do we know it'll be shown @ CES?Quote:
Originally Posted by prava
Printable View
do we know it'll be shown @ CES?Quote:
Originally Posted by prava
I thought DarthBeavis said something about working on a mod for some stand @ CES containing Fermi? At least that is what I understood, let me check it...
sorry for the new thread about the ExPreview article boiz, had forgot about this thread, glad it got merged. On the other hand;
http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as...e_dh_fx571.jpg
http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as..._1_dh_fx57.jpg
http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as..._2_dh_fx57.jpg
http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as..._3_dh_fx57.jpg
Any reason they don't publish the SP performance of the new products?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
EDIT: Found this:
2Q 2010: C2050 3GB - $2499 - 1040 GFLOPS / 520 GFLOPS DP
3Q 2010: C2070 6GB - $3999 - 1260 GFLOPS / 630 GFLOPS DP
The SP performance isn't that much better than the older generation.
because 8x DP sounds so nice they didnt want to scare off with 2x SP being listed anywhere near it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Yep, that's the side effect of advertising GT200 as 3 flops per clock. In real workloads Fermi is probably a good deal faster than GT200 even in SP but due to their aggressive marketing of GT200 capabilities Fermi looks like a mediocre upgrade on paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
So Q2 for Tesla :(
One can hope GeForce will be first to market before Tesla ...
I need second 5870, but cheaper than it is now :sofa:
It's Q2 for Quadro as well :(
It is a lot faster than the FX5800 4GB, but.... Q2 is such a way off!
My only hope is that they are concentrating on flooding the market with consumer cards before they unleash the workstation Quadros and later those odd Tesler coil things...
I don't think that we can expect anything close to flood.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Nvidia's plan is to bin O'cing friendly chips for consumer, and those less clockable for Tesla & Quadro lineup.
They need as high as possible clocks for GeForce, but binning takes time, and in low yield situation it's even harder!
That's why we can expect plethora of so called GTX370 ("X360" has much resemblance with XBOX ;) ) cards, and lot less 380's...
You need a second 5870? What resolution are you running on, Eyefinity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
I just want more competition. The 5870 isn't a big enough jump over my dying gtx285 and the 5970 doesn't float my boat for the sole reason of OCing throttling. I just want to see something else come out to market...and I'd like it sooner than later as my gtx285 is starting whine and choke even at full fan speed.
Wishful thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
I still see them releasing the Tesla before the Geforce just because of all the build up of Fermi being the next supercomputer. Nvidia is already in talks with many universities for Fermi based supercomputer nodes. It's a big business just as much as us gamers.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
you have some info to back up what you're writing?Quote:
Originally Posted by clo007
and about NV Super computer business: http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/12/...supercomputer/
Hmmmm, let me see. Press release from ORNL themselves or unsubstantiated blurb from Charlie. Difficult decision.
It's for Crysis :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Everybody knows that Charlie knows his stuff ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Tesla and Quadro are coming early Q2 2010, however there is no ETA on consumer parts, my guess is they may come 1 month or 2 BEFORE the Quadro and Tesla parts as the FX4xxx and FX5xxx quadro cards came just after the GT200 consumer cards.
John
This is based off just the top of my head, but as telsa is for computing which needs to be perfect it would need perfect dies, therefore a lot of dies wont make scratch and will be binned for consumer, so we should see consumer parts before or at the same time as telsa parts. Does that sound even slightly fesable?
Yes, that's correct. Desktops get the worst chips.
http://www.semiconductor.net/article...fects-full.php
Quote:
Variation is hurting the company's business, which depends on binning. The normal practice is to bin the best chips to the ultrahigh-performance accounts, devices that hit the mean performance and operating voltage metrics to the notebook market, and slightly underperforming chips to desktops.
Also as the desktop chips dont need ECC should the yields on them not be higher?
I really doubt gt300 is going to be binned for laptop use anytime soon but where there is a will there is a way I guess.
