any news on what might be the 7900GT

[R3MF]

will it exist?

given the high clocks needed for the 7900 Ultra (?) will this increase the likely-hood that the 7900GT will be a low clockspeed 32 pipe part as opposed to a high clockspeed 20/24 pipe part?

regards

 

[5150Joker]

Assuming 7900U is 32 pipes, I'm guessing the GT will have 28 pipes/16 ROPs.

 

[Munky]

No news. But my hunch is that Nv will not release a gt with the same number of pipes as a gtx ot better. So if the new gtx/ultra is 32 pipes, then the gt will probably be 28 or 24. And that being said, I also have my doubts about the whole 32 pipe rumor in the first place, so my speculation is that the gtx will still be a 24 pipe card, and I guess the gt will still be a 20 pipe card.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: munky
No news. But my hunch is that Nv will not release a gt with the same number of pipes as a gtx ot better. So if the new gtx/ultra is 32 pipes, then the gt will probably be 28 or 24. And that being said, I also have my doubts about the whole 32 pipe rumor in the first place, so my speculation is that the gtx will still be a 24 pipe card, and I guess the gt will still be a 20 pipe card.

While I agree with you that the GT most likely won't have as many pipes as the GTX, I'm curious as to why you doubt the 32-pipe rumor/info... So far, everything I've read containing info from any "in the know" sources have all said this was the case. I would imagine that the specs for the 7900's are pretty set in stone at this point if they are going to make it to retail next month.

 

[crazydingo]

20 pipelines
550mhz core
600mhz memory
$449

Basically it will be faster than the 256MB 7800GTX at a lower price.

 

[Demoth]

I doubt the 32 pipe rumor simply because NVIDIA won't need to go 32 pipes to beat the X1900XTx. A current 512 GTx is already pretty close so all they really need at this point is a speed increase and they can hold off on more pipes in reserve for another generation.

Yeah, it would make sense to release a monster card that smokes the competition for reputation as having, by far, the fastest card on the planet, regardless of the price. However, for some reason, ATI and NVIDIA don't think like this. They seem happy to just stay close in terms of performance and divy up the market share for each niche.

My guess would be the 7900GT will be a lower clocked GTx so they can make money off any cards that fail due to not being able to handle higher clock speeds. They would cut costs more just underclocking the GTx and slapping on a cheaper HS and maybe later in the production cycle using lower rated memory.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: Demoth
I doubt the 32 pipe rumor simply because NVIDIA won't need to go 32 pipes to beat the X1900XTx. A current 512 GTx is already pretty close so all they really need at this point is a speed increase and they can hold off on more pipes in reserve for another generation.

Are you kidding? Have you looked at a FEAR benchmark lately? The X1900XT crushes the GTX 512.

If they do what you say, it would become like Intel vs AMD where instead of innovating, Intel tries to just crank up the clockspeeds to compete and still falls short. Besides, I don't think NVidia is in the game of "matching" the competition, but BEATING them.

Thus, they will need to increase pipes in addition to clocks if they want to take top place back from ATi.

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Demoth
I doubt the 32 pipe rumor simply because NVIDIA won't need to go 32 pipes to beat the X1900XTx. A current 512 GTx is already pretty close so all they really need at this point is a speed increase and they can hold off on more pipes in reserve for another generation.

Are you kidding? Have you looked at a FEAR benchmark lately? The X1900XT crushes the GTX 512.

If they do what you say, it would become like Intel vs AMD where instead of innovating, Intel tries to just crank up the clockspeeds to compete and still falls short. Besides, I don't think NVidia is in the game of "matching" the competition, but BEATING them.

Thus, they will need to increase pipes in addition to clocks if they want to take top place back from ATi.

That is just one benchmark. I'm sure profit margins, yeilds matter more than losing just one bench.

 

[yacoub]

I'm not talking one benchmark, it's just that FEAR is the most glaring example. FEAR is also the latest gen FPS game that actually makes use of a lot of recent graphical technology and CLEARLY when a new card is released their eye is on how it performs in the newest / most intensive games.

Otherwise what are you trying to say, that they care more that it only beats ATI in Quake 4? lol

Considering the X1900XT beats the GTX512 in MOST games once you start getting up higher in resolution and AA/AF, it's clearly not just a clockspeed issue.

 

[Demoth]

Chronicles of Riddick is another game where the 7800 smokes the X1900. Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: munky
No news. But my hunch is that Nv will not release a gt with the same number of pipes as a gtx ot better. So if the new gtx/ultra is 32 pipes, then the gt will probably be 28 or 24. And that being said, I also have my doubts about the whole 32 pipe rumor in the first place, so my speculation is that the gtx will still be a 24 pipe card, and I guess the gt will still be a 20 pipe card.

