Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Any News On The Geforce 8900?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Geforce
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
May 16, 2007 7:12:24 AM

Just wondering if there has been any talk about the 8900. It seems like it really hasnt been talked about for several months and no news has surfaced on it to my knowledge but I was wondering if you guys may have heard any rumors.

I know people were speculating that it would be released right around this time.

So whats the news?

More about : news geforce 8900

May 16, 2007 11:07:22 AM

http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=129309

It seems that 8900 GS will be the "8600 ultra" everybody is waiting for, 96 PS and 256 bit memory interface. It looks like 8600 GTS is going to die, to crappy to expensive.
If it's true NV is gonna make a price hit into Ati lineup.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 11:10:22 AM

Ever heard of the 2900xl?
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
May 16, 2007 12:26:12 PM

My uninformed assumption is that nVidia isn't being pressed to push the performance of their cards, due to lack of competition in the top tier performance market.

If they released a 8900 now, it would just compete with their own product (the 8800GTX).

I still wish they released the 8900 however, my eVGA step-up dealine is coming up.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 3:33:19 PM

Quote:
http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=129309

It seems that 8900 GS will be the "8600 ultra" everybody is waiting for, 96 PS and 256 bit memory interface. It looks like 8600 GTS is going to die, to crappy to expensive.
If it's true NV is gonna make a price hit into Ati lineup.


That information is long ago expired.

nV already said there will in fact be bringing out a GF8600Ultra which will compete against the RV670/HD2900Pro, and considering the leakage problems with 80nm it's unlikely any high-end part is going to be 80nm, might as well move to 65nm at this point. Also of course no GF8800Ultra on that list.

That list (which first surfaced at OCW) has pretty much been debunked as a credible roadmap.
May 16, 2007 4:32:35 PM

Quote:
My uninformed assumption is that nVidia isn't being pressed to push the performance of their cards, due to lack of competition in the top tier performance market.


Exactly! All of the 8900s they had lined up ready to beat down the 2800 have probably been given to the children of the executives at Nvidia. No sense in besting your own products.
May 16, 2007 4:58:24 PM

in order for 8900s to come out, ati-amd must steps up. yes the 8800 ultra just came out. i dont see the points of nvidia releasing new cards, they has been selling well so far. i think ati-amd is holding back nvidia. what happened to ati since amd took over, we need the two companies to compete so we can new cards to play with.
May 16, 2007 5:20:58 PM

These new cards are still power hungry and occupy two slots spaces. I will wait for better ones possibly from ATI
May 16, 2007 5:26:14 PM

lol, i dont thinks youll get anything better from ATI, the 2900s are huge and noisier.
May 16, 2007 5:33:45 PM

Yay if its true, then im really looking forward to the 8600 ultra with 256 bit. Seriosly the mid range is where they make the most money and since the 8600gt doesnt seem to have the 600series performance, the new 600series will surely kick ati's ass.
a b U Graphics card
May 16, 2007 7:16:38 PM

Quote:

Exactly! All of the 8900s they had lined up ready to beat down the 2800 have probably been given to the children of the executives at Nvidia. No sense in besting your own products.


Except for the fact that it still costs them more to make the GF8800 than it would be to make a smaller version (smaller not less capable folks).

And the GTS-320 is a very inefficient chip for it's price range, same cost as a GTX for the chip.
May 17, 2007 1:48:17 AM

I wonder if we'll see it within the next 3 months.
May 17, 2007 2:02:40 AM

I've heard of it... it will SUCK! Suck your money out of your wallet and the electricity out of you wall outlet. The one thing that every Nvidia fanboi needs to worry about now is if Nvidia can do a die-shrink to thier gpu's to lower their power usage and heat output. I beleive the 8900 will be an "unlocked" G80 core with more stream processors and GDDR4 memory. It will be a nice card all in all and probablly suck just as much power as a 2900xt. After the release of the 8900 though Nvidia will be tapped out and Microsoft will probablly end up buying them. Remember this post!
May 17, 2007 1:02:54 PM

Quote:
I've heard of it... it will SUCK! Suck your money out of your wallet and the electricity out of you wall outlet. The one thing that every Nvidia fanboi needs to worry about now is if Nvidia can do a die-shrink to thier gpu's to lower their power usage and heat output. I beleive the 8900 will be an "unlocked" G80 core with more stream processors and GDDR4 memory. It will be a nice card all in all and probablly suck just as much power as a 2900xt. After the release of the 8900 though Nvidia will be tapped out and Microsoft will probablly end up buying them. Remember this post!


A die-shrink would be nice.

Why compare the 8900 GTX with the 2900 XT, it's 3 generations above it. Let's count, 8800 GTS a bit better than 2900 XT, 8800 GTX a lot faster than 8800 GTS, 8900 GTX better be faster than 8800 GTX or there' no point in releasing it.

Why in heck would Microsoft buy nVidia???
May 17, 2007 2:22:49 PM

Well ATI is supposed to have a high-end card out sometime in Q3. Whether its the 2900xtx or the 2950, it'll be 9 months late to the party, and with all that design time, it should outperform the 8800gtx. I can't see any other reason to further delay launching a highend product unless it was to pinch every bit of performance from it.

