Nvidia claims G92 (Geforce 9800) will be a 1 Teraflop beast

guys check this link out.

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39829

now we wait for this card until christmas

If that is accurate I'd be curious to see what they are releasing to hit that kind of performance. I would have expected Nvidia's next release to be more of an evolution maybe on 65nm.

bigger question is, how much will that cost!?

If a card 3x as powerful as my current 8800 GTX is going to be released in december, then it would be enough to convince me against just SLI'ing my card with another GTX in order to get the performance I want . Hope they do it. Although I suspect theres a healthy dose of hype and marketing there.

I suspect multiple cores.

This would seem like the only reasonable way to go from 330GFlops to 1000GFlops. I can't see them making the processor 3x faster. I could envision 50% faster and then doubling the cores.

The author of the article has little vision.
Off-loaded physics and super real graphics.

In many cases you need to put the horse before the cart.
If there is not any hardware that can play a game, nobody will buy it waiting for the hardware.

People will, however, buy the fastest hardware even if its faster than they need.

I think he is missing the point that this will be a boutique type item.
People with the cash will kill to have this card and NVIDIA will turn a nice profit on this high ticket item.

I want to see the ATI FanBoys's faces when this monster releases!
Time for a

Dont forget a hefty amount of transistors going to 65nm. Also I suspect therell be 1 gig of really fast ram on it, maybe clocked to 2.8. So with a faster clock you could do it without going multi core

i wonder, could they make a 3 slot cooler? and two of these babys in SLI would exceed the 1 teraflop by far

Still doubt it. Normally, you have to wait two generations to actually double the performance of a GPU. Even with the possibilities that a 65nm process opens, I still doubt that it will triple the performance of a G80.

No, it will have to be something really new...like a multicore GPU. I still remember quotes from ATI like "people don't undersatnd the r600" and how excited that made people (including me, who was getting a new GPU). And what did we get? Performance ususally bellow a 8800 GTX. Its actually a good buy if you take into account that it costs the same as a GTS. Bottom line: a dissapointment.

So there's only two ways to go here. Either its something really revolutionary like multicore GPUs or this is just crap and we'll be lucky if the shift to 65nm even gives us double performance.

Yep, that commentary by TI is really ignorant. There's no such thing as a too fast GPU. Just buy it and 6 months latter that GPU will be dragging running the that new uber-FPS at 1920x1080 with AA and AF maxed out.

I wouldn't mind seeing a $250 8800 GTX. I would be the first one out of the door getting them!

There's some games out there that even 8800 GTX has trouble like NWN2 (which is more CPU and GPU intensive than Oblivion) so I wouldn't mind seeing a "better" card.

Exactely, except that in my case I just spent 300 bucks in an overclocked GTS 320MB, which will make buying a 9800 GTS even more sweet. 8)I only spent $550 on my 8800GTX...

too bad ati have already had a 9800, it wasn't that bad for its time.. now it doesn't quite compare...

What happened to the 8900-series? Are they going to skip straight to the 9800 or is that just a typo? Anyways 3x faster sounds just too unbelievable, too good to be true 8O

The 8900 is coming, but it will just be a faster version of the 8800.

The 9800 is a new series.

Sort of off subject, but on the 680i SLI boards do you have to already be in SLI to use the 8x slot for Physics? and are the NVidia mobos 45nm(bearlake) compatible?

I think the power consumption on these 9800 cards are gonna kill us all, OR they will have to be super duper fast AND efficient...yeah right though.

The reason I asked about the physics slot is because I wonder what are we gonna do with our "old" 8800's? Slamming them into physics seams a little like a waste but better than throwing them away or selling them for 1/4 of their original price. The reason I ask about the 45nm compatibility is I wonder how much current CPU's will bottle neck the hell out of something like a 9800.

I wonder what happens after the 9*** series will they go to a new name instead of Geforce or will they add and X to the front of the name and go back to the beginning or what?

Remember that's theoretical performance not actual performance.
nV has never reached that 520GFlops even through CUDA because it can't exploit the extra MUL with any efficiency. It launched at 346Gflops, and only recently reached the mid 400s with new drivers, still well below the 520 quoted at launch. The R580 was accessing almost all of it's 380GFlops through CTM and the R600 acesses close to all it's 480 in the XT.

So really the question becomes whether talking about the theoretical number or the actual number, if it's theoretically close to 1TFlop, and has the same missing MUL issue, then it's going to be closer to the 800-900 range than 900-1000GFlops and like you said just 2 times the difference. If it's actual Gflops, then it's close to 3X the G80 launch and 2.2X current levels.

Considering the speed boost for both architectures, that's pretty much what we all expected, especially if the "deliver almost a teraflop of computing performance" is rounding up significantly.
About 800+Gflops theoretical was what most people expected shoul nV go to 160SPUs and a faster core on 65nm (heck just the SPUs gets you near 700Gflops), so it's not that much of a surprise since it would only need to run at about 800-825mhz, which is doable on the 80nm R600, let alone these new refresshed 65nm chips both will have.

Could be interesting if the architecture dramatically changes, but right now it just looks like the mathematical extension of what we already knew.

Oh and that's why the HD2900XT sucks?

man why are you always so critical about Nvidia. we know your on ATi side

I'm right on track with you. I don't care who makes what as long as it's good. The G92 sounds like a real monster, and although it's waaaaaay too early to know for sure, I think it's a huge leap for just a years worth of research. Now ATI has roughly 6 months to nearly triple it's performance of it's not even released products along with the ones they just put out.

I'm sorry? 1000 GIGAFLOPS?

i like computers

i like being hopefull

i dont like being stupid.

theres no way they can treble the power of the card. They just about doubled it from 7900gtx to 8800gtx. i think the same as some previous guy that multicore is the way forward, or a significant die shrink.

You know, I wanted to get a Dx10 card for this summer. But it just came back to me that last time I got a first gen DxX card, I was disappoint when the real games of the said DxX came out. For me it was Radeon 9800Pro and Dx9, and the said game was Oblivion, and even, to a lesser extend, FEAR.

That means that I'll have to enjoy Crysis in Dx9 this coming summer. But it also means that I'll be able to play true Dx10 games, that'll come out only at the end of 2008 at best, with the same VPU. That puts me in G92 (90?) and R700 territory of cards.

I... gotta......... resist.... the ... urge to.... upgrade.... It'll be tough, but I'll do my best.

I leave that statement to people who don't understand the subject.

Warez and Hangman both use the BS PR numbers that have never been achieved.

If nV manages to reach the 1TFlop PR number with the same level of efficiency that it currently reaches on the G80, then that would mean actual output Should be in the high 800-900 range, which is still impressive. However for anyone to criticize the InQ's numbers while using the inflated 520Gflops number they really need to edjucate themselves better first.

Read my post and then you too can be edjucated.

That makes two of us. Except i pleasure myself while he makes his post, since we live so close to each other

Then why point out that the GTX can't do as many Gigaflops as the HD2900XT. What you previously stated would be irrelevant. You just proved yourself wrong.