what happened to the 8900's???

T

trick0502

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
5,563
did nvidia put the 8900 series of cards on hold? i havent heard anthing about them in a while. is nvidia holding them back because the 2900 isnt faster than the 8800gts?
 
I wonder if they'll even bother making anything beyond a 8800 GTX at this point. Like a previous poster said, because the 2900 is soo far behind it would just be wasting nVidia's time and money. When ATi/AMD try to catch up to nVidia with the 3k series, nVidia will probably just rename the 8900 project into the new 9 series and go with that. That's my guess.
 
The original ATI Radeon "sucked" compared to the competition.

The GeForce FX 5800 Ultra "sucked" compared to the competition.

The Radeon HD 2900XT does not "suck". It's as fast as the second-tier card from it's competitor (8800GTS), and it's priced at that tier. Both the above examples of cards that DID actually "suck" failed to compete with the second-tier card from their competitor, and were priced to target the top-end.

Yes, we would all have liked the HD 2900XT to be a better part...but that doesn't mean it is a BAD part...just not the one we wanted.
 
I doubt they would get released. The 8x00 series in general has prooved itself against the 2x00 HD series.

It would be wise for Nvidia not to worry about a refresh and concentrate all efforts on the G92 or what will probably be known as the Geforce 9800.
 
One version of drivers mentioned the 8900. nVidia reponded to questions asked about it. No 8900. Straight to the G92 chip.
 
G92 will be a good push of these G80 cores down in price, dang these cards are still plenty expensive after 8~ months.
 
tricky0502 said:
i remember reading about the 8900's in like february. a gtx, gts, gt, and a 8950 gx2.
Click to expand...

the 50 was a sad marketing screw-up and to this day confuses my customers, especially the ones that hear about the GTO although few and far between. To recap, the 7950GT had higher memory speeds than the GTO, but the GTO had a higher core speed, and a GTX cooler (as it was likly that massive early batch of GTX's that had the over heating problems with a couple of re-saudered parts on it). To add to that, there was the 7900GT discontinuation, and the earlier 7800GTX's. So from slower to faster, 7800GT, 7900GS, 7800GTX, 7900GT, 7950GT tied with 7900GTO, 7900GTX, 7950GX2.... its... retarded.

If they release an 8950GX2 without releasing an 8900GX2 that's available to the public, I'll go 100% ATI, there naming scheeme is always a little screwed up but not that bad. O.O
 
The HD 2900XT sucked. Sorry all you ATi fanboys.
-It doesn't do AA well
-It is slower than the competitions cheaper card
-It runs hot and sucks energy
 
tricky0502 said:
did nvidia put the 8900 series of cards on hold? i havent heard anthing about them in a while. is nvidia holding them back because the 2900 isnt faster than the 8800gts?
Click to expand...

NVIDIA never confirmed the existence of any potential 8900 series card. It was originally thought that the refresh of G80 would be called the 8900 perhaps or 8850, but that never happened. Instead they chose to call it the 8800Ultra. NVIDIA is working on G92 currently, and it's retail name hasn't been released to the public at this time.
 
dderidex said:
The original ATI Radeon "sucked" compared to the competition.

The GeForce FX 5800 Ultra "sucked" compared to the competition.

The Radeon HD 2900XT does not "suck". It's as fast as the second-tier card from it's competitor (8800GTS), and it's priced at that tier. Both the above examples of cards that DID actually "suck" failed to compete with the second-tier card from their competitor, and were priced to target the top-end.

Yes, we would all have liked the HD 2900XT to be a better part...but that doesn't mean it is a BAD part...just not the one we wanted.
Click to expand...

I agree. While the HD 2900XT isn't all we had hoped for it's not a terrible and nearly useless piece of equipment. It's just not the best choice on the market.
 
There's still hope that with revisions and a move to 65nm can save the 2900xt and make it a better product. The question of course is if that is even worth it if the next gen nvidia card is less than 6 months away.
 
Unless ATI follows AMD's example by cutting prices drastically on it's new cards,Nvidia has no reason to rush on releasing a new series,or to cut prices on the 8800's.
 
ZerazaX said:
There's still hope that with revisions and a move to 65nm can save the 2900xt and make it a better product. The question of course is if that is even worth it if the next gen nvidia card is less than 6 months away.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that a 65nm part alone would make that much of a difference. The HD 2400 and HD 2600 cards are 65nm and they aren't any better than their competitors either.

michael.pa2 said:
Unless ATI follows AMD's example by cutting prices drastically on it's new cards,Nvidia has no reason to rush on releasing a new series,or to cut prices on the 8800's.
Click to expand...

I have seen a similar statement such as this now twice today and I have to say (again) that I think this is completely wrong. There is at least one compelling reason for NVIDIA to release newer high end cards. That reason is that people like me who have no upgrade path currently has no reason to buy anymore NVIDIA products. New cards means I'll open my wallet again and by something else.

Plus there is a second reason. Marketting, by releasing new products it builds confidence in the company and a positive reputaiton. NVIDIA probably doesn't really make money on high end video cards but by providing a flagship part that is better than anything the compeition has, it gives Joe-Sixpack the perception that NVIDIA's products are better than ATI's even if that's not true.

We certainly know that the lineup in the lower and mid range can look quite different from the flagship part in terms of cost and performance ratios. Often we've seen NVIDIA rule the roost at certain price points and ATI at others. But what your average computer shopper hears is NVIDIA has the fastest cards and that's what they should look for. Even if they really only have one faster card at the high end. Sometimes their information will even be a generation or two out of date. So it's important to keep the lead as often as possible.
 
Only place I've ever heard about the 8900 is the Inquirer, and I've been doubting the existence of it all this time.
 
Dan_D said:
I seriously doubt that a 65nm part alone would make that much of a difference. The HD 2400 and HD 2600 cards are 65nm and they aren't any better than their competitors either.



I have seen a similar statement such as this now twice today and I have to say (again) that I think this is completely wrong. There is at least one compelling reason for NVIDIA to release newer high end cards. That reason is that people like me who have no upgrade path currently has no reason to buy anymore NVIDIA products. New cards means I'll open my wallet again and by something else.

Plus there is a second reason. Marketting, by releasing new products it builds confidence in the company and a positive reputaiton. NVIDIA probably doesn't really make money on high end video cards but by providing a flagship part that is better than anything the compeition has, it gives Joe-Sixpack the perception that NVIDIA's products are better than ATI's even if that's not true.

We certainly know that the lineup in the lower and mid range can look quite different from the flagship part in terms of cost and performance ratios. Often we've seen NVIDIA rule the roost at certain price points and ATI at others. But what your average computer shopper hears is NVIDIA has the fastest cards and that's what they should look for. Even if they really only have one faster card at the high end. Sometimes their information will even be a generation or two out of date. So it's important to keep the lead as often as possible.
Click to expand...

Well if the 65nm means less power usage and they can fix their leakage issues, they could certianly clock the r600 a lot lot higher, which is what some ATI engineers seemed to hint as was why it was lackluster. I remember someone from ATI saying that they had hoped for much higher clocks at release but had no choice.

Anyways, I agree with that nvidia should be releasing refreshes anyways with or without competition. Look at Intel: even though they are currently dominating CPU's, they are still constantly releasing new "refreshes" (1333fsb processors) and slashing prices along with it despite the fact that AMD currently has no high end competition at all... it's all about market share baby :D
 
forget that, I'm holding out for the 10800 series

specifically the 10850XTX LE PE GTO GX8 8096mb with Hyper-Knitting technology ;)
 
HarkovAdm said:
forget that, I'm holding out for the 10800 series

specifically the 10850XTX LE PE GTO GX8 8096mb with Hyper-Knitting technology ;)
Click to expand...

OMG you are so funny! You invented a card name by mixing higher numbers following the current numbering scheme together with previous generation of cards acronyms and then added a no sense technology name preceded by the word hyper.
 
Uberbob102000 said:
The HD 2900XT sucked. Sorry all you ATi fanboys.
-It doesn't do AA well
-It is slower than the competitions cheaper card
-It runs hot and sucks energy
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is true :(

Remember, competition is good, regardless of your preference for video card manufacturer!
 
Im personally waiting on the evga nvidia 9850gx2 LE quad core with thermal fusing technology with 9000 mhz core 1760 mhz memory, can someone say crysis max settings :D
 
Dan_D said:
I seriously doubt that a 65nm part alone would make that much of a difference. The HD 2400 and HD 2600 cards are 65nm and they aren't any better than their competitors either.
Click to expand...

Someone already pointed out, when they move to the smaller process they could of changed the map to fix leakage, failed portions of the core (ie: not working), etc. etc. and hopefully make it a great contender

oh and, I seriously doubt Nvidia could get a 8800GX2 version on this generation of cards, unless they underclocked to 500mhz core speed, and what in the hell is the point in that?
 
Trimlock said:
Someone already pointed out, when they move to the smaller process they could of changed the map to fix leakage, failed portions of the core (ie: not working), etc. etc. and hopefully make it a great contender

oh and, I seriously doubt Nvidia could get a 8800GX2 version on this generation of cards, unless they underclocked to 500mhz core speed, and what in the hell is the point in that?
Click to expand...

I realize that going to 65nm could help ATI make the HD 2900XT's successor a contender, however just the die shrink alone isn't a magic bullet to improving things. The 2400 and 2600 are great examples of this.

On the subject of a theoretical 7950GX2 type card based on dual G80 cores, I think the power consumption of such a card would be too high and the thermal solution might have to be excessively large or rediculous in some way to make it work. Then again no one ever imagined two 7900GTX GPUs on one card either, and it happened.
 
Well, taken straight from the CrossFire review from today:

ATI has mentioned to us that the Radeon HD 2900 XT should be a great overclocker, in the right conditions nearing the 1 GHz clock frequency mark. We are certainly not there with these two video cards currently. Raising the clock frequencies does positively impact the performance of these video cards. We saw positive results in 3DMark06 with much improved pixel shader and vertex shader performance when overclocked. If these video cards could reach the 1 GHz barrier, they certainly might be a force to contend with. As it is however right now we seem to be hitting a brick wall at default voltages and thermal configuration.
Click to expand...

If 65nm does lower power usage and heat dissipation significantly, as it did for CPUs, we could potentially see stock r600/variant hitting 1GHZ+ out of the box, which would certainly make it a contender. AA of course would need revisions to it. Of course, the real issue now though, is time left before nvidia gets a better generation out. Of course, if they slip, then ATI must take advantage of it and try to reclaim some market share.

As far as the 8900 goes, I figure if the Christmas release is true for the next gen nvidia card, by this point it would be too late unless they have a hard launch sometime soon. Few leaks or any news on it honestly leads me to believe it is definitely not in the works anymore. Then again, nVidia isn't well known for leaks.
 
Dan_D said:
On the subject of a theoretical 7950GX2 type card based on dual G80 cores, I think the power consumption of such a card would be too high and the thermal solution might have to be excessively large or rediculous in some way to make it work. Then again no one ever imagined two 7900GTX GPUs on one card either, and it happened.
Click to expand...

I know for certain that if a GX2 type card was made based on the current 8800 GTX, it would probably set some kind of record for power use, heat, and size all in one package:eek:
 
ZerazaX said:
I know for certain that if a GX2 type card was made based on the current 8800 GTX, it would probably set some kind of record for power use, heat, and size all in one package:eek:
Click to expand...

There would probably be revised silicon used in the making of this theoretical video card, but the truth is that they'll probably just release something based on G92 next.
 
I wish they would give more info about the G90 or 92 or whatever the next high end card is. I want to know if it's worth waiting for. I also want to know about Nvidia's new mobo's coming out with PCIE 2.0.
 
A Gx2 card based on the current g80 core is definitely far fetched. However there are notebook variants of the g80 core that take much less power, putting 4 of those on a dual pcb design isn't impossible. Isn't that what a Gx2 card is. 4 notebook gpu's sandwitched together. It might happen, but I have a feeling the geforce 8 series ends with the 8800 Ultra. Ati just isn't pushing nvidia to go that far this gen.

;)
 
baronzemo78 said:
I wish they would give more info about the G90 or 92 or whatever the next high end card is. I want to know if it's worth waiting for. I also want to know about Nvidia's new mobo's coming out with PCIE 2.0.
Click to expand...

Of course it's worth waiting for, if that's what you want to do. As for 65nm turning R600 into a competitor, I have serious doubts. 2900 cores have some pretty fundamental design flaws, which will require a fairly major architectural revision to fix.
 
GX2 is what I've been waiting for. The 7950GX2 I have now is my favorite card to date. I also read about the possibility in February and have been waiting patiently ever since. I knew, though, when the 2900 bombed that I would be waiting longer. Looks like I'll be skipping this cycle completely. Vista isn't ready. Aren't any "real" DX10 games out. My max res is 16x12 and the GX2 does that as well as anything else out right now so....................

I guess I'm like Dan. No money from me this time.

I would like to see AMD fix the issues with the shrink but still gonna be too little way too late. They just need to slash these beasts to $299 where they belong, move 'em out and get crackin on the next gen.
 
ZerazaX said:
They could certianly clock the r600 a lot lot higher, which is what some ATI engineers seemed to hint as was why it was lackluster. I remember someone from ATI saying that they had hoped for much higher clocks at release but had no choice.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, they hit higher then expected clocks for the r600. This was mentioned in an interview. And the overclock potential is definitly there, most likely they were planning the clock rate increases for the refresh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top