Richteralan
Regular
DaveBaumann said:
Like NV31
there is no NV47, but G70 is on the way
- Thread starter DOGMA1138
- Start date
Like NV31
Thanks for the answer.DaveBaumann said:
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
Uhm, no. 8)
DaveBaumann said:
3DChipset. I have no idea if that's true, though...
Edit:
Copy&paste:
--------------------------------------------------
A pretty increase in version number for Forceware drivers have been released today. Version 75.90 includes some new entries into the .inf file. What are those new GPU's? Probably the new workstation GO GPU, but it's unknown at this time. Care to try the new 75.90 driver? Below is the scoop:
Beta WinXP & Win2k Forceware Driver
v75.90
Date: Feb 22, 2005
Size: 23.38Mb
Download Here
Version Notes:
* Drivers come with a setup.exe for easy installing
* All NVIDIA based desktop GPU's are supported
* No word on compatibility or performance
* Files are dated: February 10, 2005
* WinZip Packaged
* New GPU's:
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_0090.1 = "NVIDIA G70"
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_0091.1 = "NVIDIA G70"
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_0092.1 = "NVIDIA G70"
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_0093.1 = "NVIDIA G70"
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_0094.1 = "NVIDIA G70"
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_009D.1 = "NVIDIA G70GL"
o NVIDIA_G70.DEV_009E.1 = "NVIDIA G70GL"
--------------------------------------------------
There are these days, yes. Mobile Workstations have been increasing in popularity for the last few years - NV41M recently had became available in Quadro 1400 form.
Megadrive1988
Veteran
k, here are my thoughts:
regardless of what G70 actually is, there should be little doubt that Nvidia has multiple generations of graphics technologies in the pipeline--the equivalent of NV50, NV60 and NV70 even if those codenames are not being used.
NV50 = G70 ? (GeForce 7?) maybe G70 is based on NV47 / NV48 with elements of NV50 ? something coming in the near future.
NV60: or instead of NV60, call this Nvidia's 'next-next generation graphics technology' for PCs and PS3. for the mid-term future.
NV70: or instead of NV70, call it Nvidia's 'future generation graphics technology' some years away still, the long-term furture.
there is no doubt that Nvidia has several generations of technology in development concurrently. they have probably 3 GPU design teams at least.
If ATI's Dave Orton can mention R400, R500, R600, R700 and R800 all in one interview, you can bet that Nvidia has at least two new generations of graphics *beyond* their upcoming new highend card for this year (be that NV47, NV48, NV50, G70)
regardless of what G70 actually is, there should be little doubt that Nvidia has multiple generations of graphics technologies in the pipeline--the equivalent of NV50, NV60 and NV70 even if those codenames are not being used.
NV50 = G70 ? (GeForce 7?) maybe G70 is based on NV47 / NV48 with elements of NV50 ? something coming in the near future.
NV60: or instead of NV60, call this Nvidia's 'next-next generation graphics technology' for PCs and PS3. for the mid-term future.
NV70: or instead of NV70, call it Nvidia's 'future generation graphics technology' some years away still, the long-term furture.
there is no doubt that Nvidia has several generations of technology in development concurrently. they have probably 3 GPU design teams at least.
If ATI's Dave Orton can mention R400, R500, R600, R700 and R800 all in one interview, you can bet that Nvidia has at least two new generations of graphics *beyond* their upcoming new highend card for this year (be that NV47, NV48, NV50, G70)
Uttar said:
Less than a week ago Jen-Hsun told the financial analysts in their quarterly call that their first intel chipset would NOT include integrated graphics. In fact, he sounded a little bit offended by the implication that they needed integrated graphics to be competitive in that market. They are quite proud of their chipset expertise and "value add" beyond graphics.
DaveBaumann said:
Given that just a few days ago you dropped what to me was a bombshell --that your feeling was that NV was further ahead in next gen release than ATI-- that would be consistent and reinforcing to your previous post. Can you point at any publicly available evidence to support that "feeling"? Err, other than this .inf file in the newest NV drivers? Or is this one of those "emanations from the penumbra" kind of deals? (U. S. Supreme Court humor)
I don't get it. The nForce line became popular precisely b/c it debuted with a relatively fast IGP and the best onboard sound hardware. Beyond that, they're just slapping a name on the MB, no? B/c I'm seeing a lot of current nF MBs being offered without even Active Armor (buggy tho that may be).geo said:
Not to diss nV or their MBs, but I really thought the big deal was their relative value due to the superiority of their components. I guess they're basically riding that rep now, tho, and maybe the promise of auto-upclocking when combined with nV video cards.
The only additional thing I can tell you is that he said they wanted the performance mobo market (well. . .also that they didn't have a clue what to expect yet as to market share). My analysis of that is the performance market in anything is typically willing to pay a price premium (read 'higher margins'). The performance market in mobo's isn't buying a mobo with IGP unless for some reason an IGP mobo is better at other things important to them in which case they will hold their nose and do so (while resenting it --some noob might see their sys-spec sig and snigger). So why add cost (read 'lower margins') for a 'feature' your target market doesn't want?
Now, your come-back is "But the 'performance market' isn't buying Intel in the first place!". And my response is "I can only tell you what the man said."
Now, your come-back is "But the 'performance market' isn't buying Intel in the first place!". And my response is "I can only tell you what the man said."
You're learning Baumannese, when he doesn't give a tease and speculates a bit along with the rest of us it generally means he don't know either.LeStoffer said:DaveBaumann said:
Just my thought as well, but where is the subtle teasing of Mr Baumann that we're otherwise so used to on these matters?
That's why I tried laughing at his "G" suggestion, I was just fishing to see if he'd smack me down a bit. If he did I would have known he knows something.
I think that G70 is NV47 "which doesn't exist". Just don't ask me why i think this way
Personally I think G70 is NV42, its too low end to be NV47/8.
So, have we all come to agreement that the G in G70 is for "Graphics" or "GPU"? (and not Generation or GeForce...ohh, and especially not GoForce (edit))
I also think DegustatoR is thinking entirely clearly, with G7x being the new names for those projects that mysteriously vanished from the roadmaps not long ago.
I also think DegustatoR is thinking entirely clearly, with G7x being the new names for those projects that mysteriously vanished from the roadmaps not long ago.
This may be true, but those codenames don't make it into any drivers that we see until said parts are close to release. The reason for this is simple: these drivers that are leaked are most likely for vendor testing of said parts. Not to mention that very early in development, there probably is no software driver for these products.Megadrive1988 said:
Edit:
Oh, and what is the BR02? Saw that in the 71.20 drivers.
Well, if it's connected with the release name, ex. GeForce 6800, then any GeForce 7x00 parts may be called "generation 7," even though any such labelling doesn't make a whole lot of sense in terms of technology generations.geo said:
But I like the idea that these are mobile parts more. The G may indicate a non-GeForce technology in use (i.e. Gigapixel tech).
Similar threads
- Locked
