funny dude.
If you're worried about a year olf feature set(wtf..makes no sense) why do you use a X850 pro?

Bjorn

07-Nov-2005, 07:50

However, this seems to be the case all the time with budget cards. Give it a few months, and the X1300 will be a lot cheaper. 100M transistors on 90 nm is about half the size of 145M on 110 nm, although according to the B3D chip tables it's 2/3 rather than half (NV43 is relatively dense!). Even so, I think that'll make a notable difference in price.

Probably true, the 6600 will likely not go down to a 60-80$ price which the X1300 probably will. Or in the case of the X1300, has to.

Moloch

07-Nov-2005, 08:07

Probably true, the 6600 will likely not go down to a 60-80$ price which the X1300 probably will. Or in the case of the X1300, has to.
The 1300 looks poor now with it's lack of pixel pushing power but I wonder how it will fair with more shader bound games in the future?

_xxx_

07-Nov-2005, 08:38

Isn't it actually today? (the release of the 512 MB GTX)

Junkstyle

07-Nov-2005, 08:54

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27492
Geforce 7800GTX 512 MB to cost $649

wow, pricy.

Ailuros

07-Nov-2005, 09:01

Isn't it actually today? (the release of the 512 MB GTX)

If the INQ should be correct than it's more like the 14th.

Geforce 7800GTX 512 MB to cost $649

wow, pricy.

If those 850MHz GDDR3 (512MB) are for real, I'm not one bit surprised. The challenging part for any reviewer out there would be to downclock that one to 430/600MHz and compare it to 7800GTX 256MB in the most recent games, in order to detect if and how much difference a 512MB framebuffer really makes.

Chalnoth

07-Nov-2005, 09:14

If the INQ should be correct than it's more like the 14th.
And the 7th ;)

Oh, yeah, and the card will have the same clocks as the current GTX, have higher clocks, have memory clocked at 1600Mhz and 1800Mhz, and so on :)

HaLDoL

07-Nov-2005, 09:27

If the INQ should be correct than it's more like the 14th.
If those 850MHz GDDR3 (512MB) are for real, I'm not one bit surprised. The challenging part for any reviewer out there would be to downclock that one to 430/600MHz and compare it to 7800GTX 256MB in the most recent games, in order to detect if and how much difference a 512MB framebuffer really makes.
The 512MB GTX would probably be slower when downclocked due to the higher latencies of the memory.

Mariner

07-Nov-2005, 09:48

http://scan.co.uk/

Ad on top right. Apparently something is being released tomorrow that's supposed to be a knockout punch. And since the gloves are green......

Hmmm. This Inquirer article would tend to indicate that the card to be announced today is the 6800GS aka NV42:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27493

Bjorn

07-Nov-2005, 09:56

The 1300 looks poor now with it's lack of pixel pushing power but I wonder how it will fair with more shader bound games in the future?

Talking about potential benefits of the architecture in future games isn't something i would do with a low budget card like the 1300. It's lifespan is just to short for that.

Corwin_B

07-Nov-2005, 10:05

The 1300 looks poor now with it's lack of pixel pushing power but I wonder how it will fair with more shader bound games in the future?

I don't remember a single instance of a card looking "bad" at its release suddenly looking "good" (bad and good being relative terms, of course) once more demanding games are released... That was supposed to happen with the original SDR GeForce (T&L), with the 5800 (SM2.0+)... Generally, more demanding games also need an increase in raw rendering power, and if the card can't provide it when released, it generally can't later in its life.

trinibwoy

07-Nov-2005, 11:42

Hmmm. This Inquirer article would tend to indicate that the card to be announced today is the 6800GS aka NV42:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27493

I don't understand the ad though - why would the 6800GS be a knockout?

Florin

07-Nov-2005, 11:57

I don't understand the ad though - why would the 6800GS be a knockout?

256-bit memory in that price class. The X1600 may be up for an uphill battle just like the X1300 now looks to be.

no-X

07-Nov-2005, 12:14

256-bit memory in that price class. The X1600 may be up for an uphill battle just like the X1300 now looks to be.
Time to launch X800 GTO3 :-) or X1700 LE. By the way... anything new about X1700 (my guess 8-1-3-1)?

_xxx_

07-Nov-2005, 12:28

Time to launch X800 GTO3 :-) or X1700 LE. By the way... anything new about X1700 (my guess 8-1-3-1)?

Now what should that be? They have problems to deliver the three cards they announced in quantities and people want even more SKU's? Dunno... unrealistic IMHO, especially that R580 and its siblings are around the corner.

trinibwoy

07-Nov-2005, 12:47

Now what should that be? They have problems to deliver the three cards they announced in quantities and people want even more SKU's? Dunno... unrealistic IMHO, especially that R580 and its siblings are around the corner.

I think he was joking :wink:

no-X

07-Nov-2005, 13:03

yeah, the first sentence was joke, but don't you remember? All these cores were already mentioned here: RV505, RV515, RV516, R520, R521, RV530, RV531, RV535, RV540, RV560, R580, R590.
One of them could be 8-1-3-1 (or 8-1-3-2) :-) I believe that shortly after R580 will be announced new mainstream part - X1700 - with similar specs.

Dave Baumann

07-Nov-2005, 13:11

My guesses are that RV560 is 8-1-3-2/1 (dependant on whether its 128-bit or 256) and RV530 being an 80nm RV530, however I'm told that RV560 is "some ways off yet".

_xxx_

07-Nov-2005, 13:29

Dunno, I think anything beginning with an 8- is not fast enough for a mainstream part in spring/summer next year. Let alone 128-bit memory.

no-X

07-Nov-2005, 13:39

... and RV530 being an 80nm RV530
Did you mean RV535 or RV540?

If there is any canceled R5xx chip, it believe it's 8-1-1-1 (R520-like mainstream), because it would be larger and probably slower than 4-1-3-2 RV530 (R580-like low-end)...

_xxx_: RV530 with 4 texture units/ROPs is slightly faster than NV43 with 8 texture units/4ROPs. So RV5xx with 8 texture units and RV530 architecture should be good enough to compete with NV40/G70-like 16 texture units design with 128bit bus.

Dave Baumann

07-Nov-2005, 13:47

Dunno, I think anything beginning with an 8- is not fast enough for a mainstream part in spring/summer next year. Let alone 128-bit memory.
128-bit parts will always be there at this price range in all likelyhood - the bus width is dicated by the die size and the die size dictates the price; so there will always be this jump in between the parts.

As for "8", if its the configuration that I would expect then it would be handling 24 fragements per clock.

If there is any canceled R5xx chip, it believe it's 8-1-1-1 (R520-like mainstream), because it would be larger and probably slower than 4-1-3-2 RV530 (R580-like low-end)...
Given the noises made then I wouldn't expect any more parts with one fragement per pipe to be released any more, other than potential cost refreshes to RV515, IMO.

_xxx_

07-Nov-2005, 14:00

I realize that, I just don't see those cards (8-something R5xx or 16-'pipe' NV40) as mainstream but rather low-end by summer next year.

Arty

07-Nov-2005, 14:05

256-bit memory in that price class. The X1600 may be up for an uphill battle just like the X1300 now looks to be.
6800GS looks more like a response to GTO/GTO2 rather than X1600 considering its not even out yet ..

trinibwoy

07-Nov-2005, 14:07

As for "8", if its the configuration that I would expect then it would be handling 24 fragements per clock.

I'm a little confused by this language. When we're talking about fragments per clock, if RV530 is 24/clk, I assume that makes R580 48/clk. Now is there any comparison to G70 architecture here? If there is, does that make G70 24/clk or 48/clk?

Or in other words, is G70 24-1-2-2 ?

Dave Baumann

07-Nov-2005, 14:12

G70 is 24 fragements per clock (In those terms its 16-1.5-1.5-2).

Arty

07-Nov-2005, 14:18

I'm a little confused by this language. When we're talking about fragments per clock, if RV530 is 24/clk, I assume that makes R580 48/clk.
24 frag/clk if RV560's config is 8-1-3-2/1.

trinibwoy

07-Nov-2005, 14:26

Ah ok thx, just wanted to clear up (in my own mind) that the x3 multiplier isn't simply referring to the number of ALU's working on each pixel in flight.

So R580 can have 48 different pixels in flight, one ALU each. G70 is 24 in flight, 2 ALU's each?

Dave Baumann

07-Nov-2005, 14:34

To elaborate on that at little - a fragment is the OpenGL term for a unit of work in the pixel shader - its termed as a fragment work is often carried out that is less that an pixel (i.e. ifyou are rendering to a texture the original "fragment" processed ould be greater or smaller than a "pixel", if you are supersampling each pixel is actually a sub-pixel of a resultant pixel, etc.)

A fragment shader for G70 is represented as:
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/g70/images/pss.gif

A fragment shader for R5xx is represented as (the black area, less the texture elements):
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/images/pipes1.gif

Each of these are handling a single fragment, but they each have different capabilities and will spit the fragment out in different numbers of cycles dependant on the composition and how its requirements meets the capabilities of the fragment pipeline.

Matasar

07-Nov-2005, 15:49

The cards seem to be Limited Edition..

_xxx_

07-Nov-2005, 16:05

The cards seem to be Limited Edition..

Because of the red PCB? Is the "regular edition" blue? :razz:

Matasar

07-Nov-2005, 16:18

No Leadteks 512meg GTX is sold as Limited Edition.
Havent seen any other brand yet.

Cowboy X

07-Nov-2005, 16:20

Well, consider that's a 50% increase in memory bandwidth and a 20% increase in core speed, so the performance increase should vary between 20% and 50%, depending upon the limitations of the program being benchmarked (assuming the program isn't limited by geometry or CPU...so in other words, at high res). I'd say most of the time it'll be on the lower range of that, given that the 7800 GTX isn't hugely bandwidth limited.

You cannot discount the fuzzy logic that is applied to Nvidia's clock speeds . Is 550 really 550 ........ or is it 550 on 1 part of the chip and much lower speeds elsewhere ? For that reason raw clocks on Nvidia's current products don't mean much without seeing the benchmarks .

trinibwoy

07-Nov-2005, 16:24

_xxx_

07-Nov-2005, 16:29

Oh, I thought you were talking about 1800XT :oops:

That's probably just some fancy extra cooler or ViVo or some such making it into Lim.Ed.

Arty

07-Nov-2005, 16:46

No Leadteks 512meg GTX is sold as Limited Edition.
Havent seen any other brand yet.
EVGA 7800 GTX512 Black Pearl KO Edition with waterblock cooler, wonder what the clocks are going to be :twisted: and price. :|

Matasar

07-Nov-2005, 17:34

LeadTek Geforce 7800GTX Extreme, 512MB DDR3, TV-Out, 2*DVI, HDTV, VIVO, 16X PCIe [Limited Edition]
Isnt all GTX VIVO ? And im pretty sure they all stick with the same Quadro cooler.
Where did you find the EVGA listed ?

