Hardware Discussions

[kenny_dope]

G92

740MHz core clock
64 stream processors
256-bit DDR3 1800MHz 512MB
TDP between 7900GS and 7900GTX
3DMark06 on QX6700: 97xx
Price: US$249-299

G98

800MHz core clock
32 stream processors
256-bit DDR3 1600MHz 512MB
TDP higher than 8600GTS
3DMark06 on QX6700: 74xx
Price: US$169-199

VR-Zone / Mobile01

Nvidia are also planning a new 8800GTS SKU - with 112 stream processors to boost performance over the upcoming 8800GT.

VR-Zone

Message Edited by kenny_dope on 10-04-2007 06:51 PM

[Bowhunters]

Thats a real pretty video card.

[dj2livegb]

I think you missed a word out there "BIG"

[JethroBodine]

Bad news for ATi in their 2900Pro initiative it would seem. Not to mention the upgraded 8800GTS will likely beat the 2900XT most of the time now, and do it on less power/heat/noise.

Tough times for AMD. First their "Do you dare" campaign turns out to be a re-badged FX-60 (yawn) and now NVIDIA seems poised to smack them down at their two top price points. (while NVIDIA has no competition at all in their two top price points)

With AMD cpus getting owned by Intel products, and their graphics cards only able to barely compete for 3rd or 4th best, looks like a bleak Q4 for the guys in Texas.

[Egglick]

---

JethroBodine wrote:
Bad news for ATi in their 2900Pro initiative it would seem. Not to mention the upgraded 8800GTS will likely beat the 2900XT most of the time now, and do it on less power/heat/noise.

---

ATI loses again!  Everyone knows that NVidia wins!  Yes!  YES!!



*grabs box of tissue*

[Kessandra]

lol


I don't really fancy ATI. So basically these new graphics cards aren't as fast as the 8800gtx? If so, then that's great as my investment hasn't been outdated yet (excluding the Ultra and any overclocked products).

[kenny_dope]

---

Egglick wrote:

---

JethroBodine wrote:
Bad news for ATi in their 2900Pro initiative it would seem. Not to mention the upgraded 8800GTS will likely beat the 2900XT most of the time now, and do it on less power/heat/noise.

---

ATI loses again!  Everyone knows that NVidia wins!  Yes!  YES!!



*grabs box of tissue*

---

LOL - sometimes its just too easy

[aznsniper911]

What I'm wondering is where the heck is the high end video card? I hear all these conflicting information and that the new G90 or whatever they are going to call it might come out a month or so after this while others are saying that it's comming out in NOvember along with this. What the heck?

[kenny_dope]

Well, VR-Zone is saying that the 8800GT should be able to hit 700Mhz - and if its already getting 10,000+ in 3DMark06 then we should be looking at a very good mid-range performance card from Nvidia.

[JethroBodine]

---

Egglick wrote:

---

JethroBodine wrote:
Bad news for ATi in their 2900Pro initiative it would seem. Not to mention the upgraded 8800GTS will likely beat the 2900XT most of the time now, and do it on less power/heat/noise.

---

ATI loses again!  Everyone knows that NVidia wins!  Yes!  YES!!



*grabs box of tissue*

---

Go figure- I thought the "Hardware Discussions" forum was where we discussed new hardware and it's implications to the market in general.

I realize it's easier to flame someone, but maybe if you could dig up something that actually refutes what I've posted your post would add something to the board other than bad will Egglick. Mom not teach you the "Golden Rule" when you were young?

[supercharge]

I'd like to see what ATI's next series or whatever will be. I hope they come up with something that can succeed in more than just cooking breakfast, because either way the competition is a good thing for the consumers. Then again, I also think that they shouldn't rush anything out to try to match the competition, but work on good engineering, etc... but I guess it is all about money and timing, so that might not always work out well either.

Message Edited by SuperCharge on 10-04-2007 05:13 PM

[aznsniper911]

---

kenny_dope wrote:
Well, VR-Zone is saying that the 8800GT should be able to hit 700Mhz - and if its already getting 10,000+ in 3DMark06 then we should be looking at a very good mid-range performance card from Nvidia.

