Why does NV need to make such a big chip?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nyte

n00b
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
34
I find it cheap that NV has to make a chip more than twice the size of 770 in order to beat it.

I mean, ATI basically designed a big chip, broke it in half to make 2 tiny 770's. NV on the other hand decided to play cheap and made a huge card to beat the 770. Shouldn't the grounds of this competition be fairer? I expected more from such a reputable company...
 
:rolleyes:
It's a monolithic chip vs. multi.
ATi stated they weren't going to continue monolithic chips in the top end performance war.
 
How is making a giant chip "playing cheap", exactly? You know it's more difficult to fab a larger chip on a larger process than a smaller chip on a smaller process, right...?

You do whatever works.
 
Because if they made it any smaller, people would bitch about it not being any faster than the G92. Nvidia made a multi-GPU card too... it's called the 9800GX2.

And yeah, how is it being cheap? I'm pretty sure the GTX280 core is pretty expensive to produce.
 
lucky777 said:
Because if they made it any smaller, people would bitch about it not being any faster than the G92. Nvidia made a multi-GPU card too... it's called the 9800GX2.

And yeah, how is it being cheap? I'm pretty sure the GTX280 core is pretty expensive to produce.
Click to expand...

It's cheap because they had to resort to that much in order to beat 770.
 
so? you could go the other way on the argument too.

stupid ati, why can't they make one giant piece of silicon? is their fab process not good enough? why do they have to be cheap and produce smaller chips?
 
Nyte said:
I find it cheap that NV has to make a chip more than twice the size of 770 in order to beat it.

I mean, ATI basically designed a big chip, broke it in half to make 2 tiny 770's. NV on the other hand decided to play cheap and made a huge card to beat the 770. Shouldn't the grounds of this competition be fairer? I expected more from such a reputable company...
Click to expand...


Sorry, size <> performance in electronics. Fairer? Sheesh, what do you think this is, mother may I? I guess by that notion, ATI shouldn't use it's smaller fabrication process because that's not fair either. Idiocy.
 
nVidia didn't need to make a monolithic chip, they chose to. That's simply how their design process worked out. Both approaches have their merits. The GT200 is by no means a bad chip, and it's competing very well with ATI's current lineup. The only issue they had on release was price, but with the price drops since then the cards have become much more competitive. You can even get a GTX280 for less than $400, which is a great deal.
 
you guys got trolled. Its kinda like that comment i saw a few days ago where ati was "cheap" for using ddr5 instead of ddr3. and nvidia is "pro" for using 512-bit bus. i dont know why somebody would think that, but yeah thats what somebody thought. This guy however looks like is trolling. Move along nothing to see here.
 
Mega666 said:
Sheesh, what do you think this is, mother may I? I guess by that notion, ATI shouldn't use it's smaller fabrication process because that's not fair either. Idiocy.
Click to expand...

LOL. It's just not fair that ATI is using DDR5 either? These arguments are just silly.
 
Nyte said:
I find it cheap that NV has to make a chip more than twice the size of 770 in order to beat it.

I mean, ATI basically designed a big chip, broke it in half to make 2 tiny 770's. NV on the other hand decided to play cheap and made a huge card to beat the 770. Shouldn't the grounds of this competition be fairer? I expected more from such a reputable company...
Click to expand...

Nvidia is using 65 nm while ati is using 55nm, smaller means more fabs per wafer, there's an excellent article that will answer your question at anandtech.com
 
I love making fools out of the NVidiots who make up lame excuses "oh, but it took ATI 2 GPU's to beat 1".

You tools just got owned by my reverse logic.
 
Nyte, your argument in the first post is totally flawed logic. It has already even been demonstrated to you. If you can't see that, you should just stop posting.

If ATi felt that it was beneficial to create a large monolithic chip, they would've done so as well. Guess what? ATi didn't, and they tried to do things better (or at least better for them), and I must say, they've had some level of success. You can't even apply fairness to this argument, since there is nothing that tells you how to design a chip. The only rules are:

-Stay within the size to fit on a single board.
-Stay within power limits.
-Stay within consumer affordability.

Any other comparison just doesn't make sense when you're comparing one graphics card vs. another.

So let me rephrase by quoting you:

Why does NV need to make such a big chip?
Click to expand...
Good question.

I find it cheap that NV has to make a chip more than twice the size of 770 in order to beat it.
Click to expand...
Retardation.
 
No they really didn't, and you might want to back off on the name calling if you wish to stay on the forums. They in fact pointed out rather deftly how incongruous your arguments are. There is no "fair" in the world of computers and there is no right way to do things. nVidia decided that the best way to make a high end card was to design a very large single chip. ATi decided the right way was to design a smaller, less powerful, less expensive chip, and simply use more of them.

There is no right and wrong here and nVidia isn't being "cheap" for designing their chip the way they did. Both companies are doing their best to produce faster components than the other.

If you dislike nVidia's choice and/or feel ATi's choice is better, that's wonderful, go buy an ATi card. However don't start using playground terminology to make false attacks.
 
You obviously missed my post where I'm making fun of the douches for dissing ATI for "resorting to 2 GPU's to beat NV".

This whole thread is an attack on those NVidiots. I have to spread the word that those idiots are making really stupid statements as I have represented here in their favor to ridicule them.
 
Nyte said:
I love making fools out of the NVidiots who make up lame excuses "oh, but it took ATI 2 GPU's to beat 1".

You tools just got owned by my reverse logic.
Click to expand...
News flash: nVidia came out with the 7900GX2 before ATI made the HD3870X2. Don't mention the Rage FURY crap because it was total sheit even compared to a single core GPU.
 
risqu3 said:
you guys got trolled. Its kinda like that comment i saw a few days ago where ati was "cheap" for using ddr5 instead of ddr3. and nvidia is "pro" for using 512-bit bus. i dont know why somebody would think that, but yeah thats what somebody thought. This guy however looks like is trolling. Move along nothing to see here.
Click to expand...
Willing to bet this is the same guy.
 
lucky777 said:
News flash: nVidia came out with the 7900GX2 before ATI made the HD3870X2. Don't mention the Rage FURY crap because it was total sheit even compared to a single core GPU.
Click to expand...

Not really the same thing, the ncrapia just sandwiched two pcb together, which demonstrates ncrapia is good at nothing but driver cheating.

and for the rage fury, it beat all the other cards on the market, and again due to heavy driver cheating, geforce 256 won by a little margin.
 
Yes, it isn't "exactly" the same, but nVidia still did it first in order to overthrow the most powerful single GPU card at the time (X1900).

Are you talking about the SDR or DDR version? And which type of games are you talking about? Games with hardware T&L support or without it?
 
Two PCBs, one PCB, dual GPU, one GPU, fifteen GPUs.. Doesn't matter how they achieve the performance as long as the price is right and performance is good. ATIs strategy with the 4800-series was always to use a dual-GPU card to compete in the high end.. they didn't come up with the X2 as an afterthought.

RV770 isn't exactly "tiny" by the way.. It's made up of very nearly 1 billion transistors (960M), still a huge increase from the G92, RV600 etc.
 
Competition is good. But it also brings out the idiot trolls. Move along.
 
People who like nVidia were saying ATi was not as good as nVidia because they had to use 2 GPU's to beat nVidia's one. The thing is though, like someone else said, it doesn't matter if ATi used two GPUs to beat nVidia's one, because they are still beating nVidia. ATi's 4870X2 will be the most powerful card on the market whether people like it or not. You can say it has 2 GPU's but that doesn't matter, because it's still the most powerful card on the market. This thread is done.
 
xcrico said:
People who like nVidia were saying ATi was not as good as nVidia because they had to use 2 GPU's to beat nVidia's one. The thing is though, like someone else said, it doesn't matter if ATi used two GPUs to beat nVidia's one, because they are still beating nVidia. ATi's 4870X2 will be the most powerful card on the market whether people like it or not. You can say it has 2 GPU's but that doesn't matter, because it's still the most powerful card on the market. This thread is done.
Click to expand...

The HD4870X2 is only as good as its drivers, ATI has not had a good history with their crossfire drivers in many anticipated games at launch, not to mention if you plan on playing any open or closed betas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top