Ailuros

07-Nov-2005, 17:45

You cannot discount the fuzzy logic that is applied to Nvidia's clock speeds . Is 550 really 550 ........ or is it 550 on 1 part of the chip and much lower speeds elsewhere ? For that reason raw clocks on Nvidia's current products don't mean much without seeing the benchmarks .

You have on a 7800GTX 430MHz for the SIMD channnels and ROPs and 470MHz for the VS units (whereby for some weird reason NVIDIA claims "only" 860 MVertices/s; theoretically the math would be 470*8 = 3760 / 4 = 940 MVertices/s).

Just because the geometry processors have a higher frequency it doesn't mean that the G70's have unpredictable performance. Raise both core and ram frequency on a standard G70 by say 15% and you will get roughly 15% more performance than on default. If the increase is at 30%, it's 30% more performance more or less on average. Where's the unpredictable factor exactly?

SugarCoat

07-Nov-2005, 20:42

You have on a 7800GTX 430MHz for the SIMD channnels and ROPs and 470MHz for the VS units (whereby for some weird reason NVIDIA claims "only" 860 MVertices/s; theoretically the math would be 470*8 = 3760 / 4 = 940 MVertices/s).

Just because the geometry processors have a higher frequency it doesn't mean that the G70's have unpredictable performance. Raise both core and ram frequency on a standard G70 by say 15% and you will get roughly 15% more performance than on default. If the increase is at 30%, it's 30% more performance more or less on average. Where's the unpredictable factor exactly?

im wondering how far that 1:1 performance increase goes before it trickles down. And what effect the memory will have.

Lets say 430 to 550, 28% increase about, but the memory, from reference its going up 50%, or so its said, i expect it to be underclocked by 200MHz on a reference myself, rated 1800 but at 1600. Anyway, lets say best case, 50% increase on the memory.

What will that translate into when real world performance is measured, is my curiosity. Will it be close to 40%? Or merely ~25%. How much improvment will the memory give in the most taxing of bandwidth situations in todays titles and benchmarks? Can the core make use of it all? Can games? Etc...

The highest clocked GTX appears to be using 460 cores and 1300MHz. Everything else that was higher, is discontinued. All the AIBs have tried to make a gap between the $450-500GTX and this new card. That was very intentional, now all that remains to be seen is if it was done for sales or to remove the threat of 2 competing products from the same company.

Hellbinder

07-Nov-2005, 21:07

werent the rumors stating that today is the day?

Rys

07-Nov-2005, 21:20

Today is 6800 GS day. Fire up your browser in a week or so for the other one.

RobertR1

07-Nov-2005, 21:30

http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=322746

Check out the manufacturer spec. pdf. Only 470mhz clock? Ram is nice at 1700 though. Looks like Evga will be milking the "KO" badge again. Probably a 570/1780ish card with a $650+ price tag.

CMAN

07-Nov-2005, 21:40

Wow, the core is very dissappointing if that is correct. 570 MHz would sound better for the speed of the RAM.

SugarCoat

07-Nov-2005, 21:54

looks like the INQ was wrong again, i really doubt eVGA's base model is any lower then anyone elses. 550 seemed way too high to be in decent yields.

Matasar

07-Nov-2005, 21:58

470 for "basic" card i guess. KO for insane clock.

trinibwoy

07-Nov-2005, 22:20

looks like the INQ was wrong again, i really doubt eVGA's base model is any lower then anyone elses. 550 seemed way too high to be in decent yields.

Hmmmm that doesnt gel with a lot of hints being dropped about higher-than-expected clocks. 470 would be extremely disappointing based on leaked info on higher voltage and tweaked process.

RobertR1

07-Nov-2005, 23:08

The link has been pulled.

no-X

07-Nov-2005, 23:10

The question is why... :-)

edit: didn't Dave say, that ATi will not need XT-PE? 470/1700MHz GTX could be the reason why.

Dave Baumann

07-Nov-2005, 23:20

Errr, I wouldn't pay too much attention to whats out there (or not now) until you see the reviews.

Dave Baumann

07-Nov-2005, 23:21

edit: didn't Dave say, that ATi will not need XT-PE?
No, its already been pointed out before that I didn't say anything of the sort.

no-X

07-Nov-2005, 23:25

Thanks

SugarCoat

07-Nov-2005, 23:38

Hmmmm that doesnt gel with a lot of hints being dropped about higher-than-expected clocks. 470 would be extremely disappointing based on leaked info on higher voltage and tweaked process.

but eVGA has taken quite a stand in the AIB market. Look at the GTX for example, they allowed bios changes after the launch to increase stock clocks just to compete. I dont think their card would be any worse off then anyone elses, stock. I was expecting 550 stock ):

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 00:18

but eVGA has taken quite a stand in the AIB market. Look at the GTX for example, they allowed bios changes after the launch to increase stock clocks just to compete. I dont think their card would be any worse off then anyone elses, stock. I was expecting 550 stock ):

I just want to know why there would be a need for that cooler on a 470Mhz GTX. How are they cooling the RAM on the back of the PCB anyway?

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 00:47

im wondering how far that 1:1 performance increase goes before it trickles down. And what effect the memory will have.

If it would trickle down NVIDIA would be in quite a lot of trouble in H1 2006, unless you believe they'll stop here and leave R580 unchallenged.

What will that translate into when real world performance is measured, is my curiosity. Will it be close to 40%? Or merely ~25%. How much improvment will the memory give in the most taxing of bandwidth situations in todays titles and benchmarks? Can the core make use of it all? Can games? Etc...

I guess soon we're all going to be wiser about it, but I don't see anything impossible in that paragraph either given the hypothetical increases in fill-rate and memory bandwidth. I estimated an average increase according to the fill-rate, based on my own experiments on the 7800GTX 256MB and it's behavious so far.

The highest clocked GTX appears to be using 460 cores and 1300MHz. Everything else that was higher, is discontinued. All the AIBs have tried to make a gap between the $450-500GTX and this new card. That was very intentional, now all that remains to be seen is if it was done for sales or to remove the threat of 2 competing products from the same company.

Witness, how the GeForce 7800 GTX with 486MHz engine speed and 1.35GHz memory manages to leave behind the RADEON X1800 XT in loads of benchmarks as we share our experience about ASUS Extreme N7800 GTX TOP graphics card.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/asus-en7800gtx.html

That's a 13% fillrate and a 12.5% bandwidth increase.

BF2 as just one example, sees an increase on the higher clocked board of 12.5% in 1600/4xAA/8xAF.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/asus-en7800gtx_8.html

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 01:15

It's interesting that the X1800XL at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF is the same as the OC'd 7800GTX in that test.

Somehow the 1GHz memory on the XL is matching the 1.35GHz memory on the GTX TOP.

It seems to me that BF2 is one of the games that ATI actually tweaked the drivers for X1k.

Is BF2 a shader heavy game? It looks pretty old-fashioned to me. Is it actually just vertex heavy?

Jawed

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 01:27

Or maybe the XL is a bit better at handling occasional long texture read latencies?

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 01:30

Without AA/AF the XL is slower than the GT, so I don't think it's texturing latency.

EDIT: Hmm, I suppose I'm forgetting that AF reads more texture data than non-AF - hmm. At least I presume that's the case. In which case texturing latency would start to cut hard.

Jawed

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 01:35

EDIT: Hmm, I suppose I'm forgetting that AF reads more texture data than non-AF - hmm. At least I presume that's the case. In which case texturing latency would start to cut hard.
More than just that: an AF read can take up to 32 times as long on current hardware as a normal texture read just to do the filtering itself, assuming perfect texture cache usage (comparing 16-degree anisotropy with trilinear vs. no anisotropy on the base texture).

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 01:49

More than just that: an AF read can take up to 32 times as long on current hardware as a normal texture read just to do the filtering itself, assuming perfect texture cache usage (comparing 16-degree anisotropy with trilinear vs. no anisotropy on the base texture).

Feasable theory, especially if one notices the differences to the noAA/AF scores. By the way that review was written with the 78.01 drivers. Their latest 7800GT/SLi review uses the 81.85 set. That particular timedemo doesn't favour though the performance increases that came with the 8x.xx class of drivers for BF2. On average I'd say there is a 10-15% performance increase; some timedemos show even higher increases, but the former estimated percentage sounds more like it. Totally unrelated to the Radeon performance since it could be also higher in other instances/timedemos than the GFs.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 01:50

Sadly I can't find a B3D test of GTX and X1800XL/XT for just AF (no AA) that might illuminate this BF2 texture latency question.

The XT is only 20% faster than the XL at 1600x1200 4xAA/16xAF, despite having a core that's 25% faster and memory that's 50% faster. (NB: the frame-rate cap at 90fps may be distorting these results somewhat, across the board.)

So would that indicate that latency is limiting the XT? It does seem like it.

Jawed

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 02:09

I just want to know why there would be a need for that cooler on a 470Mhz GTX. How are they cooling the RAM on the back of the PCB anyway?

I was under the impression its using the new ball package, and there should only be 512 ram on one side, same as the 1800XT.

Mintmaster

08-Nov-2005, 02:26

I was under the impression its using the new ball package, and there should only be 512 ram on one side, same as the 1800XT.
I never even realized that about the X1800XT. Neat.

makaveli87

08-Nov-2005, 03:08

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/278/

scroll down to the graph. looks like 560/1600

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 03:26

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/278/

scroll down to the graph. looks like 560/1600

Hmmmm what's that doing in there?

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 03:27

Heh, that graph doesn't make any sense. It lists the memory speed as "(900) 1600"

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 03:31

Heh, that graph doesn't make any sense. It lists the memory speed as "(900) 1600"

it does if you read it as (rated speed) Effective speed. I would be a little surprised to see every AIB at 1700 or 1800MHz, i still think it will be 1600MHz on the reference.

560gpu speed...thats not confusing

XFX GEFORCE 7800 GTX 512MB PCI EXPRESS DDR3 (#PVT70FYDF9) (Retail) (NO STOCK - Estimate arrival on 11/30/05).
The ETA is provided by the manufacturer as a guideline, but is not a guarantee.

