8800GTS 512MB (G92) vs 8800GTX OMG!

[Topper]

On December 11th, there will be a new kid in town called nVidia GeForce 8800GTS 512MB G92 (or something like that).
It looks like this bad boy is going to beat-up on the GeForce 8800GTX.
The 8800GTS 512MB is based on a G92 chipset just like the new 8800GT.

TweakTown supposedly received an anonymous 8800GTS 512MB video card and tested it.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/2/page_2_the_card/index.html

According to TweakTown the 8800GTS 512MB G92 card has 512MB of GDDR3 memory which comes clocked in at 1940MHz DDR while the core and shader clocks come in at 650MHz and 1624MHz respectively.
The memory bus comes in at 256-bit.
To put the speed into comparison the 8800GT sports 512MB of DDR3 memory at 1800MHz DDR and with a core speed of 600MHz.

In a benchtest of video cards using Crysis SP Demo at 1920 x 1200, the 8800GTS 512MB G92 card had better numbers than the 8800GTX.

I desperately would love to have that new 8800GTS 512MB G92 video card as the bto consumer card in the next Mac Pro.
The with launch of the Mac Pro being delayed until December or January, maybe the 8800GTS G92 will be available.
Oh please, let it be so!

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/8800gts.jpg

[Eidorian]

*cricket chirp*

The G92 based 8800GTS is a more efficient GPU? :rolleyes:

[bbplayer5]

Why did you even bother posting this? Its not going to be out for the mac pro.

[Topper]

The G92 based 8800GTS is a more efficient GPU? :rolleyes:

As you know by now I am only concerned with power (where's a nice manly emoticon when you need one?)

Since you bring it up, yes, I'd say the G92 is more efficient than the G80 or R600 but less efficient than the RV670.

[Topper]

Its not going to be out for the mac pro.

Why not?

[Eidorian]

As you know by now I am only concerned with power (where's a nice manly emoticon when you need one?)I know how that feels.


Since you bring it up, yes, I'd say the G92 is more efficient than the G80 or R600 but less efficient than the RV670.The G80 based 88xx Series held their own for performance when introduced last year. The G92 just sweetens the deal.

All that I'm going to say about ATi is that they just need to fit their niche of matching their prices with performance when compared to nVidia. The HD 3850 and HD 3870 when sold at MSRP are competitive for what they offer.

[Topper]

I know how that feels.

The G80 based 88xx Series held their own for performance when introduced last year. The G92 just sweetens the deal.

All that I'm going to say about ATi is that they just need to fit their niche of matching their prices with performance when compared to nVidia. The HD 3850 and HD 3870 when sold at MSRP are competitive for what they offer.

I've seen some benchtests of the HD3870 and HD3850 in crossfire.
I'd kill for those video cards in crossfire.

[Eidorian]

I've seen some benchtests of the HD3870 and HD3850 in crossfire.
I'd kill for those video cards in crossfire.~$350 using the 3850 for 8800 GTX performance and around the same power usage if not a little less is nice.

I find my single 3850 to perform well enough at 1280 x 1024 for my gamer needs.

[bbplayer5]

Because the mac pro hasnt had a video card upgrade in 2 years. They wont do it now because its not a gaming machine.

[deathshrub]

I wish the new MPs would come out already because I'm tired of reading trash like this.

[Topper]

Because the mac pro hasnt had a video card upgrade in 2 years. They wont do it now because its not a gaming machine.

There is a new Mac Pro coming out within 47 days.
It will very likely have two consumer video cards.
There is no reason the 8800GTS 512MB G92 card can not be one of those cards.

[Topper]

I wish the new MPs would come out already because I'm tired of reading trash like this.

You think speculation is trash? I thought this site is called MacRumors.
You saw the thread's title. Why did you bother to read or respond to it?

[Sun Baked]

You think speculation is trash? I thought this site is called MacRumors.
You saw the thread's title. Why did you bother to read or respond to it?

If you don't plan on washing, rolling around in the trash is the only way to cover up bad BO.

[jamesi]

this honestly just strikes me as too much optimism. apple has never been one offer the best and greatest video card for their machines so few ppl here feel the need to wonder otherwise unless they see it

[Topper]

If you don't plan on washing, rolling around in the trash is the only way to cover up bad BO.

If that is your experience, then it must be true.

[Topper]

this honestly just strikes me as too much optimism. apple has never been one offer the best and greatest video card for their machines so few ppl here feel the need to wonder otherwise unless they see it

Yes, you are correct.
I will be totally shocked if a high-end video card is offered as bto.

[diamond.g]

Interesting review. Although I would be skeptical at the resolution chosen. The GTX really shines at higher resolutions. There is no other way for the bus to get a workout. I would also like to point out that the benchmark ran was DX9 not DX10 based. Read this thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45094) for more technical info.

[Topper]

Interesting review. Although I would be skeptical at the resolution chosen. The GTX really shines at higher resolutions. There is no other way for the bus to get a workout. Read this thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=45094) for more technical info.

That was a very interesting read, thank you.

The 8800GTS 512MB appears to outperform the 8800GTX at 1920 x 1200.
But you are thinking that the 8800GTX pulls away at 2560x1600?

I would also like to point out that the benchmark ran was DX9 not DX10 based.

If the benchmark were run at DX10, do you think the results would be different?

I have Apple stuff just like everyone else here....

An iPod

[bbplayer5]

2560x1600? ..... all 78 people that play on a mac in that resolution will be THRILLED!

[Wild-Bill]

Yes, you are correct.
I will be totally shocked if a high-end video card is offered as bto.

I wouldn't be surprised if thy offered the ATI HD 2900XT, which has been EOL'd in favor of the 3870. It wouldn't surprise me in the least for Apple to completely screw up the video card options, despite the amount of feedback that's been submitted to them.

[irishgrizzly]

I'm buying a games console instead. It'll probably be cheaper then whatever substandard card apple offers :rolleyes:

[Eidorian]

I'm buying a games console instead. It'll probably be cheaper then whatever substandard card apple offers :rolleyes:I'm sure the RTS and FPS fans would really love that console. :rolleyes:

[Pressure]

I'm sure the RTS and FPS fans would really love that console. :rolleyes:

But on the other hand that can't really be the demography Apple is trying to sell their Mac Pro to in the first place...

[diamond.g]

That was a very interesting read, thank you.

The 8800GTS 512MB appears to outperform the 8800GTX at 1920 x 1200.
But you are thinking that the 8800GTX pulls away at 2560x1600?



If the benchmark were run at DX10, do you think the results would be different?



An iPod

2560x1600? ..... all 78 people that play on a mac in that resolution will be THRILLED!
I do realize that 2560x1600 isn't a common resolution. But I would think running 4+xAA and 16xAF would be enough to show a bandwidth bottleneck. Although I am hearing the GTS is supposed to be quite overclockable.

Honestly I would probably wait till after the new year to get a G92 based card. Something tells me Nvidia is selling out of the G80 parts and will have something to replace the GTX and Ultra. I think they are waiting to see if AMD comes out with a GX2 type board. From all accounts that I had read everyone thought the RV670 was going to walk all over the G92, so I think the GTS was a response to that. Of course we all know that didn't turn out to be the case though.

These cards are overkill for those that want to play older games, don't play at higher resolutions, or don't play with high IQ settings. Which is why lots here think that the X1900 is fine.

[Topper]

I do realize that 2560x1600 isn't a common resolution.

Common resolution for the big LCDs

Honestly I would probably wait till after the new year to get a G92 based card. Something tells me Nvidia is selling out of the G80 parts and will have something to replace the GTX and Ultra. I think they are waiting to see if AMD comes out with a GX2 type board.

nVidia's D8E should arrive in January.
The D8E is Nvidia's answer to Radeon 3870 X2 dual chip card. It is based on two G92 (8800GT) chips.
The D8E will be a high-end video card.

I have not heard as yet of a single card replacement for the 8800GTX.

Honestly I would probably wait till after the new year to get a G92 based card.

You've got to be talking PC because it won't be in the Mac Pro.

[diamond.g]

Common resolution for the big LCDs
True, but I always get the impression from folks here that gaming (because lets be honest nothing else drives cards like gaming) isn't done at resolutions higher than 1620x1280.

nVidia's D8E should arrive in January.
The D8E is Nvidia's answer to Radeon 3870 X2 dual chip card. It is based on two G92 (8800GT) chips.
The D8E will be a high-end video card.

I have not heard as yet of a single card replacement for the 8800GTX.
Most likely Nvidia will convert the GTX to a G9X card as the OC versions of the G92 that the retailers sell will outperform it, @ <1920x1200 resolutions.


You've got to be talking PC because it won't be in the Mac Pro.
You never know. If Apple waits to update the MP it is possible. Or at least it could be a BTO option. Of course this is assuming that Apple let Nvidia write the drivers and not try to do it themselves.

[Eidorian]

I know that within my group of gamer friend that 1280 x 1024 (17" LCDs) were the standard until about last year.

We just made the bump up to 1680 x 1050 this year.

[bbplayer5]

2560x1600 is common for a 26-30 inch LCD. 26-30 inch LCDs are NOT common amongst any user grouping - especially gamers. Gamers cannot play a game smoothly at that resolution without spending 1200 dollars on an SLI rig (and thats JUST the video card pricing).

1920x1200 is the max ANY gamer should go for quite a long time - (24 inch LCD).

[diamond.g]

2560x1600 is common for a 26-30 inch LCD. 26-30 inch LCDs are NOT common amongst any user grouping - especially gamers. Gamers cannot play a game smoothly at that resolution without spending 1200 dollars on an SLI rig (and thats JUST the video card pricing).

1920x1200 is the max ANY gamer should go for quite a long time - (24 inch LCD).1920x1200 is fine as long as you are using tons of AA and AF. Otherwise I stick to my comment of the G92 and G80 being overkill for most Mac gamers.

I know that within my group of gamer friend that 1280 x 1024 (17" LCDs) were the standard until about last year.

We just made the bump up to 1680 x 1050 this year. But do you guys turn up the IQ settings? Or do you play the games looking like PS2 level stuff?

[Eidorian]

But do you guys turn up the IQ settings? Or do you play the games looking like PS2 level stuff?Let's see what we have

6800 GT - dual 19" CRT
7600 GT - 17" LCD
7950 GT - 22" LCD
3850 - 22" LCD

We can push say Joint Operations and Battlefield 2 to high but it takes a bit more for Company of Heroes and World in Conflict.

I'm sporting the 3850 and World In Conflict runs great on High Settings until every explosive weapon known to man shows up and debris have to be rendered.

At best we fall into performance midrange. $130-280 is the range we shoot for a video card.

[^squirrel^]

Because the mac pro hasnt had a video card upgrade in 2 years. They wont do it now because its not a gaming machine.

OK...... Apple sign deals with EA so they can license games for OSX. So what mac in the Apple line IS the gaming machine? It certainly isn't the Mac Mini or Macbook! The iMac GPU sucks as well, so that leaves the MBP and MP.

The MP being the top level machine, one would expect it to be the gaming machine as well. Or at least one of the gaming options.

All i can say it's going to happen in the next 8 weeks. What GPU... who knows. It's more than likely to be an 8800 or some kind or 3 series ATi. If it's either of those then i'll be happy.

[diamond.g]

Let's see what we have

6800 GT - dual 19" CRT
7600 GT - 17" LCD
7950 GT - 22" LCD
3850 - 22" LCD

We can push say Joint Operations and Battlefield 2 to high but it takes a bit more for Company of Heroes and World in Conflict.

I'm sporting the 3850 and World In Conflict runs great on High Settings until every explosive weapon known to man shows up and debris have to be rendered.

At best we fall into performance midrange. $130-280 is the range we shoot for a video card.
Nice, I don't do too much pc type gaming anymore. The upgrading cost was starting to kill me. Any reason why you didn't get an 8800GT instead of the 3850?

