Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The GF310 is here!!! - Page 2

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 8:00:39 PM

No of course not. And I'm pretty sure it is many months away yet.

I'm just trying to point out one simple thing - being late means you are *late* and nothing else.

There are no magic patches to the arch or anything like that. No major additions. Fermi 2 months late is simply what Fermi was supposed to be 2 months ago.

ATI are moving on with working silicon all the time, improving drivers and for sure getting closer to that refresh. Nvidia can't get closer to a refresh without working silicon. They can't write driver optimisations when Fermi can't even run any games.

The longer it lasts, the worse it is. There is no silver lining in being late here, except for TSMC doing their best to help Nvidia out it seems.
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 8:07:29 PM

So TSMC are now part of the 'Nvidia buys everything to stop competition/sway benchmarks/get favourable reviews' conspiracy?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 8:14:23 PM

You know that rumour has been doing the rounds for a while now MM. The longer it goes on, the more I start to believe it could be true.

If you recall, I said that was nonsense a few weeks ago. It's going on a bit too long for my liking though, and you have to admit it is seriously hurting ATI sales while barely affecting Nvidia at all.

Coincidence? I guess we'll see.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 8:28:24 PM

Well done MM, finally you moderate properly, ie not just my insults but the insults that started mine.

Gold star for you.
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 8:35:26 PM

Trying my patience may not be in your best interest though.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 9:06:08 PM

I'm not. You'd know if I was.

Simple fact is, we have a conflict of interests but I've never used that against you at any time. For what it's worth, I hope you can be saved and join the good side eventually. :) 
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 9:08:52 PM

And what side would that be?
m
0
l
November 27, 2009 9:10:30 PM

jennyh said:

The 2900 wasn't that much worse than the 8800, it was just so late and therefore far behind driver-wise it would never get close enough when it mattered. Any reason why Fermi should be different? Or do you expect it to miraculously appear with updated drivers too?


Heh, my cousin is still rocking 2 2900 XTs, with modern drivers they are about the same as 2 8800 GTS 512mbs, so you never know.
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 9:37:17 PM

Quote:
Matrox.

Had one :)  but killed it :( 
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 9:52:02 PM

Quote:
You named a puppy matrox?

Thats pretty hardcore.

The look on it's little face when I switched on the liquidiser was priceless.
m
0
l
November 27, 2009 9:52:05 PM

Mousemonkey said:
Has anyone got a definite date for the release of the 5 series refresh?

AMD havent said anything about it, but I guess about 6 months after 5800 series release they'll have refresh silicon ready. Will they use it? Depends how competitive Fermi will or wont be. They could just go with the next stepping with fixed bugs and slightly tweaked silicon, as Nvidia did over and over again if there is lack of competition, or AMD could drop another refresh bomb with doubling almost everything if they want to kill Nvidia consumer GPU market, like the latter did with 3DFX - make a huge blow and keep hitting till opponent rolls over.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 9:52:49 PM

jennyh said:
You know that rumour has been doing the rounds for a while now MM. The longer it goes on, the more I start to believe it could be true.

Well, if it is true and it gets found out, TSMC will be screwed for eternity. That's why I don't think it's true. NVIDIA's only risk would be an anti-trust lawsuit (and people calling them hypocrites after the latest tirade against Intel), whereas TSMC would kiss their customers goodbye. At the same time, I'm sure GF would be doing a roaring trade.

TSMC BK Q3 2010 *Guaranteed*
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 9:58:05 PM

randomizer said:
Well, if it is true and it gets found out, TSMC will be screwed for eternity. That's why I don't think it's true. NVIDIA's only risk would be an anti-trust lawsuit (and people calling them hypocrites after the latest tirade against Intel), whereas TSMC would kiss their customers goodbye. At the same time, I'm sure GF would be doing a roaring trade.

TSMC BK Q3 2010 *Guaranteed*

That's pretty much my take on it.

P.S Nice spelling by the way, others may want to take note. [:mousemonkey]
m
0
l
November 27, 2009 10:03:42 PM

randomizer said:
Well, if it is true and it gets found out, TSMC will be screwed for eternity. That's why I don't think it's true. NVIDIA's only risk would be an anti-trust lawsuit (and people calling them hypocrites after the latest tirade against Intel), whereas TSMC would kiss their customers goodbye. At the same time, I'm sure GF would be doing a roaring trade.

TSMC BK Q3 2010 *Guaranteed*

Although sudden TSMC screw up affects negatively AMD and favors Nvidia, but I also would doubt TSMC would do that deliberately. Lets say for the argument sake its so hush-hush that we will never find out anything and TSMC wont lose other customers, I still can perfectly imagine AMD will make every effort to switch to Globalfoundries now, ASAP. Nothing Nvidia could do for TSMC which would outweigh losing such high profile customer as AMD.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 27, 2009 10:12:16 PM

I took 9 months, which is very reasonable for a refresh.
Thats June or so
If Fermis doesnt really arrive til April, thats 2 months from a refresh, and still baby drivers for Fermi.
It could happen.
Sure, this is all speculation, but you asked about hearing anything, I gave you a good source to follow.
Keep following it, youll get whos saying what and whos just typing
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 28, 2009 12:33:12 AM

I still don't think they are getting it.

April 2010 fermi is the same fermi that was supposed to be released in September 2009.

There is no difference.
m
0
l
a c 173 U Graphics card
November 28, 2009 1:30:44 AM

The_Blood_Raven said:
Heh, my cousin is still rocking 2 2900 XTs, with modern drivers they are about the same as 2 8800 GTS 512mbs, so you never know.


Those R600 do hold up when you consider their 512bit ring bus. However the heat is a big let down. Still rocking a few vintage cards my self a 3dfx voodoo3 3500, geforce256 DDR (64mb), x1900xt, and my favorite 8800gtx. My 9800gt 1gb (got two in sli) are getting old but not quiet vintage yet since they are still being made.
m
0
l
November 28, 2009 1:01:14 PM

If in fact the new (refresh) NV cards are going to be DX 10.1 in keeping with the TWIMTBP program I wonder if NV will push devs to not only develop new games but patches for already released ones as well. Although wouldn't that make current lower end ATI cards like the HD 3870 more competitive with higher DX 10 only NV cards? :heink:  Kind of self defeating in a way.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 28, 2009 2:51:46 PM

delayed product = garbage.

i wouldnt be surprised if nvidia decides to sell the top of the line fermi boards for half of its intended price, just for the sake of selling it.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 28, 2009 3:49:15 PM

to shine , fermi will need solid driver support with all that improvements in programmability and cache hierarchies .
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 28, 2009 8:10:04 PM

jennyh said:
No of course not. And I'm pretty sure it is many months away yet.

I'm just trying to point out one simple thing - being late means you are *late* and nothing else.

There are no magic patches to the arch or anything like that. No major additions. Fermi 2 months late is simply what Fermi was supposed to be 2 months ago.

ATI are moving on with working silicon all the time, improving drivers and for sure getting closer to that refresh. Nvidia can't get closer to a refresh without working silicon. They can't write driver optimisations when Fermi can't even run any games.

The longer it lasts, the worse it is. There is no silver lining in being late here, except for TSMC doing their best to help Nvidia out it seems.



I'm not an idiot i understand the concept but what you need to understand is that you/me/ no one has any idea of how good or bad Fermi is/was/will be.
The point you are making would to me assume that the two cards are close to equal and that a set of drivers or two would sway things one way or another. As you yourself said "being late means you are *late* and nothing else"
We can assume this and guess that but we don't really have a clue what we are dealing with. If this was not a new arch I would say the chances are heavily in favour of you and JD being spot on. And again I'm not saying your wrong and I'm not saying Fermi will be good or bad I'm just trying to get you to see that its am unknown quantity at this point.
Could be that ATI get a refresh in and that makes the difference, could be they don't and the cards are close to each other.
What about if it is as good as Nvidia say it is ? what about if refresh or not it ends up better than the ATI cards ? That possibility doesn't seem to even enter your minds.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 28, 2009 8:50:39 PM

