8800gt\gtx g80 speeds\pipes

[bf2nut]

i have a feeling that a single 8800gtx will be faster then 2 7900gtx,s in sli ,mabye even a 8800gt.ppl might wanna wait to upgrade and see how fast these new "g80,s"really are.and to be honest since nvidia came out with dual video cards making uqad sli possible i dont think ati even has a chance with 2 new rd600 cards vs the new series of quad sli nvidia monsters.im not a nvidia fanboy,i just go with whatever is faster period.same rule goes for amd vs intel,whatever is faster is bought.like the kentsfiled vs amd,s torrezna(4x4)war about to begin in q1 2007.with all these hi tech cpus and gpus this should be the best year for buyers .were talking conroes,7800gtx,7900gtx should be really low in price so0n as the big cannons arrive nov\dec 06 into 2007,im excited.

[Munkul]

well, ive been reading a lot of stuff about dx10 and how it simplifies processes and allows cards to do a lot more work.i dont know how much of it is just hype, but heh i cant afford to upgrade for a few years so its not bothering me much

[casecutter]

1. ATI has been predicted to be faster by almost all reviewers, but we need a card for the proof. They are using unified shaders now so there are no more dedicated pixel pipes and shaders. That alone is a huge benefit that will eliminate the GPU bottleneck and create a CPU bottleneck.

2. I wouldn't get my hopes up too high that 7900/X19x0 series prices will drop much if at all for a long time as well.

3. The first G80 series cards are ridiculously power hungry and are probably best avoided unless you gotta have DX-10 before it is even available. THen second generation DX-10 cards are the ones to look for.

4. Quad SLI has never worked and is only useful for crazy high resolutions, even then it is shown to have little benefit. THe GX2 is an insane card for a single slot solution, but Quad SLI is a marketing gimmick that will never be made workable.

5. As for Quad core CPU's, they aren't even coding for dual cores yet, so that will be another useless upgrade to 99% of the world. Once they dump physics to the CPU and utilize the idle cores, we'll see the most benefits of multi core CPU's.

6. All in all, the last generation S939 CPU's are still fine for any game out and anything faster is wasted speed.

7. Finally, I believe we have seen the last of the real price cuts and these companies are looking to make more profits with the next gen stuff. Right now is the best time in history to buy PC parts, and I only see prices creeping back up or staying the same.

[buhweet]

I agree casecutter, The monitors big enuf to play the hi res of quad sli have horrid response times anyway.

[NitOxYs]

Originally Posted by casecutter

1. ATI has been predicted to be faster by almost all reviewers, but we need a card for the proof. They are using unified shaders now so there are no more dedicated pixel pipes and shaders. That alone is a huge benefit that will eliminate the GPU bottleneck and create a CPU bottleneck.

Totally Disagree with that. If you had read the post by Microsoft's developer, then you would have read that unifiying the industry was
A. To make microsoft more powerful
B. To make the card less independent of the CPU, rather than the card. With 128 Steam Pixel shaders, it can handle most physics and graphics WITHOUT need for CPU. I read the entire article.

[Munkul]

that is true, i read that article too.
on some forums, people predict ati's offering to trouce nvidia's, but i think its beacuse most of them are fanboys
but if history repeats itself, then ati's will be faster

[casecutter]

The current CPU's cannot feed the G80 enough data for it to run full bore. Period. Previous GPU's were the limiting factor. Quad core CPU's, once they have the proper software pushing them, are going to be the first CPU that can handle the Unified Architecture.

As for anything making Microsoft more powerful, are you another one of those anarchists? OMG, Bill Gates is gonna take over the world.......

If anything, the CPU/GPU world is pushing towards the CPU and GPU being on the same die and working together that way. Instead of telling me about an article I did not read, why not actually link to it so that I can see if I read it. If I have not read it I would. Then I would comment further.

[Munkul]

Originally Posted by NitOxYs

With 128 Steam Pixel shaders, it can handle most physics and graphics WITHOUT need for CPU. I read the entire article.

THAT is what you missed. a C2D and a 8800gtx will be so fast that noone is gonna care if the CPU is "bottlenecking" or not anyway, though

[casecutter]

Those unified shaders are sure very powerful, but what do you think send the data to those shaders? The software cannot speak to the video card all by itself. The CPU still is the first link that distributes instructions to the peripherals. The CPU WILL be a bottleneck. Upcoming physics WILL need extra computing power and will make use of as many CPU and GPU cores as you have available. Just look up the demo's for Wake Forest. You guys can think what you want as well as I can do the same. But if you read what game developers say, you will see just how CPU dependant games are going to become.

Originally Posted by Munkul

THAT is what you missed. a C2D and a 8800gtx will be so fast that noone is gonna care if the CPU is "bottlenecking" or not anyway, though

Do you even understand what a CPU bottleneck is?

[Munkul]

Originally Posted by casecutter

.
Do you even understand what a CPU bottleneck is?

yup i do , i even concede your point that there WILL be bottlenecking, to an extent.
Right, the CPU pushes the data to the cards, which will admittedly become a much bigger workload. however, the unified shaders take RAW data from the cpu, not data that has already been processed, which takes SOME of the workload off the cpu.
ultimately, there will be a rise in processing for the cpu, but no more bottlenecking than there has been in previous generations of hardware, given the speed increase of the c2d architecture.
then again, this is my informed opinion, that is prone to wrongness