lol - funny, goof-ball :lol: :lol:

Not exactly necessary, if games which will be based on DX10 / 10.1 that will have higher texture quality with demanding more memory, then such as Crysis soon release it will make surprisingly change the whole market view this year.

Noone will program a game which will push the G80 to the limit this year. They want to sell games to the masses, not only to the 0.01% hardcore crowd.

Link

How likely is that?

Having reduced memory access granulation to 32-bits x 4 cycle burst with the R520/580 isn't it odd to be increasing it to 64-bits by 8 cycle bursts with GDDR4, for which you would expect the memory controller would be optimised for? I assume that implies being designed for maximum HDR rendering performance but wouldn't it still be loosing efficiency when matched with GDDR4 relative to GDDR3?

If your logic is correct, then I will wait for ATI/AMD R650.... :) and skip R600 series all together!

-----> If a "Law" game industry's will not let me drive 240MPH on freeway then I will not buy Ferrari F50 super sport car.....

If I'd have personal experience, I wouldn't say "For what I've heard", would I?
You need to read more closely what others say before commenting in such way.

What I said is based on 1) State of drivers for DX9 cards vs nVidias, 2) State of nV 8800's drivers 3) What I've heard and read about ATIs driver situation with R6xx

you dont think crysis will push a g80 to its limits?

Not in a sense that it will become unenjoyable or limited in any sense, even if it doesn't give you 50+ fps.

It will be playable to a certain extent!

Some people in this thread http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=39782 seem to think that in its current relatively unoptimized build Crysis is getting 20-25 fps on a single 8800 GTX @1920x1200.

That does not sound like 8800 GTX will be pushed to its limits.

Optimize or unoptimized is completely different vs. when you change a game settings which demand more graphic memory....

people who were at the show also say it wasnt running at 1920 x 1200. and that there wasnt aa or af. and the fps was far below 20 a large portion of the time.

Which would be what for example? The chip will be limited elsewhere before it becomes bandwidth limited usually.

Their could be another theory about G80 "GF8800GTX 768MB"
It may have enough memory in certain or a lot of situations, but if Crysis allows G80 to drive up to 200MPH, but if going up-heel - G80 may have hard-time accelerating at that speed, because it is limited on horsepower.

Now you sound confused :lol: Are you talking about the bandwidth or just the amount of memory?

right now don't have nothing yet in order to stress G80.

It is not good example but Which video card will run better? 4 pipeline Radeon 9550 with 256MB -or- 8 pipeline Radeon 9800 with 128MB memory.

I think he means that Crysis's ultra-high textures will eat up all the 768MB of video ram 8800 GTX has, while 1GB cards would not suffer from such an occurrance.

9550 duh. I thought everybody knew that. More memory = faster.

Crysis allows G80 to drive up to 200MPH = amount of memory G80 has.

going up-heel - G80 may have hard-time accelerating at that speed = Texture/Fillrate/ROP's and shader clock frequency plays very important part of the role

because it is limited on horsepower = amount memory bandwidth

I can't be bothered posting all the links :cool: but according to FUDzilla, the 2900XTX product has now been definitely delayed until at least June - cards showing up at Computex and possibly for sale later in the month. XT still scheduled for May and with a $400 price tag. XT performance comparable to (or slightly better than) 8800GTX.

Wish I could read and respond to posts more than once a day.

Anyways, this isn't the first time AMD has cut margins drastically while having a better product in order to gain marketshare. In fact, they were in much worse condition before they launched the Athon XP than they are now. And they were arguably in a worse position prior to the launch of the Athon 64 and Opteron than they are now.

At worst, AMD will find themselves in the position they were in when they launched the Athlon XP. They'll have to do far far far worse to go back to the days of the K-6. and their failed 586 attempt.

Athon XP when it first launched was faster than Intel's competing chip, yet AMD still undercut Intel by a drastic amount while maintaining virtually no margins on the chip. All this to increase marketshare and more importantly mindshare. Up to that point AMD chips hadn't had a good competitive chip since the 486 days.

Intel of course responded by improving the performance of the P4 with a higher FSB and memory speeds thus eroding the performance edge.

It was until Opteron and the Athon 64 that AMD was able to maintain high margins with their chips. And actually post consistant profits rather than posting consistant losses.

From the looks of things, AMD is going back to what worked for them in the past. They are currently behind both Intel and Nvidia. Both in marketshare AND in mindshare.

If...and that's a VERY big IF the price point is true on R600, it could be in indication that they are trying to replicate what got the to where they were with the A64.

Mind you this is all theory based on a rumor. But it isn't like AMD hasn't done this sort of thing in the past. And I would imagine not the last time they will do it in the future either.

Regards,
SB

Not really, since their expenses back then were a fraction of what they have now.

Also, the $400 XT in May/June won't be cheap by any means. The G80 GTX will also be much cheaper by then, there is simply no possible way to undercut nV on prices this way. nV simply have loads of pricing headroom already now, let alone in June.

Really? By that metric Intel must be in a world of hurt... :lol: ;)

The cheapest GTX I can find is $548 I really doubt the price would drop by more than a hundred dollars in such a short period of time.