nV40 info w/ benchmarks

[KimB]

I consider the benchmarks completely bogus at this point. They're probably not from a reliable source, and if they are, then they're almost certainly an educated guess and not real numbers.

Either way, they're unreliable.

 

[elroy]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

I agree Baron - I reckon we'll see at least 500 Mhz out of NV40. Hence my post about the validity of the benchmark no's.

 

[Tim Murray]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

I agree Baron - I reckon we'll see at least 500 Mhz out of NV40. Hence my post about the validity of the benchmark no's.

the benchmarks could be valid and just be from early silicon with alpha drivers. perhaps the A1 stepping?

 

[elroy]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

I agree Baron - I reckon we'll see at least 500 Mhz out of NV40. Hence my post about the validity of the benchmark no's.

the benchmarks could be valid and just be from early silicon with alpha drivers. perhaps the A1 stepping?

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. The benchmarks may be valid, but I don't believe they are a true indication of what we, as consumers, will see when NV40 is released.

 

[Tim Murray]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

I agree Baron - I reckon we'll see at least 500 Mhz out of NV40. Hence my post about the validity of the benchmark no's.

the benchmarks could be valid and just be from early silicon with alpha drivers. perhaps the A1 stepping?

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. The benchmarks may be valid, but I don't believe they are a true indication of what we, as consumers, will see when NV40 is released.

oh, no, definitely not--unless someone has run benchmarks with the A1 stepping and then interpolated results for the clockspeeds that NV is shooting for. but that would be really, really lame... I want my 125FPS in 1600x1200 4x/8x.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

Actually, thatt's not nearly the case. Historically, some of nVidia's "new cores" certainly have been lower in clock rate compared to their previous gen:

TNT-1 clock was lower than Riva128
GeForce256 clock was lower than the TNT-2 Ultra...
GeForce3 clock was lower than the GeForce2 Ultra...

 

[Tim Murray]

bah, I need to bookmark that B3D table. either way, if NV40 is based on NV3x, it's going to need clockspeed out the wazoo.

 

[elroy]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

I agree Baron - I reckon we'll see at least 500 Mhz out of NV40. Hence my post about the validity of the benchmark no's.

the benchmarks could be valid and just be from early silicon with alpha drivers. perhaps the A1 stepping?

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. The benchmarks may be valid, but I don't believe they are a true indication of what we, as consumers, will see when NV40 is released.

oh, no, definitely not--unless someone has run benchmarks with the A1 stepping and then interpolated results for the clockspeeds that NV is shooting for. but that would be really, really lame... I want my 125FPS in 1600x1200 4x/8x.

I think the problem is that some people think those numbers ARE indicative of what the retail NV40 will produce. Either that, or people are just taking a cheap shot at nVidia, which is cool with me .

BTW, does anyone know what process NV40 is being produced on? I know it's 0.13 um, but are they using SOI, low-k etc.

 

[KimB]

mmm... given NVIDIA's reputation, this card won't launch at less than 500Mhz core. they're like Intel--every new generation (except for the 5950U) must have a significant core speed increase. efficiency is not NVIDIA's hallmark.

Each new architecture from nVidia has been more efficient than the last, and many have been more efficient than competitor's products of the same class.

I think the GeForce FX has been the only new architecture from nVidia to increase clock speeds over the previous high-end.

And, in contrast to Intel's situation, GPU's are from from their limit in terms of clock speed, and so going for higher clocks isn't such a bad thing (I think Intel should scale back clock speed increases and go for more IPC).

 

[Hellbinder]

Dont expect Core speed increase to be as important as Pipeline increase and improvements in Pipeline efficiency this time around.

Bandwidth will be increased With raw clock speed however...

 

[DemoCoder]

Didn't you mean, don't expect any strategy that NVidia might take to be as important as any strategy your favorite corporate buddy might take?

 

[martrox]

Democoder, HB was actually NOT being his usual pro ATI self in his last statement.... so, why not reward the behavior. Your statement, in this case, is very uncalled for.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Didn't you mean, don't expect any strategy that NVidia might take to be as important as any strategy your favorite corporate buddy might take?

Actually, I think he meant "Dont expect Core speed increase to be as important as Pipeline increase and improvements in Pipeline efficiency this time around. "

 

[Hellbinder]

Didn't you mean, don't expect any strategy that NVidia might take to be as important as any strategy your favorite corporate buddy might take?

Actually no.. Thats really not what i ment.

But, its no sweat off my back if thats the way you want to take it.

 

[MuFu]

I would expect at least another 100 MHz out of A2, otherwise I wouldn't classify it as a significant a speed hike.

Doubt it's anyway near that much in terms of qualified clockspeed for a given core voltage/HS. Still, it must be enough of an improvement in terms of clock bump, bug fixes etc for them to be holding out for it - otherwise they could probably ramp now, or at least in the very near future (no idea whether A1 boards are qualified yet). IIRC, early NV30 samples were the same sort of thing - "normal" cooling, low clockspeeds (250-300MHz?), Quadro drivers etc.

I expect we'll see some reliable NV40 numbers in late Feb/early March when the D3 demo is released. Then (very) limited retail availability in late March, possibly with D3 bundled.

MuFu.

 

[ben6]

Those benchmarks look awfully familiar....

 

[digitalwanderer]

Those benchmarks look awfully familiar....

Really? Do you know if they were done with the 53.03 drivers? :|




































j/k!

 

[madshi]

I expect we'll see some reliable NV40 numbers in late Feb/early March when the D3 demo is released. Then (very) limited retail availability in late March, possibly with D3 bundled.

Do you also have some educated guesses about R420?

 

[Hellbinder]

Think Big event tied with the Release of something big....


Current *predictions* for HL2 release is about 15 days before Doom 3.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Think Big event tied with the Release of something big....


Current *predictions* for HL2 release is about 15 days before Doom 3.

Dude, does that meant that the "Half-life2 delayed until Sept 24, 2004" rumors are BS? (Link goes to my story at EB on it, but there's threads all over about it. )