Re: Is it G92 or G92b?

<> wrote in message
news:...
>
> On this webpage, both the 9800 GTX + and GTS 250 are described as
> G92b, 55nm technology: http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=674
>
>
> However on the next page of the review, GPU-Z displays G92, 65nm:
>
> http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=674&type=expert
>
>
> So what gives here? { shrug } are they 65 or 55 line width?
>
>
> -ed
>

GPU-Z is not 100% accurate identifying specs of newer gen cards, especially
when they are a reworked nVidia reference board with a virtually identical
family GPU's. A G92b is a G92 family GPU. It's identical architecture on a
17% smaller wafer . The ID string in the card's BIOS is very likely being
read by GPU-Z as a G92 and GPU-Z simply reports this as being 65nm. The
version of GPU-Z used in that Palit review is 3.2.......a couple of months
old. 3.3 is now out. It may have been updated to report the GTS 250 and
9800GTX+ as 55nm fab and G92b. GTS 250 cards are 55nm fab, period.
FWIW the earlier versions of GPU-Z reports my eVGA Core 216 GTX 260 SSC as
65nm. Version 3.2 and above see it as 55nm.

http://www.ninjalane.com/reviews/video/palit_gts250

> Ok got it. How about looking over the following spreadsheet for correct
> GPU and fab data: http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/nVidia_boards.xls
>
>
> -ed
>

The spreadsheet is correct. There were and may still be some GTX 260 Core
216 cards that are 65nm fab. There are other differences as well. This
article sums it up fairly concisely.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...ions/Practice/
I would think that almost all by now would be 55nm. All the current eVGA GTX
260line is 55nm. To avoid getting one that is 65nm, I would recommend you
purchase from a bricks and mortar store or e-tailer that moves high volume.

<> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 03:26:32 GMT, "Augustus" <>
> brought the following to our attention:
>
>>> Ok got it. How about looking over the following spreadsheet for correct
>>> GPU and fab data: http://home.comcast.net/~flightsim/nVidia_boards.xls
>>>
>>>
>>> -ed
>>>
>>
>>The spreadsheet is correct. There were and may still be some GTX 260 Core
>>216 cards that are 65nm fab. There are other differences as well. This
>>article sums it up fairly concisely.
>>http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,6...ions/Practice/
>>I would think that almost all by now would be 55nm. All the current eVGA
>>GTX
>>260line is 55nm. To avoid getting one that is 65nm, I would recommend you
>>purchase from a bricks and mortar store or e-tailer that moves high
>>volume.
>>
>
> Was reading through the posted articles, and it seems the GTX 260 with
> 896 MB of memory is actually a 1 GB board, where one of the 128 MB
> `clusters´ was bad due to production yield. So the mfg disables that
> cluster and sells the product as such?
>
> -ed

No. This is not the case. The 55nm GTX 260 boards are manufactured with
896Mb on a different PCB with only 14 BGA sockets . Look at the photos in
the link. 14x64Mb DDR3 = 896Mb .The 65nm boards share the same PCB with the
GTX 280 but have 7 x 128Mb DDR3 for 896Mb. If you look at the photo of the
65nm fab GTX 260, you'll see that the 8th BGA socket is left unfilled. It's
a case of using the same PCB and a modified GT200 GPU for the older 65nm 260
GTX units.