GT300 said to have 512 SP

[atm743]

http://www.hardware-infos.com/news.php?news=2904&sprache=1

not sure if this is just an other rumor.

[Shiggity]

It's gonna be gewd ;)

[xtkxhom3r]

im sure amd will have something up their sleeve to beat them once again :P

im looking forward to this new card though i might go nvidia this next gen

[aoch88]

I think they have to start learning how to cut down power usage. My GTX 260 takes up so much wattage from the PSU compared to my older 8800GT. While it's good to be fast but it's just as terrible to be a power sucker.

[xtkxhom3r]

lol yea nvidia has always been good at killing psu's :P

[deathman20]

I think they have to start learning how to cut down power usage. My GTX 260 takes up so much wattage from the PSU compared to my older 8800GT. While it's good to be fast but it's just as terrible to be a power sucker.

So much wattage? Its in the 140W arena fully loaded if its a first gen card. Lower if its a 55nm version. Just hope it turns into 2D mode when not gaming since that really is the power saver of these big cards.

[BigSurprise]

Latest rumors say it's coming out this year? SWEET!

[xtkxhom3r]

late 09 man! cant wait!!

[Special7]

Sweet.

[MattNo5ss]

I've been waiting on the GT300 series to upgrade my 8800GTX, and hopefully I'll be able to this year :)

[xtkxhom3r]

wow you have been waiting for a lloooonnnggg time

[Shiggity]

End of this year is going to be a good time to upgrade.

[ghost_recon88]

Let's hope it's released on the 40nm process, 55nm would just be :bang head

[Kuroimaho]

No way 55nm, by the end of the year.

This rumor kinda surprises me, I would have thought they will go for a similar small die design as ATI and use the 110% scaling magic from lucid and few raytracing gpus from caustic, now that would have brought them da clicks, but this meh...

[Shiggity]

As far as I know, ATI controls a large portion of the 40nm capability at the fabs that can make that node.

Nvidia must be figuring they can't go to 40nm yet because they wouldn't have enough production capacity for the release they want. From the way these rumors sound, it looks like GT300 is going to be so much better than the previous generations, everyone is going to be rushing to get them.

All the people with G80's will want to upgrade, I know I'll want to upgrade from G92, and even people with medium GT200 cards will want to upgrade.

[Kuroimaho]

TSMC might fix the yield problems on 40 but will surely offer more than what ati alone needs by the end of the year, and GlobalFoundry will move to 32 bulk by the end of the year so if the card gets delayed it might even come on 32 unlikely but who knows.

Prices are crashing down, 4890 is going down bringing some other cards with it so people could get the upgrade bug at these prices it sure made me wonder with 285 under 250, on the other hand there is nothing out now or coming what could justify the upgrade if we stuck with the g80/92 until now.

[Zantal]

it will most probably come on 40nm,

if these cards are produced on 55nm they will:

a) Consume a lot of power (doubled stream processors are rumors but it might happen
just watch the 9800 gtx with 128sp and the 280 with 240)

b) These cards will have their primary task to heat your room up, don't worry you can save turning the heat off in the room.

c) clocks won't be so high.


if they don't go 40nm ati will manage to beat them with this generation cards.
obviously nvidia won't let it happen easily so they will do anything in their power to give
battle.

[Zantal]

it will most probably come on 40nm,

if these cards are produced on 55nm they will:

a) Consume a lot of power (doubled stream processors are rumors but it might happen
just watch the 9800 gtx with 128sp and the 280 with 240)

b) These cards will have their primary task to heat your room up, don't worry you can save turning the heat off in the room.

c) clocks won't be so high.


if they don't go 40nm ati will manage to beat them with this generation cards.
obviously nvidia won't let it happen easily so they will do anything in their power to give
battle.

[Zantal]

it will most probably come on 40nm,

if these cards are produced on 55nm they will:

a) Consume a lot of power (doubled stream processors are rumors but it might happen
just watch the 9800 gtx with 128sp and the 280 with 240)

b) These cards will have their primary task to heat your room up, don't worry you can save turning the heat off in the room.

c) clocks won't be so high.


if they don't go 40nm ati will manage to beat them with this generation cards.
obviously nvidia won't let it happen easily so they will do anything in their power to give
battle.

