View Full Version : 512MB GeForce 7800 GTX
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 08:38
I'm just a bit surprised that this rumor hasn't made it here yet. Here's a link:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58776
...if you do some googling, it looks like some are saying that this will have increased clock speeds as well, while some say it'll have the same clocks. Looks like Nov. 7 launch is pretty universal for the rumors, though.
Dave Baumann
31-Oct-2005, 08:44
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23784&page=16
I'm just a bit surprised that this rumor hasn't made it here yet. Here's a link:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=58776
...if you do some googling, it looks like some are saying that this will have increased clock speeds as well, while some say it'll have the same clocks. Looks like Nov. 7 launch is pretty universal for the rumors, though.
HKPEC says the core to be clocked at ~530MHz, and it will be further refinforeced by samsung -1.1ns GDDR3.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=497984
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 08:51
Ah, heh, guess I overlooked that post.
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 09:15
HKPEC says the core to be clocked at ~530MHz, and it will be further refinforeced by samsung -1.1ns GDDR3.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=497984
That would be pretty incredible if true. 1.1ns memory? That's rated for 900MHz (1.8GHz DDR)! Isn't the stock clockspeed for the GeForce 7800 GTX 1.2Ghz? Even though most of the time the memory is shipped at slightly lower clockspeeds, that's still nearly a 50% increase in memory bandwidth.
And 530MHz core? Also would be impressive.
Unknown Soldier
31-Oct-2005, 10:29
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=24949
US
digitalwanderer
31-Oct-2005, 16:52
Sorry for the crudity of the translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hkepc.com%2Fbbs%2Fvie wthread.php%3Ftid%3D497984&langpair=zh-CN%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools), but Google is still beta-ing Chinese:
but is changes to Samsung newest -1.1ns GDDR3□□□□ów, □w the grain □ék4j52324qc-BJ11, its is highest □r□ } may □_1800MHz
Now that ain't the clearest, but it sounds DAMNED FAST to me! :shock:
AlStrong
31-Oct-2005, 17:01
Yup...about 58.2GB/s bandwidth assuming 256bit. :D
HKPEC says the core to be clocked at ~530MHz, and it will be further refinforeced by samsung -1.1ns GDDR3.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=497984
Someone's dreaming.
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 17:26
Someone's dreaming.
I'd say the core speed sounds entirely plausible, but the memory does seem a bit fast.
trinibwoy
31-Oct-2005, 17:30
I'd say the core speed sounds entirely plausible, but the memory does seem a bit fast.
Considering the 256MB Leadtek Extreme already overclocks to ~ 550, I would say 530 on a 512MB Leadtek Extreme is "conservative".
If Nvidia does go with a core increase, I expect around 480-500 on the vanilla version and 530-550 on the extreme SKUs from BFG, XFX, Leadtek et al.
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 17:33
Well, one question I would have, though, if the 1.1ns memory speed was true, is how will availability be?
I have no doubt that they could get a lot of 530MHz-550Mhz cores, but that memory won't be easy to come by.
A 'large' order was placed with Samsung by NVIDIA some months back now.
Hellbinder
31-Oct-2005, 17:58
Does any of this really matter?
at 500+ mhz with comprable memory speeds and 512mb. People are going to see just how unimpressive the X1800XT really is. This has all been smoke and mirrors with this supposed DX AA+AF superiority and people are about to get that made pretty plain to see.
This has all been smoke and mirrors with this supposed DX AA+AF superiority and people are about to get that made pretty plain to see.
I hate having to say so, but... yeah. At 530/800+, ATI's benchmark wins will be very, very limited imo. They'll still have the IQ crown, and games specifically optimized for them will have a very very nice performance boost. But that most likely won't cut it for most people, and more importantly most reviewers.
This is entirely my own subjective opinion, but something I feel is going to happen is that this is pretty much going to destroy ATI's physics ambitions, at least until DXPhysics if that ever happens. I also feel that it is no coincidence that BFG, the only AIB partly financed directly by NVIDIA, is now going to produce Novodex PPUs. I doubt NVIDIA wants ATI to have a lead here when they basically have nothing to counter it with; don't kid yourself, the G70 isn't anywhere near as capable as the R520 in that category.
Uttar
Anyone care to guess how a 530 core and 1.1 ns RAM 512 MB 7800 would perform? Or cost! :shock:
I love competition!
Why guess at those clocks, though? :lol:
Does any of this really matter?
at 500+ mhz with comprable memory speeds and 512mb. People are going to see just how unimpressive the X1800XT really is. This has all been smoke and mirrors with this supposed DX AA+AF superiority and people are about to get that made pretty plain to see.
All one has to do is take a look at the difference between the 9800 Pro and the 9800 XT or the 5900 Ultra and the 5950 to get an idea of what to expect.
I wouldn't be so sure clock increases will be that high.
why use such fast memory if you're not even close to bandwidth limited...
All one has to do is take a look at the difference between the 9800 Pro and the 9800 XT or the 5900 Ultra and the 5950 to get an idea of what to expect.
I wouldn't be so sure clock increases will be that high.
Considering they've had a quater of a year to speed bin GPUs I wouldn't be surprised.
Does any of this really matter?
at 500+ mhz with comprable memory speeds and 512mb. People are going to see just how unimpressive the X1800XT really is. This has all been smoke and mirrors with this supposed DX AA+AF superiority and people are about to get that made pretty plain to see.
Shut the the hell up you dolt :lol:
Look at the X1800Xl vs the X800XT in dave's review.
Same amount of memory and clock speeds, yet the X1800xl is alot faster.
It's been pointed out to you before but you refuse to acknowledge the facts.
just give up HB, just because ati didn't deliver a 32FP part doesn't mean it sucks.
It's alot faster than the previous generation, even at the same speeds.
Does nvidia have a ring memory bus? Does nvidia have usable dynamic branching?
Also consider the 1800XT is clocked conservatively., theres still room for a PE part.
Considering they've had a quater of a year to speed bin GPUs I wouldn't be surprised.
Well, 500 MHz or under would seem likely, over that I don't think so unless SKUs decide to overclock like trini mentioned. 1.1 ns memory I don't buy.
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 18:38
Anyone care to guess how a 530 core and 1.1 ns RAM 512 MB 7800 would perform? Or cost! :shock:
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.
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.
Is the 7800 GTX bandwidth limited at hi res (1600x1200 or higher) with 4xAA?
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 18:42
Well, 500 MHz or under would seem likely, over that I don't think so unless SKUs decide to overclock like trini mentioned. 1.1 ns memory I don't buy.
Considering eVGA is selling a 490MHz GTX, and Leadtek a 550MHz GTX, I'd say below 500MHz would be extremely unlikely (assuming there is any core clock speed increase).
russo121
31-Oct-2005, 18:43
...Does nvidia have a ring memory bus? Does nvidia have usable dynamic branching?
It could have NASA technology and I don't care. I do care with fnal numbers - faster is better!
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 18:44
Is the 7800 GTX bandwidth limited at hi res (1600x1200 or higher) with 4xAA?
Higher resolution tends to be less bandwidth-limited than lower resolutions, because z-buffer compression schemes work better, and less fillrate is consumed at pixel edges due to multisampling.
The big thing that memory helps with at higher resolutions is space. The 512MB alone should help significantly for some games at higher resolutions with FSAA.
It could have NASA technology and I don't care. I do care with fnal numbers - faster is better!
But those work to make the x series very effcient, one for memory obivously and other for shaders.
And faster is faster.. as I said the x1800xl is in a league of it's own compared to the same clocked X800xt.
HB is trying to say just because the X1800XT has a huge bandwidth advantage it's faster, but if you look at it compared to the previous generation you can see ati made large gains at the same clock speeds.
But those work to make the x series very effcient, one for memory obivously and other for shaders.
And faster is faster.. as I said the x1800xl is in a league of it's own compared to the same clocked X800xt.
HB is trying to say just because the X1800XT has a huge bandwidth advantage it's faster, but if you look at it compared to the previous generation you can see ati made large gains at the same clock speeds.
HB is one of those fickle types, let him have his fun. ;)
HB is one of those fickle types, let him have his fun. ;)
But it find it highly irritating and feel the need to express my concern:oops:
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 19:06
Obviously you can't expect any core changes in this version. But at about 30% more fillrate (at 530MHz), and 10% more memory bandwidth (at 1.8GHz), and 512MB of memory, the X1800XT would have a hard time keeping up, even without changes.
ondaedg
31-Oct-2005, 19:13
Are you trying to sell us an ATI card? :wink:
Has Nvidia officially lowered the MSRP on the current 7800 GTX? Or will the new 7800 MSRP above $600?
Dave Baumann
31-Oct-2005, 19:19
But at about 30% more fillrate (at 530MHz), and 10% more memory bandwidth (at 1.8GHz)
Presumably you mean fragments? ;)
Obviously you can't expect any core changes in this version. But at about 30% more fillrate (at 530MHz), and 10% more memory bandwidth (at 1.8GHz), and 512MB of memory, the X1800XT would have a hard time keeping up, even without changes.
Hence me saying the there is still room for an XT-PE.
Dave Baumann
31-Oct-2005, 19:29
I'd think there is as well, I'd just be very surprised if you ever saw one.
I'd think there is as well, I'd just be very surprised if you ever saw one.
:grin:
We'll see how it plays out:wink:
russo121
31-Oct-2005, 19:39
:grin:
We'll see how it plays out:wink:
What do you think a XT-PE is? - a R580 or a R520 with higher freq?
What do you think a XT-PE is? - a R580 or a R520 with higher freq?
Trick question?
I was just saying ati clocked the XT conservatively...
So if they wanted they could up the clocks and sell a PE model if they felt the need, but they' best make it available in some quantity.
John Reynolds
31-Oct-2005, 19:44
Has Nvidia officially lowered the MSRP on the current 7800 GTX? Or will the new 7800 MSRP above $600?
My guess will be a MSRP drop down to $500 for the original 7800 GTXs. Whether or not or how soon that translates into a real world price drop among e-tailers is a whole other issue, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see $400 (or slightly less) 7800 GTX boards in November.
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 20:11
Trick question?
I was just saying ati clocked the XT conservatively...
Conservatively? How? That thing runs hot.
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 20:12
My guess will be a MSRP drop down to $500 for the original 7800 GTXs. Whether or not or how soon that translates into a real world price drop among e-tailers is a whole other issue, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see $400 (or slightly less) 7800 GTX boards in November.
I don't quite see why they'd change the MSRP. I mean, it's just suggested. Supply and demand determine the final price.
AlphaWolf
31-Oct-2005, 20:23
I don't quite see why they'd change the MSRP. I mean, it's just suggested. Supply and demand determine the final price.
Because lots of retail places just sell stuff at MSRP.
Conservatively? How? That thing runs hot.
It overclocks a lot.
Just throw on an even better cooler.
It also doesn't dump much more heat into the case since it's dual slot.
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/index.php?p=31
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 20:47
...which would mean an even noiser fan to get more air out of the case (most likely).
Edit:
Oh, and the power requirements would make it quite a bit harder to put those in Crossfire mode.
Kombatant
31-Oct-2005, 21:36
I'd think there is as well, I'd just be very surprised if you ever saw one.
With emphasis on very.
...which would mean an even noiser fan to get more air out of the case (most likely).
Edit:
Oh, and the power requirements would make it quite a bit harder to put those in Crossfire mode.
Or a bigger fan that turns less rpm.
Crossfire and SLI= expensive in the first place and a very small market.
I'm sure those with FX/ extreme P4s can afford a decent psu.
I mean if you have a grand worth of videocards I'm sure you can aforrd a ~200 doller PSU
I also think you'd have a hard time hearing the fan if you're gaming.. ya know with explosions and the such?
Unless you've already sold your soul to get the two graphic cards!
Chalnoth
31-Oct-2005, 21:58
I also think you'd have a hard time hearing the fan if you're gaming.. ya know with explosions and the such?
Oh, I think it'd be a problem. I'm not liking the noise from my two BFG GeForce 7800 GT OC's while gaming (my current case doesn't have quite enough ventillation, so I'm leaving it open). And these cards aren't very loud to begin with.
I've got a new case coming, though, so hopefully in a couple of days this will no longer be an issue.
Considering the 256MB Leadtek Extreme already overclocks to ~ 550, I would say 530 on a 512MB Leadtek Extreme is "conservative".
If Nvidia does go with a core increase, I expect around 480-500 on the vanilla version and 530-550 on the extreme SKUs from BFG, XFX, Leadtek et al.
Considering the max Tim could get the Leadtek Extreme to 535 MHz (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/20/leadtek_xfx_7800gtx/11.html), I'd say 530 is far from a conservative figure. :lol:
My guess is Nvidia is still using the 1.26ns memory which is when we heard they placed the "large order" with Samsung. :wink:
Conservatively? How? That thing runs hot.
This seems curious to me considering it draws no more (in terms of watts) then the 7800 series.
Oh, I think it'd be a problem. I'm not liking the noise from my two BFG GeForce 7800 GT OC's while gaming (my current case doesn't have quite enough ventillation, so I'm leaving it open). And these cards aren't very loud to begin with.
I've got a new case coming, though, so hopefully in a couple of days this will no longer be an issue.
Turn the volume up...Or get some closed headphones.
How does the 6800GT compare to the 6800GT in terms of noise?
I the they're loud but when you're gaming it's hard to hear them.
Don't forget that NV have the ability to clock different domains inside the GPU differently, and they've had 4+ months to 'work on' it.
I'm being conservatively conservative about that too ;)
The XT PE could be interesting, though. As Dave says... will we ever see it, even if it is 'announced'?
Junkstyle
01-Nov-2005, 00:16
Note to ATI: Don't ship your flagship card a month after you ship your cards.
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 01:06
Considering the max Tim could get the Leadtek Extreme to 535 MHz (http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2005/10/20/leadtek_xfx_7800gtx/11.html), I'd say 530 is far from a conservative figure. :lol:
Well those comments were based on two assumptions.
1. Nvidia is going to up the reference core clocks on the 512MB version (I don't see why though since the GTX at 430-490 is more than enough for the XT)
2. The voltage on this part is going to be higher than the single-slot GTX.
This guy hit 526 - http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-306-8.htm
552 here - http://www.vr-zone.com.sg/print.php?i=2791
Shamino got 540 at stock 1.4v and 570 with a 0.1v voltage boost - http://www.vr-zone.com.sg/?i=2825&s=6
So yes, I think with 1.5v 530 is conservative for an AIB "extreme" edition. Power consumption will probably top the XT PE but temperatures should be relatively low.
Dave Baumann
01-Nov-2005, 01:06
The XT PE could be interesting, though. As Dave says... will we ever see it, even if it is 'announced'?
Oh, if one was announced then I'm pretty sure it would be available. Although I would say one is less likely now.
Dave Baumann
01-Nov-2005, 01:07
So yes, I think with 1.5v 530 is conservative for an AIB "extreme" edition.
I'd be surprised if they go near core voltages. There are always other things that can change over time though.
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 01:09
Oh, if one was announced then I'm pretty sure it would be available. Although I would say one is less likely now.
What happened to make it less likely? Don't want to cannibalize existing products? Lack of competition? Don't want to muddy the waters for the impending r580 release?
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 01:11
This seems curious to me considering it draws no more (in terms of watts) then the 7800 series.
Yeah that is strange. Unless a higher percentage of that power draw on the XT is just heat - the dreaded current leakage maybe?
Oh, if one was announced then I'm pretty sure it would be available. Although I would say one is less likely now.
I wonder if that's a hint about drivers over at ATI.
Jawed
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 01:34
I wonder if that's a hint about drivers over at ATI.
lol, yeah didnt think about that. 512MB GTX vs Catalyst 5.11 !! Dave's comments really did reek of "They could release a PE if they wanted but they don't need to :razz: "
Well those comments were based on two assumptions.
Then you must have mentioned them ! ;)
What do you make of Tim's hint. :twisted:
Dave Baumann
01-Nov-2005, 02:38
I wonder if that's a hint about drivers over at ATI.
No.
Dave's comments really did reek of "They could release a PE if they wanted but they don't need to :razz: "
I wouldn't necessarily assume that.
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 02:47
This seems curious to me considering it draws no more (in terms of watts) then the 7800 series.
Then how do you explain these results:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051006/ati_enters_the_x1000_promised_land-13.html ?
AlphaWolf
01-Nov-2005, 02:54
Then how do you explain these results:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051006/ati_enters_the_x1000_promised_land-13.html ?
Part of it would be explained by the extra 256mb and higher speed ram. I doubt that would be all the difference, but it could explain some of it. The 256mb XL is using considerably less than the 7800gtx.
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1752&cid=3&pg=16
:wink:
Part of it would be explained by the extra 256mb and higher speed ram. I doubt that would be all the difference, but it could explain some of it. The 256mb XL is using considerably less than the 7800gtx.
I don't really think the XL and the 7800 GTX are competitors. In addition, the XT is clocked way higher than the XL.
AlphaWolf
01-Nov-2005, 03:27
I don't really think the XL and the 7800 GTX are competitors. In addition, the XT is clocked way higher than the XL.
I wasn't suggesting that the XL was a competitor to the GTX, I was suggesting that the huge difference in power draw between the XT and the XL is not even mostly explained by the difference in core speed.
I'd love to see someones power draw numbers for an XL with XT core clock and voltage.
Then how do you explain these results:
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20051006/ati_enters_the_x1000_promised_land-13.html ?
Erm, that's not what other sites that I've seen claim.
mrcorbo
01-Nov-2005, 03:48
What happened to make it less likely? Don't want to cannibalize existing products? Lack of competition? Don't want to muddy the waters for the impending r580 release?
I'm thinking some combination of 1 and 3.
If a X1800XT PE were in the works, when would it be released? Too soon after the vanilla XT and you alienate the customers who just shelled out top dollar to have the biggest baddest card on the planet, too late and it's window of viability becomes too narrow (with R580-based products looming) to justify the effort. And at what price point would it be sold? Nvidia have the luxury of putting a 7800 GTX Ultra at the already established price level of ATI's XT because their current flagship card has had time to experience the inevitable price erosion. Would ATI be able to sell enough PE's at an elevated price point with cards that are within striking distance performance-wise selling for that much less? Heck any more expensive than the XT already is and SLI starts looking mighty attractive.
Bottom line, it just doesn't make sense. That is unless last minute problems crop up with the R580 launch. IMHO if you see an X1800XT PE ATI are in serious trouble.
I wasn't suggesting that the XL was a competitor to the GTX, I was suggesting that the huge difference in power draw between the XT and the XL is not even mostly explained by the difference in core speed.
I'd love to see someones power draw numbers for an XL with XT core clock and voltage.
Sorry, misinterpreted what you were saying.
If this has 500 MHz on the core with 1.25ns memory or faster, it might as well be called the 7800 Ultra. ;)
mrcorbo
01-Nov-2005, 04:08
If this has 500 MHz on the core with 1.25ns memory or faster, it might as well be called the 7800 Ultra. ;)
Heh, I am aware Nvidia have said there isn't going to be a 7800 Ultra, but my post was rather wordy as it was and I was pretty sure you all would know what I meant :)
YeuEmMaiMai
01-Nov-2005, 04:13
We go though this crap every generation.....ATi isn't what I expected whining....
My history with ATI in regards to 3d cards
Radeon LE flashed to a Radeon great card
Radeon 8500 Retail growing pains but turned out to be a great car expecially with later drivers
Radeon 9500 Pro <- lasted from Dec 2002 to 5 days ago THIS WAS THE BEST CARD EVER. I could play everything up to and including doom 3 with it no issues and it was just replaced when I built my new rig
Radeon 1800XL is current card and all I gotta say is that it's performance is just simply jaw dropping 1280*1024 with 6x FSAA expecially with the new drivers.
There is always Nvidia if you are not satisfied with ATi you know........
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 04:13
Erm, that's not what other sites that I've seen claim.
Perhaps. But given users' claims of overheating XL's and the noisier coolers, I'm more inclined to believe Tom's power consumption measurements.
SugarCoat
01-Nov-2005, 04:53
Perhaps. But given users' claims of overheating XL's and the noisier coolers, I'm more inclined to believe Tom's power consumption measurements.
im not sure how you can compare a 512mb card to a 256mb card in power consumption and proclaim its doing worse...i mean they're different cards power wise for sure.
The 256 XT runs just a bit over the XL in power, which is acceptable, to complain about it would be boaderline nit picking. Not to mention definitly not surprising considering its very high clocks which naturally results in higher consumption.
The last thing people continue to overlook, is Nvidia cards downclock quite a bit in idle while ATI's latest X1 offerings are running full core and memory speeds, even in idle.
True the XL's cooler may not be the best sound wise, but its a little fan, and sound wise operates not much louder then an X850XT or X1800XT, the only thing people may find annoying is the low to high transistions.
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 05:07
We go though this crap every generation.....ATi isn't what I expected whining....There is always Nvidia if you are not satisfied with ATi you know........
Lol, I find it hilarious that you made this post in a thread about an upcoming Nvidia card.
mrcorbo, what you're saying makes sense - ATi doesnt have the luxury of having an aged flagship on the market.
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 05:35
Wow, is Nvidia hiring its most devoted fans to spread the word now?
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=972281
Wow, is Nvidia hiring its most devoted fans to spread the word now?
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=972281
haha.
Email nvidia and ask them about dynamic brancing and flow control performance that ill shut em up- a x1800xl crushes a gtx.
Wow, is Nvidia hiring its most devoted fans to spread the word now?
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=972281
I wonder if Jen has to walk over to the PR bullpen twice a day with a whip to "remind" them of the hard launch mantra. :lol:
Hellbinder
01-Nov-2005, 06:19
haha.
Email nvidia and ask them about dynamic brancing and flow control performance that ill shut em up- a x1800xl crushes a gtx.
That is so fannboi its not even funny. Totally ignore the real world PS benchmarks and focus on some synthetic benchamarks that make *insert your favorite hardware* look better.
It is flipping obvious to anyone with a clue that a 7800 Clocked at 500ish Core and comparable ram speeds is going to wipe the floor with the X1800XT. Its going to have a considerable lead in all the non AA+AF bencharks and pull ahead in most if not all AA+AF bencharks by an as yet unknown degree. Plus is will continue to totally slaugherATi in OpenGL games.
Look at the latest crop of FEAR benchamarks and HDR benchmarks. The X1800 is already losing those before the new GTX even hits the market. The only thing that saved them *at all* was the 10GB bandwidth advantage they have had *on paper*.
This is whats so irritating to me about ATi right now. I am sick of them playing follow the leader 12 months late and then launching (as far as im concerned) a substandard product line. which they then try and PR Their way out of with "we dont need that yet" " you dont need that yet" "well do it way better in a year" "we have better dynamic branching" blah blah blah. They have had exactly one product that did not follow this formula and that was the R300.
Look at the numbers. They already lose the majority of Shader intensive games except the rare synthetic benchark. Hell, they even lose in source engine HDR.
That is so fannboi its not even funny. Totally ignore the real world PS benchmarks and focus on some synthetic benchamarks that make *insert your favorite hardware* look better.
It is flipping obvious to anyone with a clue that a 7800 Clocked at 500ish Core and comparable ram speeds is going to wipe the floor with the X1800XT. Its going to have a considerable lead in all the non AA+AF bencharks and pull ahead in most if not all AA+AF bencharks by an as yet unknown degree. Plus is will continue to totally slaugherATi in OpenGL games.
Look at the latest crop of FEAR benchamarks and HDR benchmarks. The X1800 is already losing those before the new GTX even hits the market. The only thing that saved them *at all* was the 10GB bandwidth advantage they have had *on paper*.
This is whats so irritating to me about ATi right now. I am sick of them playing follow the leader 12 months late and then launching (as far as im concerned) a substandard product line. which they then try and PR Their way out of with "we dont need that yet" " you dont need that yet" "well do it way better in a year" "we have better dynamic branching" blah blah blah. They have had exactly one product that did not follow this formula and that was the R300.
Look at the numbers. They already lose the majority of Shader intensive games except the rare synthetic benchmark. Hell, they even lose in source engine HDR.
Er when devs start to use dynamic branching more in games we'll see what product is substandard.
Don't you see the point of the X series?
Show of a review of a 7800gtx wuping a 1800XT in "shader intensive" dx9 games.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2575&p=5 btw
The R300 didn't have strong DX8 performance but when DX9 games came out it was obvious which card was a true SM2 card.
Once games come out that use tons of shaders the X series will really shine though.
What the hell do you mean the 10GB advantage on paper?
It's "flippin" obvious the new memory controller is simply awesome comparing the x800xt to the x1800xl, just shut the hell up already with your ati doomsayer bullshit.
You're the one who's acting like NV puppet bashing ati every change you get btw.
Leviatan
01-Nov-2005, 06:38
Er when devs start to use dynamic branching more in games we'll see what product is substandard.
The key question is When is going to happen that?
Cause if the answer is further than 1 year that key part is irrelebant. It can be worse than Nvidia super selling and PRing SM3 when there was no games, last year we knew at last a few games that will have SM3 in a close date, but i don´t know any game that is going to have a substantial use of dinamic branching to make the R520 shine enough.
The key question is When is going to happen that?
Cause if the answer is further than 1 year that key part is irrelebant. It can be worse than Nvidia super selling and PRing SM3 when there was no games, last year we knew at last a few games that will have SM3 in a close date, but i don´t know any game that is going to have a substantial use of dinamic branching to make the R520 shine enough.
Well now that we have a product that actually makes it usable, and nvidia has slightly improved dynamic brancing with the 7 series it outa see some use.
I mean we got second gen DX9 hardware here, game devs need to get with the program!
Although the 7 series is only a refresh part, and is evident with the lack of features update.
Matasar
01-Nov-2005, 07:34
I was gonna get the XT card, but reading recent rumours about the 512meg NV card coming i dont know =(
This isnt funny any more. I always buy the fastest card no matter what brand.
But as it is right now with this 512 meg NV card coming i really think the XT will be "its a nice card".
If the rumours are true ehh and i hope not. ATi need to release a jaw dropper.
I just hope other GPU's they working on have no delay problems.
Releasing Crossfire, multiple chipset and having problems with GPU's and making good drivers at the same time might be hell.
Kombatant
01-Nov-2005, 08:24
HB, at some point you really need to follow that advice you have in your sig (even though the caffeine will only make it worse I'm afraid:lol:)
nV is not using the "Ultra" name on purpose... "just in case". Hence their new part will be "GTX" again. The next few months will be very interesting, especially if they hardlaunch again (which from what I hear will be done).
Hellbinder
01-Nov-2005, 08:39
just look through this to get an idea of whats about to happen.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/asus-en7800gtx.html
Now calculate a GTX at 500+ (like 530ish) core and maxed available ram with 512mb frame buffer.
Its going to be a smack down.
just look through this to get an idea of whats about to happen.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/asus-en7800gtx.html
Now calculate a GTX at 500+ (like 530ish) core and maxed available ram with 512mb frame buffer.
Its going to be a smack down.
512MB won't help in doom 3 engined games... which ati has a large lead in, and that review does not have the OGL patchs...
XT still rules far cry. fear, battlefield 2 (which could benefit from more memory) and SC:CT.
The GTX isn't memory bandwidth limited, and nor is it limited by the amount of memory in all but a few games.
The XT has OCing headroom also, it actually runs a bit cooler th an the GTX:wink:
Keep in mind nvidia has had more time to tweak drivers than ati also.
N7800GTX TOP (xbit test) is clocked at 486MHz, so 530MHz (assumed 512MB GTX) is only 9% faster.
The XT has OCing headroom also, it actually runs a bit cooler th an the GTX:wink:
A bit cooler than a GTX with a dual slot cooler? Doubtful, very doubtful.
It certainly isn't quieter than a GTX.
The XL is warmer than a GT, and also a lot heavier (due to the amount of copper required to keep it cool).
If you're saying that the GTX is 'hotter' than the XT, why does the XT use a comparably noisy dual slot cooler when the GTX uses a quiet single slot solution?
A bit cooler than a GTX with a dual slot cooler? Doubtful, very doubtful.
It certainly isn't quieter than a GTX.
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1752&cid=3&pg=16
The XT has OCing headroom also, it actually runs a bit cooler th an the GTX:wink:
No. Just no.
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1752&cid=3&pg=16
what about noise comparison?
I'll say again in a different way...
If G70 runs 'hotter' than R520, why does 7800 GTX only require a quiet single slot cooler, when X1800XT requires a dual slot cooler that is said to be louder than the GTX cooler?
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 11:31
...which would mean an even noiser fan to get more air out of the case (most likely).
Edit:
Oh, and the power requirements would make it quite a bit harder to put those in Crossfire mode.
Perhaps. But given users' claims of overheating XL's and the noisier coolers, I'm more inclined to believe Tom's power consumption measurements.
I don't see how properly designed/installed dualslot coolers add to noise and put a higher strain on power requirements as you seem to indicate/claim it would. Many (if not most) DS coolers use larger dia. fans (the better ones being centrifugal type an opposed to bladed lift designs) that funnel air out the rear from within the case interior, a by product being not only lower interior temperatures however also lower noise levels and depending on the gpu cooler possibly lower power consumption. If it was such an issue I doubt there would be many (IF any) SLI'd systems with DS coolers,.. yet the last couple of lan events, nearly every (non h20) SLI system utilized DS cooling. The most common being Artic Cooling Silencer series of coolers. Then again Im not sure where you get the idea that Crossfire somehow inhierently has higher power requirements than SLI systems if you are aiming your comments specifically at Crossfire .. and not SLI.
So far from what I've seen and read the biggest issue with the x1800XL and heat issues have been with the Catalyst drivers reporting a higher temp and not actual HEAT. Reminds me of a few years back when I built a Socket A AMD system using an MSI motherboard, the diode for reading the CPU temp gave readings that were typically 20C higher than other motherboards. Does this mean that the MSI built systems were more prone to system instabilities ? Were MSI equipped systems (using said affected motherboards) running HOTTER ? ... Nope. Simply was that the Diode gave a higher core temperature reading due to being placed directly in the center of the CPU and was a soldered diode as opposed to the flimsy (and less accurate) strip based thermometers. .. And what exactly did MSI do to "Fix" the problem ? The very next BIOS update simply lowered the reported temps by 20C. The XL fan noise that you claim is an issue has already been mentioned.. the XL uses a single slot cooler with a smaller fan. As we all know, smaller fans produce more noise in order to achieve equal CFM of larger (slower spinning) fans. Just ask ANYone who had a 60mm Delta pushing 38CFM ... damn things sounded like minivacs. Hell Ive seen 80mm fans at equal RPMs and you swear you'd damn near lose a finger if your digit were to find its way in the fan blades.
I do believe in one of the more recent interviews with ATI represenatives the issue of the power use/heat was mentioned and that the reply was along the lines of .. They (ATI) have yet to address the power consumption in non intensive tasks and that future driver updates will allow the (X1K series) gpus to downclock when not needed (ie when not using 3d intensive tasks). I'll try finding the quote.. obviously the above is not verbatum however it was implied that ATI would be able to lower power draw through driver updates.
For what it is worth I stick by my assertion that the supposed 512MB GTX will be 500-550 Mhz (core) and I HIGHLY doubt the memory will be run at max (900DDR-1800Mhz effective). Just because early samples are rumored to have 1.1ns GDDR3 does not mean that the forthcoming model will indeed be pushed to the memory module rated limit.
I personally would be astounded if nV would be able to match the XTs clock and at most expect 1600 effective (800ddr). Such an effort may start to stress the current process and leave AIBs little wiggle room for their "Branded" models , such as BFG OC or Asus Extreme etc where such parties are allowed leway to distinguish themselves from one another from the "reference" design.
Just look at the ATI x1800XL, the memory installed is rated to run nearly 50% faster yet to help seperate it from the XT they (ATI) have seemingly purposely rendered (crippled being to extreme IMO) the XL to a lower performance class although it has the same parts as its higher clocked brethren.
If (big IF) nV does indeed launch 2 seperate skus ; 7800GTX 512MB with possible minor (10% +/- a few points) core increase .. say up from the reference 430 to say 450-475mhz and 512MB GDDR3 also with a mild increase in speed,.. THEN just maybe nV will feel the need to push the Samsung modules closer to spec and release an "Ultra" model,.. I however find that unlikely unless they attach very high (almost stupidly high) premium to actually limit availability based on price alone. 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).
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 12:38
If G70 runs 'hotter' than R520, why does 7800 GTX only require a quiet single slot cooler, when X1800XT requires a dual slot cooler that is said to be louder than the GTX cooler?
Yep, I think he's confusing temperature with heat output.
If (big IF) nV does indeed launch 2 seperate skus ; 7800GTX 512MB with possible minor (10% +/- a few points) core increase .. say up from the reference 430 to say 450-475mhz and 512MB GDDR3 also with a mild increase in speed,.. THEN just maybe nV will feel the need to push the Samsung modules closer to spec and release an "Ultra" model,.. I however find that unlikely unless they attach very high (almost stupidly high) premium to actually limit availability based on price alone. 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:
You're miles off.
ChrisRay
01-Nov-2005, 13:01
I'm with Rys on this one. You're way out in left field on your speculation on that one.
Chris
the G70 isn't anywhere near as capable as the R520 in that category.
Uttar
Nor does it need to be, it's a gfx card after all ;)
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 13:50
I'm with Rys on this one. You're way out in left field on your speculation on that one.
Chris
Yeah I know.. more like over the wall. down the street, around the corner, past next two lights take a left,.. first pub on your right past the sleeping dog on the rock.
Im just saying that nV has rarely (if ever) launched 2 or more products based on the same product without a follow up "refresh". IIRC they did it with the GF2 and GF3 specifically and not since the R300 does it seem that ATI has developed such a forward thinking platform to base their products off that IMO makes the green guys a bit nervous... (that being my biased opinion of course).
The 7800 is an exceptional product and NV did the amazing in delivering the product at launch,.. however until the move to a smaller process I dont see NV using the G70 design to proliferate thier portfolio (akin to what ATI did with the R300) and furnishing a top to bottom solution. I personally doubt the rumors of the 512MB GTX at 1800Mhz Mem and feel that a 550 core clock would require moving to dual slot cooling solutions.
This seems curious to me considering it draws no more (in terms of watts) then the 7800 series.
:???: :???: :???:
It needs nearly double the current under load if my memory serves me right?
Edit:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video/radeon-x1000/power_x18.gif
lol, yeah didnt think about that. 512MB GTX vs Catalyst 5.11 !! Dave's comments really did reek of "They could release a PE if they wanted but they don't need to :razz: "
I think this means R580 will be here sooner than we think? :razz:
R520 was fashionably late... ;)
512MB won't help in doom 3 engined games... which ati has a large lead in, and that review does not have the OGL patchs...
XT still rules far cry. fear, battlefield 2 (which could benefit from more memory) and SC:CT.
The GTX isn't memory bandwidth limited, and nor is it limited by the amount of memory in all but a few games.
The XT has OCing headroom also, it actually runs a bit cooler th an the GTX:wink:
Keep in mind nvidia has had more time to tweak drivers than ati also.
Has someone hacked your account or did you hang around with 'boiz too much lately? Somethings kinda fishy here... :???:
Dave Baumann
01-Nov-2005, 14:13
I'll do it myself, seeing as you're all slow:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27368
Ahh, the inq...
I don't really think it'll have mem clocked at 1800. Too expensive, unless they expect to sell a few millions of them (which I doubt).
I'd rather say 1600 MHz or such if the card shouldn't cost a fortune.
Some of us have work to do and can't be sat reading The Inq all day to see how fast Fudo can latch on to something :lol:
It needs nearly double the current under load if my memory serves me right?Yet if you compare the XT's draw to the XL's draw, it seems likely much of that comes from doubling the memory. So, there may well be more in the core.
Matasar
01-Nov-2005, 14:32
Come up with some ATI rumour so i can keep faith.
Come up with some ATI rumour so i can keep faith.
Don't forget "ATi R580 - In House and Working" slide ;-)
Matasar
01-Nov-2005, 14:40
Maybe i should print those slides and keep em under my pillow tonight.
I'll do it myself, seeing as you're all slow:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27368
Whee! :shock: That's the reference? So, we need to believe either that 1). They will suddenly give up higher-clocked AIB boards that were damn near universal with GTX, or 2). Even more goodness is coming from the AIBs. 575? 590?
Don't know about y'all, but I'm impressed. If we see GTX AIB skus, even with dual-slot cooling, within spitting distance of x1800xt clocks, you really have to give a tip o' the cap to NV for squeezing that out of 110nm. Then turn to ATI and say, "So, bubbula, whatcha gonna do about it?"
geo: Do you think, that TSMC 110nm w/o low-k is able to reach the same clockspeed as TSMC 90nm with low-k?
You can't generalise clock frequencies like that, really. They're a function of chip complexity, input voltage and a bunch of other things. Are you asking the question assuming the same chip being built on those processes?
If so, for a complex piece of silicon like a GPU, the answer should definitely be no (barring implementation problems.....).
Don't know about y'all, but I'm impressed. So am I, but I'm more impressed - and partly surprised - that NVIDIA is being really serious about humiliating ATI, since this is really what it's all about here: making ATI's products look bad and get a mindshare dominance. That 512MB of 1.1ns memory must be costing them a little fortune - ironically enough, it might be the first time in years for them that their ultra-high-end product has (slightly) lower margins than their high-end product.
As for everyone saying the 7800GTX isn't bandwidth limited...
---
430/1200 = 0.353
550/1750 = 0.314
0.353/0.314 = 1.12 (+12%)
---
Don't tell me a 12% memory (ratio) overclock on a GTX isn't going to get you a performance increase, especially so in games like D3/Q4 where you've got a bunch of z/stencil-only passes. A 5-8% boost from such a thing is to be expected, in addition to the 27-28% boost you'd get if there was no CPU limitation whatsoever and perfect parallelism.
Uttar
EasyRaider
01-Nov-2005, 15:24
Such a dramatic increase in clocks without changing the name doesn't make sense. Seeing "7800 GTX 512 MB", I would have no idea whether to expect 430/1200, 550/1800 or something in between.
Well, Inq is likely wrong again.
what about noise comparison?
I'll say again in a different way...
If G70 runs 'hotter' than R520, why does 7800 GTX only require a quiet single slot cooler, when X1800XT requires a dual slot cooler that is said to be louder than the GTX cooler?
Slightly loud when compared to 7800GTX:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/radeon-x1000/index.x?pg=16
I think the point radeonic was making that with a better cooling, X1800 XT can easily hit higher speeds in case there was an PE. I dont disagree with that but like pointed out the chances of a PE range from slim to none.
Slightly loud when compared to 7800GTX:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4/radeon-x1000/index.x?pg=16
I think the point radeonic was making that with a better cooling, X1800 XT can easily hit higher speeds in case there was an PE. I dont disagree with that but like pointed out the chances of a PE range from slim to none.
In addition, ATI would need to differentiate the XT from the PE, and I think they wouldn't be able to do that.
geo: Do you think, that TSMC 110nm w/o low-k is able to reach the same clockspeed as TSMC 90nm with low-k?
I am sooo not qualified to answer that question technically. :lol: I am left to point at product using both, and note that if NV gets in spitting distance of X1800XT clocks with a product that is within 10% on transistor count to the competition, then they are due kudos, ATI is due some questions, or (more likely) a bit of both.
Tho that also assumes they have them in quantity at no higher price (or not much) than GTX at release.
Re the name --have they philosophically decided they don't like "Ultra" any more?
So am I, but I'm more impressed - and partly surprised - that NVIDIA is being really serious about humiliating ATI, since this is really what it's all about here: making ATI's products look bad and get a mindshare dominance.
Well, I'm shining up the overall performance tiara in preparation for the benchies. In my book, they haven't held it in unquestioned fashion* since the summer of 2002. I think getting it back is part of what's driving them here. Jen still has the pawn ticket, I'm sure, for that remark of his that people have been bouncing off his noggin ever since. :lol:
*I didn't hand it out for GTX on release because of the generational difference, in the same way that many were unwilling to crown 9700Pro until they saw NV30.
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 15:49
It feels odd to not be the one decrying the Inquirer as a reliable news source.
550MHz G70 is already identical to PS3's RSX isn't it? Then PC already cought next generation consoles GPU performance-wise.
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 16:13
Well, I'm shining up the overall performance tiara in preparation for the benchies. In my book, they haven't held it in unquestioned fashion* since the summer of 2002. I think getting it back is part of what's driving them here. Jen still has the pawn ticket, I'm sure, for that remark of his that people have been bouncing off his noggin ever since. :lol:
*I didn't hand it out for GTX on release because of the generational difference, in the same way that many were unwilling to crown 9700Pro until they saw NV30.
I don't know, the more I dig into this the more Im thinking the whole 550/1800 is pure BS. All the rumors started from HKPEC who's only links to ANYTHING being:
ONE: Leadtek PX7800GTX Extreme 512MB GDDR3
1: http://www.leadtek.com.tw/eng/3d_graphic/image/winfast_px7800gtx_tdhvivoe_2.jpg
and
TWO: the Samsung 1.1ns GDDR3 memory modules
2:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/GraphicsMemory/GDDR3SDRAM/512Mbit/K4J52324QC/K4J52324QC.htm
and finally
THREE: they link to another "source" .. being Mydrivers.com, who in effect use HKPEC as their reference.
3: http://news.mydrivers.com/pages/20051031130016_28963.htm
who show the very SAME picture as the Leadtek PX7800GTX Extreme here: http://news.mydrivers.com/pages/images/20051031125842_19493.jpg
3:
Yet if you compare the XT's draw to the XL's draw, it seems likely much of that comes from doubling the memory. So, there may well be more in the core.
The XL with 256 MB draws just slightly less power than the GTX and it's on a smaller process. Doesn't really speak for ATI being power-friendly. Also, raising the clocks raises the current draw almost exponentially. I don't think there's much headroom there.
It feels odd to not be the one decrying the Inquirer as a reliable news source.
Sometimes it is more important to note who is doing the linking than the link. The art comes from correctly intuiting when those times are.
"The Zen of B3D".
geo: Do you think, that TSMC 110nm w/o low-k is able to reach the same clockspeed as TSMC 90nm with low-k?
Not in a 1000 years.
Re the name --have they philosophically decided they don't like "Ultra" any more?
No, they just left it for futher humiliation if so needed ;)
Cartoon Corpse
01-Nov-2005, 16:23
how does 1 512M 7800 GTX compare to 2 256M 7800 GTX/SLI? performance/power consumption/heat? anything on that yet?
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 16:26
LOL go figure.. the only (supposed) source from where this whole 512MB GTX @ 550/1800 originated from (HKEPC).. pulled the story:
www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=497984
LOL go figure.. the only (supposed) source from where this whole 512MB GTX @ 550/1800 originated from (HKEPC).. pulled the story:
www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=497984 (http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/viewthread.php?tid=497984)
Based on the long line of usually knowledgeable folks who aren't twitching, blinking, throat-clearing, eye-rolling, or out and out "pointing and laughing", to wave this one off, I would be careful about assuming it is garbage.
I would guess that there are probably, oh, not less than 10 and maybe as many as 20 people reading this thread who both know the truth and post here at least occassionally. Sure some of them are under NDA, but I'd think at least one of them would have twitched a little publicly if this was out in left field. :lol:
Edit: Of course, one of them still might --the multinational world-spanning B3D family takes a while to cycle thru. :smile:
XSBagage
01-Nov-2005, 16:42
how does 1 512M 7800 GTX compare to 2 256M 7800 GTX/SLI? performance/power consumption/heat? anything on that yet?
I guess you'll have to wait till 7 November to find that out. ;)
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 17:06
anyone able to make sense of this:
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/common/product_list.aspx?family_cd=GME1002
according to the "rumor" the memory that the 7800 GTX 512MB supposedly has is 1.1ns (900Mhz-1800 effective)
but under ordering:
Part No. Suffix Description
12 1.25ns (800MHz)
14 1.429ns (700MHz)
16 1.667ns (600MHz)
20 2.0 ns (500MHz)
there is no 900Mhz [Part No Suffix 11 1.1ns (900Mhz) ] listed and under Speed (above ordering) onlyparts listed are 12, 14, 16 and 20.
Is this a common practice in the IC biz ? To make available parts which are not yet apparently available yet somehow they are ??
You'll find 1.1ns 512Mb GDDR3 here (i.e. 8 make 512MB):
http://www.samsung.com/Products/Semiconductor/GraphicsMemory/TechnicalInfo/graphic_product_guide_jun_05.pdf
Noted as being engineering sample in June. Last row of the table.
2, 1.6, 1.4 and 1.2ns versions were in mass production.
Jawed
I really hope the 550/1800 beast ain't gonna happen. I already pre-ordered and payed for my XT. :???: It hasn't shipped yet, so i have still time to cancel it. Crap. What to do? :smile:
Maintank
01-Nov-2005, 17:24
So am I, but I'm more impressed - and partly surprised - that NVIDIA is being really serious about humiliating ATI, since this is really what it's all about here: making ATI's products look bad and get a mindshare dominance.
Uttar
They are apparently still pissed off about 2 years ago.
I really hope the 550/1800 beast ain't gonna happen. I already pre-ordered and payed for my XT. :???: It hasn't shipped yet, so i have still time to cancel it. Crap. What to do? :smile:
"I've been banging my head
Against the wall..." :wink: :smile:
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 17:31
I really hope the 550/1800 beast ain't gonna happen. I already pre-ordered and payed for my XT. :???: It hasn't shipped yet, so i have still time to cancel it. Crap. What to do? :smile:
Personally I find this 550 (now up to 600Mhz!) core -1800 ram a bit of a stretch w/o some rather exotic cooling. I guess I'll have to wait like the rest however I very much DOUBT that the 7800GTX 512MB will be anywhere near "the beast" some are claiming.
*FYI latest source says "the new 7800GTX 512mb will be 550MHz GPU and 1600MHz memory, but there will be versions available with 600MHz GPU and 1800MHz memory, also new technology implemented in the 512mb version is a so called "rotation circle" which uses onboard G.C memory to process information faster. the pipelines stay intact." and "eVGA will have the 600/1800"
Latest source is : "a close friend of my relativ is working for Nvidia"
someone want to explain what a ""rotation circle" which uses onboard G.C memory" is .. ???
Kombatant
01-Nov-2005, 17:35
I really hope the 550/1800 beast ain't gonna happen. I already pre-ordered and payed for my XT. :???: It hasn't shipped yet, so i have still time to cancel it. Crap. What to do? :smile: Guess what; there will always be "bigger and faster" cards out there, from both companies ;)
They are apparently still pissed off about 2 years ago.
I wouldn't say "pissed"; just that they don't plan to underestimate their Canadian "friends" ever, ever again. Both companies have stuff up their sleeves, it only remains to see which sleeve has the room for more :D
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 17:40
I don't believe for a moment that any upcoming GeForce 7800 GTX 512 would have any new technology beyond the current 7800 GTX.
Edit: Not only am I not expecting any core change until next Spring (at least), but if there were any, it sure wouldn't be titled 7800.
SugarCoat
01-Nov-2005, 17:42
Don't forget "ATi R580 - In House and Working" slide ;-)
Yea, except now its some sort of flip chip design, and we're realistically problably not going to see it before CeBit. ATI will almost certainly sit on the R580 until GDDR4 is pumping out in full swing.
Whee! :shock: That's the reference? So, we need to believe either that 1). They will suddenly give up higher-clocked AIB boards that were damn near universal with GTX, or 2). Even more goodness is coming from the AIBs. 575? 590?
Don't know about y'all, but I'm impressed. If we see GTX AIB skus, even with dual-slot cooling, within spitting distance of x1800xt clocks, you really have to give a tip o' the cap to NV for squeezing that out of 110nm. Then turn to ATI and say, "So, bubbula, whatcha gonna do about it?"
Question for a moment what sense this would make. If Nvidia were trying to make a 512mb card to be competitive, would they really push that much? If the card with the specs were to come, one of two things would have to happen with it, It would absolutly crush GTX prices subsiquently putting alot of pressure on the GT (obviously 20 or 30 dollar price spreads are no brainers), or the card would be launched at a price point quite a bit higher then the $549 MSRP of the 512 R520 to keep things in scale. So hows it going to humiliate ATI to have a card 100 or 150 dollars less then Nvidia, regaurdless of if the 7800 performs better? I would be simply shocked to not only find it existed, meaning Nvidia is pulling out all ethical stops simply to smoosh ATI, but i'd be far more suprised to see the card launch at anything less then $700 just so the GTX and GT have a place in the market.
I'v been a long time user of ATI, so part of me hopes it doesnt exist, but all the same, if it does, more power to them. Pull out the stops, release killer products just to show whos best, i just dont see its price being competitive with any current MSRP's of the entire X1 line.
I would be simply shocked to not only find it existed, meaning Nvidia is pulling out all ethical stops simply to smoosh ATI, but i'd be far more suprised to see the card launch at anything less then $700 just so the GTX and GT have a place in the market.
Street price of GTX is down to $455, which in my mind gives them rooom to move the MSRP down to $499 and leave $599 for the new part.
But I guess we'll see soon enuf.
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 18:09
Street price of GTX is down to $455, which in my mind gives them rooom to move the MSRP down to $499 and leave $599 for the new part.
But I guess we'll see soon enuf.
Problem being that NV has always had a $200 USD buffer for large Vram parts.. I doubt they would cut that in half and minimise their bottom end right from the start.
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 18:17
Problem being that NV has always had a $200 USD buffer for large Vram parts.. I doubt they would cut that in half and minimise their bottom end right from the start.
What do you mean by this?
He means what he says, hopefully :razz: Why reduce your bottom line by lowering MSRP on a high-end product when you traditionally keep it high. Which means he's saying MSRP will be > $600.
Of course, the whole 'MSRP' game is kind of fruitless anyway, unless you're bored and having nothing else to talk about on web forums :grin:
FrameBuffer
01-Nov-2005, 18:22
What do you mean by this?
Look at the initial MSRP for the 6800GT Ultra ..
Now look at the MSRP for the 6800GT Ultra 512MB
Goes all the way back to at least the GF3 series.. where the previous top product MSRP was heavily padded when then VRam was doubled (ie 32MB to 64MB, 64 to 128, 128 to 256 etc).. nV has always added a heavy premium to memory..
Has someone hacked your account or did you hang around with 'boiz too much lately? Somethings kinda fishy here... :???:
Hmm?
What's wrong tripple x:smile:
Indeed I know the 1800XT has more heat output, but with the cooler they have it runs similar temps.
If nvidia really puts out a 550mhz G70, this battle could get very interesting.
XSBagage
01-Nov-2005, 18:50
Is MSRP before taxes?
Both companies have stuff up their sleeves, it only remains to see which sleeve has the room for more :D
Or the ability to actually produce it? :wink:
Hmm?
What's wrong tripple x:smile:
You used to be neutral, now it doesn't really sound so :???:
Matasar
01-Nov-2005, 19:01
A 600mhz core needs 1.7v and generate more heat then that cooler we have seen can move.
So that aint gonna happen.
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 19:02
Indeed I know the 1800XT has more heat output, but with the cooler they have it runs similar temps.
That's exactly it - you claimed that the XT ran cooler than the GTX. Have you seen the temps on the GTX with the Quadro cooler - they're way lower than the XT.
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 19:04
Is MSRP before taxes?
Yes. This is always the case for US prices, for the simple reason that we have no VAT tax in the US, and sales tax varies from state to state (and sometimes from county to county within the state). So it becomes impossible to wrap tax into the price on a national level.
Hellbinder
01-Nov-2005, 19:07
512MB won't help in doom 3 engined games... which ati has a large lead in, and that review does not have the OGL patchs...
XT still rules far cry. fear, battlefield 2 (which could benefit from more memory) and SC:CT.
The GTX isn't memory bandwidth limited, and nor is it limited by the amount of memory in all but a few games.
The XT has OCing headroom also, it actually runs a bit cooler th an the GTX:wink:
Keep in mind nvidia has had more time to tweak drivers than ati also.
Do you live on fantasy island?
Large lead? even with the patches they have a lead here and there with specific settings and situations.
Ati loses in fear. Look at the current benches not using the multiplayer demo. having 512mb ram will help in some cases not all. That however is only part of the issue. Again.. picking and chosing specific things out of the barel to try and prove your point.
Combine the core increase, with the bandwidth increase, with the framebuffer increase.
This is not rocket science.
That's exactly it - you claimed that the XT ran cooler than the GTX. Have you seen the temps on the GTX with the Quadro cooler - they're way lower than the XT.
Well technically it does with the cooler:smile:
I was talking about temps, not heatoutput, obviously running a part at such speeds makes a part run hot...
Do you live on fantasy island?
Large lead? even with the patches they have a lead here and there with specific settings and situations.
Ati loses in fear. Look at the current benches not using the multiplayer demo. having 512mb ram will help in some cases not all. That however is only part of the issue. Again.. picking and chosing specific things out of the barel to try and prove your point.
Combine the core increase, with the bandwidth increase, with the framebuffer increase.
This is not rocket science.
Yes they have a large lead in doom 3 engined games with 4x fsaa, where 512MB does not help expect in ultra mode, and even then it's more for helping stuttering, which is exactly where they were lacking, and people were like wtf- 10GB more bandwidth and they still lose with aa.
512MB helps like HL2 with aa(depending on lvl) battlefield and the like, but it doesn't always help.
You can't count on just more vram to give a large increase in every game.
Oh and you should also mention in the anand review nvidia cards are faster with soft shadows on...
You're the one living in a fantasy world.
I look forward to every videocard launch simply for you to run your mouth off about supposed specs you get from "inside" sources.
XSBagage
01-Nov-2005, 19:23
Yes. This is always the case for US prices, for the simple reason that we have no VAT tax in the US, and sales tax varies from state to state (and sometimes from county to county within the state). So it becomes impossible to wrap tax into the price on a national level.
Thanks. I was interested to see how MSRP would translate in real prices in my country.
you'll have to sell your home and children if you have any...
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 19:48
Thanks. I was interested to see how MSRP would translate in real prices in my country.
Unfortunately, it's not all that easy to do. Check out www.pricewatch.com for US prices of current hardware and compare to prices where you live to get a (slightly) better idea of what MSRP means for you.
Just bear in mind that actual street prices for all products depends highly upon supply and demand. So even if the MSRP for a product is $500, it might sell on the street for $600 or more (the Geforce 6800 Ultra did for a while, due to a lack of supply). Conversely, the GeForce 7800 GTX's price dropped very quickly from its MSRP. So only consider MSRP to be a very rough estimate, as price will vary depending upon many other factors.
Yes they have a large lead in doom 3 engined games with 4x fsaa, where 512MB does not help expect in ultra mode, and even then it's more for helping stuttering, which is exactly where they were lacking, and people were like wtf- 10GB more bandwidth and they still lose with aa.
512MB helps like HL2 with aa(depending on lvl) battlefield and the like, but it doesn't always help.
You can't count on just more vram to give a large increase in every game.
Oh and you should also mention in the anand review nvidia cards are faster with soft shadows on...
You're the one living in a fantasy world.
I look forward to every videocard launch simply for you to run your mouth off about supposed specs you get from "inside" sources.
It's been awhile since I've posted, but I have to ask what you're smoking. The XT does not have a large lead in Doom 3, or any OGL game for that matter, with or without AA/AF on. At the most, the new drivers allow for them to break even in certain situations and pull a bit ahead in other situations (we're talking 2048x1536 with AA/AF on here). As Hellbinder has stated, if the GTX 512MB gets an increase in core/mem clock speed (damn near 600MHz on the memory if the Inq is to be believed), it's going to annihilate any lead the XT might have in OGL, in addition to slaughtering it across the board in DX games where the only thing keeping the XT in the lead is the extra 10GB/s of bandwidth it has.
Oh, and to this bit about the GTX only being faster in F.E.A.R. with soft shadows on, I again must ask wtf you're smoking. The GTX is consistently ahead at every resolution with soft shadows off and no AA/AF and "loses" to the XT by 2 FPS with soft shadows off and 4xAA/8xAF at 1024 and greater. With soft shadows on, the GTX just beats on the XT even harder, so you were at least somewhat right about something. Next time you post some garbage like this, do your damn research:
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/fear/fear3.jpghttp://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/fear/fear2.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/fear/fear1.jpg
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27236 (notice the places where the XT wins; oh they're places where 10GB/s of extra bandwidth come in handy.
Otherwise it just makes you look like nothing more than another rabid fanboi, but you may have proved that already. Btw, don't bother responding bc if you open your mouth again I might have to embarass you further. Plz don't try to refute benchmarks that everyone can actually see for their own eyes.
Kombatant
01-Nov-2005, 20:41
Or the ability to actually produce it? :wink:
Zing! :lol:
Ardrid: Drawing conclusions from Fuads tests... Jeez!
Ardrid: Drawing conclusions from Fuads tests... Jeez!
There's nothing wrong with Fudo's data in that case. His results are quite repeatable. So drawing a decent conclusion is wrong how?
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 20:47
Those graphs are from Anandtech.
Chalnoth
01-Nov-2005, 20:49
(notice the places where the XT wins; oh they're places where 10GB/s of extra bandwidth come in handy.
It may well be the extra memory space. FSAA and high resolutions are more taxing on memory space than memory bandwidth.
Subtlesnake
01-Nov-2005, 20:53
It's been awhile since I've posted, but I have to ask what you're smoking. The XT does not have a large lead in Doom 3, or any OGL game for that matter, with or without AA/AF on.
It has a reasonably large lead in Quake 4 on certain settings, as the benchmarks you posted indicate.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_high-end_performance/page6.asp
In high quality w/4*AA and 16*AF the X1800 XT leads by 22%.
where the only thing keeping the XT in the lead is the extra 10GB/s of bandwidth it has.
It's not the only thing - per clock performance has improved by 20 - 40%. The question is, how much of a lead (if any) would the X1800 have if you eliminated its bandwidth advantage, and this hasn't been answered. We do know that the X1800 is better at handling high bandwidth situations than its predecessor, however.
"With 6x FSAA we can see similar trends, but again the performance difference is widened - this is not just due to the large availability of bandwidth the X1800 XT has because the same holds true for the X1800 XL, it would appear to be the case that R520 is better at handling, and optimising, high bandwidth situations, bearing out the work done on the memory controller and related elements."
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/index.php?p=24
"Underlying that there are further optimisations are the differences in performance impacts between the X1800 XL and X800 XT as the XL has a significantly lower performance hit from going from 4x to 6x FSAA."
http://www.beyond3d.com/reviews/ati/r520/index.php?p=28#aa
trinibwoy
01-Nov-2005, 20:54
It may well be the extra memory space. FSAA and high resolutions are more taxing on memory space than memory bandwidth.
This is especially obvious if you compare the HQ 4x16x numbers to UQ 4x16x.
Just after my 2nd GTX purchase now there will be 550MHz GTX @$649.. Typical. :(
How much performance would the 550MHz core (along with 512MB) will gain over typical AIB version of GTX? (say, 460/1300) Graphics limited scenario of course. (i.e. HDR)
Those graphs are from Anandtech.
The Q4 numbers in the linked Inquirer story aren't.
Rys is it true that there are no shadows in Q4 when a timedemo is run? If so then drawing conclusions from any benchmark of it is silly.
That's exactly it - you claimed that the XT ran cooler than the GTX. Have you seen the temps on the GTX with the Quadro cooler - they're way lower than the XT.
The quadro cooler is also quite a bit larger then the XT cooler. Have you seen the XT/XL with the Zalman cooler?
What I find funny is nvidia insistant on keeping the GTX name, no doubt because they don't want to look foolish after having proclaimed that will be no Ultra, even though this will essentially be it. I still think these clocks are based on rumors from the nv camp however.
Rys is it true that there are no shadows in Q4 when a timedemo is run? If so then drawing conclusions from any benchmark of it is silly.
From my own testing, it depends on what scenes/levels the timedemo is taking place but one can end up with demos with no NPC/enemy stencil shadows appearing in the demo.
Kombatant
01-Nov-2005, 22:09
Rys is it true that there are no shadows in Q4 when a timedemo is run? If so then drawing conclusions from any benchmark of it is silly.
There are things missing, but all cards display the same thing. FarCry has the same "features" with its timedemo for quite a while, and it was never a problem for reviewers, as long as all cards do the same thing.
Dave Baumann
01-Nov-2005, 22:13
There's also elements missing in the timedemos when using the latest D3 patch.
There are things missing, but all cards display the same thing. FarCry has the same "features" with its timedemo for quite a while, and it was never a problem for reviewers, as long as all cards do the same thing.
Except if one card can do certain things better and some worse than the other ;)
It's been awhile since I've posted, but I have to ask what you're smoking. The XT does not have a large lead in Doom 3, or any OGL game for that matter, with or without AA/AF on. At the most, the new drivers allow for them to break even in certain situations and pull a bit ahead in other situations (we're talking 2048x1536 with AA/AF on here). As Hellbinder has stated, if the GTX 512MB gets an increase in core/mem clock speed (damn near 600MHz on the memory if the Inq is to be believed), it's going to annihilate any lead the XT might have in OGL, in addition to slaughtering it across the board in DX games where the only thing keeping the XT in the lead is the extra 10GB/s of bandwidth it has.
Oh, and to this bit about the GTX only being faster in F.E.A.R. with soft shadows on, I again must ask wtf you're smoking. The GTX is consistently ahead at every resolution with soft shadows off and no AA/AF and "loses" to the XT by 2 FPS with soft shadows off and 4xAA/8xAF at 1024 and greater. With soft shadows on, the GTX just beats on the XT even harder, so you were at least somewhat right about something. Next time you post some garbage like this, do your damn research:
[ig]http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/fear/fear3.jpg[/img][im]http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/fear/fear2.jpg[/img]
[ig]http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/fear/fear1.jpg[/img]
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27236 (notice the places where the XT wins; oh they're places where 10GB/s of extra bandwidth come in handy.
Otherwise it just makes you look like nothing more than another rabid fanboi, but you may have proved that already. Btw, don't bother responding bc if you open your mouth again I might have to embarass you further. Plz don't try to refute benchmarks that everyone can actually see for their own eyes.
What in the hell are you talking about?
Ati's OGL patch+ hier z opts have made ati take the lead in doom 3 engined games with 4x fsaa, you likely have not seen those benchmarks so I forgive you.
Again I was referring to f.e.a.r with fsaa on with no soft shadows, hense my comment that he should have said something about soft shadows being off...
Now do you get it?
I was playing devils adocate since I said the XT is faster (not by much.. nor did I say it was) only with fsaa on.
Stop making idiotic assumptions about me.
As you can see, I was infact drawing my conclusions froms anand's fear tests, but he does not have benchmarks of the OGL patch+ hierz opts.
If you've seen the results here, you will see that the mem opt doesn't do much, but combined with the hier-z opt it does alot.
Thank you, drive thru.
And please dont hotlink images, it is rude- wasteing bandwidth.
edit 2-
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/quake_4_high-end_performance/page6.asp
OMG I WAS RIGHT ATI IS WINNING WITH FSAA :lol:
ondaedg
01-Nov-2005, 23:29
The quadro cooler is also quite a bit larger then the XT cooler. Have you seen the XT/XL with the Zalman cooler?
What I find funny is nvidia insistant on keeping the GTX name, no doubt because they don't want to look foolish after having proclaimed that will be no Ultra, even though this will essentially be it. I still think these clocks are based on rumors from the nv camp however.
How will they look "foolish" for doing anything with an updated GTX? And where does the rumor conspiracies have to come from? Dude, get a grip. Anything to slander I guess.
Whatever floats your boat.
There is no point in benchmarking a game if you do not test the game with the features turned on that a user would use... That is all I am saying.
Personally I cannot believe they would turn off shadows as that is what made the D3 engine what it was really, I mean there was a great deal of sacrifice for those sillly shadows.
There is no point in benchmarking a game if you do not test the game with the features turned on that a user would use... That is all I am saying.
Personally I cannot believe they would turn off shadows as that is what made the D3 engine what it was really, I mean there was a great deal of sacrifice for those sillly shadows.
Ya that's another thing that's bad.
need to bust out fraps to get a real score, or perhaps there is command that disables that?
Found this bit on AnandTech.
the new 7800GTX 512mb will be 550MHz GPU and 1600MHz memory, but there will be versions available with 600MHz GPU and 1800MHz memory, also new technology implemented in the 512mb version is a so called "rotation circle" which uses onboard G.C memory to process information faster. the pipelines stay intact.
Where did you see that? In the forums somewhere?
We've all been told that "ring bus" is an oxymoron, so then what's that make "rotation circle?" :)
I really think nV should slap an "Ultra" on this card if it'll outpace the GTX by such a significant margin. But going from 430 to 550MHz sounds like a huge jump, especially for 110nm and compared to the 90nm R520XT's now-paltry 625MHz core clock. I'd really like to see how much power this card'll draw, and whether the "new" cooler that Rollo references is a solution for that.
But, as ridiculous as the R520XT's 1500MHz memory was compared to the GTX's 1200-1300MHz, the rumored 1800MHz G70s are even moreso. But I guess overkill is relative (says the guy with a 9800P :)).
Edit: Sxotty, yeah, that was posted in the AT Video forum, and it was quoted from another forum (which was the original source).
Dave, no one's noticed that until now? I don't recall any mention of incomplete rendering in any of the 4xAA hotfix articles.
I found it, but it doesn't seem reliable or realistic. Anyway for the curious, it sounds hazy where the info came from, but it seems to be circular logic which goes along well with the ring bus and whatever the made up new name was :)
Anyway it is people referencing themselves saying I saw the MSRP
And then later the same person I never saw the actual price
or some such inanity. We will all know enough soon enough won't we?
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=1725981&enterthread=y
SugarCoat
02-Nov-2005, 02:30
anyone think we'll see a name change though? If the specs are infact increased? Seems like it would play hell with average joe buyer at an OEM computer dealer site putting together a computer, even someone at bestbuy or something. If its indeed increased substantially enough i dont see why they wouldnt modify the name, even a little.
7900GTX
7800GTS
and for fun, 7800XT, my guesses ;)
AlphaWolf
02-Nov-2005, 02:32
anyone think we'll see a name change though? If the specs are infact increased? Seems like it would play hell with buyers. If its indeed increased substantially enough i dont see why they wouldnt modify the name, even a little.
7900GTX
7800GTS
and for fun, 7800XT, my guesses ;)
Nvidia uses XT to name their cut rate parts.
I'd really like to see how much power this card'll draw, and whether the "new" cooler that Rollo references is a solution for that.
Rollo? Who Is he ? the new Gibbo, Fuad or some one else? :lol:
FrameBuffer
02-Nov-2005, 04:56
Rollo? Who Is he ? the new Gibbo, Fuad or some one else? :lol:
well it seems like he sure claims to be .. says he knows "insiders" and that apparently his predictions (*cough*BSIMO*cough*) are as good as gold.
Well only time will tell ,.. 6 more days
well it seems like he sure claims to be .. says he knows "insiders" and that apparently his predictions (*cough*BSIMO*cough*) are as good as gold.
Well only time will tell ,.. 6 more days
OT, you name is really suited to this topic:D
on topic- who was the first to claim the R520 had 32 pipelines?
SugarCoat
02-Nov-2005, 05:07
OT, you name is really suited to this topic:D
on topic- who was the first to claim the R520 had 32 pipelines?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23648
And im almost positive there was one earlier then that by 2 months.
well it seems like he sure claims to be .. says he knows "insiders" and that apparently his predictions (*cough*BSIMO*cough*) are as good as gold.
Well only time will tell ,.. 6 more days
i'v never seen him lie to be honost. But he owns every SLI system available and wont touch an ATI card with a pole. Loves Nvidia, simple as that, i dont think that discredits him yet.
OT Q myself: anyone here ever take the speculated floating garbage specs and see how close (wrong) they were?
R520
24 "Pipelines"
32 Texture Units
96 Arithmetic Logic Units (ALU)
192 Shader Operations per Cycle
700MHz Core
134.4 Billion Shader Operations per Second (at 700MHz)
256-bit 512MB 1.8GHz GDDR3 Memory
57.6 GB/sec Bandwidth (at 1.8GHz)
300-350 Million Transistors
90nm Manufacturing
Shader Model 3.0
ATI HyperMemory
ATI Multi Rendering Technology (AMR)
Launch: Q2 2005
Performance: Over 3x Radeon X800 XT !!! (for single R520)
16x stochastic FSAA
FP32 blending, texturing
Programmable Primitive Processor/Tesselator
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=23648
And im almost positive there was one earlier then that by 2 months.
i'v never seen him lie to be honost. But he owns every SLI system available and wont touch an ATI card with a pole. Loves Nvidia, simple as that, i dont think that discredits him yet.
QFT
Heh.
I am Rollo, and I'm guessing I joined this board a long time ago if I joined as Fred Sanford, the name I went by on 3DFX Gamers.
In any case, the above isn't quite true as the X1800XT will likely be the first ATI flagship card I won't buy in many years, going back to my VESA Mach 32.
I have been SLIs biggest cheerleader, and do own 6600GT SLI, 6800GT SLI, and 7800GTX SLI, nVidia reference cards.
I have an old buddy at nV that gets me a discount on cards sometimes, and information sometimes.
I found out the specs/ pricing/launch date of the 512MB parts last week, and it occurred to me that ATI might get the X1800XT to market first (though I doubt it) and people would REALLY want to see the 512MB 7800GTX.
So I asked my friend if I could post my opinion of the pricing and specs, and note the parts will be out very soon.
Hello B3d.
I did have a 6800NU SLI set as well, but sold it. :(
FrameBuffer
02-Nov-2005, 05:30
QFT
Heh.
I am Rollo, and I'm guessing I joined this board a long time ago if I joined as Fred Sanford, the name I went by on 3DFX Gamers.
In any case, the above isn't quite true as the X1800XT will likely be the first ATI flagship card I won't buy in many years, going back to my VESA Mach 32.
I have been SLIs biggest cheerleader, and do own 6600GT SLI, 6800GT SLI, and 7800GTX SLI, nVidia reference cards.
I have an old buddy at nV that gets me a discount on cards sometimes, and information sometimes.
I found out the specs/ pricing/launch date of the 512MB parts last week, and it occurred to me that ATI might get the X1800XT to market first (though I doubt it) and people would REALLY want to see the 512MB 7800GTX.
So I asked my friend if I could post my opinion of the pricing and specs, and note the parts will be out very soon.
Hello B3d.
Well considering it was your "friend" who told you of the forthcoming specs then legally you are not bound by any NDA (unlike your "friend") .. so how about spilling the beans (exact specs, models, pricing) ?
FrameBuffer
02-Nov-2005, 05:31
I did have a 6800NU SLI set as well, but sold it. :(
What ?! no 6800 GT Ultra EE SLI ? and you call yourself a fan /wink ;p
SugarCoat
02-Nov-2005, 05:36
Well considering it was your "friend" who told you of the forthcoming specs then legally you are not bound by any NDA (unlike your "friend") .. so how about spilling the beans (exact specs, models, pricing) ?
thats not fun, you're suppose to ask questions like;
Is the effective memory frequency in between 1500 and 1900?
Is the core clock in between 450 and 550?
and so on, then you begin the >, = or < games.
How will they look "foolish" for doing anything with an updated GTX? And where does the rumor conspiracies have to come from? Dude, get a grip. Anything to slander I guess.
Whatever floats your boat.
