Forums | MacLife

Ahhh, thats right.

I wouldn't want to be NV unless I had a golden parachute and was already halfway out the door.

192 stream processors or 216 stream processors? To have, or not to have, that is the question. Nvidia recently released their improved version of the GTX 260, but partners are not buying into it right now.

The improved version of the card was part of an attempt to offer a product that would indisputably better compared to an offer from their direct competitor, ATI – with the 4870 graphics card. The new core does have its advantages over the old version, but many manufacturers have decided to stick with the older version for now.

The original GTX 260 with 192 stream processors (SP) has 64 texture units (TU), 28 render back ends (RBE) and 896MB of GDDR3. The new GTX 260 with 216 stream processors comes with 72 texture units and 30 render back ends and the same 896 MB of GDDR3. There is a performance increase, but nothing substantial. Nvidia even maintained the price model of the original 260.

Although the attempt was a good one, many of the leading suppliers of Nvidia based cards such as Asustek, Gainward, MicroStar International and Leadtek Research, still do not sell graphics cards based on the new 216SP core. According to market sources, many companies have too many of the 192SP based boards available in stock right now – they would have to be unloaded first before even considering another model with the same name with technical differences. Suppliers also do not think the performance increase is enough to warrant hopping on board just yet.

Nvidia Partners Reluctant to Sell New Chip

It's likely a matter of yields. The 280 has all 10 blocks of 24 SPs working; the 260 was the 'salvage' part, with two of those disabled/not working. Yields improve over time, so this jobbie has 9 functional blocks. 9 blocks = 216 SPs.

Thing is, that doesn't address the issue of all those 8-core original chips already bought by AIBs, needing to be sold to recoup their purchase price. The new card obviously isn't expected to set the world on fire and make up the difference in volume with, at best, 1/8 better performance. The product lineup is too crowded; offer this now, risk having a bunch of unsold originals left later.

(Unless Steve bought some at fire-sale prices for a Mac version. Calling Steve; bargain videochips ...but that would only benefit one firm).

ScifiterX wrote:

It strikes me for MacBook Pro & iMac he probably asks for the best onboard video card(s) he can get within specific heat and cost parameters.

Videochips for at least the notebooks; chip & any local memory therefor are soldered on the logic board (and on the iMac as well for all I know). That's why they're non-upgradable; they're not discrete cards. As for heat etc., too bad he has no engineering training.

For the Mac Pros, he asks for a reasonably priced card that's superior to the both the iMac card & the last standard card used in the Mac Pro plus any superior cards that the card makers will sell them, however since Apple's line isn't usually video upgrade friendly that tends be a limited selection and quantity.

The 2600 Pro is the same on the iMac and the base MP config. Apple is a large enough company Steve could get most any card they offer, tho SLI/Crossfire would be pointless as OSX lacks multi-GPU support. But Steve could have current offerings, and they could be cooled- Apple is proud of its thermal management, not without reason. Not too long ago it was deemed worthwhile to stick an auto radiator in 2.7GHz G5s, remember; but Steve just seems not to care enough about... you know. Or upgrade his apps and OS soonest to leverage GPU power. The Windows PC just pwns the Mac in those areas.

And yes, it could make a difference.

The AT board, and those of a number of review sites, had an incorrect early BIOS that didn't enable all available SPs. Retail boards are unaffected, but some early reviews showed subpar performance.

After re-running all of our test, we updated the original article with the new charts and data. The final conclusion really doesn't change that much, but we did tweak things a little bit. There will still be a heavy emphasis on price and finding the lowest one possible when deciding between the Radeon HD 4830 and the GeForce 9800 GT. But the Radeon 4830 does look a little better in this new light and there is less of a threat from the myriad overclocked 9800 GT versions.

Update

How much worse can it get for NV? Good thing Apple's a big customer... the 4850X2 is here, and

IT LOOKS LIKE Nvidia's run of bad luck is continuing. The latest word is that the GT200b is in for another respin, that would be the third. This means the 270 and 290 are effectively delayed until February, and the GX2 part is quite dead.

If you recall, the original plan was to have them out for the Nehalem launch on the 17th, an ambitious goal considering the timing on the last respin. Since that spin failed, it is a moot point, but word is that NV will put something out on the market.

Since this is (was?) a simple optical shrink, there are going to be no new features, so that leaves better power, higher clocks, and lower prices as an option. Since most if not all GT200 based parts are selling at little if any profit – we hear 260s are under water, 280s barely above – don't look for price being the point the wheel-o-semicoductor-planning stops on.

That leaves power and speed. Unfortunately, the shrink is a mess and not working out well at all, so neither of those features panned out. Where does that leave us? With a shrunken GT200 that doesn't really perform any better or worse than the current part, but gives NV a little better breathing room. That is the current best case.

Nvidia 270/290 in deep trouble

DAAMIT HAS SPRUNG a surprise on the gaming masses who’ve had their attention drawn to the Core i7 launch. The HD 4850 X2 has been officially launched to a fanfare of reviews popping up across the world wide wibble.

First reviews show the 4850 X2 performing more or less on par with a GTX 280, depending on how well GPU scaling works, and how much the game engine is ATI-friendly. If your fanboi-ism doesn’t get the best of you, you’ll be more than happy to know that DAAMIT is pricing the card just below the GTX 280 and forcing the Green Goblin’s hand.

Naturally, the reviews posted into site in no time…

[list]

HD 4850 X2 reviews sneak in

NV strikes back... sort of.

GeForce 9600 GSO+ appears

Last month we reported on rumors that NVIDIA was prepping a "new" GeForce 9600 GSO based on their smaller G94 GPU (instead of G92) in an effort to cut manufacturing costs. The new 9600 GSO is equipped with half the shaders as the original 9600 GSO, 48, but retains G94's 256-bit memory interface (current 9600 GSO cards utilize a narrower 192-bit memory interface).

Today Expreview got their hands on one of the first of these new 9600 GSO cards from Inno3D. Their card is clocked at 650MHz core/1625MHz shaders, an improvement of 100MHz and 250MHz respectively over the original 9600 GSO. Finally the memory clock on the Inno3D 9600 GSO+ board is 900MHz, an increase of 100MHz over the original 9600 GSO.

Thanks to its higher clocks and 256-bit memory interface the new 9600 GSO's may perform comparably, or even slightly better than the original 9600 GSO in some situations despite its lack of shading units. Unfortunately Expreview doesn't list benchmark results for the card. Officially the GPU hasn't launched yet, but with current supplies of 9600 GSO cards drying up at Newegg (currently just 5 new cards are listed) and the appearance of this new 9600 GSO+ board, it's likely only a matter of weeks before the new cards hit retail. Expreview mentions an MSRP of $87 for the Inno3D card.

At least using G94 should save them some money.

http://www.firingsquad.com/news/newsart … chid=21011