yea maybe :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Printable View
yea maybe :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Looking at this it seems that 5870 OCed is doing really well against the GTX480 stock and even to some extend the GTX480 OCed.
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/nvidia-...imal-magnetism
Now the 5870 2GB matrix is 900Mhz and will most likely be good to go against the stock GTX480 price will determine how well it sells.
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...E/GTX480-6.jpg
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...0-MATRIX-6.jpg
wow... the matrix design looks great....
I think a 15 to 20 percent increase in performance seems underwhelming to people because of its incredible power draw. However, I think the card price is just as important, and considering it's only %25 more expensive than the HD5870, its priced quite competitively. It is an almost (but not quite) equal increase in percentage price with percentage performance, which is something you never see on the enthusiast category - not just on graphics cards but on pretty much everything, once you move to the premium products, each dollar you spend returns less. So in that respect, GTX 480 is priced good.
Future Fermi product, might launch budget, mainstream battle...may be Fermi will do better with these...
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-03-26/148b.jpg
a normal 60watt bulb would feet hot to the touch after a couple hours left on right???? then what about 300watt on a die??? power draw = heat = cooling problem .... its all related .....
saying it isnt is lame ....
I don't think Nvidia was doing this out of the good of their hearts though... it's simply the matter that they had to price this where it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
In part, it's because of the performance: if they go higher, it gets too close to the 5970, which beats it across the board.
And also because its 6 months late, they can't dictate price - the 5870 is at $400, the 5970 is at $600-700 - so your only chance, given performance/heat/noise/features, is to price it between there.
I'm sure that if the 480 performed closer to the 5970 than the 5870, or if it had been released in this state 6 months ago, it would have been priced closer to $650 (as the GTX 280 was upon initial release). But it's not the same situation anymore
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
To me it's back to the same arguments that the 4xxx series had with the 2xx series. One is smaller, cooler and less powerful, the other is bigger, hotter and more powerful. They fit into the price categories accordingly.
the difference today is Nvidia came late to the party and ATI have a very profitable card compared to Nvidia. Nvidia also have the 4970 to contend with and of course the newly Oc'ed 5870's and 2gig versions (are there 2gb OC'ed ones?).
still it's good to see competition back, even if it is a bit underwhelming after the wait. Let's hope for a lot of DX11 games using it's power :)
Fermi I think is a great architecture, with heaps of promise, but not this revision. Newer process, less heat, less power consumption, 512cc, and 800Mhz+ should be what this should have been.
Performance is good, but when you compare it to 5870, it's not good. Drivers will make it better, but it's overdue for that. Next gen ATi should be coming along nicely.
I can't help but feel a little bemused about 480, let alone 470. The killer for me was Crysis really.
The problem with all that is they've had to produce a card now, which is obviously what most people consider Nvidias own OC'ed version. They've had to get something out of the door and basically OC'ed their own cards, put on large grills and coolers and launched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Let me ask you this. Could ATI release a card right now, under the same thermals and power draw; that would outperform the 480?
I suspect they could.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Nvidia probably knows from the beginning that they can't launch the GTX 480 higher than $600 MSRP since they know it's not going to compete with the HD5970, plus the whole 512 vs 480 cores also take part of that as lot of us would expect 512 but turn out the TSMC yield wasn't that good like expected or maybe they can't just put that many cores due to TDP and heat.
I never really care about power consumption all along until now. I wanna get a GTX 480 then put in SLI later but from what I've seen it seems impossible for me to run with a 850W PSU, I'm sure a lot of people in the same boat as me as they don't wanna upgrade to a new PSU just to run in SLI. If only it draws less power and produce less heat, 15% on average over a HD5870 but improve later sure will put this card in much much better position.
Sapphire 5870 Toxic 2GB "AMD's so called answer for gf100" vs GTX 480 1.5GB
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...G_3139-big.jpg
vs
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...G_3128-big.jpg
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/02.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/02.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/03.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/03.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/05.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/05.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/06.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/06.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/07.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/07.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/09.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/09.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/10.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/10.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/12.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/12.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/13.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/13.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power:
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/23.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/17.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/24.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/18.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/25.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/19.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/26.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/20.png
That sums up nicely for me, AMD's answer is suppose to be a oced 5870 around 900-950mhz and this card fits the bill. Hopefully it costs $50-$70 less than the GTX 480 then it would make a lot of sense... :)
snip... wrong thread. :doh:
Could you elaborate more? Why is AMD not viable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
Look at the individual game tests, not just the overall average. Also compare minimum FPS vs. average FPS scores. Where it really matters in the demanding games, the GTX 480 *is* pulling ahead by those margins handily. In some of the ones that run at 5000000fps already, it is staying even (and Crysis, which is always a mixed bag for cards). Thus, it is definitely quite a bit faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Well, I posted in the wrong thread but... (I posted in the wrong forum, actually! I really should go to bed)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
Corp. Mkt is a very different beast compared to consumers mkt. Nvidia has being very agressive in that front here in Brazil and ATI is almost nonexistent, even on gaming/LAN events. Quadro boards are priced very agressively directly from Nvidia and FireGL solutions are available only through some third-parts at hefty prices to say the least.
And yes, current Quadro solutions are better for the work we do (A/V production) than ATI's current FireGL in case I disapointed you in my previous paragraph... :p:
Those saying Fermi isn't worth it... I guess it's abnormal that a higher-priced card clearly can be justified in price due to far better performance in most games. I mean damn, a more expensive card that takes more power is SO unusual, don't you think? Yeah, wanting that means you're a fool, no question!
Source: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...80-review.html
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=238Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Apart from power consumption I totally agree! You should have bought a 5970 months ago. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
That only takes into account **AVERAGE** framerates and not minimums, which paint a bigger picture for actual gaming... but that link just proves what I said, so not sure why you're linking that as a rebuttal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I was on a 5870 at its launch since I like single-GPU solutions :p: , now I am on a 480 once it is in-stock ;). I want the fastest single-GPU, and 5870 is no longer it by quite a margin. The 5970 also happens to run $700 vs. a $500 GTX 480 or $400 5870 ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
hardwarecanucks has the oddest result. The gap between 5870 and GTX 480 is around 23%....!!! :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Their review happens to also be the one I trusted the most from the 5870 launch... and is the most explicit about how they tested/what they tested with for this launch (480) as well. Don't forget minimum FPS ratings, which most seem to neglect to mention... those are more important than even just higher averages: you notice dips a lot more than you do steady FPS. Also note individual game tests, not just the overall average: in the heavier-duty games it is certainly pulling ahead, and that's where it matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I stated a few times in this thread that hardwarecanucks lost my respect when they gave out results in the nvidia 'big bang 2' that contradicted everyone else, then argued that the games they used were not given to them by nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Anandtech blew that out of the water when they said nvidia tried to force those games on reviews.
Something like that anyway, my old failing memory sometimes gets the better of me.
So the new fermie results they are showing, don't help matter in my trust in them.
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Since you posted those benches I assume that's the games you play. Out of 7 it's a hell lot faster at six of'em (it's almost a tie in the single one the 480 beats the 5970), it consumes less power, it doesn't sound like 747 taking off and it was available in November 2009... :shrug: