First benchmarks of GTX 470

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by hell_of_doom227

SLI owns Crossfire, scaling is much better and i never complained about it. And Nvidia is so good with drivers release that in most cases they have SLI profile before the game is even released. I don't say that HD5870 is bad hardware but its support sucks balls making it not useable as Nvidia cards are. Simply AMD fail with CCC big time. I miss game profiles with Forceware big time where i can nicely force AA and other settings for each profile. Also Nvidia is really good in SLI Profile Update releases.

Fermi SLI 2x480 here i come!!!!

I replied to that in the other thread just now....Read up on it.

[kaptkarl]

Originally Posted by Ninja Prime

You're such an idiot. I can't fathom how any being with braincells can be this stupid.

+1 - Agreed. I'm glad I'm not the only on this forum that thinks this guy is an idiot. Wish he would please go somewhere else to post his garbage. I've never seen a meaningful post from him.

Back on topic......if this is accurate, then it looks like the Fermi will have a very difficult time competing w/ ATI's best. I'm more curious about pricing....

Kapt

[Razor1]

Originally Posted by Maverick123w

Yeah it may be difficult for Nvidia if AMD really gets aggressive with the pricing. It's obvious ATI can really drop the prices on their cards and still be profitable.


Truest statement in the history of teh NVNEWZ?

No there isn't that much difference in the BOM between these cards, the chip if Fermi's rumored ~500mm2 is true, its only 1.5 bigger then then Cypress's 335mm2, unlike the gtx 280 where ATi had a 2 times the die size advantage. You are looking at possibly ~$20 between the two GPU's,

[fivefeet8]

Originally Posted by shadow001

The only chip that was close to Fermi's size in Nvidia's history was the original G80 GPU,when built at the 65 nm process,at about 576mm^ and it also used a 6 + 8 pin PCI-e power connector arrangement,using about 225 watts,but even then,the G80 was about 780 million transistors,give or take.

The original G80 uses 2x6 pin power connectors, was built on the 90 nm process, and was about 680 million transistors. Nvidia moved to the 65 nm node with the introduction of the G9x series. In any case, whether or not a refresh could or can alleviate unconfirmed issues with Fermi is anyones guess.

[Toss3]

Originally Posted by hell_of_doom227

Excellent Numbers. So GTX480 sits betwen HD5870 and HD5870 X2 and considering what joke is Crossfire and CCC crapola, Nvidia owns them.

Can't wait to replace this garbage i currently own.

Why don't you wait a couple of weeks 'til we get some real performance numbers from actual games before calling this an instant win for the green team?

Based on those benchmarks I'd say that the 400-series is going to be a disappointment. Was hoping to see the gtx 470 outperforming the 5870 as the latter has A LOT of oc headroom. Guessing the 400-series won't be the best overclockers due to their size.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Razor1

No there isn't that much difference in the BOM between these cards, the chip if Fermi's rumored ~500mm2 is true, its only 1.5 bigger then then Cypress's 335mm2, unlike the gtx 280 where ATi had a 2 times the die size advantage. You are looking at possibly ~$20 between the two GPU's,

What about the 384 bit bus then?,which makes the PCB more complex to design and more expensive.


Or the fact that the GTX480 needs 12 GDDR 5 memory modules on each card,because of the 384 bit bus,while the HD5870 makes do with 8 GDDR5 modules on each card(256 bit bus).

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by fivefeet8

The original G80 uses 2x6 pin power connectors, was built on the 90 nm process, and was about 680 million transistors. Nvidia moved to the 65 nm node with the introduction of the G9x series. In any case, whether or not a refresh could or can alleviate unconfirmed issues with Fermi is anyones guess.

My bad,i confused it with the GT200,sorry.


In any case,it's been proven that with the last 3 major GPU releases from Nvidia,they like to do large die on all of them(G80,GT200 and now Fermi)....That in itself isn't bad as long as they're absolutely sure that it'll give it the performance it needs to beat the competition,so they can charge a premium to offset the production costs related to it.


If it doesn't and a smaller chip can actually put up a fight in performance,and is cheaper to make,and also allows more options from the start(Dual GPU card),then it just screws up the overall plans Nvidia had for Fermi,at least in the early going for the Geforce variant,and i'll be perfectly honest here and say i'm not sure the gaming version will ever be available in high volumes,as long as it's still more expensive to make than the competition.


Nvidia is in business to make money,and if that means that the bulk of Fermi chips go towards the Tesla and Quadro markets,where the profit margins are much larger on each card they sell,then you can bet that's exactly what they'll do.

[shadow001]

More results for fermi,this time with 3 monitors on dirt 2,supposedly using 2 GTX480's in SLI.


http://vr-zone.com/forums/572464/gtx...by-nvidia.html


Here's my result for unigine at those same settings:




Actually,mine is at 1920*1200,not 1920*1080 and i'm running with 4X AF,not 1X AF.

[Kemo]

why am i not surprised that these new "fermi" cards aren't so awesome as nvidia made them out to be. even these arent accurate, i still don't think we'll see huge changes in technology (like the 8800GTX). the 8 series had the 384-bit bandwidth, then the 9s had 256-bit, the 200s had up to 512-bit which was awesome. now theyre going backwards? i understand the faster memory and higher number of cores, but i have a feeling that nvidia is going down the greed path and only cares about money not quality.

[shadow001]

did a benchmark run with the same settings shown at the link i posted in my previous post:





Since Nvidia seems to insist tesselation is the big thing with Fermi,i'm not exactly underpowered in that area to say the least...


Bring on at least 3 Fermi cards in triple SLI if you want to beat that result.

[Toss3]

Originally Posted by shadow001

did a benchmark run with the same settings shown at the link i posted in my previous post:


Since Nvidia seems to insist tesselation is the big thing with Fermi,i'm not exactly underpowered in that area to say the least...


Bring on at least 3 Fermi cards in triple SLI if you want to beat that result.

Unless the card is going to be around 600$ you really shouldn't compare it to a 5970(we don't know anything about pricing yet). I'm guessing it's going to be priced right between the 5870 and 5970.
Wish ATi would get their butts into gear with 3D gaming as that might make me switch over to the green team once again.

[shadow001]

Originally Posted by Toss3

Unless the card is going to be around 600$ you really shouldn't compare it to a 5970(we don't know anything about pricing yet). I'm guessing it's going to be priced right between the 5870 and 5970.
Wish ATi would get their butts into gear with 3D gaming as that might make me switch over to the green team once again.

Put it this way,if they want 600$ for it not so much on the basis of performance,but because it has the Cuda,PhysX and 3D glasses support,i feel they're going to have one hell of an uphill marketing battle on their hands trying to sell these to people who don't really care if an Nvidia or ATI card in their system,they just want the fastest thing.


This has been the pattern for the past 10+ years...No company holds the performance lead forever,it comes and goes,regardless of what marketing depts say from either company,since there's only ATI and Nvidia left basically.....


To be honest,i miss the older days when 3Dfx was still around and matrox also had gamer oriented cards as well as PowerVR,and 5 way video card comparisons between 5 different vendors were fun and completely umpredictable in terms of who was the fastest overall.