GTX480 benchmark:
http://i44.tinypic.com/25qw2lc.jpg
Printable View
GTX480 benchmark:
http://i44.tinypic.com/25qw2lc.jpg
8 hours 12 minutes?
GTX480 full-load temperature(room temperature 20℃）
http://i39.tinypic.com/2usivrl.jpg
Similar to 295 GTX.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -=DVS=-
Similar to my 8800GT(s)
GTX 480 pricing?
http://www.amazon.com/Zotac-GeForce-...9600472&sr=1-1
^mindfury
Are those percentages for % faster than the 5870? If so, then WOW.
yepQuote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
Seems to me that the higher power consumption is reflected on performance. So it might be at more or less the same perf/watt of Cypress. And some of those numbers are really close to HD5970 :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
So, which card is the one running @ 326W and 466W respectively?
Nope, there's no way on earth a 5870 only manages sub20 fps on Heaven, those are either minimum frame rates or pure bull:banana::banana::banana::banana:.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
You can see the HD5870 is the one on the left, the one on the right is blured out.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
wtf？ http://www.chiphell.com/uploadfile/2...0082631511.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
Quakewar
1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 171.0fps 10.3drv 163.0fps 480-168.0fps
1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 146.0fps 10.3drv 139.0fps 480-140.0fps
2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 97.0fps 10.3drv 95.0fps 480-94.0fps
Crysis
1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 32.0fps 10.3drv 31.9fps 480-30.0fps
1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 28.0fps 10.3drv 28.0fps 480-27.5.0fps
2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 14.1fps 10.3drv 8.2fps 480-15.4fps
Farcry2
1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 77.8fps 10.3drv 72.4fps 480-105.6fps
1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 67.9fps 10.3drv 63.9fps 480-90.4fps
2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 48.3fps 10.3drv 46.3fps 480-89.1fps
UT3
1680x1050 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 158fps 10.3drv 156fps 480-253fps
1920x1200 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 132fps 10.3drv 131fps 480-207fps
2560x1600 4xAA 16xAF 9.10 drv: 85fps 10.3drv 85fps 480-133fps
AMD should fire ATI Cat Team according to these two tests with the same
hardware configuration, lol:down:
reminded me nvidias reviewer guide benchs actually games are same too
ps : as far as i remember ati doesn't have in game aa in unreal engine so that explain tha huge difference
The 185W is the idle power consumption of the HD5870 system and the 326W is the load consumption. The same goes for fermi. Well that's my best guess anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
Nvidia seems to have done a role reversal
Now nvidia appears to be king of high AA and king of ATi-favored games
I love seeing hinted crysis numbers
90% of 5870
thats so epic lol - but with at least 2x the shaders of gtx280 with future driver updates it should start to approach 2x in nearly every game
5870 full-load 326WQuote:
Originally Posted by clayton
GTX480 full-load 466W
MAX 96C ahhhhaaa thats hot....Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
Now i know why the 1.8A fan is installed, in the summers it gonna make your pc fly... :D
The TDP of 230w does not make sense, i mean max 96C with that huge a cooler and 92C avg on 230w tdp ??
ok with small work on Excel with the fx AVERAGEQuote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9306/avge.jpg
I can say GTX480 is faster the HD5870 by 50% on average
Yeah, you all have to quote the benchmark...
that vanatage score looks pretty bad for nvidia, 9k on extreme for 5870? is that accurate?
some of the numbers look good, but unigine is the only one that looks low for ATI, which could be they did something with the settings to make tesselation way to heavy for the 5870 to handle
Heaven 2.0Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
@Jared,
where did you find that? is it at newegg?
'I can say GTX480 is faster the HD5870 by 50% on average' don't worry if that was true case nvidia would priced it above 5970 lol gonna wait for bettter reviews
50% lead would be really great. Would give me the itch to upgrade from my 2x 5870 in crossfire :shocked: Computers is such an expensive hobby :rofl::ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk
Perhaps not if they want to steal ATI sales? After being delayed against HD5000 for ~6 months perhaps Nvidia is coming back with a vengeance?Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
However if you look at specific games such as Dirt 2 the benchmarks shows under 30% average advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk
Breakdown if numbers are true:
Heaven - 193% Average Advantage (780% advantage in one score though)
Neutrone - (-10%) average advantage
Dirt 2 - 27.5% advantage
Battleforge - 36.5% advantage
Stalker - 19.1% advantage
3D Mark Vantage - .3% advantage
ohhhhhhhhhh, thats horrible temps! Only 5C above HD5970 :) :) :) :) :rofl: :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
and 10C above HD 5870, oh GOD, how can be someone too blind and trolly?
I don't understand how nVidia is not doing HDMI passthrough like ATI. No matter how much better performance it gets I need that feature :(.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Performance wise those numbers posted would be incredible if true...
they still have same ms why sell with loss if you have much better hardware ? physx cuda stuff already makes nvidia products atractive don't know its unbelievable if true then kudos to nvidia they are again my next gc :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
Noise,5870 fan doesnt speed up until 80CQuote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
Where is there any concrete evidence that Fermi cards will be sold at a loss?Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Why is he trolly and blind? He has a perfectly valid point. That _is_ quite hot. And as mentioned before, the ATI cards don't really ramp the fan up all that much when loaded, simply because it doesn't need to dissipate the same amount of heat as Fermi will have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
this link has been posted but...
http://www.amazon.com/Zotac-GeForce-...9600472&sr=1-1
if you look closely at the box you will see some specs.
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2007/480spec.png
this card isnt going to make up its revenue in a month, its going to be across 2-3 years. they lost alot of time and if at 500$ they have a better price/perf ratio, amd will be forced to lower prices and start giving up that great profit margin, or loose market share.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
we all want nvidias card to demolish amds, so prices can go down again, which they havnt done in 10 months.
You could say it's 880% faster in Heaven, and 10% slower in Crysis too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mk
:ROTF:
Found it on hwupgrade.it forums, dunno where it's from. Andrea could probably tell youQuote:
Originally Posted by mattlef
He shouldn't include the 880 number. It isn't really a good representation, but will greatly skew the results because it's such a big number.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
The driver gains are going to be insane with fermi. I have never seen a card with such inconsistent performance. Forget 10% performance gains, we are going to be seeing 20-30 percent performance gains. Especially with titles like Quake and crysis, which are typically NV favoured, the heaviest gains are going to be seen here. I have guessed that when making the latest drivers NV focus on their weakness first and will later focus on their strengths. With strong performances in games like dirt 2, hawx, battleforge and unreal, which are usually AMD favoured, this card should be killing in games like crysis and quake wars. Its not those and at this point one has to suspect drivers(assuming the recent leaked charts are true).
Nice find! :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
that heat thing is what disturbs me 96 is pretty high and in warm climates it will be even higher making card unoverclockable same problem which i had with my ultra hope 470 is more cooler seems thats my only choiceQuote:
Originally Posted by Musho
not really ; if you see 100% it as fast as HD 5870, if you see 170%, it's 70% faster than HD 5870. Check the Crysis % compare for proof ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
Well that would be a problem if you were considering buying one? :) Early numbers don't look too bad, certainly not anywhere near the R600/NV30 predictions we've been hearing for 6 months. Would be nice to know how AMD feels about it - who knows what they have waiting in the wings.
The only thing I'm really wondering about is the 2d downclocking.
Do you think nVidia put this feature into the 4series chips like the ati 5 series? this is a huge selling feature for me.
Percentages are so stupid. If your test is 10 fps and the other card gets 20, that's a factor of 2.0, but clearly both are unplayable. Furthermore, why are we factoring synthetics into 'real-world' tests?
