Nvidia 8900 Series

yeah, everybody knows that, the question is WHEN are these puppies gonna be released? :)
 
Based on the article I'd say June or so. Nvidia can sell all the cards they can make based on 84**, 86**, and 88** cards till then without showing their hands so to speak. I just hope that Crossfire works better with the newer cards. That should make the race interesting.
 
Hmmm another upgrade in my future.

The 8950 is dissapointing as it's just two GTS's on one PCB :( The 8900GTX looks good :cool:
 
Mike Clements said:
Based on the article I'd say June or so. Nvidia can sell all the cards they can make based on 84**, 86**, and 88** cards till then without showing their hands so to speak. I just hope that Crossfire works better with the newer cards. That should make the race interesting.
Click to expand...

NOOO my step up window ends in 34 days :eek:

:D
 
Ockie said:
The 8950 is dissapointing as it's just two GTS's on one PCB :(
Click to expand...
Just like the 7950GX2. 2x7900GT with some extra RAM.

The 8900GT and GS will be relatively low performance. That 256-bit memory path is really 192+64 (PS and VS), and the 192-bit pixel width will really hold it back. That's especially true for the 256MB GS, which would only have 192MB of pixel RAM. Everyone that's been complaining about the GTS/320 will get even louder about this.

I don't think the 8600 uses the same composite bus as its big brothers. It's supposed to use the same PCB as the 7600/6600, meaning a straight 128-bit. (And this spec sheet reinforces that rumor.)
If that's the case, the 8600GT may actually outperform the 8900GS. That'll hurt, since I got really psyched about the un-cancelled 8900GS refresh to replace my Radeon.

Oh, and I can't justify a $100 difference between the otherwise-identical 550/1600 8900GS and 600/1800 8900GT. That's well within overclocking territory, if the heatsink allows it.
 
Mike Clements said:
Well, IMO this approach is still a very good offering for users of solid and fast non-SLI boards.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, however, with the current price of cheap sli boards, it's hard to argue the need of a dual video card to offset of buying a new board.
 
Ockie said:
Perhaps, however, with the current price of cheap sli boards, it's hard to argue the need of a dual video card to offset of buying a new board.
Click to expand...
Agreed but, if I wanted to build a multi use platform that would be a great single card gamer, I'd build on a 975 chipset. Or, later this year, Bearlake + Yorkfield (or is it Penryn???) + Vista + fully functional drivers + 4gb of memory would be a nice gaming setup that you could also do workstation type work with.
 
mavalpha said:
Oh, and I can't justify a $100 difference between the otherwise-identical 550/1600 8900GS and 600/1800 8900GT. That's well within overclocking territory, if the heatsink allows it.
Click to expand...
Of course you realize the 8900 GT will likely overclock to at least 700/2000. Hell I can get 660/2020 out of my 8800 GTX w/ stock HSF.
 
im buying my new comp next week with a 8800gtx.. :(

i cant wait until june..am i being stupid getting a 8800gtx right now?
 
Ockie said:
Hmmm another upgrade in my future.

The 8950 is dissapointing as it's just two GTS's on one PCB :( The 8900GTX looks good :cool:
Click to expand...

Dissapointing?

How so?

The 7950GX2 is faster than the 7900GXT ever was, probably gains more performance via overclocking as well, it's basically on par with the 8800GTS for most game benchmarks (obviously without DX10 capabilities)

I have no doubts that the 8950GX2 will kick the pants off the 8900GTX in terms of performance, and hopefuly the price shouldn't be much greater, my 7950GX2 brand new was £375 at the time most of the 7900GTX's were around about £320-£350, if the same kind of prices spill over to the 8xxx range then it's a simple case of spending that few extra pounds to get quite a lot more performance.
 
Frosteh said:
Dissapointing?

How so?

The 7950GX2 is faster than the 7900GXT ever was, probably gains more performance via overclocking as well, it's basically on par with the 8800GTS for most game benchmarks (obviously without DX10 capabilities)

I have no doubts that the 8950GX2 will kick the pants off the 8900GTX in terms of performance, and hopefuly the price shouldn't be much greater, my 7950GX2 brand new was £375 at the time most of the 7900GTX's were around about £320-£350, if the same kind of prices spill over to the 8xxx range then it's a simple case of spending that few extra pounds to get quite a lot more performance.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I don't think it's close. Look at the high resolution / AA benchies.
 
mavalpha said:
Just like the 7950GX2. 2x7900GT with some extra RAM.

The 8900GT and GS will be relatively low performance. That 256-bit memory path is really 192+64 (PS and VS), and the 192-bit pixel width will really hold it back. That's especially true for the 256MB GS, which would only have 192MB of pixel RAM. Everyone that's been complaining about the GTS/320 will get even louder about this.

I don't think the 8600 uses the same composite bus as its big brothers. It's supposed to use the same PCB as the 7600/6600, meaning a straight 128-bit. (And this spec sheet reinforces that rumor.)
If that's the case, the 8600GT may actually outperform the 8900GS. That'll hurt, since I got really psyched about the un-cancelled 8900GS refresh to replace my Radeon.

Oh, and I can't justify a $100 difference between the otherwise-identical 550/1600 8900GS and 600/1800 8900GT. That's well within overclocking territory, if the heatsink allows it.
Click to expand...

I remember seeing abundant speculation that the "odd" bus widths and memory sizes on the G80 cards were due to this sort of segmentation, but I saw no confirmation of that speculation whatsoever when the cards were finally released and reviewed. You state it as fact. What is your source?
 
My God...

I wonder if the price will keep going up on their cards, I mean holy crap $599?

It'll probably own I know but, I'm just angry at the prices lately.

Think ATI will be less?
 
Well with the release of the 8950GX2, let's hope nVidia has some well-developed Quad-SLi drivers.:)
 
I'm glad I haven't bought my new PC, yet. I planned to order it with dual 8800GTS this weekend. Since the DX10 games I'm interested in are slated for sumer or fall release at the earliest, I thought about scaling back the video card to a single 7900 or 7950 to save a little $$. I'll definitely do so now, and wait to see what shakes out with the 8900 series before upgrading.
 
Mr. Wolf said:
I'm glad I haven't bought my new PC, yet. I planned to order it with dual 8800GTS this weekend. Since the DX10 games I'm interested in are slated for sumer or fall release at the earliest, I thought about scaling back the video card to a single 7900 or 7950 to save a little $$. I'll definitely do so now, and wait to see what shakes out with the 8900 series before upgrading.
Click to expand...

Thats a good idea, besides it would of been better to get one 8800gtx than two 8800gts and save the +/- $180 or so. My 8800gts plays all current games well at 1680x1050 with most if not all eye candy on.
 
i am happy with my 8800GTX since november last year..
i really don't think i will need a newer faster video card until next week..
as with my c2d at 3.2ghz
none of the game run slow or choppy at 1680*1050 ( 22" lcd)

any game in the market i can push it to highest setting
and still good..
8x AA with 16X AF seems a default setting to me now..

onething i need is....
directx 10 gamess.. more eye candy!!!

i upgraded from xt1900XTX
i am glad i didn;t wait...
 
RailGunRiz said:
My God...

I wonder if the price will keep going up on their cards, I mean holy crap $599?

It'll probably own I know but, I'm just angry at the prices lately.

Think ATI will be less?
Click to expand...

The 8800GTX debuted around $650. It now sells around $550 and the chart referenced above has it at $449 once the new cards are released. This is the high end price range now and has been for awhile. I doubt ATI will be any different. I don't like it either, but it's not like this is new.
 
I would hope that they bring back the 'ultra' designation for the top video card for old time sake, letters are becoming more and more meaningless, I need word(s).
 
To go along with my previous post, I WANT 8950GX2 QuadSLi and the drivers to boot. I think if the drivers are there for it, you should be able to play ANYTHING with highest resolution,max settings and max AA/AF running dual 8950GX2s. If that is possible, count me in.:)
 
Cyrilix said:
Are you sure about that? I don't think it's close. Look at the high resolution / AA benchies.
Click to expand...

http://xtreview.com/review159.htm

It wins probably about 50% of the tests if you count all graphic settings, and it wins a handful of the high settings tests as well.

In most of the cases where it loses its usualy only by a few FPS, nothing you're likely to notice in game certainly.

Tweaktown shows a similar thing, loses on some, draws on some and wins on some

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/977/8/page_8_benchmarks_prey/index.html

I'd say that they're close enough such that you wouldn't notice the difference in games, I certainly wouldn't upgrade from my 7950GX2 to a 8800GTS :>
 
Commander Suzdal said:
I remember seeing abundant speculation that the "odd" bus widths and memory sizes on the G80 cards were due to this sort of segmentation, but I saw no confirmation of that speculation whatsoever when the cards were finally released and reviewed. You state it as fact. What is your source?
Click to expand...
It was never confirmed, but VR-Zone had this info very shortly before it launched. So far, no one's come up with an alternative, and I think it makes perfect sense. Can you suggest another way?
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1030633500
It follows from there, that the 8900GT/GS will have:
8900GT:
256-bit, 512MB
384MB Pixel Shaders, 3x64=192-bit memory bus
128MB Vertex Shaders, 1x64=64-bit memory bus

8900GT/GS:
256-bit, 256MB
192MB PS, 3x64=192-bit
64MB VS, 1x64=64-bit
Click to expand...
 
warmace said:
All this time I thought QFT stood for "Quit F-ing Talking". Up until your comment, it made perfect sense too. Glad i finally looked it up on the good ol' U.D.
Click to expand...


So you didn't think a lot of people with good info were being told to STFU ?
 
Bob_Gates said:
Anyone know if there will be a 8900GTO?
Click to expand...

If i'm not mistaken the GTO was originally made as a GTX but didn't meet the specifications. It was a production error thats why they were sold for alot less then the GTX. But there were still alot of GTO's which ran fine at GTX speeds. I strongly doubt they will release another GTO unless the same thing will hapen again which is very unlikely.
 
mavalpha said:
It was never confirmed, but VR-Zone had this info very shortly before it launched. So far, no one's come up with an alternative, and I think it makes perfect sense. Can you suggest another way?
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1030633500
It follows from there, that the 8900GT/GS will have:
Click to expand...

The other explanation I had seen was much simpler, and went something like this:

Even though memory bandwidth is quoted as an aggregate figure, in reality memory access happens with a discrete channel to each memory chip. This make sense, since each chip soldered onto the PCB has its own set of traces. So you have the bit width of the path to each chip times the number of memory chips on the card and that equals your "total bandwidth." This is not an nVidia-specific thing, all the GPU makers have been doing it for years.

Now, the fact that there are separate channels does not mean that these are each dedicated to a specific purpose. That's what crossbar (nVidia) and ring-bus (ATi) memory controllers are for, to give the whole GPU access to all available memory. These do lightning-fast routing of data to and from memory, that is so highly optimized over the years that the "channels" are as good as transparent.

There were rumors prior to launch that the shaders in the G80 were not really unified and that nVidia was playing games like what you suggest above to hide the fact. Those rumors were laid to rest by Brent and other reviewers when the cards actually launched. The G80 shaders are fully unified, therefore dividing memory access would be meaningless. If all the shaders are the same, how do you divide what memory is assigned to which?

The pseudo-unified thing was FUD. Whether it was FUD planted by ATi to try and dampen interest in the G80, or planted by nVidia in order to lull ATi into a false sense of superiority, no one knows and it's been speculated both ways. But after launch there was no evidence whatsoever that G80's shaders are anything but unified or that the memory is divided.

So why the odd sizes? From a PCB layout and GPU design perspective, it was easier to make a half-step increase in the size and number of data paths than a whole step. This was even more true with G80 on 90nm process, giving them less elbow room to play with. R600 with 80nm process had more room for all the traces and pinouts required to make a total of 512 bits' worth of data paths, accessing 1024 MB of RAM. So instead of going from 4x64bit memory channels (256bit, on the G70) to 8x64 (512bit), they went to 6x64 (384bit). Then on the GTS they added only one additional channel, 5x64=320. Each channel supports up to 128MB of RAM, so there's your 640 and 768MB memory sizes. With 80nm refreshes of the G80, nVidia can do the 8-channel style. Why they didn't go 80nm/512bit in the first place? For the answer to that you need look no farther than the fact that G80 has been out for 6 months and R600... well... hasn't! Simpler is safer and faster to market.

There may also be limitations in the number and width of data paths to RAM that are inherent to the aging nVidia crossbar design, that the ring-bus design doesn't suffer from; but I can't remember if that was discussed in the posts I saw. All of this info came from posts in the [H] forums made by people in the know, including Brent among others. Search for them if you're interested enough, but it's certainly not true that no one has come up with an alternative.

In any case, the idea that memory is divided/dedicated to non-unified shaders on the G80 is one where I think the burden of proof rests on those who claim it to be true.
 
Commander Suzdal said:
...
In any case, the idea that memory is divided/dedicated to non-unified shaders on the G80 is one where I think the burden of proof rests on those who claim it to be true.
Click to expand...
That should be fairly easy to test. Don't 3dMark/similar have tests designed specifically for different parts of the hardware? Underclock a GTX to GTS speeds and it'll be easy to do pixel-to-pixel and vertex-to-vertex comparisons. If I'm right, you should see higher VS power in the GTX.
 
What will happen....... (my guess)

Nvidia will sell the heck out of their 8800 and below cards.....
then when the fever pitch dies down, out comes the 8900.

Like some one said before, summer sounds about right.

I'm getting my 8800 320mb now..... then getting a buddy to slide in right next it a few months later when games have caught up with what these bad boys can do, and the price drops...

I think a 650 price point is the top end (or close to it). They will probably do a price drop on most of their cards when the 8900 comes out. Entice more people to buy and allow the 8900 to fall in that price range

Same thing I did with my 6800GS
 
mavalpha said:
That should be fairly easy to test. Don't 3dMark/similar have tests designed specifically for different parts of the hardware? Underclock a GTX to GTS speeds and it'll be easy to do pixel-to-pixel and vertex-to-vertex comparisons. If I'm right, you should see higher VS power in the GTX.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a good idea to me--I wonder if that ShaderMark program has the right tools? Although you'd also have to find a way to account for the fact that the GTS has fewer total shader units than the GTX, even if they are truly unified--96 vs. 128.

I wonder if there's a way to test if the memory is divided into dedicated banks, too, by loading a custom texture that's too big for anything less than a unified memory scheme and see if the card chokes. I'm not guru enough to actually do that, nor do I have a G80 card, but it should be possible.
 
if they go with a june release when will they release the 9000 series cards? way to go ati and fuck over the whole upgrade path of the world.
 
IMHO this is just more evidence that we need a good old-fashioned GPU price war.
i know that in the long-term, narrower margins hurt innovation, but dammit, I miss the days when high-end was in the $299-349 range. WTF?
 
You have to keep in mind that this isn't confirmed information. nVidia hasn't offically said anything about these cards coming out. Personally, I believe with how powerful the R600 is going to be nVidia is going to need something more than just a refresh to compete.

Wouldn't be surprised to se a 65nm G90 with GDDR4 RAM, 192 stream processors, a 512 bit bus, and higher core clock and memory clocks out by Q4 than a 8900 refresh. That would surely crush the R600. Although, I may be dreaming. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top