G80 pics - Talk about it here.

[Daydre@m]

Well, I hope you're right. I've actually found the inquirer to be reasonably accurate in the past, but just because I want this card to kick ass, I'll wait till we have more solid numbers.
Your right , I am actually waitin for it for so long and I also want it to be kick ass .. heck I missed the 7 series just for Dx10 . I would be quite pissed if its geforce 7 with dx10 label ( I am sure it wont be ) .

Inquirer was accurate but they post crap every now and then just to grab attension. And I hope this one is crap.....

[slaWter]

Well 10k with a single card and a FX-62 is not that bad. It's around 500 points more than my old X2 2.8GHz with two 7900GTX.

A new single GPU card is faster than two highend single GPU cards together, that's great, isn't it?

[Xion X2]

I've actually found the inquirer to be reasonably accurate in the past

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/fragend/confused-smiley-017.gif

[shadow001]

10,000 on an FX-62??? Come on. :|

This thing better have some amazing performance in games... my slightly overclocked 7950 pulls 8,100 in 3dmark 06 on a slower CPU. I cant BELIEVE this "uber" card is only going to get 1,900 more points.

If this is true, I'm very disapointed... but I'll hold out for the results from real games.

I'm probably still going to sell this 7950 and "trade up" anyway, but this is sounding less and less amazing every day...


Keep in mind that if the card really is this fast,it'll be horribly CPU limited at the standard resolution that 3Dmark 06 runs that...

[Xion X2]

Keep in mind that if the card really is this fast,it'll be horribly CPU limited at the standard resolution that 3Dmark 06 runs that...

Exactly, not to mention the fact that 3dM06 uses no AA of any sort, and these new cards are supposed to be much better optimized for AA.

[shadow001]

Nah I think its another one of those inquirer's crap to grasp attension...

Btw I found this too , lol this says that Nvidia to ban overclocking on G80 chips .... and its again from inquirer :captnkill: :o



Link : http://www.flexbeta.net/main/comments.php?catid=8&shownews=21896


Oh Boy if its true then nvidia will be more like ATI.....

PS : Sorry if it has been posted before



Actually,this one has more to do with power limits than actually worrying about how high the core and memory speeds can go...

If you notice the pictures on the G80 cards in this thread,you'll notice the 2 additional power connectors at the end of the card,wich each of those has a spec of 75watts for each...


The PCI-e slot supplies another 75 watts of power,so between the slot and those 2 extra connectors,you've got 225 watts of available power for the whole card...


Seems that at it's current clocks,the card is already using up about 200 watts of power(a 7950 GX2 uses 143 watts at stock clocks by comparison),so overclocking it by any reasonable amount,on both the core and memory,may likely result in the card exceeding that 225 watt limit...Hence why Nvidia may not want vendors to clock the cards higher than factory speeds.


It'll depend a lot on the quality of the power supplies used and if those extra power connectors for SLI have a "conservative" 75 watt power rating for each one...May mean having a very good power supply with as many amps as possible on those 12v rails to get any decent overclocking results.


Say an 850 watt silverstone zeus,or an 850 watt PC power and cooling PSU....Industrial rated power supplies that hit those power ratings even at 50*C no matter what,but cost 300$ or more.

[CaptNKILL]

Well 10k with a single card and a FX-62 is not that bad. It's around 500 points more than my old X2 2.8GHz with two 7900GTX.

A new single GPU card is faster than two highend single GPU cards together, that's great, isn't it?
Yeah but the GX2 is their fastest "single card" currently and theres probably only a 1000 - 1500 point difference between it and the G80 in 3dmark 2006 if this rumor is true.

I'm just looking at this compared to past releases. The 6800 series was rediculously fast compared to the fx series and the 7 series showed between 50% and 100% performance increases over the 6800s, especially in 3dmark. My 7950 scores more than 3x as high as my overclocked 6800GT in 06.

When the next big leap in graphics technology squeezes out a mere 20% performance increase, I get worried.