While I agree with you that the GT most likely won't have as many pipes as the GTX, I'm curious as to why you doubt the 32-pipe rumor/info... So far, everything I've read containing info from any "in the know" sources have all said this was the case. I would imagine that the specs for the 7900's are pretty set in stone at this point if they are going to make it to retail next month.

I'm doubting because it's unusual for a refresh product to have more pipes than the first part. Yeah, I know the x1900 had more shaders, but Ati is following a different design philosophy, and they increased what they believe will make the biggest difference in modern games instead of slapping on more pipes. A 90nm 24 pipe gtx should be able to hit 700mhz, and while it wont match the x1900 in FEAR, in most other cases it should be competitive, and score a number of wins itself, most likely Doom3-based games.

If Nv choses to go for 32 pipes, I seriously doubt it can be clocked at 700mhz and be a widely availabile product at competitive prices next month. Such a card will have cherry picked cores, generate more heat that any other card in history, require more power, and who knows what cooling. That's my theory. They may release a 32 pipe clocked at 500-600mhz, but that's as far as I can see them going.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Originally posted by: Demoth
I doubt the 32 pipe rumor simply because NVIDIA won't need to go 32 pipes to beat the X1900XTx. A current 512 GTx is already pretty close so all they really need at this point is a speed increase and they can hold off on more pipes in reserve for another generation.

Are you kidding? Have you looked at a FEAR benchmark lately? The X1900XT crushes the GTX 512.

If they do what you say, it would become like Intel vs AMD where instead of innovating, Intel tries to just crank up the clockspeeds to compete and still falls short. Besides, I don't think NVidia is in the game of "matching" the competition, but BEATING them.

Thus, they will need to increase pipes in addition to clocks if they want to take top place back from ATi.

I see both sides of this debate. It would make sense to save your "big guns" for later, but then again look at the 9700Pro... With one single breakthrough chip you can win hearts and minds for years. Granted, you still have to come out with solid upgrades (which ATI has done), but you can afford to play the ping pong game with your rivals for a while. Eventually though, if you really want to get out of that rut you are going to have to drop a bomb on the competition. I think a 32-pipe 7900GTX would probably be such a bomb. I hope they pull the trigger

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Demoth
Chronicles of Riddick is another game where the 7800 smokes the X1900. Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR.

48 vs 35 is getting smoked.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: munky

I'm doubting because it's unusual for a refresh product to have more pipes than the first part. Yeah, I know the x1900 had more shaders, but Ati is following a different design philosophy, and they increased what they believe will make the biggest difference in modern games instead of slapping on more pipes. A 90nm 24 pipe gtx should be able to hit 700mhz, and while it wont match the x1900 in FEAR, in most other cases it should be competitive, and score a number of wins itself, most likely Doom3-based games.

the 7800 featured more pipes than the 6800.

 

[darXoul]

Originally posted by: Demoth
Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. .

I would. You know, a 10-15 fps difference is neglectable if we are talking about 60 or 100 frames anyway. Here, we are on the verge of playability so 15 frames are just HUGE.

BTW, according to the behardware.com benchmarks, it's 31 (7800 GTX 512) vs. 50 (X1900XTX) frames per second in 1600*1200 with 4*AA / 16*AF. I say it's an enormous difference.

With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR

I seriously doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I want the 7900 GTX as fast as possible but I don't think nVidia can pull this off. It might be faster than the XTX overall, i.e. on average, but to be honest, I don't care about averages when both cards deliver silky smooth frame rates anyway. I care precisely about games like F.E.A.R. where every frame contributes to better playability. We'll see...

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: munky

I'm doubting because it's unusual for a refresh product to have more pipes than the first part. Yeah, I know the x1900 had more shaders, but Ati is following a different design philosophy, and they increased what they believe will make the biggest difference in modern games instead of slapping on more pipes. A 90nm 24 pipe gtx should be able to hit 700mhz, and while it wont match the x1900 in FEAR, in most other cases it should be competitive, and score a number of wins itself, most likely Doom3-based games.

the 7800 featured more pipes than the 6800.

Because Nv is passing it off as a new generation of the gpu. It may be the same rehashed 6800, just like the x800 is a rehashed 9800, but since it's not called the 6900, Nv apparently wants us to think of it as a new generation gpu (ie. gf7, not gf6)

 

[crazydingo]

Originally posted by: Demoth
Chronicles of Riddick is another game where the 7800 smokes the X1900. Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR.

lol, I think your confused.

