[NVIDIA GeForce 7900 Series Specs] & prices

[Gamer_369]

When did we start taking theINQ seriously?

Also, do I really need to source all of the articles Fuad has posted with his many guesses on the pipeline count of R520?

And lastly, like always, his "source" (usually some random forum poster) must not have been that reliable, because while he says it might be 24 pp in G71, it still could be 32. (wow, like we didn't already know).

I'll trust the specs VR zone specs posted a few days ago before I'll ever take anything Fuad says as even close to true.

 

[cleeve]

The Inq hardly bat's 100%, but when it's this close to a launch their info is almost always spot on... it's the speculation that's leading up to it that's off.

But less than a month before launch? Within two months of the X1800 and X1900 they were already quite accurate as to number of pipelines and such.

There are 7900's in production already, rumor starts to take shape out of what the manufacturers can see. I'd be surprised if the truth is far from the latest Inq stuff.

 

[Gamer_369]

The Inq hardly bat's 100%, but when it's this close to a launch their info is almost always spot on... it's the speculation that's leading up to it that's off.

But less than a month before launch? Within two months of the X1800 and X1900 they were already quite accurate as to number of pipelines and such.

There are 7900's in production already, rumor starts to take shape out of what the manufacturers can see. I'd be surprised if the truth is far from the latest Inq stuff.

The only thing Fuad seemed sure of was the clock speeds being 650MHz.

 

[Gamer_369]

g80 launch is set for june so lets say july to see it on shelves, so 4 months

Doubt it, unless you want to go by the old rumors. I don't think nVidia is going to launch a new generation 3 months after they release the completion of their previous one (Geforce 7).

Maybe if Vista was still scheduled for an August release, but things aren't looking that way right now.

 

[cleeve]

The only thing Fuad seemed sure of was the clock speeds being 650MHz.

As I recall he was consistantly reporting 16-pipelines to everyone's chagrin a couple months before release.

Once the cards go into production, it's pretty hard to keep the truth from getting out. And it's pretty hard to keep the false rumors flying when people have had their hands on 'em.

But we'll see I guess. Proof'll be in the pudding.

 

[Gamer_369]

The only thing Fuad seemed sure of was the clock speeds being 650MHz.

As I recall he was consistantly reporting 16-pipelines to everyone's chagrin a couple months before release.

Nono, I'm talking about the article on Geforce 7900GTX. He claimed 24pp, but didn't dismiss the possibility of 32pp. 650MHz is the only thing he seemed sure of, which coincides with VR Zone's specs they released a few days ago.

But going back on his R520 guesses, he didn't start claiming 16pp until everyone else did, too. Prior to that, he was dead set on 32pp, and then 24pp.

Early on, his guesses are rarely correct. The only time his claims start holding an "ounce" of truth is when other, credable sites have already begun releasing info.

But aside from this, we all know theINQ (particularly Fuad) and nVidia don't get along.

 

[cleeve]

Nono, I'm talking about the article on Geforce 7900GTX. He claimed 24pp, but didn't dismiss the possibility of 32pp.

Yeah, but he did the same thing with the R520... claimed 16 pipelines around the end, but didn't dismiss the possibility of 32 or 48.

If it were a rumor, the 7900 stuff would more likely be on the high-end of the scale...

...but like I said, proof'll be in the pudding. We'll find out soon enough, all of this is farting in the wind.

 

[Dresden]

Personally I thought pointing out that the 512mb 7800 GTX is obscenely expensive and was unavailable until very recently was a decent point!

I guess there'll always be mugs who'll upgrade at every given opportunity, regardless of value for money.

Ahhh, I was talking about some Scotish dude that posted earlier, not about the GTX!Lol, I did get outta control though.

Early on, his guesses are rarely correct. The only time his claims start holding an "ounce" of truth is when other, credable sites have already begun releasing info.

But aside from this, we all know theINQ (particularly Fuad) and nVidia don't get along.

I'll never read theINQ again if they posted up that much BS so close to this launch. I'm not the biggest Nvidia fan, but that's f'in BS to put up crap like that if they don't have credible sources and are just relying on others intel...

 

[admiral25]

more info on the 7900gt

http://www.techpowerup.com/?9172

 

[Gamer_369]

more info on the 7900gt

http://www.techpowerup.com/?9172

So I think it's pretty much determined right now that Geforce 7900GT will be 24pp @450MHz, or in other words, an overclocked Geforce 7800GTX (256mb).

So the main concern for some right now, is *if* the Geforce 7900GTX is at 32pp, that would be a mighty big gap in between the Geforce 7900GT and GTX. Perhaps too big of a gap.

But like Cleeve said, we'll find out soon enough.

I think we can all agree that nVidia's "silent" approach in the industry keeps us in an uncomfortable suspense. heh

 

[cleeve]

Yeah, I agree... if the 7900 GTX is 32 pipes @ 650 mhz, I would have expected the 7900 GT to be 32 pipes @ 450 mhz, or 24 pipes @ 550 mhz...

And if the 7900 GTX is 32 pipes @ 650 mhz, I'd expect the MSRP to be in the $800 range...

Then again, maybe they want to put a bigger gap between their top-end and medium-high offerings.

I can't wait to see the Ati and Nvidia heavyweights duke it out. If it is 24 pipes @ 650 mhz, it's going to be a good game to watch. Nice & close.

If it IS 32 pipes, it'll wipe the floor with the X1900 XTX...

And the 7900 GT: why even call it something else? it's 20 mhz faster than a 7800 GTX with the same amount of pipes? I'd just call it a 7800 GTX and lower the MSRP to the 7800 GT price tag... that'd be a great marketing decision. They'd sell truckloads.

Maybe they tweaked the architecture to allow for HDR & AA in the 7900 series, so they wanted to differentiate it...

 

[admiral25]

Yeah, I agree... if the 7900 GTX is 32 pipes @ 650 mhz, I would have expected the 7900 GT to be 32 pipes @ 450 mhz, or 24 pipes @ 550 mhz...

And if the 7900 GTX is 32 pipes @ 650 mhz, I'd expect the MSRP to be in the $800 range...

Then again, maybe they want to put a bigger gap between their top-end and medium-high offerings.

I can't wait to see the Ati and Nvidia heavyweights duke it out. If it is 24 pipes @ 650 mhz, it's going to be a good game to watch. Nice & close.

If it IS 32 pipes, it'll wipe the floor with the X1900 XTX...

And the 7900 GT: why even call it something else? it's 20 mhz faster than a 7800 GTX with the same amount of pipes? I'd just call it a 7800 GTX and lower the MSRP to the 7800 GT price tag... that'd be a great marketing decision. They'd sell truckloads.

Maybe they tweaked the architecture to allow for HDR & AA in the 7900 series, so they wanted to differentiate it...

haha its not going 2 be close at all even with 32 pipes.... nvidia is doing a 1 to 1 ratio while ati is doing a 3 to 1 ratio trust me u really dont need more than 16 pipes, but u will see with the 7900gtx let alone the price will be crazy even if its 750 like the 7800gtx still thats way to much for a card thats going 2 be about equal to a x1900xtx

just another thought... it will be faster than the x1900xtx.... in opengl games lol but dx9 is what all the new games are runing so thats useless

 

[gersson]

Daily Tech

has new info -- semi-confirmed from Nvidias papers -- 24 pipes :-( 655 mhz core

 

[admiral25]

ati is smart u have to understand new games are using shaders like crazy the game that comes to mind is F.E.A.R where the 1900 series kills everything even if nvidia did 32 pipes it still slower than 48. 16 ROPS is more than enough for anygame nowadays and in the future think about it smart shader 3.0 those are shaders even if nvidia had 32shaders with ther 1 to 1 ratio it would not be able to top the 48 shader 3 to 1 ratio ati has and looking @ fear you can see the benchmarks with the 1900xtx vs a oced 7800gtx 512 @ 750 bux a pop.

 

[Dresden]

Daily Tech

has new info -- semi-confirmed from Nvidias papers -- 24 pipes :-( 655 mhz core

HAHAH, dammit, i was just gonna post that sucker up. Well, it's gonna be close one, shit. check out the specs.

Quick specifications for GeForce 7900 GTX:

PCIe native
655MHz core frequency
256-bit memory interface
52GB/sec. memory bandwidth
15B pixels/sec. fill rate
1450M vertices/sec.
24 pixels per cycle
Built in twin dual-link DVI support for twin 2560x1600 resolution displays

"24 pixels per cycle"=24 pipes...doesn't seem like an ATI killer to me.

 

[sirkillalot]

more info on the 7900gt

http://www.techpowerup.com/?9172

Good one, hers another site with a few more pics

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=907
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=908

Quick specifications for GeForce 7900GT from NVIDIA documents:
- PCIe native
- 450MHz core frequency
- 256-bit memory interface
- 40GB/sec. memory bandwidth
- 11B pixels/sec. fill rate
- ~900M vertices/sec.
- 24 pixels per cycle
- Built in dual-link DVI support for 2560x1600 resolution
Quick specifications for GeForce 7600GT from NVIDIA documents:
- PCIe native
- 560MHz core frequency
- 128-bit memory interface
- 20.2GB/sec. memory bandwidth
- 7B pixels/sec. fill rate
- 730M vertices/sec.
- 12 pixels per cycle
- Built in dual-link DVI support for 2560x1600 resolution

 

[cleeve]

haha its not going 2 be close at all even with 32 pipes....

What, you're saying that if it's a 32-pipeline part it's not going to be as good as the X1900?

You're dreaming man.

Right now the 7800 GTX 512 gives the X1900 XTX some notable competition with 24 pipes at what, 550 mhz?

You add 100 Mhz to that, and another 8 pipelines, and the X1900 doesn't have a chance.

Even the more likely scenario of the 7900 having 24 pipes @ 650 mhz will give the X1900 XTX a real run for it's money.

 

[admiral25]

haha its not going 2 be close at all even with 32 pipes....

What, you're saying that if it's a 32-pipeline part it's not going to be as good as the X1900?

You're dreaming man.

Right now the 7800 GTX 512 gives the X1900 XTX some notable competition with 24 pipes at what, 550 mhz?

You add 100 Mhz to that, and another 8 pipelines, and the X1900 doesn't have a chance.

Even the more likely scenario of the 7900 having 24 pipes @ 650 mhz will give the X1900 XTX a real run for it's money.

a 24 pipe 650 mhz 7900gtx 512 wont beat a 16pipe 48 pixel shader 1900xtx.Dont forget that 7900gtx will drop for 750 bux vs a 600 dollar ati x1900xtx, let alone the 7900gtx will win in opengl but dx9 games like F.E.A.R will get canned... a oced 7800gtx is 25-30% slower than a 1900xtx so 100 mhz wont do it lol

oh here is a link with soft shadows enabled at 1600x1200 with 4aa and 8af the 7800gtx get 16fps avg while the x1900xtx gets 30fps... hell 2 gtx 512's in sli get 28fps lol so thats 48 pipes working together to get close to 1 x1900xtx

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/24/ati_radeon_x1900_heats_up_with_48_pixel_pipelines/page13.html

 

[cleeve]

a oced 7800gtx is 25-30% slower than a 1900xtx so 100 mhz wont do it lol

1. 25%-30% is a number you pulled out of your a$$, and has no basis in reality. Show me a benchmark suite where a 100 mhz oc'd 7800 GTX 512 went up against an X1900 XTX and lost by that margin consistantly. It's a fairy tale.

2. Even if was 25-30% slower with 24 pipelines, where would it sit if you added 25% more pipelines - which is what 32 pipes would be...

2. That is a VERY specific instance. I can show you benches where the 7800 GTX 512 performs much closer to the X1900 XTX, even beating it. So one specific bench does not a massive victory make lol.

 

[admiral25]

a oced 7800gtx is 25-30% slower than a 1900xtx so 100 mhz wont do it lol

1. 25%-30% is a number you pulled out of your a$$, and has no basis in reality. Show mer a benchmark suite where a 100 mhz oc'd 7800 GTX 512 went up against an X1900 XTX and lost by that margin consistantly. It's a fairy tale.

