G71 specs according to Vr-Zone

[fierydemise]

If the specs are true it looks to me like we'll be seeing a new ultra highend card, my guess is the 7900GTX will come in well above the X1900XTX but of course preform better whether it will be fast enough to warrant a size able price jump remains to be seen.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Bring on R600, Quake Wars and Crysis and I'll be in heaven.

Add Oblivion and a 2nd R600 and i'd be joining you.

You beat me to it

and i hope the cooling design is better than on my 6800GT

I have to take off that stupid plastic cover to blow out all the dust again, it clogs up solid every month and a half or so :|

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I wonder if ATi will respond with something faster - maybe a PE edition or something ala 512 GTX just to retain the PR crown.

I wouldn't doubt an 80nm die shrink on the X1900 core.

That said, it's only a matter of time before the graphics companies "hit the wall" the same way intel/amd did. Based on current architectures, I would guess that ATI will hit the wall first.

Hmm I dunno Intel/AMD are still continuing with die shrinks so I doubt ATi/nV will hit the wall until at least 2-3 generations and be forced to go dual GPU for high end performance.

Graphics chips are very different from X86 CPUs, they are parrallel internally by design, so increasing the capacity for transistors, even at the same clockspeed, would dramatically increase performance capability.

The "Pipelines" in GPUs are like CPUs of their own, they can each make calculations independantly, so in essence they are already way beyond "dual core". If the manufacturing process doesnt allow them to pack more transistors into a chip (this is still a long way off, silicon can go down to 30nm and smaller) the "need" to go with more than one chip on a card will be for the extreme high end only, as it makes the design very complex and increases costs and latency issues.

 

[ronnn]

Only win in most benchmarks with less features. Looks like this may remain a closer race than I thought. Maybe this is why the G80 is coming so soon. Should be interesting. :beer:
Actually the most interesting thing about this, is for a change it wasn't announced by their aeg employees.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ronnn
Only win in most benchmarks with less features. Looks like this may remain a closer race than I thought. Maybe this is why the G80 is coming so soon. Should be interesting. :beer:
Actually the most interesting thing about this, is for a change it wasn't announced by their aeg employees.

Do we really need to bring this up in every single friggin thread on the forum... seriously bro.

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: ronnn
Only win in most benchmarks with less features. Looks like this may remain a closer race than I thought. Maybe this is why the G80 is coming so soon. Should be interesting. :beer:
Actually the most interesting thing about this, is for a change it wasn't announced by their aeg employees.

Do we really need to bring this up in every single friggin thread on the forum... seriously bro.

Quite sure I haven't brought "this" up in any other threads. Anyways lets never talk about "this" again and maybe "this" will go away. Seriously I enjoy advertising as an area of thought and was interested in how Nv has been choosing to leak info through the forums. All companies leak info and try to control the story - was not thinking of the sneaky shill aspect at all. :beer:

 

[Frostwake]

I fail to see how 7900 is anything close to a "monster" card, judging by those specs its only gonna edge out the x1900 in current games and still get beat when shader intensive games appear, sure it might have 100 mhz higher core and 32 pp, but it has 100mhz lower memory?

The thing i dont get is the prices... 699$? what kind of price is that? 500$ for the GT? 1900XT will smoke it while costing the same... it doesnt add up

 

[darXoul]

Not impressed, TBH... The GT surely looks flat out disappointing IMO. The GTX should probably beat the X1900XTX in most benchmarks but now, I doubt even more that it can put up a good fight in games like F.E.A.R.

Well... We'll see. I wish nVidia GL I hope it will be another hard launch.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Then what exatly did they enginner? That card doesn't even beat out the X1900 cards. It makes no sense.

It was meant to beat the X1800XT, which it does...

They had to know about the X1900XT. R580 was on the roadmap for ages, and ATi isn't very good at keeping "secrets".

That isn't the point. They also knew about G71, which sounds like it will beat the X1900's. It looks like their current strategy is to give ATI the lead for about 2 months this year, while they hold the crown until the next gen cards.

i don't think nVidia's strategy included "giving" the crown to ATi at all

:roll:

ati took it,
:Q




----------------

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Bring on R600, Quake Wars and Crysis and I'll be in heaven.

