Rumors 9800GTX

helmutcheese · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:27

GDDR5 was only announced a few weeks ago (I posted info, think it was Samsung).

So not sure it will be mature enough in speed and timings relationship, I doubt it will be GDDR5 but be GDDR4, the 512bit is good though, had to be really.

I think the top card, not sure if the GTX or Ultra using whatever name but it will have 1GB of Memory IMO.

Azza · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:33

I think they may release a GDDR4 version first and then maybe do what ATI do and release the GDDR5 version later in the year with the extra memory.

ergonomics · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:35

2gb vram lol

Sinny · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:35

I would imagine 256 bit bus with 512mb of memory, they will most likely make this version later on (bit like 256mb 8800gt). no doubt it will be 65nm.

Memory looks a little over hyped, Knowing nvidia we will probably see GDDR5 towards the end of 2008/Q109. 2400 memory clocks would be more beleivable for gddr4.

Darkwave · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:40

rafster said:
more people should move to Vista x64

I'm using XP x64.

helmutcheese · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:40

No chance m8, the current GTX and Ultra have a bigger bus and more Memory.

They are going to use 512bit as ATI used it last year, so makes sence to give it 1GB of Memory and I still think it will be GDDR4, GDDR5 will have crap Timings for now and high £.

Jokester · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:49

I would expect 1GB and a 512bit bus, adding another 1GB of RAM will make it stupid expensive.

Jokester

helmutcheese · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:50

JimmahuK · 28 Dec 2007 at 13:58

I dont think so.

helmutcheese · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:00

JimmahuK said:
I dont think so.

To what part ? :confused:

BassPunk · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:09

it wont be 2gig as 1 gig isnt used yet

ergonomics · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:11

BassPunk said:
it wont be 2gig as 1 gig isnt used yet

1.5gb is used in nvidias workstation cards, and ati have 2gb cards also for workstations

Squink · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:12

BassPunk said:
it wont be 2gig as 1 gig isnt used yet

Fair point, but you could argue that 768Mb was pretty much unnecessary when the GTX first came out. I agree that 1Gb still sounds more likely though.

JimmahuK · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:14

helmutcheese said:
To what part ?

2GB of GDDR5 ... more likely to have 1GB of GDDR4.

bobert50 · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:16

roll on march

120fps solid on crysis @ very high would be nice

I don't expect much tbh...

Lightnix · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:18

Scougar said:
I don't see why. The only point there that may be slightly unrealistic is the TDP quote. 256 shaders seems realistic to me for a top end card. 780 Core? What's wrong with that? ATI are at 775 anyway, and easily go above 800Mhz. Lastly 65mn process, haven't they just done that?

Matthew

I'm not saying alone they couldn't be done, but together it just seems damn unrealistic. The current G92 cards are on a 65nm process, so doubling the amount of transistors and increasing the core clock by 170mhz, then saying it'll consume 10-15% less power is shooting a little high.

Herojuana · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:20

Supposing I wanted to get another 8800GT soon for SLi with my other one. Would the differene between 2 x 8800GTs vs 9800 series be worth it?

helmutcheese · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:23

JimmahuK said:
2GB of GDDR5 ... more likely to have 1GB of GDDR4.

helmutcheese · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:25

Herojuana said:
Supposing I wanted to get another 8800GT soon for SLi with my other one. Would the differene between 2 x 8800GTs vs 9800 series be worth it?

The top Flagship 9800 will probably beat 2x 8800Ultras SSC's in SLI for most games if not all.

The same for the 8800GTX beating 2x 7900GTX in SLI.

So depends what 9800 card you mean against the 8800GT's.

MHayes · 28 Dec 2007 at 14:43

It will be 1GB, 512mb bus and GDDR4.

The question is how much better clock per clock will it be, I can't see it being as big as the 7 to 8 series jump.

Shame graphics cards lagg behing CPU size wise. 65nm aint bad but if the ATI and AMD partnership had worked we could have caught up.