The only thing geforce gt300 will be binned against will be the tesla derivatives which if I remember correctly will come the quarter after desktop release. Considering the volume difference & market size that geforce and tesla units will be distributed one could assume binning should not be too tough even if they picked the best for tesla units.
I also don't see ECC being implemented on the desktop units.
Quote:
Variation is hurting the company's business, which depends on binning. The normal practice is to bin the best chips to the ultrahigh-performance accounts, devices that hit the mean performance and operating voltage metrics to the notebook market, and slightly underperforming chips to desktops.
Yields would be higher yeah (and not only due to the lack of ECC) but yields aren't as much of an issue for Tesla anyway since volumes there are much, much lower. Even if only 10% of good dies pass Tesla qualification they could probably still meet demand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bodkin
I suppose that's a lot better than looking great on paper and looking....not-so-great in reality. For all the FX comparisons being thrown around, that's one happy deviation we can be thankful for.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
I think EDC may be implemented but ECC may not. But EDC/ECC would be quite useful OCing :) like i have experienced with the 5850.
Whats EDC? Is it Error detecting?
Yep EDC = error detection code.
With the 5850 i have seen memory slow down after a certain point when the EDC kicks in the best thing is there are almost no artifacts. When i OC the memory too much the benchmark score comes down so i have to lower the speed of the memory and see which delivers the best score but in olden times even when you did this you may have little artifacts and that could be very annoying and sometimes even could cause the system to hang.
With ECC the memory could be OC a bit higher than EDC but not too much since fermi has single bit fix...
Fermi does not even have 2x SP its more 1.35x for the top 6gb fermi and 1.25x for the cheaper 3gb fermi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/957...70vsfermi1.jpg
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/831...0vsfermi1m.jpg
The 5-20% ECC hit AMD notes is very interesting because if we decrease 18-20% from 768 we end up close to the 630Gflops fig. same goes to the SP score. So can it be that Nvidia's initial presentation of SP/DP scores were without ECC and these are with ECC??
That would off course mean Nvidia is on track with clock speed's and we could expect the 1536 SP/768 DP gflops in the consumer cards??
Those numbers in the AMD slides are the most misleading things I have ever seen. Shader cores and SP performance? 4870 should be a hell of a lot faster than GTX 285 if they are to mean anything.
Yes, they are marketing stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Just like Nvidia' slides talking about "8X DP performance improvement" and not mentioning that SP improvement is marginal.
Marginal being, like, double the previous SP?
Plus, when Nvidia is misleading with something, they are greedy, cruel capitalists out for the money in our pockets; but when AMD is misleading it's "marketing". It's always like that around here.
Seriously, those kinds of slides make me sick. They're so wrong. You'd see the same kind of "fail" hardware for nvidia if you compared the gtx280 to the 4870. Except the gtx280 out performed the 4870.
And I agree with annihilat0r, if nVidia does something like this its "haha, the fools we won't fall for their rebranding and overhyped product" but with AMD its simply "marketing."
Stop being so biased people - the sad part is all these people who say its just marketing are all the people who always call others fanboys
theoretically the improvement is marginal but in the real world it is much faster. tesla 2000 series is 80% faster than last gen if you exclude the mul unit. its even faster with fma efficiency. comparing peak flops rather than the usual n-body demo is not a good marketing technique. besides having full speed double precision is a very important feature of fermi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
The funny thing is that a lot of HPC workloads are bandwidth limited and can't even make use of all the flops because they can't get data to the cores fast enough. That's why caching and the use of shared memory is so important. For example, a lot of compute workloads just don't play nice with HD4xxx cards because the LDS there doesn't really function like it should. So people resort to a lot of other trickery like using the texture units instead to pump data into the cores but that's obviously not a scalable approach. Things should be much better with HD5xxx but I haven't seen independent confirmation yet.
No, like the jump from 933 GFLOPS from the actual C1060 to the 1040 GFLOPS of the C2050 that is coming on 2Q of 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Which accounts to: 1.11X
I didn't say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Re-read what I wrote:
I'm saying that both sides' slides are marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
Same for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangekiwii
Yes they are 960 dwords/clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Offcourse these are advertised performance i would say the worst they can do is around 960/3 dwords/clock which is still a lot more than RV770.
