habitual geek Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) INFO and Manual also found this thread on pricing info http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27392 looks pricey indeed now in my humble yet completely biased opinion, i think if it only barely beats the 256GTX, the 512GTX would equal or beat it already, wonder what a 32 pipe 700+ Mhz core 7900GTX would do to it? Edited January 20, 2006 by habitual geek Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ir_cow Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 48 pipeline!!!!!! this just mean is the xbox 360 in a card to make up for the loss of speed that a computer has over a non-os gaming machine. just like the xbox, it has a geforce 3 highly overclocked and just now with the 6800's they surpass it (g3=8 pipe g6=16) double the power just to produce the same power. but anyways this cards going to be killer if Ati does things right. im sure the PS3's RTX card will be coming up shortly too maybe geforce 7950 60 pipeline? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
habitual geek Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 48 pipeline!!!!!! this just mean is the xbox 360 in a card to make up for the loss of speed that a computer has over a non-os gaming machine. just like the xbox, it has a geforce 3 highly overclocked and just now with the 6800's they surpass it (g3=8 pipe g6=16) double the power just to produce the same power. but anyways this cards going to be killer if Ati does things right. im sure the PS3's RTX card will be coming up shortly too maybe geforce 7950 60 pipeline? read up, it's not 48 pipelines as we are used to measuring pipelines before, it's still only 16 physical pipelines, they just added and dissassociated the ALU's and such, i dont know the technical details, but the B3D forums have alot more info Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolMaster Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) Still i want to see how it compares to the 512mb 7800gtx when is the 7900gt or whatever even coming out Edited January 20, 2006 by CoolMaster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
habitual geek Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 Still i want to see how it compares to the 512mb 7800gtx when is the 7900gt or whatever even coming out thats what i thought, XT vs. 256GTX, XTX vs. 512GTX, x1900 looks like another "refresh" more than a new breakthrough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 1: r580 is more than a "refresh" of the r520 2: more pipelines = performance????? I think we need to look at the issue of efficiency of the pipelines here guys. FX5800 vs 9600 is going to be our discussion piece here. 8 vs 4 pipelines. why did the 5800 tend to run slower in most games (we're not going to sit and piss about 3dmark here... not the point)? the answer to that is the stages in the pipelines. they were just too darn long to be efficient on the FX5800. the FX5900 has the same number of pipelines, but each one was shortened by 2 stages... and the out come was? the 5900 out did the 9600 quite easily and came close to the 9700 and 9800 chips in most apps and even bested them in others. the same holds true in the latest generation cards. even the 16 pipe x1800xt vs the now defunct x1800xtpe with 24 pipelines... I finally got to run them side by side... woopdie doo. not enough of a difference in anything to care about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
habitual geek Posted January 20, 2006 Posted January 20, 2006 (edited) 1: r580 is more than a "refresh" of the r520 2: more pipelines = performance????? I think we need to look at the issue of efficiency of the pipelines here guys. FX5800 vs 9600 is going to be our discussion piece here. 8 vs 4 pipelines. why did the 5800 tend to run slower in most games (we're not going to sit and piss about 3dmark here... not the point)? the answer to that is the stages in the pipelines. they were just too darn long to be efficient on the FX5800. the FX5900 has the same number of pipelines, but each one was shortened by 2 stages... and the out come was? the 5900 out did the 9600 quite easily and came close to the 9700 and 9800 chips in most apps and even bested them in others. the same holds true in the latest generation cards. even the 16 pipe x1800xt vs the now defunct x1800xtpe with 24 pipelines... I finally got to run them side by side... woopdie doo. not enough of a difference in anything to care about. indeed! http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/efficiency/ So what have we learned from our little experiment? Well it’s clear immediately that the significant differences in architecture do cause variations in overall performance when you configure the G70 and R520 at equal core and ram clocks with 16 pipes. Looking at the game results first we see that the G70 architecture is performing much better in two of the biggest titles on the market. Regardless of how well the R520 performs when at stock speeds it really does fall behind when configured to the same specs as a G70 (and this is even lowering the 7800 pipes from 24 to 16). Theoretical performance does swing between the two architectures. The Geforce prefers pixel shader tests which are used in 3Dmarks technology benchmark whereas the Radeon performs much better in the HDR shader tests used by Shadermark 2.1. Overall we would have to say that in the tests which really matter today the G70 is the most efficient design and therefore performance leader when both architectures are configured similarly. In more "future proofed" tests the balance swings again and when HDR is used more in games we may well see the R520 performing better overall when the same testing methods are applied. Of course this is all theoretical as cards in the configurations tested don’t exist in retail channels however it’s an interesting aspect to take into consideration when choosing which card you wish to purchase. it's hard to consider it anymore than a "refresh" when the new "features" being the changes to the ALU's and whatnot have not appeared to have done much good, with clock speeds not increasing, and memory being very conservative(cant say i blame them there, availability and all), it just doesn't look like anything that was worth waiting for, so many people skipped x1800 because they were dissapointed in its performance, and they expected big things from x1900, and so far, it hasn't happened, but it is early, very early Edited January 20, 2006 by habitual geek Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolMaster Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Well we'll just have to wait and see how it performs against the 512 7800gtx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
habitual geek Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Well we'll just have to wait and see how it performs against the 512 7800gtx for a brief while, it will be king, but 7900 is gonna lay the smack down again for sure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts