G80 USES EXTERNAL PSU? November Launch?

[shadow001]

$600 ~ $1200? I spent a total of around $350 for my dual video cards. Not everybody has to have the best for SLi. Dual 7600GTs is was a very viable option some time ago. I'm certain SLi will work upon Vista's release. Maybe not as well as it does in XP. The performance might not be there. But atleast it will work.


In all honesty,doing SLI with a pair of 7600 GT's,which i'm sure perform just fine,isn't really worth it the trouble since a single high end card will usually not cost much more than that setup(50~75$ more) and still end up outperforming it.....


The SLi userbase has grown beyond the uber-rich and uber-1337 gamers that always drop top-dollar for the best videocard when it comes out. Now even the average-joe gamer probably has an SLi rig. As such, to completely neglect the SLi camp would essentially mean nVidia shooting themselves in the foot. After all, how many here are expecting to purchase just one 8800GTX or GT? Probably not many. Most are probably shooting for dual GTXs or GTs. And if SLi doesn't work, nVidia would lose sales on that front.


It's still mostly made up of people that are willing to spend a more than resonable amount of money into graphics,and the vast majority of those pick SLi setups that while not using the very highest end cards,pick those just below the fastest versions,so that there's still a performance advantage in SLI over a single high end card,without spending a 1000$ + in the process....




Also, for all we know nVidia may even introduce the 8600GT with the 8800GTX and GT. As such, budget gamers (such as myself) would then get thrown into the loop.

Trust me, SLi will work upon Vista's release.


Like for instance the example above for instance....How many people are actually going to get an SLI rig made up of 8600 GT's,wich if we follow Nvidia's strategy over the last couple of years,means budget cards selling for 200$ or less,when a single 8900GT model,will likely perform the same or better than 2 of those 8600GT's together,and cost 350~400$....

Sli only has a point to it if you pick at least 2 8900GT's in SLi and basically beat the performance hands down of a single 8900GTX any day,but the cost with that will likely hit 700~750$......I'll be checking mostly those 8900GT SLI setups to see if it's worth the cost of replacing my 7950GX2,performance wise....


Basically,below a certain point,there's no benefit to SLI,and the same goes for Crossfire too.....

[shadow001]

I'm purchasing a single R600. IMO, dual-cards aren't needed in the least as long as you go with a high-end part. And I also will never purchase any sort of SLi setup again--be it on dual or single PCI-E slots--until they get the stupid triple-buffering/vsyncing in DirectX thing worked out.

If they do that with DX10, then I might consider it. But dual-cards are definitely not a necessity at this point. The G80 or R600 will gobble up any game you can throw at it for quite awhile. Programmers aren't going to program games that only 10-20% of the population can play at high settings--and that's about the percentage that own dual-card rigs. The exception would be those who own 2560x1600 monitors, but those are very few.


I seriously doubt that 10~20% of the gaming population even own SLI or Crossfire setups at all,more like maybe the top 2% may own such setups since it implies using high end systems costing upwards of 2000$ and having displays that go beyond 1600*1200 resolutions to really make use of SLI or crossfire...


I recently bought a 24" LCD that does 1920*1200 to make use of the speed that 7950GX2 provides(LCD alone cost me 1100$ btw,so not cheap),and for resolutions under that,just stick with a single high end card and you'll be fine....

[KoRnfR3ak]

I recently bought a 24" LCD that does 1920*1200 to make use of the speed that 7950GX2 provides (LCD alone cost me 1100$ btw,so not cheap),and for resolutions under that,just stick with a single high end card and you'll be fine....I also rencently bought a similar monitor, so now my biggest concern is if a single G80 (or a single R600) will be enough to render ar least 25fps (minimum framerate, not average) of Crysis @ 1920x1200, with some decent level of anti-aliasing, like 2xAA.
That's all it matters. CRYSIS.
If you remember back in 2004, could we render 40fps of Farcry @ 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF with a single GeForce 6800 Ultra (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=6800upcie&page=10) ?? Almost... not.
Not buying 2xG80, would save me the $ of a new Power Supply.:)
But playing Crysis with just 0xAA might be considerably lame.:(

[Xion X2]

I seriously doubt that 10~20% of the gaming population even own SLI or Crossfire setups at all,more like maybe the top 2% may own such setups since it implies using high end systems costing upwards of 2000$ and having displays that go beyond 1600*1200 resolutions to really make use of SLI or crossfire...

I agree with you. I was just being generous with that statement.

[shadow001]

I also rencently bought a similar monitor, so now my biggest concern is if a single G80 (or a single R600) will be enough to render ar least 25fps (minimum framerate, not average) of Crysis @ 1920x1200, with some decent level of anti-aliasing, like 2xAA.
That's all it matters. CRYSIS.
If you remember back in 2004, could we render 40fps of Farcry @ 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF with a single GeForce 6800 Ultra (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=6800upcie&page=10) ?? Almost... not.
Not buying 2xG80, would save me the $ of a new Power Supply.:)
But playing Crysis with just 0xAA might be considerably lame.:(


I'd be pretty disapointed if the G80 or R600 cards(the high end versions of course)weren't at least 40~50% faster than a 7950 GX2 card and of course,adds DX10 support,even though 3/4 of the games you'll be using it with thru it's eventual lifespan(18~24 months),will still be DX9 based games.....


Reason for that belief is to look no further than the latest consoles,and the fact of the increasing tendency for developers to have simultanious releases of games on PC's and consoles,in order to increase potential profits,but with all the latest consoles having DX9 level GPU's in them,it doesn't really help push DX10 as fast as it could...


Microsoft has already sold a few million X360's since it's release last year,and again,it is a DX 9 GPU in them....Guess how long before the user base on PC's that have decent DX10 cards,reach those kind of numbers,so that the vast majority of developers actually go to the trouble of releasing DX10 exclusive titles...I'd say 2 years at least,wich by then both Nvidia and ATI will be on their 3rd generation of DX10 cards anyhow...

[halduemilauno]

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=34672
:)

[Redeemed]

In all honesty,doing SLI with a pair of 7600 GT's,which i'm sure perform just fine,isn't really worth it the trouble since a single high end card will usually not cost much more than that setup(50~75$ more) and still end up outperforming it.....


Not if you can't afford to pay $350 to $400 in one-fell swoop. ;) I bought my second 7600GT some time after the first. If I could have gotten a 7900GT instead, I would have. :) Heck, I'd have then gone for 2 of them. :D

It's still mostly made up of people that are willing to spend a more than resonable amount of money into graphics,and the vast majority of those pick SLi setups that while not using the very highest end cards,pick those just below the fastest versions,so that there's still a performance advantage in SLI over a single high end card,without spending a 1000$ + in the process....


Though you are correct- I would not claim that the over whelming majority have such expensive rigs. Any more mainstream video cards are becoming fast enough to suit the needs of gaming. If you are obssessed with graphics and image quality (like me), then you'll tend to want something more than a mere $175-$200 graphics card (hence why I went SLi). The numbers for gaming rigs not sporting top-dollar SLi or CrossFire setups is growing, and it will continue to grow as well. For example, there isn't a single game that a 7600GT can't play. Furthermore, there isn't a single game that a 7900GT or even 7950GT can't play with decent graphics and IQ settings.

Now, with the above said- let me give my reasoning as to why I feel the 8600GT and 8800GT will be found in more gamer's rigs than the 8800GTX:

Price.

Upon release, the prices of all these new cards (for the high end atleast) will be inflated for some time. This happens with every new generation.

Today you can grab a single 7900GTX for around $450. And a 7950GX2 for around $550. Those are actually rather sweet prices.

But, the 8800GTX is probably going to go for around $650 upon its release, with the 8800GT being around $400-$500. Keep in mind that the expectation is that even the 8800GT will be faster than dual 7900GTXs. And if that level of performance can be had for only, let's say, $450- most gamers will jump on that. And only those with a bunch of money will drop down cash for dual 8800GTXs.

With the level of performance rumoured from this next generation, and the prices that each card will more than likely sell at, it is only logical for most gamers to dump down $450 for a single 8800GT.

To this day, can you think of a single game that wouldn't run extremely well on a single 8800GT? Even a future title? And in regards to Crysis- an 8800GT running Crysis will probably be like a 6800GT running FarCry, not too shabby considering the price being paid. ;)

Sure, after the prices drop significantly for the uber-top-end card, then we'll see a whole lot more gamers using such a card. I know of many people that don't intend to purchase any new card(s) untill the 8800GTX comes down to prices similar to that of the 7900GTX today.

Like for instance the example above for instance....How many people are actually going to get an SLI rig made up of 8600 GT's,wich if we follow Nvidia's strategy over the last couple of years,means budget cards selling for 200$ or less,when a single 8900GT model,will likely perform the same or better than 2 of those 8600GT's together,and cost 350~400$....

Sli only has a point to it if you pick at least 2 8900GT's in SLi and basically beat the performance hands down of a single 8900GTX any day,but the cost with that will likely hit 700~750$......I'll be checking mostly those 8900GT SLI setups to see if it's worth the cost of replacing my 7950GX2,performance wise....


Basically,below a certain point,there's no benefit to SLI,and the same goes for Crossfire too.....

Well, considering that I'm now gaming at 1920x1440 with 2xQ AA and 16xAF with most if not all in game IQ settings maxed- I'm not too disappointed in my 7600GTs. ;) Though, for the record, I don't own Oblivion, F.E.A.R., nor BF2 so I can't comment on how well they'd fare in those titles. But the demo of F.E.A.R. plays just fine at the settings I mentioned. I'll probably pick up a copy of Oblivion sometime next month- and I'll probably never bother with BF2 as it isn't a game I'm really interested in. But the settings I mentioned are what I play HL2, HL2: LC, HL2: EP1, Quake4, CoD2, and FarCry at. And all those titles run extremely smooth. Even Prey is *mostly* playable at those settings. Again, not bad for only about $350. And yeah, a 7900GT could have done it as well- but I couldn't afford dropping a full $350 at the time of my purchase. ;) As I'm sure many other gamers running similar rigs would say aswell.

[Redeemed]

but with all the latest consoles having DX9 level GPU's in them,it doesn't really help push DX10 as fast as it could...


Unless I'm missing something, the XBox 360 is a "hybrid" design... it has support for some DX10 functions. And with all this push towards gaming coming from MS, I'm sure DX10 will, atleast, catch on somewhat quicker than any previous version of DX.

[Redeemed]

I also rencently bought a similar monitor, so now my biggest concern is if a single G80 (or a single R600) will be enough to render ar least 25fps (minimum framerate, not average) of Crysis @ 1920x1200, with some decent level of anti-aliasing, like 2xAA.
That's all it matters. CRYSIS.
If you remember back in 2004, could we render 40fps of Farcry @ 1600x1200 4xAA 8xAF with a single GeForce 6800 Ultra (http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=6800upcie&page=10) ?? Almost... not.
Not buying 2xG80, would save me the $ of a new Power Supply.:)
But playing Crysis with just 0xAA might be considerably lame.:(

Um... that review you linked to shows a single 6800 Ultra getting 39.7fps in FarCry at 1600x1200 with 4xAA/8xAF. That is 0.3 fps short of 40fps. You think that .3 fps would really make that big a difference? :wtf:

And yeah, you'll be able to play Crysis on a single 8800GT or 8800GTX with decent graphics settings. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if not.

[Bearclaw]

And yeah, you'll be able to play Crysis on a single 8800GT or 8800GTX with decent graphics settings. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot if not.
That games graphic requirements are insane.

[Redeemed]

That games graphic requirements are insane.

As were FarCry's upon its initial release. Furthermore, look at Oblivion- no computer to date can play Oblivion at the highest possible graphics settings without dipping into rather low frame rates in certain areas. I'm certain Crysis will be similar.

By making it quite stressfull for the best hardware of its time (G80 and R600), then it's replay value increases (supposedly) as people whom purchase the G81 and R680, and even G90 and R700, will want to see Crysis at its absolute best.

Heck, even with dual 7600GTs and 2GB of DDR500 ram, FarCry still doesn't play perfectly smooth with everything maxed. I'm sure it would, however, with dual 7900GTXs or a pair of G80s. ;)

A further note:

My opinion is that Crysis will stress DX9 video cards quite a lot. But for the DX10 cards the work-load wont be quite as great... in other words if run on DX10 hardware I'm sure we'll have better visuals with less of a performance hit than if the game were run on DX9 hardware. Make sense?

[walterman]

...FarCry still doesn't play perfectly smooth with everything maxed. I'm sure it would, however, with dual 7900GTXs or a pair of G80s. ;)
First time i tried FarCry, i had a GF4Ti4600, then a 9800Pro, a 6800U & 7900GTX now. 4 cards after game launch & still not perfectly smooth. And I'm just at 1280x1024. So, i also highly doubt that Crysis will run fine on next gen cards.

[Xion X2]

Posted by Redeemed:

As were FarCry's upon its initial release. Furthermore, look at Oblivion- no computer to date can play Oblivion at the highest possible graphics settings without dipping into rather low frame rates in certain areas.

The GX2 can @ 1680x1050 resolution. Not sure about 1920x1200. My GX2 never dipped below 35-40FPS anywhere on Oblivion when I had it.

As far as trying to measure the performance of the 8800GT vs the GTX version, I think it's a pretty useless exercise right now. None of us have any idea how these cards will perform, and neither do we have any idea how much more efficient DX10 will be than DX9 at running games. We can kind of theorize based on what we've read, but in the end we really just have no idea.

