Nvidia new weapon G71.

[nRollo]

Originally posted by: obeseotron
Why shouldn't nVidia and ATI make $700 or even $1000 cards? AMD and Intel sell $1000 CPUs that are a lot cheaper to produce than graphics boards with GPUs bigger than those CPUs plus a ton of RAM and other stuff. Obviously they're not gonna sell too many, but leadership in the performance segment is a marketing thing as much as anything else. I would call the pricing of video cards much fairer than that of CPUs. A $150 CPU is often 75% as fast as a $1000 one, sometimes more. A pair of 7800GTXs is probably 4 times faster single 6600GT at high resolution, maybe more - think about the comparable CPU comparison. Anyone think a FX57 is 4 times as fast as a 3200+ at anything?

QFT

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: ddogg
woah this truly looks like a monster of a card. ATI could be in some serious trouble considering the fact they are already 3 - 4 months late.

ATI's original "official" date of release for R520 was July 26th. 7800GTX came out June 21st. This means they are not officially late yet. Also, not even 1 month has passed since nV's release.

I have said this a dozen times and I know you must have read it, but the time it takes from tape out to store shelves averages 120 days (4 months). Now, I don't see how they can push it faster, but if they can how much sooner do you think it could possibly be? 90 days? 75 days? I don't think this is something that can be rushed, but I don't know what "breakthroughs" have been made in the speed of tape out to wafer production to packaging. So I think about 3 months is a fair optomistic guess giving the benefit of the doubt that the news of the tape out was somehow a whole month after the fact.

How do you know this? Have you worked in the semiconductor/fabrication industry? I'm just curious.

No, I am not in the semiconductor biz. But interested in it enough to read many chock full o facts articles about what is involved. From the design on the table, to the actual wafer production. It really is mind blowing all the resources and time this stuff takes. That's why when some people say "Why can't ATI just whip it out?" I just shake my head. It's not that simple. It is a TONNNNN of procedures and a few more tons of QA (Quality Assurance) control on top of it all which is necessary.

Keys is right, not to mention theres some common sense involved. If the chip just taped-out that means there arent any chips for retail yet.

How long do you think it takes a fab, or even 5 fabs, to roll out 100,000+ chips?

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Drayvn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: ddogg
woah this truly looks like a monster of a card. ATI could be in some serious trouble considering the fact they are already 3 - 4 months late.

ATI's original "official" date of release for R520 was July 26th. 7800GTX came out June 21st. This means they are not officially late yet. Also, not even 1 month has passed since nV's release.

I have said this a dozen times and I know you must have read it, but the time it takes from tape out to store shelves averages 120 days (4 months). Now, I don't see how they can push it faster, but if they can how much sooner do you think it could possibly be? 90 days? 75 days? I don't think this is something that can be rushed, but I don't know what "breakthroughs" have been made in the speed of tape out to wafer production to packaging. So I think about 3 months is a fair optomistic guess giving the benefit of the doubt that the news of the tape out was somehow a whole month after the fact.

Ever thought they would and might release their other range of cards from the R5xx series...

Oh, I'm sorry. Is that what we were talking about here? I believe all references for the most part (Russian Sensation's imparticular whom which I quoted) were toward the R520. Correct me if I'm wrong. Please.

Oops yea sorry he was talking about the R520. Just trying to be positive about the whole thing. Maybe the July 26th date was for the other series of cards maybe. I dont think ATi ever mentioned which would be released that day?

 

[linkgoron]

Originally posted by: obeseotron
Why shouldn't nVidia and ATI make $700 or even $1000 cards? AMD and Intel sell $1000 CPUs that are a lot cheaper to produce than graphics boards with GPUs bigger than those CPUs plus a ton of RAM and other stuff. Obviously they're not gonna sell too many, but leadership in the performance segment is a marketing thing as much as anything else. I would call the pricing of video cards much fairer than that of CPUs. A $150 CPU is often 75% as fast as a $1000 one, sometimes more. A pair of 7800GTXs is probably 4 times faster single 6600GT at high resolution, maybe more - think about the comparable CPU comparison. Anyone think a FX57 is 4 times as fast as a 3200+ at anything?

Because CPUs have more than 1 use? That's why they cost more? GPUs=games. CPUs=all.

 

[Justin343563611]

How much do you think a 7600 may cost?

 

[trinibwoy]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: ddogg
woah this truly looks like a monster of a card. ATI could be in some serious trouble considering the fact they are already 3 - 4 months late.

ATI's original "official" date of release for R520 was July 26th. 7800GTX came out June 21st. This means they are not officially late yet. Also, not even 1 month has passed since nV's release.

I don't think ATi ever announced any release date at all. The July 26th rumour when it first came up was supposed to be after the "delay". Given the rumours of a late 2004 tape-out for r520 and intentions for an early summer release, I believe July 26th is already "late". That much should be obvious since the last few tape outs were unexpected.

 

[videoclone]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
800mhz? no.

Transistor count is too high. A 110nm card wont do 800mhz with 24 pipes and a PVP.

The only way you will see clockspeeds like this is Direct Phase-change or LN2 on the core.

I would expect 625mhz at the most for stock speeds.

Edit: with very limited overclockablility at that speed (625).

the 7800 core is made like a mobile 6800 that runs of next to nothing power .. thats why they have it on a single slot cooler ..... all thats needed is more Power to the core and this 800Mhz could be real... but as an ultra core it shouldnt be a problem if they dont have great yelds at this speed ..... they just need it out there too keep them at number 1. Fore marketing sakes, no matter how hard it will be to buy one.

 

[microAmp]

Originally posted by: So
How much is it going to cost? $800? $1000??? Call me when high end video card prices return to the land of the sane.

I thought I was crazy when I paied $300 for my then-top-of the line GF3 and then I thought I was nuts paying $350 for a 6800GT.

NO MORE.

Agreed, though for me was the 9700 Pro at $320. At least I got my $ out of it, though the 3D part of it died yesterday :'(

Maybe somebody should give a bump to a thread in GH about the death of gaming PC and point to prices

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: videoclone

Originally posted by: Acanthus
800mhz? no.

Transistor count is too high. A 110nm card wont do 800mhz with 24 pipes and a PVP.

The only way you will see clockspeeds like this is Direct Phase-change or LN2 on the core.

I would expect 625mhz at the most for stock speeds.

Edit: with very limited overclockablility at that speed (625).

the 7800 core is made like a mobile 6800 that runs of next to nothing power .. thats why they have it on a single slot cooler ..... all thats needed is more Power to the core and this 800Mhz could be real... but as an ultra core it shouldnt be a problem if they dont have great yelds at this speed ..... they just need it out there too keep them at number 1. Fore marketing sakes, no matter how hard it will be to buy one.

typically ultras only have a 0.1v increase over normal cards. Even with a substantial increase in voltage, youre not going to see 80%+ clockspeed increases. Im just trying to sort the FUD out from the even reasonable/realistic specs that the Ultra may have. 800mhz simply isnt possible on 110nm in my opinion. We will see.

 

[Cookie Monster]

You know they dont even need an ultra version, since the release of the 7800GT will hurt ATi more. Think about how many people will buy the GT, with its unlockable 4pipelines, costing 100 less, and plus the prices would drop as ATi releases their cards.

But thats if the Gts are unlockable, but i reckon they are since they are selling them from the ones that couldnt reach GTX standards.

A 7600GT at midrange for 200.... that would really hurt...

 

[Rock Hydra]

After the company from Satan Clara learned that R520 is going to use dual slot copper cooling in X850XT Press Edition-style, it gave the green light to the engineers that are trying to make the board to break every speed record set by Nvidia's G70 and ATU's R520 - OC gurus such as Macci and Oppainter excluded, of course.

Wow....

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: videoclone

Originally posted by: Acanthus
800mhz? no.

Transistor count is too high. A 110nm card wont do 800mhz with 24 pipes and a PVP.

The only way you will see clockspeeds like this is Direct Phase-change or LN2 on the core.

I would expect 625mhz at the most for stock speeds.

Edit: with very limited overclockablility at that speed (625).

the 7800 core is made like a mobile 6800 that runs of next to nothing power .. thats why they have it on a single slot cooler ..... all thats needed is more Power to the core and this 800Mhz could be real... but as an ultra core it shouldnt be a problem if they dont have great yelds at this speed ..... they just need it out there too keep them at number 1. Fore marketing sakes, no matter how hard it will be to buy one.

typically ultras only have a 0.1v increase over normal cards. Even with a substantial increase in voltage, youre not going to see 80%+ clockspeed increases. Im just trying to sort the FUD out from the even reasonable/realistic specs that the Ultra may have. 800mhz simply isnt possible on 110nm in my opinion. We will see.

Just a thought, but what if 7800GTX cores were clocked extremely low (430) as a trick.
I mean, Nvidia is trying to be real slick this gen. I think if a 7800GTX owner can get over 500MHz on air, single slot, 110nm process, then I don't see 800MHz out of the question for a dual slot refined 90nm core. Sure it's high, but maybe the architecture was done "very right" for it. All spec of course, just something to chew on.

 

[imported_humey]

Yip, that XFG 7800GTX extreme thats 490mhz core out the box, i would bet everything i own including my home that it will do the extra 10mhz and be 500mhz core with no issues.

 

[g3pro]

ATi is screwed, no doubt about it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: videoclone

Originally posted by: Acanthus
800mhz? no.

Transistor count is too high. A 110nm card wont do 800mhz with 24 pipes and a PVP.

The only way you will see clockspeeds like this is Direct Phase-change or LN2 on the core.

I would expect 625mhz at the most for stock speeds.

Edit: with very limited overclockablility at that speed (625).

the 7800 core is made like a mobile 6800 that runs of next to nothing power .. thats why they have it on a single slot cooler ..... all thats needed is more Power to the core and this 800Mhz could be real... but as an ultra core it shouldnt be a problem if they dont have great yelds at this speed ..... they just need it out there too keep them at number 1. Fore marketing sakes, no matter how hard it will be to buy one.

typically ultras only have a 0.1v increase over normal cards. Even with a substantial increase in voltage, youre not going to see 80%+ clockspeed increases. Im just trying to sort the FUD out from the even reasonable/realistic specs that the Ultra may have. 800mhz simply isnt possible on 110nm in my opinion. We will see.

Just a thought, but what if 7800GTX cores were clocked extremely low (430) as a trick.
I mean, Nvidia is trying to be real slick this gen. I think if a 7800GTX owner can get over 500MHz on air, single slot, 110nm process, then I don't see 800MHz out of the question for a dual slot refined 90nm core. Sure it's high, but maybe the architecture was done "very right" for it. All spec of course, just something to chew on.

Everything im saying banks on no 90nm shrink.

If they go down to 90nm, 800mhz is very possible. The OP specifically mentions no die shrink, which is what has me calling BS.

 

[Drayvn]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: videoclone

Originally posted by: Acanthus
800mhz? no.

Transistor count is too high. A 110nm card wont do 800mhz with 24 pipes and a PVP.

The only way you will see clockspeeds like this is Direct Phase-change or LN2 on the core.

I would expect 625mhz at the most for stock speeds.

Edit: with very limited overclockablility at that speed (625).

the 7800 core is made like a mobile 6800 that runs of next to nothing power .. thats why they have it on a single slot cooler ..... all thats needed is more Power to the core and this 800Mhz could be real... but as an ultra core it shouldnt be a problem if they dont have great yelds at this speed ..... they just need it out there too keep them at number 1. Fore marketing sakes, no matter how hard it will be to buy one.

typically ultras only have a 0.1v increase over normal cards. Even with a substantial increase in voltage, youre not going to see 80%+ clockspeed increases. Im just trying to sort the FUD out from the even reasonable/realistic specs that the Ultra may have. 800mhz simply isnt possible on 110nm in my opinion. We will see.

Just a thought, but what if 7800GTX cores were clocked extremely low (430) as a trick.
I mean, Nvidia is trying to be real slick this gen. I think if a 7800GTX owner can get over 500MHz on air, single slot, 110nm process, then I don't see 800MHz out of the question for a dual slot refined 90nm core. Sure it's high, but maybe the architecture was done "very right" for it. All spec of course, just something to chew on.

Everything im saying banks on no 90nm shrink.

If they go down to 90nm, 800mhz is very possible. The OP specifically mentions no die shrink, which is what has me calling BS.

I would have thought this would be quite costly to go to 0.11 then to 0.9 in about 9 months.

And then they would have to have 2 different lines running just to make one series of cards. And nVidia doesnt like to do that, as they arent making some of the 6800 range now and all they want is to sell the rest of their inventory to make room for the 7800 range.