Nvidia G92 is GeForce 8700 GTS

VR-Zone has learned more about the upcoming Nvidia G92 where the official marketing name is most likely to be GeForce 8700 GTS. As revealed earlier, G92 is 65nm based and has 256-bit memory bus width. The reference 8700 GTS card has 8-layer PCB and comes with 512MB GDDR3 1ns memories so the memory clock of G92 is estimated to be between 900Mhz to 1GHz. Core clock is unknown yet.

http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nv [...] /5236.html



Just my observation of what the 8700gts will be.

This card will be kind of like 8600gts but with 256bit memory bus.

Same 8 rop or 12 and same 16 tmu like the 8600gts to keep the cost down. Texturing fillrate will be very similar to 8800gts with higher clock speed with 65nm part. But the ROP would be limited of course at uber high resolutions.

I think this card will be not much slower than 8800gts at stock in medium resolutions. Looks very promising for a midrange card.

Of course the real question is this card going to have more than 32 unified shaders? Hoping for 64 at least...

more crab from the big N

No 9800GTX? So basically the 8800GTX will remain unbeaten for more than one year. That's sad. Well, not for those who bought a 8800GTX back in November 2006 though.

Basically what the 8600 should have been in the first place. The 7600 in the 7 series was a totally kick butt card for it's segment. When the 8600 came out we were expecting a totally kick butt card, although not the 8800 level obviously, but we were hoping for a great midrange and were totally disappointed. I'm happy to see that Nvidia hasn't left the average joe in the dirt.

Just because the sentence is long doesn't mean it isn't correct English.

http://ask.metafilter.com/35008/Wh [...] t-sentence

on a side note ATI is supposed to come out with something end of this month called 2900pro which would be competing with 8700gts.

Let battle commence.

why the hell did I fall for the 8600's!!??!?!?! *pulls hair out at own idiocy*

you beat me to it! you were being nice and not pointing out all the faults but the lack of grammar goes much deeper, the OP forgot the apostrophe in I've and can't among other faults...

nothing makes my day better than showing MrsBytch up...what an asshat

the really gutting thing was that a friend WARNED me how crap they were, and I didn't listen!

So, can this card be used in a pci-e slot, or will it require pci-e 2 like other forums have suggested. I'd really like to get my hands on one of these, but if I have to upgrade my mobo... forget about it.

He can always sell it on ebay. I see these going for $130 before shipping charges.

They do exist! A friend of mine is looking for a card like that for his home pc... hes not a gamer, he does video encoding (his son's machine is for when he wants to play games....)... I advised him to get a passive cooled one though... sorry, otherwise I coulda put you in touch.

it should be interesting to see the price point and how well these cards do in SLI/Crossfire setups. I know alot of times I can't afford 2 cards right away but if I can get one card that is quite capable and then pick up a second card 4-8months later I'll be able to put them in a 2 card configuration and actually save money over their faster counterparts.

I agree with you on that. However it's nice to buy a high end card and then later on get another one for nearly half the price and nearly twice the perfomance......when it works that is. For people on a budget something like the 8700 would totally make sense though.

look at bioshock for instance. 2 8800gtx will only net you 10 more fps over 1.

I don't know. Some benchmark says it scales but look at this one...

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/bi [...] /page6.asp

We can only see 11 fps from a single GTX to sli. It might be moot for you but looks like ut3 engine doesn't scale too well with SLI.

8800gts is the same.

Focus on minimum to average frame rates to judge a GPU, not just the highest/peak/max FPS. Also consider how AA kills the 2900XT where as it doesn't make "that much" diff for a GTX.

Yeah, exactly.

As much as I'm anti - Xfire/SLi , one of it's most important benefits is making the big drops in min fps dissapear or be greatly reduced. Because +10 fps on an average may mean nothing but moving from 9 fps to 19 fps as a min. is alot for anyone looking at fluidity. Just look at the GTS SLi results to see the noticeable boost in min fps.

And usually if the avg went up by 10fps, usually the min fps had an even bigger jump (if the drop isn't caused by system crap like loads, etc).

guys i hope 8700gts wont be like the one which is for notebooks because for notebooks a GO 8700GTS is a GO 8600GT OC'd

Shrinking the die of any series of GPU is going to give you cooler, higher clocked GPU's. For the life of me I can't understand why Nvidia would come out with the 8700GTS when we already have mid-end 8800GTS 320/640, low end 8600, and high-end 8800GTX.

Personally I think 8800gts is high end. 8800gtx ultra are uber high end. 8700gts fits right in the upper mid-range. 8700gts is not going to be all that much slower once 256bit memory controllers are installed on these. I'm just estimating here of course.

A 8600gts has texture fillrate of 10800 MTexels/sec but it's holding back by memory bandwidth. Once 3dmark was tested the peak texture fillrate comes out to 7600 Mtexels/sec (not much better than 1950pro). Obvious memory bandwidth starved here. By shrinking the die this would be clocked higher and in lines with 8800gts far as what it can do with textures fillrate...

8800gts is not much better than 8600gts far as texture fillrate is. 8800gts has texture fillrate of 12000 Mtexels/sec. Do you see the picture?

Once the 256bit memory bandwidth is saturated it will be very close to 8800gts far as performance goes. I think how many more unified shaders is important and you need more than 32 if you are going to run it in higher resolutions with full effects in current crop of games and some future games to come. Once the game has enough shader power it seems most games are held back by texture fillrate and memory bandwidth. How many ROP it has determines how well it's going to do in higher resolutions. 8700gts is going to cure most of the problems what 8600gts was lacking with faster shader clocks probably more shaders as well as memory bandwidth.

Even with only 64shaders though I think it's enough to compete with 8800gts in resolutions like 1600x1200 since shader clocks get faster along with clock speed.

FYI
A 8800gts has shader clocks of 1200mhz. A 8600gts is 1450mhz. With higher clock speed resulting from reduced die, this new 8700gts will run faster than 1450mhz which would compensate the difference in shading power.

It supposed to be end of this month supposedly but they'll fire back any chance they can get. The really need to release this first before Nvidia releases 8700gts so they can have some fire back. This supposedly will be fast as 2900xt too. So we'll see.

ATI really needs fix their Vista drivers first though. I think that's their biggest problem right now. I can understand though after releasing the card only for few months and you have write drivers for Vista along with new API.