Go Back   nV News Forums > Graphics Card Forums > NVIDIA GeForce 400/500 Series

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-06-10, 04:27 PM   #25
Blacklash
8^9^3
 
Blacklash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Old Vizima
Posts: 3,679
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

I've got no complaints about my HD 5870 and I'm always looking for the fastest single GPU.

The heaven bench I saw @ 1920x1080 shows the 480 doing 43-45FPS around the dragon using DX11. That same scene drops my 5870 @ 1030|1300 down to 23FPS @ 1920x1200.

Seems pretty solid to me.

I'll probably snag one on release.
__________________
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.96GHz (1.36v)|Mushkin 998681 XP3-12800 (3x2GB)
ASUS TUF Sabertooth (X58)|ASUS GTX 580 DirectCU II (980|4604)|ASUS PA246Q
WD VelociRaptor 150GB HD (x2)|Pioneer DVR-2920Q|LG GH22LS30|Klipsch PM20 2.0
SilverStone OP1000-E|SilverStone TJ10-B|Thermalright U-120 Extreme|Win 7 HP x64
Blacklash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-10, 03:38 PM   #26
Yaboze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2,057
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

It seems the Fermi will be very limited and be hard to get. Looks like if you want something better than a 285 or 295, then you gotta move to a AMD 5X70.
Yaboze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-10, 03:51 PM   #27
Vardant
 
Vardant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 1,041
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

I'm not sure what to think.
First we've heard Fermi will have software tesselator, which was proven wrong. After that, it was supposed to be really hot, but the coolers actually look great.
Than it was eating too much power, but if NV PSU recommendation tells us anything, it looks this won't be the case either. We've also been told, that they missed their clocks by a lot and we won't see anything beyond 650MHz, but recent rumours put it over 700MHz, so that might not be the case either.

The only thing I can say for sure is, that these rumours made most forums unreadable
Vardant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-10, 03:58 PM   #28
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant View Post
I'm not sure what to think.
First we've heard Fermi will have software tesselator, which was proven wrong. After that, it was supposed to be really hot, but the coolers actually look great.
Than it was eating too much power, but if NV PSU recommendation tells us anything, it looks this won't be the case either. We've also been told, that they missed their clocks by a lot and we won't see anything beyond 650MHz, but recent rumours put it over 700MHz, so that might not be the case either.

The only thing I can say for sure is, that these rumours made most forums unreadable
I'm still not convinced they have real tesselation hardware, it is really hot, it has one of the first stock direct contact heatpipe coolers and a 1.8 amp 12v fan, compared to a normal fan like the 5870s, which is a 0.8 amp fan. It eats more power than anything else in its performance class, it eats more power per unit of performance than the competition, it requires a better powersupply with higher power ratings than previous generations and the competition does. They did miss their clocks, they are 625MHz, target was 750MHZ. All these things are true.

So, are you just being a blind fanboy or what? I'm curious as to why these things are out there now for everyone to see, but for some reason you don't believe them?
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-10, 09:01 PM   #29
MUYA
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 6,795
Send a message via MSN to MUYA
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime View Post
I'm still not convinced they have real tesselation hardware, it is really hot, it has one of the first stock direct contact heatpipe coolers and a 1.8 amp 12v fan, compared to a normal fan like the 5870s, which is a 0.8 amp fan. It eats more power than anything else in its performance class, it eats more power per unit of performance than the competition, it requires a better powersupply with higher power ratings than previous generations and the competition does. They did miss their clocks, they are 625MHz, target was 750MHZ. All these things are true.

So, are you just being a blind fanboy or what? I'm curious as to why these things are out there now for everyone to see, but for some reason you don't believe them?
Why don't you ease off on the name calling Ninja. Vardant has his preferences and his own reason to state what he believes just like you have, leave him to it, he hasn't called you out and you shouldn't either.

Can we all calm down just a little bit thanks. I know its the silly season and its fun to speculate/have a discussion but, we should do it a manner with less of the name calling, certainly stop ourselves from goading and being rude to each other.