X1900XTX has about 80-90% lead over the 512MB GTX in FEAR where as the 512MB GTX has about 14% lead over the X1900XTX in Riddick. Only one of them is case called getting smoked, guess which one?

I very much doubt they can double their performance in FEAR staying at 24 pipes (which I'm guessing) though FEAR is not THE only benchmark out there. A 700mhz 24 pipe G71 could still edge out the X1900XTX in most benchmarks.

 

[Cooler]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Demoth
Chronicles of Riddick is another game where the 7800 smokes the X1900. Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR.

lol, I think your confused.

X1900XTX has about 80-90% lead over the 512MB GTX in FEAR where as the 512MB GTX has about 14% lead over the X1900XTX in Riddick. Only one of them is case called getting smoked, guess which one?

I very much doubt they can double their performance in FEAR staying at 24 pipes (which I'm guessing) though FEAR is not THE only benchmark out there. A 700mhz 24 pipe G71 could still edge out the X1900XTX in most benchmarks.

I still feel ati might do a counter with GDDR4 for an ungodly price of $650+

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: Cooler

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Demoth
Chronicles of Riddick is another game where the 7800 smokes the X1900. Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR.

lol, I think your confused.

X1900XTX has about 80-90% lead over the 512MB GTX in FEAR where as the 512MB GTX has about 14% lead over the X1900XTX in Riddick. Only one of them is case called getting smoked, guess which one?

I very much doubt they can double their performance in FEAR staying at 24 pipes (which I'm guessing) though FEAR is not THE only benchmark out there. A 700mhz 24 pipe G71 could still edge out the X1900XTX in most benchmarks.

I still feel ati might do a counter with GDDR4 for an ungodly price of $650+

Well, I'm sure they're brewing up something as I speak. It's unlikely of them to not anticipate a faster gf7900.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: munky
No news. But my hunch is that Nv will not release a gt with the same number of pipes as a gtx ot better. So if the new gtx/ultra is 32 pipes, then the gt will probably be 28 or 24. And that being said, I also have my doubts about the whole 32 pipe rumor in the first place, so my speculation is that the gtx will still be a 24 pipe card, and I guess the gt will still be a 20 pipe card.

While I agree with you that the GT most likely won't have as many pipes as the GTX, I'm curious as to why you doubt the 32-pipe rumor/info... So far, everything I've read containing info from any "in the know" sources have all said this was the case. I would imagine that the specs for the 7900's are pretty set in stone at this point if they are going to make it to retail next month.

I'm doubting because it's unusual for a refresh product to have more pipes than the first part. Yeah, I know the x1900 had more shaders, but Ati is following a different design philosophy, and they increased what they believe will make the biggest difference in modern games instead of slapping on more pipes. A 90nm 24 pipe gtx should be able to hit 700mhz, and while it wont match the x1900 in FEAR, in most other cases it should be competitive, and score a number of wins itself, most likely Doom3-based games.

If Nv choses to go for 32 pipes, I seriously doubt it can be clocked at 700mhz and be a widely availabile product at competitive prices next month. Such a card will have cherry picked cores, generate more heat that any other card in history, require more power, and who knows what cooling. That's my theory. They may release a 32 pipe clocked at 500-600mhz, but that's as far as I can see them going.

i think Nvidia have taken a leaf out of ATI's book...ati had a good base with the R300....and it wasnt broke so they never fixed it....just times'd it up a little and called it R420 and it worked awesomely.

G70 is a good base, ok it lacks HDR and AA, and the filterings not all that, but those are major changes, that given the apparent time frame cant be done till next gen. but just cutting an pasting a quad or 2 into the design cant be all that hard can it?

 

[vtohthree]

I'm sure they're are some AT forum members who work for Nvida here, I recall seeing a few them around and mentioning it(that they worked for Nvidia). If only they could ignore their NDA's and other clearances and spill the beans to us! haha

 

[Demoth]

We will know what they decide within weeks. Till then, this is all speculation. Also, I am not defending any descision to go with a 24 pipe design as I also feel they would be better off going 32 pipes and try to destroy ATI and keep the performance increase for future games. I just don't see it happening as it is not how NVIDIA seems to think.

