gtx 350! gddr5 intro for nvidia

[dhgunit]

You beat me to this. But the specs are not possible, nor realistic. For them to double the shaders 1 of 2 things would have to happen. The manufacturing process would have to shrink, it didnt, it still says 55nm. Or 2, they would have to double the size of the die. Considering how huge the chip is right now, theres no way in **** they are going to double the die size. This is yet more FUD. The way competition is right now, i really dont see Nvidia doing much other than trying to get the 40nm processing worked out so they can actually make a decent profit off of their cards.

I would bet money you are wrong. It is going to be a 40nm process......the information in the first post is not accurate. I don't even know why it says "GTX 350". I highly doubt they have named the cards yet.

And there will not be 480 shaders. There will be 512 shaders. This is a COMPLETELY different architecture.

"GT300 packs 512 MIMD-capable cores and yet it uses "just" one billion transistors extra. I'll be first to admit that I wondered how GT300 packs at least three billion transistors, but according to our highly confidential source, the 2.4 billion transistors are packed in just 495mm2.

Yes, you've read that correctly. 2.4 billion in less than 500mm2 will put sweat on both ATI and Intel's forehead, since this chip could be profitably manufactured and yet pack performance to potentially blew the competition out of the water. Each of original 65nm GT200 chips took 576mm2 of wafer space, while 55nm refresh GT206/GT200b eats up 490mm2.

In comparison, Intel's high-end Larrabee part is manufactured in 45nm and takes around 600mm2."

nVidia's GT300 is "smaller, faster than Larrabee"? - Bright Side Of News*

nVidia's GT300 specifications revealed - it's a cGPU! - Bright Side Of News*

 

[tastegw]

check the post date of the original post. this thread was started well before anything was confirmed or denied

but what held true was the topic at hand, gddr5

the only major factor we dont know yet is the clock speeds.

what we do know
512sp's
512-bit
1-2gb gddr5(is 2gb really needed?)
40nm fab
meni powa with meni price

 

[zedman3d]

check the post date of the original post. this thread was started well before anything was confirmed or denied

but what held true was the topic at hand, gddr5

the only major factor we dont know yet is the clock speeds.

what we do know
512sp's
512-bit
1-2gb gddr5(is 2gb really needed?)
40nm fab
meni powa with meni price

Oh man i want one of these things.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

what we do know
512sp's
512-bit
1-2gb gddr5(is 2gb really needed?)
40nm fab
meni powa with meni price

How good is the original source for that though?

 

[dhgunit]

Just do a search, is every website that deceitful? Multiple upon multiple sources list these specs, I am not entirely sure on the clock speeds but I do believe what tastegw listed.

I also believe the 2.4 billion transistors.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I didn't ask which sites had these specs now I asked where they originated. Besides a quick goggle search shows most of the sites containing these specs are forums that are essentially regurgitating the info. The only reputable site I saw with an article on these specs specs was techpowerup which said they were possible specifications released by Hardspell, a site I have never heard of. I looked at the original article on hardspell and it was published on July 18, 2008 which makes it seem extremely unlikely the specs it contains are legit.

 

[dhgunit]

So they are just going to rename GT 200?

What is so unbelievable about it? AMD is using GDDR5, you would think the SP Cores would increase and 512-bit sounds about right too.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

The fact that the source article sounds like BS is what makes it unbelievable. The original site cited no sources and had no proof whatsoever to back up their claims. The article was also published over 10 months ago which makes their claims ever less credible.

I'm not saying GT300 will be bad, in fact I am expecting it to be pretty good given how successful the last two generations were. I am saying this probably isn't GT300. Sure it may have a few of these specs like more sp's and gddr5 but I would bet that anything that does match the release version is largely coincidence.

 

[zmatt]

So they are just going to rename GT 200?

What is so unbelievable about it? AMD is using GDDR5, you would think the SP Cores would increase and 512-bit sounds about right too.

If the source isn't credible then you can't believe the information. for all we know GT300 will be even better than what they say. chances are in July Nvidia didn't even know how GT300 would be in the end. At the best it is internal speculation. At the worst its some kid making up numbers that sound good and posting them. There is no source listed and the site is less than well known. I even scanned myself for spyware afterwords and found one and that's with flash and java script disabled. You can't believe everything that is said on the internet.

 

[veedubfreak]

It's the standard "OMG THE NEW GPU IS GOING TO DESTROY EVERYTHING BEFORE IT" FUD that we get every 5-6 months. They are having HUGE issues with the 40nm process, both amd and nvidia. The odd of a new card coming out this year are probably slim to none.