Not really as the G80 is the high end chip while the G84 is the more mainstream, budget oriented chip. It's like comparing the 7900 to the 7600, the 7900 will beat the 7600 and perform better, but that performance comes at a price (being more costly). So no, the G80 will outperform the G84, but once supplies stabilize you'll find that the situation is more akin to the 7900 vs. the 7600.
The article says nothing about the G80 getting "outdated" the Nvidia naming scheme just moves like that. The G80 is high-end and the G84 is mainstream.
Is there anything that makes you believe that the R600 will be better? I mean besides hearing that ATI and Nvidia are trying to do this two different ways I haven't heard anything about performance or benchmarks. I would love to hear your input as I honestly haven't heard anything
He didn't say R600 would be better. He said people should wait for it.
It's a good idea, too. If it isn't better, you can still buy an 8800. If it is, then you can get R600 instead. It's a little hasty to be buying such an expensive product when the competition's releasing their equivalent so soon.
Right now, the reasons to get an 8800 are:
1) ZOMG I must have the very best RIGHT NOW!
2) If you think it's better than the R600 anyway (no real evidence either way)
The reasons to wait fro R600 are:
1) I can't take full advantage of the hardware anyway (No DX10 games)
2) The R600 might be better, or worse, it's good to be able to consider all the options, instead of having only one option to choose from
3) R600 will be out really soon. Waiting another month or two won't kill me
unless, say, your computer explodes and shrapnel that otherwise would have been blocked by the monstrosity that is the 8800, hit you in the head, killing you instantly.
Some times, its best to buy now, to save your life.
"the R600 combines the X2 technology we employ in our AMD processor line chips and effectively creates two x1950xtx in one chip. We plan on having dedicated ram busses supporting DDR4 at a maximum amount of 2GB for the enthusiast market, and 1GB standard. The watt consumption is 615watts per card and to prevent any necessary upgrades, they have an external power brick. More news to follow."
Not sure I'd say this is a bad time to buy a high-end card in general. It depends on the person and their upgrade needs, maybe building a new system and want the current best.
There is always, especially in the GPU market, someone coming out with a 1-up card or technology. To say theres no reason to get the G80 until R600 arrives then thats half a generation wait almost in GPU time assuming R600 doesn't come out until Feb-March which most sites estimate is the expected arrival time.
I for one am not made of $ by any stretch but I may very well buy a 8800GTX before R600. I won't feel ripped off if I make that choice because I know how the market goes and waiting for the next thing 2-3 months down the road will trap you in an endless cycle of waiting.
Anyway, there are certainly good reasons to wait and see for those not in a hurry right now. For those that are then knock yourself out and enjoy that new card because the best reason to get one is that it does blow everything else out of the water right now DX10 games or not.
My bad, I should actually read these things sometimes hehe
Yeah, I totally agree for waiting for it. In the very least it should get cheaper once the R600 comes out. Ahhh... my new computer will be built in Feb. Should be an exciting time for me!
Quote :
He didn't say R600 would be better. He said people should wait for it.
It's a good idea, too. If it isn't better, you can still buy an 8800. If it is, then you can get R600 instead. It's a little hasty to be buying such an expensive product when the competition's releasing their equivalent so soon.
Right now, the reasons to get an 8800 are:
1) ZOMG I must have the very best RIGHT NOW!
2) If you think it's better than the R600 anyway (no real evidence either way)
The reasons to wait fro R600 are:
1) I can't take full advantage of the hardware anyway (No DX10 games)
2) The R600 might be better, or worse, it's good to be able to consider all the options, instead of having only one option to choose from
3) R600 will be out really soon. Waiting another month or two won't kill me
I agree with Talon, there's always gonna be something better just a few months away. Who knows, maybe when the R600 comes out in Feb, there will be a GeForce 8900 coming in June. At some point you probably don't want to keep waiting for the next best thing, because there will aways be a next best thing. I guess each person needs to make up his own mind.
DDR3 generation doesn't mean it's going to be faster; the X1950XTX uses DDR4 and the 8800GTX is usually around 2x as fast as it.
DDR4 does clock faster and is more energy effecient (always good in this day and age, a 1950 equiped with DDR4 performs some 30% faster than one with DDR3, or so I've read), I think what you're pertaining too is the GPU core and the 8800 will be faster even with DDR3 simply because it is a brand new core architecture and as such does things a little different while the 1950 core is a revised card of an architecture that has been out for a while now.
Anyone who got the pre-Christmas nVidia GeForce 8800 cards will be quite annoyed by March - April - May 2007
Imagine another +40 to +60% jump in performance (depends on settings).
Also imagine the power of 2 x X1900 XT cards on one GPU, with GDDR4 at 2.4 GHz to boot - because that is basically the level of performance they'll be competing against.
aren't you guys the least bit crazy over what's just been said? If it has the power of two 1950xtx has anyone thought it might be a dual-core 1950xtx with 64 4-way shaders EACH with GDDR4? You can forget the arms race if ATI has even coughed at the revision of that core with speculatory stats like these. Who knows, it could be what i just said and ATI is holding back a huge suprise just like nvidia did to us.
I dont think it'll have 2 x 256 bit GDDR4 at 2.4 GHz for just 'one much more advanced core on a die shrink'.
A switched 512 bit interface, maybe.
256 bit x 2.4 GHz GDDR4 = Far more likely, but that is still 76.8 GB/sec connected to a GPU with a 512 bit ring bus memory controller.
(ATI get better utility out of what VRAM throughput they have than nVidia IMHO, this does not mean their cards are always faster however).
Considering it will not be long until nVidia have 105.6+ GB/sec (VRAM peak) cards on the market if I was ATI I'd be planning something big for March / April '07.
Either way ATI will beat the GeForce 8800 GTX by a good margin just 3 months after Christmas, or nVidia will with a refresh part.
DDR3 generation doesn't mean it's going to be faster; the X1950XTX uses DDR4 and the 8800GTX is usually around 2x as fast as it.
DDR4 does clock faster and is more energy effecient (always good in this day and age, a 1950 equiped with DDR4 performs some 30% faster than one with DDR3, or so I've read), I think what you're pertaining too is the GPU core and the 8800 will be faster even with DDR3 simply because it is a brand new core architecture and as such does things a little different while the 1950 core is a revised card of an architecture that has been out for a while now.I understand perfectly the benefits of DDR4 and the performance improvements over DDR3, however the previous poster's reasoning for the R600 being faster was "DDR4 support" when faster memory will not likely be the cause of the R600's superior performance.
It'll be a combination of faster VRAM (be it GDDR3 at up to 1.8 GHz or far more likely GDDR at 2.2 to 2.4 GHz), and the new GPU.
The new GPU will have a much higher transistor count (performance) than the existing X1950 XT.
Typically the aim to release a flagship product with balanced GPU core performance, and enough VRAM throughput to really feed it.
Just one or the other is rather pointless.
As we've already seen the X1950 XT scaled quite well when going from GDDR3 to GDDR4 at just 2.0 GHz - Did it not ? - Something about ATI owning many of the patents that went into GDDR4, I don't even know for sure if nVidia can cross-licence it. (Or if they can it'll be through a GDDR4 manufacturer that needs to pass costs onto nVidia, which will put ATI in a better state price/performance wise anyway, and they need to regain heaps of market share after AMD bought them out).
In fact, effectively, AMD now own all the GDDR4 patents, that is not too shabby.
I'd be expecting about +76% (if chipset/CPU doesn't bottleneck) performance in high resolution with 4x FSAA more performance with R600 vs Radeon X1900 XT.
Of that (compunding) performance gain +33% will come from the GDDR4, the majority of the performance boost will be the new GPU architecture. This has been the case historically once memory got fast enough (eg: GeForce 2 MX - 400 series, vs Riva TNT2 Ultra), and has been ever since.
Frankly I look forward to the card, and hope it has a low power consumption at the desktop / while mostly idle, and is quite (fan noise wise) when under high load.
Any 'extra' VRAM throughput they get on it will be due to a better memory controller on the GPU itself and/or wider than 256 bit interconnect to the GDDR4. It'll have at least 76.8 GB/sec peak for VRAM anyway, but hopefully double that (153.6 GB/sec peak) using 512 bit interface. (Which is a pipedream, that only reinforces the fact that most the gain will come from within the GPU itself, not without - unless you count the power source that is - ).
"the R600 combines the X2 technology we employ in our AMD processor line chips and effectively creates two x1950xtx in one chip. We plan on having dedicated ram busses supporting DDR4 at a maximum amount of 2GB for the enthusiast market, and 1GB standard. The watt consumption is 615watts per card and to prevent any necessary upgrades, they have an external power brick. More news to follow."
(If this is true) Maybe ATi merging with AMD isn't such a bad thing after all. Trading resources and technology may just give us a hell of a DX10 graphics card. A GPU prepared power source will be a real PSU saver.
I want the Geforce 2 Mx400 to come out in an aniversery edition. Would be great if both companies released older cards in special silver boxes for only $100.
As to the title of this thread and the OP.... YES ALL CARDS GET OUT DATED SOON ENOUGH. Spending 600 bucks you would think it woud last, but it doesnt. Get over it... nothing new.
I payed $850 for a Pent3 733 mhz processer. Is it out dated? yes. Worth $850? No. You payed $600 for the 8800. Is it out dated? Not yet. Worth $600? No.
Btw, I hope it doesnt take 5 replies to get back to me.
Actualy, my Geforce 6150 can play Oblivion at those settings, and its an IGchip. You just payed $600 bucks for something that do exactly what mine can.... albeit at 3fps, but who cares right? its not DX10.
Speaking of a moron. You just posted 5 seperate times (repeating a post), when you could have just posted once.
How much did you pay for your 8800gtx. How much did I pay for my X1900XT. What can your card do that mine cannot?
Exactly.
You an innate fool, who blatently thinks you are far superior when in fact you are worthless wazz.
LMAO. How about you you words buddy.
Back on topic though, 1280x1024 is pathetic, especially when you buy a $700 video card. You should have used that money to buy a better monitor you mongoloid.
Its not that I cannot see you pictures you idiot, its that they worthless, innane pictures of nothing.
Here are my thoughts, not that anyone will really care. I bought the 8800 GTS knowing that Direct 10 games were not available yet. The reason I did is because I sold my X1900XT for a decent amount and I only had to pay around $150 to upgrade to the GTS. I hope the R600 is going to be a good card because if isn't then there is no competition.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.