Also, don't misunderstand what I am saying about the difference between the X1900XT and the 7800GTx 512. The difference in FEAR is big as far as playability goes since the cards are right at the edge of playble FPS with eyecandy on. However, in a pure % and engine performance view, the differences are still significant but not big enough that they would need to go with more pipes as the only option. A increase in speed and some tweaks could push the 7800 design fast enough to get close to equal performance in FEAR and greater performance in quite a few current games. Future games more like FEAR in shader useage will suffer with a NVIDIA 24 pipe build, but they may not be thinking that far yet.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: crazydingo

Originally posted by: Demoth
Chronicles of Riddick is another game where the 7800 smokes the X1900. Also, the 7800 512 gets beaten by the current X1900XTx in FEAR, but I would not call the 10-15 FPS difference getting smoked. With a higher clock, tweaks to the voltage, and other minor upgrades, they could very well beat a X1900XT and stay with 24 pipes even in FEAR.

lol, I think your confused.

X1900XTX has about 80-90% lead over the 512MB GTX in FEAR where as the 512MB GTX has about 14% lead over the X1900XTX in Riddick. Only one of them is case called getting smoked, guess which one?

I very much doubt they can double their performance in FEAR staying at 24 pipes (which I'm guessing) though FEAR is not THE only benchmark out there. A 700mhz 24 pipe G71 could still edge out the X1900XTX in most benchmarks.

Not to mention FEAR is popular and modern and Riddick... I don't know anyone who even owns it let alone plays it anymore. I know it was neat when it first came out but now it's not really even mentioned let alone benchmarked by most places. Far Cry is old, Doom 3 is old, Quake 4 is the latest id game but didn't get the popularity it was expected to get. Quake Wars:ET will be the big "id"(engined) game that everyone will play since Q4 mp kinda died off really quick.

Ignoring SLI/Crossfire, of the fps games that people play today with a single GPU, which card performs better at the high resolutions people want to use on, say, their 2405s?

FEAR: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=12 - Both X1900s crush 7800GTX 512MB at both settings.
BF2: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=8 - Both X1900s beat the GTX512MB at low settings by a few points, beat by a wider margin at medium, and stomp it at max quality.
SC:ChaosTheory: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=13 - At low and medium settings the X1900s are besting the 512MBGTX by a strong margin. The high settings graph looks like everything is mislabeled (Crossfires way lower than single cards? Something's all jacked up with that graph. When it's fixed we can take another look at it).
Quake 4: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=14 - 512GTX puts a solid lead at low settings, a sliver of a lead at medium settings, and 3 point lead at max settings.
CoD2: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1900_xt_preview/page14.asp - XT keeps a consistent 3 point lead and XTX around a 6-7 point lead over the GTX512MB at all resolutions (all use max settings).

I just noticed HalfLife2 isn't in the Anandtech review either:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1900_xt_preview/page8.asp
The XT and XTX get between 1-5 points better than the 512MB GTX in that game as well, all resolutions with max details. That's very close in performance between the two.
Even though the GTX512MB lost at every resolution tested there, it came very close and thus it's not like it'd be unplayable on the GTX. (Then again no one claimed it'd be unplayable.)

Those are the bigname fps games played today. Of them, the X1900 series cards (XT and XTX) are winning 5 out of 6, most of the time with significant margins. The 512MB GTX, if you can find one and want to pay a high premium for it, will get you the best performance in Quake 4... but that equates to about 3FPS at medium and high settings.
Or you could get the XT or XTX and get nearly the same performance in Quake 4 and much BETTER performance in many of the other games.

Now it's not like either of these cards (GTX or X1900) are weak cards, but to claim the GTX doesn't get soundly beaten in FEAR is simply wrong. Now that we've established that, as well as how it measures up in the other games, we can get back to why the 7900 should definitely offer a few more pipelines and not just a speed increase if they want to BEAT the X1900 series instead of simply match them.

Judging by the graphs I think it's clear that a GTX 512MB that has a few more pipelines to use to help with AA/AF/etc, will likely BEAT an X1900XTX, which is what NVidia needs to offer. Now, can they do it at a reasonable price and supply a good amount of them to e-tailers? That remains to be seen.

Looking at the GTX 512MB we can see that for an extreme price premium and limited availability, why would anyone get the GTX512MB over the X1900XT or XTX? It simply is illogical at this point in time (I am of course assuming we're talking actually going out and buying one, not using someone else's money or being given them for 'review purposes', because when it's someone else's money it's much easier to spend unwisely).

This isn't to say everyone should go out and buy an X1900 either. Many people dislike its noisy-azz cooling fan and will wait for aftermarket cooler offerings or companies like Sapphire or Gigabyte who have made alternatively-cooled GPUs available recently. Others simply don't play games that really need that much graphical power. Still others are happy to stay at 1024x or 1280x until the next gen cards come out and then can nab a GTX 256MB or X1900XT for a better price.

But in the end, the GTX 512MB is way overpriced and undersupplied. The real question is whether or not NVidia can fix this before they reach the release date for the 7900.

 

[RobertR1]

One thing I've noticed is that the rumors on the 7900 series have actually died down recently. With cebit not too far away and the rumored to be the launch date, I'd think we'd see a flurry of info. If this card is to be hard launched in the next 3-4 weeks, we'd be hearing a lot more about it. The AIB's would have their cards being made and with so many AIB's it'd be very hard to keep it under wraps this close to the supposed launch.

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: yacoub

Not to mention FEAR is popular and modern and Riddick... I don't know anyone who even owns it let alone plays it anymore. I know it was neat when it first came out but now it's not really even mentioned let alone benchmarked by most places. Far Cry is old, Doom 3 is old, Quake 4 is the latest id game but didn't get the popularity it was expected to get. Quake Wars:ET will be the big "id"(engined) game that everyone will play since Q4 mp kinda died off really quick.

Ignoring SLI/Crossfire, of the fps games that people play today with a single GPU, which card performs better at the high resolutions people want to use on, say, their 2405s?

FEAR: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=12 - Both X1900s crush 7800GTX 512MB at both settings.
BF2: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=8 - Both X1900s beat the GTX512MB at low settings by a few points, beat by a wider margin at medium, and stomp it at max quality.
SC:ChaosTheory: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=13 - At low and medium settings the X1900s are besting the 512MBGTX by a strong margin. The high settings graph looks like everything is mislabeled (Crossfires way lower than single cards? Something's all jacked up with that graph. When it's fixed we can take another look at it).
Quake 4: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2679&p=14 - 512GTX puts a solid lead at low settings, a sliver of a lead at medium settings, and 3 point lead at max settings.
CoD2: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1900_xt_preview/page14.asp - XT keeps a consistent 3 point lead and XTX around a 6-7 point lead over the GTX512MB at all resolutions (all use max settings).

I just noticed HalfLife2 isn't in the Anandtech review either:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_x1900_xt_preview/page8.asp
The XT and XTX get between 1-5 points better than the 512MB GTX in that game as well, all resolutions with max details. That's very close in performance between the two.
Even though the GTX512MB lost at every resolution tested there, it came very close and thus it's not like it'd be unplayable on the GTX. (Then again no one claimed it'd be unplayable.)

Those are the bigname fps games played today. Of them, the X1900 series cards (XT and XTX) are winning 5 out of 6, most of the time with significant margins. The 512MB GTX, if you can find one and want to pay a high premium for it, will get you the best performance in Quake 4... but that equates to about 3FPS at medium and high settings.
Or you could get the XT or XTX and get nearly the same performance in Quake 4 and much BETTER performance in many of the other games.

Now it's not like either of these cards (GTX or X1900) are weak cards, but to claim the GTX doesn't get soundly beaten in FEAR is simply wrong. Now that we've established that, as well as how it measures up in the other games, we can get back to why the 7900 should definitely offer a few more pipelines and not just a speed increase if they want to BEAT the X1900 series instead of simply match them.

Judging by the graphs I think it's clear that a GTX 512MB that has a few more pipelines to use to help with AA/AF/etc, will likely BEAT an X1900XTX, which is what NVidia needs to offer. Now, can they do it at a reasonable price and supply a good amount of them to e-tailers? That remains to be seen.

Looking at the GTX 512MB we can see that for an extreme price premium and limited availability, why would anyone get the GTX512MB over the X1900XT or XTX? It simply is illogical at this point in time (I am of course assuming we're talking actually going out and buying one, not using someone else's money or being given them for 'review purposes', because when it's someone else's money it's much easier to spend unwisely).

This isn't to say everyone should go out and buy an X1900 either. Many people dislike its noisy-azz cooling fan and will wait for aftermarket cooler offerings or companies like Sapphire or Gigabyte who have made alternatively-cooled GPUs available recently. Others simply don't play games that really need that much graphical power. Still others are happy to stay at 1024x or 1280x until the next gen cards come out and then can nab a GTX 256MB or X1900XT for a better price.

But in the end, the GTX 512MB is way overpriced and undersupplied. The real question is whether or not NVidia can fix this before they reach the release date for the 7900.

Very well put. The newer games that really smack gpu's around are the ones that can really use the extra performance. I could care less if I'm getting 140fps vs. 160fps in UT2004.