- Joined
- Nov 26, 2005
- Location
- Concord, NC
The GX2 is really only 64GB/s. The bandwidth doesn't double when you go SLI which is how this card works.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
GeForce 9900 GTX & GTS Slated For July Launch
- Thread starter redrumy3
- Start date
The GX2 is really only 64GB/s. The bandwidth doesn't double when you go SLI which is how this card works.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Location
- the present
that's lame. i guess evga is basically lying on their product material then.
shouldn't they have to take that **** down if it's really only half that? how do they get away with saying **** like that? i guess it's kinda like the car mfgs putting mpg on the sticker that you will never see. why did i think more of vga manufacturers than auto makers? doh!
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
that's lame. i guess evga is basically lying on their product material then.
shouldn't they have to take that **** down if it's really only half that? how do they get away with saying **** like that? i guess it's kinda like the car mfgs putting mpg on the sticker that you will never see. why did i think more of vga manufacturers than auto makers? doh!
It's kinda true. It gets 64mb/s per GPU, for a combined 128mb/s. It's also kinda a 1GB card, 512MB per GPU.. I don't care how they market the thing, it's the fastest card money can buy and even Crysis doesn't slow it down at the resolution I play at
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Location
- Camarillo, CA!
this is the idea gfx card manufactures need to get in their head... and it looks like nvidia has at least for the time being... why not have the best of both worlds... IE good tight timings, with high bandwidth, the way to acheive this is via a wider buss, gddr5 3500 on a 256bit bus is the same as gddr3 1750 on a 512bit buss... all things the same the gddr3 variant will have slightly better performance because data doesnt have to pause to essiently get onto the ram. or off...
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Location
- Camarillo, CA!
man i cant wait to upgrade from my 8800gtx to a 9900gtx
this 512bit memory bandwidth sounds so awesome.
i cant wait to see crysis benchmarks
ya maybe one will be able to play crysis at a normal 22inch lcd rez (1680x1050) @ ultra high with playable fps.... maybe some AA, but i think im getting ahead of my self
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
ya maybe one will be able to play crysis at a normal 22inch lcd rez (1680x1050) @ ultra high with playable fps.... maybe some AA, but i think im getting ahead of my self
my computer is able to play on everything high no aa at 1680x1050 and get average of 30 fps
on a few maps it dips but its still playable. i find crysis one of those games that is playable at low fps.
i know a few games that if they dip to 45 or below its living hell
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2002
Glad to see nVidia going for the higher interface bandwidth since they are sticking with DDR3. But as well even when ATI had the 512-bit interface, what true benifits did it hand out? Looking at that and a 256-bit interface there seems to be little veriation at least with ATI's cards, hopefully on nVidia's they not going to be charging us for something that shows little improvement.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
512bit bus right now just adds alot more cost to a card so it isnt needed, ati higher bus i i recall was to help with AA and such, taking a far less hit?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
Nvidia is smart to make the expensive move to a bigger memory bus now I suppose. Later they can start putting in faster memory if needed. But I'm not sure when we're going to need such insanely high memory bandwidth, ATI is most likely sticking to the 256bit bus to save money and waiting to go to a higher bus when it's really needed.
I'm not sure how high the cap in bandwidth is on the 256bit bus though.
I'm not sure how high the cap in bandwidth is on the 256bit bus though.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Location
- Abroad...
I dont see why people say the 256 bit is enough now. The benchmarks clearly show high-rez AA will choke these "new" refresh cards. 512 bit is the way to go.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
AA is moot if the best video cards still can't do crysis on full detail / no AA / 1600x1200 (and higher resolutions) and get over 60fps.
Without having to go into something rediculous like 3-4 SLI or quadfire
AA is just awful in principle, it kills gpu's and doesn't really make it look THAT much better. AA is a tool that will drive very costly high bit memory buses, aka Nvidia.
Yeah someone will probably say " omg yes AA does make it look that much better " - yeah sorry but not at the cost of framerate, which is the main issue.
However, a bigger memory bus will be good for monitor scaling. Pretty soon 22" widescreen LCD's are going to be the standard resolution and most people will be at 1920x1200 with how fast LCDs are coming down in price.
Without having to go into something rediculous like 3-4 SLI or quadfire
AA is just awful in principle, it kills gpu's and doesn't really make it look THAT much better. AA is a tool that will drive very costly high bit memory buses, aka Nvidia.
Yeah someone will probably say " omg yes AA does make it look that much better " - yeah sorry but not at the cost of framerate, which is the main issue.
However, a bigger memory bus will be good for monitor scaling. Pretty soon 22" widescreen LCD's are going to be the standard resolution and most people will be at 1920x1200 with how fast LCDs are coming down in price.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Location
- Abroad...
AA is awful in principle and doesnt make it look better??
Err... everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess.
Err... everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2007
- Location
- Chicago, IL
AA is awful in principle and doesnt make it look better??
Err... everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess.
I'm saying for how much GPU power AA takes, its not justifable over the frame rate loss.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Location
- Camarillo, CA!
the only time i use AA is when i can afford to loose the FPS... IE playing bf2 @ 1280x1024 @ 100hz at alll max settings.... at thoes settings with my rig FPS are way higher than 100fps (i run vsync) so i turn aa on to make everything look pretty....
AA is a great invention in my book... it gets rid of the jaggies i personally dislike with a passion.
AA is a great invention in my book... it gets rid of the jaggies i personally dislike with a passion.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
AA? how about just high video memory games try to play company of heroes on a 9800gtx with everything set as high as it goes except AA. 8800 GTX will have better fps. AA is awesome though try playing call of duty with 3x super sampling looks very real other than the super low FPS.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
Seriously, who caers about crysis (obviously some people and i think far too many at that), coud it be poorly coded or not done very well optimized, thus why it is the only game to play so badly on almost any setup.
just cause something wont run crysis, doesnt make it a bad product
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Location
- Home... again
i run at least 2xAA in all my games and my GTS does it just awesome in anything other than crysis at my native res of 1680x1050... but who cares about crysis. I played it been there done that. Now if a game came out that was worth playing more than once and had some kind of replayability to it and not to mention a good multiplayer then that would be a different story. Crysis is one of the smoothest running games at low fps. it runs well even at 45fps but it sucks so who cares.
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Location
- Japan, Tokyo, Ueno.
Most likely these NV cards will scream and sell for higher price, NV won't make it midrange card until a die shrink so they can afford the bigger size, and later with DDR5 rams and higher clocks...
![Rich'[ard]](/forums/data/avatars/s/81/81732.jpg?1626886362){kind=avatar}
