Joined
·
5,459 Posts
[vr-zone] Nvidia GT206 50% more efficient than GT200
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Joined
·
4,386 Posts
Quote:
They calculated it backwards from 170 to 266. 170 * 1.5 = 255. Whereas 266 * 0.5 = 133 They just suck at math.
![]()
Originally Posted by Keatonus  since when does 266-->170=50% more efficiency? either way, good job nvidia! hope you'll be able to SLI 55nm with 65nm. |
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
I'll believe it when I see it for myself.
Joined
·
89 Posts
Quote:
They calculated it right. 260 / 1,5 = 173.
Same way you calculate cash discounts as an example.
Originally Posted by tehpwnerofn00bs They calculated it backwards from 170 to 266. 170 * 1.5 = 255. Whereas 266 * 0.5 = 133 They just suck at math.
|
Same way you calculate cash discounts as an example.
Joined
·
3,686 Posts
well look at 2900XT to 3870 they decreed the power consumption by a lot and the performance was even a little better
Joined
·
4,675 Posts
well... i dunno about anyone else, but what core is nvidia on now? it seems that since ATI's R770 hit the ground at a run, Nvidia's got umpteen variations of its g200...
Joined
·
1,408 Posts
Quote:
"This were great"? I don't think math is the only thing they suck at.
It looks like that GT206 (55nm) is 50% more efficient than GT200 (65nm). This were great for a little die-shrink. |
Joined
·
48,394 Posts
Quote:
That was from 80nm to 55nm which is a much bigger jump then 65nm to 55nm.
Originally Posted by A Russian  well look at 2900XT to 3870 they decreed the power consumption by a lot and the performance was even a little better |
Joined
·
1,905 Posts
Quote:
Well, it is possible, but I would not necessarily attribute all of this to the die shrink only. Maybe NV improved something else in their GPU. That would also explain why it took them so damn long to move GT200 to 55nm.
Originally Posted by Somenoob I doubt this. IIRC Gt206 is about the size of G80 if not a little smaller. It is still rather big. How is 65nm to 55nm gonna cut power by that much? 
EDIT: What was the 8800 Ultra power consumption? |
Quote:
Maybe a decrease in core voltage? If this is true than its rather impressive to say the least.
Originally Posted by dejanh Well, it is possible, but I would not necessarily attribute all of this to the due shrink only. Maybe NV improved something else in their GPU. That would also explain why it took them so damn long to move GT200 to 55nm. |
Joined
·
5,995 Posts
amd/ati is doing to nvidia what intel did to it.
![]()
i think amd is on a role, i just read that their new processors are to hit 6ghz from overclock.
i think amd is on a role, i just read that their new processors are to hit 6ghz from overclock.
Sample A - 100W
Sample B - 200W
-- Sample A is 100% more efficient than Sample B.
If that's hard to understand, then reverse it:
-- Sample B is 100% hungrier than Sample A.
Sample C - 300W
-- Sample A is 200% more efficient than Sample C.
-- Sample C is 200% hungrier than Sample A.
-- Sample B is 50% more efficient than Sample C.
-- Sample C is 50% hungrier than Sample B.
In terms of cost?
£100, £200, £300.
"50% off" of £200 = £100, but £200 is 100% larger than £100.
"1/3 off" of £300 = £200, but £300 is 50% larger than £200.
"More efficient" makes it all relative as opposed to absolute.
Sample B - 200W
-- Sample A is 100% more efficient than Sample B.
If that's hard to understand, then reverse it:
-- Sample B is 100% hungrier than Sample A.
Sample C - 300W
-- Sample A is 200% more efficient than Sample C.
-- Sample C is 200% hungrier than Sample A.
-- Sample B is 50% more efficient than Sample C.
-- Sample C is 50% hungrier than Sample B.
In terms of cost?
£100, £200, £300.
"50% off" of £200 = £100, but £200 is 100% larger than £100.
"1/3 off" of £300 = £200, but £300 is 50% larger than £200.
"More efficient" makes it all relative as opposed to absolute.
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Join the discussion
