PDA

View Full Version : Lower End NV35 Parts


Pages : [1] 2

PrimalG102
06-04-03, 12:26 PM
Hi all!

As you all know, the FX 5900 Ultra looks like its going to be everything that NV30 should have been. I was wondering if anyone knows when the lower end NV35 parts are going to be coming out and if they will still have the 256-bit wide memory bus? I dont know about you, but I sure don't have US$500 that I have been saving to buy a new graphics card ( just US$300 ) :D

From what I have read, the "lowest end" NV35 part will cost somewhere around US$300 or is at least estimated to be priced somewhere around there.

Thanks for any help.

PrimalG102

Solomon
06-04-03, 12:33 PM
I don't think we will see any "lower end" NV35 parts. The lower end line has already been developed. The NV35 is jut the 5900 and 5900 Ultra...

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

pgn.inertia
06-04-03, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Solomon
I don't think we will see any "lower end" NV35 parts. The lower end line has already been developed. The NV35 is jut the 5900 and 5900 Ultra...

And GeForceFX 5900 Value, just a lower clocked FX5900 with 128bit DDR bus...

pgn.inertia
06-04-03, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by PrimalG102
Hi all!
From what I have read, the "lowest end" NV35 part will cost somewhere around US$300 or is at least estimated to be priced somewhere around there.

From all the previews I've read so far, this GeForceFX 5900 Value is indeed going to cost around $ 299,-

Dazz
06-04-03, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by pgn.inertia
And GeForceFX 5900 Value, just a lower clocked FX5900 with 128bit DDR bus... If thats the case it will be just a Geforce FX 5800. I find it hard to belive i think it will still have a 256bit bus but running at something like 600MHz.

PrimalG102
06-04-03, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Solomon
[B]I don't think we will see any "lower end" NV35 parts. The lower end line has already been developed. The NV35 is jut the 5900 and 5900 Ultra...


What I mean by the "lower end" part is this
http://www.hardocp.com/images/articles/1052659778bQi2UIDZtB_3_4_l.gif

(image linked from page 3 of the GeforceFX 5900 vs Radeon 9800 Pro 256mb article)
[H]ard|OCP (http://www.hardocp.com)


PrimalG102

LOL

I forget how quickly these forums respond (started writing this reply when only Dr. Solomon had posted)

pgn.inertia
06-04-03, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
If thats the case it will be just a Geforce FX 5800. I find it hard to belive i think it will still have a 256bit bus but running at something like 600MHz.

Remember NV35 replaces the entire NV30 line. NVIDIA thus needs a replacement not only for GeForceFX 5800 Ultra (GeForceFX 5900 Ultra/GeForceFX 5900) but also the GeForceFX 5800 (GeForceFX 5900/GeForceFX 5900 Value)...

pgn.inertia
06-04-03, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by PrimalG102
What I mean by the "lower end" part is this

LOL

I forget how quickly these forums respond (started writing this reply when only Dr. Solomon had posted)

We are all people with too much time on their hands sometimes...;)

They are also called 3D hardware enthusiasts...:afro:

Dazz
06-04-03, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by pgn.inertia
Remember NV35 replaces the entire NV30 line. NVIDIA thus needs a replacement not only for GeForceFX 5800 Ultra (GeForceFX 5900 Ultra/GeForceFX 5900) but also the GeForceFX 5800 (GeForceFX 5900/GeForceFX 5900 Value)... Yeah but apart from the the couple of extra features the core is pretty much the same so there is no reall point. The Radeon 9700 regular has 550MHz and is a fairly cheap card so i don't see why nVIDIA can't do the same with the FX5900V.

pgn.inertia
06-04-03, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Yeah but apart from the the couple of extra features the core is pretty much the same so there is no reall point. The Radeon 9700 regular has 550MHz and is a fairly cheap card so i don't see why nVIDIA can't do the same with the FX5900V.

Thought Radeon9700 was replaced by Radeon9800...

Anyhow, where are they going to get that extra $ 100,- off. (There is a $ 100,- difference between GeForceFX 5900 and GeForceFX 5900 Value) I don't think they can get that amount of money off just by choosing slower memory (probably 8 chips on PCB...)

Dazz
06-04-03, 02:51 PM
Sure they will 850MHz 256bit DDR memory is expensive 550MHz is fairly cheap hence the Radeon 9500 used to use it :D Anyway the Radeon 9800 will replace the Radeon 9700Pro.

pgn.inertia
06-04-03, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Dazz
Sure they will 850MHz 256bit DDR memory is expensive 550MHz is fairly cheap hence the Radeon 9500 used to use it :D Anyway the Radeon 9800 will replace the Radeon 9700Pro.

Remember, the $100 difference has to come solely from the RAM, nothing more then...

