Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Daily Tech has released some information on G80's.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 5, 2006 10:38:06 AM

Quote:
The marketing material included with the card claims NVIDIA requires at least a 450W power supply for a single GeForce 8800GTX, and 400W for the 8800GTS.

I'm still wondering you did all the n00bz claim we'll need nuclear reactors to power the cards :roll:

That's good news, as any recently built system will handle then fine, at least in single card setups.

The detials however, have been rumoured for some time now.
October 5, 2006 11:58:47 AM

Quote:
The theoretical texture fill-rate is around 38.4 billion pixels per second. (for 8800GTX)


Quote:
The theoretical texture fill-rate is around 24 billion pixels per second (7950GX2)


Quote:
The theoretical texture fill-rate is around 15.6 billion pixels per second (7900GTX)


Ouch. Don't think I will hit up DX 10 until march or so though. just a personal preference
Related resources
October 5, 2006 12:35:18 PM

Eh, looks like my nuclear reactor powered liquid nitrogen computer won't be needed. And I just got my design team to ship me the first preliminary blueprints. Sigh.

At least the specs don't sound too bad... but 800W recommended for SLI still hurts. I was planning on a 700W GameXStream, and I really don't want to divert from that...
October 5, 2006 1:05:44 PM

Can someone explain to me how the unified shaders are running on a different clock speed than the core :?:
October 5, 2006 2:08:44 PM

I'm not too bothered by how much power it uses, I just purchased a 700w gamexstream OCZ PSU. It should be enough, probably even for SLI since its an above average PSU. Cost for power will be negligable to me at least over the course of the year. I'll pay that price if this thing performs THAT much better than current gen.

Sounds like it'll be released right around the time I'll be finishing my build since I am very seriously considering Kentsfield instead of Conroe. Good timing all around for those who have played "wait and see".

I am curious what ATI has up its sleeve to combat this but I'll go with whatever is most powerful at the time I finish up my build and go with it.
October 5, 2006 2:09:29 PM

The little gremlins that do shading work harder than the little elves that power the core...

I really have no clue, although they should be about the same. But then, I don't know how the micro-architecture of graphics cards work. Since their two different speeds, that must means there are two different clock cycles... shrug
October 5, 2006 3:29:34 PM

Quote:
The marketing material included with the card claims NVIDIA requires at least a 450W power supply for a single GeForce 8800GTX, and 400W for the 8800GTS.

I'm still wondering you did all the n00bz claim we'll need nuclear reactors to power the cards :roll:

That's good news, as any recently built system will handle then fine, at least in single card setups.

The detials however, have been rumoured for some time now.

Well, expect even more hungry powered video-cards. I received a white paper on 225W and 300W pci-e video card white paper to review. And if this one is a 225W board, well, there's probably a more powerful card on it's way....
October 6, 2006 2:34:38 AM

Hooray! My Enermax Liberty 620W will suffice for DX10!
October 6, 2006 3:22:52 AM

Man we have to upgrade our psu to get this thing running. On top of that I don't have a good feeling for it's pricing. I'm guessing $600 for the GTX and $400+ slower one.
October 6, 2006 12:40:19 PM

Quote:
Man we have to upgrade our psu to get this thing running. On top of that I don't have a good feeling for it's pricing. I'm guessing $600 for the GTX and $400+ slower one.


Yeah, you're probably right, but then, it would be wise to wait until february or march to get one, as prices will be lower and more models available (from both Nvidia and ATI)
October 6, 2006 12:58:42 PM

Yeah, I was planning on buying my comp december this year, but I'm putting it off 1Q of next year, when price v. performance hits its sweet spot.

Still can't decide on quad or not, depends on how much it costs... shrug. And I need a new monitor.
October 6, 2006 1:36:14 PM

hmm sli 800w
C2Q 130W
3*HDD 2*cd drive ~80W
others ~50W
watercooling (prob a must at these power requirements) dual loop ~30W
i was also thinking a 230W peltier but may have to leave it out now
total - peltier = 1.09Kw
looks like ill be running a dual psu setup then (may have to run 3 if overclocking) oh well will make for some interesting builds!!!!!! 8O
October 6, 2006 5:45:32 PM

Quote:
Yeah, I was planning on buying my comp december this year, but I'm putting it off 1Q of next year, when price v. performance hits its sweet spot.

Still can't decide on quad or not, depends on how much it costs... shrug. And I need a new monitor.


Don't know about your quad core needs, but i don't think it's a good upgrade before q3 '07, as Intel will release true quad core and bearklake (hope this is spelled right. Damn Intel for choosing this odd names for processors - at least AMD's core naming it's easier to remeber...just remind british cities...manchester, windsor, winchester, etc), when ddr3 and fsb 1333 will be available and amd will have it's k8L out for some nice competition and hopefully war price!!!