[Eidorian]

Nice, I don't do too much pc type gaming anymore. The upgrading cost was starting to kill me. Any reason why you didn't get an 8800GT instead of the 3850?8800 GT - gouged to $289-319 and out of stock

3850 - $179 and bought on launch day

I haven't overclocked it yet but it's a killer card for $179. Still, I probably should have gone with the 3870 now that I think about it some more.

I only spent $640 on my gaming machine mind you.

[Sesshi]

Won't there be like some sort of 8800GTX-TypeR-Turbo card along soon (and the questions of "will it fit on the Pro to replace the pathetic card that Apple shipped?") to repeat this cycle of OMG-age? The 8800GTX is now pretty old.

[diamond.g]

8800 GT - gouged to $289-319 and out of stock

3850 - $179 and bought on launch day

I haven't overclocked it yet but it's a killer card for $179. Still, I probably should have gone with the 3870 now that I think about it some more.

I only spent $640 on my gaming machine mind you. Figures, I just looked, the PNY 8800GT is only 269 @ Newegg. But the raised prices are par for course.

Won't there be like some sort of 8800GTX-TypeR-Turbo card along soon (and the questions of "will it fit on the Pro to replace the pathetic card that Apple shipped?") to repeat this cycle of OMG-age? The 8800GTX is now pretty old.
Well there is always the 8800Ultra. Just incase you wanted to spend $700 on a card.

[Eidorian]

Figures, I just looked, the PNY 8800GT is only 269 @ Newegg. But the raised prices are par for course.I'd have to eat sleep and breath NewEgg to get it at $269.

Strangely enough CompUSA was offering the 8800GT for only $249 last week. I had already purchased my 3850 though.

[Topper]

3850 - $179 and bought on launch day.
I only spent $640 on my gaming machine mind you.

I think you are saving your money for the Nehalem Mac Pro :rolleyes:

[Eidorian]

I think you are saving your money for the Nehalem Mac Pro :rolleyes:After a rebate or two it'll be under $600.

I waited for the Penryn Mac Pro and that didn't get me anywhere.

[Topper]

After a rebate or two it'll be under $600.

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/rofl.gif

[Eidorian]

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/rofl.gifI'm not sure what's amusing about the total cost of my system.

I'm not one to place significant reliability mail-in rebates but the $70 I received for my monitor months ago was quite nice.

[Topper]

I'm not sure what's amusing about the total cost of my system.

Oh, I thought you meant the Nehalem Mac Pro.
That was the sentence you were responding to.

[Eidorian]

Oh, I thought you meant the Nehalem Mac Pro.
That was the sentence you were responding to.I understand now.

[Topper]

I understand now.

Good, glad we've got that cleared up :)

At a later date, can you buy another HD3850 and set-up crossfire?

[Eidorian]

Good, glad we've got that cleared up :)

At a later date, can you buy another HD3850 and set-up crossfire?I'm on a Micro ATX motherboard but I did throw the idea around for a few days.

I already had a Micro ATX in my possession though.

[chewietobbacca]

They're expecting the GeForce 9 series sometime in February-March so the next generation battle is about to begin again. At least ATI redeemed itself with the 3850 and 3870's which have sold really well and R700 for them is supposed to be quite impressive.

As for gaming resolutions, 1680 x 1050 is kind of the new standard, replacing 1280 x 1024 (though the majority still game at 1280 x 1024). I have a 30" Dell monitor and at 2560 x 1600, I can play everything maxed out (except for AA) in every game at that resolution except for: Call of Juarez and Crysis. Everything else runs fine easily with a single 8800 Ultra (overclocked though) and at that resolution, AA isn't a necessity. I can't wait for the next generation though, considering it might be twice to three times faster than the 8800Ultra is right now, which itself is 3-4 times faster than the X19xx series which ruled last generation...

[Topper]

They're expecting the GeForce 9 series sometime in February-March so the next generation battle is about to begin again.

January is end-of-line for the 8800 series cards. That probably means a new high-end card from nVidia in January or February.
Sometime early in 2008, ATI is bringing out a dual RV670 (HD3870 x2) card that will have a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.
Compare that to the memory bandwidth of 103.7 GB/s for the 8800 Ultra and 86.4 for the 8800 GTX.
Sometime early in 2008, nVidia will counter that with a dual G92 (8800 GT x2) video card.

I have a 30" Dell monitor and at 2560 x 1600, I can play everything maxed out (except for AA) in every game at that resolution except for: Call of Juarez and Crysis. Everything else runs fine easily with a single 8800 Ultra (overclocked though).

Some people on this forum think the X1900XT is a high-end card.
The next generation Mac Pro will not have a video card that can touch your 8800 Ultra.
One year later and the 8800 Ultra and 8800 GTX are still king of the video cards.

[diamond.g]

January is end-of-line for the 8800 series cards. That probably means a new high-end card from nVidia in January or February.
Sometime early in 2008, ATI is bringing out a dual RV670 (HD3870 x2) card that will have a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.
Compare that to the memory bandwidth of 103.7 GB/s for the 8800 Ultra and 86.4 for the 8800 GTX.
Sometime early in 2008, nVidia will counter that with a dual G92 (8800 GT x2) video card.



Some people on this forum think the X1900XT is a high-end card.
The next generation Mac Pro will not have a video card that can touch your 8800 Ultra.
One year later and the 8800 Ultra and 8800 GTX are still king of the video cards.

That bandwidth has to be shared between two chips (the RV670 X2). So comparing it against the 8800Ultra/GTX is misleading. SLI'ed 8800Ultra/GTX would walk all over the RV670 X2. Although I'd give AMD the kudos for CF scaling. It is remarkably better than SLI.

[Topper]

SLI'ed 8800Ultra/GTX would walk all over the RV670 X2.

I agree but how many people can afford an 8800Ultra/GTX in SLI?
That G92 x2 will walk all over the RV670 x2.

[diamond.g]

I agree but how many people can afford an 8800Ultra/GTX in SLI?
That G92 x2 will walk all over the RV670 x2.

Well in the context of a Mac Pro, I would think if you could afford a Mac Pro you could afford 8800Ultra SLi (assuming Apple offered it as a solution). What would be neat to see is if AMD can pull of a GX2 type board with the RV670 and then CF that. Boy that would have to be a monster setup. Quad CF or Quad SLi is just sick.

[Pressure]

Well in the context of a Mac Pro, I would think if you could afford a Mac Pro you could afford 8800Ultra SLi (assuming Apple offered it as a solution). What would be neat to see is if AMD can pull of a GX2 type board with the RV670 and then CF that. Boy that would have to be a monster setup. Quad CF or Quad SLi is just sick.

It's called R680 and is basically two RV670 chips on one PCB with an CrossfireX connector. So yes, it should even be possible to connect four of them together come January or four regular RV670 boards.

[deathshrub]

You think speculation is trash? I thought this site is called MacRumors.
You saw the thread's title. Why did you bother to read or respond to it?

I see no rumors. I see uninformed opinions from people who have NO idea what apple is going to do when they finally do release the new mac pros.

[Topper]

I see no rumors. I see uninformed opinions from people who have NO idea what apple is going to do when they finally do release the new mac pros.

Uninformed opinions?
No, I totally disagree.
I'd say some are well thought out educated guesses.
Stoakley, Seaburg, and Harpertown are just about guarantees even though Apple has yet to mention any of them.
It is also a good educated guess that the Mac Pro will have one or more of the following three video cards in it: 8800 GT, HD3850, and/or HD3870.

[Topper]

I'm on a Micro ATX motherboard but I did throw the idea around for a few days.
I already had a Micro ATX in my possession though.

3870 in crossfire looks like a winner.
Your 3850 in crossfire beats the GTX.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/1/

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/3870.jpg

[Eidorian]

3870 in crossfire looks like a winner.
Your 3850 in crossfire beats the GTX.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/605/1/

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/3870.jpgI'll see what I can do next year.

I might see a GPU upgrade long before a CPU one.

[Topper]

A German web site jumped the gun and is offering an ASUS 8800 GTS 512MB (G92) for sale.
I have no chance but this is the video card I would most want to see in the next Mac Pro.
Well, I would rather have the 8800 GTX but that is not being realistic.
nVidia will take the page down but until then here it is:
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/a299368.html

http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/ASUS 8800 GTS.jpg

[twoodcc]

i hope this goes in the new mac pro....and can go in the current mac pros as well

[Pressure]

A German web site jumped the gun and is offering an ASUS 8800 GTS 512MB (G92) for sale.
I have no chance but this is the video card I would most want to see in the next Mac Pro.
Well, I would rather have the 8800 GTX but that is not being realistic.
nVidia will take the page down but until then here it is:
http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/a299368.html



Why would you want a slower Geforce 8800 GTX in the next Mac Pro?

[diamond.g]

Why would you want a slower Geforce 8800 GTX in the next Mac Pro?

The answer is more apparant if you take into account what size monitor those MacPros are hooked up to. If the resolustion is greater than 1900x1200 it would be more prudent to use a GTX/Ultra as they are faster due to more bandwidth.

[Topper]

Why would you want a slower Geforce 8800 GTX in the next Mac Pro?

You are right, that is stupid on my part.
For some reason I was thinking (wrongly) that the 8800 GTX is better at higher resolutions.

The answer is more apparant if you take into account what size monitor those MacPros are hooked up to. If the resolustion is greater than 1900x1200 it would be more prudent to use a GTX/Ultra as they are faster due to more bandwidth.

hmm. It will be interesting to see when more benchtesting come out.

[diamond.g]

You are right, that is stupid on my part.
For some reason I was thinking (wrongly) that the 8800 GTX is better at higher resolutions.



hmm. It will be interesting to see when more benchtesting come out.

Here (http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=1057&model2=706&chart=302) is a tool to check differences between cards (GTS isn't there yet though but the GT OC is). The interesting part is the lack of resolutions above 1920x1200, yet the G80 is still faster than the G92. Of course if you aren't into high quality then it doesn't matter, but if you are already spending 2.5k for a computer spending an extra 100 bucks on a video card shouldn't be that big of a deal. Although the rumor mill is saying that the high end G9x cards should be coming out in Februrary. I also hope the next Mac Pro comes with two true 16x PCIe lanes and support for SLI/Crossfire.

[Topper]

I also hope the next Mac Pro comes with two true 16x PCIe lanes and support for SLI/Crossfire.

That would be ideal. Then I wouldn't need the 8800 GTS (G92).

[Pressure]

The answer is more apparant if you take into account what size monitor those MacPros are hooked up to. If the resolustion is greater than 1900x1200 it would be more prudent to use a GTX/Ultra as they are faster due to more bandwidth.

Is this the old "I use my Mac Pro for gaming at 1920 x 1200 / 2560 x 1600" or it can run Aperture, Motion and other professional applications much faster statement?'

As the Mac as a gaming platform have failed to materialize I hope you mean the latter, in which case the new Geforce 8800 GTS 512MB will be faster.

It would be a no-brainer for Apple.

Faster, while being cheaper and consuming less power.

[diamond.g]

Is this the old "I use my Mac Pro for gaming at 1920 x 1200 / 2560 x 1600" or it can run Aperture, Motion and other professional applications much faster statement?'

As the Mac as a gaming platform have failed to materialize I hope you mean the latter, in which case the new Geforce 8800 GTS 512MB will be faster.

It would be a no-brainer for Apple.

Faster, while being cheaper and consuming less power.
:o I would hope Apple would want to have the faster card available, regardless of in what sense it should be used. I personally think the I don't game at that resolution so it doesn't matter argument is weaksauce. Besides has it been proven that Aperture, motion and other pro apps are noticably faster with a GTS vs a GTX? I mean if you are using games as your benchmark for speed in that realm you may want to use the most demanding situation versus the most convenient.

Ultimately Apple should just have Nvidia/Ati make the drivers for the cards so that any card made would work in a Mac. Apple would never sell "mac compatible" cards at a comparable price to the "non-mac compatible" price.

[Topper]

I'll see what I can do next year (HD3850 in crossfire).
I might see a GPU upgrade long before a CPU one.

I didn't realize it but the HD3870 x2 in January is not HD3870 in crossfire.
It is two RV670XT chips on one board.
Just wondering out loud... if Apple puts an HD3870 in the new Mac Pro, could that driver be used to flash an HD3870 x2 card?
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071219PD206.html

[Eidorian]

I didn't realize it but the HD3870 x2 in January is not HD3870 in crossfire.
It is two RV670XT chips on one board.
Just wondering out loud... if Apple puts an HD3870 in the new Mac Pro, could that driver be used to flash an HD3870 x2 card?
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071219PD206.htmlAnd I thought my 3850 was long.

Long card is long.

[Pressure]

I didn't realize it but the HD3870 x2 in January is not HD3870 in crossfire.
It is two RV670XT chips on one board.
Just wondering out loud... if Apple puts an HD3870 in the new Mac Pro, could that driver be used to flash an HD3870 x2 card?
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071219PD206.html

I don't seem why that would come as a surprise. It have been known for quite some time now that the R680 was in fact two RV670 chips on a single board.

Also one of the reasons for CrossfireX support coming out in the January timeframe.

[diamond.g]

I didn't realize it but the HD3870 x2 in January is not HD3870 in crossfire.
It is two RV670XT chips on one board.
Just wondering out loud... if Apple puts an HD3870 in the new Mac Pro, could that driver be used to flash an HD3870 x2 card?
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071219PD206.html

If you did that chances are you would only be able to see one chip on the board. If it worked at all.

[Topper]

I don't seem why that would come as a surprise. It have been known for quite some time now that the R680 was in fact two RV670 chips on a single board.

It would help if I knew how to read.http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/head slap.gif
I've been reading the R680 articles right from the get-go but for some reason I kept thinking they meant crossfire.

Also one of the reasons for CrossfireX support coming out in the January timeframe.

If they are on a single board, why do they need CrossfireX? My guess is to connect with other R680 video cards.


If you did that chances are you would only be able to see one chip on the board. If it worked at all.

That's too bad because I am quite sure the new Mac Pro will not have an R680 video card.

[diamond.g]

It would help if I knew how to read.http://homepage.mac.com/ctopper/.Pictures/head slap.gif
I've been reading the R680 articles right from the get-go but for some reason I kept thinking they meant crossfire.




That's too bad because I am quite sure the new Mac Pro will not have an R680 video card.

Actually, it may see both cards, maybe. It uses a PCIe bridge for the cards to communicate with one another, and with the north bridge. So in theory it should show up as two separate cards. The real question is if CF works in OS X.

I am trying to find out if the 7950GX2 shows up as two cards in Windows, because that is basically what ATI is doing.

[Yvan256]

All I'm hoping for is a supported GPU in the Mac mini by the time Starcraft 2 comes out.

This is assuming two things:
- the Mac mini (or something similar) still exists when Starcraft 2 comes out.
- Apple put a decent GPU in it (at least the minimum required for SC2)

I just bought a Core 2 Duo Mac mini, and given Blizzard's usual timeframes, I'd say I have time to upgrade again before SC2 comes out. :D

[Pressure]

If they are on a single board, why do they need CrossfireX? My guess is to connect with other R680 video cards.


Yeah, it basically means you will be able to use four Radeon 3800 series cards or two R680 cards in CrossfireX. The R680 is also a Crossfire on the board solution, where both GPUs speak with eachother over an onboard PCI-Express chip.

R700 is supposed to be made up of more chips (around 300 million transistors each) so they need to learn how to optimize their drivers for multicore environments.

Don't know how well CrossfireX will scale but I am sure it will only matter to a very miniscule percentage of the market anyway.