nVidia GT300 in October?

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Just learning

Originally posted by: Astrallite
I'd be more interested in finding out what GT300 really is--will it be a single card?

I find it hard to believe it will be faster than a GTX295, which would make me wonder if nvidia will simply say sayanara--EOL to you mister 295!

This wouldn't suprise me at all. It always seems the next generations top card is faster than the previous generation's X2 versions.

Can you list some examples of what you are talking about?

280GTX>9800x2 (285GTX compared to 9800GX2 would be even farther apart)

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3517&p=8

I don't have the next comparison offhand but in the past a single 8800 GTX has definitely beat 7950Gx2.

There have been many driver improvements since GT200 was launched. I believe on launch day, the GX2 was better or neck-and-neck with the 280 in most benches.

 

[ashishmishra]

Originally posted by: chizow
Bit-Tech also showed a significant boost in performance with the 185s over 182s, particularly with AA and 2560, although they didn't test that many titles with 8xAA. Fallout 3 actually dropped off a bit in performance.

Another thing I found odd about that review was how they tested the GTX275 with new drivers but didn't re-test the GTX285 with the newer drivers and concluded that GTX285 is not at all worth the extra money. I am not disagreeing with their conclusion about GTX285 not being the best bang for the buck card, but the way they went about proving it.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

This site doesn't agree. Across the board 8x AA performance is up, in one case at least way up.

That site doesn't have any 182.xx results but those drivers provided large performance gains in some situations. It's certainly great to see those performance gains, but we might already be seeing them courtesy of the improvements made in 182.xx.

Again, I haven't seen anything about OpenGL performance,

Well again, that?s the exact point. We?ve seen past drivers that raised 8xAA performance in specific DX titles, but did nothing for OpenGL. Until we see some OpenGL benchmarks confirming otherwise, I?m going to assume 8xMSAA performance hasn?t changed there.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: chizow
GTX 285s for example are hitting close to 3GHz effective overclocked on a 512-bit bus,

I don't think there are many that are stable above 1404MHz (2808MHz effective). I've tested MANY cards and that seems to be the limit of both Hynix and Samsung DDR3 that have been used. I'm sure there are a handful of lucky cards out there that might clock higher, but I haven't seen one that is STABLE (I run the cards pretty hard, usually with the fan on AUTO). The reason for 1404MHz is because that number is a "notch" for the memory speed. The next lower "notch" is 1377MHz. I do not know what the notch above 1404MHz is because I haven't seen it. Sure, someone can push their memory above it and most software will show that speed, but AFAIK it isn't truely running at that speed.

 

[poohbear]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: s44
Anyway, the amount of rage in Charlie's posts is appalling.

1 part news
3 parts blogging
14 parts speculation
38974 parts rage

Blend

Voila, a Charlie post.

I don't think he's even trying to make it "news" anymore. He seems to have a flock of fans lapping up his words no matter what he writes, as long as he's pissing on NV.

I guess it is human nature to hate... which is why we have Charlie posts, wars, holocaust...
Regarding GT300, for me it is just easier to "wait-see." Same thing with Larrabee and whatever future ATI cards are... in the cards.

Right now I don't have the energy to hate, love or speculate about stuff which currently do not exist for me to buy.

wow. comparing charlie's posts to the holocaust? if that is'nt hyperbole, then i'm a monkey on crack.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: ashishmishra
Another thing I found odd about that review was how they tested the GTX275 with new drivers but didn't re-test the GTX285 with the newer drivers and concluded that GTX285 is not at all worth the extra money. I am not disagreeing with their conclusion about GTX285 not being the best bang for the buck card, but the way they went about proving it.

Yep, excellent point and one I look for almost immediately for new reviews. Similar conclusions were drawn between the 275 and 280, skewing the overall performance picture. The use of archived drivers and benchmark results is a pretty glaring flaw in many reviews that doesn't draw enough attention imo.

Part of the problem is undoubtedtedly caused by Nvidia, and to a lesser extent, ATI, with their constant product launches and numerous SKUs. Another factor, although positive overall is constant driver updates that can significantly impact performance.

End result is that you have reviewers who grow tired of having to reperform results and testing on an ever-growing list of hardware that needs to constantly be rebenched. Personally I'd like to see maybe, comprehensive quarterly round-ups with much simpler test results for individual product launches. That way you have solid frames of reference every 3-4 months which allow an accurate frame of reference for more specific and up-to-date results with new parts.

Originally posted by: Zap
I don't think there are many that are stable above 1404MHz (2808MHz effective). I've tested MANY cards and that seems to be the limit of both Hynix and Samsung DDR3 that have been used. I'm sure there are a handful of lucky cards out there that might clock higher, but I haven't seen one that is STABLE (I run the cards pretty hard, usually with the fan on AUTO). The reason for 1404MHz is because that number is a "notch" for the memory speed. The next lower "notch" is 1377MHz. I do not know what the notch above 1404MHz is because I haven't seen it. Sure, someone can push their memory above it and most software will show that speed, but AFAIK it isn't truely running at that speed.

Ya, I'm sure you have more experience in that regard hehe. I just remember a few launch reviews, like Guru3D specifically mentioning getting close to 3GHz effective. Still, a massive increase from the launch GT200s which capped ~1200-1250, and even then people were surprised by GDDR3's overhead at that point.