NVIDIA GT300 ''Fermi'' Detailed

[imperialreign]

Fixed. He did said about the top to bottom release. What I linked is the second (out 6) consecutive post made in FUD at the hours that the keynote has taken place, the first one says:

I don't care what Fud said about the keynote address - again, I do not find them to be a reliable source. Just because Fud claims a CEO says something, does not make it true.

2nd day into the conference, and I have yet to see any mention of such a release strategy on the on-running GTC blog site, nor was it mentioned in Jensen's keynote address summary . . . as well, no other tech site reporting on the conference have mentioned the GT300 release strategy.

Sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I'd think news such as that (along with the presentation of the GT300) would be big enough that other sites would've coughed it up too . . . not just Fud; and I'm 100% sure Fud is not the only "major" tech site with representatives on hand. If you've payed any attention to the tech industry over the last 10-20 years (which, I defi get the feeling you have), you'd know that upcoming hardware release strategies (especially for the GPU markets) are like crack to the tech communities - right alongside the spec and pricing sheets.

Such a release strategy just does not make sense for nVidia, especially considering that ATI have already made it to market with their new series, allowing ATI to gain the upper hand in the pricing game . . . not to mention that everyone knows hemlock is waiting in the wings, and ATI won't drop that bombshell until nVidia have stepped into the ring . . . this is the same market strategy both companies have used since the days of the X1000/7800 series. That being said, until I see it on shelves - I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't believe 100% either, and I'm not saying that's going to be true. But what I do think is that writen words that are claimed to come from a CEO >>>>>>>>> speculation and thoughts of a member with no info to back his claims. So since all this is speculation, and all of us are talking from speculation, I put both things in a balance and I have no doubts as to which posible, especulated, reality is the one with more probabilities. Specially since most of the other info there regarding GTC is true. Even if Fudzilla is not the most believable source, truth is that with GT300, they've been correct in the last two days and also overally. For instance I think they were the first ones mentioning the real codename Fermi.

So, seeing as how eeverything is all just speculation . . . then it's safe to assume your initial interpretations of Fud's article are merely speculation as well? I mean, you yourself claim you don't believe Fud 100% either, yet you've twisted your understanding of the article to serve your needs . . . and you have the audacity to claim that I'm warping the message?

Again, this is the tech market we're talking about - all "rumors," whether regurgitated from news sites, or spewed from the manufacturer's mouth - are all to be taken with a grain of salt. There's a lot of sandbagging in the industry, and a lot of smoke & mirrors, too. Things can and do change overnight.

What is clear IMO is that he had already made his mind around an idea, he didn't know who Jensen Huang is nor what GTC is, so he thought he was making his claim stronger in his second reply, while he wasn't, and he is unable to change his position after that on his next posts.

I love your pretentious level of assumption. Simply because I disagree with an unbacked statement you made . . . brilliant.

You still fail to realize that again you yourself have twisted the claim that Fud made . . . here, let me help break down simple english context for you, seeing as how you obiviously don't get it . . . now, if english is not your primary language, that's cool - I apologize . . . if not . . . then, that's just sad:

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level. (the claim that is being disputed) While he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation meaning, Fud states that Jensen DID NOT mention the GT300 release strategy during his keynote address), this release strategy also includes a high end dual-GPU configuration that should ship around the same time ("around the same time" - meaning "not at the same time, but possibly within a month or two") as the high end single-GPU model (which contradicts the first sentence in this sentence, in that the dual-GPU will not ship at the same time as the single-GPU . . . which means it won't be a "top-to-bottom" release, as the dual-GPU would be released first).

Does that make it more understandable?

Point is, even if that info is not 100% accurate, the posibility that it could not happen that way is not enough to assure his claims. Uncertainty is never a proof of anything, and seriously I'm starting to believe I've traveled to an alien world or something, because I'm seing uncertainty used as proof everywhere: like in BM: Arkham, TWIMTBP as a whole, in the spaniard TV... It's the world becoming crazy or what?

Sounds like sandbagging to me . . . as you've come across quite unsure yourself. It's always amazed me how "holier-than-thou" people are willing to come across, but seem to be under the impression that their shit doesn't stink.


