• Nvidia Geforce 880 GTX expected to launch this September
    88 replies, posted
Got a 780Ti, better wait for the 980 I guess :v:
[QUOTE=cdr248;45590080]460 master race[/QUOTE] mine died earlier this year. been using my brothers old 550 ever since. probably gonna get an 880 at the end of the year, or start of next year depending on how fast I can save up some money.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;45591822]Uhh imagine how much it would cost to have a machine run VR at 90fps with 1440p Might as well buy a new car and experience a VR driving game in real life with what that'd cost. (of course I have no idea how much more demanding VR would be than normal games, but I'm assuming a shit-ton more)[/QUOTE] you don't need a 2000+$ computer I imagine, not even a 900$
[QUOTE=Brt5470;45589676]Funny thing is they switched to it being GTX xxx versus xxx GTX. But people just call it the old way. Just like in this article. it's a GTX 880 not an 880 GTX.[/QUOTE] The letters did have some meaning before. There used to be multiple cards with the same number but the letters after it would determine the power e.g. 8800 GTS < 8800 GS < 8800 GT < 8800 GTX Now they call everything GTX ### ("GTX" being not coincidentally the former "best card in the series" designation) and do all the differentiating with the numbers, which is much easier to understand. They are starting to move back into more complex territory with the "Ti" designation but considering the popularity of the those cards I can't blame them too much. Though you can start piling on the extras and end up with names like my "GTX 560 Ti 448 Core" that's really a slightly cut down 570 GPU (GF110) that sits between the 560 Ti and the 570 but gets the number of the 560 (which usually means a GF114).
This is going to be my card until there's a single GPU that pushes 4K at a solid frame rate at high settings. Really hope it's a huge upgrade over my 680GTX [editline]6th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;45605074]you don't need a 2000+$ computer I imagine, not even a 900$[/QUOTE] I have a i7 4770K, 12GB of memory and a 680GTX and I find it difficult to play games at 2560x1440 at 60FPS on high settings. That's at least $1200-1400 in hardware.
I USE AMD RADEON [editline]6th August 2014[/editline] Anyway, what do the numbers on GPUs and CPUs mean? I never got that. It seems random at best. Like mine, Radeon 7950? What's the number? :v:
I still have my 8800 Gtx with a Q6600 Quad core 4gb ddr 2 ram. Runs counter strike source like a dream!!
Former 8800GT owner here, obligated to get the GTX880.
So would one of those be able to handle next gen games on max?
[QUOTE=General;45608219]So would one of those be able to handle next gen games on max?[/QUOTE] Usually, the GTX #80 cards in a generation are designed to go above and beyond max settings at 1080p at 60FPS, and are better oriented towards maxing games at 1440p or higher framerates on a 90, 120, or 144Hz monitor. The GTX 870, when we see it, will likely be all you need for 1080p, max settings, and 60FPS, just like the GTX 770, 670, 570, and so on.
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;45608057]I USE AMD RADEON [editline]6th August 2014[/editline] Anyway, what do the numbers on GPUs and CPUs mean? I never got that. It seems random at best. Like mine, Radeon 7950? What's the number? :v:[/QUOTE] For Radeon 2xxx through 8xxx: The first digit is the series number (they make a new series more or less every year). In your case, a 7-series. The second digit is the major model, low being worse, higher being more powerful. In your case, it means it's one of the best cards in the 7-series. The third digit is the minor model number. There were other models within the 79xx subseries, like the 7970 and 7990, both of which are more powerful than the 7950. A x990 card is sort of an exception - it's two x970 GPUs in Crossfire, on a single card. The fourth digit is a zero. Always. So the meaning is "a really good card, not quite the best and one generation old". The 8xxx series, BTW, was an OEM-only re-release of the 7xxx series. Oh, and they also used this scheme for integrated graphics, with a D suffix indicating that. But now that you know how it works, AMD has released a new series that uses a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT system: First is an R, then a number. This sort of is a quick way to tell how good the card is - an R5 is a non-gaming card, an R7 is a low-end gaming card, and an R9 is a high-end gaming card. But that's all repeated in the actual number so some people don't even include them in the name. Then comes three numbers, possibly with an X or X2 suffix. The first number is the series. They restarted numbering at 2 this time. The second number is the major model, again with 9 being best, 1 being worst. These are slightly more detailed than the R-number - a 7-9 here maps to R9, a 4-6 maps to R7, and 1-3 maps to R5. The third number and suffix are the specific model. For example, you've got the 260. Above that is the 260X, and above *that* is the 265. Most cards have an X version that's slightly better. There is also an X2 suffix, only used on the 295X2, which is another of those dual-GPU cards - in this case, two 290Xs. Nvidia also uses a different scheme, and they'll probably be changing it again after the 8xx or 9xx series so why bother learning it?
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;45610981]It's funny when people are like "still on my ol 560!" Yeah well I'm still using my GTX 260 core 216 lol[/QUOTE] GeForce 2 MX. On my backup desktop, sure, but it's still going strong.
[QUOTE=Satane;45590608]Nvidia drivers aren't better than amd anymore. It's so bad I had to stop updating drivers to avoid bluescreens. people disagreeing? I'm just listing objective facts here.[/QUOTE] So you having issues means everyone else does? Those aren't objective facts. Nvidia drivers have been have been spectacular for years for the majority of system configs.
770 GT represent
I remember when the 8800GT first came out and was the shit It also ran hotter than a star.
My current PC has a 9400gt. *uncontrollable sobbing*
Twin 760's FTW.
[QUOTE='[EG] Pepper;45611974']I remember when the 8800GT first came out and was the shit It also ran hotter than a star.[/QUOTE] The GT only used 105 W. I had an 8800 GTS 512, which used 135 W.
I had an 8800GT once. It burned itself to death. I still have it though, as a monument of how not to design a cooler for a gaming GPU. I remember threads about 8800GTs dying until 2012 though. The many people reporting the exact same problem and when asked about which GPU they used pretty much all of them had the 8800GT. But when it worked it was a beast. Could handle nearly anything I threw at it.
Oh boy I can't wait to upgrade my heater.
I find it funny how every time when a news article about an upcoming GPU is posted, the comments in the thread are always flooded with "Damn i'm still using an xxx"
[QUOTE=J!NX;45595747]want some real nostalgia? [t]http://www.3dfx.ch/gallery/d/16164-2/3dfx+Voodoo+5+6000+AGP+Collection+1.jpg[/t] voodoo 5 that was THE CARD I hear but now that thing is about as useful as a broken dinner plate[/QUOTE] The card is incredibly cool as a historic curiosity, but it was really just a death cramp from a company that had trouble staying competitive.
Anyone know how much it will cost on launch? I skipped out on buying a laptop and have like 1k leftover from my tablet purchase for a desktop upgrade. Perfect timing if it is near $400-450.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.