NVidia's next step?

[leo2kp]

I've been thinking about the 9-series cards a bit and oft wondered why NVidia hasn't been using many of the same features that AMD has been using for their ATI cards. But then I came up with my own little possible conclusion.

Disclaimer: I really have no idea what the hell I'm saying. It's short and to the point because I don't know a damn thing about economics and competition, so I'm sure what I say in the next few sentences requires less brain power than the sentence you're reading now lol. So without further adieu...

Looking at the early 8800GTS and GTX cards, we see cards with more memory than NVidia is putting out today (save for the GX2 and some specialty cards from random vendors). It's no secret that 512mb, while offering ample space for the average gamer, can hinder performance at higher resolutions which is THE market for high-end gaming. In other words, it's pointless to give a high-end card less than 512mb, and would make more sense to give more than that. I think NVidia knows that since the 8800GTS, GTX, and Ultra cards come with more RAM than that and perform better at higher resolutions than the new G92 cards. Everyone knows this, I don't need to remind you. Just bear with me here.

So if NVidia has made cards with more RAM, sees sweet benchmark results at higher resolutions than the competition, then why lower the standard back to 512mb? After the G92 cards were released, we saw an obvious performance problem with higher resolutions. The problem was the reduction of RAM and bandwidth. Again, I don't need to tell you.

With the 9 series cards we see no difference in RAM size or bandwidth. Speeds have gone up but that's about it. So why, if NVidia KNOWS that they would be way better off raising the RAM to 1gb @ 512bit, did they stay at 256bit 512mb? As we've seen in the past few days, the 9800GTX is the fastest card to-date (with exception of the GX2 which is not really a single card, but some may argue that point). I think it's interesting that even though the G92 8 series cards and the 9 series cards, while having half the bandwidth and RAM, still outperform ATI's best. Is NVidia just messing with them?

Now on to the thread's topic...what is NVidia's next step? It might be better asked "what SHOULD be NVidia's next step?" If a 256bit 512mb graphics card is outperforming a 512bit 1gb card with similar clock speeds, then we can conclude that NVidia has a superior architecture. Like, by a lot. It just seems efficient enough to make up for those bottlenecks. What would happen if NVidia decided to double the bandwidth and RAM and add DX10.1 support? Would we see a giant increase in performance? I suspect that we would see a card so over the top that it would absolutely blast the competition in every way.

Does anyone else here think that NVidia is just making an attempt to keep competition alive by not introducing their best technology? Or do you think they really don't understand that their cards could do better at high-resolution gaming if they would just up the RAM and bandwidth? I don't think they're that dumb. I honestly would love to see a 512bit 1gb single-card GeForce as the next big revamp.

 

[marvelous211]

The whole 9 series was to cut cost. make it affordable for the mainstream. G92 was nothing more than a rehash of the G80. Mainly it does more textures per clock while having less bandwidth.

24 rop with 384bit memory controller cost more than 16rop with 256bit to make. When you raise up the transistor count it also cost more money. While $500 cards do sell it doesn't sell much as cards that cost $100-200 bracket. 9600gt that performs like G80GTS for $115 after rebate? Does that sound good to you?

I don't know what Nvidia wants to do but they can easily release a card with 24rop with 384bit memory with 192SP on 55nm fab and raise up the clocks a little.

AMD just wants to keep pushing the midrange cards but Xfire them which isn't a great idea. ATI has a clear head start on DX10.1 though which does AA through shader. I don't know how Nvidia card will perform with AA through their SP. Their next card won't be the best card but it is a step up from the current 3870 by 50% or so looking at the early specs of the card.

3870 isn't really a bad card at all and only 10% slower than 8800gt really when you add it all up. It's just slower with AA because currently AA through shader is slower than conventional method which Nvidia does.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Lets look at it from this perspective. Did any of these cardss come out at a lower price before the 3xxx series? No. ATI, alias the competition, made them do this. But its a two pronged scenario. The first being, as was said, alot cheaper to make, using a smaller node, less ram, but higher clocks because of said node. That keeps the competition at bay somewhat. Now heres the other point . Wht do you think most of these cards are going EOL soon? End Of Life was projected by [H] here http://www.hardocp.com/news.html?news=MzE1NjYsLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdCwsLDE= Now whyre they doing this? They took away the better bus, they lowered the ram, and then they called them "New". Guess whats coming next? Maybe a truly "new" card, one that sports more memory, with a wider bus, and a much improved arch that takes advantage of this "new/old" tech of wider bus's and more memory, just like the now two gen old 8800GTX did. To me, this whole debacle should be called back to the future

 

[marvelous211]

ATI's next card is really based on the same old RV670 tech. Same 16rop, 256bit bus, and much needed 2X the texture per clock.

Supposedly GT200 (9900gtx) is also G92 based or at least that's what I've been hearing.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

But fixing the backend on the ATI vs just upping the clocks will get more for ATI, without having to do alot, just like Nvidia, just theyll be getting much more performance, not just more of the same. Either way, until I see grand improvements on either side, Im sitting on my 8800

 

[zeuseason]

The single reason I believe the 9 series so far only has 512 is the 99 series will offer more increasing their price points and giving people a reason to upgrade. I believe 1gb is the premier number for graphics cards and will not peak more so again NV is saving it for the 99's.

 

[xsamitt]

But fixing the backend on the ATI vs just upping the clocks will get more for ATI, without having to do alot, just like Nvidia, just theyll be getting much more performance, not just more of the same. Either way, until I see grand improvements on either side, Im sitting on my 8800

By the looks of things you could be sitting for quite a while on your 8800.That card may be the longest bang for you buck card in history so far.I agree with you BTW.