And seeing how I still get drops to 15fps in the game benchmarks, I really doubt there is anything close to a CPU bottleneck occuring. Theres more to graphics processing than resolution and AA, especially with all of the excessive HDR, pixel shaders and parallax mapped high-res textures with dynamic soft shadows.

Again, I reaaaally hope this isnt true. But if it is, this is why it worries me...

[Daydre@m]

Ok Another spam from inquirer , cant say if its right or wrong...

Link : http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35260

SO, WHAT DO you do when you are an Nvidian and you don't want your G80 slides leaking all over the net? Simple, you don't give them out, and you plan even more cunning ways to clamp down for editors day '07.
In case you haven't noticed, the clampdown failed pretty miserably, but hey, they had to try. That said, there are no slides being given out until next Thursday, but we aren't supposed to know that either. The interesting thing is what it is planning for next year.

Since no slides allowed the information to leak out by text, email and phone, that will be clamped down on in the next go around. The cunning plan here is to stop it at the source - fingers. Each attendee of Nvidia's editors' day will be issued a pair of wire cutters, and be kindly asked to remove all fingers and finger-like extremities in the vain hope of keeping information in check. We are told there are no plans to change any slides though.

When it is clear that this does not help, our spies have been trained in ways to deal with this, editors' day '08 attendees will be issued tongs to help with tongue removal. We are at a loss to explain how Nvidia will expect people to do this without fingers though. µ

[Xion X2]

May mean having a very good power supply with as many amps as possible on those 12v rails to get any decent overclocking results.


Say an 850 watt silverstone zeus

Awwwwww yeaaa. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Xion X2]

Yeah but the GX2 is their fastest "single card" currently and theres probably only a 1000 - 1500 point difference between it and the G80 in 3dmark 2006 if this rumor is true.

Dude, you can't just look at the 3dMark06. That benchmark doesn't use any form of AA whatsoever and runs at a measly 1280x1024 res. You're not really pushing the card any.. at all.

Now when you crank your res up to 1680x1050 or above and apply 4x-16xAA, that's when these new cards will really start to shine. When you crank the shadow filtering options up on your game, that's when they'll start to shine. When you crank up HDR + AA effects (something current nvidia cards cannot even do), that's when they'll start to shine.

You're really not looking at this in the proper perspective. 3dMark06 was a valid comparison benchmark for this last generation of cards, but the G80 is a new architecture with different performance enhancements that haven't been done before. Don't rely solely on 3dMark scores to determine how much stronger it is than past-gen cards, because it's just not going to be an accurate measurement since it's leaving so many of the new features out that will be on the new cards. Why do you think they keep coming out with a new 3dMark benchmark every year? Because newer cards bring new technology with them that can't be taken advantage of with outdated benchmark tests.

And all of this is not even factoring in DirectX10. Just how well do you think your GX2 is going to handle DirectX10 coded games? Umm, it won't.

[shadow001]

Awwwwww yeaaa. http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/smilies/cool.gif


I have a 675 watt version myself....It's about 50% longer than a regular ATX power supply and quite heavy,way more than the 550w antec i was using before...


Has a nice black piano finish to it as well...:D

[shadow001]

Yeah but the GX2 is their fastest "single card" currently and theres probably only a 1000 - 1500 point difference between it and the G80 in 3dmark 2006 if this rumor is true.

I'm just looking at this compared to past releases. The 6800 series was rediculously fast compared to the fx series and the 7 series showed between 50% and 100% performance increases over the 6800s, especially in 3dmark. My 7950 scores more than 3x as high as my overclocked 6800GT in 06.

When the next big leap in graphics technology squeezes out a mere 20% performance increase, I get worried.

And seeing how I still get drops to 15fps in the game benchmarks, I really doubt there is anything close to a CPU bottleneck occuring. Theres more to graphics processing than resolution and AA, especially with all of the excessive HDR, pixel shaders and parallax mapped high-res textures with dynamic soft shadows.

Again, I reaaaally hope this isnt true. But if it is, this is why it worries me...


Thing is,you can't compare the scores relative to older cards using previous versions of 3Dmark....The workload is completely different between 3dmark 03/05 and 06,so there's no relating to each.