2. Even if was 25-30% slower with 24 pipelines, where would it sit if you added 25% more pipelines - which is what 32 pipes would be...

2. That is a VERY specific instance. I can show you benches where the 7800 GTX 512 performs much closer to the X1900 XTX, even beating it. So one specific bench does not a massive victory make lol.


did u even look at the review with the 1600x1200 with 4aa and 8af? if u want to play games maxed out with all the eyecandy hands down the x1900xt or xtx is the way to go.

I know ur just a nvidia fanboy I go with whats best if intel is better than amd then ill go with them... if nvidia is better ill go with them, but im not willing to pay 700+ for a g-card thats cant handle future games like FEAR.

hell the best midrage card if I was to get one would be a 7800gt but I wanted top of the line so I went with ATI

 

[cleeve]

Let's look at all the benches in that review, shall we?

1600x1200 4xaa 8xaf

Far Cry
X1900 XTX: 78
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 67
14% difference (X1900 XTX)

Doom3
X1900 XTX: 68
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 72
5% difference (7800 GTX 512)

HL2
X1900 XTX: 91
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 90
1% difference (X1900 XTX)

B&W2
X1900 XTX: 35
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 31
11% difference (X1900 XTX)

FEAR (softshadows)
X1900 XTX: 29
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 16
45% difference (X1900 XTX)

That's not an OC'd 7800 by the way... that is a bone stock 550 mhz 7800 GTX 512.

Are you suggesting that every new game will be coded the EXACT SAME WAY that FEAR is? Laughable. Flagrant. Wrong.

Add 100 mhz and the 7800 would beat the X1900 in most of those benches except FEAR. Then add another 8 pipes on top? And increased memory speeds, by the way?

Come on, if you think it wouldn't beat the X1900 XTX you're smoking some bad $hit.

P.S. Nvidia fanboy? lol did you look at my sig? You're an idiot.

 

[admiral25]

Let's look at all the benches in that review, shall we?

1600x1200 4xaa 8xaf

Far Cry
X1900 XTX: 78
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 67
14% difference (X1900 XTX)

Doom3
X1900 XTX: 68
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 72
5% difference (7800 GTX 512)

HL2
X1900 XTX: 91
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 90
1% difference (X1900 XTX)

B&W2
X1900 XTX: 35
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 31
11% difference (X1900 XTX)

FEAR (softshadows)
X1900 XTX: 29
7800 GTX 512 (stock): 16
45% difference (X1900 XTX)

That's not an OC'd 7800 by the way... that is a bone stock 550 mhz 7800 GTX 512.

Are you suggesting that every new game will be coded the EXACT SAME WAY that FEAR is? Laughable. Flagrant. Wrong.

Add 100 mhz and the 7800 would beat the X1900 in most of those benches except FEAR. Then add another 8 pipes on top? And increased memory speeds, by the way?

Come on, if you think it wouldn't beat the X1900 XTX you're smoking some bad $hit.

P.S. Nvidia fanboy? lol did you look at my sig? You're an idiot.

your a fool... not going to waste anymore time with you... go and pay 750 and cant play newer games maxed out.

 

[cleeve]

your a fool... not going to waste anymore time with you... go and pay 750 and cant play newer games maxed out.

Lol. I'm a fool? I think most people here would agree, a fool is someone who can't admit when he's wrong.

But nice retort, by the way. You really showed me by ignoring the facts! heheh. Nice, the way you pretended not to notice all of the information there, even though you quoted it. Especially since it was all "4xaa 8xaf" like you were whining about.

Oh, and why would I pay $750 for a new card when I have a perfectly good RADEON X1800 XL? I guess I must be an Nvidia fanboy!

Here's the thing, you're not going to "waste anymore time" with me because you are wrong and you know it.

Moron.

 

[sleepdeprived82]

also athe inquierer article said the 7900gtx will be priced at $499

 

[admiral25]

also athe inquierer article said the 7900gtx will be priced at $499

yeah because it can't beat the x1900xtx so they wont price it crazy like there 7800gtx 512 or 256 cards, because its not the champ anymore.