View Full Version : G84/86 around mid-April...
Here is some info about the G84/86 launches.....supposedly they are to be launched April 17th or 18th and it says Nvidia is skipping CeBIT this year. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37974
I personally don't care about that, only the G81 or G90, if they're skipping G81. So does this mean the 8900 GTX is scheduled for April now instead of March or are they going to wait until ATi releases the R600? I sure hope that's not the case because if that's true, then we're looking at the end of June or longer.
Wouldn't it be a real kick in the face to ATi if Nvidia released the 8900 GTX and then ATi finally releases the R600 only to find out the 8900 GTX is faster. Sorry, but that would serve ATi right for all the delays. Honestly I hope that's the case, that would likely teach ATi a lesson to start sticking dates from now on!
jamex27
03-05-07, 04:30 PM
Here is some info about the G84/86 launches.....supposedly they are to be launched April 17th or 18th and it says Nvidia is skipping CeBIT this year. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37974
I personally don't care about that, only the G81 or G90, if they're skipping G81. So does this mean the 8900 GTX is scheduled for April now instead of March or are they going to wait until ATi releases the R600? I sure hope that's not the case because if that's true, then we're looking at the end of June or longer.
Wouldn't it be a real kick in the face to ATi if Nvidia released the 8900 GTX and then ATi finally releases the R600 only to find out the 8900 GTX is faster. Sorry, but that would serve ATi right for all the delays. Honestly I hope that's the case, that would likely teach ATi a lesson to start sticking dates from now on!
Why they keep insisting with 128 bit mem controller? if the GTS is suppose to replace the 7950 GT it should be a 256 bit mem controller, well we don't know for sure.... I also saw somewhere the ATI is gonna open Crossfire for any mobo (you could use a SLI one), If thats true It will be great if Nvidia opens that for SLI too. Man, cant wait for both companies to release thir midrange products to make a decision, keep holding my pants for my little Lan party box!
Why they keep insisting with 128 bit mem controller? if the GTS is suppose to replace the 7950 GT it should be a 256 bit mem controller, well we don't know for sure.... I also saw somewhere the ATI is gonna open Crossfire for any mobo (you could use a SLI one), If thats true It will be great if Nvidia opens that for SLI too. Man, cant wait for both companies to release thir midrange products to make a decision, keep holding my pants for my little Lan party box!
Well if they use a 128-bit controller, then that's really gonna choke it's performance, but then I guess that's why it's a cheaper version. I wish the 8900 GTX had a 512-bit controller but that will probably only happen with the G90. As long as it has a 384-bit controller, I guess that's all right. I imagine Nvidia will have to follow suit with ATi to stay competitive so expect to see Nvidia open up SLi to ATi cards if ATi does this.
Well if they use a 128-bit controller, then that's really gonna choke it's performance, but then I guess that's why it's a cheaper version. I wish the 8900 GTX had a 512-bit controller but that will probably only happen with the G90. As long as it has a 384-bit controller, I guess that's all right. I imagine Nvidia will have to follow suit with ATi to stay competitive so expect to see Nvidia open up SLi to ATi cards if ATi does this.
i think it all depends on the performance of the R600. if its the G80 killer some are making it out to be then the G90 will be a 512 bit bus. if it isnt then why go through all the extra cost in a wider bus and extra cost of a 15+ layer pcb. nvidia would have cost on its side on the high end by not going with a 512bit bus.
i think it all depends on the performance of the R600. if its the G80 killer some are making it out to be then the G90 will be a 512 bit bus. if it isnt then why go through all the extra cost in a wider bus and extra cost of a 15+ layer pcb. nvidia would have cost on its side on the high end by not going with a 512bit bus.
True but sometimes it seems companies pinch pennies when they don't need to, while other times they spend far too much when they don't need to as well. If you look at the bandwidth usage of games, they don't require a 512-bit bus and in fact they don't even require a 384-bit bus either, but the computer industry is always pushing it to the next level and I like that. I guess I like ATi's approach better IF it worked. I know it will work, but what I mean is, if it worked and was released on time. ATi takes more risks than Nvidia but it seems that Nvidia is smarter because even though they've been taking the safer approach, apparently it has been the right approach. They've been taking market share from ATi so it appears they've been right.