So you don't think it would be interesting if nvidia named this 512 MB part the 7800 Ultra after posting an FAQ on their site claiming there will be no Ultra? The difference between the 6800 GT and the 6800 Ultra was a hell of a lot less, yet you think this deserves the GTX name as well? Using a new name entirely, GTS for example, doesn't change the fact that a newer better card will be available after they specifically stated this would not happen.
Yeah, slander, that's it. http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif
SugarCoat
02-Nov-2005, 05:54
So you don't think it would be interesting if nvidia named this 512 MB part the 7800 Ultra after posting an FAQ on their site claiming there will be no Ultra? The difference between the 6800 GT and the 6800 Ultra was a hell of a lot less, yet you think this deserves the GTX name as well? Using a new name entirely, GTS for example, doesn't change the fact that a newer better card will be available after they specifically stated this would not happen.
Yeah, slander, that's it. http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif
they neither confirmed or denied the ultra, what you're referring too was the responce to "will there be an Ultra?" and the answer given was something along the lines of "The GTX is our flagship model at this time".
what's the point of 6600GT SLI when a single 6800GT is faster?
You must really think having two graphics cards are awesome.. even if a single card is cheaper and faster (Fred Sanford).
Well considering it was your "friend" who told you of the forthcoming specs then legally you are not bound by any NDA (unlike your "friend") .. so how about spilling the beans (exact specs, models, pricing) ?
Sorry, I had to sign an NDA to get info from my buddy, so my lips are sealed as well.
Price of information.
What ?! no 6800 GT Ultra EE SLI ? and you call yourself a fan /wink ;p
LOL I missed the 7800GTs too, my loyalty is clearly shakey. ;)
So you don't think it would be interesting if nvidia named this 512 MB part the 7800 Ultra after posting an FAQ on their site claiming there will be no Ultra? The difference between the 6800 GT and the 6800 Ultra was a hell of a lot less, yet you think this deserves the GTX name as well? Using a new name entirely, GTS for example, doesn't change the fact that a newer better card will be available after they specifically stated this would not happen.
Yeah, slander, that's it. http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif
I personally don't understand these "misleading nomenclature" posts.
Who gives a fat rats ass what they call it if it kicks butt.
Personally, I hope everything they've ever said, done, or thought has been fraudulent if they put faster parts on the market.
I can't crank the AA with a FAQ.
Chalnoth
02-Nov-2005, 06:41
So you don't think it would be interesting if nvidia named this 512 MB part the 7800 Ultra after posting an FAQ on their site claiming there will be no Ultra?
Okay, here's that quote:
Q: Is there a GeForce 7800 Ultra?
GeForce 7800 GTX is our top of the line. We had so much positive response for the GT SKU (single slot, great performance) that we wanted to build upon that success and brand. GeForce 7800 GTX takes NVIDIA's high end performance offering to the next level.
This is simply a statement about naming, and has nothing to do with future products' specifications. Though it does seem to indicate that a future, higher-clocked GTX would continue to carry the GTX name, or some simple variation of that.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 07:04
Chalnoth provided this quote:
Q: Is there a GeForce 7800 Ultra?
GeForce 7800 GTX is our top of the line. We had so much positive response for the GT SKU (single slot, great performance) that we wanted to build upon that success and brand. GeForce 7800 GTX takes NVIDIA's high end performance offering to the next level.
Let's break it up so everyone can see how easy it is to understand this statement the right way (tm). (my take on this subject, of course, but I have to sound a bit more convincing than that to get the nay-sayers onboard :wink:)
1. "GeForce 7800GTX is our top of the line."
The statement was issued in conjunction with the 7800 launch and this provides context. In no way is Nvidia saying that 7800 GTX will be their top of the line forever. They are saying something to the effect that "of the boards announced today, the 7800 GTX is the highest end product."
2. "We had so much positive response for the GT SKU (single slot, great performance) that we wanted to build on that success and brand."
Note that they are talking about a configuration here and not the GT name itself. The most important and revealing part is bolded: "single slot". What Nvidia is saying is that "people liked the 6800 GT because it was single slot and still offered great performance, as compared to the 6800 Ultra which was double slotted. They are not saying they will never produce another double slot design, they are acknowledging that the GT was the greatest success story of the 6800 and this inspired the 7800 GTX.
3. "GeForce 7800 GTX takes NVIDIA's high end performance offering to the next level."
Classic promotional words reassuring the potential customers that the GTX is, indeed, more performant that any previous Nvidia part. Furthermore, it provides a clue and more reassurance that the GTX is considered "high end". This should be fairly obvious because the GT name was high end as well, with the middle being occupied by 6800 (no tag and hence always confusing in writing about it) and 6600GT. If anything, it would have been more important to point out that the 7800 GT (note lack of X) is also high end...or is it?
Now, I am sure that people will argue about the GT v GTX moniker and want to read into this that Nvidia decided to put "Ultra" on ice in favor of "GTX," but nowhere are they saying this. They are saying, in more than words, that because the 7800 GTX shares more specifications with what people associate with the previous 6800 GT, namely single slotted design, this is the name it takes and serves as the current high-end (at time of announcement of new family of cards and up until now).
It should be pretty obvious that the X in GTX is for "Extreme". As in, GT design, but more.
I very much doubt that a 512MB part, unless it has the same clock frequencies and retains single slot cooling, will carry the GTX name. GTX 2? Too confusing. There is one name everyone knows and associates with Nvidia top-of-the-line and that is...Ultra. However, I would not be surprised if Nvidia changes the numerals to something like Geforce 7900.
overclocked
02-Nov-2005, 07:07
Wasnt there talk about a new spin for G70 some time ago, A3?
It's lawyer speak cleverly crafted to avoid the question. However, "GeForce 7800GTX is our top of the line." does not include "at this time", so it can be interpreted either way. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who read this at the time considered it a response from nvidia indicating that the GTX was the new high end replacing the Ultra, and that there would be nothing higher. When I mentioned the possibility of an Ultra on various forums, citing the reasons, I was usually ridiculed for it and linked to that very section in the FAQ.
To come out with a higher end model with significantly higher clocks and name it the Ultra would make them look foolish plain and simple in the eyes of most, especially GTX owners. They know this and are thus either sticking with the GTX name, or naming it something else. It's as simple as that, you cannot deny the reasons they would stick with such a name when past history has dictated otherwise in every case.
Of course this assumes the rumors are true, which may not be the case at all.
Matasar
02-Nov-2005, 08:04
The card breaks 10K in 3Dmark05 with a FX55 default settings, no specs was revealed.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 08:17
It's lawyer speak cleverly crafted to avoid the question. However, "GeForce 7800GTX is our top of the line." does not include "at this time", so it can be interpreted either way.
Using your knowledge that this is "lawer speak," neither does the question include "at this time." Then it is implied. It is context. I therefore propose that it cannot be interpreted either way because it leaves everything very open. (ie. you could not take Nvidia to court if they ever produced a card called something other than GTX and more performant than a GTX part). It is simply saying that highest end offering (at the time of this announcement is the GTX... "and it's not called an Ultra because it doesn't have the properties that people associate with the name Ultra and it does share properties people associate with GT."
It says nothing about an Ultra. Don't you think Nvidia would be very (very very) clear about the "death" of the Ultra name if that was the case? Why is it so...open?
The fact of the matter is that the majority of people who read this at the time considered it a response from nvidia indicating that the GTX was the new high end replacing the Ultra, and that there would be nothing higher. When I mentioned the possibility of an Ultra on various forums, citing the reasons, I was usually ridiculed for it and linked to that very section in the FAQ.
Those people were wrong. Time may prove them right, but not for those reasons.
To come out with a higher end model with significantly higher clocks and name it the Ultra would make them look foolish plain and simple in the eyes of most, especially GTX owners. They know this and are thus either sticking with the GTX name, or naming it something else. It's as simple as that, you cannot deny the reasons they would stick with such a name when past history has dictated otherwise in every case.
It would only make them look "foolish" to the fools. I thought it was quite clear, for being so muddy, that GT had certain implications in the design (single slot) and was not about "ohhh, everyone likes the name GT better than Ultra so that is why there is no card called Ultra."
Chalnoth
02-Nov-2005, 08:46
Note that they are talking about a configuration here and not the GT name itself.
You overlooked the "and brand" part of that sentence. Brand = name.
Ahem, does it really matter if it's called "ultra" or "mega" or whatever? I don't get all the excitement about the naming.
Could someone at least confirm either if this is gonna be single-slot or dual-slot? It will make me feel somewhat relieved it's gonna be dual-slot. While I think the semantics around the naming scheme is stupid, ANova has a point: Recent GTX purcharsers won't be too happy about their card being over-riden by a a new model (at similar price bracket) within a couple of months.
Yes, I'm talking about myself.
lop
P.S. Maybe Rollo can PM me with the above information? (Single or Dual) *wink*
Unknown Soldier
02-Nov-2005, 10:16
Why can't the 110nm card hit 550 when the 130nm ATI R420 did more??
I can't see why those specs aren't correct.
US
Why can't the 110nm card hit 550 when the 130nm ATI R420 did more??
I can't see why those specs aren't correct.
US
R420 used low-k
Matasar
02-Nov-2005, 10:47
Why do you say it cant hit 550 ?
Many cards do 520 with stock volt, bump it 0.1v and you should hit 550.
Unknown Soldier
02-Nov-2005, 10:53
Exactually .. yet people are doubtful that the 512 GTX is gonna hit 550. I don't see it as a problem.
US
Exactually .. yet people are doubtful that the 512 GTX is gonna hit 550. I don't see it as a problem.
US
I'm more in doubt about 1800 MHz RAM, it'll be 1600 IMHO.
The new quadro is basically a GTX and runs 550Mhz just fine.
Kombatant
02-Nov-2005, 12:00
Exactually .. yet people are doubtful that the 512 GTX is gonna hit 550. I don't see it as a problem.
US
Me neither tbh.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 12:34
You overlooked the "and brand" part of that sentence. Brand = name.
I didn't overlook it. I read that full sentence as talking about the identity of what a GT is, not a discussion about the name itself. They are talking about the official creation of a sub-segment in the high-end called "GT" that does not share the "balls-to-the-wall" properties associated with Ultra and the requirements that that may impose (dual slot cooling, etc).
Furthermore, I think everyone would do well to look more at the question in that FAQ than the answer. The answer, after all, is not an answer to the real question everyone is asking, as much as an opportunity taken to trumpet the GT/GTX. Note how the question is phrased "Is there a 7800 Ultra" instead of "Will" there be one. Look below about 512MB versions and suddenly it is "will," not "is".
I don't think this FAQ was written by the sloppy hand of an intern during examinations week.
NocturnDragon
02-Nov-2005, 12:41
The new quadro is basically a GTX and runs 550Mhz just fine.
Could you point to a link? Cannot find any information about clockspeed on nVidia's site
Could you point to a link? Cannot find any information about clockspeed on nVidia's site
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/opteron-ws_9.html
trinibwoy
02-Nov-2005, 12:52
Nice link.
The main part of the Quadro FX 4500 core works at 550MHz, which the GeForce 7800 GTX chip works at 430MHz. The vertex processor unit of both solutions works at the same frequency of 470MHz.
Chip manufacturers rarely make a point of putting down the speeds of their cores in hard text, mainly because the AIBs are usually allowed to tweak them. You're better off looking on a "partner" site than the main nV site for that info.
Could someone at least confirm either if this is gonna be single-slot or dual-slot? It will make me feel somewhat relieved it's gonna be dual-slot. While I think the semantics around the naming scheme is stupid, ANova has a point: Recent GTX purcharsers won't be too happy about their card being over-riden by a a new model (at similar price bracket) within a couple of months.
Yes, I'm talking about myself.
lop
P.S. Maybe Rollo can PM me with the above information? (Single or Dual) *wink*
The HKEPC article showed a Quadro/Leadtek type cooler.
I, of course, can neither confirm or deny.
If HKEPC is right, AFAIK that cooler is supposed to be much quieter than most due to the large fan size and slower rotation. (as compared to the smaller, faster fan on the X1800s and reference 6800Us)
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 13:06
I hope that any new high-end card from Nvidia will have dual-slot cooling with exhaust. It is getting very hot in there!
Dave Baumann
02-Nov-2005, 13:17
If the cooler is the same as the Quadro/Leadtek pictured ones thenthe fan is in the centre and I believe it exhausts in both directions (some in the case and some out).
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 13:24
If the cooler is the same as the Quadro/Leadtek pictured ones thenthe fan is in the centre and I believe it exhausts in both directions (some in the case and some out).
Yeah, this is what worries me. This is not a good solution IMO. I sometimes get the feeling that Nvidia got dustbusteritis from the 5800 Ultra and now avoid it unnecessarily. I think ATi, funnily enough, is doing the right thing by embracing it. Improvements to that design would be most welcomed.
FrameBuffer
02-Nov-2005, 13:38
The new quadro is basically a GTX and runs 550Mhz just fine.
Very true, except the Quaddro 512MB Mem clock is substancially lower, 1050Mhz efective compared to the GTX 1200Mhz effective. The Leadtek HSF used on the Quaddro is a beast to begin with and does cool the PX7800 GTX however as mentioned, it also doesn't have to deal with excessive memory rates, particularly as extreme as some rumors are saying (1800Mhz effective). Another factor I think being over looked when comparing the Quaddro to the vanilla GTX concerning clockrate (core) is that the Quadros sell for upwards of $2000.00 USD. Such a pricetag demands more than just software certification Im sure and I wouldn't doubt it in the least if GPUs designated for quadro use were hand/cherry picked knowing that a premium (ie KaChing) would also be attached.
I still think any such GTX "Ultra" or what be it would be truly pushing it to be shooting for 550Mhz core and anything above 1600Mhz effective video ram (IMO) is wishful thinking. We've already seen the effect of double the VRam and accelerated memory/core clock rates have on power consumption (see x1800XL vs x1800XT), almost doubling the draw. People who berated the x1800XTs 100+ Watt use will find little solice in the rumored GTX should such a beast arrive. Nv does have the upper hand in that they can dynamically adjust the clock rates for various parts of the GPU where as ATI has yet to address this (said to be in a future driver update). Given that the GTX had a relatively low reference clock rate, which allowed AIBs much leway in manipulating the core mhz, if we are to follow the GTX example then I think nV would make the 512MB GTX a reference clock rate of 500Mhz thus allowing AIBs again the ability to change the core Mhz rate and thus help differenciate themselves. Should Nv push a high reference clock (say 550) I dont think AIBs will be so happy in that 1; it would undoubtedly give little headroom for "OC" models that help AIBs again make themselves different from one another and 2; require a costly change to the current reference design, be it either a high quality dual slot cooler (akin to the leadtek) or say for example requiring extra PCB layers much like early R300 (9700 Pros) IIRC did.
Dave Baumann
02-Nov-2005, 13:40
Actually, people seem to forget that NV30's cooler did nothing for internal case temps - that solution used to take ai out of the back, cycle it over the heatsink and then turn it around and push it back - all the heat that NV30 produced internally was still dumped into the case, it was just using "cooler" air from outside. ATI's cooler is drawing air from inside the case, at the back of the card and pushing out the back of the case; the Quadro cooler appear to be acting a little more like a traditional cooler in that it draws air in from towards the bottom of the case, although in this case half of that will be pushed out the back of he case.
trinibwoy
02-Nov-2005, 13:54
Yeah, this is what worries me. This is not a good solution IMO. I sometimes get the feeling that Nvidia got dustbusteritis from the 5800 Ultra and now avoid it unnecessarily. I think ATi, funnily enough, is doing the right thing by embracing it. Improvements to that design would be most welcomed.
I think it works because the air pressure required for the split config is less. If it were like the dustbuster they would probably need a fan with higher pressure = higher speed and more noise.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 14:04
I think it works because the air pressure required for the split config is less. If it were like the dustbuster they would probably need a fan with higher pressure = higher speed and more noise.
BUt these puppies generate a lot of heat. After a few hours running you are trying to cool it down with hot air. Moving the air outside reduces this problem and you should, at least in theory, not need as much air flow because the air you are moving is cooler than it would be otherwise.
But yeah, I want silent too. Silent exhausted heat. Perfect. Make it so!
trinibwoy
02-Nov-2005, 14:17
BUt these puppies generate a lot of heat. After a few hours running you are trying to cool it down with hot air. Moving the air outside reduces this problem and you should, at least in theory, not need as much air flow because the air you are moving is cooler than it would be otherwise.
But yeah, I want silent too. Silent exhausted heat. Perfect. Make it so!
Yeah I see what you're saying but the Quadro cooler would still be ok in my case. The hot air coming out the right side of the card will get sucked up into the airstream running from my drives up through the top blowhole. My cpu temps might go up a bit though.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 14:21
Yeah I see what you're saying but the Quadro cooler would still be ok in my case. The hot air coming out the right side of the card will get sucked up into the airstream running from my drives up through the top blowhole. My cpu temps might go up a bit though.
Part of my desire for this type of system stems in the fact that I use a Lian-Li V1000 case and it mounts everything "upside-down". This means that the CPU and the rear exhaust is at the bottom of the case and that the top of the case becomes a trap for hot air. If the video card could eject the hot air it would make cooling perfect for my case and I don't think those with standard ATX cases would lose anything (they'd gain too).
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27400
Nvidia nails R520XT with 512MB 7800 GTX:
This card really looks great and we managed to confirm the data that we wrote about it yesterday.
If the cooler is the same as the Quadro/Leadtek pictured ones thenthe fan is in the centre and I believe it exhausts in both directions (some in the case and some out).
Ah.. thanks alot. Well, at least it gives me peace of mind. ;) I personally don't like/can't use dual-slot video cards in my system.
But If NV was smart, while it must be necessary to go with dual-slot, they'd made it single-slot. That'd be a real killer of XT.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 15:12
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=27400
Nvidia nails R520XT with 512MB 7800 GTX:
Ok, so this looks like it is a wrap then. We can now move on to asking and moaning about whether there will be an AGP version. :lol:
Ok, so this looks like it is a wrap then. We can now move on to asking and moaning about whether there will be an AGP version. :lol:
And if ATI will counter with the higher clocked PE and if that one will be available as AGP :twisted:
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 15:19
And if ATI will counter with the higher clocked PE and if that one will be available as AGP :twisted:
Oh, I smell R580, don't you? :wink:
"O Rialto, Rialto! wherefore art thou Rialto?" - Chipspeare
And if ATI will counter with the higher clocked PE and if that one will be available as AGP :twisted:
With the R580 planned voor Q1 2006 and the XT not even available, I don't think a PE part will be coming. They better move on to the R580 fast. Wouldn't that make the R520XT another NV30 (as in 'not existing' and 'slow')?
Any word on the release date? How about same day availability? Got F.E.A.R this weekend and realized that I really need a new system badly. And from what I've read the 1800XT will only be available in europe towards end of november.... :sad:
Matasar
02-Nov-2005, 15:30
http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/product.asp?pid=13209&sid=R540W3N37PPB8LCH0GTVXGKVRTCUBS67
trinibwoy
02-Nov-2005, 15:41
http://www.allstarshop.com/shop/product.asp?pid=13209&sid=R540W3N37PPB8LCH0GTVXGKVRTCUBS67
Not bad at all - only $50 over MSRP + free shipping available Nov 2nd.
As I wrote in the other thread, I'm pretty sure they'll hurry R580 out the door ASAP, that's the only option they have now.
Hellbinder
02-Nov-2005, 16:25
Oh, I smell R580, don't you? :wink:
"O Rialto, Rialto! wherefore art thou Rialto?" - Chipspeare
Right.. They havent even gotten the current XT to the pulic yet but you want them to *paper launch* yet another product that will supposedly whip up on Nvidia??
If this was Nvidia doing this, many of you people would be freaking out on them and sneering your butts off.
Its time to start being honest about the conduct of ATi for the last 15 months or so.
As I wrote in the other thread, I'm pretty sure they'll hurry R580 out the door ASAP, that's the only option they have now.
But would R580 be faster in any of the current games than R520? Doesn't seem like it.
Jawed
But would R580 be faster in any of the current games than R520? Doesn't seem like it.
Jawed
RV530 is much faster than RV515. It can't be 2 or 3-times faster only because of the ring bus.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 16:36
Right.. They havent even gotten the current XT to the pulic yet but you want them to *paper launch* yet another product that will supposedly whip up on Nvidia??
If this was Nvidia doing this, many of you people would be freaking out on them and sneering your butts off.
Its time to start being honest about the conduct of ATi for the last 15 months or so.
LOL Hellbinder. Calm down. You really are on some crusade lately huh? I am almost starting to suspect you of trying to use reverse psychology on us unsuspecting sheep.
Did I really imply that it would be easy or pleasant for ATi to get an R580 pronto? I merely stated the obvious: there is no room for a PE in terms of a R520 with cranked clocks if Nvidia is putting on the hot coals. It must be R580. And, you know, it was a chit-chat sorta comment.
What is up with you as of late? You seem to have these enormous swings of either licking the silkscreen off ATi cards or spitting on them.
BTW, I totally agree with the hypothetically reversed roles. Nvidia seems to get the worst of everything. People presume them guilty until proven innocent and even then they are not in the clear, like some mob guy who just got away on a technicality...this time...
Again, all I was saying was from what we know and suspect, the only retaliation ATi could possibly put up a fight with would be the R580. An "OCed" R520 XT PE doesn't seem a likely candidate, especially seeing how the launch schedule for the R500 parts has been delayed/compressed.
Happy with that? :smile:
Chalnoth
02-Nov-2005, 16:49
Actually, people seem to forget that NV30's cooler did nothing for internal case temps - that solution used to take ai out of the back, cycle it over the heatsink and then turn it around and push it back - all the heat that NV30 produced internally was still dumped into the case, it was just using "cooler" air from outside.
That's not true, Dave. Just because it didn't touch the air from the case doesn't mean that it wasn't pumping heat from the GPU outside the case.
BTW, I totally agree with the hypothetically reversed roles. Nvidia seems to get the worst of everything. People presume them guilty until proven innocent and even then they are not in the clear, like some mob guy who just got away on a technicality...this time...
This only seems to be the case at B3D in general, most other places I see people praising nvidia at every turn.
Dave Baumann
02-Nov-2005, 16:57
I'm not saying that it didn't reduce the overall temps (in relation to one that doesn't use outside airflow), but its not assisting in removing any air from the case either since its a closed loop; the board as a whole still radiates a lot of heat that is up to the case/system fan to remove - the large copper cooler on the bottom was very hot and going straight up to the CPU.
fallguy
02-Nov-2005, 17:11
Allstarshop doesn have the cards in stock right now. I called them and he said they expect a shipment in today. I asked how sure he was, he said they have a tracking number for them to come in today.
wireframe
02-Nov-2005, 17:16
Allstarshop doesn have the cards in stock right now. I called them and he said they expect a shipment in today. I asked how sure he was, he said they have a tracking number for them to come in today.
You didn't by any chance ask how many lucky bastards will get to pop one in this weeked?
"Shipment" always impresses me because, well, I think of a huge ship and lots of boxes, but in this case I have a sneaking suspicion that we are talking about very few items. Possibly Ebay material. I would love to be proven wrong, although I don't think I will be buying an X1800XT.
You didn't by any chance ask how many lucky bastards will get to pop one in this weeked?
"Shipment" always impresses me because, well, I think of a huge ship and lots of boxes, but in this case I have a sneaking suspicion that we are talking about very few items. Possibly Ebay material. I would love to be proven wrong, although I don't think I will be buying an X1800XT.
Well, allstarshop is charging $600 with free shipping, so I don't think availability will be that bad.
fallguy
02-Nov-2005, 17:25
No I didnt ask. They do usually have ATi cards first, or one of the first though. I dont know how. If I remember correctly, they had the XL first too. Im hoping it will be like the XL price. First a bit over MSRP, then two weeks later, much under it. The XL can be had for $380 now, $70 under MSRP. I just hope the same trend continues with the XT, and the 512mb GTX.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.