I'm still going for 128 bit memory at a slightly higher clock. With 128 bit RAM they will save on RAM (the physical number of chips), PCB and overall pincount...

yoladude
06-04-03, 03:52 PM
personally, i think the 5900 value will be a good card.....might pick one up later this year. plus, looks like it runs cool enough to not require a huge fan or dual slot solution, but that might hinder overclockability. anywayz, i heard somwhere that the entire nv3x line will be eliminated except for the vanilla 5800, which will be the "low low end" of the new line-up. hahaha, my brother's still using a geforce256.
anywayz, i think this new line-up will definately be a plus, because now the market won't be completely flooded with crappy cards boasting dx9 capability, even though they cant run a steady frame rate over 10 in those dx9 apps. it looks as though nvidia is going back to the geforce4 days (not too long ago), where all the cards are essentially equal, just differently clocked. the exception is the 5900 value with the smaller memory bus, but thats kind of like the 4200 64-meg card, good performer, just less money.

gordon151
06-04-03, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by pgn.inertia
Thought Radeon9700 was replaced by Radeon9800...

Anyhow, where are they going to get that extra $ 100,- off. (There is a $ 100,- difference between GeForceFX 5900 and GeForceFX 5900 Value) I don't think they can get that amount of money off just by choosing slower memory (probably 8 chips on PCB...)

In all likelyhood the reduced cost comes from the halving of the memory bus width and a reduced clock speed. This means lower transistor count and higher yields, thus cheaper cost. Dunno if I'd pick one of these up as there is a good chance it will be noceticeably slower than a 5800 Ultra =/.

Chalnoth
06-04-03, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by gordon151
Dunno if I'd pick one of these up as there is a good chance it will be noceticeably slower than a 5800 Ultra =/.
Not with FP16. This means it will run DirectX games much better (that use PS 2.0).

ragejg
06-04-03, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Chalnoth
Not with FP16. This means it will run DirectX games much better (that use PS 2.0).

Good point.

I think I believe you.

My upgrade path is gettin a little clearer now...

jan. 2k2: GF2mx
Apr. 2k2: GF3 ti200
Jul. 2k2: GF4 ti4200/128mb
Apr. 2k3: 5200U (AAARGH!!! got a 5200 instead!!...estupido)
Sept. 2k3: 5600U Rev. 2 w/aftermarket cooling
Tax Time/Xmas: 5900 value w/aftermarket cooling

very preliminary, but less foggy than it was...

ChrisRay
06-04-03, 07:13 PM
Well the 5200 Isn't going anywhere. Nvidia is scoring big time with that card.


The 5600 is likely to be replaced soon I think

Kev1
06-04-03, 07:33 PM
That the FX 5900 Value will still have a 256 bit bus. I hope thats true, because if its not then the new name of the FX 5900 Value will be Radeon 9700 Pro!

Chalnoth
06-04-03, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Kev1
That the FX 5900 Value will still have a 256 bit bus. I hope thats true, because if its not then the new name of the FX 5900 Value will be Radeon 9700 Pro!
It won't make that much difference. The primary thing (that you'll notice) that separates the FX 5900 from the 5800 is FP16 performance.

gordon151
06-04-03, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Chalnoth
It won't make that much difference. The primary thing (that you'll notice) that separates the FX 5900 from the 5800 is FP16 performance.

What has changed in FP16 performance in the 5900 vs. the 5800? I don't think I remember reading anything along those lines =/.

Chalnoth
06-04-03, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by gordon151
What has changed in FP16 performance in the 5900 vs. the 5800? I don't think I remember reading anything along those lines =/.
According to Uttar's benchmarks using modified Dawn shaders, the 5900 now is close to FX12 performance when using FP16.

nVidia claims double the FP performance in the 5900.

gordon151
06-04-03, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Chalnoth
According to Uttar's benchmarks using modified Dawn shaders, the 5900 now is close to FX12 performance when using FP16.

nVidia claims double the FP performance in the 5900.

I remember reading that in the THG review, but I chalked it up to driver improvements that they are specifically limiting to the NV35 series. If that's the case then it might be worth it though.

Chalnoth
06-04-03, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by gordon151
I remember reading that in the THG review, but I chalked it up to driver improvements that they are specifically limiting to the NV35 series. If that's the case then it might be worth it though.
nVidia has never limited driver improvements to one line of video cards when an older line also can support the technology.

One example of nVidia doing this was back with the GeForce and GeForce2 GTS. At the release of the GTS, "NSR" was enabled as a feature (If I remember correctly, this was the first incarnation of register combiners). The feature was enabled for all GeForce members available at the time.

Another example is nView. This was primarily designed for the GeForce2 MX cards, and, subsequently, the technology was enabled for all nVidia video cards, in as much as the hardware was able to support it.

These improvements for older architectures are most likely a direct result of nVidia's unified driver architecture.

gordon151
06-04-03, 09:28 PM
yeah.....

Lezmaka
06-04-03, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by gordon151
In all likelyhood the reduced cost comes from the halving of the memory bus width and a reduced clock speed. This means lower transistor count and higher yields, thus cheaper cost. Dunno if I'd pick one of these up as there is a good chance it will be noceticeably slower than a 5800 Ultra =/.

The 5900 Ultra, 5900 and 5900 Value all use the same NV35 core, so they all have the same number of transistors. Just like the 9700 and 9500 both use the same R300 core. ATI just used other methods to get the 128bit bus.

There are a few things that will allow for the lower price. There should be plenty of chips that cannot run at 450mhz, yet can run at whatever speed the Value is set at. Slower ram is cheaper. Since the chip and ram are running at lower frequencies, power consumption should be reduced allowing for a less expensive fan. The reduced frequencies and 128bit bus should allow for a simpler PCB.