MulciberXP
Regular
...
Last edited by a moderator:
nvidia "D8E" High End solution, what can we expect in 2008?
- Thread starter 2900guy
- Start date
Yeah.... Anyway. 9800 GTX needs to be more than what its currently rumored or it's not going to sell.
DegustatoR
Legend
It will. Nearly 8800U performance for $399 is going to sell i'm afraid.
It's just that it won't sell to the people who already have 8800GTS/GTX/U.
"Nearly 8800 Ultra performance"? I'm afraid not. Not at the settings and resolutions gamers will want to use with such a level of video card.
Berek
Regular
I agree. I've been taking a close look at the performance numbers of the existing, and preview numbers of the upcoming video cards, and I'm not impressed at all. Nvidia is slacking a bit at AMD/ATIs problems.
While SLI configurations might benefit more from these new cards, and thus performance increases (especially at higher resolutions above 1920x1200) will show remarkable gains (with properly supported drivers), I just don't see the gains that I used to with some of the previous generations.
It will be a good year overall with the new generation of GPUs, because Penryn, quad-core's, (solid SLI support), (and just maybe better quad-core performance for games), and DDR3 will all come together to bring a nice solid system to the consumer, if you're looking to purchase a new system in the next few months.
Let's all keep in mind too on what games we're playing. I'm not going to build a system around Unreal Tournament 1 and plan to spend $2,000 in doing so. If it's Crysis, WIC or Age of Conan or some other heavily demanding game, that's another story. I only really see Crysis as the one game right now that seriously needs SLI configurations with top-end cards.
DegustatoR
Legend
Don't be afraid, G92 is your friend!
Seriously, GTS-512 is already more or less on par with Ultra in the latest DX9 and especially DX10 titles. There may be some problems with resolutions higher than 1920x1200, but then again i'd say that Ultra is too slow for these resolutions anyway.
Don't be afraid, G92 is your friend!
Seriously, GTS-512 is already more or less on par with Ultra in the latest DX9 and especially DX10 titles. There may be some problems with resolutions higher than 1920x1200, but then again i'd say that Ultra is too slow for these resolutions anyway.
I want 384bit back.
Don't be afraid, G92 is your friend!
Seriously, GTS-512 is already more or less on par with Ultra in the latest DX9 and especially DX10 titles. There may be some problems with resolutions higher than 1920x1200, but then again i'd say that Ultra is too slow for these resolutions anyway.
I already have an o/c'd 8800 GT. I want more though, and since it's an EVGA, I still have until June to step up to something better. I run most of my games (or would like to) on my 42" 1080P LCD. Given the size of the screen, I'm going to want some AA in every game that supports it and I just don't think the 8800 GT can give me that level of performance.
One of the G92-SKUs of not public 174-FW:
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/GeF...-Up_Unveiled;_GX2,_GTX,_GTS,_GT,_GS/5594.html
?
Now that's more like it! Still need faster memory, but with 2GB that's not bad at all. Why are they sand-bagging the $399 SKUs then?
Isn't 2GB ridiculous overkill? 1GB would be nice but what game is going to take any advantage at all of 2GB?
2GB is definitely overkill. I can't think of a single instance where you'd stand to gain performance with 2GB vs. 1GB, unless it's some inflated synthetic test case, the sole purpose of which is to increase the amount of memory used
2GB is definitely overkill. I can't think of a single instance where you'd stand to gain performance with 2GB vs. 1GB, unless it's some inflated synthetic test case, the sole purpose of which is to increase the amount of memory used
Well hey, you never know.... someone might want to drive a couple Apple Cinema 30" displays at 16xAA.
And if the game makes use of multiple render targets for deferred shading, it's all the better to have 2GB of memory!Do not forget, that NV has in GF8/9-series some issues in VRAM-managment and this would be a good hw-workaround.
But I suspect, that this card is (BIOS)-OCed (strange TMU:SP-clock-ratio), real clocks seems to be 600/1500/900MHz (88GT -> 98GT(S)
). But there are also rumors, that 9800 GT(G92-350?) will clock 650/1625/1000MHz, what seems for me more believable.
Both, if you ask me.
Even AMD was surprised by that - when was the last time anybody's A11 silicon was bug-free? - so it's not unreasonable to assume that Nvidia was expecting RV670 several months later than it actually appeared.
The only theory which makes any sense to me is that the 9x00 series were what G92 was originally intended to be, and the 8800GT, etc. were an unexpected but necessary stop-gap.
G94? Either way, both companies are getting smarter and I'm definitely expecting more A11s in the future.