-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
GeForce 9800 GTX (G100)
- Thread starter NoADSLyet
- Start date
The_Techie
Resident Techie
I'd have thought they'd release 1024MB cards before jumping straight to 2048MB... Seemed fishy
But I'm sure we'll see cards like this quite soon...
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Don't ask me i don't completely understand it
I'll never be happy with my 8800GT if these specs are true
The_Techie
Resident Techie
But they aren't
If I won the lottery, maybe... I doubt I'll see much of a performance increase with that card in any case, my CPU will roll over and die from exhaustion when trying to keep up
Those specs are false. The guys who translated the original Chinese version only understood the specs. In the full article they say it's only speculation. thats what the guys at nvnews at vr zone are saying.
Strange, usually XP doesn't start properly when I replace motherboards. I always do a clean install after any major hardware changes. You can count yourself lucky it did work
Great stuff
Well there is a fairly foolproof way. This is in old working system delete all IDE and USB as well as Video drivers, set to Standard VGA and IDE. No harm in deleting Sound drivers as well and some System drivers. Shut down, Switch off power, Do not reboot at all. Change to new system and start up in safe mode. Do not Let it install new drivers as yet and and check again system hardware. Delete any leftovers. Reboot again in safe mode and install new hardware drivers. Normally works fine for me.
As backup store a Ghost of the drive after hardware is removed. That way you can always pop it in a new system and carry on.
Last edited:
The_Techie
Resident Techie
I already have an Acronis True Image Home 10 image of a clean Windows install (and fully updated) so I just usually restore it
Now I don't have to feel so bad about my 8800GT
Redeemer69
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Oi -
I'll start by selling a lung and a kidney, maybe part of my liver
Well, if those specs are true, it'll probably be bottlenecked by every CPU out there...
Aish!.... Beanie - I happen to know some of the doctors involved in that Liver Kidney Transplant scam that went down here in Dbn - i can introduce you, but... i'm first in line...
The_Techie
Resident Techie
Aish!.... Beanie - I happen to know some of the doctors involved in that Liver Kidney Transplant scam that went down here in Dbn - i can introduce you, but... i'm first in line...
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
Those specs look very dodgy, I wouldn't believe them yet.
The card was first rumoured not to support DX10.1, and Nvidia even said something about that themselves.
"GDDR5 @ 0.25-0.5ns
15-25% lower TDP than 8800GTS"
And that just looks like speculation.
EDIT: I see it is false, too bad, those specs would have been nice.
The card was first rumoured not to support DX10.1, and Nvidia even said something about that themselves.
"GDDR5 @ 0.25-0.5ns
15-25% lower TDP than 8800GTS"
And that just looks like speculation.
EDIT: I see it is false, too bad, those specs would have been nice.
Last edited:
But it will probably cost like 10k
Late to the party but I arrived anyway...
Come on now people you could tell those specs were rubbish just from first glance.
1. Samsung only recently announced that their GDDR5 (6GHz vs 5GHz from Hynix and the others) would start shipping this Quarter, but at 256Mbit capacities, which is less than the current 512 we use on the cards we have today. That means for a 2GiB card as the specs suggest you would need 16 chips but since GDDR5 has small capacities for now it'd be 32 memory chips on a single PCB.
An 8800Ultra has 12 and look how big it is, how in the world would you get 32 chips onto a PCB that isn't the size of 3 Ultra cards lined up one after the other?
As if that's not far fetched enough. The current G92 cores (which the 9800 is based on, not G100!) house in the region of 754million gates. That's for 128 streams, so with 256 it would be at least 1.2Billion gates which is not possible on a 65nm process or the core would have to be the size of a slice of bread. Even if it was the size of a Sasko Sam best of both slice of bread there's no way it would run at anything more than 50MHz and produce far more heat than the 8800Ultra could when passively cooled.
So the claims of a lower TDP than the 8800GTS are in a single word, "rubbish"...
To get a GPU like that, we'd need a 32nm process as 45nm would make it still too big.
Come on now people you could tell those specs were rubbish just from first glance.
1. Samsung only recently announced that their GDDR5 (6GHz vs 5GHz from Hynix and the others) would start shipping this Quarter, but at 256Mbit capacities, which is less than the current 512 we use on the cards we have today. That means for a 2GiB card as the specs suggest you would need 16 chips but since GDDR5 has small capacities for now it'd be 32 memory chips on a single PCB.
An 8800Ultra has 12 and look how big it is, how in the world would you get 32 chips onto a PCB that isn't the size of 3 Ultra cards lined up one after the other?
As if that's not far fetched enough. The current G92 cores (which the 9800 is based on, not G100!) house in the region of 754million gates. That's for 128 streams, so with 256 it would be at least 1.2Billion gates which is not possible on a 65nm process or the core would have to be the size of a slice of bread. Even if it was the size of a Sasko Sam best of both slice of bread there's no way it would run at anything more than 50MHz and produce far more heat than the 8800Ultra could when passively cooled.
So the claims of a lower TDP than the 8800GTS are in a single word, "rubbish"...
To get a GPU like that, we'd need a 32nm process as 45nm would make it still too big.
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
Hahaha, I love that bread analogy.
But all true, it was a very bad attempt at speculation for the new chip.
