Next Generation of Graphics chips?

It seems that we have hit a wall with the 9800m series almost the same as the 8800m series....but what chip comes next for mobile gaming? also how about ATI?

 

Nvidia doesnt have any higher end mobile parts and ATI will prolly bring out a 4870 mobile version soon. but it will be lower clocked and may not even have the same amount of shaders compared to the desktop version.

We will see SLI and crossfire versions for extreme laptops but i doubt we will see new stuff within the next 3 months.
The GTX 280 and GTX260 are just consuming too much power to be in a notebook.

 

There will need to be some serious work to get the GTX cores into notebooks, so for now I'd sit tight on the 9800m series. I think they'll at least have to wait until the can shrink the process on the GTX from 65nm to 55nm or 45nm. That will decrease space used as well as power used.

On the ATI front, I've been expecting a mobile 3000 series for so long I kind of gave up on it and am now waiting for a mobile 4000 series. I'm wondering if they will cut down shaders or just cut clockspeed. Until they have a 4670 or 4650 in the desktop market, I'm not sure how a shader decrease would fare for notebook application. Maybe a drop to 45nm would allow them to keep most or all of the shaders?

And also, by late 2009, AMD should have released their Fusion chips, combining two CPU cores with 1 next-gen (5000 series) GPU core. That will be very interesting to see in action.

 

What is the word around town? When should we be expecting these to show up?

Wondering if I should wait for the next gen since it seems that gen 8 and 9 are not doing well at all and I am looking at a 13-incher that is 9300 territory but intel's 4500 is now 60-70% of the way there(9300) performance wise and it consumes less so I take it that nvidia knows this and will do it's best to make sure the next gen slots in well above intel integrated so that they can justify the extra cost (unlike now).

So ... any info/roadmap/leaks on the aprox release timeframes? (if it's not in 2008 I won't bother...)

 

Well since we literally just got the 9 series...

 

Yeah, since nVidia just got the 9 series we are looking at 12-18 months or so before the next series come out.

 

8 and 9 series chips are fine, and leagues beyond intel's graphics chips.

 

I know that the 9 series was recently released but it's mainly just a shrunken 8 series ... surely they must have been working on more in the almost 2 year time gap since 8400 ... 18 months till next release ... **** ... that is like ... 2010 !!! uhhh ...

In the case of intel 4500 vs nvidia 9300 (rebranded 8400) the difference is 40% on average in nvidia's favor ... by all means not "leagues beyond" ... midrange and high end graphics is a different story obviously ...

 

Next gen is coming next year, read somewhere it would support Directx 10.1 or 11

 

sooo...we compare intels best graphics vs nvidias worst (dedicated) graphics? and nvidias worst is still better. i'd say thats leagues beyond.

and btw, if the 8000 series lasted like 18 months and are still good for gaming im pretty happy, i think that could mean my laptop could last 5-6 years

 

I wonder in 6 months what we will see....also they need to start beefing up 15.4 in laptops at a good price....

also how does a 9600m GT 512 compare to a X1950 pro 256 desktop version?

 

What I was comparing were the only solutions worth mentioning from intel and nvidia that one would find in a 13 inch notebook ... seems a fair comparison to me ... one might compare intel's last gen integrated mobile chip to the nvidia gtx280 just so that one might say that the latter is "much" better but that comparison wouldn't have much practical use now would it?

Looking at the 4500 vs 9300 issue one might agree on the following facts:
-9300 is a step up in performance from the 4500
-4500 is cheaper than the 9300
-4500 runs cooler than the 9300(might also lead to a lighter laptop overall)
-4500 is a step up in battery life from the 9300
Saying that the 9300 is "leagues beyond" is a bit of an overstatement
Now don't get me wrong ... I'm no fan boy, I don't own either product and I am not taking sides, I'm just calling things as I see them ... in my opinion the 4500 is to close for comfort to the 9300 overall, hence my comments above regarding a possible update of the chip in the near future (it was launched in February after all, so hopes for a late 2008 revamp are not that far off ... I hope)

Regarding the 8800 ... what is or isn't good (for gaming or other tasks) is a very subjective matter ... some might be content with a mid-range chip while others are perfectly satisfied with an integrated one BUT the fact of the matter is that "lasting" on the market for 18 months is by all means NOT a good thing ... it just shows what the lack of competition leads to ... lack of progress ... this is a bad scenario for everybody besides nvidia ... If ati would have posed a challenge in the market we would have a 9 series that was 60-80% better than the 8 ... not just a rebrand and higher clocked memory ...

Anyways... Nvision 08 starts on Aug 25 ... if anything is going to come our way in 2008 ... we'll find next week.

 

The 8800 is not a mid range chip, if that is what you say.
If you believe what you said about what is or isn't good for gaming is very subjective...then try the 8800 (or check online for results) and then any other, Intel or ATI/AMD.
There is nothing subjective about the 8800/9800 cards, they are easily by far the best performers for notebooks.

BTW, "if"s don't mean a thing. The only thing that matters is what is a fact, not what could have been.

If during Nvision there is an announcement about a newer graphics card of high performance, then I am willing to bet there won't be anything out for at least a year. But nothing new will be announced on or near the 25th.

Having said that, Intel is working on something new, but I believe it is only for desktop PCs.

 

Nvidia is on cruise control. Until ATI can release performance mobile cards that eat less power and either perform on par with Nvidia mid-range performance cards or better, nvidia will continue to rebrand die-shrunk yesterday's tech with a few optimizations. The mobile 9 series is a great example.

I don't think we will see Mobility 38xx cards, the architecture just eats too much power. The performance per watt just isn't there. 48xx series is better, but still probably not to the point where a Mobility 4650 could compete performance/watt with a 9600M. Of course this just speculation and I'm basically talking out of my ***.

But I'd like to see next gen midrange cards that can fit in the heat and power critical form factor of say a Macbook Pro but still perform 1.5-1.7x better than a 8600M GT.

 

I'll take a cheaper, die-shrunk, slightly more optimised 9800m GT over a 8800m GTX any day.

It'd be nice to have an integrated chip that can play modern games at decent settings, but I think that if you say we're there right now - that's wishful thinking. 40% is a big gap - easily the wide margin between slightly jerky and completely unplayable.

But fluid HD playback is a nice addition to Intel's lineup.

 

apperntly nvidia ismoving the 200 series next quarter to 55nm...maybe then will be in laptops?

 

AMD intergrated graphic solutions can play HL2 just fine + all other games that require that spec. For games like crysis its wishfull thinking but for normal games you can play them fine on low.

 

Yeah, AMD is figuring out this whole integrated-graphics-not-sucking dealie.
One would hope that Intel's Larrabee project would eventually find its way into a GMA for notebooks.

 

Anyone have thoughts on how an nVidia 9800GT 512 would stack up against ATI HD 3870s x2 512?