I'd love to see Nvidia go with a 512-bit bus and I don't think they can do this with the G80 architecture. I do think the G90 will have it though because it might be built on a 65nm process which will allow room for more enhancements including a 512-bit bus and a multi-core design if that's the future for the G90.
This is a bit OT, but it's too bad that ATi or Nvidia doesn't work with high capacity storage devices too because of all the components of a computer, the one that needs an overhaul the most is the hard drive! We've been making progress adding RAM to them but I think we need to move away from magnetic storage and on to something like crystal tech that can store 1000 times more than magnetics and recall it about as fast as RAM. Imagine if storage devices had been going through progression like video card technology. Even if say, you used the card I have now, the 7800 GTX 512 but had a hard drive or storage device that could access files as fast as RAM could or nearly as fast. Suddenly that 7800 GTX 512 becomes faster than an R600.....well not actually but because of the massive increase in storage performance......oh man. Sorry, I digress...just wishing we could get rid of the worst bottleneck a computer has!
Anyway I hope AMD/ATi gets back on track here because it's hurting US in the end and this will cause Nvidia to slack off on future cards. Like you said (so to speak) why break your back making the fastest cards when what you have works fine. If you got no competition, then you can pretty much release anything....people will buy it right... Come on ATi, get your SH*T together which will help us all out, including Nvidia. They wouldn't admit to that but it does.
I'm more interested on a mobile DX10-GPU now.
the mid-range cards will takeover a big share of the market , but its not important for us high-end gamers.
superbooga
03-06-07, 08:20 AM
Why they keep insisting with 128 bit mem controller? if the GTS is suppose to replace the 7950 GT it should be a 256 bit mem controller!
Midrange products run at settings that are shader-performance bound. The 7600GT beats the 6800 Ultra in most games, so clearly it does fine with only a 128 bit controller.
I think the 8600GTS, even with its 128 bit memory controller, will still be considerably faster than the 7950GT. It will probably reach 70% of the performance of the 8800GTS.
superbooga
03-06-07, 08:26 AM
This is a bit OT, but it's too bad that ATi or Nvidia doesn't work with high capacity storage devices too because of all the components of a computer, the one that needs an overhaul the most is the hard drive! We've been making progress adding RAM to them but I think we need to move away from magnetic storage and on to something like crystal tech that can store 1000 times more than magnetics and recall it about as fast as RAM. Imagine if storage devices had been going through progression like video card technology. Even if say, you used the card I have now, the 7800 GTX 512 but had a hard drive or storage device that could access files as fast as RAM could or nearly as fast. Suddenly that 7800 GTX 512 becomes faster than an R600.....well not actually but because of the massive increase in storage performance......oh man. Sorry, I digress...just wishing we could get rid of the worst bottleneck a computer has!
Wrong.
Because of a computer's memory hierarchy and use of caching, the hard drive is not as big of bottleneck as you think. Hardware and software are designed around hiding the bottlenecks of a system.
In any case, hard drives in the future will contain a part that is solid state storage -- similar to a USB flash drive. This should increase disk performance.
Wrong.
Because of a computer's memory hierarchy and use of caching, the hard drive is not as big of bottleneck as you think. Hardware and software are designed around hiding the bottlenecks of a system.
In any case, hard drives in the future will contain a part that is solid state storage -- similar to a USB flash drive. This should increase disk performance.
No, you said it, they're designed to hide to bottlenecks....that doesn't mean they do a good job of it. Solid state storage is the first truly new tech for hard drives and it's like the IC was to vacuum tubes, but we need them to catch up with the other components.
i want my 8900GS... ~$300
i want my 8900GS... ~$300
and I want to telekineses, but sometimes we don't get what we want do we? Yeah, I want my 8900 GTX.....NOW....I mean yesterday! I actually I just want to upgrade my computer. I both love and hate working on computers. I always get so stressed when I'm upgrading my computer because when something goes wrong (and it usually does) you feel your stomach knot up. Oh it's usually something small, like a misplaced LED or sometimes you have to reset the BIOS when building a new computer...but at the time, it could be a million things and I always think the worst. Oh, I hope it's not the mobo or the PSU went out.