---

Yeah but don't you wonder what the high end is? It's about time they release a new high end card, heck even a 8800GX2 would be nice for higher end. Yes it does look nice but where the heck is G90?

[Egglick]

---

aznsniper911 wrote:
Yeah but don't you wonder what the high end is? It's about time they release a new high end card, heck even a 8800GX2 would be nice for higher end. Yes it does look nice but where the heck is G90?

---

I think alot of it is that ATI isn't pushing them on the high end, so they have no real reason to release anything newer and faster.   This is what happens when you don't have competiton.

[Bowhunters]

---

Egglick wrote:
I think alot of it is that ATI isn't pushing them on the high end, so they have no real reason to release anything newer and faster.   This is what happens when you don't have competiton.

---

Exactly, its just natural for a company if they aren't pushed by competition they will keep selling the same stuff and not spend money to advance the tech as quickly.

Thats why we need ATI to continue to be a video card option in the industry, even if they don't often catch Nvidia they can keep pushing them by just being there.

[JethroBodine]

---

Bowhunters wrote:

---

Egglick wrote:
I think alot of it is that ATI isn't pushing them on the high end, so they have no real reason to release anything newer and faster.   This is what happens when you don't have competiton.

---

Exactly, its just natural for a company if they aren't pushed by competition they will keep selling the same stuff and not spend money to advance the tech as quickly.

Thats why we need ATI to continue to be a video card option in the industry, even if they don't often catch Nvidia they can keep pushing them by just being there.

---

Couple of problems with this:

1. Buying ATis part if they're not as good rewards them for substandard work, subsidizes their 2nd class effort. How does that push them to do better?

2. NVIDIA has to sell new GPUs and chipsets to keep their profits up. They can't just keep selling the same stuff.

[Bowhunters]

---

JethroBodine wrote:

---

Bowhunters wrote:

---

Egglick wrote:
I think alot of it is that ATI isn't pushing them on the high end, so they have no real reason to release anything newer and faster.   This is what happens when you don't have competiton.

---

Exactly, its just natural for a company if they aren't pushed by competition they will keep selling the same stuff and not spend money to advance the tech as quickly.

Thats why we need ATI to continue to be a video card option in the industry, even if they don't often catch Nvidia they can keep pushing them by just being there.

---

Couple of problems with this:

1. Buying ATis part if they're not as good rewards them for substandard work, subsidizes their 2nd class effort. How does that push them to do better?

2. NVIDIA has to sell new GPUs and chipsets to keep their profits up. They can't just keep selling the same stuff.

---

I've read about companies with no competition resting on their past product lots of times Jethro.

Facts are facts, competition in any industry is a good thing because it makes the leading company keep pushing to try to stay ahead and it makes the ones behind try to keep up with the others and as we've seen in video cards having two major companies also helps keep prices lower which helps create sales.

No matter whether its video cards or automobiles, competition is one of the good things that actually works to the consumers benefit in the market place.

[AcydRaine]

Acting like ATI has never been in the lead in the GPU performance department. But yes, competition is needed to advance.

[JethroBodine]

Bowhunters:
Can we agree there's a finite number of video card customers? That you and I might buy one, guys in prison, monasteries, and homeless probably won't?

If we can agree on that fact, then what I said is also true. NVIDIA can't make money selling us one video card every 5 years, they make no money on support, and they can't sell us new video cards that don't offer significant reason to change.

Whether there's one video card company or two- NVIDIA has one purpose only- to sell GPUs and motherboard chipsets. They have to keep churning them out, and have to keep moving forward. Otherwise they're out of a job, and presumably they all have bills to pay like you and me.

The myth of "we need company X for competition!" is largely hype.

[Transco901]

---

JethroBodine wrote:
Bowhunters:
Can we agree there's a finite number of video card customers? That you and I might buy one, guys in prison, monasteries, and homeless probably won't?

If we can agree on that fact, then what I said is also true. NVIDIA can't make money selling us one video card every 5 years, they make no money on support, and they can't sell us new video cards that don't offer significant reason to change.

Whether there's one video card company or two- NVIDIA has one purpose only- to sell GPUs and motherboard chipsets. They have to keep churning them out, and have to keep moving forward. Otherwise they're out of a job, and presumably they all have bills to pay like you and me.

The myth of "we need company X for competition!" is largely hype.

---

It's more like "we need more than 1 company to keep prices reasonable".  A monopoly is bad for customers, period. 

[Bowhunters]

---

Transco901 wrote:
It's more like "we need more than 1 company to keep prices reasonable".  A monopoly is bad for customers, period. 

---

Exactly the point I was trying to make Transco901.


(Jethro) - You sound like Nvidia has taken you over by hitting you square between the eyes by the dark side of the force.  LOL   

You are a company man and by your post you appear to have Nvidia green blinders on, I don't work for Nvidia or ATI and as a consumer every time I see either Nvidia or ATI coming out with a new video card I see the prices for one if not both companies exsisting cards drop,  that's good for me and all the other video card consumers and that's what I care about.

Message Edited by Bowhunters on 10-05-2007 09:45 PM

[bigscooter]

Benefits from competition:

competitive pricing
quicker innovation
better product
better treatment of employees (gotta keep them from going to the competition)
 

These are pretty much true across the board.  Few (if any) industries are exempt from them.  Without ATI keeping Nvidia honest, the 8800GTX of today would probably be about as fast as the GTS, but still cost the same, and driver support would be horrendous. 

[Stalker_Loner]

Same with Intel and AMD ^

If AMD went through the floor, Intel could afford to upgrade slower, charge extreme amounts for their CPU's, and take their time with R&D.

Imagine that you are the only developer of a technology (say, Intel). You put out 3 processors, a single core, a dual core, and a quad core. You could afford to charge people $700 or more for the single, over $1000 for the dual a $2000 for the quad, just because you are the only one making these chips and everyone HAS to buy them or they don't have hardware. This is why we really don't want AMD to go down the drain and why we pray Phenom and Agena will do the trick. Or some of us do anyway, I for one can't wait for Penryn.

[JethroBodine]

It should be noted here that I am in no way employed by NVIDIA. My only connection to them is moderating on their forums, and being a member of their focus group.

I'm happy and proud to do both, but am not a paid spokesperson.

I feel the same way about Intel/AMD- Intel makes money selling you cpus. They have to keep selling you cpus, and they have to give you a reason to buy them. They can't price them however they want, because for most of us the days of a CPU not being powerful enough to run non-gaming apps ended many years ago. People would buy consoles to game, and stick with old computers to surf the web and run their spreadsheets.

[Bowhunters]

---

JethroBodine wrote:
It should be noted here that I am in no way employed by NVIDIA. My only connection to them is moderating on their forums, and being a member of their focus group.

I'm happy and proud to do both, but am not a paid spokesperson.

I feel the same way about Intel/AMD- Intel makes money selling you cpus. They have to keep selling you cpus, and they have to give you a reason to buy them. They can't price them however they want, because for most of us the days of a CPU not being powerful enough to run non-gaming apps ended many years ago. People would buy consoles to game, and stick with old computers to surf the web and run their spreadsheets.

---

Competition in the marketplace and having a choice in product selection is now and always has been great for the economy, it weeds out the weak companies or makes them fight to get better but competition has its place.  It appears that you are the only one here that doesn't see that.

Maybe you don't realize this but even non gamers want a newer and faster PC, the intent to design and create newer and faster cpu's like the multi core cpu's wasn't done for the gamers, that benefit came later.   It was originaly designed for business PC's and people that frequently multitask.

It was only after the first dual core cpu's came out did gamers find out they worked well and overclocked nicely and then the game makers decided to make games that could use the multicore cpu as an advantage.   

I have fixed friends old nongaming PC's in the past and the first thing they ask is how can they make it faster and my answer is always the same.  Upgrade to new hardware - m'board, cpu, memory, etc and some do it and some don't.

I never said or meant that you were a paid mouth, to say so was certainly not my intent.   What I did mean by my comments is that you appear to be somewhat blinded by your affiliation and or loyalties to Nvidia.  

[JethroBodine]

Sigh.

I didn't say "Competition in the free market is totally unnecessary", I said the effects of lack of it are exaggerated in products like this.

These products are what is known as "luxury items" in terms of supply and demand- you don't "need" the latest and greatest video card to run video games, and you don't "need" a computer at all- there are several "comparable items".

www.answers.com/topic/elasticity-of-supply-and-demand?cat=biz-fin
"Demand for luxury items may slow dramatically if prices are raised, because these purchases are not essential and can be postponed."

That is one reason that even if ATi goes under, NVIDIA can't just say "Hahaha! MSRP for the 10800GTX will be $3,999.99!".

"Luxury Items" are purchased with "disposable income" which has other things competing for it, not to mention people have less due to the rising prices of "essential items" like gas, insurance, housing, etc..
nl.com.com/poll.sc?mc=mcrs&pollId=2473

NVIDIA also has "fixed costs" and "overhead" to cover- to be profitable they need to keep selling you parts. They can't make the price $3999.99 with the logic "everyone will buy one sooner or later". They have to pay taxes, wages, for equipment, materials, etc. and to do so you need to keep buying GPUs and motherboards. Not only will the percentage of people able to afford the parts decrease dramatically with each $100 they raise the price, they risk angering their clientele with such a tactic and driving people away from their business (computer gaming) altogether.

In any case, competition has benefits (many) but if ATi/AMD went out of business it would just be the consequences of providing inferior products in the free market. They shouldn't be rewarded for that with sales just to keep competition in play, if the market is profitable someone else will step in.

In the meantime, the factors I've mentioned in this thread will keep pricing and innovation relatively stable. (IMO)

Arggh- I always forget the ways of linking/quoting on this page, reason for edits!

Message Edited by JethroBodine on 10-07-2007 08:27 AM

Message Edited by JethroBodine on 10-07-2007 08:28 AM

Message Edited by JethroBodine on 10-07-2007 08:31 AM

[Kessandra]

I agree with Mr. Jethro. However, you can't deny that competition has no (positive) effect on the market.

[kenny_dope]

*Yawn*

We all know Jethro_Bodine can't ever find a single good thing about ATI, nor ever has a negative thing to say about Nvidia - take from that what you will about his intentions or motivations for doing so.

*shrug



Anyway, more info regarding the 8800GT:

Several sources are suggesting that the upcoming GeForce 8800 GT has 112 stream processors like the new GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB SKU. We also heard that its shader clock is running at 1.5GHz. CJ did some nice analysis on the Nvidia's strategy here on why is there a new 8800 GTS SKU. He revealed that there is a shortage of GTX cores but plenty of GTS cores going around that didn't quite make it as a GTX. So if you launch a new product that is faster than a 8800GTS, no one will buy the more expensive GTS unless you up its stream processor count for higher performance. Also with a 320-bit memory interface, it certainly perform better at high resolutions and with lots of AA/AF/HDR. This way Nvidia can still get rid of the inventory. (VR-Zone)

Message Edited by kenny_dope on 10-08-2007 10:47 PM

[Milton Lemin]

^That would be awesome if the 8800 GT does have those 112 stream processors. Sounds like this card could have an awesome value.

[Stalker_Loner]

Yeah I think an 8800GT in my case sounds like a good bet

[JethroBodine]

---

kenny_dope wrote:
*Yawn*

We all know Jethro_Bodine can't ever find a single good thing about ATI, nor ever has a negative thing to say about Nvidia - take from that what you will about his intentions or motivations for doing so.

*shrug



Anyway, more info regarding the 8800GT:

Several sources are suggesting that the upcoming GeForce 8800 GT has 112 stream processors like the new GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB SKU. We also heard that its shader clock is running at 1.5GHz. CJ did some nice analysis on the Nvidia's strategy here on why is there a new 8800 GTS SKU. He revealed that there is a shortage of GTX cores but plenty of GTS cores going around that didn't quite make it as a GTX. So if you launch a new product that is faster than a 8800GTS, no one will buy the more expensive GTS unless you up its stream processor count for higher performance. Also with a 320-bit memory interface, it certainly perform better at high resolutions and with lots of AA/AF/HDR. This way Nvidia can still get rid of the inventory. (VR-Zone)

Message Edited by kenny_dope on 10-08-2007 10:47 PM

---

Is there anything positive to post about ATi these days Kenny? Do tell....

[AcydRaine]

LoL, really not much. Uhm..... HD 2900 Pro performs well in it's price catagory. The midrange 2600 series is pretty crappy, at times hardly beating, and I have seen benches where it didn't, the X1650 series.

As far as the card that is the topic here though I am anxious to see how it performs and the pricing. Should be sweet.

Message Edited by AcydRaine on 10-08-2007 10:18 PM

[JethroBodine]

---

AcydRaine wrote:
LoL, really not much. Uhm..... HD 2900 Pro performs well in it's price catagory. The midrange 2600 series is pretty crappy, at times hardly beating, and I have seen benches where it didn't, the X1650 series.

---

I don't even think we can toss the noisey 2900Pro a bone, Acid. Guru3Ds review shows it getting kicked around by the 320GTS:

http://www.guru3d.com/article/review/463/

Here's something "nice" I could say about ATi's current cards: They perform GREAT if you don't use AA, AF, or DX10!

[Egglick]

Seriously Jethro....put your boner down.  That's not decent to do in public.

[Trogdor]

Actually, Guru3D was pretty impressed with the 2900Pro. Overclockers will probably prefer that card to the 8800GTS 320MB. For stock performance, though, given both have similar prices the 8800GTS gets the win I think. The DX10 stuff is a bit of a joke at present. I've tested quite a few DX10 titles, and so far the only one that is fully playable at high resolutions seems to be Bioshock. World in Conflict performance tanks already in DX9 mode (although I don't know about DX9 mode, as the HD 2900 I was testing with 7.9 drivers totally borked the DX9 text and made it nearly impossible to test). Company of Heroes? Yeah, that DX10 mode eats about 3/4 of the performance potential. Lost World? Not a good enough game to worry about IMO. Same with the DX10 pirating benchmark. If the price of the 2900 Pro can get under $250 and 8800GTS 320 stays at $280, it's a reasonable option. At $280 for either one (current Newegg "out of stock" price for the 2900 Pro), I'll go with NVIDIA. 8800GTS with 112 SPs and 512MB of RAM, on the other hand....

[Bowhunters]

Trogdor's correct.

If you actually read the article they give the 2900Pro props for its performance to price and while it does get beaten in some games the charts actually shows it performs as well or even better than the 8800gts 320 card in some games at high resolutions.

In both Fear and Advanced Warfighter at high resolutions it shows that the 2900Pro and XT both beat the 8800gts320.


Even if a person doesn't like the 2900 cards due to the heat and noise issues that doesn't mean that ATI won't make a significantly better card than Nvidia does in the forseeable future, there have been times in the past that ATI made the better top card and that will likely ring true at some time in the future. 

I really don't believe that you did your arguement any big favors by using that article Jethro.

Message Edited by Bowhunters on 10-09-2007 01:26 AM

[Trogdor]

Also worth noting is that there are rumors that RV670 is supposed to offer 85% of the performance of R600 at less than half the power/heat. Pricing on that will be important as well, naturally, but if they can get that sort of card under $200? Well, obviously it depends on what NVIDIA can come up with for their new GPU offerings. Both are supposed to be out come this fall, right?
----------
On a separate note, you going to the NVIDIA Editors' Day in October, Jethro? If so, look me up. LOL. Maybe I'll see Brandon there as well, though I doubt I'd recognize him (or he me). Being the laptop guy for AT now means that I'm invited to NVIDIA stuff, apparently to see the new mobile offerings and maybe get some hardware for launch articles. Until I actually *know* what they'll be releasing, though, I'm just guessing. Right now, my guess is that they're working on something significantly faster than 8700M GT for the mobile market. Which means that the 2% of the gaming world that cares about laptop GPUs should be happy! (Probably see some new 8600M/8700M SLI stuff, but that's not really new is it? I thought some company was already offering that - guess I find out more in a couple weeks.)