GT200 already downclocks really low in 2D. Don't know why it would be any different with Fermi. Idle numbers still look very high though. Leakage is a biatch.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattlef
According to Chiphell benchmark,GTX 480 and HD5870 have 45W difference at idle.Quote:
Originally Posted by mattlef
Won't chiphell get sued for these benchmarks if they turn out real? I mean, didn't they sign a NDA which probably means you have to pay 200k+ if you break it? :shrug:
ouch, that will hurt.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
if you remove all unplayable results (<30fps) from the charts and keep only the game benchmarks; you end up with ~28.7% increase in performance over HD 5870.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
granted that this card is overkill for 1680x1050, and also 1920x1200 for most games, even with 8xAA.
They signed NDA... I really dont know why they broke it...Maybe for some website traffic....Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Those NDAs usually are _very_ expensive. Surely having to pay 200k+ isn't worth it to generate some website traffic? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
they didnt post the card or the specs, just the results, are they trying to get around a loophole?
That really does depend on how much you're getting in advertising revenue due to increased traffic right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Really? I mean really? Fermi thread part 3, thousands of irrelevant posts, someone finally post some benchmarks and you're worried about NDA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Hmmm, could be. But then again, nVidia isn't stupid. Surely they checked, doublechecked and tripplechecked for any loopholes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
True, but then again, the prices you have to pay are huge. I can't really see them generating that much money just be being 6 hours earlier :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by mattlef
I'm not worried by the NDA, chiphell should be. :yepp: And I'm glad we finally have some numbers to go by. I was merely wondering about the NDA. Is that such a huge deal? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by LesGrossman
Warm climates, try frigen hot, here in Perth it hits over 40c+ quite often each summer, so man I hear you when you say the word Heat!! :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
So when do you normaly start to see the water cooled blocks for these new cards start to roll out?
Day of release?
Week later?
Would love one from Watercool.:up:
Well, it doesnt say anywhere on the chart GTX480 does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Usually takes ~1 month.Quote:
Originally Posted by kgtiger
So they released a new benchmark just before nvidia releases a new card and the biggest difference between 1.0 and 2.0 is extreme tesselation, not post processing effects, or gpu physics, or lighting/shadows.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...9&postcount=92
Really is the difference between those two screen shots really worth 20fps on a 5970? I was just reasonably happy it was faster on Dirt2 and possibly faster on AvP, but this just stinks of buying a benchmark.
Chiphell gets its cards not through nVidia but partner relationships. No real NDA, just release when it's near so to protect the partner itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Oh and hello HD5870 2GB.
You'd be surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
This could have all been pre-arranged with advertisers, and they're going to pay a premium for each hit to the review page. If I were chipshell, I'd arrange for special release date advertising pricing, because of the guaranteed influx of traffic. Recouping that 200k would be peanuts.
Yeah, the extreme tessellation mode uses over-the-top amounts of tessellation. It's not even close to representing a real world game utilizing tessellation at all. It even looks the same as normal tessellation, which in fact, does do a good job in showing how tessellation in games would stress your GPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Thanks mate, I appreciate your time. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
Sounds logical :) Thanks for the explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
I guess you're right. Adds is a powerful way of generating money. The money google generates, is for 97% by adds. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by mattlef
Here's a nice video about google :p:
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/8669...e_is_eng_.html
96C is obviously a short peak before the fan even ramped up and for all we know the fan could be ramped up to 40% or 90% for the SS.
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3055/tempmn.jpg
Power consumption is stupidly high those. The performance per watt is the same as the last generation. This cards needs a refresh badly.
Maybe because I set my expectations so low because of Charlie and Saaya who has tended to agree with Charlie lately, but I am really getting excited about these supposed numbers(7%). I said clocks were going to be around 700mhz with around 20% performance advantage, both which were said to be optimistic. Well the clocks are 700mhz, lets see if we can get 20% or greater for performance when the reviews come out. Chiphell this close to the release date tends to be accurate those.
