not only 32 shaders, plus 8 ROPs + 15% clock speed that means some difference than 470.. rops are more important imo..Quote:
Originally Posted by Arxagelos
Printable View
not only 32 shaders, plus 8 ROPs + 15% clock speed that means some difference than 470.. rops are more important imo..Quote:
Originally Posted by Arxagelos
To be honest, I'm not impressed at all. 5870 seems to be far better value for money. You have to add in both the fact that they are using 10.2 instead of 10.3 and the fact that those benches are from nVidia. I'm sure they picked the best settings/games/ingame locations possible to make Fermi look good. I'm quite certain the reviews to come will show a smaller advantage for Fermi.
lol I have heard these exact arguments about the R600 when it first came out. Easily add 20%? It might happen, but not easily. You act like drivers are somehow as magical as steve jobs' iPadQuote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
It's crazy that the GTX 295 may still be the fastest card offered by nVidia for a while longer.
My problem is the meagre bandwidth increase over the 285 - 12%. And in terms of SLI well when we're talking about < 20 fps does it matter?
then get another 30inch monitor and enjoy nvidia's eyefinityQuote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Let's make easier to compareQuote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Scores normalized to HD 5850 = 100%
Only 1920x1200 AA 4x e AA 8x
http://i44.tinypic.com/14b47ec.png
Nice :up: .Quote:
Originally Posted by japamd
Great job
I don't know about ATI, but this is fairly routine with Nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by weston
The G200's release drivers were the 170xx, but it wasn't until the 180xx drivers that the architecture received it's first significant boost....to the tune of 10 > 15%.. Of course the recent 190xx drivers added even more, so all in all I'd say my GTX 285 is about 20% faster on average right now than it was on release day.
And remember that the G200 isn't as radical a change in architecture as Fermi is..
Now that's a slick graph. That makes comparing cards across the board very nice to see IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by japamd
Would be better if it was normalized to 5870 I think, looks like the 470 is competing with it also.
Yeah, my wife would love me sinking 2,500 bucks on something she knows I don't "need." :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Hi Mate,Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Thnks for asking, yes we are doing OK, i'm far away from the epicenter, like 500KMs but we felt it pretty hard like 7.5-8.0 richter. For this huge earthquake we did pretty good overall.
Regards
We hear that all the time... :rofl::rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Done :DQuote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
http://i42.tinypic.com/2rmsdx0.png
The GF100 architecture is VERY different from anything that has been produced by Nvidia before. So much so, the emphasis is clearly put on GPGPU performance, not gaming. Therefore, I don't expect tremendous driver optimization to be even possible this time around. At least, surely not in the almost "magical" 20-30% range. And I support the view that Nvidia final silicon has been available at least 3-4 months ago to the driver developer. I believe the drivers to be quite refined already.
So, no dual GPU, no clock increase unless you go water cooling, little to no drivers optimization: I'll say it again: Unless Nvidia comes out with a REV2 silicon that draw far less juice and allow 512sp at higher clock (very doubtful in the short and even middle term), performance wise, what you'll see on the 26 is what you'll get for a VERY long time from these cards.
I really hope for Nvidia sake that the 480 is way over 20% better than the 5870 in the vast majority of benchmark because ATI will simply strike back with a 2GB 1Ghz 5890, undercut 480 price (RV870 is a LOT cheaper manufacture than GF100), and that's gone be the end of it.
JapAMD - Thanks for taking the time to put those graphs together, much appreciated!
battleforge results are unbelievable though never thought that ati will loose so much in its own favorite game lol
GTX480...come to Butthead.
Not really. Nvidia fanboys have taught us they'll buy anything even if it's overpriced. The GTX470 comes to mind. Same MSRP as the 5870, yet performs less and people are still willing to jump all over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramon Zarat
You can't stop the green fanboys.
Ati winning in Crysis and Vantage, and nvidia winning in battleforge and Dirt2... surely the end of the world as we know it is near :DQuote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Don't you think that would make it more likely for better drivers? It looks really impressive on paper but the FPS is not reflecting that, maybe it just isn't using all of its power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramon Zarat
if the leaks are right here is a graphic of the gtx480 i made bc i have too much free time. it has a 24% advantage overall so it could sell at $480vand offer same perf/dollar as 5870. i would have included 5970 but im having trouble finding reviews with these games.
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9015/gtx480.jpg
idk why -1% ends up +1% on crysis.
These look *very* real. The other blue/gray graphs look totally fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
1. DX11 games do very well. Very very good sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
2. Fps remains high at high AA/2560. 99% sure new drivers will improve Battleforge and Dirt2 further.
3. Fermi has bigger lead over 58xx than G200 had over 48xx!!
4. Air OC wont get GTX470 to catchup to GTX480 - worse PCB, power ceiling and gap is too big. GTX470 HIGHER than 5870 would be HUGE WIN for nVidia.
5. Half the games are quite CPU limited (compare teh SLI Fermi score).
6. 2GB 5870 OC wont do much. Performance is NOT proportional to clock. Even +18% 1000Mhz (possible with new PCB), would only typically get +5-7%fps
7. But, what if these are non-retail scores!! (ie 512SP 750Mhz)
PS: 700Mhz for HUGE die is impressive. Still NOBODY knows how yield situation will play out. Perhaps even a special "39nm" respin stepping with <225W.
Sigh of relief? What if similar delays to Fermi? Silicon respins? RV770 - ie best case scenario - was like 140days = 4+ months. Same with Redwood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk
No rumours or slides yet... will be interesting to see configuration (guessing800/1600/1200 256SP 128bit??)
EDIT: I predicted driver optimization contraversies before - nVidia definetly wants to be #1 EVERYWHERE.. IQ still unknown.. for all we know that +40% in FC2 is because of some glitches...
You have a point. The new architecture is maybe so alien that even after 4 month of hard work from the Nvidia driver team, there is still 20-30% of untaped power to be unbleached.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sushi Warrior
Sigh..... that is off handpicked benches/benchmarks/settings from nvidia :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
36 hours couldn't come soon enough :(.
LMAO :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvese
lulz, it performs on par with the 5870 if these benchies are to be believed, and it looks like you can get it for $359 now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yvese
Nvidia has several advantages like PhysX, CUDA and allegedly better tessellation performance. DX11 titles seem to favor Fermi more than other games so I'll take that as a good sign also. All in all, I think it's fair for it to be priced at HD5870 levels.
I'm calling it now...
200.xx drivers will provide a significant boost in performance for Fermi, to the tune of 1000% :D
Thats Nvidia's style, and the 200.xx drivers will be a milestone so it makes sense..
Sweet, thanks. Here are those Nvidia benches (in your sweet bar graph) next to the benches posted earlier... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by japamd
http://i40.tinypic.com/dbjoqq.jpg
Those are all very popular games with reasonable settings of 1920x1200 4xAA?Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula
Lol epic english ftw. So sigged :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by pentium777
If the 480 pulls ahead noticeably in the games im playing / interested in, it might get my attention. I've played a good bit of borderlands but it is a title which ATI hardware does poorly in. Been playing Just Cause 2 (really fun by the way if you like mindless explosions and gunplay in a giant sandbox environment which is very very nice to look at ) a lot today and although it does fairly well on a 5870 if a 480 can do at least 30-40% higher in it, that alone would be incentive enough for me to take a 2nd look. However the question is do I want to pay another $200 to do this. I might have another 5870 coming my way ( replacement for my 4870x2, fingers crossed ) so we shall see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
On par with 5870 performance and cheaper would make the 470 a great buy indeed. We will confirm that in less than 30 hours now...
There is 10-12 games that support PhysX, out of which 10 are very bad. OpenCL is what will take the center stage in Q2-Q3 2010 and will be in full swing in 2011. Closed and proprietary CUDA won't be here for much longer on the desktop. Everything GPGPU on the desktop will soon be driven through OpenCl, including physics acceleration, transcoding etc...
EDIT:
Sorry, There is many more games than 10-12 on PhysX. I meant to say only about 10 games are actually half good...
Funny how some people don't like the rumored benched numbers of cards out in the wild, but will take PR number comparisons to heart! :rofl::ROTF:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
And again, Nvidia has had at least 4 months, if not more, working on drivers. Specs might not have been finalized, but the drivers and architecture were well known in advance. Yes, it's a newer architecture, but the driver team has definitely had a lot longer to work on it than GT200 did. So in relation to GT200, we're probably at the 180.xx range more so than the 170.xx range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carfax
Either way, I'm not betting on the drivers to unlock 10-20% when the card is already 6 months late. We're talking about the fact that in 6 months, new competition/refreshes will be out and they'd have to be compared to those cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
You guys are calculating +24% overall when it's based on a limited selection of games, chosen by Nvidia, with settings unknown. I mean, look at Batman:AA... everyone knows Nvidia does better on that game by a good amount, but that's being factored into an already small sample size, meaning the %'s will look even better for Nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Let's wait for the real numbers before concluding +%'s shall we? Especially from PR numbers!
I'm with ya...just a little disappointed that I won't be able to use the display port on the 3008WFP.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentium777
I'd like to see 470 #'s in SLI. If they are halfway decent it's a more attractive option for me as I can use my current power supply. I REALLY don't want to rewire my system, I spent retarded hours on wire management.
I double checked on Nvidia website about Physx hardware accelerated game and it seems I was right the first time... *Only* 17 games total, most of which are total crap.
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Crazy Machines II
Cryostasis
Dark Void
Darkest of Days
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (GRAW2)
Metal Knight Zero Online (MKZ)
Mirror's Edge
Nurien
PT Boats: Knights of the Sea
Sacred 2
Star Tales
Unreal Tournament 3
Unreal Tournament 3: Extreme Physics Mod
U-WARS
Warmonger: Operation Downtown
Sources: http://www.nzone.com/object/nzone_physxgames_home.html
Anyone still think Physx is a valid argument to mention when talking about Nvidia?
Heh, these 'PR' numbers sure are rattling nerves. You would almost think folks were hoping it's slower lol.
Rattling nerves? More like watching people downplay independent reviewers / leaks out there, then taking the PR slides as gospel :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Anywho, question... I thought AA was disabled for ATI cards. How do those slides show Batman:AA with 4x? I know you can brute force it, but there's an example of "selective" benching
26 hours left...
How many games are needed to make an accurate comparison, do you think? Most review sites don't even bench this many games. I obv. agree with you on that these are Nvidia numbers and we shouldn't base conclusions on these, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
About the other benchmarks you're talking about, which ones? AFAIK there's a circulating Crysis benchmark which seems to be in line with these scores, a couple of Dirt + FC2 benchs which probably were ripped from this chart. Crysis is the game Fermi seems to be the worst on.
The question isn't how many games... it's what games.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
In a relatively small sample size, if you let too many outliers in, you're going to skew data.
IIRC, back when G80/R600 were the cards on the market, people would bench Call of Juarez and say "look, R600 is not as slow!" etc.
Now imagine if a review had 10 games, 3 of which were Call of Juarez esque... instead of the realistic G80 being 30% faster than R600, the average might have dropped to 20%, etc.
If you're going to make a definitive overall comparison, with just 10 games, you'd want all 10 to be as close to neutral as possible.
I mean look at the original big chart... just taking a glance, you've got Batman:AA and FarCry 2, well known to favor Nvidia. Aside from the obvious question of how AA was enabled for ATI's cards (again, issues with settings), you have one game accounting for a good chunk of the performance increase. And do you factor in a review like Crysis Warhead 2560x1600 8xAA/16xAF where 17.2/4.7 is going to be "OMGWTF 300% faster!!!" etc.
