Nvidia Readies Dual-Chip, Single-Chip High-Performance GPU's

Nvidia Corp., the world's largest designer of discrete graphics processing units (GPUs), reportedly plans to update its lineup of expensive graphics cards with at least two new offerings later in the quarter. The most powerful of the novelties will carry two graphics chips, whereas another will feature single-chip designs.

The new top-of-the-range graphics card by Nvidia is called GeForce 9800 GX2 which is based on two yet unknown 65nm graphics chips with 128 unified shader processors inside. The board, according to [H]ard|OCP web-site, will be 30% faster compared to Nvidia GeForce 8800 Ultra and will enable 4-way multi-GPU configurations. The novelty will have 256 stream processors in total, but will rely on driver support to demonstrate its potential, just like any multi-GPU solutions.

View: The full story @ Xbit-Labs

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

MS preps critical Vista patch for Tuesday

Next Story

DVDStyler 1.6

28 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

he novelty will have 256 stream processors in total, but will rely on driver support to demonstrate its potential, just like any multi-GPU solutions.

THIS is why we are only seeing a "measly" 30% increase, once the drivers are ready and optimized the improvements will be noticeable

HOLY crap! Hey mon...look at my quad core pc with 10 gigs of ram running a four GPU video card SLI with a tera byte hd and a 30 in LCD! Talk about a powa machine!

heh, i cant stop thinking of my old 9800 which came with half life 2 bundled....

i seriously think that the video cards need a different direction than more expensive -> more expensive -> even more expensive , if the performance isnt being pushed so much anymore...perhaps it is time for everyone to have roughly the same specs, no more gtx ultra nonsense, and take pc gaming back above the consoles... otherwise, theres always the option of having like multi gpu where it is a much more valid way of getting performance than before, since your not gonna get faster cards anymore

One of the advantages of PC gaming though and one reason PC gamers like the system is the customisation and ability to select from various hardware so I can't see them becoming a unified build and really that will just hold back progression. If thats what you want you may as well just be on a console.

In regards to card's not getting faster. Sure they will. Hell these cards will be faster than the 8800's just not enough to be really all that excited about after such a long wait in my oppinion. But cards are and will get faster. I also don't think they are really getting more expensive...for years I've seen the top end cards hovering at basically the same price bracket with there being cards alot cheaper for those that don't want the expensive option. It's only really getting more expensive IMHO if you start going SLI and the like.

carmatic said,
heh, i cant stop thinking of my old 9800 which came with half life 2 bundled....

i seriously think that the video cards need a different direction than more expensive -> more expensive -> even more expensive , if the performance isnt being pushed so much anymore...perhaps it is time for everyone to have roughly the same specs, no more gtx ultra nonsense, and take pc gaming back above the consoles... otherwise, theres always the option of having like multi gpu where it is a much more valid way of getting performance than before, since your not gonna get faster cards anymore

See if they do that, they lose sales. The whole point of releasing faster/more expensive and slower/more affordable is so that they can reach all corners of the market. In fact most of their money is made from the low end cards. 95% of people don't even know the difference, they just see a lower price tag.

that used to be the good old days..when a newer graphic card meant significant performance gain. 30% increase is too little for a new generation of graphic cards!

I hope this is all false as to be honest these figures aren't that great

The new model 9800 GTX will replace existing GeForce 8800 GTX, thus, should offer performance on par with GeForce 8800 Ultra and support 3-way SLI configuration.

The Ultras for instance are what, a year old now? They weren't even that big a step up on the 8800GTX which could be overclocked to similar levels. For them to be releasing a card in February, over a year after the 8800GTX, which doesnt outperform it by a considerable margin is a complete failure and won't really be of benefit to anyone IMHO.

Considering this news isnt from NVidia themselves I'll wait and see, but I think consumers should really be expecting more considering how long this top line refresh has been in the making. If this is all they are going to offer then it doesn't bode well for those that thought the cards would be a good step up when it came to Crysis ect over previous gen cards. And Hard forums/OCP which they sourced said the next real gen cards wont be until mid year. Who is NVIdia trying to kid, the current cards are already struggling enough in many of todays titles (particularly at higher resolutions) let alone whatever comes out in the next 6 months.

Hopefully ATI has a card up it's sleave as NVidia really needs a wake up call. With the measly gains on 1+ year old hardware it honestly wouldnt suprise me if AMD could take the lead at some point this year if NVidias new line isnt due for six months.

The issue here is, why DO they need to release something with a much larger performance increase? They are already killing AMD/ATI right now, why not ease back and keep something up their own sleeve?

The one reason I can think of for why they should release something even faster is for Crysis to perform decently at Very High without putting a hole in your wallet.

The reason they need to release new and faster hardware is that they ATI is NOT their only competition. As MS has found in the past with Windows and Office, NVidia is also competing with itself every time they release a new card. They aren't trying to win market share necessarily, what they need is sales and that includes current customers buying new cards.

These are supposed to be the top end cards and are meant to be replacing the previous top end gen. Based on their intended market I would have assumed that the main market for a new NVidia top tier product would be the exact same consumers who likely have already bought a 8800GTX or 8800Ultra. Make no bones about it, those cards, as are these, will be aimed at the top end PC gamers. With no top end card in over a year and verging 18 months by the time these are out, think of how many consumers would love to have received a real power house card and would jump at the oppotunity to upgrade.

And to that end thats why NVidia has to do more. These performance jumps arent really all that enticing at all to owners of existing NVidia hardware so much so that I can forsee many just skipping the cards althoghether. Bare in mind an overclocked 8800GTX can get close to an Ultra...when you consider that the 8800GTX came out in 2006 it's insane to think that in 2008 they are releasing a card that is only 30% faster and that that new card achieves this because it is in SLI. AMD not being an option hasn't stopped and will not stop the need for more powerful cards.

To me it seems a complete waste of time if these prelimary estimates are anything to go by. They don't offer any reason for current 8800 card owners to upgrade and the average consumer is still probably better served by the 8800GT.

The other reason of course is that AMD could pull one and get the upper hand and considering how slow NVidia is progressing that isn't out of the picture entirely and they did it in the past with the 9700. To me this complacency reminds me alot of Intel a few years ago and in the end it resulted in AMD becoming the market leader performance wise for a few years to follow.

edit: sorry about all the slashes...for some reason the sites messing my formatting up when I use the edit function

Smigit said,
The reason they need to release new and faster hardware is that they ATI is NOT their only competition. As MS has found in the past with Windows and Office, NVidia is also competing with itself every time they release a new card. They aren't trying to win market share necessarily, what they need is sales and that includes current customers buying new cards.

These are supposed to be the top end cards and are meant to be replacing the previous top end gen. Based on their intended market I would have assumed that the main market for a new NVidia top tier product would be the exact same consumers who likely have already bought a 8800GTX or 8800Ultra. Make no bones about it, those cards, as are these, will be aimed at the top end PC gamers. With no top end card in over a year and verging 18 months by the time these are out, think of how many consumers would love to have received a real power house card and would jump at the oppotunity to upgrade.

And to that end thats why NVidia has to do more. These performance jumps arent really all that enticing at all to owners of existing NVidia hardware so much so that I can forsee many just skipping the cards althoghether. Bare in mind an overclocked 8800GTX can get close to an Ultra...when you consider that the 8800GTX came out in 2006 it's insane to think that in 2008 they are releasing a card that is only 30% faster and that that new card achieves this because it is in SLI. AMD not being an option hasn't stopped and will not stop the need for more powerful cards.

To me it seems a complete waste of time if these prelimary estimates are anything to go by. They don't offer any reason for current 8800 card owners to upgrade and the average consumer is still probably better served by the 8800GT.

The other reason of course is that AMD could pull one and get the upper hand and considering how slow NVidia is progressing that isn't out of the picture entirely and they did it in the past with the 9700. To me this complacency reminds me alot of Intel a few years ago and in the end it resulted in AMD becoming the market leader performance wise for a few years to follow.

edit: sorry about all the slashes...for some reason the sites messing my formatting up when I use the edit function

I agree with some parts and it makes sense that they compete with themselves, but because they only have to compete with themselves, they don't have to release hardware with much significant improvement. I know I am satisfied with my 8800GT and I hope to get a second one to help out with Crysis. But any other game, I have 0 difficulty playing them. Framerates are fantastic, and Crysis is the only one that's been able to go significantly below 60fps.

I think nVidia feels they can take their time because of the AMD/ATI merger, and I think thats affected how well AMD can put out new cards. We'll see though, I really hope AMD pulls through, I used to buy their parts and ATI's as well, but nVidia and Intel have been able to offer better bang for the buck for me, at least with my budget.

I find it humorous that the people ^^^ are whining over the "meager 30% increase" in performance. What did you HONESTLY expect, 100% increase, 75%, 50%? I think the focus by many will be on the 4-way quad-SLI possibility. The 7950GX2 was a let down for most and the quad-SLI idea didn't go anywhere. With tri-SLI now, perhaps quad-SLI can gain a foothold.

What did you HONESTLY expect, 100% increase, 75%, 50%?

Surely 50% is more than reasonable to expect.

Either way, if the increase in power usage is greater than the increase in performance, then this thing won't be popular.

winmoose said,

Surely 50% is more than reasonable to expect.

Considering how old the 8800 line is and the fact the GTX and Ultras are the older cards in that lineup, I totally agree.

warwagon said,
A while ago??? ...... it was just TODAY!

"a while" is no definite amount of time mind you... can be anything from minutes to days/months whatever

Sounds good, though price and performance remain to be seen. It's just unfortunate that ATi/AMD cannot offer decent competition, as nVidia is cleaning up at the moment.

(2) 8800's in one (technically), I think i'll pass. 2 GPU's and only a 30% increase? What the hell????, am I the only one that thinks thats pathetic?

Aq3e said,
(2) 8800's in one (technically), I think i'll pass. 2 GPU's and only a 30% increase? What the hell????, am I the only one that thinks thats pathetic?

Hey even with SLI on two 8800's you don't get a 2x performance increast :P sometimes you are lucky to get 50% with just how SLI works with splitting the rendering

These cards might be worth it if they allow multi SLI with lower end cards. And they stick to their recent pricings, like the 8800GT for 250$.