Beyond3D Forum

Domell · 30-Aug-2008, 00:19

I think the best that NVIDIA could do against new ATI GPUs is push the 9550GT (G94B) with full 9600GT specs with only lower clocks (something like Radeon 9550 was underclocked 9600Pro). There will be great OC potential and 256-bit MC so NVIDIA could really win this part.

Tchock · 30-Aug-2008, 12:51

ATI's partners can push RV730 easily too. The keyword here is simply "memory". The core itself should have no problem beating G94 given ample bandwidth.

I'm guessing partners will be pushing GDDR3 to ever-so-high records on midrange cards. And still profit more from OC editions. (GDDR3 is still cheap compared to the GPU IIRC)

RV740 is rumoured to have ~8800GT performance. Not sure whether it's extra compute power, or bandwidth liberation thanks to GDDR5.

BTW Komplett has the 4670 listed up there for 72 Euros, so I have the idea that nVidia's graph is totally off the charts.

Domell · 30-Aug-2008, 12:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tchock

ATI's partners can push RV730 easily too. The keyword here is simply "memory". The core itself should have no problem beating G94 given ample bandwidth.

I'm guessing partners will be pushing GDDR3 to ever-so-high records on midrange cards. And still profit more from OC editions. (GDDR3 is still cheap compared to the GPU IIRC)

RV740 is rumoured to have ~8800GT performance. Not sure whether it's extra compute power, or bandwidth liberation thanks to GDDR5.

BTW Komplett has the 4670 listed up there for 72 Euros, so I have the idea that nVidia's graph is totally off the charts.

Maybe true but how do you know what NVIDIA will offer in Q1-Q2/2009 when Rv740 is going to be released? Maybe NVIDIA will do something based on GT200 architecture to midrange GPUs in 40nm(i.e. GT210 or GT220 codenamed)?

Tchock · 30-Aug-2008, 13:03

I'll be anticipating how much they can squeeze into ~150-200mm^2, disregarding memory interface width because GDDR5 is a possibility.

I don't think they'll be able to exceed the 9600GSO/8800GS specs at the designated diesize. They could do G80-esque specs, but I think it'll still be a stretch. Probably have to dump DP ALUs too.

bearmoo · 02-Sep-2008, 23:42

RV730 review out ...

http://publish.it168.com/2008/0901/20080901043801.shtml

bearmoo · 02-Sep-2008, 23:44

nice die shot

ninelven · 03-Sep-2008, 01:15

It seems impressive from a die size point of view, but as far as perf/$ not so much. It loses pretty handily to a 3850 which loses to a 9600GT which can easily be found for less than $120 right now.

Tchock · 03-Sep-2008, 13:20

After crosschecking IT168, it seems that they were the ones who first unveiled 4850/4870 performance too.

(More like, what a load of bu**.

)

So grab your salt shakers slowly in regards to RV730 performance... the target resolution's 1440 and below anyway, which is obvious for the pricepoint.

mczak · 03-Sep-2008, 13:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninelven

It seems impressive from a die size point of view, but as far as perf/$ not so much. It loses pretty handily to a 3850 which loses to a 9600GT which can easily be found for less than $120 right now.

Keep in mind the 4650 should be similar priced to the 9500GT - and there's no contest there really. I'd agree the 9600GT is quite close in price and might be a better value if you look at performance/$, but still it doesn't compete in the same price bracket (there is, after all, even the 9550GT between the 9500GT and 9600GT too).

ninelven · 03-Sep-2008, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mczak

Keep in mind the 4650 should be similar priced to the 9500GT

I was just going by the AMD slide....

Dave Baumann · 03-Sep-2008, 19:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninelven

I was just going by the AMD slide....

Which slide was that?

CarstenS · 04-Sep-2008, 07:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Baumann

Which slide was that?

Apparently one stating (falsely?

) that the HD 4670 is going to be priced at 120$.

Personally, I'd also like to see such a slide very much to have a good laugh.

AnarchX · 04-Sep-2008, 08:22

This was an NV slide.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7...8265308wn7.jpg

But it seems like CJ said, that there >$100 hope will not full-filled.

btw.
IT168 says, that 9550GT will be based on G92(B) with 96SPs, 128-Bit and 4-layer PCB:
http://translate.google.ch/translate...hl=de&ie=UTF-8

CarstenS · 04-Sep-2008, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnarchX

This was an NV slide.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7...8265308wn7.jpg

But it seems like CJ said, that there >$100 hope will not full-filled.

Maybe Nvidia was not counting in US-Dollars anymore?

Dave Baumann · 06-Sep-2008, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarstenS

Apparently one stating (falsely?

) that the HD 4670 is going to be priced at 120$.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnarchX

This was an NV slide.

http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7...8265308wn7.jpg

Indeed, that slide was not, as far as I'm aware, anything to do with us. And it seems, if it was an NVIDIA slide, there has been some hasty tweaking of what's lined up in their stack even since then!

DegustatoR · 25-Sep-2008, 12:23

55nm iGame 9600GT

fellix · 25-Sep-2008, 14:07

Meh, red PCB for NV board! Click -- that's more like!

DegustatoR · 03-Oct-2008, 05:58

G96b?

Arun · 03-Oct-2008, 10:59

121mm² is what you would expect a 10% (i.e. 21% in two dimensions) linear shrink of G96a to be, so yes, that's nearly certainly a 55nm chip. (sigh, it's still amazing to me how bad NV's G84->G96b's shrink is; 13x13->11x11 for a full-node improvement... I don't think G96b is at UMC, either, but I could be wrong)

DegustatoR · 03-Oct-2008, 11:37

You want to see something amazing? =)
That's supposedly GT200 die...

...But it doesn't look like GT200 die and it's size is much smaller (G80 die is different too although the size is more or less comparable).
Any ideas what this is?

Arun · 03-Oct-2008, 11:49

22*22 = 484mm²
583 * 0.81 = 472mm²
Pretty much what you'd expect for a "nearly-straight-but-not-optical shrink" IMO, *if* that is what it is...

DegustatoR · 03-Oct-2008, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arun

22*22 = 484mm²
583 * 0.81 = 472mm²
Pretty much what you'd expect for a "nearly-straight-but-not-optical shrink" IMO, *if* that is what it is...

Well, that's the question -- what is it? =) I was told (basically by NV) that this is GT200 but it certainly doesn't look like it. And i have my doubts about this being GT200b or GT206 or something else.

suryad · 03-Oct-2008, 19:46

http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDI...er-93996.shtml

350 GTX??

Jawed · 03-Oct-2008, 21:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by DegustatoR

Well, that's the question -- what is it? =) I was told (basically by NV) that this is GT200 but it certainly doesn't look like it. And i have my doubts about this being GT200b or GT206 or something else.

What are the reasons for your doubts?

Jawed

DegustatoR · 04-Oct-2008, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jawed

What are the reasons for your doubts?

It was a bit early for them to have non-working GT200b or GT206 samples.

03-Sep-2008, 13:20	#58
Tchock Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Jurong West Posts: 644	Grain of salt. Fast. After crosschecking IT168, it seems that they were the ones who first unveiled 4850/4870 performance too. (More like, what a load of bu**. ) So grab your salt shakers slowly in regards to RV730 performance... the target resolution's 1440 and below anyway, which is obvious for the pricepoint.

25-Sep-2008, 14:07	#67
fellix Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Varna, Bulgaria Posts: 1,706	Meh, red PCB for NV board! Click -- that's more like! __________________ "Releasing a game in 2010 without AA is a completely foreign concept to me. If the technique you're using makes it impossible to use AA then you're using the wrong technique." -- Humus

03-Oct-2008, 10:59	#69
Arun One Mind, One Goal Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,124	121mm² is what you would expect a 10% (i.e. 21% in two dimensions) linear shrink of G96a to be, so yes, that's nearly certainly a 55nm chip. (sigh, it's still amazing to me how bad NV's G84->G96b's shrink is; 13x13->11x11 for a full-node improvement... I don't think G96b is at UMC, either, but I could be wrong) __________________ "Quand j'ai vu qu'il doutait de tout j'ai conclu que j'en savais autant que lui, et que je n'avais besoin de personne pour être ignorant." Voltaire: Candide, ou l'Optimisme

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30-Aug-2008, 00:19	#51
Domell Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 241	I think the best that NVIDIA could do against new ATI GPUs is push the 9550GT (G94B) with full 9600GT specs with only lower clocks (something like Radeon 9550 was underclocked 9600Pro). There will be great OC potential and 256-bit MC so NVIDIA could really win this part.

30-Aug-2008, 12:51	#52
Tchock Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Jurong West Posts: 644	ATI's partners can push RV730 easily too. The keyword here is simply "memory". The core itself should have no problem beating G94 given ample bandwidth. I'm guessing partners will be pushing GDDR3 to ever-so-high records on midrange cards. And still profit more from OC editions. (GDDR3 is still cheap compared to the GPU IIRC) RV740 is rumoured to have ~8800GT performance. Not sure whether it's extra compute power, or bandwidth liberation thanks to GDDR5. BTW Komplett has the 4670 listed up there for 72 Euros, so I have the idea that nVidia's graph is totally off the charts.

30-Aug-2008, 13:03	#54
Tchock Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Jurong West Posts: 644	I'll be anticipating how much they can squeeze into ~150-200mm^2, disregarding memory interface width because GDDR5 is a possibility. I don't think they'll be able to exceed the 9600GSO/8800GS specs at the designated diesize. They could do G80-esque specs, but I think it'll still be a stretch. Probably have to dump DP ALUs too.

02-Sep-2008, 23:42	#55
bearmoo Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 47	RV730 review out ... http://publish.it168.com/2008/0901/20080901043801.shtml

02-Sep-2008, 23:44	#56
bearmoo Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 47	nice die shot

03-Sep-2008, 01:15	#57
ninelven Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 916	It seems impressive from a die size point of view, but as far as perf/$ not so much. It loses pretty handily to a 3850 which loses to a 9600GT which can easily be found for less than $120 right now.

04-Sep-2008, 08:22	#63
AnarchX Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 991	This was an NV slide. http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7...8265308wn7.jpg But it seems like CJ said, that there >$100 hope will not full-filled. btw. IT168 says, that 9550GT will be based on G92(B) with 96SPs, 128-Bit and 4-layer PCB: http://translate.google.ch/translate...hl=de&ie=UTF-8

25-Sep-2008, 12:23	#66
DegustatoR Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: msk.ru/spb.ru Posts: 1,255	55nm iGame 9600GT

03-Oct-2008, 05:58	#68
DegustatoR Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: msk.ru/spb.ru Posts: 1,255	G96b?

03-Oct-2008, 11:37	#70
DegustatoR Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: msk.ru/spb.ru Posts: 1,255	You want to see something amazing? =) That's supposedly GT200 die... ...But it doesn't look like GT200 die and it's size is much smaller (G80 die is different too although the size is more or less comparable). Any ideas what this is?

03-Oct-2008, 11:49	#71
Arun One Mind, One Goal Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4,124	2222 = 484mm² 583 0.81 = 472mm² Pretty much what you'd expect for a "nearly-straight-but-not-optical shrink" IMO, if that is what it is...

03-Oct-2008, 19:46	#73
suryad Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 1,941	http://news.softpedia.com/news/NVIDI...er-93996.shtml 350 GTX??

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.