8900gtx??? - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-26-2006, 02:34 AM   #1 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Pinscher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,541
Default 8900gtx???

Does anybody know if Nvidia is coming out with an 8900gtx or the equivalent? If they are, does anybody know when they are going to be released? I guess I don't exactly care about the exact date but I want to know if it is coming out in the near future or if it will be a while before it is released because I am planning on ordering parts within the next few days.

Thanks a lot
Merry Christmas
__________________

__________________
Pinscher is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 03:11 AM   #2 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

i have no idea. they certainly wouldn't seem likely to release one soon. you do realise it took some time to go from the 7800GT to 7900GT?
__________________

Nitestick is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 09:52 AM   #3 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 421
Default

Oh there probably will be an 8900GTX but not until they become affordable. Right now the 8800GTX costs about $600 and Nvidia wouldn't want to make their cards more expensive than that. What I do know is that they're focusing on releasing lower-end 8-series cards next year, so that's their main concern; releasing more affordable cards. So I don't think they'll be making a more expensive card anytime soon but in the future it's the next logical step.
Phrantic is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 10:47 AM   #4 (permalink)
Future ex-member
 
lancec2c30's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chehalis, WA
Posts: 4,012
Send a message via MSN to lancec2c30
Default

Ya, just go wih the 8800. The 8900 is going to be a long ways away in computer time.
__________________

XP Pro | Vista Home Premium | Linux Ubuntu 7.10
s939 X2 3800 Toledo @ 2.6ghz | evga 7900gs | 320gig + 80gig wd | 1gb Ram | Abit KN8 SLI
3.1ghz achieved. :cool:
70K F@H member..............still waiting for the "iRACK"

Norcent will not be forgotten.

lancec2c30 is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 02:26 PM   #5 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 348
Send a message via AIM to Graham
Default

Not just that, but the 8900 prolly won't be that much more powerful for the wait.

And although I don't always believe any of the sources, it seems kind of logical since the R600 is to come out jan/feb that a more powerful G80 is out as well, according to some techy websites.
__________________
- Intel i7-930 CPU @ 3.4 GHz w/ Zalman CNPS 9900 MAX
- Asus P6X58D Mainboard
- Corsair 1000W PSU
- Cooler Master HAF 932 Adv. Chassis
- SSD Intel 40 gig
- HDD: 2x SATA III 300 GBs
- LG Blu-Ray 8X
- Gigabyte GTX 670 WF @ 1098 Mhz
- Corsair Dominator 6 GB (2 x 2 GB Trip mode)
Graham is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 05:04 PM   #6 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 471
Default

I heard from a guy that the 8900 GTX is going to require a quad core? I don't know how smart he was but he seemed pretty knowledgable.
How could it require a quad core though? Maybe he meant that the 8900 GTX is going to be so powerful that it wont be any better than 8800 GTX because of a CPU bottle neck? And you'd need a quad core to realize the full potential of a 8900 GTX?
__________________
[CPU: e6600 @ 3300 MHz] // [MB: ASUS P5N-E SLi] // [RAM: Patriot 'eased latency' PC2-6400 @ DDR800 5-4-4-12-2T] // [GPU: 8800GTX @ 650/1000/1600 (volt modded)] // [HDD: 2x Cavier 500GiB stripe] // [Chassis: Thermaltake Armor VA8000 (black)] // [PSU: Aspire(Apevia) 680w] // [OS: Windows 7 Ultimate x64][Cooling: water cooled GPU and CPU]
^ (9/7/2010): Ha, I remember when that was the stuff. My water cooling has since leaked and fried my mobo. So now I'm rocking an MSI laptop with an i5 430m :)
lazer_viking is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 05:53 PM   #7 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Pinscher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,541
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by lazer_viking
I heard from a guy that the 8900 GTX is going to require a quad core? I don't know how smart he was but he seemed pretty knowledgable.
How could it require a quad core though? Maybe he meant that the 8900 GTX is going to be so powerful that it wont be any better than 8800 GTX because of a CPU bottle neck? And you'd need a quad core to realize the full potential of a 8900 GTX?
That would just be stupid on nVidia's part if it required a quad core. I wouldn't believe that at all. Is the R600 gonna be faster than a 8800gtx or are they just gonna be about the same?

