springs113to one of the poster's that spoke about ATIs shader clocks... i do believe that the 4800 series will have independent clocks...that should also be higher than previous iterations of their cards...i would think that they are trying to address their AA problems.

As for this post, I say bring it on Nvidia/ATI I want cheaper prices. I am content with the current lows that we have and I do want both companies to prosper, but I do want a good battle. Hopefully this round is even though in all or for the most part.

that was me...and yea i hope they do address this issue, independent shader clocks would be a real threat to the gt200 based cards

i wouldnt say that x850xt > 6800ultra and
x1950 > 79xx both of which are too close to call and can be made up with an oc, hell the x850 is a oc'ed x800 anyway. and my BFG 6800U OC kept up.

as for the new series'es, i really hope ATi comes thru on this one, id love to see genuine 50% gains over their old series (if they are that good ill buy one for sure), but nvidia has been preparing the GT200 since the 8800GTX was released, so i very much doubt ATi has given them anything to sweat about, theyre prolly jsut pulling the release ahead so ATi dont get as many sales in.

in any case its going to be a surely awesome time for gfx card fans, overclockers, tweakers, gamers, enjoy :D

Remember that ATI did a complete architecture rewrite after the 19xx series. Nvidia has kept the same basic core design since the 6xxx series. It is therefore much easier for ATI to increase the performance of their cards since most of the tough design challenges have already been conquered. All they have to do now is iron out the mistakes in the design and boost speed where is matters.

sounds strangely reminiscent of the unified shader architecture.... GT200 will be the third good stab at it.

"According to several sources" I haven't seen any sources say that yet, not even fudzilla who are usually on top of this kind of news. AMD will get to launch their card first anyway...

Die shrinks & architecture re-works are fine but the 9900GTX is going to have to put up some serious smoke to match the 4870x2 especially pp wise. The winner there gets my cash :D

The thing is a 512 bit bus is a no no.... unless the card is THAT powerful its a total waste-expect the card to cost around $800~$900 at launch!

tkpenaltyThe thing is a 512 bit bus is a no no.... unless the card is THAT powerful its a total waste-expect the card to cost around $800~$900 at launch!

i seriously doubt it will...if they learned that faster mem out weighs the bus, like ATi did

jbunch07i seriously doubt it will...if they learned that faster mem out weighs the bus, like ATi did

Err.... no. Faster mem will not outweigh a wider bus, however such a wide bus is not needed and the GPUs these days usually aren't able to make use of a 512 bit bus so its wasted. Faster mem will not provide the same bandwidth as a wider bit bus....

128bit vs 256bit... its pretty clear what the differences do.

tkpenaltyErr.... no. Faster mem will not outweigh a wider bus, however such a wide bus is not needed and the GPUs these days usually aren't able to make use of a 512 bit bus so its wasted. Faster mem will not provide the same bandwidth as a wider bit bus....

128bit vs 256bit... its pretty clear what the differences do.

true but im comparing 256bit to 512 and 384 there is obliviously a reason why the new standard seems to be 256... i think it seems to be the butter zone

jbunch07true but im comparing 256bit to 512 and 384 there is obliviously a reason why the new standard seems to be 256... i think it seems to be the butter zone

Yep, thats correct. The transistor count worries me; as in AMD vs Nvidia, unless Nvidia are just using a relabled 55nm G92 as a G200 AMD might have something that will block the light at the end of the tunnel.

this thread reminds me of this tinyurl.com/3ogkh

tkpenaltyYep, thats correct. The transistor count worries me; as in AMD vs Nvidia, unless Nvidia are just using a relabled 55nm G92 as a G200 AMD might have something that will block the light at the end of the tunnel.

yes i agree
seems to be nvidias thing atm, but i dont really want to make any judgments one way or another because both rumored specs are a little flaky and they are just that "rumors" but it would be nice to see ATi make a come back for a change, its going to be very anticipating!

craigothis thread reminds me of this tinyurl.com/3ogkh

QFT. How much can we trust the inquirer and VR Zone? I can certainly lay my trust on Fudzilla because they never actually put BS (and bother to correct themselves when something is wrong or updated).

we shall see which is faster in time i guess.

We all heard the ATI bells being rung before the 2900 was released and it didn't quite match up...

Duffmanwe shall see which is faster in time i guess.

We all heard the ATI bells being rung before the 2900 was released and it didn't quite match up...

true...the 2900 was a flop and didn't quite meet expectations but they learn from their mistakes...hopefully

TooFastI hope ati blows away nvidia!

im guessing its just going to be as fast as the current gtx:mad: . but im hoping its so much better.

tvdang7im guessing its just going to be as fast as the current gtx:mad: . but im hoping its so much better.

What?

My 2900pro is almost as fast as an 8800gtx (within 5 fps in most games). You're saying that a 50% boost in shaders and a 100% boost in TMU's as well as a 25% boost in clocks will only result in a 15% total speed boost?? :laugh:

flashstarWhat?

My 2900pro is almost as fast as an 8800gtx (within 5 fps in most games). You're saying that a 50% boost in shaders and a 100% boost in TMU's as well as a 25% boost in clocks will only result in a 15% total speed boost?? :laugh:

Theres a chance. Stay OT anyway.

forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=242644

Something to disappoint you guys who are rooting for AMD. Take it with a grain of salt tho

EDIT: Its a fake.

tkpenaltyforums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=242644

Something to disappoint you guys who are rooting for AMD. Take it with a grain of salt tho

EDIT: Its a fake.

OMG!! ALL ON 0MHZ!!

hatOMG!! ALL ON 0MHZ!!

Not that, that's normal with cards that W1zzard hasn't received info/data on :slap:.

If you notice where its supposed to display the res the last digit is a 4.... thats different to the real resolution where the last digit should be a 0. Its also funny how fast the Q6600 is running compared to the score :laugh:

HTCHere are the specs of both:

nVidia


ATI (compared to a 8800 GT)



The ATI has higher speed for both memory and GPU but it functions much cooler then the nVidia. I'm assuming that's because of the GDDR4, though i may be wrong.

Ok Ok but i just want to see in game performance not just numbers and specifications cause whats the point getting higher clocks if we can't feel its impact in game performance???

spearman914The first comparison was right. The second one is wrong. 1950XTX is good when it comes to image quality but 7900 GTX pwns benchmarking and has a slight raise in frames per second over the 1950XTX

1950xtx _easily_ outperforms the 7900gtx in _every_ game.

www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2007/test_nvidia_geforce_8800_gts_512/


1280 without AA, 36% (average) faster than 7900gtx
1280 with 4xAA, 78% (average) faster than 7900gtx

about the 512bit bus, if the GT200 is the rumored 384 shader, 64rop card we keep hearing about i wouldnt suprised at all to be honest.