The Fermi Thread - Part 3

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-29-2010, 01:44 PM
Mechanical Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

it wont take a miracle to make a good gpu based off of fermi. it might catch us by surprise like rv770 but thats just from good engineering. they dont need a major redesign, if anyone does its ATi. fermi is really good at tessellation and designed to handle it very efficiently. they just need more work on process/yields.

I think it has long been said (rumored, i think some interview also suggestet) that atis next arch will be new one. It is long project always so it has been in developement for long time already.

On the Fermi, I have mixed feelings, its not as bad as hd2900 wa:rofl:s. But its not big success either. I would'n buy it, i need value not most high performance card there is. But I hoped for better performance to get hd5850 price down. Maybe i just stick with my old trusty hd3870 for a while still:shakes:
03-29-2010, 01:50 PM
Manicdan

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah... stock volts are .99v :o
whats interesting is that idle volts are .96... so i really think power management is broken... that explains the 85W video playback and 55W idle power consumption...

i clicked around a few reviews and see that people are getting 100mhz out of it, and at stock volts i believe. which means i think it should have no problem being knocked down a notch and frequency left alone. idk but that could mean 20-30 watts removed, for no perf loss.

and yeah the idle volts look way wrong
03-29-2010, 01:51 PM
SoF

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah... stock volts are .99v :o
whats interesting is that idle volts are .96... so i really think power management is broken... that explains the 85W video playback and 55W idle power consumption...

yeah when I saw idle volts I was like "omgplz?!" Still thinking how it is possible that consumption goes that sky high with that little voltage. maybe there are other parts inside that need more juice? (just a wild guess)
03-29-2010, 01:56 PM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

i wouldnt call it a game... it looks somewhat nice, yes... but its more of an interactive benchmark than a game ^^

I have been playing FPSes since Wolf3D and online since Doom1. Personally, Shattered Horizon has some of the best skill-based gameplay since RTCW/W:ET. Much better then all the unskilled twitch spamfests released recently. IMO, of course.
03-29-2010, 02:33 PM
pentium777

This is Xtreme Systems right? Not "Frugal Systems"

While I think it is great to save money some people are in this hobby like others are into race cars, R/C airplanes etc. This is a hobby and it isn't a cheap one if you want the latest and greatest, SPEED costs $$$$$$ in every single hobby.

So as I'm driving my Z06 today I selected the Coolant Temp guess what? 214'F which is quite a bit hotter than a standard Corvette, Z06 is 505 HP vs 430 HP that's only 75 HP more that's only 17.5% increase and it was 20-25K more... So the Z06 and the ZR1 for that matter run hotter, cost more in fuel, and are more expensive sounds like Fermi right? Yet it isn't easy to find a Z06 or ZR1 in stock, they sell well and they aren't for economy buyers.

Before you say it isn't a good comparison think about it for a minute, some people will spend $250K on a Ferrari is that a good deal? How about people that spend money on water cooling setup when it is not necessary? Or the tons of other custom "Xtreme" parts that go into a fast PC.

I think we are seeing GPU technology being pushed to the limits of current chip design, why else would Nvidia who isn't some no name company have issues getting this to market? They were ambitious and wanted to have something really revolutionary, well they did but at quite a cost.

Yep I'm going with the Fermi (Ferrari) of GPUs and not just 1 but 2 for SLI on my waste of money 30" 3008WFP, will I enjoy my gaming experience? Yep :yepp:, do I enjoy driving my way too expensive Z06? Yep :yepp: Fortunately Nvidia IMO priced Fermi properly I don't think they really had too much of a choice TBH but nevertheless it is priced pretty good.

:cool:
03-29-2010, 02:33 PM
ajaidev

GTX 480 vs 5870 TOXIC

Very interesting indeed looks like AMD has really no real reason to lower prices...
03-29-2010, 02:36 PM
Sushi Warrior

Now, I'm not going to quote anyone specific here (had to read through like 10 pages lol) but I'd like to give my opinion on a few general "ideas" that some people are having...

1. Nvidia will not (and pretty much cannot) go bankrupt. It isn't a "fail" card, even if it does not meet YOUR requirements (and I am sure plenty of people feel this way) there is still a very big market that is susceptible to Nvidia's PR. I am sure Fermi will sell like hotcakes in Maingear, iBuyPower, CyberPC (or whatever) etc. as those people see "FASTEST SINGLE GPU" and instantly :banana::banana::banana::banana: themselves. It is also not a card that is built to make money by itself anyways, it is a marketing tool to sell laptop and low-end GPU's (which is where all the real money is made).

2. Heat - I am sure Nvidia could have made it cooler by adding an extra inch onto the end of the card.... TBH this sort of surprises me, why bother making a short card that is still the hottest and loudest? It's not like they haven't made compromises already. It also does seem to have some big idle problems, and the high voltage on idle is probably because of the lack of double redeundancy on interconnects (or whatever, sorry the term is very vague to me... I understand the concept but not the name :lol: ) which requires more voltage just to function... therefore don't pump enough volts into it and it simply won't work I would think.

3. Overclocking - it can happen, look at all the reviews. I'm not sure why everyone has the idea that it is IMPOSSIBLE to OC because of heat problems.... it may hit 95C but that is in Furmark and with a relatively low fan speed (70%?) which will ramp up if it gets any hotter.

4. GTX485 - do want, and it probably will happen. My bet is Nvidia will have it out in 6-8 months... it takes them what, 4-6 months to develop a GPU at the bare minimum (risk wafers and all that take a while)?

5. GlobalFoundries - WHEN DO THEY OPEN!??! TSMC can go burn in hell.
03-29-2010, 02:45 PM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentium777

This is Xtreme Systems right? Not "Frugal Systems"

While I think it is great to save money some people are in this hobby like others are into race cars, R/C airplanes etc. This is a hobby and it isn't a cheap one if you want the latest and greatest, SPEED costs $$$$$$ in every single hobby.

Using that logic - everyone should go out and buy a 5970 as soon as possible. It's the most expensive, but it's also the fastest.

Also, you keep mentioning 2560x1600. But Fermi takes a huge hit (for now) at 2560x1600 so a 5970 has an even greater lead over a 480 at that res. So if speed at 2560x1600 is the only thing that matters to you (not power, heat, noise, single vs multi-gpu, or cost) then why pick a Fermi for this res rather then the fastest card?
03-29-2010, 03:07 PM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sushi Warrior

...
5. GlobalFoundries - WHEN DO THEY OPEN!??! TSMC can go burn in hell.

I'm not so sure the blame can be laid entirely at the feet of TSMC though. AMD managed to release a potent very efficient card on 40nm. It's definitely not ideal, but apparantley if the homework is done correctly, it can be managed.
03-29-2010, 03:17 PM
pentium777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Using that logic - everyone should go out and buy a 5970 as soon as possible. It's the most expensive, but it's also the fastest.

Also, you keep mentioning 2560x1600. But Fermi takes a huge hit (for now) at 2560x1600 so a 5970 has an even greater lead over a 480 at that res. So if speed at 2560x1600 is the only thing that matters to you (not power, heat, noise, single vs multi-gpu, or cost) then why pick a Fermi for this res rather then the fastest card?

That's a dual GPU card @ $700 IF you can find one in stock and as I mentioned... Fermi SLI is the absolute fastest there is right now? Don't even try the 5970 CF because quad GPU scaling is NOT good and if you can find them 5970 is $700 so that'd be $1400 and again scaling isn't good. I did mention I'd be doing 2xGTX 480 SLI didn't I? Always planned on it unless GTX 480 wasn't a good product, it is not the best overall release ever but then again 8800 Ultra was 800-1000, GTX 280 was $649 each so GTX 480 SLI costs me $1000 that's $300 less than my GTX 280 SLI cost me.

It has already been identified that the 2560x1600 hit is unexpected and will be corrected in a few weeks (Nvidia report to one of the review sites) These GPUs are fully programmable, with Nvidia's history on driver revisions I fully expect and believe that the card's performance will improve and be an even better value.
03-29-2010, 03:39 PM
Sushi Warrior

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

I'm not so sure the blame can be laid entirely at the feet of TSMC though. AMD managed to release a potent very efficient card on 40nm. It's definitely not ideal, but apparantley if the homework is done correctly, it can be managed.

Yes, but fixing it requires a bigger hotter die than it COULD be. Assuming GF can make proper layer channels, both GTX480 AND all ATI cards would be cooler and cheaper.... presumably. Of course, I am no electrical or computer engineer.
03-29-2010, 03:43 PM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentium777

That's a dual GPU card @ $700 IF you can find one in stock and as I mentioned... Fermi SLI is the absolute fastest there is right now? Don't even try the 5970 CF because quad GPU scaling is NOT good and if you can find them 5970 is $700 so that'd be $1400 and again scaling isn't good. I did mention I'd be doing 2xGTX 480 SLI didn't I? Always planned on it unless GTX 480 wasn't a good product, it is not the best overall release ever but then again 8800 Ultra was 800-1000, GTX 280 was $649 each so GTX 480 SLI costs me $1000 that's $300 less than my GTX 280 SLI cost me.

It has already been identified that the 2560x1600 hit is unexpected and will be corrected in a few weeks (Nvidia report to one of the review sites) These GPUs are fully programmable, with Nvidia's history on driver revisions I fully expect and believe that the card's performance will improve and be an even better value.

Apparantley XFX doesn't think so. :p:

Quote:

We just received confirmation that XFX, a division of PINE Technologies, will not be releasing any GeForce GTX 400 series graphics cards to the market when the cards become public next month. XFX said that the decision not to carry this series of GF100 graphics card was their decision and that they will still be carrying NVIDIA products. From our conversation with XFX they mentioned that they have "yet to see whether the fermented launch will reach an inglorious anti-climax" and mentioned they want to "Ferm up to who really has the big Guns". We are guessing they mean AMD and it sounds like they have something special cooking up there too.

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/7707/
03-29-2010, 03:49 PM
570091D

^^ well that's a supprise after the XFX boxes for gf100 cards were leaked first....
03-29-2010, 03:50 PM
Macadamia

^ Oh wow.

Regardless of which side you're on, that's quite a big move by XFX. You never NOT want a halo part when you're offered one... unless you get an awesome deal on the other side.
03-29-2010, 03:51 PM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by 570091D

^^ well that's a supprise after the XFX boxes for gf100 cards were leaked first....

+1

maybe its a kinda April fools or something...:shrug:
03-29-2010, 03:53 PM
Sadasius

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Apparantley XFX doesn't think so. :p:

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/7707/

I bet you that it has to do with their double lifetime warranty and Fermi being known to be HOT and XFX not wanting to honour such a hot card when it burns up.
03-29-2010, 03:56 PM
pentium777

Quote:

Originally Posted by flippin_waffles

Apparantley XFX doesn't think so. :p:

http://www.legitreviews.com/news/7707/

That's great, I wouldn't buy a XFX card at 50% off, the tech support is HORRIBLE. I had a bad XFX card and got a guy in India asking me to turn off and on the PC and run me through a little script for idiots. No thanks XFX cya! :down:
03-29-2010, 03:56 PM
Solus Corvus

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentium777

That's a dual GPU card @ $700 IF you can find one in stock and as I mentioned... Fermi SLI is the absolute fastest there is right now? Don't even try the 5970 CF because quad GPU scaling is NOT good and if you can find them 5970 is $700 so that'd be $1400 and again scaling isn't good. I did mention I'd be doing 2xGTX 480 SLI didn't I? Always planned on it unless GTX 480 wasn't a good product, it is not the best overall release ever but then again 8800 Ultra was 800-1000, GTX 280 was $649 each so GTX 480 SLI costs me $1000 that's $300 less than my GTX 280 SLI cost me.

Show us a review where 2 480s beat 2 5970s. The only other review you will find (probably) will be this total failure of a "review": http://www.maingearforums.com/entry....GeForce-Part-2
It's even worse then the ixbt review everyone rejected, but as you can see, when scaling works 2x 5970s match or beat 2x or even 3x 480s.

Quote:

It has already been identified that the 2560x1600 hit is unexpected and will be corrected in a few weeks (Nvidia report to one of the review sites) These GPUs are fully programmable, with Nvidia's history on driver revisions I fully expect and believe that the card's performance will improve and be an even better value.

It can be fixed if it is a driver issue. But if it is something integral to the architecture like fillrate then there is nothing that can be done until next respin. And here is the comment from HWC's conclusion on that topic:

Quote:

As with any new architecture, there are still obviously areas for improvement and in the case of the GTX 480 there was a straw that almost broke the camel’s back. Our comparative testing charts were extremely eye-opening since they showed exactly what they were meant to: issues with resolution scaling. In Left 4 Dead 2, Aliens versus Predator, BattleField: Bad Company 2 and Unigine Heaven, we saw what looked to be an insurmountable lead at lower resolutions all but vanish at 2560 x 1600. Thankfully for NVIDIA, the GTX 480 was able to pull its butt out of the fire with strong AA performance. Nonetheless, this is particularly worrying since high resolution gaming is what the GTX 480 was supposedly built for and if it can’t maintain a sizable lead over the HD 5870 in exactly this area, many enthusiasts may question its price premium. We can’t state for a fact whether some of the performance drop-offs we saw at 2560x1600 were due to an architectural issue or immature drivers but it seems everyone we talked to (from fellow editors to NVIDIA themselves) had their own explanations. For now, we’ll keep an open mind and side with NVIDIA’s explanation which stated there are certain driver optimizations which have yet to be implemented.
03-29-2010, 03:57 PM
pentium777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadasius

I bet you that it has to do with their double lifetime warranty and Fermi being known to be HOT and XFX not wanting to honour such a hot card when it burns up.

Ya because EVGA's lifetime warranty will certainly love to replace a majority of cards for free when they "burn up" get real man..... How about this one BFG also lifetime warranty and selling them too despite the rumor of going RED.

http://www.bfgtech.com/bfgrgtx4801534e.aspx
03-29-2010, 03:57 PM
bill_d

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentium777

That's a dual GPU card @ $700 IF you can find one in stock and as I mentioned... Fermi SLI is the absolute fastest there is right now? Don't even try the 5970 CF because quad GPU scaling is NOT good and if you can find them 5970 is $700 so that'd be $1400 and again scaling isn't good. I did mention I'd be doing 2xGTX 480 SLI didn't I? Always planned on it unless GTX 480 wasn't a good product, it is not the best overall release ever but then again 8800 Ultra was 800-1000, GTX 280 was $649 each so GTX 480 SLI costs me $1000 that's $300 less than my GTX 280 SLI cost me.

lets see 72 fps to 133 fps what 80% skaling
http://www.sweclockers.com/articles_...id=6236&page=9
what do you want 100%
03-29-2010, 04:00 PM
RSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by 570091D

^^ well that's a supprise after the XFX boxes for gf100 cards were leaked first....

My thoughts exactly.

And I'm not sure if XFX will remain a Nvidia partner if they go through with this...
03-29-2010, 04:05 PM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentium777

That's great, I wouldn't buy a XFX card at 50% off, the tech support is HORRIBLE. I had a bad XFX card and got a guy in India asking me to turn off and on the PC and run me through a little script for idiots. No thanks XFX cya! :down:

I expected replies like this...
03-29-2010, 04:07 PM
pentium777

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill_d

lets see 72 fps to 133 fps what 80% skaling
http://www.sweclockers.com/articles_...id=6236&page=9
what do you want 100%

LOL magically their Metro 2033 numbers are so much better for ATI than other reviews? The rest of those benchmarks are extremely suspect as well. Except the only one they seemed to get right was Crysis Warhead. How's your 5970 CF doing in that one?

http://www.sweclockers.com/articles_...id=6236&page=8

:ROTF:
03-29-2010, 04:16 PM
ajaidev

Quote:

Originally Posted by pentium777

That's great, I wouldn't buy a XFX card at 50% off, the tech support is HORRIBLE. I had a bad XFX card and got a guy in India asking me to turn off and on the PC and run me through a little script for idiots. No thanks XFX cya! :down:

It was me i was that Indian :D
03-29-2010, 04:19 PM
flippin_waffles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

It's even worse then the ixbt review everyone rejected, but as you can see, when scaling works 2x 5970s match or beat 2x or even 3x 480s.

It's too bad, because ixbt has some very top notch reviews.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page