I'd expect Nvidia to launch the 8900's right around the same time in order to remain on top.
May 17, 2007 3:02:40 PM

Quote:
I've heard of it... it will SUCK! Suck your money out of your wallet and the electricity out of you wall outlet. The one thing that every Nvidia fanboi needs to worry about now is if Nvidia can do a die-shrink to thier gpu's to lower their power usage and heat output. I beleive the 8900 will be an "unlocked" G80 core with more stream processors and GDDR4 memory. It will be a nice card all in all and probablly suck just as much power as a 2900xt. After the release of the 8900 though Nvidia will be tapped out and Microsoft will probablly end up buying them. Remember this post!


A die-shrink would be nice.

Why compare the 8900 GTX with the 2900 XT, it's 3 generations above it. Let's count, 8800 GTS a bit better than 2900 XT, 8800 GTX a lot faster than 8800 GTS, 8900 GTX better be faster than 8800 GTX or there' no point in releasing it.

Why in heck would Microsoft buy nVidia???

I think you're confused what a "generation" is. Overall I agree that an 8900 GTX should not be compared to a 2900 XT... just think you could have worded it better.

And as far as Microsoft... nah... they're not buying Nvidia... Intel is the one to watch.
May 17, 2007 3:09:40 PM

wait a minute what happened to the ATI 2800s? wouldnt that compare with the NV 8800's just like 1800s vs. 7800s? 2900 vs 8900?
a b U Graphics card
May 17, 2007 3:25:02 PM

Quote:
Well ATI is supposed to have a high-end card out sometime in Q3. Whether its the 2900xtx or the 2950, it'll be 9 months late to the party,


Where do you come up with that figure? If it's 9months late to the party that would mean it was a pre-Xmas '06 part !!
Even with last year's original summer launch timetables that wouldn't mesh with any of the roadmaps.
May 17, 2007 4:21:18 PM

Quote:
I've heard of it... it will SUCK! Suck your money out of your wallet and the electricity out of you wall outlet.


A die-shrink would be nice.

Why compare the 8900 GTX with the 2900 XT, it's 3 generations above it. Let's count, 8800 GTS a bit better than 2900 XT, 8800 GTX a lot faster than 8800 GTS, 8900 GTX better be faster than 8800 GTX or there' no point in releasing it.

Why in heck would Microsoft buy nVidia???

I think you're confused what a "generation" is. Overall I agree that an 8900 GTX should not be compared to a 2900 XT... just think you could have worded it better.

And as far as Microsoft... nah... they're not buying Nvidia... Intel is the one to watch.

True, sorry.

I wish Intel would buy nVidia already and help them go to 45 nm fast... On the other hand, there's some cross-licensing going on, that might be just as good.

About the card sucking electricity: a computer running between 6 pm and midnight every weekday, plus 10 hours on Saturday and 10 hours on Sunday, for 5 years, consuming 600W all the time, will consume a total of 7800 KWh (where I live that's about US$ 1000). A graphics card that reduces its consumption by a third will save me about 1/6h of that, which is about US$ 170 over 5 years in total. Yeah, it's nice, but not that important.
Plus, in real life, the computer won't be under full load all the time.
May 17, 2007 4:25:49 PM

Tiers... that's the word you were looking for.
May 17, 2007 5:02:07 PM

You need to stop posting such degrading posts. You have yet to post anything constructive that I have seen...
May 18, 2007 7:21:32 PM

Quote:
Well ATI is supposed to have a high-end card out sometime in Q3. Whether its the 2900xtx or the 2950, it'll be 9 months late to the party,


Where do you come up with that figure? If it's 9months late to the party that would mean it was a pre-Xmas '06 part !!
Even with last year's original summer launch timetables that wouldn't mesh with any of the roadmaps.

r600 was originally slated for a December 2006 release wasn't it? Q3 ends in September. Dec '06-sept '07 = 9 months. I know the 2900xt's just shipped, but I don't really consider that a high-end since its more on par with the 8800gts. So yeah, it's looking like 9 months ATI is going on without something to compete with the best nvidia has to offer. It's possible they could get something out early in the quarter instead of late, but I don't think ATI deserves that kind of optimism right now.
May 18, 2007 7:24:53 PM

Quote:
Ever heard of the 2900xl?



Yes I have, I crapped one out and flushed it this morning.
May 18, 2007 7:29:07 PM

Quote:

And the GTS-320 is a very inefficient chip for it's price range, same cost as a GTX for the chip.


How in the world do you figure that when it's the top choice in a decent/budget gaming rig right now?
May 18, 2007 7:59:32 PM

Quote:

And the GTS-320 is a very inefficient chip for it's price range, same cost as a GTX for the chip.


How in the world do you figure that when it's the top choice in a decent/budget gaming rig right now?
I think he means that the G80 GPU on the 8800GTS card costs nVidia just as much to make as the G80 GPU on an 8800GTX card, since it's the same part with some of the shaders disabled, but they sell the card for a lot less than the GTX sells for.
May 18, 2007 8:08:35 PM

Intel has no need to buy Nvidia,also I,m not sure if Nvidia would want to be scooped up by Intel,both companies are doing fine I believe.
May 18, 2007 8:09:19 PM

Quote:
lol, i dont thinks youll get anything better from ATI, the 2900s are huge and noisier.


Yes it is ;-)

Well you have to remember that R600 is based on before the AMD technology. Let's hope that some "Cool and quiet" technology from old K8 will land gpu development in coming years. R650 is only shrink update and R700 has been at drawing board for a while. Maybe R750 or R800 can go sleep mode when pixel grunshing is not needed...

By then high-Metal gate technology should be proven by cpu manufactures.
May 18, 2007 8:15:03 PM

Quote:

And the GTS-320 is a very inefficient chip for it's price range, same cost as a GTX for the chip.


How in the world do you figure that when it's the top choice in a decent/budget gaming rig right now?

I think he means it costs the same for nVidia to manufacture it, not for the consumer to buy it.

EDIT: beaten :evil: 
May 18, 2007 9:12:19 PM

Ah, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, that really doesn't make sense that companies do that..
May 18, 2007 10:21:22 PM

Quote:
Ah, I see what you're saying.

Yeah, that really doesn't make sense that companies do that..



Ever hear of Microsoft or Sony? They sell their new consoles at a massive loss.
a c 412 U Graphics card
May 18, 2007 10:38:43 PM

Quote:
These new cards are still power hungry and occupy two slots spaces. I will wait for better ones possibly from ATI


I hate to burst you bubble, but ATI cards have traditionally been more power hungry than their nVidia counterparts. For example, nVidia's 7900GTX uses 84w, while the Radeon X1900XTX uses 121w.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/power-no...



Here's how much the 2900XT uses:



From:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/r600-arc...


If you are waiting for an ATI to use less power than it's competitor, then you may need to wait a very long time.
May 18, 2007 11:11:00 PM

Quote:
If you are waiting for an ATI to use less power than it's competitor, then you may need to wait a very long time.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the spec sheet on the 2600XT has a power consumption of around 45-50Watts (probably cause of the die shrink) while the 8600GTS hovers at around 60-70Watts.

Using a laments observation, the 8600GTS requires the external power connector while the 2600XT will not.

Just an observation.
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2007 11:38:54 PM

Quote:
My uninformed assumption is that nVidia isn't being pressed to push the performance of their cards, due to lack of competition in the top tier performance market.

If they released a 8900 now, it would just compete with their own product (the 8800GTX).


That reasoning would fly in the face of the existence of the 8800 Ultra, don't you think?
a b U Graphics card
May 18, 2007 11:57:08 PM

How long is a tradition?

The GF6800 was more power hungry than the X800 and equally the FX was more power hungry than the R300.

So nothing says that their next effort won't be more efficient without the problem of leakage contributed to the 80nmHS of TSMC. Both companies are going to be going with new processes so anything can happen.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but nV's idle state power consumption isn't that great either in the G80s so both could stand to improve alot.
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2007 12:03:51 AM

Quote:
r600 was originally slated for a December 2006 release wasn't it? Q3 ends in September. Dec '06-sept '07 = 9 months. I know the 2900xt's just shipped, but I don't really consider that a high-end since its more on par with the 8800gts. So yeah, it's looking like 9 months ATI is going on without something to compete with the best nvidia has to offer. It's possible they could get something out early in the quarter instead of late, but I don't think ATI deserves that kind of optimism right now.


It may be 9 months between the launch of the GF8800GTX and a superior performing part, but that's not like saying the part itself is 9months late which is what you wrote. You could say AMD is 9months late to the party, but what you wrote it just wrong.
a b U Graphics card
May 19, 2007 12:08:29 AM

Quote:

And the GTS-320 is a very inefficient chip for it's price range, same cost as a GTX for the chip.


How in the world do you figure that when it's the top choice in a decent/budget gaming rig right now?
I think he means that the G80 GPU on the 8800GTS card costs nVidia just as much to make as the G80 GPU on an 8800GTX card, since it's the same part with some of the shaders disabled, but they sell the card for a lot less than the GTX sells for.

Exactly.

So like the R9500P and early GF6800GSs, while it may be a killer part for the consumer and sell a ton, for the mfr, nV, it'd be better to have a smaller/cheaper 8800GTS part that could do the task and then they could increase their margins. That's exactly what happened to the GF6800GS, they redid it with less pipelines (nothing to unlock) and later a shrink and voila cheaper part that does the same thing.

There's still motivation to shrink the G80, or make another version for the GTS, but alot of it depends on whether they are crippling functioning parts or selling of rejects, if they are selling rejects, then that's better than dumping them; but if they are crippling fully working GTXs then that's not desireable if there's a cheaper alternative. Also what's the added cost of producing this part. If they save $2 mil, but spend $2mil+1 to do it, it's not worth the change.
May 19, 2007 1:50:37 AM

We call that relevant costing. :wink:

Well said.

*twiddles thumbs waiting for 65nm GPU's*