Jelle MeesThis just can't be true.

Nvidia should name it 8900GTX if this is actually true...

See I agree should have saved 9800 for later I mean 8900 would follow like the 7900 did

strick94uSee I agree should have saved 9800 for later I mean 8900 would follow like the 7900 did

nvidia's attempting to assasinate the 9800 name which has loomed over them as their worst thrashing ever for years.

the is the graphics card equivalent of vista.

I cant belive all the fuz about this particulary piece of hardware :confused: Guys remeber its just a inanimate object that will be uselles in a couple of years :toast:

SouljaI cant belive all the fuz about this particulary piece of hardware :confused: Guys remeber its just a inanimate object that will be uselles in a couple of years :toast:

Yeah, but some of us live, breathe, eat and sleep benchmarking. lol

SouljaI cant belive all the fuz about this particulary piece of hardware :confused: Guys remeber its just a inanimate object that will be uselles in a couple of years :toast:

couple of years? it's useless now lol. the g92 gts os a few MHZ away from beating it's performance at stock, and to top it all of the gts is cheaper to boot and currently decending in price.

Hmm I just thought of this: what if these cards have been optimized to run Ageia physics? With some sort of extra instructions and cache logic, and such. I mean that they are 8800s with better physics support and Tri SLI capable?

Forget about the naming, they are just refreshes, Nvidia had to increase the number because Ati did first, and because they are doing it again with HD4000, that is going to be the same with 480 SPs instead of 320 and faster clocks. And according to leaked info 50% faster than HD3000. Neither a great increase mefinks.

EDIT: With that I don't want to downgrade Ati. I have nothing against increasing pipelines and clocks to the same architecture and calling it "next gen". In quotes because it's just an increment in the number. Both Ati and Nvidia never promised that "next gen" cards would be twice as fast as "old gen", just happened they followed that trend for some time lately. They don't "have" to deliver that kind of improvement, and if they don't deliver is not because they want to fool consumers. Anyway, anyone spending $300+ on a card without looking at benchmarks or knowing what exactly is buying, deserves to be fooled by the naming squeme IMO.

DarkMatterHmm I just thought of this: what if these cards have been optimized to run Ageia physics? With some sort of extra instructions and cache logic, and such. I mean that they are 8800s with better physics support and Tri SLI capable?

Forget about the naming, they are just refreshes, Nvidia had to increase the number because Ati did first, and because they are doing it again with HD4000, that is going to be the same with 480 SPs instead of 320 and faster clocks. And according to leaked info 50% faster than HD3000. Neither a great increase mefinks.

phys-x is gong to be put on 8 series so thats a nonfactor

re 50% .. 50% of 3XXX to 4XXX is greater than 0% of 9 series vs 8 ... only product that seems to have an increase is 8600 to 9600 ...

[I.R.A]_FBiphys-x is gong to be put on 8 series so thats a nonfactor

re 50% .. 50% of 3XXX to 4XXX is greater than 0% of 9 series vs 8 ... only product that seems to have an increase is 8600 to 9600 ...

As I said above, if we do a clock for clock comparison 9800GTX is 20% faster than 8800GTS 512. IMO either you believe in 3DMark's capability in comparing graphics cards or not. If you do the 20% increase in SM2+SM3 is there. If you don't, you don't have to worry about this thread at all and wait until gaming benchmarks come.

PhysX will run on 8 series as an implementation in CUDA, but what I was saying is some kind of hardware support (which is not the same as hardware implementation, I'm not saying that). I could think of something like different SSE versions on CPUs. You won't notice the difference in the surface, the chip is the same in transistor count, power consumption, pipelining, etc. Even the ALUs are the same. Neither you will see any difference in old programs that don't use the new instructions, but new programs can greatly benefit.

Very good point DarkMatter. However, wouldn't it have been too late for nVIDIA to implement that sort of support so soon after acquiring Ageia?

InnocentCriminalVery good point DarkMatter. However, wouldn't it have been too late for nVIDIA to implement that sort of support so soon after acquiring Ageia?

Maybe. But take into account that Nvidia could be planning the purchase long before it was made public. And take into acoount that they were trying to do GPU physics along with Havok in the past. Definately what was good for Havok, is good for Ageia.

benchmark freaks have to realize.. the future means single gpu is mid range.. mid range buyers are the winners here.. decent single (what used to be high end) gpu cards that will play games nicely at affordable prices..

the benchmark freaks.. (a genuine minority) are gonna have to dig deep in their pockets for mulitple gpus and mulitple cards..

the days of a new power guzzliing super chip every so often are gone.. times have changed..

trog

Wile EYeah, but some of us live, breathe, eat and sleep benchmarking. lol

Oh i forgot im on a tech forum :D Well im still pleased with my x1900xt and i dont see myself changing it anytime soon, so i presume im not that demanding when it comes to graphic cards. I just upgrade when i feel the need, not when a company releases something new that has a higher PR number and it tells you that its "so much faster" than your card :roll:

trog100benchmark freaks have to realize.. the future means single gpu is mid range.. mid range buyers are the winners here.. decent single (what used to be high end) gpu cards that will play games nicely at affordable prices..

the benchmark freaks.. (a genuine minority) are gonna have to dig deep in their pockets for mulitple gpus and mulitple cards..

the days of a new power guzzliing super chip every so often are gone.. times have changed..

trog

Couldn't have said it better.