Twin-GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX295 expected at CES
By Darren Murph 
posted Dec 11th 2008 2:12AM
posted Dec 11th 2008 2:12AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Thats also a triple SLI capable connector I see. Do they even make PSU's that could handle 3 of these plus the rest of a computer??
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817703020
if theres a will... theres a way
or in this case if theres a spoiled teenager with mommy and daddys money to burn
In real world terms, it shouldn't even go over 600 Watts (total PC usage) even with 2 raptors and whatnot. You should be fine with a 900 or higher. Possibly 850 as long as it's 80 plus certified.
Until now, I was kinda proud of my 9800GX2 beating the all the other cards in some games....
Man the chipset are going to need some silver thermal gel and some damn good silver heatsink =D
@VeganFreak
How does plus 80 certified help?
@Jay
The more efficient a PSU the less power wasted during the conversion, thus more actual output for the computer to use. You have a 1000 watt PSU that is only 60% efficient the computer will only be able to use 600 watts, 80% efficient - 800 watts. Of course real life circumstances changes things a little bit, but that's the gist.
Obviously you haven't been paying attention NZXT Khaos why worry if one power supply can handle the job when you can have two. I just hope you don't live in California what with the brownouts and what not. Nvidia is learning the ATI 4870X2 kicka your ass now you must one up em'.
Now if only AMD could learn something about whoopin' Intel again.
@Jack
I'm pretty sure wattage specification refers to the maximum output of the power supply, not the maximum input. So a 1000 watt power supply is indeed able to output 1000 watts. How much it will cost on your electrical bill will depend of the efficiency.
To whoever made the comment about 600w:
FINALLY, somebody who understands actual usage!
First, in SLI and Crossfire setup's, the 2nd/3rd card draws FAR LESS power than the primary, so even if this card takes 300w, the 2nd card would most likely draw half of that.
Second, Your total ACTUAL output with today's current highest possible computer, a core i7 with dual 4870x2's and 2 raptors ETC is going to be UNDER 700w no problem. Any good 750w Power supply, aka Corsair, Zalman, FSP (best by far), Silverstone, or Thermaltake is going to have no problem running these new cards.
STOP WASTING MONEY ON 1200W PSU"S!!!! not only are the ridiculously expensive but YOU WASTE MONEY BY NOT RUNNING THEM AT 80% efficiency!
Diesel, Over and out
@Diesel
That sounds very strange, where did you hear that the 2nd card uses less?
@Jack
You have no idea what you're talking about. A good 1000 watt power supply will generate 1000 watts of power. If it's 50% efficient, it'll draw 2000 watts from your wall. You don't "lose" power through efficiency.
@roid
What?
EG; Any 400W 80plus Certified PSU WILL output more power (AMP's per rail) then any 600W+ generic piece of crap.
giggity giggity giggity giggity =]
alllllright
I'm just gonna go crazy and make a Crysis comment that's actually relevant:
Finally Crysis playable on 2560x1600, with all very-high, without running out memory buffer?
I think the new motto will be "Will it run GTA IV maxed?"
(without R* patch atm)
Crysis is playable, but can it run doom and blend at the same time?
Nope.
Honestly, I don't think any graphics card (single or dual GPU) that comes in the next 2 years will be able to play Crysis at 2560x1600, DX10, all Very High, with 4X Anti-Aliasing with a steady 30+ fps. Still, you don't need to play at those settings to enjoy the game. I play it in DX9 at 1680x1050 with a hack for Very High, no AA, and it's damn smooth. All of which is done on a single HD 4870.
that core i7 pc ran crysis at 60 fps didnt it?
Tom's Hardware reviewed the Radeon 4870x2 card at 2560x1600 at an average of 24.8fps maxed out with 4xAA, and 31.5fps with AA turned off, which trounced the GTX280.