Whatever optimizations and enhancements within the architecture that could speed up the work within 3D mark isn't being used most likely,since the benchmark has to be written to take advantage of them to begin with...Drivers will only do so much.


Also bear in mind that even 3Dmark doesn't test any of the more advanced features of the G80 since it's a DX10 card,so there's really no software out there that will give us an idea how well the card performs under DX10,wich is the whole point of geting this card...

[CaptNKILL]

Dude, you can't just look at the 3dMark06. That benchmark doesn't use any form of AA whatsoever and runs at a measly 1280x1024 res. You're not really pushing the card any.. at all.

Now when you crank your res up to 1680x1050 or above and apply 4x-16xAA, that's when these new cards will really start to shine. When you crank the shadow filtering options up on your game, that's when they'll start to shine. When you crank up HDR + AA effects (something current nvidia cards cannot even do), that's when they'll start to shine.

You're really not looking at this in the proper perspective. 3dMark06 was a valid comparison benchmark for this last generation of cards, but the G80 is a new architecture with different performance enhancements that haven't been done before. Don't rely solely on 3dMark scores to determine how much stronger it is than past-gen cards, because it's just not going to be an accurate measurement since it's leaving so many of the new features out that will be on the new cards. Why do you think they keep coming out with a new 3dMark benchmark every year? Because newer cards bring new technology with them that can't be taken advantage of with outdated benchmark tests.

And all of this is not even factoring in DirectX10. Just how well do you think your GX2 is going to handle DirectX10 coded games? Umm, it won't.
I understand what you're saying, but it doesnt make sense in the case of 3dmark 06. Is anyone getting smooth framerates (to the point where the CPU becomes a bottleneck) in game test 1 right now? No. No one is. How about deep freeze or the air-ship test? I highly doubt it.

I know that 3dmark 2006 isnt the #1 test for judging overall performance, I'm just looking at it purely from the 3dmark perspective.

An FX series card gets maybe a few hundred in 06, a 6800 can pull ~2000 (5-6x faster), a 7800GTX gets in the 5500 range (2.5-3x faster), a 7950GX2 gets in the 7500-8000 range (about 30% faster on a refresh card)... and none of them are hitting some sort of performance limit because of the super low 1280x1024 resolution. Hell, I overclocked my GX2 a little bit and gained 400 points.

Unless I'm really missing something, 15fps in a very graphics heavy scene tends to point to your graphics card being the bottleneck... regardless of the resolution or the level of anti-aliasing.

After all of that, how can you not find it a little disapointing that the card (along with a much faster CPU) only pulled 1900 more 3dmarks than mine in an obviously graphics heavy situation?

I dont really know how else to explain it. If this 3dmark score is true, it is simply not doing anything amazing under the "last gen" situations that still kick everything's ass.
If it runs DirectX 10 games very well, then thats great, but if it offers only a small benefit for very graphics heavy DirectX 9 "games" then thats not so great considering that this thing is (on paper) more than twice as "powerful" as anything available now.

I'm really not trying to make a big deal out of this, but you're telling me theres no reason to be disapointed or worried by this news, when in fact there is.

The 12k score reported previously sounded pretty good to me, but I was expecting that to be on a more reasonable CPU (meaning the graphics card was actually responsible for more of the score).

EDIT: BTW, the part about cranking up the resolution puzzled me a bit. If this card can run 3dmark 2006 at 1680x1050 with 4xAA and 16xAF it still isnt going to run any faster. Even if it had zero performance hit, 20fps is still 20fps regardless of how much AA you add to it.

[Redeemed]

LOL. Never, ever refer to yourself as an "intellectual" and misspell 2 words in the same breath. :D

Hahaha!

Okay, I just got pwned, I can accept that. :D

[Xion X2]

After all of that, how can you not find it a little disapointing that the card (along with a much faster CPU) only pulled 1900 more 3dmarks than mine in an obviously graphics heavy situation?

Because you're comparing a two-PCB graphics card to a single PCB graphics card, for one. The GX2, technically, is not a single graphics card. It is two stapled together. It's like comparing two 7900GTX's to a single G80 and saying "Look, the G80 isn't that much stronger." Yeah, well no kidding. You're really comparing two graphics cards to one.

If you're going to compare the leap in scores of the G80 to past graphics cards, then you really ought to be fair and leave the GX2 out of the equation. It's not using any new technology that the 1900XT/7900GTX is not already using; it's only adding bulk (and unfair bulk, IMO) to the testing. The GX2 is an anomaly of its own and really shouldn't be the sole benchmark comparison here. There has never been a single card like the GX2 is, with two GPU's, to come out. That should be taken into consideration. IMO, you should be comparing the G80's scores to that of the 7900GTX and 1900XT/1950XT, which if you do, show signs of about a 40% performance increase. After all, the trend from one generation to the next has been comparing a single graphics card to a single graphics card, no?

And not only that, you seem to be ignoring the significant jump in technology that we have here. Never before can I recall such a technology leap from one generation of video cards to the next. Never before has the AA level jumped up from 4x --> 16x. Never before has an entire new graphics platform shaped and molded the future architecture of graphics cards as forcefully as DirectX10 has. And something else you don't seem to be taking into account is the advanced form of AA the G80 will use (called "VC AA," I believe) which is supposed to take much less of a hit in overall performance, along with all of the DX10 features that will allow for depth of field, improved soft-shadows, HDR + AA in unison, 128-bit HDR, and so on.

If you tried to run all these features on a current-gen card it would cripple it. G80, in theory, will be able to handle these very effectively, yet all of that doesn't show in the 3dMark06 scores because it is, on the first day that G80 is released, an outdated benchmark program.

You're just not making a good comparison here. I know on the surface it may seem to be one, but it's not.

[CaptNKILL]

Because you're comparing a two-PCB graphics card to a single PCB graphics card, for one. The GX2, technically, is not a single graphics card. It is two stapled together.

If you're going to compare the leap in scores of the G80 to past graphics cards, then you really ought to be fair and leave the GX2 out of the equation. It's not using any new technology that the 1900XT/7900GTX is not already using. If you want to be blunt, it's sort of like comparing two 7900GTX's to a single G80 and saying "Here, look, the G80's not that much stronger." Well, no kidding. The GX2 is basically two cards in one. It is an anomaly of its own and really shouldn't be the sole benchmark comparison here. There has never been a single card like the GX2 is, with two GPU's, to come out. That should be taken into consideration. IMO, you should be comparing the G80's scores to that of the 7900GTX and 1900XT/1950XT, which if you do, show signs of about a 40% performance increase.

Yes, I know its 2 cards, but they are marketing it as a single card solution, and it fits into the same price point. The early pricing numbers mentioned the 8800GTX being sold at $650 Euros. Most likely itl sell for $600 or $650 US. That is the price range the GX2 was in at release. Whatever way you look at it, the GX2 is nvidias current top of the line graphics card.

If the 8800GTX ends up retailing at $500, then itl be more fitting to compare it to the 7900GTX.

And not only that, you seem to be ignoring the significant jump in technology that we have here. Never before can I recall such a technology leap from one generation of video cards to the next. Never before has the AA level jumped up from 4x --> 16x. Never before has an entire new graphics platform shaped and molded the future architecture of graphics cards as forcefully as DirectX10 has. And something else you don't seem to be taking into account is the advanced form of AA the G80 will use (called "VC AA," I believe) which is supposed to take much less of a hit in overall performance, along with all of the DX10 features that will allow for depth of field, improved soft-shadows, HDR + AA in unison, 128-bit HDR, and so on.

If you tried to run all these features on a current-gen card it would cripple it. G80, in theory, will be able to handle these very effectively, yet all of these do not show in the 3dMark scores because it is, on the first day that G80 is released, an outdated benchmark program.

You're just not making a good comparison here. I know on the surface it may seem to be one, but it's not.
No doubt the technology behind DirectX10 and the ability to have HDR+AA is great, but that wasnt part of the discussion. I was talking about a flat performance comparison between the current generation of $600 top of the line nvidia card vs. the next generation $600 top of the line nvidia card. If the leaked 3dmark numbers are true, I'm not all that impressed after reading the G80 specs.

Thats all.

I'm going to step out of this discussion now since I cant possibly say any more on this without sounding like a broken record.

The G80 will be awesome, and I'll be buying one, I'm just not sure HOW awesome or how satisfied I'll be with the purchase.

[Redeemed]

Catptn, I think the point is that right now we really don't need better performance in DX9 based titles. If G80 ends up being just a tad bit faster than two 7900GTXs running a DX9 game- I wont mind, so long as it is significantly faster in DX10.

The 7900GTX in SLi, or the GX2, both perform extremely well in DX9 games. So there isn't any real point in bringing out a card that is a performance beast in DX9. I'm sure if these 3DMark scores are accurate, then the real performance to be seen will be in DX10 titles.

Imagine this scenerio:

The 8800GTX allows one to play any current DX9 titles at a resolution of 2560x 1536 (or what ever the new uber-resolution is) with 4xAA/16xAF + HDR, Soft Shadows enabled, and all in game options maxed (and lets even through in vsynce + tb) all at a frame rate at or above 30 fps. Would you complain about that? I'd hope not. Especially since most every new title to be released will be a DX10 titles. DX9 games are on their way out, and DX10 games are on their way in.

As such, now take that same 8800GTX, and lets say you can have it at the same exact settings, but with the DX10 game, and you now get about 60 fps. Again, would you still be complaining? I wouldn't. :p And I'm feeling that is probably just how the 8800GTX is going to turn out. I think nVidia felt it wisest to focus on DX10 performance since they already can handle DX9 without a problem.

I wouldn't worry one bit. And yes, I'm gonna' do what ever it takes to get two 8800GTXs when they are released. :D

[Xion X2]

No doubt the technology behind DirectX10 and the ability to have HDR+AA is great, but that wasnt part of the discussion. I was talking about a flat performance comparison

And that's my point. Your comparison is illogical and just not analagous to past comparisons you're trying to identify with.

You're:

1) Comparing a two-GPU card (GX2) to a single GPU card (G80)
2) Ignoring the plethora of graphical effects the G80 will be able to produce (HDR + AA, depth of field, 128-bit HDR, improved soft-shadowing, etc, etc, etc,) that the GX2 cannot do
3) Ignoring the fact that it is a DirectX10 card

You can't make a "flat comparison." The cards are too different. These two new cards aren't just improving on current architecture; they're modifying it greatly.

[schuey74]

Catptn, I think the point is that right now we really don't need better performance in DX9 based titles.

That's a ridiculous statement. Oblivion anyone? What about F.E.A.R.? It still drops way down in fps many times throughout the game at high rezes and not even maxed out settings, no matter the rig. And Extraction Point will be even worse. And there's plenty more......

Imagine this scenerio:

The 8800GTX allows one to play any current DX9 titles at a resolution of 2560x 1536 (or what ever the new uber-resolution is) with 4xAA/16xAF + HDR, Soft Shadows enabled, and all in game options maxed (and lets even through in vsynce + tb) all at a frame rate at or above 30 fps.

Please pass what you're smoking. :p


The 8800s will be awesome, but your analysis and expectations are way off.

[Xion X2]

^ I don't think Redeemed is that far off, schuey. I can game w/ FEAR at 1680x1050 res at a consistent 50+ FPS on a single 7900GTX with all settings maxed except soft-shadows (which isn't compatible with AA, anyway, which is why I don't enable it.) I don't know what's going on with your computer, but an XTX should be more than capable of doing the same.

Oblivion takes more of a hit, but a single GX2 can run that game pretty consistently above 50 FPS @ 1680x1050 resolution and above 40FPS @ 1900x1200. Factoring in how much stronger the G80 is supposed to be, I don't think Redeemed's statements are that far off.

[schuey74]

And that's my point. Your comparison is illogical and just not analagous to past comparisons you're trying to identify with.

