So you`re saying GT200 = D9E = G9x? If true then GT200 is GF9800 and will be launched in March but as you see G9x doesn`t offer any architectural improvements over G80. How could it be significantly faster than GF8800Ultra? They need a very powerful new GPU because Rv770 is said to be about 50% faster than Rv670.
NVIDIA GT200 Rumours & Speculation Thread
- Thread starter Arun
- Start date
- Status
So you`re saying GT200 = D9E = G9x? If true then GT200 is GF9800 and will be launched in March but as you see G9x doesn`t offer any architectural improvements over G80. How could it be significantly faster than GF8800Ultra? They need a very powerful new GPU because Rv770 is said to be about 50% faster than Rv670.
Sound_Card
Regular
You mean to say that it has the same amount shaders as the GTX. They both have 128 shaders, except the new GTS shaders are clocked even higher. Also performance is the same (>/<) than the GTX.
http://www.techspot.com/review/79-geforce-8800-gts-512/
Sorry even the 112 stream processor GT* out performs the GTX we even see the regular GT out performing the GTX when bandwidth, fillrates, or memory constraints aren't there.
Is it really "that" important how do you get to bandwidth amount X? Anyway if I'd face the above dilemma my very first thought would be that it's somewhat outside of NV's policy (from the recent past) to deal with any kind of risks. If they've hypothetically laid out a core with let's say 4 ROP partitions and GDDR5 as a target, then it sounds like that availability will depend too much on ram availability for timeframe X. It's a totally different story if technical hickups delay your projected release dates than ram availability.
Anyway I have a slight problem with my layman's estimates because with G71 they removed a very healthy amount of redundancy. A first quick look on G92 doesn't point in that direction yet, because we might have not yet seen what the peak ALU frequencies are that core can hit.
Two of your initially posted blurbs don't seem to stick that well with me; one is the lack of 10.1 support and the other being 65nm. How many R&D resources does it really take to implement 10.1 requirements after all? And why would they still remain on 65nm, when one thinks of the transistor count this hypothetical thingy might have and 55nm being used for almost a year when that thingy is estimated to hit shelves?
Before though we get into those details, I'd like to read a couple of educated guesses about G92 transistor density and if they've removed any redundancy there (always in combination with the 2 less ROP partitions compared to G80).
I suspect there could be further improvements to current G8x/G9x SPs. Maybe dual MADD? Or could this architecture be totally different to what we see now? Probably not, but im guessing we are going to see something along the lines of a NV40 to NV47 jump.
Easy ones to guess are
Probably using the 65nm process.
Unified architecture
Video engine
DX10.1/S.M 4.1
PCI-e 2.0
Easy ones to guess are
Probably using the 65nm process.
Unified architecture
Video engine
DX10.1/S.M 4.1
PCI-e 2.0
Megadrive1988
Veteran
Well I have no idea about the GT200 name, all I am saying is Nvidia's next highend GPU (that's not a revised current GPU put on a new card) that's most often known as D9E or 'NV55' will be a refresh/overhaul of G80. When I said G9x, I was leaving room for Nvidia to have a G9x that IS a major architectural improvement over G80/G92. Though it may indeed be called G100.
I seriously doubt that, 9800GX2 should be the highest of high end of 9800-series, so it leaves little to no room for a new chip.
GT200/G100/whatever should be "GF10k" or something similar
Jawed
Legend
The much faster chip is supposed to have arrived in November-ish. When it didn't everything got scrambled.
Jawed
If all those scenarios are true, then probably for the same reason they released the G71 in the past. A "gap-filler" until the next major update/refresh. Even 6 months are a mighty long time in this market and it's never really a good idea to leave too large gaps in between product families. How long can they really sit on the past G8x laurels without any even moderate performance increase?
They obviously need an answer for AMD's R680; no answer means immediately better sales for AMD.
As to why they won't release it right now: IHVs don't sit on ready chips and breed on them until they turn green and hairy heh. If we're talking about a huge increase in chip complexity/transistor budget it does take it's time. If one of the supposed newblurbs in the initial post of this thread should be close to reality, ~1.8 billion transistors under 55nm sounds like a huge step. Why not today? Cause it ain't possible today.
G100 (D9E)
55nm
>1 billion
dx10.1
PCI-e 2.0
256 vertex shaders
16 ROPS
128 texture clock
780core 2Ghz shader
fillrate 99840 Mtexels
512bit bus
Gddr4 at 2Ghz
memory bandwidth 128GB/s
release March 2008
It has been posted on Xtremesystems by some guy
Do you think it could be true? I`m thinking about release date which is March 2008. GF9800GTX and GX2 at the same time ?
PS. And only 16ROPs with 512-bit memoty bus hmm.
55nm
>1 billion
dx10.1
PCI-e 2.0
256 vertex shaders
16 ROPS
128 texture clock
780core 2Ghz shader
fillrate 99840 Mtexels
512bit bus
Gddr4 at 2Ghz
memory bandwidth 128GB/s
release March 2008
It has been posted on Xtremesystems by some guy
Do you think it could be true? I`m thinking about release date which is March 2008. GF9800GTX and GX2 at the same time ?PS. And only 16ROPs with 512-bit memoty bus hmm.
Uhmmm ironically 16 ROPs could eventually make more sense then the rest of the bullshit heh...
Hellooooo! We have USCs nowadays....
hmmm....
ahhhh so that's 128TMUs@780MHz; well whatever.....
That's the best kneeslapper of them all; 2GHz ram @512bit gives 256GB of bandwidth.
sheesh not a single mention of a ton of eDRAM; I'm fairly disappointed
It has been posted on Xtremesystems by some guy
Supposed speculators will continue to compile senseless lists; it comes down to the reader to define what can or cannot make sense.
IMHO if there's going to be a 9800GTX it's merely going to be a very high clocked G92. Logically it would replace the 8800GTX/Ultra as a followup single chip high end sollution.
To me, that feels like a mix of what was posted at hardware-aktuell (see this thread's first post) and a bunch of random bullshit.It has been posted on Xtremesystems by some guy
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
I expect the next-gen Nvidia card to be DX10.1
Reason?
Well, Nvidia suprised everyone with the NV40 - 6800 which was SM3.0
Nvidia suprised everyone with the G80 - 8800, reportably to be a ps/vs non-unified DX10(SM4.0) card.
US
Reason?
Well, Nvidia suprised everyone with the NV40 - 6800 which was SM3.0
Nvidia suprised everyone with the G80 - 8800, reportably to be a ps/vs non-unified DX10(SM4.0) card.
US
I don't think being able to support DX10.1 is the problem. It's likely a political choice: unless you replace your line-up from top to bottom to support DX10.1 on the same day, supporting it would only indirectly encourage sales of the competiton's lower-end products which do support DX10.1...
If you mean 9x00 by "next gen", you're wrong, this has been proved by GF9600 for example.
Unknown Soldier
Veteran
Well GT9600 is G92 .. not next-gen.
US
US
9600 isn't G92, it's G94 or 96 or something along those lines.
Anyway, that's why I said "if you mean GF9x00" by next gen, you clearly mean the G100/GT200/whatever which will probably be GF10k or some new naming scheme
- Status
