![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
G72
- Thread starter PRIME1
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,961
600mhz 7800GTX? droooooollll
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 4,961
Sir-Fragalot said:
90nm would mean higher clock speeds. it was pure speculation on my part.
tornadotsunamilife
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,492
This could go on forever. G72 is relesed, then 580 is released, tit for tat until next-gen
600MHz sounds like a conservative guesstimate to me. NV's GTX chips are almost hitting the 500MHz mark, so add in the benefits (transistor performance, low-k) of the TSMC 90nm process over the 110nm 'value' process and I wouldn't be surprised to see something in the 650-700MHz region being possible. But NV tend to be pretty conservative with their clocks anyway so maybe 600-650MHz is more realistic for stock speeds?
Mnx4 said:
First off nV is behind features wise they won't let that happen so most likely they will save the .09 for thier next gen chip, and secondly, they can clock the 7800 gtx high enough to get the speed crown back for this midterm if needed.
This may be my next video card. I don't plan on building a new system until late next year. Even if ATI and NVIDIA produce a new generation by then I won't pay the early adopter fee. However, a 90nm GTX with 512mb of memory could be the sweet spot in price/performance.
Sly said:Then let's hope R520 kicks GTX's ass
might really going to happen but I don't think because the r520 is kicking ass, from what I've heard drivers are very mature on the x1800's specially thier dx drivers, Ogl well thats up to the gods to fix
. They are very close in performance and the only real game that ATi beats nV soundly in this gen is Fear, and there is a bug in Fear's demo that is slowing the game down on nV's cards not to mention the 256 mb less vram nV has (straight from nV) This bug will be fixed on the retail version of the game. The only two features that ATi has over nV (truelly new compaired to what the gf 7's have is AA +HDR, and very good branching speed). I've been hearing the next in line already has the dynamic branching fixed. AA+ HDR would like to see some benches on it .But nV is going to have alot more head room then ATi when it comes to clocks when they down size. Alot more, just by going down to .09 they will have at least 50% increase in clock-ability (if transitor counts don't go up too much), low k or any other method of insolation will give around 30% increase in clocks and going down in microns should give another 10-20%. It seems like since last generation ATi hasn't been looking into power saving techniques at the structure level and not the manufacturing level. This is not good for them, they have to start doing it asap.
Sly said:Then let's hope R520 kicks GTX's ass
They are comparable to one another. Nothing more, nothing less.
razor1 said:
The only feature they are down on is the ability to run AA and HDR simultaneously. However it is not clear how bad the performance of AA and HDR enabled at the same time will be.
Sir-Fragalot said:
That's....ummm...a pretty big feature. LOL.
The r520 has real, live, usable-in games SM3.0. The G70 has a toy that serves as a bullet-point on a PDF, nothing more.
If it doesn't work with FSAA, it doesn't really work.
dderidex said:
I agree that it's an improvement. Yet, we haven't actually seen any tests on it and no numbers to show what kind of FPS you actually get with both of those enabled. My point is, it could be like AA alone used to be back in the Riva TNT2 days. It was there, but hardly a usable feature as the performance hit was too much. It turned everything into a damn slideshow.
I have a feeling that AA and HDR combined will be much the same. I could be wrong. It would be nice if I was. Judging by what I have seen today on the subject of R520's capabilities. That it isn't vastly more powerfull than a Geforce 7 series card, I'd say that the performance hit with HDR enabled on R520 is likely very close to what it is on the G70 core. Making AA and HDR at all but the lowest resoltions useless. Only time will tell as games get patched to allow it.
Sir-Fragalot said:
HDR looks amazing but the performance hit is huge. Even with 2xGTX's and an FX-57@3400 I get 30-40fps outdoors in far cry (1600x1200). And in intense action it will go lower. That's not really playable for me. Even if you could tack on AA who could?
Inglix_the_Mad
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2004
- Messages
- 332
LOL more of the steal ati thunder moves. Not that I blame them, they took alot of pounding for awhile, time to get even
The Register
Not much other than a confirmation...
The Register
Not much other than a confirmation...
I seem to remember something abou the r580 being damned near done. I'd suspect it will do fine against a die-shrunk 7x00.Inglix_the_Mad said:LOL more of the steal ati thunder moves. Not that I blame them, they took alot of pounding for awhile, time to get even
The Register
Not much other than a confirmation...
The main point I see being made is that nVidia could in the future create a dual-core version. Like 90nm allowed cpu's to go dual core, same with nvidia. Now imagine a 8800 dual core w/ two dual cores per graphics card quad sli running 800mhz. Forget about performance limitations =D
eno-on said:
Think it was the Inq, but looking at how the r580 is very similiar to the r520 with more ALU's and increased Transistor density it might indeed have the same problems. But then again the process will be more matured, so yields will be higher, and they don't need to clock as high since it will have more computational power per clock.