Let's all try to keep things civilized thanks.
__________________
I5-2500k@4.7GHz - MSI Z77A-GD65 - 4GB X2 A-DATA DDR3 1600 - Corsair H100 - Antec Quatro 850W
Gigabyte Windforce X3 GTX 680 OC - Dell 24" IPS
Intel 320 300 GB SSD - 1 TB Hitachi HDD - 2x 250 GB WD HDD
Corsair K90 - Corsair Venegance 2000 Headset - Razer Naga Epic
Corsair 600T Case
MUYA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-10, 04:41 AM   #30
Iruwen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 186
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ninja Prime View Post
I'm still not convinced they have real tesselation hardware, it is really hot, it has one of the first stock direct contact heatpipe coolers and a 1.8 amp 12v fan, compared to a normal fan like the 5870s, which is a 0.8 amp fan. It eats more power than anything else in its performance class, it eats more power per unit of performance than the competition, it requires a better powersupply with higher power ratings than previous generations and the competition does. They did miss their clocks, they are 625MHz, target was 750MHZ. All these things are true.

So, are you just being a blind fanboy or what? I'm curious as to why these things are out there now for everyone to see, but for some reason you don't believe them?
Must of this simply isn't true, so I won't even bother to argue about it EDITED by MUYA Less of the calling out /goading please

/e: I'm sorry. So I'll argue instead Not about the real tesselation hardware thing though Obviously it isn't hot because the GTX 470 has a worst case TDP of 225W, also this could be seen (or heard and felt) at the Cebit. Just because the fan can draw 1,8A at max load, that doesn't mean it will. All GTX 400 at the Cebit have not been loud. The GTX 280 had a 0,48A fan - so it was way more silent that a 5870? Also, this doesn't have to be the reference design, I think like the final clocks it wasn't sure at this time. Since the real world performance isn't clear yet, nobody can say how much power they will consume in relation to their performance. If they use 10 or 20W more than an ATI card than that actually isn't much and one has to keep the cards' featureset in mind. The same is true for the power supplies (don't focus on power supply recommendations but rather on how many amps are required), a GTX 285 required 40A, the 5870 requires 40A, the GTX 480 seems to require 42A so the GTX 470 will be en par with the other cards - how good or bad this is again depends on real world performance. The final clock speeds aren't even known yet.
Iruwen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-10, 06:25 AM   #31
weevil
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 208
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

for some reason you don't believe them?

Just the facts ma'am
weevil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-10, 02:40 PM   #32
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MUYA View Post
Why don't you ease off on the name calling Ninja. Vardant has his preferences and his own reason to state what he believes just like you have, leave him to it, he hasn't called you out and you shouldn't either.

Can we all calm down just a little bit thanks. I know its the silly season and its fun to speculate/have a discussion but, we should do it a manner with less of the name calling, certainly stop ourselves from goading and being rude to each other.

Let's all try to keep things civilized thanks.
I'm not calling him out, as I said, I'm just curious as to why he says the opposite when it has been fairly well proven true.
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 03-09-10, 02:49 PM   #33
Iruwen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 186
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

You just repeated Charlie's FUD, I wouldn't call that proven.
Iruwen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-10, 08:35 PM   #34
Dogmifier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 34
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

I said in another thread, I'll say here. Whichever card you like, and both are good cards (I just happen to like nvidia better than ATi), there's really no reason to bash the other.

Buy what you want...don't worry about what Joe Jim Bob around the corner buys.

Hot, not hot, Tesselation hardware or not....driver issues or not. I'll be buying an NV Fermi. Fanboy you say? Ok..I can live with that. I'll worry about buying what you like when you pay for what I Buy...

Other than that, why all the hostility?
Dogmifier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-10, 11:54 PM   #35
JasonPC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,103
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

Well that was the 470 have yet to see the 480's clock. I had always thought it was the 480 that had a targeted clock of around 700 and 512 cuda cores. There's obviously a large power draw difference between the two cards and I'm betting the clock speed has a lot to do with that. But even if it does near the target clocks I am willing to bet they're going to price most people out into getting the 470.
JasonPC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-10, 01:48 AM   #36
Ninja Prime
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Utah
Posts: 2,263
Default Re: Realistic time frame for Fermi (not happy with 5870)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iruwen View Post
You just repeated Charlie's FUD, I wouldn't call that proven.
None of that came from charlie.
Ninja Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.