Still when I compare it to my initial expectations of fermi when the specs were first released in october, I was expecting bigger gains. But a loss in shaders by 6 percent and drop in frequency another 14 percent(shaders were initially supposed to be 1600mhz), still make these results disappointing from what they could have been.
20% is a important number because its too big of a gap for AMD to close with a refresh, in addition its bigger than the gap the gtx 280 had over the 4870. 20% would also solidly justify the 100 dollar price difference.
Still those power consumption appears to suck badly and I can imagine a lot of heat. Too bad winter is near over and spring is coming, which can almost be said the same for Nvidia if they can deliver this launch.
Overclocked at 925/950 with 1.25+ voltage I find my 5870 reachs 92 or so sustained with the default fan profile ( makes its way up to 50-55% fan speed which is quite loud ) Under normal use though its at 32-40% which is bearable. The question to be asked is how loud is the 480 under normal conditions and since we can assume that the furmark result is using a stock card, how much headroom are we talking. The thing I'm least happy with is their number for power... nearly 50% more than the 5870... thats alot of extra juice / heat to cope with (especially with regards to watercooling, thats a lot more heatdump for a rad). All this said, I'm excited to see what these beasts do on a smaller process. As for what they'll do today...Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
At the comment of 9k extreme on a 5870, this is accurate with a highly clocked i7 and 10.3 drivers. However the dirt 2 numbers, assuming they used the ingame benchmark AND the retail version, are off noticeably...
Honestly it sounds like almost everything Charlie said about Fermi has been wrong, with the exception of silicon revisions and release timeframe. He has said 5% faster than the 5870, castrated to 448 SPs for the top bin GPU with 600/1200 (core/sp) clocks, 300W TDP, 70C at idle while running at 70% fan speed, etc... All of that seems to be nowhere near reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
wow first review
http://vga.it168.com/a2010/0326/865/...65774_20.shtml
reading!!Quote:
Originally Posted by olivon
Wow, 10.2 and NO power consumption values. And since I read Chinese, those people sound like absolute PR scumbags.
Chiphell's a better reference point because it doesn't resort to shoddy tactics- and has been so since HD3870 vs 8800GT.
:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
thanks! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Very thorough review actually, thanks :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Meets/beats a bit, but trounces the 5870 in some like Dirt 2, Far Cry 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Street Fighter 4 (although that runs so fast it doesn't matter at that point), and Batman... it's hard to tell though from this review as no minimums are provided, and they use PhysX on batman/etc. They also only use DX9 for NFS: Shift unfortunately which makes it hard to tell on that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaktus1907
Still, great review/link, thank you! Needless to say, I think we all can be quite happy with the performance!
Yeah they forced PhysX on with ATI hardware, I just noticed that... misleading much, same with Dark Void :rofl: They lost my respect now.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Still, the non-PhysX game results are pretty darn impressive regardless: the 480 just stomps on the 5870 in the important ones. I think we'll see this play out across reviews...Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
Important? Perhaps in BFBC2, I'll give you that but in the rest :rolleyes: All TWIMTBP stuff other than Dirt (and I'm greeting this as suspect, thats 2 reviews that show roughly 60fps, I get 70 something with the ingame bench so thats fishy). I always expected them to do much better in those titles in the first place. It goes to show though looking at CoP how much a companys support / intervention can do to the game. Everything would indicate the 480 would do better in Stalker but it doesnt which is quite odd...Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
so it looks like its about 20% stronger on average, but the sway is very massive. loosing in some, and dominating in others. the chiphell numbers seemed very close to this review, so i guess they are accurate. and yes lol at the physx games, thanks for really showing us what the difference is, it was so helpful /sarcasm
well it doesn't actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
between 0-10% in dx9/10 and a wider range with DX11, although it loses in stalker.
hopefully we'll see some cat 10.3 reviews soon, and the entire physx stuff is plainly retarded.
Not sure about uniheaven, would be nice to see dx9, 10 and 11 mark; maybe the previous version also.