I've said my piece, I'm done with this discussion, debate, arguement, disagreement or whatever you want to call it.

I'll let time prove who's right and who's wrong.

 

[El Fiendo]

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level. (the claim that is being disputed) While he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation meaning, Fud states that Jensen DID NOT mention the GT300 release strategy during his keynote address), this release strategy also includes a high end dual-GPU configuration that should ship around the same time ("around the same time" - meaning "not at the same time, but possibly within a month or two") as the high end single-GPU model (which contradicts the first sentence in this sentence, in that the dual-GPU will not ship at the same time as the single-GPU . . . which means it won't be a "top-to-bottom" release, as the dual-GPU would be released first).

Hold up a second. Mind your periods and commas. As that article is written it says:

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level. <<END>> While he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation, this release strategy also includes a high end dual-GPU configuration that should ship around the same time... <-THIS is what is implied he didn't talk about due to the way the sentence is structured. If it was saying he didn't talk about the release strategy, it would read:

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level, even though he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation.

Commas can change context very easily.

As for the "around the same time" - meaning "not at the same time, but possibly within a month or two" part, the quote you provide never said it would be released immediately. It only ever says 'around the same time' so nothing is contradicting.

 

[Benetanegia]

Hold up a second. Mind your periods and commas. As that article is written it says:

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level. <<END>> While he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation, this release strategy also includes a high end dual-GPU configuration that should ship around the same time... <-THIS is what is implied he didn't talk about due to the way the sentence is structured. If it was saying he didn't talk about the release strategy, it would read:

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level, even though he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation.

Commas can change context very easily.

As for the "around the same time" - meaning "not at the same time, but possibly within a month or two" part, the quote you provide never said it would be released immediately. It only ever says 'around the same time' so nothing is contradicting.

Thanks, thanks. I was going to write exactly the same, but since my first language is not english, he would still have something to say about it. Thanks, thanks a lot again. Also important for the context is the previous line to what imperial posted:

However, one thing that he has confirmed is that Fermi architecture is very scalable and that it will end up in many GPUs.

so

Nvidia will implement a top-to-bottom release strategy from high end to entry level.<<END>> While he didn't talk about it during the keynote presentation, this release strategy also includes a high end dual-GPU configuration that should ship around the same time...

 

[PP Mguire]

There never is and never will be a dual GT200 card.
You need to get your facts right, before you argue.
The GTX 295 is a dual GT200b card, the 55nm die shink allow this to happen.
If they try to get dual GT200 on a single cooler, you get another Asus Mars furnace.
I am sure it would have made you a cup of coffee.

Symantics. The point is everybody argued against a GTX295 type card and there was one.
Any video card that properly makes me a cup of coffee has my vote.

 

[jaredpace]

The NV GF100 card looks 1000 times better than the HDbatmobileX2

 

[amschip]

It depends. This is the average of all games performance at 2560x1600 from Wizzard's HD5870 review.

http://img.techpowerup.org/091001/perfrel_2560.gif

Compared to HD5870 the GTX285 is doing 78% and HD4870 is doing 50%, if we normalize 50% to being 100% and take it as the base, then:

78/50 * 100 = 156%

That is at 2560x1600 the GTX285 is 56% faster than HD4870 in the average of all the games that Wizzard reviews.

But wait!! Ati had another 956 million transistor card, using the same chip the HD4850, we apply the same math and that gives us that GTX285 is 95% faster or almost twice as fast. 40% more transistors and 2x the performance not too shaby isn't it? GTX285's clock is 648 Mhz, HD4870 is 750 Mhz and HD4850 is 625 Mhz.

Comparing the card at 2560x1600 does make sense, because a lot of that extra 40% transistors went to the extra 16 ROPs that help at that resolution.

What I mean with all this is, it depends.

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you thing comparing 1GB and 512MB cards at such a high resolution is seriously flawed? If you compare gtx295 and 4870x2 both with more or less 2GB of memory the difference is not that big. The difference is only 12%. So almost 3 Billion transistors is only 12% faster than 2 Billion.