» Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

SiliconDoc (12)   May 09, 2009 - 04:33 pm

» I love all the CEO's we have here You know it's been amazing to watch all the CEO's around the net that repeat what arises on hardware review sites everywhere. My problem is, ATI was losing 2 billion while all the little clucking parrots were spewing out their kooky ideas. (obviously kooky since ATI lost 2 billion while they screamed savings). Sometimes bigger still is better, and that USA motto isn't dead, as Nvidia was posting profits on those bigger cores (cept the q4 08 worldwide downturn)... So this whole little CEO's on every post site should just go away - it's so irritating watching some red rooster fan spew that and not point out the ATI losses and NVidia gains during their spew. I'm really sick of it. How about "ATI was losinbg so much money and not making a profit like NVidia, they HAD TO go cheap with a tiny core crammed full and hot like heck to just try to get by, but they still lost money doing it. What's so wrong with the TRUTH ? They tried to get by on the cheap, with tricks that kept that core hammered full and cooking like a rocket flame, and it did well for gaming, but it sure didn't make em a profit ! Loks like Nvidia is done being nice to them, and is going to DDR5 and 512 bit bus with MIMD - that just might destroy ati in top end market share. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

suryad (46)   May 07, 2009 - 07:13 pm | Edited on May 07, 2009 - 07:14 pm

I have 2 BFG overclocked 285 GTX's and a 750 W PSU does the job just fine. Which makes me think that for maybe an extra 100W the next gen video cards will work just fine. » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (445)   May 08, 2009 - 10:50 pm | Edited on May 08, 2009 - 10:54 pm » DUAL GPU WAY TOO HOT Highest.. single GPU: ~240W 2900XT 1GB dual GPU: ~260W HD4870X2 GTX295 only 214W? PCIE 1.0 has max 75W + 75W/6pin connector for 225W max PCIE 2.0 has max 300W with 8pin connectors. Impossible for 100W more. And, very unlikely mainstream cards over 150W requiring more than 1 connector, thus alienating 90%+ of market.. RV870 = Lil Dragon = few extra units but more efficient/flexible and smaller (like HD3850 vs HD2900XT). 2900XT had 512bit but poor performance - BW not issue: GPU physics/millions objects/photo lighting/video transcode etc all need fast efficient number crunching Link: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl......95_7.html#sect0 » Login to reply to this  xsile (4)   May 13, 2009 - 04:13 pm actually the 295gtx is 289w nVidia Series: GeForce GTX 200 GPU: GT200b x 2 Release Date: 2009-01-08 Interface: PCI-E 2.0 x16 Core Clock: 576 MHz Shader Clock: 1242 MHz Memory Clock: 999 MHz (1998 DDR) Memory Bandwidth: 223.776 GB/sec FLOPS: 1788.48 GFLOPS Pixel Fill Rate: 32256 MPixels/sec Texture Fill Rate: 92160 MTexels/sec Max Power Draw: 289 W Noise Level: Moderate Framebuffer: 1792 MB Memory Type: GDDR3 Memory Bus Type: 64x7 (448 bit) DirectX Compliance: 10.0 OpenGL Compliance: 2.1 PS/VS Version: 4.0/4.0 Process: 55 nm Shader Processors: 480 (240) Pipeline Layout: Scalar MADD+MUL Texture Units: 160 (80) Raster Operators 56 (32) » Login to reply to this  SiliconDoc (12)   May 09, 2009 - 04:24 pm » ATI has smaller core yet more heat The funny thing has been how ati's smaller cores were cooking much hotter, and except for 1-3 watts in 3d, used 30 more watts in idle, and somehow ati fans considered that a power win and efficient - when 1/10th 2d desktop time destroyed the tiny 3d advantage. So anyway, the red cards are burning up from electromigration, you can see that in the returns at sites like the egg. Their heatsinks burn my fingers, too. Nvidia has a bigger core on 200 top end and beats ati with ddr3. That bodes quite darkly if this article is correct and NVidia's improved core has ddr5 and a 512 bit width - twice the flops - we're talking red rooster DEATH. Hope they stay close in competition for pricing reasons, but Nvidia's massive added values should make the choice easy. Nvidia gained 6% desktop market share - at least that tells me people don't buy red rooster lies. I can't stand lies - especially in something scientific - spun with bs, not good. » Login to reply to this

Knuckles (1358)    May 06, 2009 - 06:01 pm

they will come with there own minor nuclear reactor. » Login to reply to this  goku2100 (154)   May 07, 2009 - 02:10 pm Nuclear reactor sold separately. » Login to reply to this  deimos47 (445)    May 08, 2009 - 10:31 pm » Nuclear reactor video card story First.. - with external power required: Voodoo5 5000 PCI/ 6000 quad - both never launched ;) - hot enough to 'require' fan: GF3 ~35W / GF4 ~40W - floppy power connector: 9700pro ~45W - 'molex' power connector: FX 5800/5900 Ultra 'deluxe salon professional hairdrier' with video acceleration feature ~60-75W. Also first dual slot cooler!! - dual 'molex' connector: 6800 Ultra ~72W Extreme version never really materialized. But even though power was onpar with last gen, nVidia 'required' 450W PSU. I think this is where the "need nuclear reactor" quote started. PS: first to 120/130W - X1900XT/X1950XT - damn those hungry beasts. Link: http://mark.zoomcities.com/images/gfx/GFXpowerchartby3d.png » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

SiliconDoc (12)   May 10, 2009 - 02:27 am | Edited on May 10, 2009 - 02:30 am

» It's very, very scary for red roosters! What would be the reason... hmmm.... " Since going beyond 512bit is impractical/impossible (Core i7 is 192bit). But, since both using GDDR5, odd nvidia going aggressive with 512bit when 384bit GDDR5 would be plenty. " Uhh, the problem is 384 bit is NOT enough, the core, with MIMD and the way they REMADE IT a REVOLUTION in videocard cores... uhh.. with TWICE the core processing power means they NEED DDR5 at 512 bit... . HELLO ! ( I can hear the raging red rooster fanboy rooters running around the barnyard in circles clucking and flapping their tiny wings all a tither, the red gobbler flopping back and forth - oh it's pandemonium! ) » Login to reply to this

SiliconDoc (12)   May 09, 2009 - 04:01 pm | Edited on May 10, 2009 - 02:33 am

» Why hurry when yer so far ahead already ? Nvidia is in no hurry, and if they do crush ati anymore, those 2 billion dollar ati losses could take down amd with them. They just "restructured" which is a fancy word for avoiding bankruptcy...amd ati are now reverse palm facing eachother in multi billion dollar losses each, with barely a multibillion (5-6) sales base. Word is NVidia has a MIMD instead of SIMD (multiple instead of single) a highly flexible and efficient chip coming, and I've already seen the downplaying cluckings of the red rooster tester fan sites... they're worried, don't want to talk about it, they see the writing on the wall already. We won't know till it plays out, it's going to be interesting, saw ati changed plans again and heard a two chip rumor for the next round - not sure if thats mobile or desktop - or even real. I'd start praying ati lasts though, if anything. » Login to reply to this

» Login to reply to this

SiliconDoc (12)   May 09, 2009 - 03:55 pm | Edited on May 10, 2009 - 02:38 am

» Yeah that would be too bad, huh Lord drooler, would be too bad if Larrabee destroys nvidia too late, and this article proves correct, and all the little clucking red rooster fans are stuck with an ati piece of crud half as fast as nvidia's, huh ! LOL Aww, poor baby red roosters, no place to turn but to another company to do the work ati failed at. lol - Oh I can hardly wait to see all the excuses! ________ 1 GHz Larrabee cores are required to maintain 60 FPS at 1600x1200 resolution in several popular games, 25 cores required for Gears of War with no antialiasing, 25 cores for F.E.A.R with 4x antialiasing, 10 cores for Half-Life 2: Episode 2 with 4x antialiasing. Performance on these games scales nearly linearly with the number of cores up to 32 cores. At 48 cores the performance drops to 90% of what would be expected if the linear relationship continued. Larrabee chips 32 x86 mini micro processor cores and come out in late 2009, fabricated on a 45 nanometer process. Chips with a few defective cores due to yield issues will be sold as a 24-core version. YES, GOOD FOR OLD GAMES, CAN'T EVEN PULL OFF CRYSIS. » Login to reply to this  xsile (4)   May 13, 2009 - 05:36 pm | Edited on May 14, 2009 - 10:17 am Personally I find it hilarious when folks like doc get on an berate and belittle people because they purchase a card from the company he seems to be so threatened by. I run 2 systems both of which are identical except the video cards, one is the 295gtx the other the R4890. The only real word difference that I see while playing games is that the ATI chokes on huge blooms of red (big fps drops). The Nvidia chokes on just about every single game when the shadows are turned all the way up. otherwise they are pretty much the same both in FPS and heat generation, at least thats what the water block thermostat shows. Now I could call him a Nvidiot, but that would make me one also since i bought a nvidia card also. » Login to reply to this

LazyGarfield (187)    May 06, 2009 - 05:37 am | Edited on May 06, 2009 - 05:39 am

Larabee wont destroy anything for quite some time... Why would it be? It´s just a gpu consisting of "old" x86-cpu´s... nothing special about it. As to rumors... I don´t give a rats ass about them. Copying rumors over the www is not really news... it´s pathetic. » Login to reply to this  LORD ORION (1368)   May 06, 2009 - 09:17 am It will... since everything is x86 instruction, adoption of larrabee will be immediate by developers. :) I predict doom for Nvidia in 1 year from Larrabee's launch. » Login to reply to this  LazyGarfield (187)    May 12, 2009 - 11:36 pm for one it´s not even sure yet that x86-code is even useful for 3D graphics and secondly it would have to proof first, that it is even fast enough I doubt that Intel can make it´s fast enough considering the performace of it´s recent GPU´s ;-) Not for graphics acceleration anyways except maybe raytracing (which has to be supported by game devellopers first). It will be serving special purposes like those who NV can already... (e.g. improving performance with converting and stuff) but for gamers I doubt that it will feature better than average performance which wont be enough. » Login to reply to this  Anonymous (-) May 06, 2009 - 01:02 pm nvidia not going to make a cpu unless they buy via. otherwise they can't get an x86 license. » Login to reply to this  Labotomizer (1077)    May 06, 2009 - 12:10 pm And if nVidia launches an APU or CPU? The current nvidia processors have substantially more horsepower than an Intel CPU, including i7, and are becoming more and more programmable each cycle. Intel may spur nvidia into competing on the processor front, which would be really interesting. » Login to reply to this

» Note: You need to be logged in to write a comment!