The next Gen thread - R700 and GT200

[BubbySoup]

Surely the GTX counts as a "high end" card... surely you're not trying to say the sales of the GTX was insignificant in their books... I personally disagree with that statement.

That's exactly what he is saying because it is true.

Sales of high end cards are truly a tiny % of their overall sales when compared to the low end/oem discrete market and, the big money maker, IGP's.

 

[Nico_Joey]

Seems like both companies are now trying to cater to the gamers (because they no their is some money to be had) , but for the lowest cost possible, using technology that is good, but not next-gen by any means.

And i cant see that changing unless for some odd reason either company wants to invest in new research/tech for next gen cards. Only for them to be out dated 1 possibly 2 years down the line. Seems where in a 'make do with whats best' situation.

Just my 2c

 

[TheGamingGeneral]

Afraid not, 9900's are the 65nm 9800's (which in turn are the old 90nm 8800's from 2006 shrunk down) they slinging out now, but shrunk again to 55nm, they want to get their 2006 8800's transferred onto the 55nm as quick as possible, as the 65nm's they on now are to hot.

Yup ^

Not just nvidia that are at that though, the R700 traces it's roots back to R600, although, I dunno if any of you fellas have heard but apparantly, ATI are putting out a GDDR3 varient of the R700 for may (or around the time of computex). If it can beat the 9800GX2, then there on to a winner (well, for about a month anyway).

I personally dont see a 7-8 series jump till end of this year if not next, all the sings seem to be evolutions of existing products rather than revolutions, and while, that can have benifits. For me, I wouldnt catogorise a proper next gen card untill we see something head and shoulders above the rest. I mean, when the GTX came out, it was quicker than two of ATI's best together :\ I want to see that again from either company (preferably ATI though, fed up of nvidia drivers).

Martyn

 

[jigger]

From a business perspective theres no justification or incentive to release a "next gen" card

High end cards must account for an almost insignificant % of overall sales for ATI and Nvidia, then take into account that majority of gamers are prob on 22" or below, that Crysis is one game in hundreds then why develop a new card, I wouldn't for sure

With the exception of Crysis and maybe one or two other titles under DX10, then who cares whether a new card gives 250fps in COD4 as opposed to 100fps (for example) it would be pointless, other than either company claiming to be clearly the performance crown champions

You have some very odd and old fashioned views IMO.

THERE ARE NO HIGH END CARDS, just two year old mid range cards that cost peanuts to make!. so the high end now account's for 0% of the market.

I take your point that most people use 1680x1050 to game at but i dont think thats by choice m8, i use a 24" and would buy a 30" in a heart beat if i could build a rig that could handle any game at 2560x1600, and IMO a cutting edge rig should be comfortable 2560x1600 and we should have higher res monitors comming to the market buy now.

As for the high end not making any money that just not the case anymore, there's plenty of profit in it, sales are very good and specialist retailers like Ocuk are booming the moment, but with a situation where people are looking to a second hand, 14 month old 8800 ultra as there next upgrade i think thats about to change.

This situation is not good for any PC enthusiast, game development is being held up and thats playing into the hands of the console market. Regardless of how anyone see's Nvidia's business plan the GPU market has been retarded by 18 months, and now we will be lucky to see new cards before 2009 .

 

[LoadsaMoney]

And you know this for certain? So all rumours saying the 9900GTX will be based on GT200 are false?

From what i gathered, everyone thought the GT200 was the next gen from Nvidia (including me), but then it was getting reported that the GT200 was just another refresh of the 8800's again, but this time on a 55nm process, and called the 9900's, as Nvidia are wanting to get away from the 65nm (which is the first refreshers of the 8800's called 9800's) and onto the 55nm process as quicky as possible, as the 65nm is to hot (which is why they had to downclock the GTS cores on the GX2 down to GT speeds), and its also safe to say that the 9900's are not the next gen, as the next gen cards from Nvidia would not be called the 9900's, as calling them 9900's, means they are a refresh of the previous cards, which are the 9800's.

 

[HeX]

From what i gathered, everyone thought the GT200 was the next gen from Nvidia (including me), but then it was getting reported that the GT200 was just another refresh of the 8800's again, but this time on a 55nm process, and called the 9900's, as Nvidia are wanting to get away from the 65nm (which is the first refreshers of the 8800's called 9800's) and onto the 55nm process as quicky as possible, as the 65nm is to hot (which is why they had to downclock the GTS cores on the GX2 down to GT speeds), and its also safe to say that the 9900's are not the next gen, as the next gen cards from Nvidia would not be called the 9900's, as calling them 9900's, means they are a refresh of the previous cards, which are the 9800's.

That isn't to say there won't be improvements over the current 65nm 8800's though.

Currently there is no information on the memory bus that is going to be used in the 9900... if it turns out to be 512bit with 1GB of mem then that'd be lovely

 

[Shocky-FM]

its also safe to say that the 9900's are not the next gen, as the next gen cards from Nvidia would not be called the 9900's, as calling them 9900's, means they are a refresh of the previous cards, which are the 9800's.

It's not safe to assume that at all, they called a refresh 9800GTX which by your logic should have been next gen but it’s not.

 

[Schnippzle]

From what i gathered, everyone thought the GT200 was the next gen from Nvidia (including me), but then it was getting reported that the GT200 was just another refresh of the 8800's again, but this time on a 55nm process, and called the 9900's, as Nvidia are wanting to get away from the 65nm (which is the first refreshers of the 8800's called 9800's) and onto the 55nm process as quicky as possible, as the 65nm is to hot (which is why they had to downclock the GTS cores on the GX2 down to GT speeds), and its also safe to say that the 9900's are not the next gen, as the next gen cards from Nvidia would not be called the 9900's, as calling them 9900's, means they are a refresh of the previous cards, which are the 9800's.

Not sure if Im confused or what, but by you saying that they will need to call them (for example) 10000's instead of 9900 to actually signify the new cards as a new breed rather than a refresh, surely that means that the step from 8800 to 9800 was not a refresh but an actual step up to the next generation?

If I follow what seems to be your logic, then NVIDIA should never have called the 9800series "9800" but instead 8900series as it is just a die shrink and not a new step up in generation. Following this, the new line of refreshes should be called 9000 or possibly even 8950.

 

[ChrisD.]

What I wrote in another post:

nVidia have the lead at the moment and I think ATI's focus has shifted a little over the last year or two. nVidia's purchasing of Ageia is very interesting and PhysX, CUDA, etc. on multi-GPU solutions is a very attractive proposition.

ATI have been working on a few things but nothing too exciting as far as I am aware. Another company (not ATI) developed a proof-of-concept reference board which was the HD3850-G3 (or something like that!) It was similar to the nVidia GX2's (with 2 SLI-GPU solutions on one card)... but the G3 had 3 of them sandwiched together and utilised 9 GPU's... nice. Sadly I don't think ATI plan to take this to market in any shape or form.

 

[Sparky]

Will be upgrading my 3870XT for sure as soon as "Real" next Gen cards are released.

 

[soul geezer]

if its not broken....

my 8800gtx is fine. why would i want to spend another half grand on a ''''next gen'''' card just to play crysis....? (which imo is the biggest pile of commercial crap ever released.) for me a game needs to have something special (IE - long term playabilty) and not just be another generic FPS with a heavily linear plot.

fair enough, i want the best like everybody else, but not if its going to cost me the earth for negligable frame rate gains. what some people seem to be missing is that nvidia dont seem to care about us consumers. they care about the shareholders....

 

[milkinc13]

have read that ATi's new cards will be using GDDR5, and on paper they "should" outperform Nvidia's new cards, but we eall know what happened with the X2900's

 

[Stolly]

Forget about an extra 5% of eye candy, what about keeping the same eye candy for a 25% reduction in power needs and heat output, maybe even allowing a fanless design.

I can't be the only one who is tired of noisy fans and who thinks the electricity company gets quite enough of my money.

 

[straxusii]

Looks like the 200 in GT200 is referring to 200 stream processors compared to the 128 of the GTS/9800GTX

 

[ten80p]

You have some very odd and old fashioned views IMO.

THERE ARE NO HIGH END CARDS, just two year old mid range cards that cost peanuts to make!. so the high end now account's for 0% of the market.

I take your point that most people use 1680x1050 to game at but i dont think thats by choice m8, i use a 24" and would buy a 30" in a heart beat if i could build a rig that could handle any game at 2560x1600, and IMO a cutting edge rig should be comfortable 2560x1600 and we should have higher res monitors comming to the market buy now.

As for the high end not making any money that just not the case anymore, there's plenty of profit in it, sales are very good and specialist retailers like Ocuk are booming the moment, but with a situation where people are looking to a second hand, 14 month old 8800 ultra as there next upgrade i think thats about to change.

This situation is not good for any PC enthusiast, game development is being held up and thats playing into the hands of the console market. Regardless of how anyone see's Nvidia's business plan the GPU market has been retarded by 18 months, and now we will be lucky to see new cards before 2009 .

Of course their are high end cards, even if they are technically re-hashed or old tech cards, both ATI and Nvidia have what they market as flagship cards, and they account for a very very small % of overall sales

As for profit, I agree the like of OCUK prob do well but I guess they are catering for enthusiasts, whereas ATI/Nvidia cater for the masses with 1% being enthusiasts, they'll be more interested on how many thousands of units they can shift to the likes of Dell for OEM/PC Builds than how many GX2's are being snapped up by people who have £350 to spend on a card they may replace within 6 months

I agree the situation in terms of games development moving to Consoles would be worrying though

 

[LoadsaMoney]

It's not safe to assume that at all, they called a refresh 9800GTX which by your logic should have been next gen but it’s not.

The 9800 GTX not being next gen is right, as its a refresh of the 8800's, the 8800's were the GTS, GTX, and the Ultra, so far the GTS and the GTX are the only cards that have been refreshed (well to tell the truth, the GTX hasn't been refreshed, but thats what Nvidia don't want you to know, as this is one of their cons you see) the only difference with the GTS being, the refreshed GTS has kept the same 8800 Anaming (which is yet another of their cons), and the supposed refreshed 8800 GTX hasn't, the refresh of the first 8800 GTS, should have been called the 9800 GTS, but Nvidia have been clever here, and is where the conning comes into play, as they have still called it the 8800 GTS, in doing so, lets the crafty ***** refresh it again, but call it a 9800 GTS (which is reportedly coming, along with a refresh of their 8800 GT, the 9800 GT), they have also been crafty with the refresh of the 8800 GTX, as that is supposed to be the 9800 GTX (the con i alluded to earlier), but in fact, its exactly the same card as the 8800 GTS 512mb (the original G80 8800 GTS refresh), so you see now, how the 9800 GTX is another Nvidia con, which sole purpose is to generate more money, as with calling it the GTX, they can now con the original 8800 GTX owners here as well (which is where they can generate some more money from), as everyone now thinks its the 8800 GTX refresh (even 8800 GTX owners do, as if wasn't called the GTX, they wouldn't look at it, as they know GTS is below their GTX, so now even they are getting conned into downgrading to one) which should be faster, and so start buying it, when in fact its really another GTS, which is actually slower than the 8800 GTX that its supposed to be the refresh off.

I tell you the ***** are robbing everyone blind here, as the 9 series are just a big con which everyones falling for, Nvidia are laughing their asses off right now, look at how many G92 8800 GTS owners have got shot of their cards for the 9800 GTX thinking its faster, when in fact, they have just bought the cards they sold back again, but now at higher prices, as Nvidia have increased them.

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.

 

[Mud]

Forget about an extra 5% of eye candy, what about keeping the same eye candy for a 25% reduction in power needs and heat output, maybe even allowing a fanless design.

I can't be the only one who is tired of noisy fans and who thinks the electricity company gets quite enough of my money.

You're not the only one, but around here the high end tends to imply expensive waterblocks too!

 

[queamin]

The 9800 GTX not being next gen is right, as its a refresh of the 8800's, the 8800's were the GTS, GTX, and the Ultra, so far the GTS and the GTX are the only cards that have been refreshed (well to tell the truth, the GTX hasn't been refreshed, but thats what Nvidia don't want you to know, as this is one of their cons you see) the only difference with the GTS being, the refreshed GTS has kept the same 8800 naming (which is yet another of their cons), and the supposed refreshed 8800 GTX hasn't, the refresh of the first 8800 GTS, should have been called the 9800 GTS, but Nvidia have been clever here, and is where the conning comes into play, as they have still called it the 8800 GTS, in doing so, lets the crafty ***** refresh it again, but call it a 9800 GTS (which is reportedly coming, along with a refresh of their 8800 GT, the 9800 GT), they have also been crafty with the refresh of the 8800 GTX, as that is supposed to be the 9800 GTX (the con i alluded to earlier), but in fact, its exactly the same card as the 8800 GTS 512mb (the original G80 8800 GTS refresh), so you see now, how the 9800 GTX is another Nvidia con, which sole purpose is to generate more money, as with calling it the GTX, they can now con the original 8800 GTX owners here as well (which is where they can generate some more money from), as everyone now thinks its the 8800 GTX refresh (even 8800 GTX owners do, as if wasn't called the GTX, they wouldn't look at it, as they know GTS is below their GTX, so now even they are getting conned into downgrading to one) which should be faster, and so start buying it, when in fact its really another GTS, which is actually slower than the 8800 GTX that its supposed to be the refresh off.

I tell you the ***** are robbing everyone blind here, as the 9 series are just a big con which everyones falling for, Nvidia are laughing their asses off right now.

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.

I agree my 320 will last a few more months and if the next batch aren't up to scratch i wait even longer

 

[Shocky-FM]

I tell you the ***** are robbing everyone blind here, as the 9 series are just a big con which everyones falling for, Nvidia are laughing their asses off right now, look at how many G92 8800 GTS owners have got shot of their cards for the 9800 GTX thinking its faster, when in fact, they have just bought the cards they sold back again, but now at higher prices, as Nvidia have increased them.

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask.

Bit of an exaggeration, there hardly a con, they are good cards and priced accordingly, I haven’t seen anyone who’s sold a 8800GTS 512MB for a 9800GTX.

With the way there naming the cards right now you just can't assume anything based in the product name alone which was my point, unless you have absolute proof of something stop giving out information as fact which may or may not be true, present the information as what it is, just another rumour.

I agree my 320 will last a few more months and if the next batch aren't up to scratch i wait even longer

9800GTX would give you a nice boost over a 8800GTS 320mb, I'm fairly certain he was refering to the 8800GTS 512MB as it's also based in G92.

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Bit of an exaggeration, there hardly a con, they are good cards and priced accordingly, I haven’t seen anyone who’s sold a 8800GTS 512MB for a 9800GTX.

With the way there naming the cards right now you just can't assume anything based in the product name alone which was my point, unless you have absolute proof of something stop giving out information as fact which may or may not be true, present the information as what it is, just another rumour.

They are a con, how is the 9800 GTX being a dearer 8800 GTS 512mb not a con, when its to get 8800 GTS 512mb owners flogging their cards, only to buy them back again at higher prices, but thinking they are getting a faster card (as they have now gave them the higher GTX monikor), and how is calling it a GTX also not a con, when its to also con 8800 GTX owners into thinking its their faster refresher and so buy it as well, thus downgrading as its not.

Im not giving out false information on the 9800's, im giving out facts, as they are out now, we all know the 9800 GTX is an 8800 GTS 512mb, only dearer, that is a fact.