Printable View
I think its smart for nvidia to price 470 & 480 relatively low so it will cause more distraction to market than if the card was priced as profitable. Ati will lose 1000-times more money from "waiting customers" than nvidia because graphic card buyers see nvidias product listed in the internet stores with competitive prices and starts waiting one more time :clap:
I don't think the 480 Ultra card with the 512 shaders will be launched before 1-2 months when the B1 revision would make it feasible. I have heard $380 and $530 for the 470 and 480 respectively.
For the 470, it's a better card than 5850 and is slightly slower overall than the 5870. But it has some advantages like CUDA, PhysX and probably very superior tessellation performance. So I think, if 5870 stays at $400 and a 470 can really be bought for $370, the 470 will be the best choice among the 5850-5870-470 options.
However the 480 seems to be more of a mixed bag. A 15% increase performance for a 30% increase in price is not unheard of - when you reach the top, you pay much more for every little extra you can get. However this doesn't make it a better choice. If rumors are to be believed, the performance / price of cards are as follows:
5850 - 85x Perf / $300 : 0.280
GTX 470 - 95x Perf / $370 : 0.255
5870 - 100x Perf / $400 : 0.25
GTX 480 - 115x Perf / $529 : 0.22
5970 - 140x Perf / $700 : 0.20
So price / performance is really in line with ATI offerings, and it goes down as the price increases. Nothing unexpected and nothing new.
yeah but 3200effective vs 4800 effective, thats 33% lower clocks... :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
higher number = better dealQuote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
name - cost - %perf - %price - %/%
GF100-U 3gb 529$ 115% 75% +40
HD5970 2gb 700$ 100% 100% 0
GTX295 2gb 525$ 81% 75% +6
GF100 1.5gb 370$ 69% 52% +17
HD5870 1gb 400$ 71% 57% +14
HD5850 1gb 325$ 62% 46% +16
GTX285 1gb 375$ 58% 53% +5
GTX260 1gb 225$ 47% 32% +15
HD5830 1gb 250$ 45% 36% +9
HD5770 1gb 175$ 43% 25% +18
if the gtx480 really performs that well its very very unlikely that itll cost 529$...
but who knows, maybe nvidia really wants to create a hype for the gtx480 by offering a few cards for low prices... so everybody gets excited and waits and waits... for months.. until they can buy one....
Yet it's 50% more bus-width, making for equal bandwidth at these examples used.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
saaya: I don't understand a thing from your table, you're saying an ultra GF100 will cost $530 and will perform 15% better than a 5970?
I don't know about the ultra part, but the top part at launch will have 480SP, will be slightly faster than a 5870 and will likely cost $500-550...
yes what i know is same as annihilat0r.
GTX 480: 600-625mhz
GTX 470: 600mhz
http://translate.google.com/translat...&sl=auto&tl=en
So the only difference between them is the bus width and 32 shaders? 32 shaders don't mean anything performance-wise. If it's the bus width that will distinguish the two cards, it means the 470 is bandwidth limited even at 600mhz which I don't think is possible.
I think 480's clocks have to be higher.
gtx 480=480sp=not true.
$450-500 and 15-20% faster @ 2560x1600 with 4x AA would make it worth it to me. I already have my 5870 listed on the 'Bay. I am sick of the glitchy drivers & instability of the 5870... it's been a hassle since launch when I RMA'd for a replacement thinking it was the card and not the drivers, only to find the replacement of a different brand had the same issues, none of which ever were present on my GTX 280.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
And you will have none of those issues with GTX400 series,... right?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
I had none of them with the 7900GT, 8800GTS 640, 8800GT 512, or GTX 280... so no, I don't think I will ;). I had them with the 4870 AND 5870. This was across a couple of motherboards and CPU's as well, from an X2 3800+ at the beginning through Core 2 Duo E6600, Q6600 quad, then an i7 920.Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
But is this clocks for Core or GPC??? For Core (ROPs) it's fine but for GPC (half of shaders)... oh god.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
What are these driver issues? Because I've been using ATI for the last 2 years and I've never encountered a problem. I don't even uninstall drivers on updates, I just run and install the catalyst package on top of the old ones. Reminds me of GAR and his endless ATI problems
For around 3-4 years i owned ati cards and never had any issue with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Could be a faulty power grid or so many other things, since it's random. I know users who had a really bad luck streak with nvidia cards, it's like a lottery with hardware, sometimes you get it lucky, sometimes not
The one important metric that no one has speculated on yet is performance / watt. I wonder how that will turn out.
It is definitely going to suck. 280W for performance that's only 8% better than 5870 on average.
As a wise man once said, sometimes it's the user and not the tool ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by insurgent
your issue is in your head :ROTF: sorry had to say thatQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Yes, but in this case it's not the user ;). As a wise man once said, never assume: it makes an ass out of "u" not me. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Florinmocanu
LOL, funny :). Assuming you're being sarcastic =p.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Let me repost a short post from another forum I made...
I also have a lot of texture corruption (random textures appearing on random objects instead of proper ones) in WAR and WOW when "adaptive MSAA" (transparency AA) is enabled, and additionally, the forcing of driver AA/AF doesn't work in some games, or just disables any in-game setting while not applying anything. There's a zillion little glitches/issues like this with the 5870 drivers even with 10.2's now that persist. In short, my experience with modern ATI cards has been that they're fast, but certainly not good. Hence, I am VERY much looking forward to getting back onto an nVidia card with Fermi.Quote:
Windows 7 x64. A few examples include, but these aren't all of them by a long shot:
1) Street Fighter 4: Fences and flat background textures such as those on the "Underpass" fighting stage flicker depending on camera movement.
2) World of Warcraft; Warhammer Online (WAR): Many grass items flicker or become "transparent" partially while walking around.
3) Desktop of Windows 7: Occasionally I get green dots only in 2d mode on dark parts of my wallpaper, sometimes they're red. I have tried a different DVI cable (monitor is a 2560x1600 Dell 3007WFP-HC). This never happened with my GTX 280.
4) NFS Shift: Colliding with the walls or other cars more than a couple times in a race, even bumping them, would cause massive slowdowns as it stuttered slowly for a couple of seconds, then would "catch up" displaying frames rapidly as though it was in super-speed before returning to normal. This occurred with the 9.10's and NFS Shift patch 1, and is much less severe with Patch 2 and 9.12's but still occurs at times.
5) CounterStrike Source: There's a fog regardless of settings that fades things to gray a little in the distance.
6) Warhammer Online (WAR): Some characters and tents become transparent and detailed in only their basic textures randomly. Moving the camera fixes it; if the character moves, it remains a "ghost". I have tried swapping in an 8800GT with the same game version and do not encounter these issues; the ATI versions with my 5870 I have tried exhibit it.
7) Dirt 2: Enabling anisotropic filtering through drivers causes slideshow performance.
If current rumors are to be believed its not good "Based on the near 300W TDP for GTX 480"Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
thats actually atis new slogan :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Yeah.. that's for the shaders lol :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethomaz
Closing thread due to outrageous length. See the Fermi Thread - Part 3!