Now fermi has 16 LDS if i am not mistaken and work with 32 execution's/clock given the huge bandwidth i would say it is quite a bit more than what Evergreen can offer not so sure about dual evergreen tough.
yes physics simulations will be a lot faster on fermi than previously. i do remember seeing a slide on the cache hierarchy and it was 3x faster than gt200. it was CFD i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
well first off you compared the old high end tesla to the new low end tesla. secondly theoretical flops are not a measure of real world performance (ie. larrabee). the mul unit in gt200 makes the card look faster than it really is. it can be used but not as often as it should. you might want to take other factors into consideration like 6GB of ram, fma, memory hierarchy, more bandwidth, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
http://www.nvidia.com/docs/IO/43395/...83-001_v01.pdf
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/8996/tesla.png
So clocks are actually 1.25-1.4Ghz. Tesla SKUs will have 2 cores disabled probably due to yields and/or power consumption.
Yes, I realize that FLOPS aren't a real measure, but that didn't stop Nvidia to hype 8X improvement on DP FLOPS. Did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
What's the high end you talk about? The C2070?
If it is: (which I'm not sure), C2070 is 1260 GFLOPS, and coming on Q3 2010.
The jump from 933 to 1260 is 1.35X (and the card won't be on the market until Q3 2010).
Sure, you can regurgitate Nvidia's marketing numbers or you can draw you own conclusions based on what we know about the architectures so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
GT200: MAD + MUL/SFU
Fermi: MAD + SFU
In the case of GT200 they assign the SFU 1 flop. With Fermi the contribution of the SFU isn't counted which further under-represents the compute power available. It's probably best to be conservative with Fermi expectations though - it'll limit the disappointment if it bombs ;)
Expected! Performance in line of GTX295!
well that's for Tesla actually
is 1.4 ghz shader clock or gpu clock
^^shader, tesla does not have a core clock.
wow. memory clocks are quite low. thats only 50% faster than ddr3 and not much faster than 1600MHz (effective) gddr3 of tesla c1070. it is still probably is a major source of power consumption so they really need some 2Gb gddr5 IC's. judging by voltage of tesla which is probably higher than geforce like xeons/optis are to phenom/core it could hit original target clocks if frequency scales properly and power consumption is still within reason.
Professional cards are usually lower clocked than gamer ones anyway.
But doesn't look bad IMO, does it?
1Ghz GDDR5 is 88% more bandwidth than the 800Mhz GDDR3 on the C1070. Don't see that being a problem at all.
Nvidia castrates Fermi to 448SPs
"IT LOOKS LIKE we were right about Fermi being too big, too hot, and too late, Nvidia just castrated it to 448SPs. Even at that, it is a 225 Watt part, slipping into the future.
The main point is from an Nvidia PDF first found here. On page 6, there are some interesting specs, 448 stream processors (SPs), not 512, 1.40GHz, slower than the G200's 1.476GHz, and the big 6GB GDDR5 variant is delayed until 2H 2010. To be charitable, the last one isn't Nvidia's fault, it needs 64x32GDDR5 to make it work, and that isn't coming until 2H 2010 now..."
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/12/...-fermi-448sps/
Ouch
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
That's why you wait for Nvidia to refresh Fermi. Nvidia has been too predictable lately, with the poorly designed GTX 280 (refreshed to 285 which still needs better cooling) and their dual pcb sandwiches.
which node will a Fermi refresh be on? 32?
Fermi is on 40nm. Aren't the last few rounds of GPUs done on half-nodes like 55nm and 40nm compared to CPU 65nm and 45nm? So maybe 28nm for the Fermi refresh if TMSC does the right spirit dance by 2011?
If those are the specs for the consumer card thats really disappointing.
Nvidia with the refresh can probably make due with 40nm since its seems more along faults in the process and yields than anything else.
These things if they are held back by heat will overclock like crazy(atleast under ln2).
I am really surprised they are not getting clocks higher, because from what I remember, the MUL was what made the clock drop from the 9800 gtx to gtx 280.
I am guessing ECC has a role to play in the drops clocked all around and without it in the consumer version, hopefully they can bring the clocks up a bit.
It's pretty bad to be stuck with 448 SPs when they've been promising 512 up and down since GDC. I mean they couldn't even do 480? And they have to do that for the whole product line, they can't give the more expensive cards better binning? Something must be REALLY wrong with it then.
Here's to hoping A3 works out for them.
yeah true, but with rated TDP for those frequencies, and shader count I don't see how GeForce lineup can have higher specs! do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Thing is, isn't this just for Tesla though. Professional cards are almost always different to the retail cards. Who says this is for GT300 as well?
Or am I completely on the wrong track here?
Edit : Didn't see Nedjo's post. Makes sense in a way.
Geforces will have much less memory and aren't restricted to 225W.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
+1 ~ restricted to 300w (unless they use external power aswell I believe then it's a whole different ballgame) and generally iirc they use faster but less memory for just raw performanceQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
correct me if im wrong =):up:
What chance whould a dual-fermi have then? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesrt2004
It could have an extermal power brick like the old planned Voodoo cards. That would be rather amusing actually.
so given those specs, what would a fully clocked fermi with 512 shaders cost in TDP? like 260-280W?
perf per watt, looks like ATI might win by an obvious amount (20% is my estimate)
that does sound about right. It's reasonable to believe that GF will have 768 and 1536 MB of memory, but again, it's questionable how much does memory brings to power draw? Also you're correct to power limitation, 300W is the nominal wall, but c'mone 300W for single chip GPU? that doesn't make sense!Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
for the sake of argument let's say that 448 SP Fermi @ 1400MHz and 3GB of DDR5 @ 4GHz consume 225W, how much do you think it would consume with 1,5GB? IMHO best case scenario is 190W, and if I recall correctly that's the figure someone mentioned for GeForce based Fermi.
Anyhow best case scenario for performance is the level of GTX275 SLi, and that would give NV right say that GT300 is twice powerful than GT200, and faster than 5870, but slower to 5970. It will all comedown to price and availability.
What's safe to say is that NV will not have fastest card on the planet (no bragging rights), and that we'll not see DualGPU Fermi until TSMC provide shrink of their 40nm tech.
well they wouldn't use the topend chip.. and I believe they will use external power :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by FischOderAal
@nedjo
300w max is the jdec spec's for pcie slots + 6+8 i believe
The thing is, how are GeForce parts going to be 512 cores if Tesla is only 448?
We don't know anything about the efficiency of the new architecture, but judging from those specs, I believe it should perform on par with GTX 295, which I don't think is so bad.
there maybe a bit of confusion in the air due to ECC. The low low speed of the memory subunit can be for higher dependability and lower ECC req. which will lead to better data submergence but i have no idea why nvidia would lower the core count maybe and this is maybe the decrease in bandwidth when ECC is active is so much that data can not get to the 512 cores and as a result the card gets bandwidth starved "HPC uses S*it loads of memory bandwidth" the reduction in cores may lead to better bandwidth sharing ??
I expect the geforce board to be faster at least around 1700-1800mhz would be better...
Check out SP frequency of NV most complex 40nm today - 96 SP GT240! And you're expecting that 448SP monster will be faster?Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
if the GT300 is as fast as the 295 I'll be happy with the progress (and trade in for a GT300).
Dont mind if the card is a 2900 XT until it gets performance is more than the 5870 around GTX295 at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
GT240 is decent well its a 9600 GT :( but AMD's HD5xxx is just too much...
448SP monster at a low enough clock will make the card perform around 5870's level which would be a big mistake.
If GT300 is only as fast as a 295 then I won't be happy at all. The 5870 is already about as fast and ATI has plenty of headroom for a 5890. Being tied for single GPU performance is not what NV needs. They need to gain the single GPU crown and have a competitive lineup from lowend to highend.
every single generation that involved a dual GPU card wound up with the dual GPU card being almost the exact same speed as the new single core (9800GX2 vs GTX 280)Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
That's not really a counter to anything I said. GTX280 was still faster then 4870 even if it didn't beat a 9800GX2. If GT300 is only as fast as 5890 then they will be in a tight position considering it probably costs more to manufacture.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
And you seem to be forgetting 7800GX2 vs G80, 3870x2 vs 4870, etc.
I thought we were comparing only NVIDIA cards and I didn't realize every post has to be a counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Also the 295 is faster than the 5870 in any SLI optimized application, so if the GT300 equals the 295 it will be the fastest single chip GPU on the market.
Well I wasn't. I was comparing the whole market. I'm not interested in only buying along brand lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by LedHed
The 295 has about the best driver optimization it's going to get and it barely beats the 5870. The 5870 has room for more optimization plus there is plenty of headroom for a 5890.Quote:
Also the 295 is faster than the 5870 in any SLI optimized application, so if the GT300 equals the 295 it will be the fastest single chip GPU on the market.
I guess it's good that you guys are finally moderating your expectations. Thought probably not for the reasons I advocated...
What has changed with HD5xxx that makes you think there are a lot of optimizations left to do that haven't already been covered with HD4xxx?
295 is current/last gen, the same potential for driver optimizations will exist for the geforce gt300 as much as the 5870.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
We still do not know of how the architectural changes will affect geforce performance but its safe to say at minimum a doubling of performance of a single gt200.
Even if the final geforce shaders are 448 total thats still an over doubling of the 275/295 while having all the extra memory bandwidth. I would say its within reason to expect more performance than the 295 without the worry of sli profile optimizations.
This is by faaaaar the most hilarious Fermi "preview" you can read:
http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...plained-657489
:pimp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lloyd
:nuts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lloyd
:shock2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lloyd
:explode:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lloyd
:eleph:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Lloyd
You forgot the sub tital "Next-gen silicon 10 times as powerful as existing Nvidia chip" :) Thats a cover line rite there forget the 8x improvement in DP nvidia should just say "fermi = 10 times better than GT200"....Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
updated! thanks for pointing up! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I'm sure that LedHed will give us explanation behind those claims :p:
Because it will be based on a newer chip revision?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Again folks, Tesla is based on A2. Everyone worried about power consumption and SP counts because of HPC cards should only be worried if they are buying a Tesla card. There's a reason NVIDIA is waiting for A3 before releasing consumer GeForce cards.
well if A3 is slated for April-May how you plan on having GeForce Fermi in Q1?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
I don't get it, so Tesla GPU's will be based on A2 revision? So they have already ordered mass (well, sort of mass) production of A2 for Tesla, but meanwhile have redesigned A2 so now they're at A3?
Q1 = Tesla = CES (7 ~ 10 Jan)
CES= CONSUMER electronic show, what use is telsa there?Quote:
Originally Posted by LinkinParkBoy
I'm surprised this has not been posted yet.
Sounds fun! :DQuote:
Fermi Fun Fact of the Week: GF100 graphics cards provide hardware support for GPU overvoltaging for extreme overclocking.
It was posted in this thread earlier: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=87Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Weird, search didn't pick it up... I suppose it doesn't look inside quotes, *sigh*.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
Even Charlie Degenerate thinks it'll be sooner than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedjo
I agree. I'd even suggest that there would be MORE room for improvement in the fermi drivers because of it being a new arch and it will take them a while to iron everything out. We don't even know how good or bad the initial fermi drivers will be so there is a wide range of possibilities there. I just brought up driver optimizations because LeadHead keeps mentioning the old 295.Quote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
The point that was ignored though is that evergreen has a refresh on the horizon. We have no clue though about possible fermi refreshes yet. Fermi performing like a 295 would be a disappointment from my perspective because ATI could easily beat it with a strong enough refresh. That would put Nvidia in a bad position and I don't want to see that. I would prefer if both companies stayed relatively healthy.