PR slides at its best. They'll no doubt champion "25% faster than 5870" but whats the methodology?
(that's also why I tend to ignore reviews that don't clue us in to how things were tested, what was tested, and having a conclusion based off a small set of samples. junk science at its best)
You are making absolutely no sense to me. There are about 15 games in that list and all are popular games which are constantly being used in reviews. Do you think some crucial games were left out in favor of Nvidia-centric titles? I can't see any (except Call of Pripyat). But I do see some titles ATI has been promoting heavily, like Battleforge, Dirt 2 and AvP.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
And how is it that we decide which title is "neutral". I don't care if a game is neutral or not, and so shouldn't you. I just look at the importance of the game for me. If you are going to review a card, the games you must use should be popular titles that you know a lot of people would care about. A consumer doesn't and shouldn't care about how the card he is going to buy performs in a "neutral" game, he cares about games he is actually going to play.
I see nothing related to PR in these benchmarks, there are a lot of games including ATI titles, and a lot of settings some of which clearly don't favor Nvidia. If someone was looking for 1680x1050 numbers he shouldn't be buying a GTX 470 or 480 in the first place.
That's why we will need to be *EXTRA* vigilant as to who we trust when it comes to official review on the 26. All manufacturers are known to twist reviewer's arms a bit, but IMO, Nvidia -definitively- have a worse track record in that department.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Okay, and what does your statement have anything to do with comparing across the board? You just said you don't care if a title isn't neutral...Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
And I agree to get it for the games you care about, but again, if people say 24% across the board, but the games you care about are on the 10% end and not the 50% end, who's selling what?
A lot of settings which clearly don't favor Nvidia? Where's the list of these settings?? I don't see where you're drawing that from at allQuote:
I see nothing related to PR in these benchmarks, there are a lot of games including ATI titles, and a lot of settings some of which clearly don't favor Nvidia. If someone was looking for 1680x1050 numbers he shouldn't be buying a GTX 470 or 480 in the first place.
Yep, sure seems to be... ROFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Rattling as much as people were pissed off about performance numbers leaked? Of course, pr slides get released and those must be true!! :rolleyes:
That's exactly what I mean by watching out for testing methodology, settings, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramon Zarat
If the reviewers pump out reviews that are vague on specifics, I usually end up second guessing how they got to those numbers. After all, you wouldn't submit a science report for your lab if you can't give specific values and instructions so others can replicate it within the margin of error. Otherwise you'd be a politician :p:
What drivers do you think the Nvidia PR numbers are using. 10.3? Doubtful. 10.2 is more likely, but they might even be older knowing how PR works.
Best quote ever right there :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I think I might Sig that....
i cant really make up data that they dont give me. i just assume that people realize that it could be fake or manipulated. the criteria for games were dx11 and newer gpu heavy games. out of the 8 games i chose to use 4 could not be maxed out by the gtx480.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Sure I agree that "across the board" performance summaries don't mean much when deciding to buy a video card. But I am talking about them (and have calculated those scores) because there had been a lot of talk regarding how faster than 5870 it would be generally. Charlie said 5%, some other guy 25%, someone 15%, someone 40% etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
But you're right in that if Charlie wanted to, he could cherry pick settings, games and scenarios to make himself correct. So could pretty much everyone (remember Nvidia says a 8600gt can be faster than HD5870 lol), but these good selection of games I think would allow for a generalized "this card is better than that card generally % something, at this resolution and settings" statement.
What I meant was that the resolutions weren't cherry picked from game to game. There are numbers for 1920+4xAA, 1920+8xAA, 2560+4xAA and 2560+8xAA (the only settings a Fermi buyer should care about) for pretty much every game in the benchmark, and in some of those resolutions HD5870 performs a lot better compared to other resolutions, but these weren't omitted and a lot of data was presented whether it favored Nvidia or not.Quote:
A lot of settings which clearly don't favor Nvidia? Where's the list of these settings?? I don't see where you're drawing that from at all
Anyway, if these benchmarks are fake I'll have a good laugh at this discussion :D
Don't worry about it, people on another forum I post on are getting all riled up because their doom/gloom predictions are in all likeliness dead wrong at this point, too. People wildly claiming "It's 10% slower than a 5870!!!! It's too hot to run, it's so late no one cares, Charlie is clearly right, etc.!!!!" are looking like they have egg on their face, and no one likes admitting they're incorrect ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
The only people who admit they're wrong are usually people who know a lot about the subject anyway and don't feel the need to prove themselves to the audience. And when you're blindly following Charlie's statements you can't be knowing much, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
lol, when you own games with physx, it's a legit reason to consider nvidia. if you don't like nvidia and don't care about the gf100 cards, feel free to tell someone else about it. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramon Zarat
NVIDIA to get official with Fermi GPUs, will 'more than double the performance' of existing cards.
LOL how much did they pay the wall street journal to print that?
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/24/n...than-double-t/
I think its obvious what "other" forum as you have the same if not close to the same user name ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Heh those are nice numbers, but I guess we'll have to wait a while before prices drop...
Dead-on accurate. I love the ones going "Charlie got most of it right! He's an awesome journalist!" on the hardforum. Good times, lots of laughter to be had reading the so-called "technical enthusiasts" there who don't know what half the terms even mean, let alone what they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
They said "double the performance of nVidia's existing cards", not double the performance of all current cards from both companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger5521
Did I act like I cared? Sorry, I didn't mean to give off that impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula
You know, it does make you feel good to see things that agree with your opinion (studies have shown this) so if you are pre-dispositioned towards Nvidia it physically (well, mentally I guess) makes you genuinely feel good to see benchmarks/reviews saying Fermi is better. You don't even have to be a fanboi, you just need to have some hope/want for Fermi to perform well.
And most of these leaks are not matching up, all I can really say is wait just a day or two.
Sky said that he was going to check whether or not the NDA expires at 6PM on the 26th or just on the 26th... possibly some down-under reviews ahead of time?
I just thought it was funny, cause "Hardforums" takes the same amount of time to type "other forums"Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
I think its safe to say that ATi 5970 is the new G80, meaning that those who bought (like G80 users did) one made the best long time investment in gpu hardware.
Nope, it's just how I formed the sentence in my head as I typed it out :). I don't think with the same username and even crossposting some of my posts near-verbatim that it's any secret who I am on each site :p: .Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula
It would probably fall under forum etiquette, no need to mention/promote other forums by name.Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula
Just the 26th would be a sweet treat, but I'm guessing it'll probably be 6pm EST on the 26th since that's when nVidia's big presentation is at PAX East in Boston MA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sushi Warrior
That too, but I won't lie and say that was what had driven that... it's just how it came out when I was formulating the sentence this time :p:. I usually do only refer to other forums with acronyms or as "other boards" in posts though.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Subconscious forum etiquette, you didn't even have to think about it!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Honestly I hope some of you guys are right that fermi is better than it was looking for a while there.
I'm not a fan of NV these days, but I want the best card I can get, regardless of what sticker is slapped on it. :D
Wouldn't a 2x2GB 5990 or whatever it will be called be the king?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Seems the $549 price is accurate. Go to google shopping search, type in "gtx480" and see what pops up...
Asus from RipBoomLie!Quote:
$549.00 new
Free shipping
ZipZoomFly 14,260 seller ratings ASUS ENGTX480/2DI/1536MD5 Geforce GTX 480 Fermi 1536MB GDDR5 PCI Expre
ASUS ENGTX480/2DI/1536MD5 Geforce GTX 480 Fermi 1536MB GDDR5 PCI Express x16 (2.0v) Video Card Retail.
Add to Shopping List
Also on google if you search the PNY part #:
The price is cut off and google's cache fails to show the product, though.Quote:
New Products - Mwave.com - Buy Computer Hardware, Software ...PNY VCGGTX480XPB GeForce GTX 480 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x 16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card. SKU: BD11358 Mfg. Part No: VCGGTX480XPB ...
www.mwave.com/mwave/Viewproductgrid.asp?PID=newp - Cached
I tried 2x 8800GT 512's for a few and found it to not be consistently better enough for me at the time to be worth the extra cash... then again I ran 1680x1050 back then as well. I'm not a fan of multi-GPU setups, myself, but I'd be tempted by one if I had the extra cash to splurge on 2x 480's... don't think I'd actually do it, but the temptation would be great.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
That's probably true.Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula
But sadly after trying out both 2x 3870's and a 3870X2 back in the day I just can't deal with multi-GPU BS anymore. :ROTF:
Zipzoomfly always does this when using froogle price search, they always "leak" the prices to us first :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
No listing for gtx470 yet though :(
Well let's see Crysis 2560x goes from 19 fps (not playable) to 37.5 (playable) then Metro 2033 from 18 fps to 31 fps....Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
One thing is pretty clear new titles with more effects and DX11 will only have higher demand on GPU if I hadn't gotten GTX 280 SLI for my 30" Nov 08 I'd have had to upgrade already to keep playable framerates. By going SLI with GTX 480 I should have a longer time in between upgrades and not only will it be more enjoyable but either save me money or be close to break even. Remember there is a used market you can sell them when you upgrade.
Nice so I got it for $522 shipped from pc super store! They also said $549 but you got a discount for pre ordering!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Same here I have my display port cable in a drawer and was excited to finally use it and disappointed / surprised not to see it as spec of the new cards. However there was mention that some board partners might choose to add one on it is up to them. However the display port is really designed for future needs and if I'm not mistaken there is zero image difference from current dual link DVI to display port.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger5521
I would expect that you'll also see 80-90% on the 470 SLI remember it is about the support both in the drivers and game so if you see that much out of the 480 SLI you should expect to see the same or more.
I've had Crysis since it was released and refused to play it at anything less than max settings 2560x so it was shelved (since I knew MP wasn't active anyway) to see it from 19fps to 37.5fps and that's with AA, at 2560x AA becomes less important if you need some extra FPSes.
Let me see here 19fps to 37.5fps = 97%..... That's why you do SLI
Metro 2033 18 to 31 = 72% and I'd bet drivers increase this % but 72% is very respectable. Makes the game playable at 2560x
Take those GTX 470 cards and add on the same % gains for SLI, I'm betting that's what you'll see.
Basic psychology. No one wants to believe in something wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sushi Warrior
Can't wait for some independent/verified reviews
Not attacking you at all, just attacking the idea that it's definitive. I put about as much stock in PR slides asQuote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
I've always held that a 15-25% average range is the most likely, given that we know that it's < 10% in some games, and > 40% in some games due to architecture etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
It's a good selection, but again, Nvidia PR's going to make sure just the right amount / game results are in there to massage the data in their favor. After all, you'd probably be fired if you chose what made it 15% rather than 25%!Quote:
But you're right in that if Charlie wanted to, he could cherry pick settings, games and scenarios to make himself correct. So could pretty much everyone (remember Nvidia says a 8600gt can be faster than HD5870 lol), but these good selection of games I think would allow for a generalized "this card is better than that card generally % something, at this resolution and settings" statement.
You're right that theres no point in comparing this card at < 1920x1200 resolutionQuote:
What I meant was that the resolutions weren't cherry picked from game to game. There are numbers for 1920+4xAA, 1920+8xAA, 2560+4xAA and 2560+8xAA (the only settings a Fermi buyer should care about) for pretty much every game in the benchmark, and in some of those resolutions HD5870 performs a lot better compared to other resolutions, but these weren't omitted and a lot of data was presented whether it favored Nvidia or not.
Anyway, if these benchmarks are fake I'll have a good laugh at this discussion :D
Again though, at what settings? And how does that mesh with your statement that the settings were against Nvidia?
If Fermi is as new an architecture as everyone says, then the fact that Nvidia didn't do as well with high AA and resolution scaling as in the past compared to ATI is irrelevant (not to mention, at higher resolutions/textures, the memory advantage should actually favor Nvidia).
And the reason I question settings is also that they don't prove any methodology.
For instance... we know that AA can't be enabled in-game in Batman:AA and yet, these slides show 4xAA settings. So did they force it through CCC (known to be brute forced and thus slower)? So what does that say about other benches? Same for those Unigine slides we saw, where they picked "40% faster" at the extreme tesselation scenes etc.
And yeah, I'd have a good laugh if these were all fake anyways, but either way, the #'s should be out in a few days!
Not to rain on the multi-GPU parade, but I tend to not hold PR numbers on multi-GPU scaling too high in esteem (after all, what's better than selling ONE card to a person? Making them buy TWO!)... we've seen it before with ATI's CF numbers (like ZOMG 80% scaling!!!) but in reality, it was more in the 40-50ish% range if thatQuote:
Originally Posted by pentium777
Not really. The G80 was a single gpu and the 5970 isn't. Not really a fair comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blacky
But in terms of the 5870, it is true to an extent. 6 months with no competition and we'll wait and see with Fermi if it continues that way. At any case i still think a 1GHz core with 5870 should be close to the 480. Great card esp with the features.
I'm saying as a product not as x2 gpus vs gpu blah blah blah, 5970 still a single card.Quote:
Originally Posted by takamishanoku
I just beat it today, not even worth playing with all the games that just released, BC2, Bioshock, Mass Effect 2....much moreQuote:
Originally Posted by pentium777
The performance really isn't that spectacular in those NV charts for skepticism to be that strong. With a card being this late to the game its not living up to what was initially hyped. In retrospect however, late cards rarely are as fast as the delays would make them out to be. E.g 1800xt, gf5800, 2900xt. Coming out late in the past has never been a good sign of things to come. But to me, even if this turns out to be true, this is a pretty big let down, even more so than the 5870 turned out to be.
The game selection isn't particularly biased either when you consider all these games are popular and a lot of typically Nvidia uncentric games were included like battleforge and stalker(however improvements have been shown). Ironically these games show the biggest improvement over the older generation of cards and actually look like strong titles.
If these graphs are partially true, then we can look at one hell of a performance jump with drivers later on. It looks like Nvidia's approach to designing the drivers this time around was focusing on weaker games first. I can only imagine the previously stronger titles like crysis will only get stronger in the future. Since this is a new architecture and it's more programmable than before, driver headroom has never been greater. 4 months isn't a along time to build up performance and we should be seeing a 10 percent performance jump as the minimum, especially considering the jumps from the g80 drivers and gtx gtx280 drivers or in more recent times the 58xx series.
I think the headroom on the gtx 480 should be near SLI gtx 285 levels. However memory bandwidth will probably hurt this.
Official reviews will show the good, the bad and the ugly, but from what appears to be the most comprehensive leak, the card has gotten alot less ugly and is just fugly at this point.
If the score are true GTX 480 has huge performance "a few pages back" leads in Farcry 2 and Batman AA so if you like either of those two you should get GTX 480 for sure :)
only 2x hours left i hope nvidia lets out reviews because it would really suck if we have no reviews and only specs.
Even though psychology is important, GeForce Fermi performance expectations are mostly based on facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sushi Warrior
GTX480 compared to HD5870 has
250W vs 188W Power draw
2800 vs 2100 million Transistors
700 vs 850 MHz Graphics Clock
1401 vs 850 MHz Processor Clock
1536 vs 1024 MB GDDR5 Memory
GTX480 is 6 months late.
The most important factor is power draw.
GeForce GTX 480 needs 33% more power at least (maybe even more - according to nApoleon).
So most ppl would expect 33% better performance to justify the increased power consumption (along with room temperature and noise increase).
I would justify to purchase GeForce GTX480 in case
- most of the games I play have 33% better performance/quality than HD5870 at my screen resolution
- the performance boost turns some unplayable games to playable
- I want some special capabilities like 3D vision, GPGPU etc.
- the price is right (about 33% more expensive)
Yep the power consumption if true looks bad, ati can release a 5950 "2*1440" and do pretty well against the GTX 480 for the same/similar power requirement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marios
WTH? Stop making sh*t up as you go. Most people? How many do you know exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marios
GTX 260 draws 147W under load, HD 4890 draws 190W. Is anyone really expecting, that HD 4890 is gonna be 30% faster or otherwise it sucks?
Silly season is one thing, but this is insane :down:
But more power consumption does mean need for better psu. Not every one has 1000w psu's u know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
This is high-end we're talking about. Everyone who buys high-end has a PSU, that will be able to handle it. GTX 275 draws 220W, GTX 285 244W, if anyone is upgrading from these cards, he's pretty much ready.
Honestly, the GTX480 will run on any decent PSU 550W and up. If it's a really good PSU it will probably run on an even lower rated one as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
And anybody in the market for a GTX480 type card will not have PSU problems.
Oh look who's pulling :banana::banana::banana::banana: out of their ass now :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
YAY, we're gonna let a temporary member that started posting this month ONLY related to nVidia stuff judge our hardware purchasing habits!Quote:
Silly season is one thing, but this is insane :down:
If you want a website where everyone thinks like Dear Leader you're welcome to go to SLIZone.
Say what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/video...ysis_power.png
You wanna blame someone? Blame this - http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=244732Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
And obviously join date means everything, it's not like I could have been posting on different forums, no sir.
The 260 is a ~180 watt card IIRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
NE way, we have what, about 24 hours to go before reviews hit? Less? :shocked:
4890 is 30% faster than GTX260 at 19X12 8xAAQuote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
http://i40.tinypic.com/288ox2f.jpg
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...formancerating
And it's also only 2% faster in 1680x1050 with 4xAA, 7% faster in 1920x1200 with 4xAA and 15% in 2560x1600 with 4xAA.
And it's nearly 30% faster than GTX260 in 1680x1050 8xAA,over 70% faster than GTX275 in 2560x1600 with 8xAA.:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
Talking about silly and insane seasonsQuote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
GTX 260 draws 182W
And from the 7 games tested in 1920x1200 with 8xAA only 3 get playable framerates, one barely hits 30fps average and the others are unplayable.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
Maximum Graphics Card Power (W) 182 WQuote:
Originally Posted by Marios
:shakes:
You mean 8%, 15%, and xx% since 2560x1600 4xAA isn't listed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
25% more performance for 35% more power consumption is fine by me, assuming that is where the GTX 480 will end up vs the 5870. Big assumption?
I got my numbers from here http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/h...ting_qualitaetQuote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
GTX480's Metro 2033 and stalker CS benchmarks are also under 30FPS in reviewers guides.:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
Typical double-standard fanboy....
Ladies, ladies, please. Why ya'll arguing red and green? Even worse, Fermi isn't even involved in the argument. "Red!" "No, green!" "No, red!" "TWIMTBP!" "To hell with your dear leader!"
Silly.
ATi Radeon HD 4890: Max Power Draw: 190WQuote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
nVidia GeForce GTX 260: Max Power Draw: 182W
Do you see me jumping to conclusions, because something that may or may not be real leaked? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
It's two days away, maybe less...just relax a little.
if fermi isnt out tomorow and its only the end of nda we might have time left to make it to page 90 of thread 3 LOL
all of this for the 6th of course