Heres the problem
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,698272/Geforce-GTX-28...
This shows a 23% improvement from release to todays drivers.
Looking at nVidias release drivers and ATIs drivers on their G80 and R600 respectively, they increased perf significantly, and both were new arch'.
One thing we do know is, the new shaders will cause perf problems in some games, and drivers overall, as seen earlier in [H] earlier beta driver test on the 5870.
Increases there were large already, and if thats the case thruout, then therell be even larger increases than the 280 and the 4890, which again was 23%.
If we see Fermi in Feb, this wont carry as much weight overall, but will have impact. If we dont see Fermi til April, then yes, it will.
Time itself will prove this out one ways or another, but Im not one to believe that nVidias approach has increased its overall abilities by large margins, and again, its only my opinion, but theres really nothing in what we know to sway my opinion.
It could be at best 20%, very unlikely, 10 % better more likely, or no better or slightly worse, possible.
In my guessing, Im guessing perf in whats already known, and per shader/rop etc etc.
It doesnt amount to anything but a guess, but Im just pointing out history as we know it, and what we do know is that the major optimisations done on Fermi are gpgpu usage, and made somewhat wider, which may or may not help it, and cache, again, which may or may not help it ingames, tho should do wonder for gpgpus usage.
So, in the end, yes, I believe nVidia will have sown up a few weaknesses from the 200 gen, but all else considered, adding everything else may cause other slowdown/weaknesses in their arch as well, and its overall size could limit its overall perf as well, as going larger has slowed the clocks, not raised them, as seen going from G92 to G200.
But, my main point still holds, what we saw when the 5870 was launched wont be the same perf we see when it takes on Fermi when it finally gets here, and with a refresh following close behind.

PS Finally, Im talking about impact. The impact of G200 wasnt accepted as being huge/great because on its heels was the 4870 and it barely beat the 98x2, which again may be the case here, as the 5870 wasnt excepted by some who drank the koolaid and expected it to be better, and thats the danger here.
Better means 50% from what Im seeing, as the 5970, people again are saying the same about its perf against the 295, which isnt 50%.
If the 5870 gains a 10% overall perf increase, and a refresh is expected in 2-3 months, with another 10% perf increase, it would mean either Fermi has to be priced incredibly well, like 425$, or its perf has to achive at least 40% better than a 10% better 5870 card we see today, and still be dirt cheap.
Its alot to ask
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 4:34:09 AM

jaydee , thanks for this post , very informative . the fermi cannot be too late for then driver optims and a refresh 2-3 months later pose a sound challenge to even its survivability .
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 4:35:48 AM

and your other post about the hkmg coming to gpus in 28nm would be huge for power consumption and overclockablity but can say tsmc or later GF do it ? isnt hkmg intel only ?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 11:09:39 AM

one-shot said:
I'm having a very hard time telling the difference.....:D 

The 310 is about 10% bigger :sol: 
m
0
l
November 29, 2009 11:17:42 AM

On a serious note, this would make me believe that nVidia has nothing in the GF3XX for the lower end models coming anytime soon. They have already taken up the number/space with this card. I know they just changed the name, but we knew that would happen. I'm once again confused why this was done. the GT 2XX series seemed to have just been introduced to consumers not too long ago and the GT 3XX is here already. I'm so confused.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 6:59:29 PM

one-shot said:
On a serious note, this would make me believe that nVidia has nothing in the GF3XX for the lower end models coming anytime soon. They have already taken up the number/space with this card. I know they just changed the name, but we knew that would happen. I'm once again confused why this was done. the GT 2XX series seemed to have just been introduced to consumers not too long ago and the GT 3XX is here already. I'm so confused.