At least upgrading your video card doesn't require you to take apart your whole computer. Heck, I even get stressed when building a computer for other people, but at least it's not as bad as when you're working on your own. Sorry....got OT but anyway I hope the G81 is released no later than May and hopefully March, but I doubt it because they want to spoil ATi's party....and I don't blame them. I hope the other chips are released on schedule for everyone else though.
jamex27
03-08-07, 04:38 PM
Midrange products run at settings that are shader-performance bound. The 7600GT beats the 6800 Ultra in most games, so clearly it does fine with only a 128 bit controller.
I think the 8600GTS, even with its 128 bit memory controller, will still be considerably faster than the 7950GT. It will probably reach 70% of the performance of the 8800GTS.
Well I hope then the 8600 gts ends being a great performance/price ratio card like the venerable 7600 gt. Man, can't wait for ATI/AMD to release their cards to see the price war to start. Competition is always healthy for us!!!
superbooga
03-08-07, 11:58 PM
No, you said it, they're designed to hide to bottlenecks....that doesn't mean they do a good job of it. Solid state storage is the first truly new tech for hard drives and it's like the IC was to vacuum tubes, but we need them to catch up with the other components.
Let's say you have a disk drive that, compared to memory, holds 500 times the amount of data but is 100 times slower at accessing data. If the system is designed so it only needs to access the disk drive 5% of the time, would it make sense to increase the speed of the disk drive at the expense of storage size and cost? The usual answer is NO.
If disk drive accesses are bottle-necking the system, the solution is to reduce the number of disk drive accesses or change when they are accessed.. not the access speed.
Besides, a faster disk drive isn't going to improve your frame rates.
Let's say you have a disk drive that, compared to memory, holds 500 times the amount of data but is 100 times slower at accessing data. If the system is designed so it only needs to access the disk drive 5% of the time, would it make sense to increase the speed of the disk drive at the expense of storage size and cost? The usual answer is NO.
If disk drive accesses are bottle-necking the system, the solution is to reduce the number of disk drive accesses or change when they are accessed.. not the access speed.
Besides, a faster disk drive isn't going to improve your frame rates.
Well you are right about that...it wouldn't improve the speed of a program once it's loaded, but when loading the program or accessing new data that requires the drive to spin...faster access would greatly improve speeds. That's the goal to have programs load virtually instantly though and that will happen eventually.
superbooga
03-09-07, 03:30 AM
Well you are right about that...it wouldn't improve the speed of a program once it's loaded, but when loading the program or accessing new data that requires the drive to spin...faster access would greatly improve speeds. That's the goal to have programs load virtually instantly though and that will happen eventually.
The goal is to achieve maximum performance gain with minimal cost. This makes a lot of sense; after all, this is what engineering is about, isn't it?
I don't think we will ever get something that is super-fast, large capacity, and is reasonably priced. This has been true for over 30 years. So we have to use tricks like data caching. Now with hybrid HDD, the most commonly used files can be saved in flash memory. However, it's unlikely that you would be able to fit all your games and applications in flash memory. In any case, the current hybrid drives, which only contain 256-512MB of flash, aren't really going to help performance. Link (http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/?p=46)
Anyways, upgrading the CPU always seems to improve load times, so it seems like CPU speed still has a significant impact on load times. So even with the fastest storage device, programs wouldn't load virtually instantly. Now, I think disk drive performance has kept up with CPU performance quite well. Load times for most applications and games are very reasonably. In fact, I think load times are significantly shorter than they were 5 years ago.
OF TOPIC... i say only one thing SSD and its going in my sys when they go public
AthlonXP1800
03-09-07, 11:07 AM
Found very interesting info from HKEPC (http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=752184&starttime=1172678400&endtime=1175356800):
Source from Taiwan manufacturer said NVIDIA would release 3 performance optimized DirectX 10 graphic cards in mid-April, including GeForce 8600GTS, GeForce 8600GT and GeForce 8500GT. All of them are stronger than AMD RV630, according to internal test results from manufacturers.
Based on G84, the whole GeForce 8600 family is all fabricated by TSMC with 80nm technology. The top model, GeForce 8600GTS, codenamed G84-400, has a core speed at 675MHz, and features 2GHz DDR 128Bit 256MB graphic memory. GeForce 8600GTS is therefore expected to give more power than GeForce 7900GT.
The second top, GeForce 8600GT, codenamed G84-300, would be a weaker version of GTS, where its core speed is lowered to 420MHz or below, and features 1.4GHz DDR graphic memory only. GeForce 8600GT is expected to give more power than GeForce 7600GT.
On the mean while, NVIDIA also plans to release new value G86 product, GeForce 8500GT, codenamed G86-300. Based on G84, its architecture is much simpler, and it will be fabricated by 80nm technology as well. GeForce 8500GT is expected to give more power than GeForce 7600GS.
All G84 and G86 except G84-P400 would have no HDCP and native HDMI support on this release. Yet, since its rival AMD makes these features in all of its upcoming RV630 and RV610, source cited NVIDIA's promise that the company would put in these features in later time.
Besides, the 3 models mentioned above, 2 more G86 models will also soon to be released, namely GeForce 8400GS and GeForce 8300GS.
Things are not look very good for ATI, Nvidia has done it again this round. It seem Nvidia implement their unified shader much better and far more efficiently than ATI's 2nd gen unified shader. ATI screwed up this round once again, AMD wont be happy with this.
Found very interesting info from HKEPC (http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/news.php?tid=752184&starttime=1172678400&endtime=1175356800):
Things are not look very good for ATI, Nvidia has done it again this round. It seem Nvidia implement their unified shader much better and far more efficiently than ATI's 2nd gen unified shader. ATI screwed up this round once again, AMD wont be happy with this.
Nvidia: You want this (points to Nvidia's Unified Shader), don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your ATi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. . Old fool, Only now at the end....do you understand.... :owned:
halduemilauno
03-11-07, 08:24 AM
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/nvidia/8600gts/g1.htm
http://www.ocworkbench.com/2007/nvidia/8600GT/g1.htm
:)
...i was hoping the 8600GTS is @ par with a 7900GTX :(
need a 8900GS now!
At $250 it definetly should be as fast as the 7900gtx, you can get a x1900xt for that price now.
buffbiff21
03-11-07, 11:56 PM
Nvidia: You want this (points to Nvidia's Unified Shader), don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your ATi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. . Old fool, Only now at the end....do you understand.... :owned:
:rofl
that made my day.
:rofl
that made my day.
My pleasure. (nana2)
Please please please please let them release a AGP flavored card...I just bought a X2 4400 for my socket 939 rig (just upgraded from a 3500+, couldn't be happier...Best $170 I ever spent).
Also, haters step off. I could care less about whether you think AGP should die. To assume that there isn't a market for people out there who would love to have a DX10 AGP card, would be incredibly ignorant. Can't wait to swap out my 6800GT for a 8600; 1080p GPU accelerated x264 HD-DVD/Blu-Ray rips on my 37-inch Westinghouse, here I come! :D :D :D
Subtestube
03-12-07, 09:35 PM
Please please please please let them release a AGP flavored card...I just bought a X2 4400 for my socket 939 rig (just upgraded from a 3500+, couldn't be happier...Best $170 I ever spent).
Also, haters step off. I could care less about whether you think AGP should die. To assume that there isn't a market for people out there who would love to have a DX10 AGP card, would be incredibly ignorant. Can't wait to swap out my 6800GT for a 8600; 1080p GPU accelerated x264 HD-DVD/Blu-Ray rips on my 37-inch Westinghouse, here I come! :D :D :D
Not to be a so called "hater", but DX10 (AFAIK) requires full virtualisation of memory support. This is simply not possible on an AGP bus, as it isn't a full speed bidirectional bus. I am *fairly* certain that DX10 AGP is just not possible, as it would void the DX10 spec.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.