[Kuroimaho]

Third time the carm.
They will be testing the 40nm with mobile gpus soon so by the time next gen reaches the fabs they have experience with the process.

[MadMan007]

No way 55nm, by the end of the year.

This rumor kinda surprises me, I would have thought they will go for a similar small die design as ATI and use the 110% scaling magic from lucid and few raytracing gpus from caustic, now that would have brought them da clicks, but this meh...

Chip designs take a long time, ~2 years iirc. I'd wager that this was already in the design process before the 4850/4870 release.

[Kuroimaho]

If it will be from a ground up design then maybe, I think the final design depens on who they find more threatening Intel or ATI.

[Zantal]

If it will be from a ground up design then maybe, I think the final design depens on who they find more threatening Intel or ATI.

intel has no chance with it's first gen "gpu" it's a new world for them they will get owned even by matrox XD

[Kuroimaho]

I didn't mean Intel will threaten their vgas, but their teslas, so the choice is, better gpgpu like Intel or slim and sleek gaming gpu like AMD.

[ravaneli]

2009 would be awesome - that will lemme get a sweet deal on a 285 : )

But right now why would NVidea bring the 300 gen so early? Unless ATI comes out with something new I really see no reason, because NVidea will lose more from price standpoint that ATI from this introduction. A 300 gen will immediately trim prices on the great 285 and 295. Those 2 cards did not get discounted with the introduction of 275/ 4890, but a 300 will certainly hurt them bad. What does ATI have to lose? The 4870x2? I don't think this card is a great seller right now anyways, too many reviewer report problems with drivers and performance..

As much as I wana see a 300 on the shelves - I don't think it's gona happen this year, unless ATI shows something from their sleeves indeed : )

[MadMan007]

The prices won't get trimmed although I'm sure there will be the occasional nice deal, the cards will just slowly go oos every where. It's happened with every highend card for the last two generations.

[Shiggity]

The supercomputer market is where it's at now if you want to make money. Most regular consumers are buying netbooks now, those are not very profitable at all.

Intel, Nvidia, and ATI want the high performance market for their graphics, so they can sell thousands at a time for companies that spend millions doing research or selling their cards to government organizations that have very deep pockets or selling to render farms that do all the high end ray tracing special effects for movies.

Gaming is almost becoming an afterthought when you look at how fast the supercomputer market is growing and how much money is being spent there.

[Neural Net]

512 when 240 was pushing the limits of what they could do with the 280? Even with a 40nm process, we're looking at a die even larger than the current 280, aren't we?

[Zagi]

I've been waiting on the GT300 series to upgrade my 8800GTX, and hopefully I'll be able to this year :)


Same story here :)

[Shiggity]

512 when 240 was pushing the limits of what they could do with the 280? Even with a 40nm process, we're looking at a die even larger than the current 280, aren't we?

Don't expect GT300 to be power efficient, it is going to suck down power like no ones business =D

The thermals / power generation from Intel's Larrabee are also huge. I haven't heard that much from ATI.

But they are projecting 3 teraflops of compute power for the high end GPU's at the end of this year for ~300 watts (single cards). Taking that kind of performance into account, it's looking like the best flop : watt we've ever had in the history of computing.

Even Intel's best i7 processors only get around 50 gigaflops for ~125watts. Those are just ballpark numbers, but you can see how good GPU's are getting.

[Neural Net]

Don't expect GT300 to be power efficient, it is going to suck down power like no ones business =D

The thermals / power generation from Intel's Larrabee are also huge. I haven't heard that much from ATI.

But they are projecting 3 teraflops of compute power for the high end GPU's at the end of this year for ~300 watts (single cards). Taking that kind of performance into account, it's looking like the best flop : watt we've ever had in the history of computing.

Even Intel's best i7 processors only get around 50 gigaflops for ~125watts. Those are just ballpark numbers, but you can see how good GPU's are getting.

