[AlexV]

Shtal, how can you be so thick?Really, I don`t want to be rude, but you`re somewhat annoying. You`ve answered your own inquiry, can`t you see that?

Because Intel P4 had deep pipelines and it was Intel's plan to have high clock speed, they though deep pipelines will help performance with high clocks.

But it turn out Core 2 with short pipelines is better way to go v.s deep Northwood/Presscott pipeline. (Of course you have to look at architecture it's self also)

If you can realise that Intel made a design choice that was fitting for its goals at the time(reaching a high clock etc.), conditioned by its goals and plans, not AMDs, and that the clock didn`t equate to zilch in that race as one has to look at architectural peculiarities, not only clocks, WTF is it so hard to understand that it`s the same thing with R600, G80 clocks? Again, for the friggin last time I hope, architectural choices are made in order to have balance across the whole package, the R600 will be clocked at what it needs to be clocked in order to achieve that, ditto for the G80.

Or maybe they wanted to give Digi an e-penis enlargement and that`s why they`re aiming for high clocks and a 512-bit bus?Could this be actually the truth?

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Morgoth the Dark Enemy

Shtal, how can you be so thick?Really, I don`t want to be rude, but you`re somewhat annoying. You`ve answered your own inquiry, can`t you see that?



If you can realise that Intel made a design choice that was fitting for its goals at the time(reaching a high clock etc.), conditioned by its goals and plans, not AMDs, and that the clock didn`t equate to zilch in that race as one has to look at architectural peculiarities, not only clocks, WTF is it so hard to understand that it`s the same thing with R600, G80 clocks? Again, for the friggin last time I hope, architectural choices are made in order to have balance across the whole package, the R600 will be clocked at what it needs to be clocked in order to achieve that, ditto for the G80.

Or maybe they wanted to give Digi an e-penis enlargement and that`s why they`re aiming for high clocks and a 512-bit bus?Could this be actually the truth?

But is it also true high clocks make chip run very hot.
(I know is not always - like Northwood vs. Prescott)

[stevem]

Originally Posted by Cuthalu

Actually I checked it from dictionary and there were both versions, not only aesthetics.

American Heritage Dictionary? Colloquial usage doesn't make it right...

[Razor1]

hmm looking at the rd600 lanparty DFI motherboard, seems to be alot of space between the primary PCI-e slot and the next slot.



Or is it just DFI, looked at some of thier other MB's and they seem to have a habit of giving extra space next to it.

[BRiT]

Originally Posted by Razor1

hmm looking at the rd600 lanparty DFI motherboard, seems to be alot of space between the primary PCI-e slot and the next slot.

That just makes sense. All the enthusiast graphic cards use 2 slots, so why put a slot next to it when you know it wont be able to be used?

[Razor1]

just haven't seen that before, never really focused on MB's too much. Pretty much got used to seeing a x1 slot or pci slot right next to pci-e

[Ailuros]

Originally Posted by Cuthalu

Actually I checked it from dictionary and there were both versions, not only aesthetics.

Trust me as a greek I know how it really should be written

[pakotlar]

Originally Posted by Twinkie

Proof? Source?
Not sure where you got that from. Your not going to give me "from my secret source" are you?

I dont think it will look that bad. Look at the R300 for instance. It used slow DDR but had a wider bus. On the other hand, the NV30 had the newest, baddest, shiniest GDDR2s. I dont see many people swayed to buy the NV30 instead of the R300 because the R300 looked bad in terms of the kind of memory it used (did look abit outdated). But that didnt mean it didnt perform worse than its competition.

Same as here. By using GDDR3 it still provides MUCH higher bandwidth than any current graphic cards out there while avoiding any sort of availability problem.

How about the cost of GDDR3/GDDR4?

edit - Im sure the ones X1950XTX used to my knowledge were the most slowest of all GDDR4 memory. The bottom of the food chain. Im talking about the faster GDDR4s.

Twinkie you're not going to win this one. They have been buying up reserves of GDDR4 from Samsung, and one of the rumours regarding GDDR4 on G80 was that nVidia wasn't confident that they could secure enough GDDR4 chips for the supply they wanted because of ATI's move. I'm not sure of exact cost, but I suspect that running 800mhz GDDR3 isn't going to be cheaper than 900mhz GDDR4. Anyone have cost figures on Samsungs 512mbit parts?

Also Twinkie, what makes you think that "your" specs, which seem like a pretty chop job of a bunch of rumours flying around, is any more "realistic" or logical than rumours that are being put out by people with some (if questionable in terms of knowledge and accuracy) industry contacts? Your argument isn't exactly convincing.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by Razor1

Not that great but new rumor, the r600 PCB is going to be green?

All you have to do is remove AMD/ATI logo from PCB and you have Nvidia.

[nutball]

Originally Posted by Shtal

But is it also true high clocks make chip run very hot.
(I know is not always - like Northwood vs. Prescott)

Can you read that back to yourself please?

"It is true that <X> invariably means <Y> (except when it doesn't)".

Could it be that there are other factors (just possibly many other factors) which determine whether a chip runs hot or not? To the point where your blanket assertion is meaningless?

This is a great place to learn, sometimes it's better to learn by reading, not posting and making dumb statements and asking dumb questions. No offence.

[Shtal]

Originally Posted by nutball

Can you read that back to yourself please?

"It is true that <X> invariably means <Y> (except when it doesn't)".

Could it be that there are other factors (just possibly many other factors) which determine whether a chip runs hot or not? To the point where your blanket assertion is meaningless?

This is a great place to learn, sometimes it's better to learn by reading, not posting and making dumb statements and asking dumb questions. No offence.

Before you use that word dumb, here is what it means.

Blockish, Blunt, Boeotian, Bovine, Brutish, Dead above the ears, Dim, Doltish, Dull
Fat-witted, Hebetate, Muddle-headed, Oblique, Obtuse, Pointless, Purblind, Slow-witted, Stupid, Thick, Timber-headed, unpointed, logy, hebetate.
---------------------------------------------------------
Is Just I'm not very bright about all detail, All I know is basic stuff; be patient with me I'm still learning, I'm not trying to prove anything! "Maybe a little "

[seahawk]

One should not forget, that years ago both IHVs had to design their DX10 Parts and had to guess what the opposition might come up with. Now we must remember that ATI had a healthy performance lead at this time ,while NV also seemed not very enthustiastic about the USC ideas, while ATI had those under development and getting ready für use in the form of the XBox Chip.

So let us assume that ATI expect NV to come with another extended version of the basic Cinefx (NV/G70) architecture and planed its R600 to competet with such a chip.

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Originally Posted by seahawk

One should not forget, that years ago both IHVs had to design their DX10 Parts and had to guess what the opposition might come up with. Now we must remember that ATI had a healthy performance lead at this time ,while NV also seemed not very enthustiastic about the USC ideas, while ATI had those under development and getting ready für use in the form of the XBox Chip.

So let us assume that ATI expect NV to come with another extended version of the basic Cinefx (NV/G70) architecture and planed its R600 to competet with such a chip.

You can just as likely say that "we can assume that Nvidia expected ATI to come up with an extension of R5x0 and from the work on the Xenos, and planned G80 to complete with such a chip".

What the competition is up to is an important, but small part of what a big company like ATI or Nvidia will design. The vast majority of is it down to cost of production, design, transistor budgets, yield, performance, heat and power requirements, etc. It's all about how far you can push the available technology, how much it costs, and how much money you can make from it.

Both companies are working within the similar frameworks of current and upcoming OpenGL and DirectX specs, available process and design technologies, the upcoming requirements of game developers. It's not much of a surprise to find they both develop similar solutions of similar performance to those same problems they both have to address.

[Arun]

Originally Posted by Shtal

Is Just I'm not very bright about all detail, All I know is basic stuff; be patient with me I'm still learning

I think his point is that most people, probably including yourself, learn faster by reading rather than assuming


Uttar

[seahawk]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

You can just as likely say that "we can assume that Nvidia expected ATI to come up with an extension of R5x0 and from the work on the Xenos, and planned G80 to complete with such a chip".

What the competition is up to is an important, but small part of what a big company like ATI or Nvidia will design. The vast majority of is it down to cost of production, design, transistor budgets, yield, performance, heat and power requirements, etc. It's all about how far you can push the available technology, how much it costs, and how much money you can make from it.

Both companies are working within the similar frameworks of current and upcoming OpenGL and DirectX specs, available process and design technologies, the upcoming requirements of game developers. It's not much of a surprise to find they both develop similar solutions of similar performance to those same problems they both have to address.

Mostly I do agree, yet both will also consider how much risk they take based on their expectations for the other product of the competition.

[Razor1]

http://www.digitimes.com/print/a20061222PD208.html

excuse number (1)

This looks like fx marketing to me. I don't expect the r600 to be a bad performer but I also think its going to have a tough time against the g80.

[Rys]

Originally Posted by Razor1

http://www.digitimes.com/print/a20061222PD208.html

excuse number (1)

This looks like fx marketing to me. I don't expect the r600 to be a bad performer but I also think its going to have a tough time against the g80.

All I read in that link is common sense. The market won't pick up appreciably until more affordable products show up, no matter how awesome or not R600 is.

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Rys

All I read in that link is common sense. The market won't pick up appreciably until more affordable products show up, no matter how awesome or not R600 is.

Ah yes there is alot of other marketing thats going to be coming out that is going to focus on flexibility of the r600 soon enough , very little mention of performance from what I'm hearing, might be wrong though.

[neliz]

Originally Posted by Razor1

This looks like fx marketing to me. I don't expect the r600 to be a bad performer but I also think its going to have a tough time against the g80.

Uhm.. well.. l'inq just reported that FSimX has been postponed and Crysis won't see the light of day before April so.. that technically AMD is pretty correct. No real dx10 games before q2 2007 anyway.

[icecold1983]

with all the talk in this thread of what a monster r600 will be, if it turns out it isnt a good deal faster than g80 a lot of people will be disappointed.

[Razor1]

Well subcog over at Rage stated this

According to what my friend said, it's gonna be a small % faster in current-gen games, and much, much faster in nextgen game engines. From his description, although he didn't give a number, I'd guess at least 50% faster in dx10 engines.

maybe I shouldn't say this, but I will anyway. Apparently, nvidia wasn't really planning on making the g80 a fully compliant dx10 part, and they weren't going to do unified shaders at all, but rather just have a ton of non-unified shaders. So somewhere around mid summer, m$ told 'em they had to have unified shaders, and so they quickly threw it together. Apparently, the g80's unified shader solution is pretty ugly, and is going to have significant performance handicaps in comparison to the r600, which was designed to be fully dx10 compliant from the beginning.

Anyway, I'm not gonna say anything more, although I really really want to. Suffice it to say that my friend, who's traditionally an nvidiot, is totally convinced that this year's graphics card wars are gonna look just like the radeon 9800 vs. the geforce fx line.

That is on the lines of what I'm hearing too, without the performance comparision. So yeah this and the 512bit bus is the focus on marketing for the r600.

[Jawed]

While I think there's a moderate chance that R600 will be faster than G80 by more than the 512-bit bus at ~120GB/s implies (in D3D10 only?) - I'm not willing to believe that NVidia kludged-together a unified G80 from a non-unified architecture in the last year or so, let alone over the summer.

Jawed

[Rys]

I'm sat here staring blankly at the screen, wondering whether you bringing that post here from Rage is a joke or not There's so much wrong with it that it's not even funny, and that's before you include any of his mentions of supposed performance. Pure FUD.

[INKster]

Originally Posted by Razor1

Well subcog over at Rage stated this





That is on the lines of what I'm hearing too, without the performance comparision. So yeah this and the 512bit bus is the focus on marketing for the r600.

That quote looks way over the top.
While i doubt R600 isn't faster than G80, to call the later as "ugly" is wrong, plain and simple.
Performance and image quality are there on the mark, so is availability.
What more would he want ?

[Arty]

"so they quickly threw it together"

I stopped reading there.