What it does show is that in DX11, with heavy tesselation, it is pretty damn fine.
I would certainly bag it over the 5870 for this reason alone.
Saying that, it's 1 review and it seems a little biased with all of the nvidia demos and physx stuff. Hopefully a more legitimate site soon...
lol @ google's translation of that batman title, "Batman: Forrest Gump madhouse"
I seriously hope other review sites don't force PhysX on ati cards. That's just silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Also, were they using 10.3 drivers? Where are the temps/power consumption in that review?
And another thing, those BC2 results look odd. I get higher FPS than 47 avg, regardless of map on max settings, 32 players. :down:
Regardless it looks like it's totally not worth it over a 5870 unless you fold. Hell, even the 5870 isn't worth it. The 5850 is king. It OC's past 5870 speeds and matches the GTX480 for nearly half the price.
Yeah I saw that too lol didn't know wether to laugh or not :ROTF: Those incencitive Asians and their crazy languages!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalten
@ Yvese
They used 10.2 drivers.
As far as BFBC2, without an ingame benchmark, you can't hope to reproduce results so don't put too much weight on it. It is near impossible to measure high player count online games given the performance can vary by a huge amount.
cat 10.2 in it168's review
PhysX finally acceptable with 1 GPU?
http://image3.it168.com//2010/3/26/6...c84b17e98a.jpg
Really, in the wake of this review, the GTX480 does not impress me : in 2560x1600, my resolution, and on the most strenuous games (Crysis Warhead, Stalker), the GTX480 and the 5870 are about the same. In Metro 2033, the 5870 results are very low which seems strange : a driver problem ? Indeed, in xbitlabs review, the 5870 was at around 36 fps on Metro 2033.
So, it will depend on the price : 100 $ more expensive than the 5870 and the GTX480 does not worth it
Physx...Quote:
Originally Posted by overclock
Performance is a mixed bag and the use of physX in the benchmarks is really unprofessional. Should have used equal settings on both and none phsyX. Regardless PhysX games are superior, atleast experience wise on NV hardware, so those games will be a given regardless.
Up and down like crazy those. It looks like a 20% performance gap on average, but directX 11 seems to favour NV this time around. The gtx 470 looks pretty disapppointing those.
Yeah, plus PhysX :(Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
i dont get it, nVidia took 6 months to bring Fermi out, and when its released it does nothing but "tie" the 5870 which has been out for 6 months, seems like ATi is ahead of the game, only if the drivers were released faster with more bug fixes, ATi would be whipping the floor with nVidia. If those numbers are true, nVidia is in alot of trouble, more power than 5870, more expensive, but same performance, gee i wonder which one i would buy
I agree, it looks a good card for dx11 stuff, although as you say rather unprofessional with the cat 10.2's and physx.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
On a slightly off topic note, 'overkill' is a very subjective word. When I bought a 9800 GTX / 4850 for gaming at 1440 x 900, every review out there said I could run every game out at 8xAA if I so happened to want to. It turns out that TF2 has unacceptable minimum dips with 4x AA on both cards - forcing me to choose 2xAA (and even then it gets laggy in a full server on dustbowl). The only card that really let me play smoothly, no matter what, was the 4870 - surely 'overkill.'Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
I think there's a lot that goes unsaid in the reviews, but I haven't picked up on it yet. I highly suspect it's related to my processor, but meh.
The first 10 pages was an opus magnum PR stunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
not sure where you say it ties with the 5870. It's quicker that's for sure (in max fps), but with the wrong drivers for ati and an unprofessional inclusion of physx, the results will get closer with other reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
basically, it looks like in dx10 the 5870 is better than a 470, but in dx11 its the other way around
I hope, atleast for nVidia's sake, we dont want another FX 5900Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
Begs the question what DX11 adds visually? If (right now) developers use DX11 mostly for Tesselation it's clear why GF100 is faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by grimREEFER
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
Which is the main point of Metro is it not. :confused: