Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphic & Displays > Graphics Cards > nVidia 9xxx Series

nVidia 9xxx Series

Forum Graphic & Displays : Graphics Cards - nVidia 9xxx Series

Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
yabyab   12-27-2007 at 02:19:49 PM



What kind of bandwidth would the new 9xxx series need? my concerns are, would a high end 9xxx series graphic card require a 2.0 PCI-E (which means it can use a 2.5+ GB bandwidth) which also means even though it would work in a x16 PCI-E slot it wouldn't use its full power.

So, are we going to see a card that would use more bandwidth that a x16 can handle?

I hope that make sense, because I just want to know if I have to worry about PCI-E 2.0 anytime soon.

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
Hatman   12-27-2007 at 02:28:49 PM
- 0 +

Doubtful, will be quite a big step closer though.

------------------------------ Na na na na na na na na HATMAN!
 Reply to Hatman
zenmaster   12-27-2007 at 02:51:48 PM
- 0 +

Agree,

I don't see them needing 2.0 PCIE Bandwidth either.

Reply to zenmaster
spaztic7   12-27-2007 at 02:55:05 PM
- 0 +

I do not see right now, a card that will use more than what PCIE 16x can deliver. Maybe then next gen (Nvidia 10000!!! or Nvidia X1000 line?), MAYBE.

All I know is that I will be upgrading my EVGA 680i to EVGA 780i any day now. It only costs $80 if you already have the 680i board and gives you support for all Penryn cores, and PCIe 2.0 x3 at 16x. Oh and ESA... If that is your cup of tea.


Message edited by spaztic7 on 12-27-2007 at 02:55:32 PM
------------------------------ And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.
 Reply to spaztic7
systemlord   12-27-2007 at 02:55:42 PM
- 0 +

PCI-E 1.0 can pass 8GB of bandwidth and PCI-E 2.0 can pass 16GB of bandwidth. PCI-E 1.0 slot can handle 75 watts and PCI-E 2.0 slot can handle 150 watts.

------------------------------ Intel C2D E6600 @ 3.2GHz * Asus P5E * 2x1 GB Crucial Ballistix Tracers * Raptor X * EVGA Geforce 8800GTX 768MB 651MHz/1525MHz/2100MHz * X-FI Fatal1ty Pro * Enermax Infiniti 720W PSU * Creative THX5.1 * Tuniq Tower 120
Silverstone TJ09 * Windows XP
 Reply to systemlord
pony   12-27-2007 at 03:46:52 PM
- 0 +

disappointing

Reply to pony
slim142   12-27-2007 at 04:48:28 PM
- 0 +

what is dissapointing is that the higher we go the lower speeds go in the low and mid range.

Just compare 7900GS to 8600GT and 7900GT to 8600GTS, they are the exact samething thing is just that the 8 series come wih DX10 but they can hardly handle it.

8400GS and 8500GT are slower than 7300GTs. Why is NVIDIA doing this. I still dont get it. Is not that I want a 50% perfomance jump but at least a good reason to throw away that low end 7xxx card and get a new 8xxx card.

128bit bus should dissapear now. 256 is the minimum that I would buy.

Message quoted 1 times
------------------------------ [quote:e59fbc2129="Buzby"]Should I upgrade my Ram from 256mb to 1 mb?[/quote:e59fbc2129]
[quote:e59fbc2129="chips2481"]Geforce is like a cheaper made quadro card[/quote:e59fbc2129]
ASUS Striker Extreme
Intel E6600 @ 3.15Ghz
Reply to slim142
exarrkun   12-27-2007 at 04:52:13 PM
- 0 +

slim142 wrote :

what is dissapointing is that the higher we go the lower speeds go in the low and mid range.

Just compare 7900GS to 8600GT and 7900GT to 8600GTS, they are the exact samething thing is just that the 8 series come wih DX10 but they can hardly handle it.

8400GS and 8500GT are slower than 7300GTs. Why is NVIDIA doing this. I still dont get it. Is not that I want a 50% perfomance jump but at least a good reason to throw away that low end 7xxx card and get a new 8xxx card.

128bit bus should dissapear now. 256 is the minimum that I would buy.



true...
before the 8800gt came out
and in the low range, people don't need a 256 bus for displaying a word document

------------------------------ q6600 @ 3.2|1:1 with 4gig G.E.I.L. 800 mhz cas4|Asus Maximus|2*320Gb RAID0|1*160Gb OS|Stacker 832|8800 gtx @ 610/2000|Xfi Xtreme gamer|Odin Gt 800W|TR ultra 120 Extreme|LG flatron 22'| life is good!!
 Reply to exarrkun
night_wolf_in   12-27-2007 at 05:24:21 PM
- 0 +

yeah, the 8800GT was a real saver for many pple.

------------------------------ Q6600 @ 3Ghz | zalman 9700NT cooler | gigabyte P35-DS3L | Kingstone DDR2 667 2GB x 2 | HIS 4850HD with Accelero S1 Rev.2 | enermax Liberty 500w | Coolermaster C5 case |
 Reply to night_wolf_in
spaztic7   12-27-2007 at 06:16:01 PM
- 0 +

I think the difference is not with clock speed but how much can it do per clock. Yes it may be slower clock wise but it may be quicker because of how much more it does per clock cycle. Also the newer cards are higher in image quality. You can do more AA of AF with the same FPS. I do not see clock speeds meaning anything, benchmarks are more definitive to find how it will perform. This is not saying that faster clock speeds are worse or better. Look at ATi with their 3870. It is clocked at 775 MHz and my 8800 GTX is clocked slower at 624 MHz. Which one is faster?

You are also comparing a top of the line 7000 card to a mid range 8000. Compare the best 7000 (what is it, the 7950?) to the best 8800 (the 8800 Ultra). Which is better?

Message quoted 2 times
------------------------------ And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.
 Reply to spaztic7
mahoumatic   12-27-2007 at 06:55:45 PM
- 0 +

spaztic7 wrote :

I think the difference is not with clock speed but how much can it do per clock. Yes it may be slower clock wise but it may be quicker because of how much more it does per clock cycle. Also the newer cards are higher in image quality. You can do more AA of AF with the same FPS. I do not see clock speeds meaning anything, benchmarks are more definitive to find how it will perform. This is not saying that faster clock speeds are worse or better. Look at ATi with their 3870. It is clocked at 775 MHz and my 8800 GTX is clocked slower at 624 MHz. Which one is faster?

You are also comparing a top of the line 7000 card to a mid range 8000. Compare the best 7000 (what is it, the 7950?) to the best 8800 (the 8800 Ultra). Which is better?



The clock of shader processor of GeForce 8800 GTX is working at 1,350MHz,
and that's one reason why GeForce 8800GTX works so fast...
Indeed everything with 8600 and 8800 crowd, the shader processors are working
at 1,000MHz+, which is the main reason why NV's GeForce 8600/8800 can out-perform
ATI's offers at the same price level in the current generation...
If the shader processors of GeForce 8600/8800 are working at core clock,
NV's card will perform ugly in most tests and games...

Message quoted 1 times
Reply to mahoumatic
spaztic7   12-27-2007 at 08:00:44 PM
- 0 +

mahoumatic wrote :

The clock of shader processor of GeForce 8800 GTX is working at 1,350MHz,
and that's one reason why GeForce 8800GTX works so fast...
Indeed everything with 8600 and 8800 crowd, the shader processors are working
at 1,000MHz+, which is the main reason why NV's GeForce 8600/8800 can out-perform
ATI's offers at the same price level in the current generation...
If the shader processors of GeForce 8600/8800 are working at core clock,
NV's card will perform ugly in most tests and games...



I agree and thank you for pointing that out. I was talking about the core clock and forgot about the memory clock.

------------------------------ And on the third day, God created the Remington bolt-action rifle, so that Man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.
 Reply to spaztic7
DeAtHrApToR   12-27-2007 at 08:44:19 PM
- 0 +

spaztic7 wrote :

You are also comparing a top of the line 7000 card to a mid range 8000. Compare the best 7000 (what is it, the 7950?) to the best 8800 (the 8800 Ultra). Which is better?



I think the reason for comparing the 8600GTS to the 7900GT is because most people compared the 7600GT to the 6800GT and the 7600GT killed it. Unfortunately I don't think we'll see such great performance from a true midrange card for a while.

Reply to DeAtHrApToR
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Graphic & Displays > Graphics Cards > nVidia 9xxx Series
Go to:

There are 529 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.515 seconds
Please mind

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.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them