You're:

1) Comparing a two-GPU card (GX2) to a single GPU card (G80)
2) Ignoring the plethora of graphical effects the G80 will be able to produce (HDR + AA, depth of field, 128-bit HDR, improved soft-shadowing, etc, etc, etc,) that the GX2 cannot do
3) Ignoring the fact that it is a DirectX10 card

You can't make a "flat comparison." The cards are too different. These two new cards aren't just improving on current architecture; they're modifying it greatly.
Going by your analysis, we can never compare different gens of video cards. Of course, each new gen (not refresh) brings new features and graphical effects that the previous didn't have. That doesn't take away from the fact that the new gen is expected to bring a big jump in performance on the games we are currently playing.

How many DX8 games were out there when the GF3 cards debuted....in fact, how many where out there when the GF4 came out almost a year later? Any DX9 games when the 9700s came out? And how much SM 3.0 goodness was out there for the 6800's launch? A patch for Far Cry a couple months later, no? And now, if there are no delays, we'll have Crysis & Wake a few months after the 8800s launch. And it's highly likely that by the time any more DX10 titles hit we'll have the 8800's refresh.

Anyways, what's important is that the 8800's will bring a big jump in performance on current titles and you'll get to play the first DX10 titles in all their glory (if you've got Vista). It's just that some people were expecting a bigger jump on older titles based on past graphics card history. And maybe that jump will be as big as it's always been, since we can't just go by 3DMark alone.

[schuey74]

^ I don't think Redeemed is that far off, schuey. I can game w/ FEAR at 1680x1050 res at a consistent 50+ FPS on a single 7900GTX with all settings maxed except soft-shadows (which isn't compatible with AA, anyway, which is why I don't enable it.) I don't know what's going on with your computer, but an XTX should be more than capable of doing the same.

Oblivion takes more of a hit, but a single GX2 can run that game pretty consistently above 50 FPS @ 1680x1050 resolution and above 40FPS @ 1900x1200. Factoring in how much stronger the G80 is supposed to be, I don't think Redeemed's statements are that far off.
One thing is most of the time and another is all of time. Yes, most of time I can run 2xAA & 8x HQAF without dropping below 30 fps, but during many heavy firefights throughout the game I drop down into the teens. If it were just once or twice in the game I wouldn't bring it up, but when it happens everytime I'm encountering four or more enemies then it's a problem. And have your tried the Extraction Point demo? With no AA I drop into the teens and low 20's a lot....and that's just one level in a demo.

[schuey74]

1) Comparing a two-GPU card (GX2) to a single GPU card (G80)
You don't know the full specs on the 8800 so you're making a big assumption there.

We should really wait until the cards are out (or previewed/reviewed) before comparing them to the old gen. Like I said before, too much is being made of leaked specs which are incomplete.....missing a couple of very important pieces. ;)

You won't be disappointed.....at least you shouldn't be!

[Xion X2]

Going by your analysis, we can never compare different gens of video cards. Of course, each new gen (not refresh) brings new features and graphical effects that the previous didn't have. That doesn't take away from the fact that the new gen is expected to bring a big jump in performance on the games we are currently playing.

Shades of grey. I never said nor implied, I don't think, that that never happens. But the extent to which it is happening on these new cards is unprecedented. There is now a stronger push than there has ever been for gaming in the PC market. Microsoft has poured much more brainpower and resources into DirectX10 than any other graphics platform before it. And Nvidia and ATi's cards are reaching unprecedented increases in power consumption because they are trying to keep up with this trend.

Is all of this not evident?

[Xion X2]

One thing is most of the time and another is all of time. Yes, most of time I can run 2xAA & 8x HQAF without dropping below 30 fps, but during many heavy firefights throughout the game I drop down into the teens. If it were just once or twice in the game I wouldn't bring it up, but when it happens everytime I'm encountering four or more enemies then it's a problem. And have your tried the Extraction Point demo? With no AA I drop into the teens and low 20's a lot....and that's just one level in a demo.

schuey, what the hell kind of resolution are you playing at? Are you running triple-buffering in DirectX?