PDA

View Full Version : 5900 Ultra Mistake


Sonic98
05-14-03, 11:42 AM
Do you think Nvidia is making a mistake with the 5900 Ultra? Unless I read Toms Hardware wrong, the only difference with the Ultra version is 256MB or ram rather than 128MB. From the benchmarks I've seen of the 9800, the difference between the 128 and 256 versions is marginal at best. You think maybe the Ultra version should have use DDR-II and the clock speed of the NV30?

euan
05-14-03, 11:54 AM
Simply... No.

That's half of what went wrong with the 5800.

Sazar
05-14-03, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Sonic98
Do you think Nvidia is making a mistake with the 5900 Ultra? Unless I read Toms Hardware wrong, the only difference with the Ultra version is 256MB or ram rather than 128MB. From the benchmarks I've seen of the 9800, the difference between the 128 and 256 versions is marginal at best. You think maybe the Ultra version should have use DDR-II and the clock speed of the NV30?

nope :)

Dazz
05-14-03, 12:01 PM
128bit DDR-2 is as expensive as 256bit DDR so keep that in mind.

Sazar
05-14-03, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
128bit DDR-2 is as expensive as 256bit DDR so keep that in mind.

it would appear as though the new radeon 9800pro 256 card is using ddr II and it is 256bit memory interface...

what gives ?

Slappi
05-14-03, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Sazar
it would appear as though the new radeon 9800pro 256 card is using ddr II and it is 256bit memory interface...

what gives ?

ATI also hasn't made any money in over 3 years ;)

GlowStick
05-14-03, 05:13 PM
He dosent mean the bus, he means the memory size.

To me yes, a 256mb version of the nv35 is 'proably' non preformance gaining, unless it has higher clocks.

But to have the marekting push of 'haveing more ram' they have to at least put the 256mb version out there.

Lezmaka
05-14-03, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Sazar
it would appear as though the new radeon 9800pro 256 card is using ddr II and it is 256bit memory interface...

what gives ?

They are using somewhat slow DDR2 and they also have to use 16 chips compared to only 8 on the 5900 ultra. Not sure what would cost more, 16 128megabit DDR2 or 8 256megabit DDR1. I would assume 8 chips could allow board design to be simpler, but don't know for sure.

GlowStick
05-14-03, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Lezmaka
They are using somewhat slow DDR2 and they also have to use 16 chips compared to only 8 on the 5900 ultra. Not sure what would cost more, 16 128megabit DDR2 or 8 256megabit DDR1. I would assume 8 chips could allow board design to be simpler, but don't know for sure.

isnt 8 chips the standard for most 128mb video cards? mine has 8 : O

Dazz
05-14-03, 05:37 PM
The more packed the memory is the more expensive it becomes. So lots of smaller sized memory is cheaper then few large sized chips, this also effects yield.

Sonic98
05-15-03, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by GlowStick
He dosent mean the bus, he means the memory size.

To me yes, a 256mb version of the nv35 is 'proably' non preformance gaining, unless it has higher clocks.

But to have the marekting push of 'haveing more ram' they have to at least put the 256mb version out there.

That is what I'm saying. You're not getting much benefit out of paying more money for 128 more MB of ram. The 256MB version is just for show. They usually at least make the ultra version at least a higher clock speed.

nVidi0t
05-15-03, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Sonic98
Do you think Nvidia is making a mistake with the 5900 Ultra? Unless I read Toms Hardware wrong, the only difference with the Ultra version is 256MB or ram rather than 128MB. From the benchmarks I've seen of the 9800, the difference between the 128 and 256 versions is marginal at best. You think maybe the Ultra version should have use DDR-II and the clock speed of the NV30?

Well let's look through the eyes of Joe Consumer.

He wants a high performance new computer system. He sees a graphics card with 128mb RAM, and one with 256mb RAM.

256Mb, thats twice as much as the other! Of course it justifies the 100$ extra price tag! *cashes out*

It's not the benchmarks that matter when it comes to sales. nVidias market share even increased while ATI had the performance crown for over 6 months. Now that's marketing.

reever2
05-15-03, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Lezmaka
They are using somewhat slow DDR2 and they also have to use 16 chips compared to only 8 on the 5900 ultra. Not sure what would cost more, 16 128megabit DDR2 or 8 256megabit DDR1. I would assume 8 chips could allow board design to be simpler, but don't know for sure.

I would think 8 256mbit ram chips would cost more, just look at DRAM pricing for 1 and 2 gb sticks, going from a 512mb stick of pc2700 to a 1gb stick is a pretty hefty price increase, with the only difference being the 1gb stick uses 512mbit chips(i think, i forget what capacity standard dram nowadays is)

muzz
05-15-03, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by nVidi0t
Well let's look through the eyes of Joe Consumer.

He wants a high performance new computer system. He sees a graphics card with 128mb RAM, and one with 256mb RAM.

256Mb, thats twice as much as the other! Of course it justifies the 100$ extra price tag! *cashes out*

It's not the benchmarks that matter when it comes to sales. nVidias market share even increased while ATI had the performance crown for over 6 months. Now that's marketing.

Hmm I don't see much increase here........

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NVDA&d=c&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l

Take a look at the beginning and the end of that graph, 9700p(actually a little B4) appears.. NV price go's down, 5800 appears it starts to go back up .

I am talking price here , not marketshare, but it still matters right?

muzz
05-15-03, 06:45 PM
This one shows them both on the same graph.

Edit: wrong 1 see below.

muzz
05-15-03, 06:47 PM
Sorry... here it is.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NVDA&d=c&k=c1&c=atyt&a=v&p=s&t=1y&l=on&z=l&q=l

GlowStick
05-15-03, 07:00 PM
whats that really have to do with anything?

nVidi0t
05-15-03, 07:03 PM
What are those percentages showing?

muzz
05-15-03, 07:17 PM
Market performance.

GlowStick
05-15-03, 07:31 PM
Meh!
No body really cares!

Uttar
05-17-03, 04:02 AM
Trying to put a link between the stock exchange and news which are not purely financial related, such as a quarterly report, is impossible. It just doesn't work. Investors aren't enthusiasts, they often don't even know a lot about what they're investing in.

The reason nVidia dropped in mid July is because of their preliminary Q2 report. That obviously got nothing to do with the R9700, since it wasn't even announced before the beggining of Q3, IIRC!


Uttar

EDIT: BTW:
While the 256MB probably isn't very useful on the FX5900, I believe it will be VERY useful on the Quadro FX derivative.
One of the main complains I've seen on review sites about the Quadro FX is that it only got 128MB: this is very signifiant for workstations. Both ATI and 3DLabs offer 256MB solutions ( and 3DLabs actually offer more, too )