I know that I'll be going with the highest-end card, as usual. That's normally the trend for me, then I'll end up keeping it for a year or so. That card will most likely be the R600 since I think it'll run DX10 games better. But even that hasn't been prove yet, either.

[Redeemed]

The GX2 can @ 1680x1050 resolution. Not sure about 1920x1200. My GX2 never dipped below 35-40FPS anywhere on Oblivion when I had it.

As far as trying to measure the performance of the 8800GT vs the GTX version, I think it's a pretty useless exercise right now. None of us have any idea how these cards will perform, and neither do we have any idea how much more efficient DX10 will be than DX9 at running games. We can kind of theorize based on what we've read, but in the end we really just have no idea.

I know that I'll be going with the highest-end card, as usual. That's normally the trend for me, then I'll end up keeping it for a year or so. That card will most likely be the R600 since I think it'll run DX10 games better. But even that hasn't been prove yet, either.

I highly doubt even the almighty GX2 could run Oblivion at 1920x1440 with max AA and AF as well as all in game options maxed as well. I'm quite certain you'd dip below 30fps periodically.

Any how, as to the rest of your post- I agree 100%. ;)

[Mojoe]

Didnt see this posted.:)
this is the way I look it, if the g80 is 2 times clock for clock faster, in all likely hood it is, it has same transistor counts as a double die 7950 gx2, with 500+ million transistors, and it doesn't exceed 650 mhz clock speed, (probably will end up around 500-600 in all likelyhood) it might end up in some instances 2 times faster. Everything in the g80 core is pretty much remade from its memory access, to ROP's, TMU's, being unified and most likely much more efficient at what they do, to VS/GS being unified, remade multitreaded pipes.

I don't know where the r600 rumor of 300 watts came from, I don't put my money on it, but I will put my money on the g80 not going over the 7950 gx2 power consumption and heat dissipation. No external power supply for the g80 unless there is one thats clocked above specs or a dual gpu version of the g80. I think you will end up seeing around a 50% increase in performance over the 7950, I know the g80 has a much improved performance % for AA and AF, so it might be a bit higher then 50% on average.

Edit: Also the g80 does have clock domains, so I also expect the vs/gs and tmu/alu to be clocked much higher then the pixel shaders which will account for some of the increased performance % of the AA/AF and the rest points to a more effecient use of bandwidth and memory allocation since it will need increased cache sizes for the multithreaded pipelines. Secondary features like HDR+AA is in there, I'm still not sure about its filtering, but with this much change to the core design of nV's GPU's they probably didn't take any short cuts at least in this aspect.

The increased cache sizes and multithreaded pipelines (I'm at the moment thinking its going to be a variable design, so the number of threads in flight and granularity in the pipelines will change depending on need) will also increase branching performance greatly.

Back to the power usage, the g80 can be clocked higher then the gx2 and have similiar power usage since it will be using gddr4 memory at 1500-1750 mhz, and will not have a full 1 gig memory.

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33576&page=24

[ArrowMk84]

Pictures (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=841400&postcount=620) on page 25 of the B3D thread. I hope to hell that this thing does have an external PSU, because I DON'T want to have buy a new PSU for SLIing these critters...

[Siskods9]

Are they G80 pics??? :eek:

[PeterJensen]

http://www.tagteam.dk/randompics/G802.jpg

http://www.tagteam.dk/randompics/G801.jpg

http://www.tagteam.dk/randompics/G803.jpg

http://www.tagteam.dk/randompics/G804.jpg

http://www.tagteam.dk/randompics/G805.jpg

[Xion X2]

I tell ya.. nVidia went and f*cked up a perfectly good fan design that they had going on the GTX. The fan on these is just as horrific as ATi's line of coolers has been.

Don't be surprised if this thing becomes an oven-heater, guys (unless you get the water-cooled version). Time to install two 120mm fans in that 2nd PCI-E slot to blow up on it for decent cooling. Either that or a good waterblock. After all.. we can't expect a 650$ video card to have good cooling out of the box, now can we!?

[Razor1]

I tell ya.. nVidia went and f*cked up a perfectly good fan design that they had going on the GTX. The fan on these is just as horrific as ATi's line of coolers has been.

Don't be surprised if this thing becomes an oven-heater, guys (unless you get the water-cooled version). Time to install two 120mm fans in that 2nd PCI-E slot to blow up on it for decent cooling. Either that or a good waterblock. After all.. we can't expect a 650$ video card to have good cooling out of the box, now can we!?


water cooling is compeletly optional.