Add Oblivion and a 2nd R600 and i'd be joining you.

You beat me to it

and i hope the cooling design is better than on my 6800GT

I have to take off that stupid plastic cover to blow out all the dust again, it clogs up solid every month and a half or so :|

speaking of . . . my computer's O/C got very unstable and i kept backing it down . . . yesterday, in the middle of KotOR II, it crashed with a high CPU warning temp - 85C!

. . . Opened the case and sucked the dustbunnies out of [all] the fans with the shop vac . . .
. . . CPU temps back in the 40s. . . . o/c stable again
:Q

gotta check more often.

 

[firewolfsm]

so the 7900GT is basically a 7800GTX with a better process (higher OCs) and slightly better memory

 

[yacoub]

Ah okay so basically the top cards that kick butt just happen to ALSO have 512MB of ram, but the extra ram isn't what's making them kick butt?

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: CP5670
It's interesting that the memory speed on the 7900 GTX is actually a little lower than the 512 despite having the same kind of memory.

That's likely to improve yield a bit and get more cards to market and because it's probably a little cheaper for them as well to get vast quantities of that slightly slower ram.

 

[CP5670]

The actual type of memory is the same according to those specs though; both cards use the 1.1ns memory rated for 1.8ghz, so they won't be saving any money on it. It should overclock well anyway.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: yacoub
Ah okay so basically the top cards that kick butt just happen to ALSO have 512MB of ram, but the extra ram isn't what's making them kick butt?

No, it isnt.

In the few games it does help, its usually well under a 10% boost.

The clockspeed of the memory matters more than the amount, especially if you have 256MB or more.

 

[beggerking]

Originally posted by: Ronin
There are several sites (including AT) that say the memory jump from 256 to 512 doesn't make a tremendous difference (if any). Using that as a reference point for comparison isn't as valid as using other specifications (such as shaders, pipes, clock speeds, etc).

It'd be nice to have 512mb still... an extra 256mb shouldn't add too much to the cost..

 

[vaccarjm]

If the 7900gtx beats out the x1900xtx then it will be in my PC no question. This is why i love having 2 companies duke it out for king of the hill.

I love you both ATI and Nvidia!

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: vaccarjm
If the 7900gtx beats out the x1900xtx then it will be in my PC no question. This is why i love having 2 companies duke it out for king of the hill.

I love you both ATI and Nvidia!

THey love you alot more.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: yacoub
Ah okay so basically the top cards that kick butt just happen to ALSO have 512MB of ram, but the extra ram isn't what's making them kick butt?

It all depends on how much memory in textures you're consuming with your games. More ram doesn't automatically add speed; it just adds capacity. So if you were running some older game that only has 128MB of textures, the performance difference between boards with 512MB and 256MB of ram would be 0%.

The case where more ram is faster is if you start to need exceed that amount of video ram that you have. If you use a game that has 256mb texture sets and you use hi-res+high AA, the extra amount of ram needed for high AA could push you over the 256mb threshold and then you would have to rely on AGP memory. That's the situation where a 512mb card will beat a 256mb card even with a game than only uses 256mb texture sets. (of course, if you use a game with 512mb sets, then the 512mb card will have a huge advantage.)

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Frostwake
I fail to see how 7900 is anything close to a "monster" card, judging by those specs its only gonna edge out the x1900 in current games and still get beat when shader intensive games appear, sure it might have 100 mhz higher core and 32 pp, but it has 100mhz lower memory?

The thing i dont get is the prices... 699$? what kind of price is that? 500$ for the GT? 1900XT will smoke it while costing the same... it doesnt add up

The prices will undoubtedly come down, they might even be on sale below MSRP like the 1900's were.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: vaccarjm
If the 7900gtx beats out the x1900xtx then it will be in my PC no question. This is why i love having 2 companies duke it out for king of the hill.

I love you both ATI and Nvidia!

THey love you alot more.

Or at least your wallet

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: Frostwake
I fail to see how 7900 is anything close to a "monster" card, judging by those specs its only gonna edge out the x1900 in current games and still get beat when shader intensive games appear, sure it might have 100 mhz higher core and 32 pp, but it has 100mhz lower memory?

The thing i dont get is the prices... 699$? what kind of price is that? 500$ for the GT? 1900XT will smoke it while costing the same... it doesnt add up

That's the guess created by the OP.

 

[DeathReborn]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: yacoub
Ah okay so basically the top cards that kick butt just happen to ALSO have 512MB of ram, but the extra ram isn't what's making them kick butt?

It all depends on how much memory in textures you're consuming with your games. More ram doesn't automatically add speed; it just adds capacity. So if you were running some older game that only has 128MB of textures, the performance difference between boards with 512MB and 256MB of ram would be 0%.

The case where more ram is faster is if you start to need exceed that amount of video ram that you have. If you use a game that has 256mb texture sets and you use hi-res+high AA, the extra amount of ram needed for high AA could push you over the 256mb threshold and then you would have to rely on AGP memory. That's the situation where a 512mb card will beat a 256mb card even with a game than only uses 256mb texture sets. (of course, if you use a game with 512mb sets, then the 512mb card will have a huge advantage.)

Doesn't the 512MB allow better performance at Ultra Quality in games like Doom3? 256MB is adequate at present but I suspect 512MB will be more prevalent by years end.

 

[yacoub]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: yacoub
Ah okay so basically the top cards that kick butt just happen to ALSO have 512MB of ram, but the extra ram isn't what's making them kick butt?

It all depends on how much memory in textures you're consuming with your games. More ram doesn't automatically add speed; it just adds capacity. So if you were running some older game that only has 128MB of textures, the performance difference between boards with 512MB and 256MB of ram would be 0%.

The case where more ram is faster is if you start to need exceed that amount of video ram that you have. If you use a game that has 256mb texture sets and you use hi-res+high AA, the extra amount of ram needed for high AA could push you over the 256mb threshold and then you would have to rely on AGP memory. That's the situation where a 512mb card will beat a 256mb card even with a game than only uses 256mb texture sets. (of course, if you use a game with 512mb sets, then the 512mb card will have a huge advantage.)

Aye, I knew that much, I just didn't realize games weren't yet taking advantage of more than 256MB of video RAM. I thought when you cranked up settings on FEAR, CoD2, SplinterCell:CT, etc, you were running past 256MB already.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

Originally posted by: yacoub
Ah okay so basically the top cards that kick butt just happen to ALSO have 512MB of ram, but the extra ram isn't what's making them kick butt?

It all depends on how much memory in textures you're consuming with your games. More ram doesn't automatically add speed; it just adds capacity. So if you were running some older game that only has 128MB of textures, the performance difference between boards with 512MB and 256MB of ram would be 0%.

The case where more ram is faster is if you start to need exceed that amount of video ram that you have. If you use a game that has 256mb texture sets and you use hi-res+high AA, the extra amount of ram needed for high AA could push you over the 256mb threshold and then you would have to rely on AGP memory. That's the situation where a 512mb card will beat a 256mb card even with a game than only uses 256mb texture sets. (of course, if you use a game with 512mb sets, then the 512mb card will have a huge advantage.)

Doesn't the 512MB allow better performance at Ultra Quality in games like Doom3? 256MB is adequate at present but I suspect 512MB will be more prevalent by years end.

Doom 3 will actually use more than 256MB with the ultra setting.

However, the only difference between high and ultra is texture compression, ultra doesnt compress the textures at all.

Side by side i cant tell the difference between high and ultra settings in doom 3, even at 2048x1536.

 

[vaccarjm]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: vaccarjm
If the 7900gtx beats out the x1900xtx then it will be in my PC no question. This is why i love having 2 companies duke it out for king of the hill.

I love you both ATI and Nvidia!

THey love you alot more.

Or at least your wallet

Some people like to spend thier money on cigarettes......some on hookers.....lots on alcohol....me? on video cards. To each their own.