The following hardware was used:
* Asus P5E3 Deluxe (Intel X38)
* Intel Core
2 Quad QX6850 (3 GHz)
* Crucial 2 x 1 Go DDR3 1333 MHz 7-7-7-20
* Maxtor DiamondMax 10 250 Go
* Lector DVD Asus 12x
* Coolermaster RealPower Pro 850W
o Windows Vista
o Catalyst 8.8 beta (8.52.2)
o ForceWare 177.79 beta
Pair that with an i7 instead and I think you'd be rockin'
@ctbear - it won't run GTA IV if it configures those two GPUs in SLI... reports are that GTA IV ignores single-board SLI (as well as multi-board SLI), so it won't matter much. Of course, I'm sure R* can patch that.
You don't need AA on a 30inch monitor. Have you ever seen one in person? Do your research on what AA actually does. It has less and less effect as pixel density gets higher. So Crysis on a 30inch screen with no AA looks way better than Crysis on a 22inch screen with AA.....also...2 4870x2's with a core i7 will play Crysis just fine...
Diesel:
Is Pixel density necessarily correlated to screen size?... if anything, is it not inversely proportional... Isn't it more relevant to resolution? Maybe I misunderstood.
289W? While CPUs are getting more and more power efficient, GPUs seem to be out of control. I still remember when 300W power supply is the recommended config for gamers.
But back then dual-GPU cards probably didn't exist.
Exactly. This is a GX2 basically.
The drop from 65nm to 55nm means it will actually draw less power than 2 x GTX 260s most likely but will deliver the same amount of power in a single slot solution.
The part that interests me is this means you can grab 2 of these and put them in a Core i7 machine using x58.
That config will DESTROY all competitors.
@aznofazns
I'm not sure when "back then" was, but I remember a dual gpu Voodoo 5 card.
Read the fine print folks. *requires liquid nitrogen cooling system sold separately.
haah oh its lucky ive got a spare one knocking around then isn't it?
Or if needs be i could just go macgyver and whip one up myself.
Oh come on people.......................
You did the same mistake as Gizmodo and posted that these GTX 260 have 240 cores each, when they actually only have 216 the GTX 280 have 240 cores not the GTX 260. At least read the article..........................
You're the one who needs to read the article. Yes, normal GTX260 Core 216 cards have 216 SPs each but notice that, in the article, the writer specifically states that these has 240 SPs each.
Wait, is that actually the picture of the GPU? Call me ignorant, but it doesn't look that imposing to me, nothing like the current high end cards like the HD4870s and GTX 260/280s, there's no way that can be the actual picture, looks more to be a lower end card.
It doesn't have ANY type of cooler on, it's stripped naked :D.
Yeah i heard that it runs at minus 20C....
Of course it doesn't have a heatsink, its a display shot!
Actually I think the picture might be a single GPU Card. I dont see 2 Heatsinks and the tiny chip on the left cannot be a GPU
That's not the "GPU".
That's just a video card, without the factory heatsink on it.
A GPU per se, is the processing unit itself, the metallic core (with the word Nvidia written on it) in the center, which incidentally is NOT exposed although it may seem that way.
The GPU in actuality lies beneath the heatspreader (the aforementioned metallic core).
Damn, no need to low-rank me, I didn't make a stupid troll comment like ieye. :(
That's not a picture of the GPU, is it? Where are the two cores? The only possibility is they mounted it on the other side of the PCB, or they are actually putting two on one die (that would certainly be revolutionary, for a GPU)
Two on one die would be dual-core, not dual-processor; I think what's going on here is two dies under one heat-spreader.
It's a shot of a 260 card. The actual card is 2xPCB in a sandwich setup, one GPU per PCB, just like the GX2 in the past (my comment below), which in my opinion is the worst setup for heat dispersion and size, but obviously nvidia likes it for some reason.
That's what would have been revolutionary about it, benson!
But yea, their current solution, two PCB's sandwiched together, is lame beyond belief.
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/12/10/GeForceGTX295_1.jpg
Sandwich design again, oh noes...
BOO! BOO!!
It seems that ATI's solution with direct connection between GPUs really caught nVidia off guard...
Though few games scale well, I would have prefered something like 4 x gf8000 cores on the same board wired over fast local bus. For normal office/etc tasks, single 8800 is much much more than sufficient and rest can sleep to save power. For games, all four can kick in and do some fast rendering.
Sadly, atm even 4870x2 still doesn't implement proper power saving.
Blue is easier on the eyes.
Thing will run alright but it won't ever have the image quality of an ATi 4870X2... Unfortunate but true... As we all know, ATi is superior in Anti-Aliasing and AF algorithms. Nvidia may have Physx, but still not enough to back up the there cards over ATi's, yet.
Uhm... nVidia always bet on triangle count. More triangles - better shapes. Quality of texturing was always secondary.
And sadly, I have to inform you, that rendering quality of ATI cards of late also went down - right to level of nVidia rendering.
Fact: ATI can't compete with nVidia on quality, because most gamers are bought by "FPS" count and generally turn down quality to get above 40fps.
I can't wait to play World of Warcraft at 10,000 FPS!
ATTENTION ENGADGET - THAT PICTURE IS BUNK
Go to the Read link, right click on the picture and say View Image (Assuming FireFox)
The picture name says it all
http://en.expreview.com/img/2008/12/09/zotac_260+_55_01.jpg
That is a 260+ which is a single GPU Card and is nothing but a die shrink to the existing GTX260 216 cards.
Screw gaming, this thing is a GPGPU beast.... Although I believe the 4870X2 will still be much faster in double precision floating point...
Well good thing I didn't plunk down for a GTX260 216 core just yet. Come January those should drop even lower. Interesting though if GTX260s are getting down around $200 now and the GTX295 is basically 2 260GTX chips with 240SP instead of 216 what are the chances of this thing coming out just over $400. Probably less then a snow balls chance in hell, since it will probably come out with an MSRP of $499+ and you won't be able to get one for less then $550 for months after launch. One can hope though.
Does anyone think this will make it's way to the Mac Pros in January? I would like to see snow leopard use a hot new video card.
There really isn't anyway to say this nicely, so I'll stick with the facts. You just asked about a Mac and hot new video card hardware, a contradiction in terms.. I wouldn't give this a Snow Leopards chance in hell of ever making it officially to the Mac platform.
Point well taken. Why do they always get the hottest new processor before it even comes out on the general market, but the use old GPUs? That doesn't make much sense. Am I missing something here?
To some degree its the EFI vs BIOS issue, you have to have a graphics board that supports EFI systems. The next could be demand and power requirements. How many users are actually going to use high end graphics cards that would be only really useful in games, also the cards require quite a bit more power. I'm not sure what a Power Macs PS is rated at and if it would take the extra load of a card that requires 200-300 watts alone.
Processors on the other hand are more of a marketing thing in my opinion and frankly the Power Macs are overkill with dual quad cores unless you are actually doing large amounts of video editing, etc.
When will nVidia time travel to this decade and start building 32nm parts? (or ATI for that matter?)
it does not matter how fast a Video card will go , after all of this games for PC's still don't look as good compared to Xbox360 or the PS3 which have Video cards that are like 4 times less Powerful then desktop Video cards.
by the time there is a Refresh of Both Consoles desktop cards would will be at least 6x time more powerful, far ahead but still No ones wants to make games that look better on the PC's.
Um....what are you talking about? This is quite untrue, and I don't believe I need to say why unless you are a console fanboy, misguided, or not knowledgeable.
Games for PC don't look as good compared to Xbox360 or the PS3? LOL unless you are playing the original Team Fortress on the latest and greatest Voodoo card;) Perhaps you should get rid of the monochromatic monitor and play something newer than Oregon Trail!
I have a PS3 and the games look great on my 50" HDTV. However when I want the ultimate eye candy I play Crysis Warhead or Fallout3 at 1920x1200 with 2 or 4x AA enabled on the 24" monitor.......no comparison.
I smell Console Troll......yuk!