I think I will just get an 8800gtx and either get an 8900gtx later or just wait til the 9 series comes out to upgrade. Maybe I can find enough money to get another 8800gtx for sli. That would be pretty sweet.

Thanks for all the help guys.
__________________
Pinscher is offline  
Old 12-26-2006, 05:55 PM   #8 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 276
Default

i think the 9 series will be a long way away. look how long it took them to go from 7 series to 8 series.
__________________
- Welsh
welsh is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 12:09 AM   #9 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Waphlez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ohio, United States
Posts: 1,976
Default

So far from what the rumors tell, the R600 could easily be more powerful. It is going to use GDDR4 memory (2.0GHz or higher for sure, they say it can easily reach 2.4GHz and then some), and it's going to be on a 512-bit memory bus. Not to mention the amount of transistors are going to be pretty similar to the 8800GTX.

The R600 is going to dominate the G80 (and even the "G81") in terms of memory, GDDR3 is already at it's limits. The interesting thing is, is that ATI will be using the standard 512/1024 memory sizes because they are going to be using 512bit which is more standard kind of number (not sure if they will go to 1GB on their Radeon series or not), while Nvidia is using their weird memory bus speed on 640MB. The sad part is, is that ignorant buyers are probably going to buy the 8800 just because it will have more memory, and automatically think it's faster. And the whole 7800GTX 512MB phenomenon doesn't help this situation.

The speculation has a firm belief that it will defiantly have 128+ pipes, but the question is if their going to have the unified architecture like the G80's; or if it's going to have physical pipes.

It could easily go either way, that's why I'm waiting this out, and just settle for a 7600GT which has an incredible price/performance ratio.

I'm sure nvidia is probably worried what ATI has under the hood of the R600, so I wouldn't be surprised if their aiming on releasing the "8900" cards probably around Q2 2007; but that is my guess.
Waphlez is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 03:30 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

Quote:

I heard from a guy that the 8900 GTX is going to require a quad core? I don't know how smart he was but he seemed pretty knowledgable.
How could it require a quad core though? Maybe he meant that the 8900 GTX is going to be so powerful that it wont be any better than 8800 GTX because of a CPU bottle neck? And you'd need a quad core to realize the full potential of a 8900 GTX?
very doubtful. unless he works for nVidia and knows something we don't then he must be pulling your leg. there is no information about an 8900GTX let alone hardware requirements for it.

the word bottleneck is thrown around far too lightly. people make it sound as if if you don't have a top notch system you won't see any benefit from a top notch card. it's still a load of crap. every time someone tries to prove these bottlenecks they either show a bunch of evidence that contradicts them which they subsequently ignore in their conclusion or they use very specific examples that aren't common place.

the fact is cpu bottlenecks are only truly noticeable at low resolutions. at high resolutions the graphics card becomes the bottleneck for performance and any processor above say 3000+/3GHz in performance will show maybe 0.5-1% difference between high and low end models. people consistently confuse cpu bottlenecks (which do exist fairly regularly) with cpu to gpu bottlenecks which are rare. the average cpu bottleneck occurs in situations where the cpu is relied upon to make many calculations such as in the presence of many AI characters. HOWEVER that SHOULD NOT be confused with the processor bottlenecking the graphics card.

with that i bid you all good evening, step into my flame suit and recline with a glass of scotch. as i sit in waiting for the inevitable response debating my point. i sit comfy in the knowledge i have tried to impart my wisdom and through no fault of my own someone has failed to take heed......
__________________

Nitestick is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.