The GT300/Fermi Thread - Part 2!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

I[...]
I think the bad performance right now is bad drivers more than anything ...
[...]

---

in my opinion we shouldn't put much weight on current performance figures anyways. there are so many factors that could lead to bad performance, we don't even know the test setups etc...

we've been waiting so long for fermi to surface so that, now, it doesn't matter if we wait yet another week (or two, or three... :p:) ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

This. The ROP / Cache / Memory controllers scale together but separately from the CUDA cores.



However, at this point I won't be commenting in this thread other than to interject factual information simply because we keep going around the same circle:

Step 1: "I hear" or "rumor has it" or "supposedly" bandied around like people have a clue what is going on. They don't.

Step 2: Laughter by people who bought ATI cards and are desperately hoping they made the right decision and that prices won't go south if there is a strong GF100 launch

Step 3: Said ATI buyers or posters who want to start some controversy invariably quoting Charlie's work

Step 4: Someone actually posting some A+ info that has a firm foundation in reality.

Step 5: Repeat Step 2


Rinse and repeat.

---

:clap::clap: +1

I find these early benchmarks to be disturbing, they aren't going to generate the price wars I was hoping to see at this rate.

ROPs are related with the MC, and not with the SPs. In both arch. (ATi and nVidia) if you kill a set of ROPs you lose some of the Memory Controllers.

With HD5830, ATi killed half of the ROPs inside an entire ROPs cluster, so they can still use the MC related to that cluster.

nVidia and ATi can kill SPs without losing ROPs and MC.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

skyhtml, i dont think there are people here who hope that prices do NOT go down... i think everybody is hoping for lower prices, even people who bought a 5870 not too long ago...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

in my opinion we shouldn't put much weight on current performance figures anyways. there are so many factors that could lead to bad performance, we don't even know the test setups etc...

we've been waiting so long for fermi to surface so that, now, it doesn't matter if we wait yet another week (or two, or three... :p:) ;)

---

yeah but all the benchmark numbers are in the same ballpark, and im sure they are on different setups, but they are all about the same... the picture i got is that except for crysis the 470 will realistically let you play games at the same res with the same settings the 5870 does, but it will cost more, run hotter and be in worse supply.

for enthusiast it should be interesting depending on how hot it runs and how high it clocks on ln2... then again 5870s clock to 1200+ on ln2 which is almost 50%... i think the only interesting card will be the 480, but the lack of benchmarks and even pictures of those cards is worrisome... there was only one pic of a 480 and that was a2... everything else as 470 and a3 right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andi64

With HD5830, ATi killed half of the ROPs inside an entire ROPs cluster, so they can still use the MC related to that cluster.

---

oh interesting...
can nvidia do that as well?
man its a shame that there are no unlocked gpus like that huh? :D
id love to play around with different clock dividers on the gpu domains and enable and disable some blocks here and there and see how it scales... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hurleybird

I think most of us expect Fermi to be a tesselation monster, but what makes anyone think that Fermi will also have an advantage in computer shaders? Even though Fermi should be able to reach a higher percentage of it's theoretical compute speed, it seems unlikely that Fermi will be able to make up for it's massive 1+ TFLOPs performance deficit that way. in doublr percision it will be even worse, where HD 5870 will be several times faster thanks to Nvidia crippling the DP performance of their Geforce line.

---

Read any paper on modern GPU architectures and you will see that raw flops is hardly ever the focal point. Getting data to and from the flops is as big or an even bigger issue. Stuff like the performance of global memory atomics is also a big deal that has nothing to do with flops. flop numbers are nice and easy for people to understand and while they're important there are a lot of other things that go into making an architecture fast at general computing. This is one reason the HD4870 never did that well in computing even with all those flops. It's shared memory architecture was still a bit behind Nvidia's.

@saaya, yes it takes time for software to catch up. This is exactly why Nvidia and AMD are sticking their noses in everyone's business and getting things added to PC games that take better advantage of the hardware.

Yeah that cooler does look superb and superior to the displayed GTX 470 version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

However, at this point I won't be commenting in this thread other than to interject factual information simply because we keep going around the same circle:

Step 1: "I hear" or "rumor has it" or "supposedly" bandied around like people have a clue what is going on. They don't.

Step 2: Laughter by people who bought ATI cards and are desperately hoping they made the right decision and that prices won't go south if there is a strong GF100 launch

Step 3: Said ATI buyers or posters who want to start some controversy invariably quoting Charlie's work

Step 4: Someone actually posting some A+ info that has a firm foundation in reality.

Step 5: Repeat Step 2


Rinse and repeat.

---

I guess there aren't nvidia trolls in this thread, or maybe you're being incredible bias once again. I wonder how can you assess a product when you can't even assess a thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LesGrossman

I guess there aren't nvidia trolls in this thread, or maybe you're being incredible bias once again. I wonder how can you assess a product when you can't even assess a thread.

---

Please, it's possible to stop this kind of things ... ?

XS deserves way better ... :yepp:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mindfury

ROP's amount is not related to SP's amount.

5850 only has 1440SP,but full 32 rops.

GTX260-216 increased 24SP,but stayed with the same ROP's amount as GTX260-192.

---

is true.....:(

i have mistaken....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

oh interesting...
can nvidia do that as well?
man its a shame that there are no unlocked gpus like that huh? :D
id love to play around with different clock dividers on the gpu domains and enable and disable some blocks here and there and see how it scales... :D

---

That would be totally awesome, 480 / 5x70 extreme edition. :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaMcO

They are not in direct contact with the GPU though, and that might make a difference...

---

Yeah, DHT's proven to be worse so far.
Maybe video cards will change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimitriman

calm down mate you're forgetting this is the GTX470, it was never meant to wipe the floor with all AMD's offerings. There is still the 480 which should offer 15% (at least) more performance than the 5870. If priced right, I'm sure you won't be complaining about buying one :up:

---

actually it's 480, you can type 470 in your photoshop, then blur it, to see if it get matched with the 470's blur image in the warhead bench picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

http://www.donanimhaber.com/image.as..._4_dh_fx57.jpg

---

:eek: 12V@1,8A? with a 70mm fan???

this means the fan alone will pull 21,6W @100% and will be very loud.
And if Nvidia use something like this at the "small" <225W GTX470 part i wonder what they will use at the GTX480 :hm:

am i the only one having a fx 5800 deja vue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnieboy

am i the only one having a fx 5800 deja vue?

---

I smell NV30 all the way since a few days ago. I don't think they're gonna make it if the 480 cuda cores thing is true :(

To me it's not all about performance, but to most people is and those buy video cards.

Once again, do research before assuming.

The BFB0712H series is rated for 2.64W @ 2900RPM and a noise output of 38 dB-A.

You can't safely push more than 10W through a standard GPU fan header. Not to mention that this is only a 75mm fan which means 21W could translate into 23,000+ RPMs. I don't know of a single commercially available bearing design that can put up with that for an extended amount of time

I don't know where that 1.8A comes from but it is either a misprint or some random number thrown in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I don't know where that 1.8A comes from but it is either a misprint or some random number thrown in.

---

The only useful datasheet i found is on this website:

http://directories.csa-international...sl/certrec.xsl

http://www.abload.de/img/testb9fz.png

I dont know how important the last 4 letters are, but it seems to be the same model.

The 1,8 should have been 1800 i guess, cause 1,8mA is clearly not enough to cool down a high-end card like the GTX470 ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Once again, do research before assuming.

The BFB0712H series is rated for 2.64W @ 2900RPM and a noise output of 38 dB-A.

You can't safely push more than 10W through a standard GPU fan header. Not to mention that this is only a 75mm fan which means 21W could translate into 23,000+ RPMs. I don't know of a single commercially available bearing design that can put up with that for an extended amount of time

I don't know where that 1.8A comes from but it is either a misprint or some random number thrown in.

---

Why are you assuming that BFB0712H is the same as BFB0712HF? Not all the fans in a series are going to have the same specs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnieboy

I dont know how important the last 4 letters are, but it seems to be the same model.

The 1,8 should have been 1800 i guess, cause 1,8mA is clearly not enough to cool down a high-end card like the GTX470 ;)

---

http://i45.tinypic.com/333yfsx.jpg

That is the one SKYMTL talking about ...


Edit : the BFB0712H is rated at 360mA in the link your posted , anyway the HF usually have 20-50 more mA than the regular H

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

http://i45.tinypic.com/333yfsx.jpg

That is the one SKYMTL talking about ...

---

That's not BFB0712HF...

Edit: Seriously, do you really think 11CFM would cut it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

Why are you assuming that BFB0712H is the same as BFB0712HF? Not all the fans in a series are going to have the same specs.

---

Check out other Delta fans. 90% of the ones I have seen have an "F" at the end. It's just part of their usual product listing it seems. ;)

If you guys think a 75mm fan will consume 21W when installed onto a GPU, you are sadly mistaken. C'mon, this isn't rocket science but rather pretty straightforward. :up:


You also have to realize that since the fan is within an enclosed, directed environment, it doesn't need high CFMs to move a sufficient amount of air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

Read any paper on modern GPU architectures and you will see that raw flops is hardly ever the focal point. Getting data to and from the flops is as big or an even bigger issue. Stuff like the performance of global memory atomics is also a big deal that has nothing to do with flops. flop numbers are nice and easy for people to understand and while they're important there are a lot of other things that go into making an architecture fast at general computing. This is one reason the HD4870 never did that well in computing even with all those flops. It's shared memory architecture was still a bit behind Nvidia's.

@saaya, yes it takes time for software to catch up. This is exactly why Nvidia and AMD are sticking their noses in everyone's business and getting things added to PC games that take better advantage of the hardware.

---

(made up guesses)
90% vs 96%. Difference cant be much, right? Afterall its just 6%, isn't it?
L2 cache hit ratio. 2MB vs 6MB. Nobody would buy an E5400 (2MB wolfdale) if it was only 6% cheaper than some 6MB model like E8200.

My 1st point - what seems like small architecture changes can have huge effects.

My 2nd point.
Compare application performance simply recompiled with newer compiler.. sometimes HUGE difference. Recompiled with some version of SSE - gains of hundreds of percent not uncommon. And yet, these are just for single threaded performance.

In huge wide parallel designs like Fermi (512) and 5870 (320 x 5), drivers and resource management are very very important. A couple lines of (equivalent) shader code replaced could be difference between 0.1fps and 100fs (ie 1000x !!)

That's insane! Impossible right? Well if you're into programming imagine this nonsense example:

float getResult(float a){
return a / 2.0;
}

float n = 0;
for (i=0; i<1000; i++){
n = n + getResult(i);
}

On typical Athlon/Pentium, if compiler doesnt inline getResult, thats 16-20 cycles (and bad cache coherency) x 1000.

Unnecessary use of floats (expensive). Float divide by 2, also dozens of cycles (as opposed to perhaps 1 cycle shift right)

And ofcourse, there is a simple formula for summing integers which would be more than 1000x faster ;)

The problem is 99% of game developers are being wipped to quickly get product with shiny effects into market. How often do you hear - "we only had 1 month to add DX10 support".

Conclusion:
5 years of R&D, 3B trans, huge heat and power << efficient optimized algorithm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaMcO

I smell NV30 all the way since a few days ago. I don't think they're gonna make it if the 480 cuda cores thing is true :(

To me it's not all about performance, but to most people is and those buy video cards.

---

So you're saying it will be much much slower than ATI in DX11 (despite DX11 Heaven benchmark), questionable partial precision optimizations due to resource contention, it will be crippled by 128bit memory bus, and manufactured on old 130nm process.. (I guess 65nm is today's equivalent), and be big and hot. 4 "no"s and 1 yes, still means no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Check out other Delta fans. 90% of the ones I have seen have an "F" at the end. It's just part of their usual product listing it seems. ;)

If you guys think a 75mm fan will consume 21W when installed onto a GPU, you are sadly mistaken. C'mon, this isn't rocket science but rather pretty straightforward. :up:


You also have to realize that since the fan is within an enclosed, directed environment, it doesn't need high CFMs to move a sufficient amount of air.

---

I realize that with squirrel cage coolers the goal is pressure, not max CFM. But IMO, 11.3CFM isn't going to be sufficient to cool a GPU.

Are you seriously arguing that ATI needs a ~10W cooler to cool a 5870 but that Nvidia found a way to get by with ~3W on a hotter GTX480?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

[IMG]

Edit : the BFB0712H is rated at 360mA in the link your posted , anyway the HF usually have 20-50 more mA than the regular H

---

Well, then either you are wrong or the list i´ve linked and the picture of the fan are wrong/fake.

Edit: @Solus Corvus: its 470 btw, but still thats a very good point

Plz correct if I'm wrong..

Amdahl's law states that if P is the proportion of a program that can be made parallel (i.e. benefit from parallelization), and (1 − P) is the proportion that cannot be parallelized (remains serial), then the maximum speedup that can be achieved by using N processors is

( (1-P) + P/N )^-1

Therefore, doesn't matter if you got Fermi, G200, or G92, if "only" 90% of code can be parallelized, anything beyond 10 SP or CPU wont be faster.
Thus with 512 "cores", maximum efficiency requires 99.8% parallelization.

Seeing how vast majority of programs, and even games are barely even optimized for 2 cores, you can imagine how much ingenuity this requires on GPU side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

I realize that with squirrel cage coolers the goal is pressure, not max CFM. But IMO, 11.3CFM isn't going to be sufficient to cool a GPU.

Are you seriously arguing that ATI needs a ~10W cooler to cool a 5870 but that Nvidia found a way to get by with ~3W on a hotter GTX480?

---

It all comes down to efficiency of the heatsink. I'm just pointing you to the specs of the fan itself.

As for the HD 5870, doesn't it use a Globe Fan blower-style unit rated at less than 5W? I could be wrong though....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deimos

Therefore, doesn't matter if you got Fermi, G200, or G92, if "only" 90% of code can be parallelized, anything beyond 10 SP or CPU wont be faster. Thus with 512 "cores", maximum efficiency requires 99.8% parallelization.

---

The proportion is also affected by the speed of the CPU. i.e the faster the CPU, the smaller the serial part becomes. Yes, it's just a fancy way of saying that as you remove the CPU bottleneck the proportion of parallelizable work tends toward 100% of the total. But even on the GPU a lot of stuff is serialized - geometry setup for example. Hence the multiple setup engines in Fermi. The more stuff you parallelize, the easier it is to scale performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

Plz correct if I'm wrong..

Amdahl's law states that if P is the proportion of a program that can be made parallel (i.e. benefit from parallelization), and (1 − P) is the proportion that cannot be parallelized (remains serial), then the maximum speedup that can be achieved by using N processors is

( (1-P) + P/N )^-1

Therefore, doesn't matter if you got Fermi, G200, or G92, if "only" 90% of code can be parallelized, anything beyond 10 SP or CPU wont be faster.
Thus with 512 "cores", maximum efficiency requires 99.8% parallelization.

Seeing how vast majority of programs, and even games are barely even optimized for 2 cores, you can imagine how much ingenuity this requires on GPU side.

---

not much, gpu applications like graphics are embarassingly parallel and this parallelism increases with problem size. i.e. if you double the pixel count you double parallelism. this law sounds very grim but truthfully its not. gpu's are already running thousands of threads to hide latency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

It all comes down to efficiency of the heatsink. I'm just pointing you to the specs of the fan itself.

As for the HD 5870, doesn't it use a Globe Fan blower-style unit rated at less than 5W? I could be wrong though....

---

http://pic.xfastest.com/sxs112/ASUS/...SUS5870-33.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeeMaan

That would be totally awesome, 480 / 5x70 extreme edition. :up:

---

xtreme edition :D
id def pay 100$ ,or even more, extra to have a card that is fully unlocked and has access to dividers and lets me enable and disable different blocks :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

You can't safely push more than 10W through a standard GPU fan header.

---

theres a standard for gpu fan headers? :confused:
even if, how would you know if the 470 or 480 have a higher spec for fans? what IF they would consume a lot of power? nvidia would run into an issue cause according to the spec they cant use a powerful fan to cool the card? :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Not to mention that this is only a 75mm fan which means 21W could translate into 23,000+ RPMs.

---

huh? how do you get to 23k rpm? i dont think rpm scale linearily...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

I don't know where that 1.8A comes from but it is either a misprint or some random number thrown in.

---

i used to test a lot of fans and measured their amps, and those ratings were always higher than what i actually meassured, regardless of the voltage i fed them and if they were spinning up or running full speed... still, 1.8A is a very high rating for a fan, and while it may mean nothing, it MAY point towards higher power consumption... a bigger heatsink costs a lot more than just a more powerful fan that increases the amount of heat it can remove...

and if you look at that pic of the 470 heatsink again, how exactly could it be any larger? the only way to make it longer would be to move the fan to the right, which isnt possible because the holes in the pcb would be very close to the right edge of the pcb, meaning there wouldnt be enough space to put components on there. and the only way to make it higher would be to go above atx case specs... and that wouldnt help much cause the air channel fed by the axial fan isnt as wide as the entire card, so... that heatsink is the biggest exhaust heatsink you can fit on a 470 card...

Deimos, you proved that its possible to write terrible code that performs incredibly slow, so what? :D
i think nvidia is pretty good at getting efficiency out of their asics... they designed them! its a custom instruction set asic, instructions that THEY thought up and implemented... if anybody knows how to use that design efficiently its nvidia themselves :D

but maybe im just assuming a lot here... we all know how sad things look in many companies when you peek behind the pr facade :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

http://pic.xfastest.com/sxs112/ASUS/...SUS5870-33.jpg

---

That fan can push at least 110CFM and it is 92x92x38mm and looking at the 470GTX with fan of 75X75X30 it does make sense to have higher Amps to push the same CFM but still both ratings are very high .. and with 1.8A that is definitely too much rpm


Edit: anybody has any info about the 285/280GTX fan

I bought the highest performance Delta fan I could find for my PC once, just looking at the RPM and CFM numbers.

I think that could be what caused my hearing loss :(

I think I still have it somewhere. I dont care how well or bad the Fermi performs, but I'm sure that no one wants another FX 5800 paintdryer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

Just 2-3 years ago, your stupidity for trying to play a game on IGP would be rewarded with startup crashes.[..] Due to the wrong moon phase.

---

Yeah, those are particularly annoying :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemo

That fan can push at least 110CFM and it is 92x92x38mm and looking at the 470GTX with fan of 75X75X30 it does make sense to have higher Amps to push the same CFM but still both ratings are very high .. and with 1.8A that is definitely too much rpm


Edit: anybody has any info about the 285/280GTX fan

---

1.8A does seem like a lot. But We don't know anything about the thermals of these chips either. And the fans won't be spinning 100% all the time. You can't draw any conclusion just from the max power draw, you have to know the fan profile as well.

For you and SKYMTL to dismiss it as a typo because you can't imagine a cooler needing a fan with that much power is a simple argument from incredulity - a common logical fallacy.

actually, id prefer a card with a fan that CAN push a lot of air even if its noisy over one that cant...
but would i want it to be noisy at stock speeds under load? of course not....

about the fx comments... well maybe noise wise, but that would be a really stupid mistake from nvidia...
perf wise gf100 wont be able to fail as bad as nv30... no way... you guys dont remember how bad geforce fx really was... it was slower than its predecessor, something that is simply (luckily) impossible with gf100 as the architectures of gt200 and gf100 are too similar...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

For you and SKYMTL to dismiss it as a typo because you can't imagine a cooler needing a fan with that much power is a simple argument from incredulity - a common logical fallacy.

---

It's a fact. Just got off the phone with a rep at Delta. Listed spec is the CSA maximum for the input amperage that the fan motor will support. Info on their site is the "typical" usage parameters.

However, we will see when the reviews are released and comments are made about how loud / quiet the fan is.

any idea on GTX480 PCB size?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

It's a fact. Just got off the phone with a rep at Delta. Listed spec is the CSA maximum for the input amperage that the fan motor will support. Info on their site is the "typical" usage parameters.

However, we will see when the reviews are released and comments are made about how loud / quiet the fan is.

---

So the number on the fan is the maximum power draw and the number on the website are "typical" usage?

So is everyone yet starting to realize that Fermi will be smaller, cooler and faster then what everyone expected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

So the number on the fan is the maximum power draw and the number on the website are "typical" usage?

---

You want to call Delta yourself? Give it up already :ROTF:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

any idea on GTX480 PCB size?

---

Smaller then 5870 and similar to GTX 285/280.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

You want to call Delta yourself? Give it up already :ROTF:

---

Give what up? I'm just trying to clarify his statement.

But thanks for trying to discourage further discussion about one of the few solid pieces of information we have. :rolleyes: :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

So the number on the fan is the maximum power draw and the number on the website are "typical" usage?

---

No worries.

Amperage rating on the fan: maximum amperage that the motor will support within CSA guidelines (not sure what that means). Needed for certification.

Info on their website: Typical operating RPMs, etc.

Even if the fan is 1.8A, 100% could not translate into 1.8A.

I remember w1zzard talking about something related to fan control through BIOS, so, even if the fan CAN pull 1.8A, BIOS might be able to not let it happen.

Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

No worries.

Amperage rating on the fan: maximum amperage that the motor will support within CSA guidelines (not sure what that means). Needed for certification.

Info on their website: Typical operating RPMs, etc.

---

That makes sense. Did he say what the F in the model number stood for? They have a PDF that explains their naming scheme, but the F didn't make any sense according to it.

It seems like a rather powerful fan and a decent cooler. But we really can't draw any conclusion about how hot the chip is without knowing what the fan profile is. We will have to see how loud it is when it is released, but personally I wish they had used a bigger fan.

2900XT fan:
http://xtreview.com/images/Hd-2900-x...-2900xt-19.jpg
G80 and GTX280 fan:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...r/a2359419.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Solus Corvus

That makes sense. Did he say what the F in the model number stood for? They have a PDF that explains their naming scheme, but the F didn't make any sense according to it.

---

He wasn't quite sure since there are specific and custom models that Sales has access to but he alluded to the fact that it could be a designation for the fan without the blower housing it usually comes in.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2...87bf567ef4.jpg

looks like GTX470 SLI...

anybody with two HD5870s to compare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/2...87bf567ef4.jpg

looks like GTX470 SLI...

anybody with two HD5870s to compare?

---

Why bother? The 5870 is obviously going to lose since it has less memory.

Show some benches of 2GB 5870, or use 1920x1200 res.

:rofl:

480:

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...ee82e7a341.jpg

5870 1GHz/1250MHz (core/mem) same setting as 480 in that video with Tessellation on

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...994258a635.jpg

5870 1GHz/1250MHz (core/mem) same setting as 480 in that video only Tessellation off

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...94d96c3616.jpg

5870 1GHz/1250MHz (core/mem) Tessellation on/off comparing

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...c75a2f937a.gif

And? 1ghz 5870 performs same as GTX 480?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mao5

:rofl:

480:

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...ee82e7a341.jpg

5870 1GHz/1250MHz (core/mem) same setting as 480 in that video with Tessellation on

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...994258a635.jpg

5870 1GHz/1250MHz (core/mem) same setting as 480 in that video only Tessellation off

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...94d96c3616.jpg

5870 1GHz/1250MHz (core/mem) Tessellation on/off comparing

http://bbs.pczilla.net/attachments/m...c75a2f937a.gif

---

there's very little tessellation on these scenes..

show me a framerate comparison at the dragon now :D

GTX 480 has 480sp, as charlie said,haha

old news is so exciting!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

there's very little tessellation on these scenes..

show me a framerate comparison at the dragon now :D

---

already posted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

old news is so exciting!

---

so what, charlie is the point.:ROTF:

Were are this videos nVidia GTX 480 VS. ATi 5970 and nVidia GTX 480 vs ATi 5870 posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiSUAN

Were are this videos nVidia GTX 480 VS. ATi 5970 and nVidia GTX 480 vs ATi 5870 posted?

---

Use google, learn to fish for your lifetime.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sourc...1e998208e8ca69
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=...1e998208e8ca69

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KiSUAN

Were are this videos nVidia GTX 480 VS. ATi 5970 and nVidia GTX 480 vs ATi 5870 posted?

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0bJX...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvvQAQU7Sjg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mao5

so what, charlie is the point.:ROTF:

---

lol, about the time 480 sp's were decided upon ( a month ago?) charlie had reverted to saying the top part would be 512 sp's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides

Use google, learn to fish for your lifetime.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sourc...1e998208e8ca69
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=...1e998208e8ca69

---

Well, i already knew of them i was just asking if they were posted in here, nothing else, thanks for the help :shakes:

Sorry for the miss understand to everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIPc...eature=related

Came across this and LOL'd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

lol, about the time 480 sp's were decided upon ( a month ago?) charlie had reverted to saying the top part would be 512 sp's.

---

top part is not 480

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mao5

top part is not 480

---

Right. Even if there is only one working 512SP-Part on the Wafer, it doesn't make sense not to sell it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HelixPC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIPc...eature=related

Came across this and LOL'd

---

LOL.:rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Smaller then 5870 and similar to GTX 285/280.

---

Says who? You who said Fermi is G80 size? :rofl::ROTF::rofl::ROTF:

AFAIK we don't even have a confirmed 480 PCB picture. Then again, you have magical vision that can see the die size under the IHS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mao5

top part is not 480

---

Top part at launch is 480SP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Top part at launch is 480SP.

---

Are we looking at a quick respin and a "GTX480 512" part? Or will we not see a 512sp part until much later?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H2O

Are we looking at a quick respin and a "GTX480 512" part? Or will we not see a 512sp part until much later?

---

I don't know about that. But I do know that at launch, the GTX 480 will have 480SP.

Obviously a 512SP part will follow, but when I don't know. It'll probably be named something else than 480.

like gtx485.

I'll take gf100 at 512 and at 750mhz like it was originally planned

then you'll probably see the performance claims they stated from the beginning



I wonder how many chips they have that actually work like that though, obviously only a couple but i wonder exactly how many

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

i'll take gf100 at 512 and at 750mhz like it was originally planned

then you'll probably see the performance claims they stated from the beginning



i wonder how many chips they have that actually work like that though, obviously only a couple but i wonder exactly how many

---

Hmm. 3? One for Jensen, one for Igor. Jensen's is SLI.

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Hmm. 3? One for Jensen, one for Igor. Jensen's is SLI.

:D

---

:rofl: :up:

Can I just see a full image of a a freaking card already. I am tired of all this BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

I don't know about that. But I do know that at launch, the GTX 480 will have 480SP.

Obviously a 512SP part will follow, but when I don't know. It'll probably be named something else than 480.

---

Hmm... return of the Ultra perhaps... Mabey we will see a card that costs more than the 7800GTX 512 did :rofl:

I could see this happening to be honest...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by H2O

Are we looking at a quick respin and a "GTX480 512" part? Or will we not see a 512sp part until much later?

---

Late Q2 best case, so June or July.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clo007

Can I just see a full image of a a freaking card already. I am tired of all this BS.

---

Ok, ok, calm down man, take deep cleansing breaths ...

Here you go, a full image of a freaking card:

http://www.everyjoe.com/thegadgetblo...-5870-Card.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ***Deimos***

Seeing how vast majority of programs, and even games are barely even optimized for 2 cores, you can imagine how much ingenuity this requires on GPU side.

---

the tasks that are performed on the cpu and gpu are completely different though, the cpus strength is serial work, the gpus strength is parallel work... thats why coding games or apps to use several cpu cores is just as much as a pain in the lower rear side as it is to code apps that use the gpu to perform serial work, which, most apps need at some point... thats why gpus get their own cache and get their task schedulers reshuffled and upgraded and will probably even get branch prediction, while cpus get avx and beefed up double pumped execution cores ala gpu... thats at least how i understood it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Sweeper_

show me a framerate comparison at the dragon now :D

---

oh god, i cant believe this low blow marketing actually works... you really care how cards perform in some synthetic highly unrealistic scenario? this reminds me a lot of memory benchmarks where one set is 2x as fast as another but you wont be able to find a real world app that shows a perf gain past .x%... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mao5

GTX 480 has 480sp, as charlie said,haha

---

mhhhh that increases chances for people to actually be able to find one, provided they have enough money and fast index finger reflexes to hit the BUY button fast enough when one shows up in the shops... :D

but it also means lower performance...
im sure that nvidia didnt like this... either yields were too bad or maybe they figured out that 480sps (8%) allow them to clock the card more than 8% higher (~50mhz) so perf wise it makes more sense... or maybe mhz gives more of a perf boost than more sps... that would make sense since 500sps is quite some parallel power that isnt easy to feed i assume...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HelixPC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIPc...eature=related

Came across this and LOL'd

---

hahahah, that is hilarious :D
i wish more pr campaigns would be based on funny stuff like this... it doesnt matter what product you own or think is better, those clips are simply hilarious :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mapel110

Right. Even if there is only one working 512SP-Part on the Wafer, it doesn't make sense not to sell it.

---

thats provided it not only has 512 working sps but 512sps capable of running at decent clockspeeds AND being able to do so without triggering a thermo nuclear meltdown... jokes aside, it actually makes little sense to sell those parts as vgas... youd think that anything above 448sps would be sold as tesla cards, as they retail for 2500us$+... the only reason to sell those big fat gpus in retail as vgas is for pr purposes... which is confirmed by their, relatively, low volume...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

AFAIK we don't even have a confirmed 480 PCB picture.

---

yeah we do... you didnt see it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by orangekiwii

I wonder how many chips they have that actually work like that though, obviously only a couple but i wonder exactly how many

---

i think there are quite some, but how many can work at those specs at room temps and with acceptable cooling is probably very lower... 750mhz plus 512cores... im sure they have at least a hand full of those since they ordered 10k wafers, right? so even with 0.1% yields they would have 10 of those cards now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Hmm. 3? One for Jensen, one for Igor. Jensen's is SLI.
:D

---

pfff, igor gets a single gts240 card with 480 heatsink glued to it... as if hed even notice the difference... :lol:

so wait, the highest launch part is the 480, and it wont have 512sps...
so there wont even be GTX480 Ultra reviewer editionTM cards?

hmmmm i wonder if some people will actually buy a tesla card for 2500$ to get the additional 16sps and win in some benchmarks, wouldnt surprise me :D

about gtx480 temperatures... did you guys see the fermi approved thermaltake case at cebit? it has a huge duct for the vgas in it... its really cool if you ask me, literally! :D
if id use a case id probably use that one! :)
but it sounds as if this duct is required to run 3 480s next to each other without any plastic melting... thats less cool... literally... :D

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/03/...ase-dissected/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by helixpc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnipc...eature=related

came across this and lol'd

---

that was hilarious! Not taking any sides though, both cards are cool with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

but it sounds as if this duct is required to run 3 480s next to each other without any plastic melting... thats less cool... literally... :D [/url]

---

This...

I assume the temps won't be so bad at all, mainly due to better cooler desing and the fan will probably spin more than 3000 RPM. But what actually is problem is Tri-SLI:yepp: IMHO the holes in PCB are made for Dual-SLI, but they are useless for Tri-SLI, the middle card will vaporize :rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zerazax

Says who? You who said Fermi is G80 size? :rofl::ROTF::rofl::ROTF:

AFAIK we don't even have a confirmed 480 PCB picture. Then again, you have magical vision that can see the die size under the IHS

---

The pcb was posted a few pages back several times :rolleyes:

Oh and I said Fermi was close to G80 size. Judging by IHS it has to be at least smaller then GTX 285 and since you have no better counter then IT HAS TO BE BIGGER, CHARLIE SAID SO I'm just going to go by IHS size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HelixPC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNIPc...eature=related

Came across this and LOL'd

---

:rofl: :ROTF: :clap:

Really fun as the Hitler's video about Fermi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

yeah we do... you didnt see it?

---

I think his point is that it has not been confirmed to be a real final PCB. More of a 'leak' type information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

so wait, the highest launch part is the 480, and it wont have 512sps...
so there wont even be GTX480 Ultra reviewer editionTM cards

---

I think they may make an Ultra card at some point in time, once yields are decent. I really don't see why not if all current chips are being made with 512sps and some of them are getting disabled...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

about gtx480 temperatures... did you guys see the fermi approved thermaltake case at cebit? it has a huge duct for the vgas in it... its really cool if you ask me, literally! :D
if id use a case id probably use that one! :)
but it sounds as if this duct is required to run 3 480s next to each other without any plastic melting... thats less cool... literally... :D

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/03/...ase-dissected/

---

I do not think this is a requirement, though. Could be an indicator, of course... But probably is just a marketing trick. And a cool feature!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

The pcb was posted a few pages back several times :rolleyes:

---

I must have missed where it was a confirmed 480 one, and not just a 470 one with blurred info

Quote:

---

Oh and I said Fermi was close to G80 size. Judging by IHS it has to be at least smaller then GTX 285 and since you have no better counter then IT HAS TO BE BIGGER, CHARLIE SAID SO I'm just going to go by IHS size.

---

IHS has nothing to do with die size, besides provide a maximum boundary.

IHS is related to bus width due to pins. 384-bit vs. 512-bit is the big reason why a GT200 and Fermi is different in size, and why Fermi's IHS appears close to a G80, which was also 384-bit.

But again, IHS size is not proportional to die size. But keep ignoring that fact! (And what does Charlie have to do with any of this? nice random tangent :rolleyes:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

but it sounds as if this duct is required to run 3 480s next to each other without any plastic melting... thats less cool... literally... :D

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/03/...ase-dissected/

---

:rofl::rofl:

Not true. Thermaltake's reps have been talking about this since before the GF100 series was announced. It (or a modification thereof) will be installed on other cases as well, not only NVIDIA editions.

All you are seeing is an evolution of the "ATC" design used on the Spedo Advanced.

You're reading far too much into a simple article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

I think his point is that it has not been confirmed to be a real final PCB. More of a 'leak' type information.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zalbard

I do not think this is a requirement, though. Could be an indicator, of course... But probably is just a marketing trick. And a cool feature!

---

requirement, def not... but i wouldnt be surprised if nvidia recommends special cases for sli or tri sli... then again, im surprised ati didnt do this for the 4870x2 and 5970 since they dont fit in quite some cases and run pretty hot as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

Not true. Thermaltake's reps have been talking about this since before the GF100 series was announced. It (or a modification thereof) will be installed on other cases as well, not only NVIDIA editions.

---

then why isnt there an ati version of it? why is the case only fermi approved/certified/recommended whatever?

its not much, but its a hint at 480s running pretty hot... not that we wouldnt know this already...

Quote:

---

It appears that NVIDIA has announced a thermal specification for their upcoming GF100 gaming graphics cards and this is one of the cases that meet those requirements.

---

http://forums.legitreviews.com/about25148.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

requirement, def not... but i wouldnt be surprised if nvidia recommends special cases for sli or tri sli... then again, im surprised ati didnt do this for the 4870x2 and 5970 since they dont fit in quite some cases and run pretty hot as well...

then why isnt there an ati version of it? why is the case only fermi approved/certified/recommended whatever?


http://forums.legitreviews.com/about25148.html

---

Thermaltake marketing at its finest. All that's missing is the poorly translated press release ;)

Cooler Master had their NVIDIA Edition of the Stacker and and ATI Edition of the HAF. I am sure Thermaltake will have an ATI Edition of something as well.

There is no doubt that the cards will be hot-running judging from the heatsink design. However, most cards from what I know have certain guidelines when it comes to designing "approved" / "certified" enclosures. Take the HD 5970 and older GTX 280 for some examples. Usually those specifications simply include the provision for front and back exhaust fan in order to get proper air circulation within the enclosure. Maybe the certification criterea is different for the GF100 but I can't see it changing that much from what it already is for the likes of the GTX 295 and other high-TDP cards.

However, to assume a case will "need" all these add-ons in order to accomodate the heat produced by three GTX 400 series cards is a bit of a stretch IMO.

hmmmm i guess its just thermaltake marketing then that is trying to make their case look better by hinting that you NEED a special case for fermi... im surprised nvidia cooperates with them without making sure they dont spread nonsense like this that makes their cards look bad, nvidia is usually very fast with stuff like this... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

oh god, i cant believe this low blow marketing actually works... you really care how cards perform in some synthetic highly unrealistic scenario? this reminds me a lot of memory benchmarks where one set is 2x as fast as another but you wont be able to find a real world app that shows a perf gain past .x%...

---

not that I care, but he was comparing tessellation performance..

Rumor:GeForce GTX 470 will sell for 2499¥(366$) in China.

http://diy.yesky.com/vga/259/11163259.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mindfury

Rumor:GeForce GTX 470 will sell for 2499¥(366$) in China.

http://diy.yesky.com/vga/259/11163259.shtml

---

don not like rumour part!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mindfury

Rumor:GeForce GTX 470 will sell for 2499¥(366$) in China.

http://diy.yesky.com/vga/259/11163259.shtml

---

no way jose...
nvidia doesnt underbid ati... ever... even when they are notably slower... and in this case they seem to be close to 5870 performance... plus they are supply limited... not gonna happen... :)

470 will have a MSRP of between $300 and 400. It won't be both slower and more expensive than an ATI offering. Nvidia might have failed to adjust some prices after an ATI move but this is a new card and you can be sure it's going to be priced accordingly.