Its not just a name change. Try looking the card up before you start putting it down. Its the very bottom of the pile OEM only so far as well, and is as i said earlier designed with the HTPC in mind. Sure its not a gaming card but for what its made for it does very nicely thank you.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 7:57:16 PM

As did the 210
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 8:08:01 PM

GT210 = retail, GT310 = OEM and G100 = as yet unreleased Fermi GPU. How is that so hard to get your head around?
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 8:21:00 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
As did the 210


As did just about every low end card before it, whats your point exactly ?
Heck we dont want them to make things too easy now would we.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 8:25:25 PM

Point being, were now into the 3xx series with renames, nothing new, and earlier OEM only parts were later released into the channel.
How much of the 3 series are they going to pollute with old old old stuff? This is like 5 gens worth of naming here
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 8:30:42 PM

So where is it written in stone that a company cannot rename, rebadge or do anything they like with their own products?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 8:45:20 PM

It's just unethical to repeatedly mislead customers (not that NVIDIA are ethics fanatics). One has to ask when they are going to put a new name on a truly new product.
m
0
l
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 8:52:31 PM

randomizer said:
It's just unethical to repeatedly mislead customers (not that NVIDIA are ethics fanatics). One has to ask when they are going to put a new name on a truly new product.

When they feel good and goddamn ready I guess.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 29, 2009 9:15:32 PM

This is getting bad tho. Problem is as I see it is, theyve released nothing of significance lately, what they have released is easily already beaten by ATIs parts in same price brackets, offer nothing at all for anything, everything being old, and that includes DX10.1, just because its new on nVidia, its old old old too.
Im not being harsh, just realistic here.
Now we see Fermi waiting on special ram, only because its gpgpu usage.
m
0
l
November 29, 2009 10:30:51 PM

mactronix said:
Its not just a name change. Try looking the card up before you start putting it down. Its the very bottom of the pile OEM only so far as well, and is as i said earlier designed with the HTPC in mind. Sure its not a gaming card but for what its made for it does very nicely thank you.

Mactronix


If it's more than just a name change, what else is different? It is 10% large in the image if you intended that as a joke. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I would advise you to "Try looking at the card before you put others down".
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2009 6:12:28 AM

Mousemonkey said:
So where is it written in stone that a company cannot rename, rebadge or do anything they like with their own products?


Probably the same place it's written: Don't bring a mock-up with wood screws to a product launch. :whistle: 

m
0
l
November 30, 2009 6:56:50 AM

O SNAP!

too bad both companies are guilty of re-branding although nvidia is a ways more guilty of that.

Hell it's very much common practice have you seen razers mice same innards - a few bucks to make it good + different outards = new mouse.

I just look at confusing naming schemes as standard bullshit practice :D 

Nvidia seems lazy though you'd think they take another photo instead of what looks like enlarging the old photo haha well i guess it's better then tiring to hide it.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 30, 2009 8:06:47 AM

one-shot said:
If it's more than just a name change, what else is different? It is 10% large in the image if you intended that as a joke. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I would advise you to "Try looking at the card before you put others down".



Seems your getting your posters confused now, I never said the card was 10% bigger that was Randomiser. So as I said please get things correct before you post.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 30, 2009 8:13:59 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Probably the same place it's written: Don't bring a mock-up with wood screws to a product launch. :whistle: 


:lol:  Yea i mean i have to agree its unethical in a way but as i see it they just don't need anything different at this level and so for this scenario a name change makes sense to me, just to put everything on the same naming scheme. At the end of the day as i said already it does its job well as a HTPC card and is only in existence i would guess so that HP and others can print "dedicated Nvidia GPU" on the specs and the outside of the box.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 30, 2009 9:02:35 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Point being, were now into the 3xx series with renames, nothing new, and earlier OEM only parts were later released into the channel.
How much of the 3 series are they going to pollute with old old old stuff? This is like 5 gens worth of naming here



Again with the ifs, supose its just the very low end they are doing this with and the new Fermi Arch wipes the floor with everything its targeted at ? At this point both scenarios are just as likley. We get that you dont like Nvidia and love ATI. Guess what im the same i dont much like Nvidia and have and will probably always use ATI.
Your like a self fulfilling prophicy JD. Only a while ago we were discussing how pretty soon Nvidia would start getting knocked for every little thing they do or might do, and here you are doing just that.

Mactronix
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2009 2:09:15 PM

Havnt they already? So , this is now my turn too heheh.
Id say Im more of a self fulfilling prophicy when I said the 5870 would be between the 4870x2 and the 295.
nVidias put it all on themselves, havnt been able to stop from shooting themself in the foot, no ifs, just the way it is, not all that hard to do when this keeps happening, it only makes you ask, what next?
If the whats next is ifs? then tell nVidia they need to stop, and now
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
November 30, 2009 3:46:54 PM

BTW it's the G310/Geforce310, not GT310, but even still it creates alot of confusion, and while I agree Mac that it's not a big deal, I think people would be pretty furious if they named it the G/GF290, but it still fits their convention since it's still low end denoted by the G/GF, and not a GTS or GTX for the mid and high end. :??: 

I don't think people would be any more accepting of that, and in light of all the HD5770 grief, this just makes me laugh when people try and justify it moreso, because that would be like taking the HD4770, maybe tweaking memory at best (even though for the GF210->GF310 there wasn't) and then calling it the HD5770. Would that go over better? :heink: 

To me that it's the low end is worse, because they usually are the ignorant sheep who need the most help, anyone buying a high end part btter know WTF they are buying on their own or they get what they deserve, but considering how little information there is out there about the GF310 (look at how many people here don't know WTF it is or even was before the mfr code I put up?) these are the very people who need a clear naming scheme the most, and they are the ones that get taken advantage of.

It's not something that will keep me up at night or get my pretty pink panties in a bunch, but I'm sure I'll have co-workers and we'll have n00bz asking about this for a long time to come, which annoys me more than whether nVidia is moral or not. :pfff: 
m
0
l
November 30, 2009 5:00:44 PM

mactronix said:
Seems your getting your posters confused now, I never said the card was 10% bigger that was Randomiser. So as I said please get things correct before you post.

Mactronix


I don't want to get into an argument with you. Yes, Randomizer said it first as a joke. That doesn't mean you still couldn't make a joke off of that. I assumed you would have picked up on that....

I'll list the specs for you:

GF310
CUDA Cores : 16
GPU Clock : 589MHz
Core Clock : 1402MHz
Memory Clock: 500MHz
Capacity : 512MB DDR2
Memory Interface Width : 64bit

GF210
CUDA Cores : 16
GPU Clock : 589MHz
Core Clock : 1402MHz
Memory Clock: 500MHz
Capacity : 512MB DDR2
Memory Interface Width : 64bit

You can clearly see that both cards have the exact same specs. Both cards are even DX 10.1.

Sources:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_310_us.htm...

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_210_us.htm...

You also stated:

"Its not just a name change. Try looking the card up before you start putting it down. Its the very bottom of the pile OEM only so far as well, and is as i said earlier designed with the HTPC in mind. Sure its not a gaming card but for what its made for it does very nicely thank you."

I wasn't putting the card down. I made a comment on the similarities and my inability to tell the difference between two exactly similar cards with different names.

If it's not just a name change, again, please tell me. We know it's at the very bottom of the OEM. We know it's designed for HTPC. We KNOW it does what it's made to do. You STILL have not answered what is different about the two cards besides a name change. Instead, you ignore the question and state obvious things we all know. If you would just tell us what the difference is, I'd be happy to let this rest. I don't want to miss out on anything if indeed you DO know something we don't already know.

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2009 6:38:01 PM

^ Maybe its using a different colored pcb. lol
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2009 6:40:50 PM

Yeah one's clearly spruce and the other sage. :evil: 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2009 6:52:24 PM

Well, whenEVER Green actually comes out with a real 300, we will see how these dont belong.
Seems to me its like trying to make wooden screws out of Cedar
m
0
l
!