On the monitor, I've got a Dell 2005 FPW and it's great...As you're aiming at D10 boards, you should get the Dell 2407 FPW, which is a really nice monitor (apple got some nice ones too, but as Dell, besides the quality of the monitors, has great support and they gave me a nice discount on it, I feel compelled to recomend Dell monitors :D  ).
October 6, 2006 8:04:17 PM

I personaly have a Samsung 204T, its an older version of their current 20" 1600x1200 UXGA flat panel monitor, it is amazing. it is a 16ms repsonse time but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is plenty fast, I don't know what people are complaining about, I have no issues with BF2, NFS MW or anything. While I intially thought about getting a Dell monitor, I decided against it because the Samsung one was cheaper and it was just as good. :wink:
October 6, 2006 8:36:10 PM

I was looking at the Acer 22" and the Spectre 22" monitors. Both are widescreen with decent specs, and pretty cheap at only $300.

I currently have the Dell 17"... not the generic one, but the nice one with usb hub and DVI, yadda yadda yadda. It's nice, but too small. I like the new Dell's but the price is still a bit high. Hopefully it'll go down by next year.

I'm running a 2yr old laptop right now, 2 yr and 2 months as of now. I really really need a new computer, since I've been stockpiling games since 2005 but can't play any of them. 1Q of 07 might be the longest I'll wait. DDR3 probably won't be widespread until 08, so I'm discounting that. I really want a native quad-core, but I don't want to wait that long, otherwise I'll be running a 3yr old laptop...

FSB 1333, yummy... but don't know how much diff that will really make.
October 6, 2006 9:25:07 PM

Quote:
I personaly have a Samsung 204T, its an older version of their current 20" 1600x1200 UXGA flat panel monitor, it is amazing. it is a 16ms repsonse time but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. It is plenty fast, I don't know what people are complaining about, I have no issues with BF2, NFS MW or anything. While I intially thought about getting a Dell monitor, I decided against it because the Samsung one was cheaper and it was just as good. :wink:


My brother has a 17" Samsung, and it's a great monitor, fast, color precise (well, at least where my poor old eyes can see... :wink:)  and all the nice stuff.

Either a Dell, Apple or Samsung are great choices for monitors at reasonable prices (you can always get a NEC if you've got 1000+ bucks or even an Eizo if you've won the lottery...)
October 6, 2006 9:30:43 PM

ViewSonic monitors are very good bang for the buck imo
October 6, 2006 9:31:55 PM

Quote:
I was looking at the Acer 22" and the Spectre 22" monitors. Both are widescreen with decent specs, and pretty cheap at only $300.

I currently have the Dell 17"... not the generic one, but the nice one with usb hub and DVI, yadda yadda yadda. It's nice, but too small. I like the new Dell's but the price is still a bit high. Hopefully it'll go down by next year.

I'm running a 2yr old laptop right now, 2 yr and 2 months as of now. I really really need a new computer, since I've been stockpiling games since 2005 but can't play any of them. 1Q of 07 might be the longest I'll wait. DDR3 probably won't be widespread until 08, so I'm discounting that. I really want a native quad-core, but I don't want to wait that long, otherwise I'll be running a 3yr old laptop...

FSB 1333, yummy... but don't know how much diff that will really make.


Well, seeing your needs, you should get a new pc soon. But I don't know if going Quad Core now would be the best solution, as C2Q will be only in Extreme Edition now ($1000+), and might not bring the benefits you'd expect for the money in the shor term. I think you'd be better going C2D (maybe the E6700, which is clocked equal to C2Q), as most games are still single core games, and the you'd get the same benefit for them. But if you're into doing a lot of video editing and stuff, you might benefit a lot more of C2Q. Either way, you could always move to a quad core later next year, when they start selling the non-extreme version of C2Q.

PS - Don't forget to wait for the new nforce 690 boards...they're about to be released and are the the 590 with the c55 instead of c19, that is on the 590 boards available now. :wink:
October 6, 2006 9:54:06 PM

nforce 6 already? damn
October 6, 2006 10:19:57 PM

Quote:
nforce 6 already? damn


no they are just renaming them so not to confuse people between the good board (the one with c55 with much better overclocking abilities) and the not so good one (590 with the c15) with poor overclocking capabilites
October 6, 2006 10:25:48 PM

Quote:
hmm sli 800w
C2Q 130W
3*HDD 2*cd drive ~80W
others ~50W
watercooling (prob a must at these power requirements) dual loop ~30W
i was also thinking a 230W peltier but may have to leave it out now
total - peltier = 1.09Kw
looks like ill be running a dual psu setup then (may have to run 3 if overclocking) oh well will make for some interesting builds!!!!!! 8O


wow your estimation on power requirements is way off...
when nvidia says that there 8800GTXs will need a 800W psu that includes the rest of the system too, that must be the most ignorant thing to say that you need a 800W psu just for the graphics cards...

obviously things are not adding up when a 450W psu can power a single 8800GTX, that was about the requirement for a 7900GTX, and the psu recommendations for 7900GTXs in sli was like 550-600W depending on the maker, so don't expect that a 700W psu won't be able to handle a quad core cpu(overclocked if you want) with two 8800GTXs and a few hds to go with it

so when nvidia recommends a 800W psu just like when they recommend that you have a psu that supports 24A on the 12v rails that includes the entire system, NOT just the graphics card, so not only is 800W overkill so is your estimate that you'll need a 1KW or more psu
October 7, 2006 1:52:20 AM

i guess i'm preaching to the choir here, but just trying to save people a few bucks i guess, atleast it isnt my money their wasting :D 
October 7, 2006 7:26:55 PM

i'll be waiting
!