NV35: Goodbye to the Dustbuster

Dom · May 2, 2003, 11:29 PM

EVER SINCE the launch of NV30 made it clear that something was deeply wrong in Nvidia-land, reviewers and consumers alike have looked to NV35 as the product launch that would redeem Nvidia from the Dustbuster Debacle — or, of course, steepen the slide.

From what's been whispered in our ear thus far it looks like Nvidia's got a much better performer on its hands this time around, meaning, at a minimum, the card doesn't reach nuclear temperatures or sound like a banshee. Considering how much those two features annoyed people in NV30, their absence in NV35 could be enough to win the card an editor's choice right there. NV35 also won't be using DDR-II, though it supports the standard should Nvidia choose to adopt it in the future.

While clockspeeds on the new chip haven't yet been finalized, we've heard 450 / 850 (core/memory clock) suggested as the likely final numbers, or something close to them. If true, this means NV35 will run a 10% slower clock and a 15% slower memory core than its predecessor, and in raw numbers, ends up looking a lot like the original GeForce FX 5800 (which, if you recall, didn't require such mammoth cooling solutions either).

This isn't the first time Nvidia has released a next-generation card running slower than the previous. The GeForce3, if you'll recall, ran a slower clock then the GeForce2 Ultra, yet proved itself a far superior solution in the end, and we'll be surprised if something similar doesn't happen with NV35 compared to NV30. Even with a slower memory clock, NV35 is going to offer far more bandwidth than NV30 ever did — along with slowing down the memory and switching back to DDR I, Nvidia is copying ATI and using a 256-bit interface to power their latest creation—which, we're told, will be called the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra with a projected retail price of $499. There will also be a GeForceFX 5900, which will retail for a price of $399. We've been told the two cards are identical in core speed, but the 5900 Ultra will carry an additional 128 meg of RAM (for a total of 256).

Ordinarily at this point we'd say something about how having a card named the 5800 Ultra and the 5900 Ultra is a bit confusing, given how massive the differences between NV30 and NV35 truly are. While ATI's Radeon 9700 and 9800 both use an identical naming scheme, the 9700 is still a card people actually would want to own. In the end, it’s a moot point for Nvidia — since no one could buy GeForceFX 5800 Ultra's there's precious little worry they'll end up confused with the 5900 version.

At this point, with Nvidia's 5900 Ultra likely to take over or at least compete for the driver's seat, ATI has some interesting options. If the 5900 Ultra isn't that much of a stretch over the 9800 Pro, or merely competes with it they can elect to do nothing and things continue on as they have. If NV35 does present a threat to the Great White North's dominance of the video card market it's got two choices — either raise the clockspeed on the existing Radeon 9800 Pro or release the card in a MAXX dual-processor version.

The idea of a Radeon 9800 MAXX isn't as far-fetched as it might seem as the architecture of the chip is designed to be linked in up to a 256 GPU system. While I don't think we'll be seeing any 256 chip solutions from ATI, a dual-solution with 256 meg of RAM total (128 for each processor) could boost current Radeon 9800 performance by an approximate 50-70%. Such a card would be expensive, but it'd also likely stuff Nvidia quite nicely.

Of the two options a speed boost is by far the more likely, but until we see final NV35 benchmarks we won't even be able to hazard a guess as to how much of a performance kick ATI might want or need to give the 9800. With its .13 micron process there should definitely be some headroom left in the R350 design but with NV35 looking much better than its predecessor, it may not be enough. ATI may be left playing second-fiddle again, at least until R400 and NV40 square off.

---------------------------------
News Source: TheInquirer

DriveEuro · May 3, 2003, 06:26 AM

I wonder if nVidia realizes that very few people will dump $499 on a vid card unless it is substantially better.

Nuke209 · May 3, 2003, 06:32 AM

ATI's made nvidia's video cards into retards, no matter how hard they try, they just can't compete

No_Style · May 3, 2003, 06:37 AM

What would the 9800 PRO be called? And will ATI actually considering "MAXX"ing it out with Dual 9800s? According to their statements a few months ago, they're slowing down with releases of vid cards; the whole product cycle thing. My prediction is: ATI will continue to dominate with their attractive pricing. I believe a price reduction on their 9800 PROs will hurt Nvidia more than releasing a new card.

DriveEuro · May 3, 2003, 06:37 AM

Actually, lately I have to agree with you. This whole FX series so far hasn't been impressive. I mean, the ATI 9xxx series has been phenomenal.

pikapika · May 3, 2003, 07:49 AM

Radeon still rules.... Nvidia is just stupid as shit when trying to compare themselves with ATI's Radeon family. They just keep pumping out new cards just because they cant win ATI. Come on... this make consumer lose faith in their product on the other hand. Who wants to buy something that doesnt last even for a few months and see something new taking over what they are using now? This is really stupid. The eath is turning each day... and Nvidia just got to admit that their time is up.

DriveEuro · May 3, 2003, 07:57 AM

I frankly don't care what brand of card I use so I am not biased when I say this. nVidia is not done. They have this card coming. Maybe they just took the backseat to the 9800.... But don't forget, the NV30 is almost as good as the 9800 in all benchmarks. PIKAPIKA, you cannot predict the future. They aren't dead yet. Besides, would you want them to die? Then there would be no competition for them. SIS? PSH, come on. Matrox... HA!.... It would just be ATI. They would jack up prices cuz they know you have to buy their cards. It would suck without nVidia.. you know that.

May 2, 2003, 11:29 PM	#1
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	NV35: Goodbye to the Dustbuster EVER SINCE the launch of NV30 made it clear that something was deeply wrong in Nvidia-land, reviewers and consumers alike have looked to NV35 as the product launch that would redeem Nvidia from the Dustbuster Debacle — or, of course, steepen the slide. From what's been whispered in our ear thus far it looks like Nvidia's got a much better performer on its hands this time around, meaning, at a minimum, the card doesn't reach nuclear temperatures or sound like a banshee. Considering how much those two features annoyed people in NV30, their absence in NV35 could be enough to win the card an editor's choice right there. NV35 also won't be using DDR-II, though it supports the standard should Nvidia choose to adopt it in the future. While clockspeeds on the new chip haven't yet been finalized, we've heard 450 / 850 (core/memory clock) suggested as the likely final numbers, or something close to them. If true, this means NV35 will run a 10% slower clock and a 15% slower memory core than its predecessor, and in raw numbers, ends up looking a lot like the original GeForce FX 5800 (which, if you recall, didn't require such mammoth cooling solutions either). This isn't the first time Nvidia has released a next-generation card running slower than the previous. The GeForce3, if you'll recall, ran a slower clock then the GeForce2 Ultra, yet proved itself a far superior solution in the end, and we'll be surprised if something similar doesn't happen with NV35 compared to NV30. Even with a slower memory clock, NV35 is going to offer far more bandwidth than NV30 ever did — along with slowing down the memory and switching back to DDR I, Nvidia is copying ATI and using a 256-bit interface to power their latest creation—which, we're told, will be called the GeForceFX 5900 Ultra with a projected retail price of $499. There will also be a GeForceFX 5900, which will retail for a price of $399. We've been told the two cards are identical in core speed, but the 5900 Ultra will carry an additional 128 meg of RAM (for a total of 256). Ordinarily at this point we'd say something about how having a card named the 5800 Ultra and the 5900 Ultra is a bit confusing, given how massive the differences between NV30 and NV35 truly are. While ATI's Radeon 9700 and 9800 both use an identical naming scheme, the 9700 is still a card people actually would want to own. In the end, it’s a moot point for Nvidia — since no one could buy GeForceFX 5800 Ultra's there's precious little worry they'll end up confused with the 5900 version. At this point, with Nvidia's 5900 Ultra likely to take over or at least compete for the driver's seat, ATI has some interesting options. If the 5900 Ultra isn't that much of a stretch over the 9800 Pro, or merely competes with it they can elect to do nothing and things continue on as they have. If NV35 does present a threat to the Great White North's dominance of the video card market it's got two choices — either raise the clockspeed on the existing Radeon 9800 Pro or release the card in a MAXX dual-processor version. The idea of a Radeon 9800 MAXX isn't as far-fetched as it might seem as the architecture of the chip is designed to be linked in up to a 256 GPU system. While I don't think we'll be seeing any 256 chip solutions from ATI, a dual-solution with 256 meg of RAM total (128 for each processor) could boost current Radeon 9800 performance by an approximate 50-70%. Such a card would be expensive, but it'd also likely stuff Nvidia quite nicely. Of the two options a speed boost is by far the more likely, but until we see final NV35 benchmarks we won't even be able to hazard a guess as to how much of a performance kick ATI might want or need to give the 9800. With its .13 micron process there should definitely be some headroom left in the R350 design but with NV35 looking much better than its predecessor, it may not be enough. ATI may be left playing second-fiddle again, at least until R400 and NV40 square off. --------------------------------- News Source: TheInquirer

May 3, 2003, 06:26 AM	#2
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	I wonder if nVidia realizes that very few people will dump $499 on a vid card unless it is substantially better. __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

May 3, 2003, 06:32 AM	#3
Nuke209 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: St. Paul Posts: 568 Rep Power: 0	ATI's made nvidia's video cards into retards, no matter how hard they try, they just can't compete __________________ 2006 Subaru Impreza WRX

May 3, 2003, 06:37 AM	#4
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	If they raise the clock speed.. What would the 9800 PRO be called? And will ATI actually considering "MAXX"ing it out with Dual 9800s? According to their statements a few months ago, they're slowing down with releases of vid cards; the whole product cycle thing. My prediction is: ATI will continue to dominate with their attractive pricing. I believe a price reduction on their 9800 PROs will hurt Nvidia more than releasing a new card. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

May 3, 2003, 06:37 AM	#5
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	Actually, lately I have to agree with you. This whole FX series so far hasn't been impressive. I mean, the ATI 9xxx series has been phenomenal. __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

May 3, 2003, 07:49 AM	#6
pikapika DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 4 Rep Power: 0	Radeon still rules.... Nvidia is just stupid as shit when trying to compare themselves with ATI's Radeon family. They just keep pumping out new cards just because they cant win ATI. Come on... this make consumer lose faith in their product on the other hand. Who wants to buy something that doesnt last even for a few months and see something new taking over what they are using now? This is really stupid. The eath is turning each day... and Nvidia just got to admit that their time is up.

May 3, 2003, 07:57 AM	#7
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	I frankly don't care what brand of card I use so I am not biased when I say this. nVidia is not done. They have this card coming. Maybe they just took the backseat to the 9800.... But don't forget, the NV30 is almost as good as the 9800 in all benchmarks. PIKAPIKA, you cannot predict the future. They aren't dead yet. Besides, would you want them to die? Then there would be no competition for them. SIS? PSH, come on. Matrox... HA!.... It would just be ATI. They would jack up prices cuz they know you have to buy their cards. It would suck without nVidia.. you know that. __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024