Of course, with low availability there'll be inevitable price gauging but the original price will be between $300 and $400.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

but this is a new card and you can be sure it's going to be priced accordingly.

---

well thats contradicting... new cards always cost more than the competition even if they are slower... theres always a 10%+ tax for every piece of hardware that is new... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Of course, with low availability there'll be inevitable price gauging but the original price will be between $300 and $400.

---

well, 399$ is between 300 and 400, so yes, what your saying is not entirely untrue :D
but just think about it... there will be enough people willing to spend 400$ for it and nvidia has very few cards... why should they set the msrp that much below the expected demand based price? their aibs would barely make any money on the cards, especially considering the low volume, and the etailers and retailers would make a fortune on the cards by selling them for msrp+50-100$... why would nvidia do this? nvidia sales guys are brilliant! just look at how well they have done in the past! they wont do something like this...

the 470 will only go for 350$ if the 5870 drops to 350$ as well or even lower... but i dont think that will happen... it would be ati shooting themselves in the foot, cutting their wins on millions of cards for some few thousand cards nvidia drip feeds the market...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

hmmmm i guess its just thermaltake marketing then that is trying to make their case look better by hinting that you NEED a special case for fermi... im surprised nvidia cooperates with them without making sure they dont spread nonsense like this that makes their cards look bad, nvidia is usually very fast with stuff like this... :D

---

I don't think it makes things look bad unless you blow it out of proportion by assuming ducts, oversized fans and whatnot are NEEDED for cooling the GTX 400 series.

Personally, I like the Thermaltake addition simply because it will help cards that don't have the ability to exhaust hot air directly outside the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

well thats contradicting... new cards always cost more than the competition even if they are slower... theres always a 10%+ tax for every piece of hardware that is new... :shrug:

---

nah, I meant that Nvidia will price a card fair "initially". After an ATI move (new card or price cuts) Nvidia is known for not adjusting prices all the time, but when pricing a new card, they'll make it fair. Or close to fair :D

I agree that GTX 470 might be $399. But that's not really far off from the $360 figure which you seemingly found impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

Nvidia is known for not adjusting prices all the time, but when pricing a new card, they'll make it fair.

---

nvidia offering fair prices? cant remember a single instance.. seriously :P
nvidia was always about 5% faster, better (according to marketing) and 20% more expensive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

I agree that GTX 470 might be $399. But that's not really far off from the $360 figure which you seemingly found impossible.

---

i find it hard to believe that 470s will go for less than a 5870... especially with nvidia trying to convince us so hard that its better than a 5870 and rumors of a very limited supply of cards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

The proportion is also affected by the speed of the CPU. i.e the faster the CPU, the smaller the serial part becomes. Yes, it's just a fancy way of saying that as you remove the CPU bottleneck the proportion of parallelizable work tends toward 100% of the total. But even on the GPU a lot of stuff is serialized - geometry setup for example. Hence the multiple setup engines in Fermi. The more stuff you parallelize, the easier it is to scale performance.

---

Well good at least nVidia is working on parallelizing more of the pipeline.
Serial would be better, but clocks have been stuck in 600-700 range for half-a-decade, so like CPU, only way around it to ensure GPU is not starved, is parallel setup engines.. and all the coherency issues assossiated with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chumbucket843

not much, gpu applications like graphics are embarassingly parallel and this parallelism increases with problem size. i.e. if you double the pixel count you double parallelism. this law sounds very grim but truthfully its not. gpu's are already running thousands of threads to hide latency.

---

How easy is to to scale from thousands of threads to millions? Buffers and register files are already enormous.

Problem is that graphics is assumed to be infinitely parallel. But you can only work on about 2 million pixels at a time, before starting next frame. What happens with 20 million triangle tessellation demo running at 800x600... 40 triangles/pixel on avg - which you cant distinguish. Of course we're still some years away.

But perhaps the greatest challenge is the efficiency ceiling. Some shader applied to block of 15 of 16 pixels is ~94% resource efficient. But extrapolate to dozens of shaders, and 0.94^12 doesn't look so good. GPUs already use an enormous amount of optimizations, from non-sqrt Z calc, to buffer compressions, to normal/bump/stencil maps, mip maps and LOD. It seems only natural that its more and more difficult to improve this fine tuned model.

http://tof.canardpc.com/view/21bd86d...ba7825af5f.jpg

http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/b17...dfceac3f8b.jpg

From the same guy PHK on bbs.expreview.com forum.

Don't know what card is, maybe GTX 470 but not sure :shrug:

$366 for a GTX 470 may be correct.

You can already get a 5870 for $380

A GTX 470 cant be more expensive than the 5870 because it does not seem to perform much better than 5870 in normal cases.
I expect GTX 470 to cost around 5870 at most $10-$20 less...

When does "officially" the NDA ends? Fermi still clueless, I still think nvidia is not going to make it for a march launch (maybe a paper launch), plus I still think performance is going to disappoint for the price they will ask, not mentioning the power hog and hot the card will be, thats just me I could be wrong though (performance wise).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olivon

From the same guy PHK on bbs.expreview.com forum.

Don't know what card is, maybe GTX 470 but not sure :shrug:

---

Considering its another 2500 resolution opportunistic comparison I'd be pretty sure that's a 470.