NVIDIA GTX 350

NVIDIA GTX 350
GT300 core
55nm technology
576mm
512bit
DDR5 2GB memory, doubled GTX280
480SP doubled GTX280
Grating operation units are 64 the same with GTX280
216G bandwidth
Default 830/2075/3360MHZ
Pixel filling 36.3G pixels/s
Texture filling 84.4Gpixels/s
Cannot support D10.1 .10.0/SM4.0

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=3764

Its coming late august - early september, when the 4870x2 is out this will be max 2 weeks behind it.

I have heard specs from a good source on ocuk and the specs/ design dont match what I have been told.2gb is real, ddr5 not and its dual.

Rest is pretty much spot on.

Seems a little too quick... I'm suspicious.

damn, I just bought a gtx260!

You should be as it's not true. That same site reported earlier that the GTX350 would be 45nm and has been running a long series of BS rumors. If you looks around the other forums you will see that nobody is taking it seriously.

There may be something coming, as Ive heard as well, but it wont be ythis. The power envelope simply wont allow something like this. Youd need special power hookups for it. Also, one look at the clock speeds on something that huge and then your talking a huge heat problem. Default on the G280 is what 607 core speeds? Gimme a break. Look at this and compare to whats already been released.

738mhz cores on 65nm are ready John

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/show [...] -%20Retail

Specs on my opening post are not all true, like I have said.

Some are.

738 with oc, yes, and then look at the power draw after the oc. What Im saying is, thats over a 30% core increase which would more than take away any die shrink, even adding in the reduced power using GDDR5, plus the compatability of the card even using GDDR5, which no ones heard a thing about. We all knew ATI was using it well before their cards arrived. I also find it hard to think we wouldnt have heard about that as well. If all the speeds are ramped up, and you throw in the die shrink, youre still talking about a G280x2 power demand, which I just cant see happening

Actually Nvidia joined the SOI consortium. I doubt they joined it just to get something developed. Maybe they got a "special" manufacturing deal out of it too. That would be the only possible choice to get a card that is even more monstrous than the GTX 280 on 55nm working withing the same or an only slightly higher power envelope.

Until i read something official i think nvidia is just playing the marketing card to keep people from running off to buy 48xx cards.

Remember, ATI stated that wed see improvements of 15% with the x2. Looking at those previews, I didnt see that. And of course, none of the drivers are even finalised yet on what we saw on top of that including the regular CF setups, so yes, theres much more performance to come

What happens to something like Crysis is that it continues being the same unoptimized piece of junk it always has been.

That game doesn't "need cores." It needs to be written to actually use them, which is precisely its problem. It does not scale well at all. When SLI/Crossfire setups of cards a generation ahead of what it was made for still cannot really get it to run right at its higher settings, I think it's pretty ridiculous to consider the hardware to be the problem..

Core clock is high even for a die shrink. Theres no reason for GDDR5 on a 512 bit bus. The ram speeds are skewed, as the slowest GDDR5 comes in at 900. Its bogus

This card would still be stuck with AFR rendering, which is going to make it inferior to the gtx280

They need to rethink the technology like AMD did before they start making more dual gpu cards. =/

Aren't they always refreshes? Gets a little hazy with NV doesn't it?

wow, if this is true, ppl who bought the gtx 260 or 280 will be pissed.

Well given that the 4870x2 (prototype) has a 500watt (ed ^^) power draw at idle and it boots, I doubt that would be an issue.

At 55nm, at the same clocks, the power may be doable. But at higher clocks , no way. Especially whats listed here.. Also, itd have to be a sandwich style like the 9800x2, so again, the power goes up. Not so sure this is doable at 55nm, plus better cooling, thus more power needed. Just doesnt look theorhetically possible

Dont forget it would cost $1000+

Why buy an entire PC with reasonable graphics power when you can pay the same amount for JUST a video card eh? Sounds like one helluva deal.....

...if youre a dolt.

I think he is just over exaggerating a little. I would say at least 700 or 800 considering the GTX280 is finally around $450. Still way too much to even consider unless you like throwing money into the wind. I don't really see Nvidia pulling out a brand new card 2 months after they released their SUPER GTX series. It Doesn't make good business sense to make a new architect, throw it away 2 months later and replace it with something possibly a little better. Who knows tho, we'll just speculate a little more and wait and see.

lol ovaltine I expect you too understand that effectively doubling the SP, would almost double the price, not exactly but man that would be expensive, 800ish at least if it comes out some time soon, which jaydeejohn seems to say and I even think so, that it's bogus...at least the gddr5 part...something is off here, and the hardware is moving too fast software simply cannot keep up,

Color me skeptical; G92 had a 2.5 shader:core clock ratio, but GT200 went with 2.16:1, quite likely because they couldn't get the shaders to run stably at that clock speed.

Likewise, at 3360MHz memory, it'd be 315.04 GB/sec, not 316 GB/sec as it stated... A little nitpicking, I know.

I'm also HIGHLY doubtful that they'd be able to squeeze that sort of clock rate from a 576mm² chip, even after a revision to 55nm. And even then, I look at the fill-rates, and none of it even lines up; it's like the numbers were produced without any math involved at all.

For now, I'll actually maintain that at least part of those "specs" are fabricated for the time being, likely by someone over-eager to try to fill in the gaps because nVidia won't tell anyone what goes in those gaps.

Those specs don't look legit to me. Even if it was true, then wow. This card looks like a killer, not to mention twice as expensive. I would love a 512 bit and GDDR5 but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

To be honest, I think that right now, nVidia's people know less about what they're doing than the average enthusiast does. So I think that appeals to nVidia's authority at this point are pretty much moot.

However, RAM prices affect things QUITE well. I'd note that both the 3850 and 4850 came with 512MB of GDDR3, being what is now a middling amount of what is now a commonplace and cheap kind of memory. Meanwhile, the supposed GTX 350 outright DOUBLES the amount of memory, as well as switching from cheap GDDR3 to expensive GDDR5. GDDR5 is a memory technology in its infancy, meaning that currently, 512 mbit (64MB) chips, the smallest ones, are the only kind that are quite plentiful at the moment, meaning that they're considerably cheaper than 1024 mbit (128MB) chips. A 512-bit memory interface means that you're going to have a whole 16 chips of RAM, which is fine for 1024MB; that's just using 512 mbit chips, which are also even cheaper in GDDR3 form. Howeve, the 1024 mbit ones that would be required to get a whole 2048MB on a 512-bit interface would be over twice as expensive... On top of the cost changes in going from GDDR3 to GDDR5. You're probably talking winding up paying 3-5 times as much for the VRAM, which on a board with so much of it, is going to be a significant portion of the price.

So yeah, when comparing that supposed GTX 350 to the GTX 280 as far as price goes, comparing the HD 4850 to the HD 3850 is a very flawed analogy that doesn't take all that much into the picture.

Plus, as I noted, there was the part where none of the throughputs were divisible into the clock speeds, or even divisible into any logical number of processing units that the chip might have. (gimme a break; I'm assuming it'll be a whole number, and even a multiple of 8, as have nVidia's stuff since the G70)

Actually, the way I calculated it out, a shift from a 65nm process to a 55nm process would take the chip from 24x24 mm (576mm²) to 20.3x20.3 mm, (412mm²) only 28.5% in terms of die area savings. This could be eaten up by an additional 39.8% transistors, which would bring the total of transistors up from 1400 million to 1957 million... To put that into perspective, that's about 81.8% the transistor count of a G80.

Plus, each transistor shrink does not grant an increase in maximum stable clock speed that matches the decrease in size, otherwise we'd have seen a doubling in clock speed every 18 months outside of the NetBust era. But rather, if memory serves, the typical full-node step only allows for transistors to switch up to around 20-30% faster than before on average, while retaining the same level of reliability; as we saww on top-end Radeon cards, we went from a maximum of:

• 540 MHz on 130nm, (Radeon X850XT PE) to
• 650 MHz on 90nm, (Radeon X1950XTX) to
• 743 MHz on 80nm, (Radeon HD 2900XT) to
• 775 MHz on 55nm. (Radeon HD 3870)

Similar, on top-of-the-line GeForce cards:

• 425 MHz on 130nm, (GeForce 6800ultra) to
• 550 MHz on 110nm, (GeForce 7800GTX 512) to
• 512 MHz on 90nm, (GeForce 8800ultra) to
• 675 MHz on 65nm (GeForce 9800GTX)

Obviously, I left out some processes because they weren't used for high-end GPUs; I'm not counting the (almost always higher) core speeds found in mid-range GPUs, since the GTX 350, as supposed, is not a mid-range GPU by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah, the limit on a PCI-e 1.x slot is 250 watts; 75 for the slot, 75 for a 6-pin connector, and 100 for an 8-pin connector; the GTX 280 already comes dangerously close to that level... A higher level is possible if you're using a PCI-express 2.0 slot, since if I recall correctly, a x16 slot can supply 100-125 watts of power, bringing the total to 275-300. Of course, if you make a card that needs that much, then you screw out the 90% of people that have a perfectly good motherboard and CPU (including Core2extremes) that would not be able to use the card because it couldn't provide enough power.

lol that is clearly not the point son, ati SP do not equal Nvidan SP, period!

you have to take ati SP's divide them by 5, then you get the equvilanecy to NVidian SP's...

but there are clearly more transisstors the PCB board ahs to be packed by more resistors, transistors, capacitors, and etc etc etc, just to provide processing overhead, so yeah its going to cost more, ty for humoring me, but clearly SP's are not the only determining spec to look at....

Exactly. I said I was rounding, and being conservative on top of that, all in nVidias favor. Your numbers look more precise, and I didnt want to research power draw/shrink ratios. Good to know, ty. Yea, the pcb would have to be reworked for GDDR5, and itd be redundant as youve already got a 512 bus. As OTP says, theyre hard enough to balance, and adding all this overkill would not only up the costs out of control for market, but most likely bottleneck the card, and bring it so out of balance that wed be all buying R600s and praising them heheh.