NV35 - already working, over twice as fast as NV30?
- Thread starter PrzemKo
- Start date
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Was the NV30 running at 250/250 or 250/500?
Hellbinder
Banned
5 pages in and we are still asking what the clock speeds were from page 1... 
Now thats funny...
Now thats funny...
Evildeus said:
But if it's 250/500 for the NV30, how do you explain it's over two times slower than a 500/500 NV30 at Anandtech?
And how do you explain that NV35 is barely on par with the NV30 at 500/500, according to those same Anandtech benchies.
My guess is really on 250/250 real right now. Everything else seems impossible, considering those numbers.
Uttar
8)
http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=254
34. Togehter with the driver question this one is very popular: any info about the NV35
You can expect to hear a lot about NV35 late this spring.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=254
LOL! That must be the first time I've heard the term "nerf" used in a hardware context.
ATI NERF RADEON9800 PLZ? R350 = CHEEZE. GGNORE.
I'd be very surprised if NV35 had substantially better AA than NV30. nVidia claimed that NV30 had "intellisample" AA with "no performance hit" and better quality than GeForce4. Clearly they are less than honest...
ATI NERF RADEON9800 PLZ? R350 = CHEEZE. GGNORE.
I'd be very surprised if NV35 had substantially better AA than NV30. nVidia claimed that NV30 had "intellisample" AA with "no performance hit" and better quality than GeForce4. Clearly they are less than honest...
Josiah said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you mean the GFFX than half of the above could eventually make sense. In the case of the GF4 though, with equal number of samples (ie up to Level 8x), the anisotropic quality is considered to be better overall compared to ATI's algorithm.
No idea what driver fix there is/was on the GF4. I haven't seen one for AF at least.
Saw at NVNews that Anand seems to have confirmed these numbers. Not only that, but he said he saw those numbers "a couple of months ago."
I now see (clearly) that both card were running 250MHZ core, 500MHz (1GHz effective) RAM. Glad I got that cleared up.
Reading some of the replies reminds me why I stopped participating in those forums. Heck, they were declaring the NV35 four times faster than current cards after maybe five posts.
I now see (clearly) that both card were running 250MHZ core, 500MHz (1GHz effective) RAM. Glad I got that cleared up.
Reading some of the replies reminds me why I stopped participating in those forums.
Heck, they were declaring the NV35 four times faster than current cards after maybe five posts. Yeah, the more I think about it, the more 250/500 makes sense.
The question now, thus, is to know how much of a difference there'll be at 500/500 in such a memory-limited case.
It better be good, because 110FPS is on par with a R300, not even a R350.
And then there's the R390.
Uttar
The question now, thus, is to know how much of a difference there'll be at 500/500 in such a memory-limited case.
It better be good, because 110FPS is on par with a R300, not even a R350.
And then there's the R390.
Uttar
It would have been nice to see the NV35 run at 315mhz core/310mem, then all the speculation of performance to ATI R300/R350 would have been answered. Good grief, play on.
Hey, wait a minute, hmmmm, downclock a R300 to 250mhz and check out the results.
What the hell, downclock to 250mhz so that you can compare speeds :?, sounds like Nvidia is having problems with higher NV35 core speeds otherwise wouldn't they have a slightly faster core comparison to begin with? Or is that the speed where the difference between the NV30 and NV35 is maxed out.
Hey, wait a minute, hmmmm, downclock a R300 to 250mhz and check out the results
.What the hell, downclock to 250mhz so that you can compare speeds :?, sounds like Nvidia is having problems with higher NV35 core speeds otherwise wouldn't they have a slightly faster core comparison to begin with? Or is that the speed where the difference between the NV30 and NV35 is maxed out
.