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=3000415

Pete

08-Nov-2005, 04:32

Feasable theory, especially if one notices the differences to the noAA/AF scores. By the way that review was written with the 78.01 drivers. Their latest 7800GT/SLi review uses the 81.85 set. That particular timedemo doesn't favour though the performance increases that came with the 8x.xx class of drivers for BF2. On average I'd say there is a 10-15% performance increase; some timedemos show even higher increases, but the former estimated percentage sounds more like it. Totally unrelated to the Radeon performance since it could be also higher in other instances/timedemos than the GFs.
TR's 6800GS review includes FRAPS testing of BF2 (http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-6800gs/index.x?pg=8) with the 81.87 Forcewares. The GT is dead even with the XL at 16x12 with 4xAA and "High Filtering." The XT hands the GTX its ass on a platter, though. The interesting part is comparing this to the Xbit review, which shows the GT and GTX trailing the XL and XT by similar margins. In TR's review, the GT pulls even with the XL, but the GTX, while (slightly) ahead of the GT and XL, is way behind the XT.

Maybe this is just the extra RAM talking. We'll see in a week, when Scott updates that graph with the 512MB GTX.

RobertR1

08-Nov-2005, 05:34

it does if you read it as (rated speed) Effective speed. I would be a little surprised to see every AIB at 1700 or 1800MHz, i still think it will be 1600MHz on the reference.

560gpu speed...thats not confusing

XFX GEFORCE 7800 GTX 512MB PCI EXPRESS DDR3 (#PVT70FYDF9) (Retail) (NO STOCK - Estimate arrival on 11/30/05).
The ETA is provided by the manufacturer as a guideline, but is not a guarantee.

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewspec.hmx?scriteria=3000415

$799.........At this point I think the e-retailers just want to one up each other on who can sell it at the highest price.

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 05:56

$799.........At this point I think the e-retailers just want to one up each other on who can sell it at the highest price.

if its at those bios speeds i can believe it. Im not to sure 550+ will be as easy for this core as everyone thought. The water blocked'd KO's on evga's forums appear to be shooting for 550MHz and 900MHz memory @ a $650 retail. That says something to me, as in the core isnt as flexible as some may think. Not to mention that memory has got to be costing quite a bit.

Heres the block:

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/2280/untitled2ft.th.png (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitled2ft.png)

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 06:41

The memory is more likely to be holding the product back (as far as volume goes) than the core, considering that we know that the 7800 GTX already clocks close to the rumored speeds on less exotic cooling measures than are rumored to be used for this part.

Junkstyle

08-Nov-2005, 09:58

This is sounding more and more like Nvidia doesn't want to ship a real product here. Maybe this is just a stunt for benchmark coverage.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 10:29

TR's 6800GS review includes FRAPS testing of BF2 (http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-6800gs/index.x?pg=8) with the 81.87 Forcewares.
Blimey, the "median low" framerate on the X1800XT is roughly the same as the average framerate on the GTX.

The XT's median low is around 50% higher than the XL's, which is in line with the memory bandwidth difference.

Interesting.

Jawed

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 12:08

TR's 6800GS review includes FRAPS testing of BF2 (http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/geforce-6800gs/index.x?pg=8) with the 81.87 Forcewares. The GT is dead even with the XL at 16x12 with 4xAA and "High Filtering." The XT hands the GTX its ass on a platter, though. The interesting part is comparing this to the Xbit review, which shows the GT and GTX trailing the XL and XT by similar margins. In TR's review, the GT pulls even with the XL, but the GTX, while (slightly) ahead of the GT and XL, is way behind the XT.

Maybe this is just the extra RAM talking. We'll see in a week, when Scott updates that graph with the 512MB GTX.

Hmmmm I see they've used the latest patch for BF2. I never installed it to be honest; the former patch I installed made things even worse than out of the box for me. Wonder if I should dare :roll:

By the way it could easily also be the frequency talking; if the 512MB 7800 truly comes at =/>550MHz, any possible performance increase will be more due to the higher frequency IMO, than the larger framebuffer.

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 12:17

This is sounding more and more like Nvidia doesn't want to ship a real product here. Maybe this is just a stunt for benchmark coverage.

That would be true, if the 512MB model ends up with smaller overall availability than the X1800XT.

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 12:21

That would be true, if the 512MB model ends up with smaller overall availability than the X1800XT.

Well if ATi is blaming a memory shortage for the scarcity of XT's, shouldn't it be worse for the newer, more expensive memory Nvidia is using?

_xxx_

08-Nov-2005, 12:35

Well if ATi is blaming a memory shortage for the scarcity of XT's, shouldn't it be worse for the newer, more expensive memory Nvidia is using?

ATI talks PR shite.

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 12:39

I was under the impression its using the new ball package, and there should only be 512 ram on one side, same as the 1800XT.

Ah ok, thx.

Dave Baumann

08-Nov-2005, 12:40

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 12:47

I must have missed something, where have ATI given indication that memory is in short supply?

XT's are only just ramping up - whats coming available now is fresh from the production lines and that has to be shared between ATI (who can ship them immediately to some e-tail locations) and their vendors (who will have to make their own HSF modifications, package and distribute them) - so its not really surpising they are limited at the moment.

Saw some reference to it somewhere on some forum by some random person :) What's surprising is that Nvidia is able to do all that before the launch and ATi is somehow forced to do so after product announcement.

Dave Baumann

08-Nov-2005, 12:52

What's surprising is that Nvidia is able to do all that before the launch and ATi is somehow forced to do so after product announcement.
Not really. NVIDIA had a product that went to schedule and a lack of competition giving them time to plan and accumulate; ATI had a product that took multiple revisions and was many months late and they are trying to get the product out into the market as soon as they can, so they don't have the luxury of accumulating.

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 13:36

Well if ATi is blaming a memory shortage for the scarcity of XT's, shouldn't it be worse for the newer, more expensive memory Nvidia is using?

As Dave said, I never read such a claim either. Why put the plame on memory alone in any case and not in fact also on the high clockspeed which is more important at least IMHO?

Dave Baumann

08-Nov-2005, 13:43

Why is the clockspeed an issue?

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 13:46

Why is the clockspeed an issue?

Not an issue in the strict sense; the higher the clockspeed the lower the yields and obviously the lower the availability.

I don't expect to see higher availability on X1800XTs than X1800XLs or 7800GTX 512 vs. 7800GTX 256. Why should memory be a more determining factor here than the frequency of the core itself and it's relative connection to availability?

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 13:52

As Dave said, I never read such a claim either. Why put the plame on memory alone in any case and not in fact also on the high clockspeed which is more important at least IMHO?

he may of been thinking of this:

Due to an IC substrate shortage, supplies of ATI’s Radeon 9250, X300, and X550 are short of demand at present, according to sources at graphics card makers. Although the chip vendor launched its 90nm process R5xx series only in the latter half of this year, the Radeon X1800, X1600, and X1300 are also limited in supply, the sources added.
http://www.digitimes.com/mobos/a20051107A2002.html

Dave Baumann

08-Nov-2005, 13:55

As I said, I think its just too early to determine anyting about the XT yet because the boards are only just now coming off the production lines.

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 14:01

As I said, I think its just too early to determine anyting about the XT yet because the boards are only just now coming off the production lines.

Point taken. It still though doesn't change much in terms of availability compared to GPUs from the same category with lower core frequencies.

Whether the 512MB 7800GTX will be just a benchmark winning GPU is something that needs also to be seen; I don't expect wide availability on that one though. If it turns out to be a 2nd GF6k8 Ultra Extreme then obviously yes.

Apple740

08-Nov-2005, 14:31

As I said, I think its just too early to determine anyting about the XT yet because the boards are only just now coming off the production lines.

Ati produced let's say 100 XT boards in midway/end September (for all the reviewers/Ibiza), so what have they done since then? Producing ten boards for those lucky USA guys who received it last week? I see no more than 3 or 4 XT owners on all the forums.

Sorry, i hate to say it but i see another XTPE debacle coming.

Dave Baumann

08-Nov-2005, 14:40

I'd imagine there was a production gap between the review boards and the production boards comng off now (for the XT), and the review boards are often done on the first production boat that is used to assess yeilds and are then internally carved up between the sales, marketing and PR people and there can be a gap between this and actual production wafer orders.

Again, from here on in its going to be a gradual trickle of what comes off the production line and what gets allocated where.

_xxx_

08-Nov-2005, 15:12

Whether the 512MB 7800GTX will be just a benchmark winning GPU is something that needs also to be seen; I don't expect wide availability on that one though. If it turns out to be a 2nd GF6k8 Ultra Extreme then obviously yes.

It's a no-brainer IMHO - I'm pretty certain you'll see plenty of them in stores right after the launch. It's not like nV has any yield problems with the GTX and they also had a couple of months to accumulate the "fast" cores, as Dave implied above.

Ailuros

08-Nov-2005, 15:30

It's a no-brainer IMHO - I'm pretty certain you'll see plenty of them in stores right after the launch. It's not like nV has any yield problems with the GTX and they also had a couple of months to accumulate the "fast" cores, as Dave implied above.

Plenty always being relative to the demand which I don't expect to be high either. NV definitely didn't have any yield problems with the 256 GTX but then again it was also merely at 430MHz. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't expect the same availability as the 256 model, due to exactly the higher core clock.

_xxx_

08-Nov-2005, 15:35

All I'm saying is that I wouldn't expect the same availability as the 256 model, due to exactly the higher core clock.

Well of course it won't be the same since they never planned to sell as many of these. What I'm saying is that there will be more than enough to satisfy the demand.

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 16:34

This is sounding more and more like Nvidia doesn't want to ship a real product here. Maybe this is just a stunt for benchmark coverage.
Er, considering there are no benchmarks for the product, that statement makes zero sense.

HaLDoL

08-Nov-2005, 17:05

I wonder about the clock domains on this card:
The 256MB GTX has:
pixel processor: 430Mhz
ROP: 430Mhz
vertex procesor: 470Mhz

The quadro 4500 has 550/550/470 (according xbit)

Deduction for the 512MB GTX:
pixel processor: 550-580Mhz
ROP: 550-580
vertex procesor: 470Mhz

Close enough?

CMAN

08-Nov-2005, 18:01

Does clocking so many parts of the chip at different frequency ever create any problems?

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 18:10

Does clocking so many parts of the chip at different frequency ever create any problems?
It should actually be better for achieving high clockspeeds.

no-X

08-Nov-2005, 18:37

Junkstyle

08-Nov-2005, 19:44

That would be true, if the 512MB model ends up with smaller overall availability than the X1800XT.

I'm getting a bad case of dejavu here.

Junkstyle

08-Nov-2005, 19:48

Er, considering there are no benchmarks for the product, that statement makes zero sense.

When I say "product" I mean something that is going to ship in quantities that will affect Nvidia's bottomline significantly. Not some PR specialized card thats not readily available and priced so high that it doesn't sell in significant amounts. We have all seen this in the past with both ATI highend and Nvidia highend cards before. This shouldn't come to you as a surprise. Don't take things too literally.

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 19:54

Well of course it won't be the same since they never planned to sell as many of these. What I'm saying is that there will be more than enough to satisfy the demand.

Yep, and even though they wont sell in the same quantities as the GTX I expect that in the first few weeks there will be a flood of second hand GTX's on the market as people upgrade. Those first few weeks will be the biggest strain on 512GTX supply. (Can I call it Ultra now - 512GTX just feels wrong as a product name :roll: )

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 20:46

Well, if XTs overclock like this:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33834456

then the 7800U may be academic. 729/828.

Jawed

Pete

08-Nov-2005, 21:12

The quadro 4500 has 550/550/470 (according xbit)Well, Bob says otherwise (see no-X's link to Dave's comment which references Bob's post), and so does nVidia (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=613420&postcount=303). 10.8GP/s = 450MHz * 24 pipes.

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 21:14

Well, if XT's overclock like this:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33834456

then the 7800U may be academic. 729/828.

Jawed

How so? The GTX requires a much lower percentage core overclock to match the XT - 730x16 = 487x24, a 550x24 GTX will laugh at a 730Mhz XT. Not to mention you're comparing overcloced 828Mhz to stock 900Mhz on the memory. Care to guess what 1.1ns memory overclocks to?

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 21:24

I dare say I'm going on BF2 and FEAR benchmarks (max-res, max AA/AF) from the TR article (which, I dare say, ATI actually tweaked the drivers for).

If you take say 12% faster frames from an OC'd X1800XT in those two games, then you'd need a 590MHz 7800U to match it - and the much less latency tolerant texturing and more granular memory accesses of the 7800U mean that it's extremely unlikely that even 900MHz memory on the 7800U would match the XT.

Jawed

trinibwoy

08-Nov-2005, 21:34

Not sure how you can draw conclusions about the required core clock from TR's 4xAA numbers. Non-AA numbers from several sites show the current GTX to be faster than the XT in BF2. As it stands, in current games 430Mhz on the GTX is quite competitive with the XT.

http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/atix1800xt/index.php?p=12#Battlefield%202

On the other hand, 4xAA numbers show the XT between 20-30% faster depending on the site you visit. At a minimum, the 512MB GTX should have 33% more bandwidth at ~ 1600Mhz. And that's before factoring in any reduction in swapping due to limited framebuffer space.

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 21:40

If you take say 12% faster frames from an OC'd X1800XT in those two games, then you'd need a 590MHz 7800U to match it - and the much less latency tolerant texturing and more granular memory accesses of the 7800U mean that it's extremely unlikely that even 900MHz memory on the 7800U would match the XT.
I don't think that the 7800 is less latency-tolerant in terms of memory accesses. Rather stalls in the texturing pipeline generate stalls in pixel processing as well (in my previous example, when it takes 32 clocks to filter a high-anisotropy texture, no pixel processing can be done until this is finished). This doesn't really relate to efficiency of memory access at all, but rather efficiency in processing.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 21:49

At a minimum, the 512MB GTX should have 33% more bandwidth at ~ 1600Mhz. And that's before factoring in any reduction in swapping due to limited framebuffer space.
I'm assuming that a 12% OC for the X1800XT is going to be par for the course. Call it 10% if you think 700/840 is too much: 688/825.

XT unquestionably has more efficient AA/AF than all previous GPUs, per "unit of bandwidth".

The extra bandwidth on the 7800U compared with the GTX just doesn't look like it's going to be enough.

Finally, the TR benchmarks look like the fairest, since they're based on actual gameplay.

Jawed

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 21:51

I don't think that the 7800 is less latency-tolerant in terms of memory accesses. Rather stalls in the texturing pipeline generate stalls in pixel processing as well (in my previous example, when it takes 32 clocks to filter a high-anisotropy texture, no pixel processing can be done until this is finished). This doesn't really relate to efficiency of memory access at all, but rather efficiency in processing.
I was talking about both AA and AF.

Jawed

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 21:59

Doesn't matter. I don't think that the architecture is any worse at memory latency hiding.

Texture access latency is an entirely different matter, because some textures will take longer to access than others simply because they will require more filtering. That has nothing to do with memory latency, and is completely unaffected by memory bandwidth.

This is an architectural issue, not a memory interface issue.

Bill

08-Nov-2005, 21:59

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 22:09

On second thought I dont know. It's so hard to tell because Hardocp never uses the same settings. Is "2X tr MSAA" on Nvidia the same as 4XAA on ATI?
No, they're completely different. "2X tr MSAA" on the 7800 series is 2x AA that also works on alpha textures. 4X AA, on the other hand, is just your standard multisampling that doesn't do anything for alpha textures.

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 22:17

Someone really needs to do a knock down drag out review of the 512 7800GTX and X1800 XT, with latest drivers and focusing on the latest games, when they come out.

And the newest Hardocp review uses gameplay, and I believe a 460 mhz GTX tops a X1800XT slightly in most cases?

On second thought I dont know. It's so hard to tell because Hardocp never uses the same settings. Is "2X tr MSAA" on Nvidia the same as 4XAA on ATI?

So I take that back, ATI may have done better than I thought in that review.

Always been a dream of mine for a hardware site that does a re-review 6 months later on the same products with new driver releases to see how performance has changed. The 6800U turned into a completely different product between launch and early 2006, effectivley making 99% of the reviews/previews totally useless for objective testing.

No, they're completely different. "2X tr MSAA" on the 7800 series is 2x AA that also works on alpha textures. 4X AA, on the other hand, is just your standard multisampling that doesn't do anything for alpha textures.

except they used AAA in most of the XT tests versus MSAA. Theres no apple to apple. I really am beginning to hate their reviews more then ever, they dont compare the cards at all. The average hardware junkie with a fat wallet is going to skim the bottom comments and just look at the charts. If one card is doing SSAA or AAA while the other is doing MSAA or regular FSAA i dont see how thats telling the purchaser anything helpful. At some point in the game tests you need to compare the impact of equal IQ or as close as you can get. Xbit and rage3d do the best comparison reviews in my opinion.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 22:24

MulciberXP

08-Nov-2005, 22:25

except they used AAA in most of the XT tests versus MSAA. Theres no apple to apple. I really am beginning to hate their reviews more then ever, they dont compare the cards at all. The average hardware junkie with a fat wallet is going to skim the bottom comments and just look at the charts. If one card is doing SSAA or AAA while the other is doing MSAA or regular FSAA i dont see how thats telling the purchaser anything helpful. At some point in the game tests you need to compare the impact of equal IQ or as close as you can get. Xbit and rage3d do the best comparison reviews in my opinion.

I don't even know what AA you're talking about at this point. AAA adaptive anti-aliasing? That IS MSAA, with the addition of running AA on alpha textures. nVidias TR MSAA is equivalent. and as far as I knew, both companies use FSAA in the form of MSAA, just no longer SSAA. So you wont find any reviews in the past 3 years of someone running SSAA while the other is running MSAA.

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 22:33

I don't even know what AA you're talking about at this point. AAA adaptive anti-aliasing? That IS MSAA, with the addition of running AA on alpha textures. nVidias TR MSAA is equivalent. and as far as I knew, both companies use FSAA in the form of MSAA, just no longer SSAA. So you wont find any reviews in the past 3 years of someone running SSAA while the other is running MSAA.

im kinda tired so i'll speak as simple as possible for my benefit and yours, Adaptive anti-aliasing should be the equiviland to Nvidia Transparency Adaptive Supersampling, thats how i understood it since AAA is using supersampling on Alpha textures. So in apples to apples, i would think
Transparency Multisampling would be compared to ATI's normal Multisampling AA
and Transpareceny Adaptive Supersampling would be compared to ATI's Adaptive AA

Thats what i would look for in an IQ apples to apples anyway, make sense?

Bill

08-Nov-2005, 22:40

I hate Hardocp's system too..

You want to see which is faster at roughly equal settings. That's what you need to know. Doesn't matter if it's 140 FPS versus 100. You can know the one card is faster.

Plus they blab about real gaming settings, yet dont use 1280X1024 which is what my and most LCD's run. So much for realistic. They do run 1280X960 but if they really want to reflect "real gaming" this seems a big detail to overlook to me.

RobertR1

08-Nov-2005, 22:41

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 22:48

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2556&p=2

Looking at the performance impact of 4xAA on its own, taking the X1800XL versus the GT, which both have the same memory speed, the XL drops 22% at 1600x1200 against 30% for the GT.

The memory architecture of the X1k series is clearly having an effect.
Not necessarily. There are two other effects to pay attention to here. First, the GT has a lower core speed, and as such may be more GPU-limited at this resolution. Secondly, the NV4x allocates memory differently for AA, and in some cases keeps full-resolution front buffers, only downsampling at scanout. This improves bandwidth efficiency, but increases the performance hit of higher resolutions for games that make use of lots of textures.

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 22:59

Nvidia's Transparency anti aliasing does a better job than Adaptive AA from the screen shots I've seen. Unfortunarely the TAA has too big of a hit at high resolutions. Perhaps the extra bandwidth and RAM on the 7800Ultra will help that out greatly. We shall see.......

So that I'm not just ragging on Ati, their AF is better than that of nvidia but that's common knowledge.

think AA is getting to the point where its equal IQ wise, just how well the card takes the hit under stress is all people care about. As far as AF, that has gotten very subjective. As i previously stated, its been awhile since i'v touched Nvidia, but i seriously doubt im going to notice differences between the X1800 and 7800 unless i look for them. 99% of the time if you're actually playing the game you wont notice it. Only thing im keeping an eye open for is shimmering but i plan on putting LOD to clamp before i even touch a game.

I cant notice a difference between the 7800 16HQ AF and X800 16AF in every screenshot i'v seen, and notice things i'd call nitpicks in the X1800 vs 7800. But to be honost, screenshots cant do justice, all about the IQ in movement. So we'll see. I hope im pleased to be honost, and after the cost i put down, i'll definitly be subjective.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 23:05

Not necessarily. There are two other effects to pay attention to here. First, the GT has a lower core speed, and as such may be more GPU-limited at this resolution.
Why don't you actually read the Anandtech page?

Secondly, the NV4x allocates memory differently for AA, and in some cases keeps full-resolution front buffers, only downsampling at scanout. This improves bandwidth efficiency, but increases the performance hit of higher resolutions for games that make use of lots of textures.
So what you're saying is that 7800 AA is less efficient than X1k AA?

The X850XT results (which has faster memory than the X1800XL) also show that the X1k's memory architecture is more efficient.

Jawed

Chalnoth

08-Nov-2005, 23:12

The X850XT results (which has faster memory than the X1800XL) also show that the X1k's memory architecture is more efficient.
Not necessarily. The X850XT may just be less CPU-limited than the X1800XL.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 23:21

How do CPU limitations affect the AA performance impact? Particularly at a resolution that isn't CPU-limited?

Jawed

Dave Baumann

08-Nov-2005, 23:26

I think you just need to look at out X1800 article to know that ATI's newer architecture is far more efficient at high bandwidth and texture limited scenarios than their previous one.

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 23:35

SugarCoat

08-Nov-2005, 23:39

The trouble is, I can't find any directly translatable AF-only and AA-only results for 7800GTX versus X1800XT.

3DMk03-GT2:

http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvidia/g70/index.php?p=19

With no equivalent page for R520.

Jawed

theres some AF only benchies here:
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/video/atix1800xt/index.php?p=12

just click the tabs at the top of the chart, those what you're looking for?

Jawed

08-Nov-2005, 23:52

The Rage3D FEAR results disagree hugely with XBit and TR :eek: (i.e. the X1800XT is no faster than 7800GTX). Doesn't inspire confidence.

Jawed

Ailuros

09-Nov-2005, 01:59

The Rage3D FEAR results disagree hugely with XBit and TR :eek: (i.e. the X1800XT is no faster than 7800GTX). Doesn't inspire confidence.

Jawed

Why hugely?

TR: 1280*960 4xAA/16xAF
X1800XT = 44.8
7800GTX = 36.8

[note about TR's settings: Light detail, shadow detail, texture resolution, shaders, effects detail, model decals, and relections were all set to maximum for our testing. Computer performance, water resolution, and volumetric light density were set to medium. ]

R3D: 1280*960 4xAA/16xAF
X1800XT = 41.0
7800GTX = 38.0

[maximum in game settings]

Anand: 1280*1024 4xAA/8xAF
X1800XT = 41.0
7800GTX = 39.0

Xbit: 1280*1024 4xAA/16xAF
X1800XT = 40.0
7800GTX = 35.0

Pete

09-Nov-2005, 02:10

Keep in mind Rage3D tested FEAR 1.01 with Cat 5.9, and TR tested FEAR 1.02 with Cat 5.10a. Much could have changed from that alone, but the demos were also very different. R3D used the "in-game Performance Test," while TR FRAPed tha heck outta that thing (:)).

HaLDoL

09-Nov-2005, 08:14

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27552
Geforce 7800 GTX 512 MB quantities held deliberately low

AlphaWolf

09-Nov-2005, 08:15

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27552
Geforce 7800 GTX 512 MB quantities held deliberately low

That's a nice way to spin it.

wireframe

09-Nov-2005, 08:28

That's a nice way to spin it.
I agree that his could be spin, but even so, if Nvidia officially stated this I think it would be an improvement over not saying so, setting peoples' expectations high that they will be able to purchase one, and then failing to deliver.

In case it is not obvious, I am talking about ATI here. I think people would be much more forgiving if ATI stated that X1800 XT would be a limited edition so that everyone can move on and accept the XL as the actual top of the line, as far as products that can be easily purchased are concerned. I expect the same to be true for Nvidia, but we haven't heard anything official on this yet, but this piece could be one of those times when a company didn't want to say something directly and wanted it "leaked" through the press. Still, better than not being warned at all.

AlphaWolf

09-Nov-2005, 08:38

I agree that his could be spin, but even so, if Nvidia officially stated this I think it would be an improvement over not saying so, setting peoples' expectations high that they will be able to purchase one, and then failing to deliver.

In case it is not obvious, I am talking about ATI here. I think people would be much more forgiving if ATI stated that X1800 XT would be a limited edition so that everyone can move on and accept the XL as the actual top of the line, as far as products that can be easily purchased are concerned. I expect the same to be true for Nvidia, but we haven't heard anything official on this yet, but this piece could be one of those times when a company didn't want to say something directly and wanted it "leaked" through the press. Still, better than not being warned at all.

I was actually referring to the wording specifically used by theinq, but the fact is that if nvidia is able to produce the product in significant quantities they will/would. If its limited its not going to be because of some marketing type decision, it will be because of yields or memory availability.

wireframe

09-Nov-2005, 08:50

I was actually referring to the wording specifically used by theinq, but the fact is that if nvidia is able to produce the product in significant quantities they will/would. If its limited its not going to be because of some marketing type decision, it will be because of yields or memory availability.

And you know this how? Don't you think there is a strong possibility that it is not interesting to mass produce this model because of the costs involved and the effect this has on the price? I believe the same applies to ATI, of course, but they don't seem to want to admit this. (I am not saying Nvidia has admitted to this either yet, but this article seems to suggest it.)

I am saying that even if ATI could mass produce X1800XTs I don't think they would do so due to the costs involved at this transition period. I think it is safe to assume that 512MB cards will become more prevalent in future models (*sigh*) as prices drop. It would be very costly to mass produce a part and have it left in your inventory when the "new gen" comes along and is produced at half the cost with the same perceived value, or higher, in the market. This would mean one of two things:

1. You cannot sell your new part at lower prices made possible by lower costs because it would break the "bubble".

2. You break the bubble and you are stuck with very costly inventory that has little value on the market.

It's a pity that neither company has decided to steamroller ahead ("damn the torpedoes!"). I thought ATI would go balls-to-the-wall with 512 MB for a while, but now it looks like this is mostly a benchmarking weapon.

R300King!

09-Nov-2005, 09:04

This proves, IMO, that nVidia's been speed-binning the GTXs for the high clockers. They found a few that will do 500+Mhz and are now asking a premium for them. Is $649 alot? Who knows? Depends on how fast they are over the existing cards, really.

But when does all this "We'z gotz the faztest card" crap stop? Is it who has the fastest "chip" or who has the fastest card(multiple chips on a card)? Is it the fastest system(multiple chips on card with multiple cards in a system)?

IMO if a card or chip or system is not widely available then it really means nothing and does not have any performance crown for the "real" public. There's plently of high powered computers and workstations out there rendering ToyStory in real time, etc. and they don't mean diddly because they are not widely available or affordable. So somewhere the line has got to be drawn. I'm drawing that line at "needs to be widely available" and needs to be "reasonably priced". Yes, I know these two terms ARE very subjective so we will have to use the "majority" of the people's decision on what is "widely available" and "reasonably priced". Thank you and goodnight. ;-) /rant mode

N00b

09-Nov-2005, 09:12

If the 7800 GTX 512 is available in limited quantities only then it is obviously just a product to bridge the time between G70 and 90 nm G7x.

AlphaWolf

09-Nov-2005, 09:18

And you know this how? Don't you think there is a strong possibility that it is not interesting to mass produce this model because of the costs involved and the effect this has on the price? I believe the same applies to ATI, of course, but they don't seem to want to admit this. (I am not saying Nvidia has admitted to this either yet, but this article seems to suggest it.)

No I don't think there is any possiblity of that. If there is demand and profit to be made they would produce it. Do you think there will be terribly low demand or do you think the profit would be too low on the product? If the latter, see my previous post. Cost difference for the ATI part is totally down to the extra 256mb of ram, I expect the 256mb version will outsell the 512 presuming its $50 or more less.

I am saying that even if ATI could mass produce X1800XTs I don't think they would do so due to the costs involved at this transition period. I think it is safe to assume that 512MB cards will become more prevalent in future models (*sigh*) as prices drop. It would be very costly to mass produce a part and have it left in your inventory when the "new gen" comes along and is produced at half the cost with the same perceived value, or higher, in the market. This would mean one of two things:

1. You cannot sell your new part at lower prices made possible by lower costs because it would break the "bubble".

2. You break the bubble and you are stuck with very costly inventory that has little value on the market.

If ATI don't mass produce the X1800XT its because of yields or ram availability, they are already producing the x1800xl in mass quantities so the cores are out there and judging from oc reports the cores have no problem with 625 so I would expect that only the ram could be an issue. Perhaps the 256mb version is more attractive to ATI but again that would most likely be because of a ram availability issue. I expect they stand to make more money on each 512 mb card they sell than if they were to sell a 256mb in its place.

It's a pity that neither company has decided to steamroller ahead ("damn the torpedoes!"). I thought ATI would go balls-to-the-wall with 512 MB for a while, but now it looks like this is mostly a benchmarking weapon.

I doubt the extra ram is that big of a weapon in terms of benchmarks. However I could see how that description would fit the rumored GTX 512.

Well I think thats enough supposition based on rumor for me on this topic. :)

Chalnoth

09-Nov-2005, 09:38

The question then becomes: how limited is limited?

Obviously any part that has as memory as fast as the 512MB GTX is purported to have will be very expensive. Any expensive part is going to be low-volume.

But will it be low volume compared to the demand?

Rys

09-Nov-2005, 09:44

no-X

09-Nov-2005, 10:38

According to one supplier from my country, manufacturer said, that the delay of X1800XT is caused by insufficient supplies of required memory modules. And I think, that inadequate supplies of 1.2ns GDDR3 for XT could indicate the availability of 1.1ns GDDR3 modules for GTX512.

PE & UE again? :-|

trinibwoy

09-Nov-2005, 13:22

I don't think it will be. Anyone that seriously wants one should be able to find one quite easily, from what I hear. Most large retailers should carry it from a vendor or two and even the smaller shops should be able to put in an order for one unit, if a customer wants.

We'll soon see.

That's what I got from the Inq article as well. Supplies will be limited but it will be in-stock everywhere. So I'm guessing they know they can fulfill demand of a $649 part but if the price drops much they will have a hard time meeting demand. I would be surprised if they're able to keep prices high while maintaining availability using this tactic.

Geo

09-Nov-2005, 13:46

As I keep saying, SLI did this to us. It proved there is a small but viable market that is willing to drop $1,000 or more jingle for their graphics jones. So why wouldn't they go "limited and pricey" so long as the performance is there?

Sxotty

09-Nov-2005, 14:19

There's plently of high powered computers and workstations out there rendering ToyStory in real time, etc. and they don't mean diddly because they are not widely available or affordable.

So where are these magical machines at? That are rendering it in real time.

trinibwoy

09-Nov-2005, 14:58

More evidence of 512MB making a difference:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_2_performance_ati_nvidia/page2.asp

Chalnoth

09-Nov-2005, 16:38

That's what I got from the Inq article as well. Supplies will be limited but it will be in-stock everywhere. So I'm guessing they know they can fulfill demand of a $649 part but if the price drops much they will have a hard time meeting demand. I would be surprised if they're able to keep prices high while maintaining availability using this tactic.
nVidia doesn't have to touch the price. First of all, these are only MSRP's. They're not even manufacturing the boards. They're just selling the chips (probably bundled with memory).

There isn't a problem of keeping prices high while maintaining availability: prices will change to accomidate supply and demand.

Moloch

09-Nov-2005, 16:40

More evidence of 512MB making a difference:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_2_performance_ati_nvidia/page2.asp
Wow that game really kicks the X800's ass!

Arty

09-Nov-2005, 16:53

More evidence of 512MB making a difference:

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_of_duty_2_performance_ati_nvidia/page2.asp
So that is the first game that takes advantage of 512MB (Doom3 & Quake4's Ultra quality mode being other beneficiaries).

trinibwoy

09-Nov-2005, 18:46

So that is the first game that takes advantage of 512MB (Doom3 & Quake4's Ultra quality mode being other beneficiaries).

I thought HL2 showed a difference between the 256 and 512 versions of the XL as well.

Putas

09-Nov-2005, 18:49

That explains why I dont have textures from 1024 up in COD2 on my 64 MB board.

trinibwoy

09-Nov-2005, 18:52

There isn't a problem of keeping prices high while maintaining availability: prices will change to accomidate supply and demand.

I didn't read it like that. I read it as "Nvidia will supply just enough parts to fulfill demand at the $650 price point". According to the Inq they care more about ASP than number of units shipped. I don't understand why but that's what I got from the article.

Chalnoth

09-Nov-2005, 18:54

I didn't read it like that. I read it as "Nvidia will supply just enough parts to fulfill demand at the $650 price point". According to the Inq they care more about ASP than number of units shipped. I don't understand why but that's what I got from the article.
That's stupid. What they care about is profit. nVidia wants to sell as many as they can, since their prices don't fluctuate much. But sometimes, resources (i.e. RAM) are just hard to come by.

Junkstyle

09-Nov-2005, 19:13

That's stupid. What they care about is profit. nVidia wants to sell as many as they can, since their prices don't fluctuate much. But sometimes, resources (i.e. RAM) are just hard to come by.

Well it could be a PR move so they show high on the benches. They know X1800XT 512MB will be in limited supply as well.

wireframe

09-Nov-2005, 19:20

Well it could be a PR move so they show high on the benches. They know X1800XT 512MB will be in limited supply as well.
Also note that there will be a X1800XT with 256MB memory and that this is the configuration of the CrossFire master card (a flagship product!). Doesn't this suggest to anyone else that this gen will not be the transition to 512 MB we all thought and hoped it would?:sad:

BTW, One thing I thought of when I read this article was that this could also be a setting up for a psy-ops coup for Nvidia. You know the competition (ATI) is producing their 512 flagship part in limited quantities. You know they are catching flack for lack of availability. What do you do when you have to release the same limited model? You announce it as limited (which your competitor didn't) and then make sure you exceed your competitors supply. Far fetched? Maybe, but it would be a huge blow to the market perception of the products if Nvidia's "limited edition" has greater availability than ATI's "mass produced" counterpart.

John Reynolds

09-Nov-2005, 19:36

Wow that game really kicks the X800's ass!

I can't get to the article from work so I haven't read it yet, but I've been playing the game at 1680x1050, 2x AA, all texture details manually set at high, DX9 mode, shadows, blah blah. Plays just fine on my X800 XT. Are the X800 scores really falling behind 6800 or is there just a large difference between this and the previous generation?

Arty

09-Nov-2005, 19:37

I thought HL2 showed a difference between the 256 and 512 versions of the XL as well.
Not the case with 6800 Ultra:
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/bfg_geforce_6800_ultra_oc_512mb/page10.asp
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=1355&page=9

dizietsma

09-Nov-2005, 20:07

Well if the 512MB GTX is just the same core as the 256MB but with better cooling and slightly more volts then I don't think they will be limited on the amount they can supply core wise. Whether this is true or not I am not sure but surely that would be the easy way to do it rather than creaming good cores for ages ?

As regards memory, looking at the Samsung spec pdf

http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/GraphicsMemory/GDDR3SDRAM/512Mbit/K4J52324QC/ds_k4j52324qc_rev12.pdf

The 1.1 and 1.2ns parts share the same timings and voltages as far as I can tell so there may be more limtied supply of 1.1 over 1.2

It's interesting to note that when the 2ns and 1.6ns were very new they were on up to 2.1v but now they have matured they have dropped to 1.8v. The 1.1 and 1.2's are now on 2v and their timings are more lax then higher parts.

Might be better to have 1.4ns memory with it's tighter timings and stick 2v through it for a big overclock ( that's a volt modders way of looking at it anyhow ) !

trinibwoy

09-Nov-2005, 21:46

Mwave has jumped the gun $799

http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/1192/mwavegtx4lc.th.png (http://img435.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mwavegtx4lc.png)

SugarCoat

09-Nov-2005, 21:51

Mwave has jumped the gun $799

http://img435.imageshack.us/img435/1192/mwavegtx4lc.th.png (http://img435.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mwavegtx4lc.png)

at 800 dollars? i dont think that was not intentional

trinibwoy

09-Nov-2005, 21:53

at 800 dollars? i dont think that was not intentional

Of course - they're selling you a product that doesn't exist yet - gotta charge for that lol.

Moloch

09-Nov-2005, 22:20

I can't get to the article from work so I haven't read it yet, but I've been playing the game at 1680x1050, 2x AA, all texture details manually set at high, DX9 mode, shadows, blah blah. Plays just fine on my X800 XT. Are the X800 scores really falling behind 6800 or is there just a large difference between this and the previous generation?
With 4x fsaa:razz:
at 1024 fps is 23 for the 256MB XL and 33 for the 512MB XL.
The ultra appears to be just ahead of the X850 XT PE :shock:
4x fsaa isn't an option even at 1024 for the boards though...
2x fsaa dooesn't show much of a performance advantage vs 4x..
29.5 fps at 2x/8xaf vs 28.2.
Must be because they've run out of ram and have to use system ram...

09-Nov-2005, 22:28

Of course - they're selling you a product that doesn't exist yet - gotta charge for that lol.

It says they are in stock according to that image that was posted...so does that mean they do exist? :)

fallguy

09-Nov-2005, 22:58

I called them, the lady I spoke with said they do have them in stock. When I asked her how many, she said "we just got them in today, only got a little bit." When I asked how many that was, she said, "maybe 20".

So thats good news to see these cards out there. Hopefully the price will drop.. $800 isnt any where close to a good price to me. You can easily do 2x7800GT's for that.

Also, a guy posted that he went over there, and saw them. Said the box said it was 550/1800.

Geo

09-Nov-2005, 23:41

Deleted.

fallguy

09-Nov-2005, 23:47

Still there for me. Can even add to the cart.

BrynS

10-Nov-2005, 00:13

This guy (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=741167&postcount=36) over at nvnews claims to be on his way to pickup one he just bought from MWave and will post pics and a review later tonight, if the NDA hitsquad don't get to him first. :lol:

Arty

10-Nov-2005, 00:17

*Rubs hands in anticipation* :twisted:

Rys

10-Nov-2005, 00:19

The NDA hitsquad better be clinical :lol:

Geo

10-Nov-2005, 00:53

The NDA hitsquad better be clinical :lol:

Or at least be flower lovers. . .

BrynS

10-Nov-2005, 01:00

Or at least be flower lovers. . .
I wonder if that reviewing "aid" is UK exclusive?

Chalnoth

10-Nov-2005, 01:04

FrameBuffer

10-Nov-2005, 01:37

and just to think when I originally hypothesized about the supposed 7800 GTX 512MB being intentionally limited..

I could in that case see nV be the 1st ISV to break the 1G MSRP barrier (or damn close with a $999.99 USD) if only to serve 2 purposes:
1; to show their new "King of the Hill" .(picture 6800Ultra EE, but this time you can really REALLY buy it.. if you have the $$$$)
2; create an artificial limited availability. This way they really need not make that many (maybe in the low 1000s) because by pricing such a product would automatically create a huge limit to who would be able to purchase even one,.. never mind TWO (for SLI).
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25117&page=4

.. I was told I was "Miles off" .. sure I admit 999.99 is a far cry from say 799.99 however just as x1800XT prices have increased (over MSRP) due to supply vs demand I too expect any such 512MB GTXs also to suffer the consequences of basic economics, unless somehow Nv has mysteriously taken control of basic laws of economics and provided themselves a pardon... with the X1800XT MSRP as $549.99 yet selling for 699.99 due to demand if applied equally then an MSRP of 699.99 could easily jump to 799.99 (or higher depending on avalability and how much vendors feel they can sell them for).

Geo

10-Nov-2005, 01:54

FrameBuffer

10-Nov-2005, 02:05

The street price the week after availability starts, in my view, would not be something to lean on to make such a point. Let's check back on, say, Dec 5th and see what both parts are going for then at street price for "in stock" retailers.

Besides, you really think NV or ATI are seeing any of that extra jack above MSRP? I sure don't. Prolly even the AIB's aren't --going right in retailers pockets would be my guess.

Im sure nV and ATI dont see 1 cent more than what they sell the boards/chips for to either AIB partners or rE-tailers. However I still feel that with a "limited" launch, be it due to some unforeseen circumstances (IC substrate supply issues, GPU availability etc) or by introducing "Limted Editions" will automatically create a higher resale price simply due to there being fewer available than what the market (consumers) demand.

trinibwoy

10-Nov-2005, 02:40

Im sure nV and ATI dont see 1 cent more than what they sell the boards/chips for to either AIB partners or rE-tailers. However I still feel that with a "limited" launch, be it due to some unforeseen circumstances (IC substrate supply issues, GPU availability etc) or by introducing "Limted Editions" will automatically create a higher resale price simply due to there being fewer available than what the market (consumers) demand.

According to the same Inq article it looks like Nvidia has every intention to fulfill demand at the $600+ price point.

BrynS

10-Nov-2005, 02:42

The NDA hitsquad better be clinical :lol: Well, they obviously haven't hit home yet (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=741318&postcount=65)! Maybe they should send over one of those spiffy beverage jugs to incapacitate him. :lol:

How does sir like his initial overclock? Would 580MHz/1730MHz suffice?

EDIT: Changed link as previous thread was locked.

SugarCoat

10-Nov-2005, 03:56

Well, they obviously haven't hit home yet (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=741318&postcount=65)! Maybe they should send over one of those spiffy beverage jugs to incapacitate him. :lol:

How does sir like his initial overclock? Would 580MHz/1730MHz suffice?

EDIT: Changed link as previous thread was locked.

i already saw pictures, how could he not do one benchmark? thats rather dissapointing. Like masturbation without the pay off.

trinibwoy

10-Nov-2005, 04:00

i already saw pictures, how could he not do one benchmark? thats rather dissapointing. Like masturbation without the pay off.

Don't you mean it's like your girl getting off before you and saying she's too tired to take you home? (excuse the lame metaphors) :grin: When is there ever masturbation without the pay off? :???:

wireframe

10-Nov-2005, 04:03

When is there ever masturbation without the pay off? :???:
Narcolepsy.

We should probably steal the numbers from NvNews and state that the XFX 7800 GTX 512MB is clocked at 580/1730

Update:
The core and memory speed should be revised. Apparently the box states 550/1800 and the reported clock may be due to some discrepancies with Coolbits or the driver (.inf) being non-optimal for this card. It seems an updated drivers is needed as programs crash and perform incorrectly with ForceWare 81.85 (included).

BlueTsunami

10-Nov-2005, 05:24

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1769/box17te.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1630/card16rh.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/7007/inaction8gk.jpg

http://img1.imageshack.us/img1/9872/7800gtx5120lm.jpg

Supposedly a 512MB 7800 GTX that shows up - 580 Mhz Core/1730 Mem

Link to the original thread containing these pics (http://www.ga-forum.com/showthread.php?t=70690)

SugarCoat

10-Nov-2005, 06:10

Narcolepsy.

We should probably steal the numbers from NvNews and state that the XFX 7800 GTX 512MB is clocked at 580/1730

Update:
The core and memory speed should be revised. Apparently the box states 550/1800 and the reported clock may be due to some discrepancies with Coolbits or the driver (.inf) being non-optimal for this card. It seems an updated drivers is needed as programs crash and perform incorrectly with ForceWare 81.85 (included).

i wonder if AIBs getting these high clocks but disabling dynamic clocking. Wouldnt surprise me.

_xxx_

10-Nov-2005, 10:08

i already saw pictures, how could he not do one benchmark? thats rather dissapointing. Like masturbation without the pay off.

But he did, go read the thread:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=59593&page=19

EDIT: seems like the drivers are not ready yet

"81.85 came with the card. I did read some thread from a guy who appears to be a vendor stating the same thing. Looks like there will be a new release driver on Monday for this card.

I tried 4 different drivers but none would recognize my card. I looked at the properties and it does say g70.

So it looks like the reason for the monday launch was to have the new set of drivers ready. Right now i can run everything maxed out smoothly on my 24" which what i was hoping for. Come monday.....messing with the overclocks will be icing on the cake."

EDIT2:

F.E.A.R. results (http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=741666&postcount=278)

Comparison with regular GTX/SLI here:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=741675&postcount=285

lopri

10-Nov-2005, 10:48

And a comparison between X1800 and 7800 is here ;)

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883898,00.asp

lopri

10-Nov-2005, 10:53

Off Topic: Actually what surprised me in the ET bench is how much improvement ATI has made in the jump from X800 to X1800. It's almost two-fold.

On Topic: Hopefully NV has enough supply to keep vendors from price-gauging. I may have to cancel my vacation to SF. :)

lop

Matasar

10-Nov-2005, 13:38

A 256 GTX running 550/1700 scores 9900 in 3DMark05.

CMAN

10-Nov-2005, 14:52

And a comparison between X1800 and 7800 is here ;)

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1883898,00.asp

:???: I believe we are talking about the new 7800GTX here....

Apple740

10-Nov-2005, 15:08

A 256 GTX running 550/1700 scores 9900 in 3DMark05.

Mmm, not excited yet about that guy's 512Mb 3DM05 result, he had to downclock the card to get it artifactfree.

The only 3dmark05 score i got in 3d mode was 9101. I had to mess with the overclock settings to be able to run 3dmark05 without it artifacting. The numbers were way off so i couldnt really tell you what true speed i was running. There is something wrong with the software for sure.

lopri

10-Nov-2005, 16:42

:???: I believe we are talking about the new 7800GTX here....

You're right. I was thinking more on the memory side. (512MB)

pharma

10-Nov-2005, 16:42

:???: I believe we are talking about the new 7800GTX here....

No, that's the 7800GTX 256 variety with wide availability .... :wink:

trinibwoy

10-Nov-2005, 16:57

It's available in Denmark before launch - how's that for worldwide availability :wink:
http://www.midtdata.dk/asp/index1280.asp?varernr=PX7800GTX2512E&goto=productinfo&mainfunc=link&

Tim

10-Nov-2005, 17:01

It's available in Denmark before launch - how's that for worldwide availability :wink:
http://www.midtdata.dk/asp/index1280.asp?varernr=PX7800GTX2512E&goto=productinfo&mainfunc=link&

"Ikke lagervare

Leveringstiden er ukendt"

Translation:

"Not in stock

Unknown date of availebility"

trinibwoy

10-Nov-2005, 17:03

Hehe, thanks for the language lesson :) Got it from nvnews - thought the guy could read :lol:

CMAN

10-Nov-2005, 17:04

Are we going to expect availibility before launch now! :shock:

rendezvous

10-Nov-2005, 17:04

It's available in Denmark before launch - how's that for worldwide availability :wink:
http://www.midtdata.dk/asp/index1280.asp?varernr=PX7800GTX2512E&goto=productinfo&mainfunc=link&

It is not in stock (Ikke lagervare) and the delivery date is unknown (Leveringstiden er ukendt) so I woldn't call it availiable.

Edit: Beaten by far.

Arty

10-Nov-2005, 17:04

^ you didnt have to do that. :lol:

m4trix

10-Nov-2005, 18:25

"Ikke lagervare

Leveringstiden er ukendt"

Translation:

"Not in stock

Unknown date of availebility"

Well im drom Denmark and i talked to the shop TODAY. And guess what, they are sending my card tomorrow :) I got one from the first shipment. So yes it IS in Denmark

trinibwoy

10-Nov-2005, 19:04

Well im drom Denmark and i talked to the shop TODAY. And guess what, they are sending my card tomorrow :) I got one from the first shipment. So yes it IS in Denmark

Redemption! :lol:

dizietsma

10-Nov-2005, 21:20

Redemption! :lol:

Nothing can stop the Holy green light at the moment !

Green = Go
Red = Stop

Soon even WaltC will be lost for words slagging nvidia.

Or maybe not.

:D

Chalnoth

10-Nov-2005, 21:56

Meh, there's always going to be something to complain about.

trinibwoy

10-Nov-2005, 23:55

Meh, there's always going to be something to complain about.

But you have to admit - the fact that Walt is so quiet is proof positive of the state of the industry. Wait till the G80 flops and R600 is king - he'll be back with a vengeance!

fallguy

11-Nov-2005, 00:58

Hey, arent you guys cool!!! Lets troll and try and start something. :rolleyes:

Back on topic, newegg had it listed for a short while. They had the XFX version, with a pic of just the card, and no specs. Price was $699, +$5 shipping. It let me add 35 to the cart, 36 would say that there wasnt enough. Its now gone though.. for whatever reason.

Pressure

11-Nov-2005, 01:00

Well im drom Denmark and i talked to the shop TODAY. And guess what, they are sending my card tomorrow :) I got one from the first shipment. So yes it IS in Denmark

Nice but paying $890 for that card = ouch ;)

Chalnoth

11-Nov-2005, 01:13

But you have to admit - the fact that Walt is so quiet is proof positive of the state of the industry. Wait till the G80 flops and R600 is king - he'll be back with a vengeance!
I don't see a reason for anybody that's in the ATI camp to really switch over. The X1800 XT still offers MSAA on FP16 framebuffers, and will be faster for dynamic branching situations. It may also do better as its drivers mature.

But nVidia's going to have the trump in current benchmarks at least until ATI releases the R580, though by that time nVidia may be preparing to release their own 90nm version of the GTX.

jvd

11-Nov-2005, 01:50

assuming ati doesn't release a new card in a month

Chalnoth

11-Nov-2005, 02:02

assuming ati doesn't release a new card in a month
They'd have to be shipping the chips out to board vendors now, so I rather doubt it.

Geo

11-Nov-2005, 02:19

They'd have to be shipping the chips out to board vendors now, so I rather doubt it.

Me too. They aren't even selling X1800XT in volume yet at $599. :lol: I would think the last thing they'd want is a credible rumor leaking from the AIBs that R580 will be here in a month. There is a bit of room tho between Anand's "CeBit" and "R580 is already ramping". Tho the closer to now they bring it, I would think the more annoyed the $599 X1800XT crowd will be. NV cut it pretty close at 4 months. I could see ATI shortening that, but one month? That I don't see.

N00b

11-Nov-2005, 08:10

Here are some interesting posts from nvnews.net (for those too lazy to look themselves):

F.E.A.R 1600x1200/ 4x AA / 16x AF / Softshadows On
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=742542&postcount=411

3DMark05with 7800 GTX 512 on a X2 3800+ at stock clocks:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=742536&postcount=410
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=742667&postcount=468

7800 GTX 512 overclocked to 600/1800 with overclocked X2 3800+ breaks
10K in 3DMark05:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=742609&postcount=438

Very impressive card indeed.

Give me one. NOW! :twisted:

Jawed

11-Nov-2005, 09:50

As I posted a while back:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33834456

10105 on the XT OC'd. We've already seen 10,000 on a stock card...

Jawed

ANova

11-Nov-2005, 10:09

The XT can hit 10k without breaking a sweat, that doesn't necessarily translate into real world performance though.

Jawed

11-Nov-2005, 10:13

The XT can hit 10k without breaking a sweat, that doesn't necessarily translate into real world performance though.
Which is why we spent a while, back a few pages, discussing the effect of XT's memory architecture on performance - rather than core speed. Specifically for high AA/AF.

Anyway, the proof will be in the pudding on Monday...

Jawed

N00b

11-Nov-2005, 11:03

As I posted a while back:

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33834456

10105 on the XT OC'd. We've already seen 10,000 on a stock card...

Without being picky:
The XT was overclocked from 625/700 to 729/828 and ran on an OC'ed X2 4400+
The 512 was overclocked from 580/865 to 600/900 and ran on an OC'ed X2 3800+

Bit of a difference.... :wink:

We've already seen 10,000 on a stock card...

Really? I've missed that. Could you give a link?

Anyway, both cards are great and what I will get mainly depends on what will be available in germany on monday... :grin:

Jawed

11-Nov-2005, 11:41

A stock card: stock cooler, stock volts.

I didn't say stock clocks. God this is tedious sometimes.