I don't think it's safe to say that we can expect a doubling of performance. I'd suggest that double the performance of a singe GTX285 is the top of the probable range, not the bottom. As per Amdahl, 40% faster then evergreen, etc.Quote:
We still do not know of how the architectural changes will affect geforce performance but its safe to say at minimum a doubling of performance of a single gt200.
Even if the final geforce shaders are 448 total thats still an over doubling of the 275/295 while having all the extra memory bandwidth. I would say its within reason to expect more performance than the 295 without the worry of sli profile optimizations.
After GeForce Fermi gets out, ppl might want to upgrade their older 285GTX.
This way we might find used 285GTX in extremely low prices.
So in case fermi has lower performance than two 285GTX in SLI, ppl might not upgrade.
Actually this was Nvidia's policy by now.
Each new generation to have a bit better performance than the previous in SLI.
In case Fermi can't reach that goal we might consider it a failure.
GTX280 wasn't better than a 9800GX2 in all applications at launch, i had both back then. It became better only afterwards (drivers, etc). This doesn't mean Fermi will be better or worse than 2x240PS GT200's anyway, just stating a fact.
I compare 285GTX with 8800GTX actually. I see nothing in between worth mentioning as a new generation.
I expect the top GeForce Fermi model (single GPU) to have the performance of 2x285GTX in SLI to consider it a winner. Anything worse is bad for Nvidia.
It will be great if that happens but to think that it has to beat an SLI setup to be successful is a bit silly. The vast majority of gamers/enthusiasts are not interested in multi-GPU setups for all the usual reasons. The HD 5870 is only 40-50% faster than last generation parts but that's not stopping people from buying them.
Indeed. HD5870 is unable to beat last generation's Crossfire, or even the downclocked version of it (4870x2).
GTX 295 is 10% faster than HD5870 anyway. If Fermi can meaningfully beat GTX 295, it'll mean that there'll be a healthy difference between Fermi and HD5870 (more than the difference between HD5870 and HD5850) and that makes it good. Of course, what'll make it a success or a failure is the price point.
Did u all read the nvidia's facebook??
Heres what i found interesting:
NVIDIA
Oakridge did not cancel the project. The story was false. Check out www.legitreviews.com. They have the scoop there.
December 18 at 6:33am
NVIDIA
GF100 is shipping in Q1 folks. Patience is a virtue!
December 18 at 6:34am
I don't think it will matter. There are some people that will only buy Nvidia and will only look at a fermi as an upgrade to their 295. But most people won't care how it performs relative to the last generation, they will care how it performs compared to the current gen lineup from both companies. Either way they will have to compete on price/performance, naturally. But if performance isn't significantly faster then 5890/5990 then that means worse margins and more market erosion - not what NV needs right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
The 4870x2 wasn't downclocked, it was the same as the 4870.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
well, but not the same as the 4890, which was what I meant by "previous generation".
Well ok, but it's not really downclocked in the sense that the 295 or 5970 is. The 4890 was a refresh.
CPU bound.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
That's why there's virtually no difference in FPS between 3GHz and 4GHz at high enough resolutions, even with a 5970?Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Watercool an SLI of Fermi GTX would'nt be easy :eek:
People are making comparisons to GTX 285 SLI, hence 4890 is the corresponding comparison on the AMD side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Lol, what? The 5870 is obviously not CPU bound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
It's possible that the 5870 doesn't match 4890CF because they spent some of the extra power on IQ improvements like angle independent AF and more AA modes. Or the drivers aren't mature at this point. We will know after a few more driver versions.
Fermi will probably be competing with 5x90 and that could be just a higher binning or an actual refresh. To keep margins high with an expensive chip and expensive board they will want to have a significant performance lead. Otherwise this could be the generation that brings ATI and Nvidia market share into parity. I hope they can pull off 40% faster then 5870, but I'm keeping my expectations low.
Right. But it doesn't really matter because Fermi won't be fighting GTX285 SLI or 4890CF.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
I just hope they beat out the 295 with a single chip, then I'll be getting Fermi in a heart beat.
Yep, its competition will be slower than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus