• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

r520 slow.

I seriously doubt ATI is stupid enough to have a big paper launch... they'll release benchmarks and hopefully have stuff on store shelves within a week of the benchmarhs... atleast I am hoping they do. Personally, I hope ATI releases something ground breaking, so the price of the 7800 gt and the gtx will be driven even lower, thus saving me money.
 
Brent_Justice said:
did people not even read my paragraph here?
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=ODAzLDE0

Under "Our Thoughts" second paragraph
Click to expand...

Sure fillrate is no longer a good indicator of performance...but the number of fragment pipes is still pretty important as long as the general performance per pipeline remains relatively constant over different architecturers...

Given that they're clocking the thing to 600Mhz+ (40% more clock than the 7800GTX) and they're going to have about 50% less pipes...and they're claiming that they "should" beat the 7800GTX...it seems for at least this next coming generation that the number of fragment pipelines is going to remain a relatively good indication of performance...

Note I said fragment pipes, not pixel pipes...fillrate basically doesn't matter anymore...
 
Mr. Stryker said:
right and an overclocked x850xtpe can have almost the same 3d05 score as 7800gtx, it's the design that matters. Not the amount of pipelines.
Click to expand...

ROFLMO , Yes I play3dmark 05 all day at 1024 x 768 haahahahahaahahahahahahahahh

Try BF2 at the naitive res of my monitor with an 850 versus my gtx .............lol
 
^eMpTy^ said:
Sure fillrate is no longer a good indicator of performance...but the number of fragment pipes is still pretty important as long as the general performance per pipeline remains relatively constant over different architecturers...

Given that they're clocking the thing to 600Mhz+ (40% more clock than the 7800GTX) and they're going to have about 50% less pipes...and they're claiming that they "should" beat the 7800GTX...it seems for at least this next coming generation that the number of fragment pipelines is going to remain a relatively good indication of performance...

Note I said fragment pipes, not pixel pipes...fillrate basically doesn't matter anymore...
Click to expand...

people should just not get so hung up on pipeline counts these days, and definitely in the future
 
I think my favorite quote off that Anandtech page was this...

"If the investment in a 7800 GTX seems worth it, nothing looks better than 2048x1536 with 4xAA/AF."

Yeah...I game at that res all the time :cool: . I guess I'll just have to stick with my 7800GT for 19x14.
 
Mr. Stryker said:
right and an overclocked x850xtpe can have almost the same 3d05 score as 7800gtx, it's the design that matters. Not the amount of pipelines.
Click to expand...

on stock voltage?
 
Mr. Stryker said:
right and an overclocked x850xtpe can have almost the same 3d05 score as 7800gtx, it's the design that matters. Not the amount of pipelines.
Click to expand...
that's probably just because the 7800GTX isn't being fully utilized by today's games. You can be assured that the CPU is bottlenecking the performance of the 7800GTX giving the X850XT the illusion of being similar in performance.
 
GVX said:
that's probably just because the 7800GTX isn't being fully utilized by today's games. You can be assured that the CPU is bottlenecking the performance of the 7800GTX giving the X850XT the illusion of being similar in performance.
Click to expand...

Not at higher resolutions.
 
q from inq:
ATI won't get away with this availability problem that easily as Nvidia has set the bars quite high this time. Nvidia announced, delivered and didn’t had any shortages this time and people will be expecting the same from ATI
end q.

this is true in anyway u look at it.
I like the new nvidia and their "ready to buy at launch" strategy !

hopefully ATI follows in they footsteps!!
:p
 
Its turning into how processors acrhatecture are now. More Ghz, doesnt mean more power. More pipelines, dont mean more power. If it has 16 pipes, it still doesnt mean its going to be slow. For all we know, its has some revolutionary technology in it, they arnt telling us. Probably unlikely, but still possibly.
 
Great, another thread about phantom hardware that no hard specs are even out for. This will go in a completely different direction than the other 20 or so that are laying around here. Why wait until we have hardware to see real benches to discuss it, when we can simply use the power of our imagination to figure out who pwns who more. :rolleyes:
 
its seems very strange to me as ati is rushing the r580.

if the r520 were a solid card (assuming nvidia does not release an ultra which they will)
then ati would have no reason to rush the r580.

its stands to reason the r520 is a stop gap product and at most they hope it will buy them some time.
 
geekcomputing said:
its seems very strange to me as ati is rushing the r580.

if the r520 were a solid card (assuming nvidia does not release an ultra which they will)
then ati would have no reason to rush the r580.

its stands to reason the r520 is a stop gap product and at most they hope it will buy them some time.
Click to expand...

rushing? nvidia seems to be on about the same timeline with the G80 as ATI is with the r580. I don't see any sense of rushing products out the door in the next gen info that we've seen (almost nothing).

And there is no ultra. Since when has either company released a product and held back a better one that is "ready" (as the rumors say) to go???? There is no evidence to support the existence of an ultra, and plenty to disproove it. Stoofoo noob! :rolleyes:
 
geekcomputing said:
its seems very strange to me as ati is rushing the r580.

if the r520 were a solid card (assuming nvidia does not release an ultra which they will)
then ati would have no reason to rush the r580.

its stands to reason the r520 is a stop gap product and at most they hope it will buy them some time.
Click to expand...

From what I heard, the R580 was developed separately from the R520. If this is true, the R580 may not be rushed so much. It's just that the R520 is very late and running into the R580's production schedule.
 
Russ said:
rushing? nvidia seems to be on about the same timeline with the G80 as ATI is with the r580. I don't see any sense of rushing products out the door in the next gen info that we've seen (almost nothing).

And there is no ultra. Since when has either company released a product and held back a better one that is "ready" (as the rumors say) to go???? There is no evidence to support the existence of an ultra, and plenty to disproove it. Stoofoo noob! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

First, I would think the G80 would be more in line with the R600.

Second. If NVIDIA has an Ultra, it would make perfect sense to hold back for two reasons. One to build up a large stockpile and avoid "limited availability". Two, they already have the two fastest cards on the market, why compete with themselves if they have the luxury to wait and spoil ATI's party.
 
but how the hell were they supposed to know the r520 would be delayed when they were preparing their card for shipping?

That's like saying they should have released the 6800GT first so that ATI would think they sucked, then release the 6800U once they saw what ATI had.

And they didn't have any problems building up 7800GTX stockpiles. And in previous gens they sure didn't have a problem "releasing" a card w/o a stockpile. Hence the concept of a paper launch.

You may have reasons, but where are your sources and facts?
 
PRIME1 said:
Second. If NVIDIA has an Ultra, it would make perfect sense to hold back for two reasons. One to build up a large stockpile and avoid "limited availability". Two, they already have the two fastest cards on the market, why compete with themselves if they have the luxury to wait and spoil ATI's party.
Click to expand...


Sorry, you fail it.

No company would hold back a better product at this time. If NVIDIA had a better chip, it would most likely just slow it down/disable some pipes and pass it off as a GTX and sell it. Holding inventory is always "A Bad Thing"(TM) to do as a business. Plus, if they could swing the introduction of a Ultra (as in, think it was a good idea to slide their products down a notch, sell the GTX for GT prices, sell the GT for say 100 less) then they would. They could even release it at $800+ and it still wouldn't be a bad idea. People would still buy it, those that dont still have viable other NVIDIA options that kick the crap out of anything ATI has currently so they still have a very good chance of making money.

Face it, right now they are uncontested at the high end and would be doing everything they can to sell as much as they possibly could, stockpiling makes no sense.

Plus this lead will not last forever.
 
Kristo said:
No company would hold back a better product at this time. If NVIDIA had a better chip, it would most likely just slow it down/disable some pipes and pass it off as a GTX and sell it. Holding inventory is always "A Bad Thing"(TM) to do as a business.
Click to expand...

Nvidia changed their game plan when they found out about the r520 delays. Who knows what the original targeted specs for the GTX were. Everybody knows the GTX can clock much higher than they recommend so you have to wonder why they would release a single-slot cooled card with such conservative clocks. You're not going to convince me that Nvidia now values total power consumption over raw performance. The GTX pulls as much as an Ultra - they could have easily gotten away with 15-20% more power consumption given the performance gains - the performance/watt would have remained in line as well.

There are shipping GTX's manufactured way back in February - so they have been sitting on inventory for quite a while. Now if you had such a head start on the competition - would you play all your best cards at once without know what you were going up against? Not only that but a higher clocked GTX would even be more severely crippled due to a lack of bandwidth - they could be waiting on ATi's to show it's hand before going for more expensive and faster memory.

One thing is plainly obvious - the GTX is a very conservative part in terms of clocks, cooling, power consumption and performance.

The fact is that the G70 chip had been designed by NVIDIA rather long ago (some GF7800GTX cards are equipped with the chips manufactured in February), but successful sales of GF6800 cards and the lack of serious competition made NVIDIA wait for the R520-based cards.
Click to expand...

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/3dvideoforpc-05q2.html
 
your arguement about "not knowing the competition" may hold true in a video game or something, but in business companies can't afford to do that. NVidia and ATI have always launched their video cards (the top end ones at least) at about the same time, without waiting for the competition to release theirs and then releasing a better one. Why would this change?

The 7800GTX actually pulls less power than an ultra. I would think that they would want to not increase the power consumption because we just introduced PCI-E but already we are using an extra connector, so it would be very discouraging to a potential buyer to have to connect like three extra molex's to their video card, which wouldn't be viable with some PSUs. They aren't aiming to force everyone to buy another PSU everytime they get a new graphics card. They want people to buy their card by itself.
 
Russ said:
your arguement about "not knowing the competition" may hold true in a video game or something, but in business companies can't afford to do that. NVidia and ATI have always launched their video cards (the top end ones at least) at about the same time, without waiting for the competition to release theirs and then releasing a better one. Why would this change?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. It changed because the timing changed - would you show your best if you knew your competition was experiencing delays? And Nvidia and ATi know a lot more about what each other is doing than "The Inquirer" does so don't think they're as clueless as we are. Even Orton expects something faster than a GTX from Nvidia once R520 hits.
 
INQ has no info whatsoever. They need to post some news so people will come and read, most of their shit is always speculations based on nothing. :(
 
jacuzz1 said:
ROFLMO , Yes I play3dmark 05 all day at 1024 x 768 haahahahahaahahahahahahahahh

Try BF2 at the naitive res of my monitor with an 850 versus my gtx .............lol
Click to expand...

Well, unless you've got the registered version of 3D Mark 05, you can't go above 1024x768 with it. In which case, my 7800GTX's are about the same speed as my 6800GT's were in SLi.

Of course, that says nothing for games either. I'll reserve judgement on R520 until its actually available. I won't feel bad even if it is faster than my current 7800GTX's. People who waited for R520 didn't get to enjoy it these last three months, and however much longer it is until R520 actually comes out.

I but the fastest parts I can possibly afford when I am in the need for them. R520 would have to be double the performance and offer something more compelling than the exact same feature set that the Geforce 6 series has had all along before I'd switch. Crossfire would also have to be made nForce 4/Professional compatible also before I'd consider a switch.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
For all we know, its has some revolutionary technology in it, they arnt telling us.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not revolutionary, but certainly different from everything before. The new ATi chips have unified shader pipelines, which basically means that execution units can be allocated dynamically, much like how a regular out-of-order CPU works.
This makes the whole pipeline-counting thing rather confusing.
And as we already know from the Intel vs AMD wars, clockspeed doesn't say much when comparing the performance of two different architectures.
 
Tytanium said:
Unfortunately, no one seems to. I know for a fact that several months ago, it was known that the R520 pipes are at LEAST 1.3 times the size of a last generation pipeline (or however it's referred to by size)
Click to expand...

The 1.3 times the "size" thing was pretty funny. Like it is physically bigger :). Not trying to flame...just sounded funny ;).
 
the 520 has been indefinitely postponed while ati uses all it's manufacturing resources to rush out the bitboys oy Glaze 3d.


very truly yours,
politenessman
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top