Jawed

trinibwoy

11-Nov-2005, 11:53

Without being picky:
The XT was overclocked from 625/700 to 729/828 and ran on an OC'ed X2 4400+
The 512 was overclocked from 580/865 to 600/900 and ran on an OC'ed X2 3800+

Bit of a difference.... :wink:

Well without being picky, 580 may not be "stock" on the GTX :razz:

Arun

11-Nov-2005, 12:02

Well without being picky, 580 may not be "stock" on the GTX :razz:It will be for certain brands, I think.

Uttar

N00b

11-Nov-2005, 12:02

Well without being picky, 580 may not be "stock" on the GTX :razz:
It's the stock clock on the XFX the guy from nvnews.net got. That's stock enough for me. ;-)

trinibwoy

11-Nov-2005, 12:13

True, but I'm sure most reviews are going to bench with reference clocks come Monday. It's tempting to upgrade to this from a regular GTX but I only play WoW these days and who knows when the 512 is going to get trumped.

dizietsma

11-Nov-2005, 12:29

N00b

11-Nov-2005, 12:33

... and who knows when the 512 is going to get trumped.
My bet is the R580 will arrive end of february (earliest) or (early to late) march, if there are no further problems. And we will probably see a nVidia high-end 90 nm G7x part as well, roughly in the same timeframe.

dizietsma

11-Nov-2005, 12:36

That guy at nvnews said the box reported 550 for the core, so I guess that the clock will be 550 and that coolbits reads the vertex domain which is +30 over the pixel and ROPS domains, ie 580/550/550.

To quote Murray Walker, "Unless I am very much mistaken .. hold on, I am very much mistaken"

Sampsa reports that his clocks are all the same, also that it runs 1.5v and also that

" I'm at 625/1890 with default cooling "

which was nice :)

trinibwoy

11-Nov-2005, 13:17

I'm really interested in seeing how the vertex tests go between an XT and GTX, both at 625 (assuming no delta on the GTX).

lopri

11-Nov-2005, 13:29

I'm really interested in seeing how the vertex tests go between an XT and GTX, both at 625 (assuming no delta on the GTX).

From the link below, Sampsa reaches 625/1900 on stock cooling. He also mentions all 3 clock domains report the same speed.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1130284#post1130284

lopri

11-Nov-2005, 13:35

Oh.. a thought just dawned on me.. Maybe now we can do the *true* *efficiency* test? :twisted:

Subtlesnake

11-Nov-2005, 13:59

Well yeah, but you'd still have to disable 8 pipes on the GTX card.

Geo

11-Nov-2005, 15:42

My bet is the R580 will arrive end of february (earliest) or (early to late) march, if there are no further problems. And we will probably see a nVidia high-end 90 nm G7x part as well, roughly in the same timeframe.

While I can't believe we'd see R580 before New Years (when you've got a new expensive part for sale and just hitting volume, why would you want to create any doubt in the market during the best shopping season of the year?), there have been enuf smirks around to make me think that Anand's "CeBit" (i.e. mid-March) is the outer bounds rather than the inner bounds.

As for NV, they've been pretty close-mouthed, but I'm not getting any sense they are close to anything on that front, and obviously they've got a new expensive part to sell without market-freezing distraction as well.

Maintank

11-Nov-2005, 15:47

assuming ati doesn't release a new card in a month

ATI will be lucky to have the R520 shipping in quantity in a month. I dont think a new GPU is in the mix.

kemosabe

11-Nov-2005, 18:26

Looks like the last shots (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3902) have yet to be fired. :)

trinibwoy

11-Nov-2005, 18:39

Looks like the last shots (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3902) have yet to be fired. :)

Sorry to say but a 50Mhz clock boost isn't going to do much. Without AA a 430Mhz GTX keeps up pretty well with a 625Mhz XT. What is a 675Mhz XT supposed to do against a 550Mhz GTX?

Rys

11-Nov-2005, 18:45

Sorry to say but a 50Mhz clock boost isn't going to do much. Without AA a 430Mhz GTX keeps up pretty well with a 625Mhz XT. What is a 675Mhz XT supposed to do against a 550Mhz GTX?
25MHz (650) and not much, it seems.

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 18:45

real men use fsaa:wink:

Dave Baumann

11-Nov-2005, 18:58

I don't think those clocks are final. I've heard other numbers both up and down on the core and memory.

Pete

11-Nov-2005, 19:04

And ATI seems to have found (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/839/3/page_3_benchmarks_3dmark05/index.html) some extra 3DMs with the 5.11s, at least with a (relatively pokey) 3800+. Slight counter-offensive, generic optimization, dual-core tweak?

Of course, games are the thing, as are settings above 3DM's stock 10x7 0x4. But 3DM is still referenced aplenty, so I thought the boost was worth mentioning.

trinibwoy

11-Nov-2005, 19:27

real men use fsaa:wink:

Exactly. Hence why the overclock on the core?

Karma Police

11-Nov-2005, 20:01

Exactly. Hence why the overclock on the core?

To keep the minimums high, of course!

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 20:02

Exactly. Hence why the overclock on the core?
Have there been anyone varied the clockspeed of the 1800XT to see how much it benefits from core clock and memory clock?
Like how the GTX doesn't benefit much frrom memory speed?

Ailuros

11-Nov-2005, 20:07

Have there been anyone varied the clockspeed of the 1800XT to see how much it benefits from core clock and memory clock?
Like how the GTX doesn't benefit much frrom memory speed?

If you overclock any GPU core by let's say 10%, how many chances do you have to get more than 10% performance in games?

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 20:27

If you overclock any GPU core by let's say 10%, how many chances do you have to get more than 10% performance in games?
never but maybe in some situations the XT was limited by it's core clock:?:
But I'm not sure why they raised the speeds so little, maybe some AIB will release something with a more significant overclock?

kemosabe

11-Nov-2005, 20:51

Speaking exclusively to HEXUS, Bill Donnelly, PR Director for Sapphire Technology would not confirm the details of the ATi RADEON ‘X1800 XT OC support’ document, but he revealed that Sapphire will shortly be offering at least one X1800 XT based product with "significantly increased frequencies and performance".

I don't know, Rys, but if a 25 MHz boost is all you expect from that inference, perhaps you guys shouldn't have bothered making a fuss over it. ;)

By the way, what makes you say that "ATi’s 90nm R580 ASIC... isn’t too far off e-tailers shelves either." :?:

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 20:54

Well if their oced XT can atleast match the 512MB GTX and have it available in significant quantities it would make nvidia look foolish.

MulciberXP

11-Nov-2005, 20:55

Well if their oced XT can atleast match the 512MB GTX and have it available in significant quantities it would make nvidia look foolish.

in what respect would it make them look foolish?

Arty

11-Nov-2005, 21:07

in what respect would it make them look foolish?
The extra effort for nothing if that turns out to be the case. :oops:

SugarCoat

11-Nov-2005, 21:09

I don't think those clocks are final. I've heard other numbers both up and down on the core and memory.

anything high enough to significantly impact performance? Or are we talkin the same 5fps gain best case scenerio higher clocks here.

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 21:17

The extra effort for nothing if that turns out to be the case. :oops:
+++

Ailuros

11-Nov-2005, 21:19

never but maybe in some situations the XT was limited by it's core clock:?:
But I'm not sure why they raised the speeds so little, maybe some AIB will release something with a more significant overclock?

I don't see anything that suggests that it's limited by its core clock. Higher frequencies will deliver obviously also higher performance; to sustain the advantage over the 256MB GTX currently compared to the 512MB GTX I suspect that it'll need a lot more than just 25 or 50MHz.

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 21:23

I don't see anything that suggests that it's limited by its core clock. Higher frequencies will deliver obviously also higher performance; to sustain the advantage over the 256MB GTX currently compared to the 512MB GTX I suspect that it'll need a lot more than just 25 or 50MHz.
Well I haven't seen an article that independantly overclocked the core and mem.
Ati always has their MC to help out...

trinibwoy

11-Nov-2005, 21:24

Well if their oced XT can atleast match the 512MB GTX and have it available in significant quantities it would make nvidia look foolish.

Getting ahead of ourselves a bit aye? Maybe we should wait until the stock XT is available in "significant quantities" first? ;)

My prediction is that ATi won't be winning any more non-AA benchmarks no matter what they do with clocks on the XT, but the high resolution stuff with AA enabled is going to be highly competitive.

Ailuros

11-Nov-2005, 21:31

Well I haven't seen an article that independantly overclocked the core and mem.
Ati always has their MC to help out...

Tough task when you have to deal with ~30% higher clockspeeds from the competition. Albeit fillrates aren't an accurate measurement for today's cases, 7800GT/X1800XL and 7800GTX 256/X1800XT have roughly the same fillrate. At theoretical 550MHz the GTX goes up to 13.2GTexels/s.

Pete

11-Nov-2005, 21:32

Well if their oced XT can atleast match the 512MB GTX and have it available in significant quantities it would make nvidia look foolish.
The GTX and XT are already pretty competitive. I don't see a <10% clocks boost on the XT making up for the 30-40% clocks boost the 512MB GTX will get.

If this boost is retroactive to all XT cards, tho, it's a nice touch, and if the 256MB GTX stays where it is, the 256MB XT will probably stay very competitive. I'm with trini on the 512MB boards, tho: GTX sweeping the non-AA benches, and XT only competing with AA.

Subtlesnake

11-Nov-2005, 21:34

Looks like the last shots (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=3902) have yet to be fired. :)
From that article:

"That said ATi’s 90nm R580 ASIC - which HEXUS exclusively revealed is codenamed 'Rodin' - isn’t too far off e-tailers shelves either, and will inevitably come with even higher frequencies"

Is there any confirmation on this? Good news for ATI if it's true.

And ATI seems to have found (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/839/3/page_3_benchmarks_3dmark05/index.html) some extra 3DMs with the 5.11s, at least with a (relatively pokey) 3800+. Slight counter-offensive, generic optimization, dual-core tweak?

Of course, games are the thing, as are settings above 3DM's stock 10x7 0x4. But 3DM is still referenced aplenty, so I thought the boost was worth mentioning.
Yeah, in Half-Life 2 the boost is 9.5% at 1600*1200. That's quite a substantial increase. ATI would be looking good if Nvidia weren't releasing the 512 GTX.

Moloch

11-Nov-2005, 21:36

The GTX and XT are already pretty competitive. I don't see a <10% clocks boost on the XT making up for the 30-40% clocks boost the 512MB GTX will get.

If this boost is retroactive to all XT cards, tho, it's a nice touch, and if the 256MB GTX stays where it is, the 256MB XT will probably stay very competitive. I'm with trini on the 512MB boards, tho: GTX sweeping the non-AA benches, and XT only competing with AA.
Well with the price of the 512MB being 650 supposedly it's not in the same price point so really it's not significant if the supposed msrp is true.
Nvidia already has the performance crown with SLI...