[JethroBodine]

---

Bowhunters wrote:
Trogdor's correct.

If you actually read the article they give the 2900Pro props for its performance to price and while it does get beaten in some games the charts actually shows it performs as well or even better than the 8800gts 320 card in some games at high resolutions.

In both Fear and Advanced Warfighter at high resolutions it shows that the 2900Pro and XT both beat the 8800gts320.


Even if a person doesn't like the 2900 cards due to the heat and noise issues that doesn't mean that ATI won't make a significantly better card than Nvidia does in the forseeable future, there have been times in the past that ATI made the better top card and that will likely ring true at some time in the future.

I really don't believe that you did your arguement any big favors by using that article Jethro.

Message Edited by Bowhunters on 10-09-2007 01:26 AM

---

I think that article fits in well with my argument Bowhunters. Here is how the 2900 Pro fared at 16X12:

Lost 56 to 71 in Prey.
Lost 116 to 167 in Serious Sam II.
Tied in World of Conflict.
Lost 98 to 131 in STALKER.
Lost 82 to 99 in BF2.
Lost 51 to 56 in FEAR.
Lost 46 to 76 in War Front
Tied in GRAW.

How about 19X12?

Lost 49 to 63 in Prey.
Lost 114 to 165 in Serious Sam II.
Tied in World of Conflict.
Lost 91 to 126 in STALKER.
Lost 64 to 82 in BF2.
Lost 38 to 41 in FEAR.
Lost 39 to 67 in War Front
Won 42 to 33 in GRAW.

They really show the 2900Pro in a positive light- it won once, it lost twelve, and it tied three of the 16 benchmarks at settings most gamers would be playing at.

I think we can agreee no one with a $1500 25X16 monitor is seriously considering a $280 video card? Would be sort of a waste to buy a monitor your graphics card can't even offer playable frames at with AA.

So how is it again this article doesn't show the 2900Pro is a very poor choice? Maybe if the only game you'll ever own is GRAW?

Message Edited by JethroBodine on 10-09-2007 07:30 AM

[JethroBodine]

---

Trogdor wrote:
Also worth noting is that there are rumors that RV670 is supposed to offer 85% of the performance of R600 at less than half the power/heat. Pricing on that will be important as well, naturally, but if they can get that sort of card under $200? Well, obviously it depends on what NVIDIA can come up with for their new GPU offerings. Both are supposed to be out come this fall, right?
----------
On a separate note, you going to the NVIDIA Editors' Day in October, Jethro? If so, look me up. LOL. Maybe I'll see Brandon there as well, though I doubt I'd recognize him (or he me). Being the laptop guy for AT now means that I'm invited to NVIDIA stuff, apparently to see the new mobile offerings and maybe get some hardware for launch articles. Until I actually *know* what they'll be releasing, though, I'm just guessing. Right now, my guess is that they're working on something significantly faster than 8700M GT for the mobile market. Which means that the 2% of the gaming world that cares about laptop GPUs should be happy! (Probably see some new 8600M/8700M SLI stuff, but that's not really new is it? I thought some company was already offering that - guess I find out more in a couple weeks.)

---

Can't make the Editors day Trog. I'm at a conference in Salt Lake City that week for my work. Perhaps I can buy you a drink at the next one.

[Trogdor]

---

JethroBodine wrote:
Can't make the Editors day Trog. I'm at a conference in Salt Lake City that week for my work. Perhaps I can buy you a drink at the next one.

---

Speaking of SLC, I grew up in Utah. 25 years of my life were spent in that state. Woot. Which naturally means I'm Mormon, so unless you're wanting to buy me some bottled water.... Heheh. I've sworn off sodas as well, in an attempt to not be a fat slob. So far so good.

[Stalker_Loner]

If I had the money and the mobo I'd Crossfire a couple of 2900 Pros. I'm sure they would run great compared to a single X1900 and would at least get me some DX10 playability.