True. With 512SPs though it must be a complete redesign. It's also going to be hugely expensive in terms of manufacturing and retail price, which could spell trouble for Nvidia depending on what ATi releases. Very interesting news though, I look forward to seeing how it performs.

[Shiggity]

True. With 512SPs though it must be a complete redesign. It's also going to be hugely expensive in terms of manufacturing and retail price, which could spell trouble for Nvidia depending on what ATi releases. Very interesting news though, I look forward to seeing how it performs.

The biggest change was them going from something called SIMD instruction sets to MIMD instruction sets. (single threads vs multi-threads)

I think they were able to get double the shaders in per core unit or one shader can do double the work, something like that.

Nvidia came out and said GT200 was just gearing up for GT300 and didn't really show that architecture's full potential.

The compute shader on DX11 is also freaking amazing, way better than any game based on dx9.

[Neural Net]

The biggest change was them going from something called SIMD instruction sets to MIMD instruction sets. (single threads vs multi-threads)

I think they were able to get double the shaders in per core unit or one shader can do double the work, something like that.

Nvidia came out and said GT200 was just gearing up for GT300 and didn't really show that architecture's full potential.

The compute shader on DX11 is also freaking amazing, way better than any game based on dx9.

Lets just hope the architecture Nvidia has designed for the GT300 has gaming more in mind than being a platform for CUDA apps. Direct X11 will be damn impressive, but it isn't all about flexible hardware, transistors have to be put aside for dedicated tasks so this Direct X is a kind of hybrid between the old and the new. Hopefully it'll be the best of both worlds.

[PhoenixOfChaos]

A smidge OT: At the risk of sounding like a complete ******. It seems like that the processing power of GPUs is vastly outperforming that of our current CPU architecture. What gives? I know the processor and the GPU have very different tasks, but it seems like GPUs are on an entirely different level of processing power. Granted the thermal output of CPU's and their power intake seems to be less, this seems like a situation in which the extra heat or power consumption could be the side product of a much more powerful processing unit.

Is it just because there's no real use for the power yet (as far as a CPU goes)?

[Neural Net]

A smidge OT: At the risk of sounding like a complete ******. It seems like that the processing power of GPUs is vastly outperforming that of our current CPU architecture. What gives? I know the processor and the GPU have very different tasks, but it seems like GPUs are on an entirely different level of processing power. Granted the thermal output of CPU's and their power intake seems to be less, this seems like a situation in which the extra heat or power consumption could be the side product of a much more powerful processing unit.

Is it just because there's no real use for the power yet (as far as a CPU goes)?

I could be wrong but it's practical power versus theoretical power. GPUs have had CPUs licked in the theoretical power department for a while now, but the general purpose nature of CPUs means that they can perform a lot more tasks. A GPU is faster for tasks that are highly parallel.

[Kuroimaho]

The biggest change was them going from something called SIMD instruction sets to MIMD instruction sets. (single threads vs multi-threads)

That info came from Theo "reverse hyperthreading" Valich, I wouldn't take it as fact. Read this to see what became true from his earlier forecasts. Link (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1005560/amd-socket-am2-has-a-secret-weapon)

The compute shader on DX11 is also freaking amazing, way better than any game based on dx9.

I think at first it will only make games faster as on current code it will accelerate only if they convert it. It will take time until games scale for that power and use it for better visuals.

A smidge OT: At the risk of sounding like a complete ******. It seems like that the processing power of GPUs is vastly outperforming that of our current CPU architecture. What gives? I know the processor and the GPU have very different tasks, but it seems like GPUs are on an entirely different level of processing power.


These work on different data, were designed to excel at different tasks.
Gpus are higly parallel can work on much more data same time this gives the very impressive results but because of the limited data what they have to work on and the lack of need for out of order execution a lot of what makes a cpu is cut out from them. With those out you have more space to add even more execution units to work on what these were designed to do.
The GT200 falls back to 1/8th of it's speed if it has to work on double precision numbers (due to only one double precision capable hardware per shader processor) which make no problem for cpus. Gpgpus have a lot of restrictions on what and how it can work with.

The cpus are jack of all trades, actually the two is slowly heading towards each other, the cpus are going multi core so becoming more parallel while gpus turning into gpgpus are trying to work with various data and use more instructions become programable.

[Badbonji]

That info came from Theo "reverse hyperthreading" Valich, I wouldn't take it as fact. Read this to see what became true from his earlier forecasts. Link (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1005560/amd-socket-am2-has-a-secret-weapon)



I think at first it will only make games faster as on current code it will accelerate only if they convert it. It will take time until games scale for that power and use it for better visuals.




These work on different data, were designed to excel at different tasks.
Gpus are higly parallel can work on much more data same time this gives the very impressive results but because of the limited data what they have to work on and the lack of need for out of order execution a lot of what makes a cpu is cut out from them. With those out you have more space to add even more execution units to work on what these were designed to do.
The GT200 falls back to 1/8th of it's speed if it has to work on double precision numbers (due to only one double precision capable hardware per shader processor) which make no problem for cpus. Gpgpus have a lot of restrictions on what and how it can work with.

The cpus are jack of all trades, actually the two is slowly heading towards each other, the cpus are going multi core so becoming more parallel while gpus turning into gpgpus are trying to work with various data and use more instructions become programable.

So soon hopefully all that will be on a motherboard is a huge die about 30cm by 30cm with 128Gb cache and 10,000 cores each at 10Ghz. Maybe in 2020 lol...

[Zantal]

So soon hopefully all that will be on a motherboard is a huge die about 30cm by 30cm with 128Gb cache and 10,000 cores each at 10Ghz. Maybe in 2020 lol...

i would say 2030 XD

naaa they should change the method of how data is stored,

the "bit" is kinda old now, i suppose with some technology (and a lot of brain u se because something like this is not easy at all) instead of only 1s and 0s

they could manage to get 0s , 1s and 2s , dunno if it's even possible something like this :p

[Neural Net]

i would say 2030 XD

naaa they should change the method of how data is stored,

the "bit" is kinda old now, i suppose with some technology (and a lot of brain u se because something like this is not easy at all) instead of only 1s and 0s

they could manage to get 0s , 1s and 2s , dunno if it's even possible something like this :p

Yes, known as analogue transistors, they can do a lot more than 1s and 0s, but they're still not commercially viable yet, but they've been used in testing for years now.

[Shiggity]

Well we're entering the era of 'hybrid' computing. Where a processor will have a GPU element for massively parallel tasks and a CPU element for inherently single threaded tasks (some things are just nearly impossible to parallelize).

Intel's Sandy Bridge / Larrabee / Core i5, AMD/ATI's Fusion, Creative's Zii, IBM's Cell are all examples of hybrid computing.

The Zii and the Cell processors use one or two small regular CPU like cores to drive many GPU like cores.

Sandy Bridge and Fusion will take this one step further with 4-8 large scalar CPU like cores working together with vector co-processors and vector based instruction sets. So the CPU won't really be the CPU anymore, it'll me more like a GCPU or something. The cores won't be the same anymore, one core on a "CPU" or "GPU" will be able to do everything well.

Intel has already come out and said Larrabee would be able to run a computer system just by itself, because all it is are a lot of small X86 cores that are good at doing GPU tasks, but you could still run an OS / programs.

Up until now super computers have usually been either all CPU's (high end math simulation where you don't need a lot of graphics / image integration) or GPU (finance, weather, molecular dynamics, super high end video imaging / processing). With the fastest super computers in the world using a bit of both (Roadrunner and Jaguar are mostly CPU based with a decent amount being graphical acceleration with Cell processors, those were the first hybrid type supers on a really large scale).

We can also see this emergence of hybrid computing in i5 (GPU + CPU on die) and with the 'ION' platform (which is an Intel atom linked to an Nvidia integrated GPU).

I can't wait to see what Intel's next Atom SoC will be able to do with an Nvidia integrated GPU based off GT300. Rendering 1080p on a smartphone or a netbook will be a joke that takes almost no power and the desktop will start fading away into a tiny market share.



If I was microsoft I would be afraid because once this hybrid computing takes off, people are going to start challenging their core operating systems. Microsoft is already getting beaten around in the smartphone OS marketplace, and people are going to start realizing they don't need a fancy OS for anything anymore. They'll have some kind of barebones cloud operating system that is essentially just a webpage (cough google cough). Linux is also getting better all the time. I mean you won't need a complicated OS system when you can program all of that functionality onto the chip or just port it to people over the internet for a fraction of the cost.

[Badbonji]

If I was microsoft I would be afraid because once this hybrid computing takes off, people are going to start challenging their core operating systems. Microsoft is already getting beaten around in the smartphone OS marketplace, and people are going to start realizing they don't need a fancy OS for anything anymore. They'll have some kind of barebones cloud operating system that is essentially just a webpage (cough google cough). Linux is also getting better all the time. I mean you won't need a complicated OS system when you can program all of that functionality onto the chip or just port it to people over the internet for a fraction of the cost.

True, but I bet Microsoft will adapt, they have enough money. I like the Sony's OS, for PS3/PSP and soon TV on the internet as it is simple to use and easy without a keyboard.

[Shiggity]

True, but I bet Microsoft will adapt, they have enough money. I like the Sony's OS, for PS3/PSP and soon TV on the internet as it is simple to use and easy without a keyboard.

Ever since Bill Gates left, the amount of innovation coming from Microsoft has been close to 0.

Their biggest products have been new office (getting owned by open office and google docs since the latter are free), MP3 player (crushed by apple and this was basically just a copy), revamped Internet Explorer (struggling to get market share back from the others, mozilla is just faster at getting new things out), revamped search engine (a joke compared to google). XBOX 360 was successful though.

The only thing Microsoft has anymore is Windows PC gaming / Direct X. Every other area of their business is losing ground as far as I can see. Sure some of those areas may still be somewhat profitable, but you can't just copy people forever, you're going to bleed yourself dry sooner or later.

Don't get me wrong Windows 7 looks really good, but if I could get DirectX 11 on another OS, I probably wouldn't use microsoft. The other operating systems are just as good for less money or for free.

[Zantal]

Ever since Bill Gates left, the amount of innovation coming from Microsoft has been close to 0.


F*****G true!

BILL COME BACK AND MAKE XP2!!!!

(you all agree XP was the best, and still is, the best M$ os)

[MadMan007]

Vista after SP1 and some time for drivers to mature (which btw was a problem when XP was released as well) is a better OS than XP, especially the x64 version. You've probably only used 'mature' XP, it had many of the same general complaints at release as Vista.

[deathman20]

Vista after SP1 and some time for drivers to mature (which btw was a problem when XP was released as well) is a better OS than XP, especially the x64 version. You've probably only used 'mature' XP, it had many of the same general complaints at release as Vista.

Many... I remember there was more issues with XP at release than Vista. Mind you though XP was far greater than 98/ME though so it didn't look as bad. XP and Vista are pretty close to alike so the flaws in Vista are more prevalent.

[ravaneli]

I just started with vista 3 months ago, was really reluctant after all the horrible reviews. I just put it for the RAM.

Amazingly enough, never had a single problem yet, even with driver. Not to say I install it in 15 mins and then update in another 15. XP takes forever to update all SPs and million patches..

If u have enough memory, 64b Vista should be at least as fast as XP.

[Zantal]

I just started with vista 3 months ago, was really reluctant after all the horrible reviews. I just put it for the RAM.

Amazingly enough, never had a single problem yet, even with driver. Not to say I install it in 15 mins and then update in another 15. XP takes forever to update all SPs and million patches..

If u have enough memory, 64b Vista should be at least as fast as XP.

i had really bad experience with xp 64, some hardware didn't run on it and many programs gave errors, might just be unlucky though if you have above 3gb of ram go vista 64b

[Shiggity]

Hehe sorry guys, I kind of derailed this thread multiple times =D

[deathman20]

Hehe sorry guys, I kind of derailed this thread multiple times =D

Bad boy... you will get a whippin now :beer: