Why did Nvidia go backwards?

Nvidia is still using the 65nm ,they should use the new 45nm high speed less power hungry gpu's but the 9900GT/X will use the 55nm and a new chipset G200

I think Nvidia is releasing the 9th Series as a rush because after the 9th Series, it will be a whole new line of Product.

Proof: ATi's 9th Series was OK but then came the X Series, there goes Crossfire and all the stuffs.

What are you talking about? You know the performance is better, why the hell do you call it a step backwards than? Do you know that this card would cost about $500 if it had 768MB, 386-bit... Who would buy that?jernas

Alot of people would. What, you dont think that they sold any GTX's or Ultras? They certianly did.

1. G92 is 256 bit strictly. If they wanted to have a 384 bit bus, they would have to take a direct shrink of G80 or design a new chip--but why should NVIDIA do that? ATI aren't pressuring them enough to warrant spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to take G92 and modify it to widen the bus.

2. Because the bus is 256 bit, the only possible VRAM densities are: 256MB, 512MB, 1024MB and 2048MB.

3. G92 loses out to G80 at high resolutions and or high AA (because of said lack of memory bandwidth).

4. NVIDIA have yet to disclose details of architectures based on a 45nm process. Further, TSMC don't even have a 45nm process (I think) for NVIDIA to hire. If anything, NVIDIA will/may try to shrink G92 to 55nm, or they could go ahead and launch their next gen architecture (GT200/G100) on 55nm or 40nm (if it's late enough).

To sum up why NVIDIA didn't take a leap forward: There really isn't much reason to.

At least with Intel we have Penryn, Nehalem and Silverthorne coming out (despite AMD still being slightly concussed from Core 2) on schedule. We aren't so lucky with NVIDIA and ATI though--if either one dominates the competition, progress and thus performance will stall.

I think Nvidia is releasing the 9th Series as a rush because after the 9th Series, it will be a whole new line of Product.

Proof: ATi's 9th Series was OK but then came the X Series, there goes Crossfire and all the stuffs.

raze-boi

Umm... that is not proof and ATI's 9 series was amazing and kicked NVIDIA around at the time.

on the newer core of the GTS 512MB, i think they improved texture fetch effeciency over the older GTX chips so the performance hit caused by less ram and a narrower bus is minimal at all but the highest resolutions. with the GTS also having a faster core, shader and memory speed, it wasnt really a step backwards...just a more efficent use of resources.osan0

[QUOTE="osan0"]on the newer core of the GTS 512MB, i think they improved texture fetch effeciency over the older GTX chips so the performance hit caused by less ram and a narrower bus is minimal at all but the highest resolutions. with the GTS also having a faster core, shader and memory speed, it wasnt really a step backwards...just a more efficent use of resources.SearchMaster

[QUOTE="SearchMaster"][QUOTE="osan0"]on the newer core of the GTS 512MB, i think they improved texture fetch effeciency over the older GTX chips so the performance hit caused by less ram and a narrower bus is minimal at all but the highest resolutions. with the GTS also having a faster core, shader and memory speed, it wasnt really a step backwards...just a more efficent use of resources.HuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="SearchMaster"][QUOTE="osan0"]on the newer core of the GTS 512MB, i think they improved texture fetch effeciency over the older GTX chips so the performance hit caused by less ram and a narrower bus is minimal at all but the highest resolutions. with the GTS also having a faster core, shader and memory speed, it wasnt really a step backwards...just a more efficent use of resources.SearchMaster

You mean X100 series?

The ATI 9 series dominated the NVIDIA FX series.

[QUOTE="SearchMaster"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="SearchMaster"][QUOTE="osan0"]on the newer core of the GTS 512MB, i think they improved texture fetch effeciency over the older GTX chips so the performance hit caused by less ram and a narrower bus is minimal at all but the highest resolutions. with the GTS also having a faster core, shader and memory speed, it wasnt really a step backwards...just a more efficent use of resources.Wesker776

You mean X100 series?

The ATI 9 series dominated the NVIDIA FX series.

Actually it was the X series...