yea maybe :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Printable View
yea maybe :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Looking at this it seems that 5870 OCed is doing really well against the GTX480 stock and even to some extend the GTX480 OCed.
http://lab501.ro/placi-video/nvidia-...imal-magnetism
Now the 5870 2GB matrix is 900Mhz and will most likely be good to go against the stock GTX480 price will determine how well it sells.
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...E/GTX480-6.jpg
http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/im...0-MATRIX-6.jpg
wow... the matrix design looks great....
I think a 15 to 20 percent increase in performance seems underwhelming to people because of its incredible power draw. However, I think the card price is just as important, and considering it's only %25 more expensive than the HD5870, its priced quite competitively. It is an almost (but not quite) equal increase in percentage price with percentage performance, which is something you never see on the enthusiast category - not just on graphics cards but on pretty much everything, once you move to the premium products, each dollar you spend returns less. So in that respect, GTX 480 is priced good.
Future Fermi product, might launch budget, mainstream battle...may be Fermi will do better with these...
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-03-26/148b.jpg
a normal 60watt bulb would feet hot to the touch after a couple hours left on right???? then what about 300watt on a die??? power draw = heat = cooling problem .... its all related .....
saying it isnt is lame ....
I don't think Nvidia was doing this out of the good of their hearts though... it's simply the matter that they had to price this where it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
In part, it's because of the performance: if they go higher, it gets too close to the 5970, which beats it across the board.
And also because its 6 months late, they can't dictate price - the 5870 is at $400, the 5970 is at $600-700 - so your only chance, given performance/heat/noise/features, is to price it between there.
I'm sure that if the 480 performed closer to the 5970 than the 5870, or if it had been released in this state 6 months ago, it would have been priced closer to $650 (as the GTX 280 was upon initial release). But it's not the same situation anymore
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
To me it's back to the same arguments that the 4xxx series had with the 2xx series. One is smaller, cooler and less powerful, the other is bigger, hotter and more powerful. They fit into the price categories accordingly.
the difference today is Nvidia came late to the party and ATI have a very profitable card compared to Nvidia. Nvidia also have the 4970 to contend with and of course the newly Oc'ed 5870's and 2gig versions (are there 2gb OC'ed ones?).
still it's good to see competition back, even if it is a bit underwhelming after the wait. Let's hope for a lot of DX11 games using it's power :)
Fermi I think is a great architecture, with heaps of promise, but not this revision. Newer process, less heat, less power consumption, 512cc, and 800Mhz+ should be what this should have been.
Performance is good, but when you compare it to 5870, it's not good. Drivers will make it better, but it's overdue for that. Next gen ATi should be coming along nicely.
I can't help but feel a little bemused about 480, let alone 470. The killer for me was Crysis really.
The problem with all that is they've had to produce a card now, which is obviously what most people consider Nvidias own OC'ed version. They've had to get something out of the door and basically OC'ed their own cards, put on large grills and coolers and launched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
Let me ask you this. Could ATI release a card right now, under the same thermals and power draw; that would outperform the 480?
I suspect they could.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Nvidia probably knows from the beginning that they can't launch the GTX 480 higher than $600 MSRP since they know it's not going to compete with the HD5970, plus the whole 512 vs 480 cores also take part of that as lot of us would expect 512 but turn out the TSMC yield wasn't that good like expected or maybe they can't just put that many cores due to TDP and heat.
I never really care about power consumption all along until now. I wanna get a GTX 480 then put in SLI later but from what I've seen it seems impossible for me to run with a 850W PSU, I'm sure a lot of people in the same boat as me as they don't wanna upgrade to a new PSU just to run in SLI. If only it draws less power and produce less heat, 15% on average over a HD5870 but improve later sure will put this card in much much better position.
Sapphire 5870 Toxic 2GB "AMD's so called answer for gf100" vs GTX 480 1.5GB
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...G_3139-big.jpg
vs
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...G_3128-big.jpg
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/02.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/02.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/03.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/03.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/05.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/05.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/06.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/06.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/07.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/07.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/09.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/09.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/10.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/10.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/12.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/12.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/13.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/13.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Power:
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/23.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/17.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/24.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/18.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/25.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/19.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car.../a/N174/26.png
http://img.hexus.net/v2/graphics_car...58702GB/20.png
That sums up nicely for me, AMD's answer is suppose to be a oced 5870 around 900-950mhz and this card fits the bill. Hopefully it costs $50-$70 less than the GTX 480 then it would make a lot of sense... :)
snip... wrong thread. :doh:
Could you elaborate more? Why is AMD not viable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
Look at the individual game tests, not just the overall average. Also compare minimum FPS vs. average FPS scores. Where it really matters in the demanding games, the GTX 480 *is* pulling ahead by those margins handily. In some of the ones that run at 5000000fps already, it is staying even (and Crysis, which is always a mixed bag for cards). Thus, it is definitely quite a bit faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Well, I posted in the wrong thread but... (I posted in the wrong forum, actually! I really should go to bed)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanical Man
Corp. Mkt is a very different beast compared to consumers mkt. Nvidia has being very agressive in that front here in Brazil and ATI is almost nonexistent, even on gaming/LAN events. Quadro boards are priced very agressively directly from Nvidia and FireGL solutions are available only through some third-parts at hefty prices to say the least.
And yes, current Quadro solutions are better for the work we do (A/V production) than ATI's current FireGL in case I disapointed you in my previous paragraph... :p:
Those saying Fermi isn't worth it... I guess it's abnormal that a higher-priced card clearly can be justified in price due to far better performance in most games. I mean damn, a more expensive card that takes more power is SO unusual, don't you think? Yeah, wanting that means you're a fool, no question!
Source: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...80-review.html
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=238Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Apart from power consumption I totally agree! You should have bought a 5970 months ago. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
That only takes into account **AVERAGE** framerates and not minimums, which paint a bigger picture for actual gaming... but that link just proves what I said, so not sure why you're linking that as a rebuttal?Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I was on a 5870 at its launch since I like single-GPU solutions :p: , now I am on a 480 once it is in-stock ;). I want the fastest single-GPU, and 5870 is no longer it by quite a margin. The 5970 also happens to run $700 vs. a $500 GTX 480 or $400 5870 ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
hardwarecanucks has the oddest result. The gap between 5870 and GTX 480 is around 23%....!!! :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Their review happens to also be the one I trusted the most from the 5870 launch... and is the most explicit about how they tested/what they tested with for this launch (480) as well. Don't forget minimum FPS ratings, which most seem to neglect to mention... those are more important than even just higher averages: you notice dips a lot more than you do steady FPS. Also note individual game tests, not just the overall average: in the heavier-duty games it is certainly pulling ahead, and that's where it matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
I stated a few times in this thread that hardwarecanucks lost my respect when they gave out results in the nvidia 'big bang 2' that contradicted everyone else, then argued that the games they used were not given to them by nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Anandtech blew that out of the water when they said nvidia tried to force those games on reviews.
Something like that anyway, my old failing memory sometimes gets the better of me.
So the new fermie results they are showing, don't help matter in my trust in them.
Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Since you posted those benches I assume that's the games you play. Out of 7 it's a hell lot faster at six of'em (it's almost a tie in the single one the 480 beats the 5970), it consumes less power, it doesn't sound like 747 taking off and it was available in November 2009... :shrug:
The 5970 also happened to be chronically unavailable, $700, and dependent on dual-GPU profiles. I've said it in the past and I'll say it now... I do not like multi-GPU setups and avoid them as much as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
Fair enough, but the other reviews in the chart show similar results. Are you trying to say that ALL those sites are not credible? I know you're not, but the pattern matches... even if the numbers are a couple percent different either way. Thus we can assume they are properly done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
It depends what you say are similar. Having a greater score of between 5-10% compared with all the others, makes me wonder how their testing differs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
What I mean is, that even though the numbers vary ~5% or so (which is in margin of error for manual run-throughs and various setups), the pattern is the same: game A performs roughly X% better, game B performs roughly Y% better, etc. across all the reviews. For example, Far Cry 2 is a clear, large winner across reviews; Crysis is a very small bit better across them. We can assume that if a review fits inside of the pattern on how its games are performing, that it's pretty close if not spot-on. If for instance some review showed Crysis as 30% better when most of them are showing it as around 3-5%, we'd know something was up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
Of course it performs better, it was designed that way.. but it doesn't perform far better as you would say, it's just okay despite coming 6 months later. ATI and NV took different paths and currently I prefer ATI's way. It's efficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Haha, you crack me up! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Hope you're not actually serious, though.
Oh my God... :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by CadESin
It ends up 11% different to anand/hexus, that's a fairly substantial margin of error there.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
the only cause for this which someone has mentioned is they ran at 4ghz, which if this is the case, means the fermie is better at higher speeds.
But to blanket say 'it's margin of error' is taking the piss a little.
I'm not calling it margin of error, I'm calling it within the pattern other reviews set for relative performance differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
/agree :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Fermi arch' is quite good but it's too big, too complex for 40 nm. 28 nm will be more interesting for it IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Nevermind me, I'm just teasing you. I'm piss drunk DL'ing a GIGANTIC file from a client just to email the bastard to say "yep, I got it". :toast: Heck, in this very thread I said that Fermi was a flop and probably will be SLI'ing two of them. :hitself:
To tell you the truth I think the gtx480 is great card if you h2o it.
:p: Yeah, I never did end up going for it but I was tempted at the time :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caparroz
Posted this in the benchmarks thread as well, but this is what i could gather from reading Anandtech's review of Fermi...
THE GOOD:
- Fastest single GPU
- Size, only 9.5 inches
THE BAD:
- Support for a maximum of 2 monitors only
- HDMI audio still not at par with AMD/ ATI. HTPC users must take note of this
- Cost of the card
THE UGLY:
- 95-96 degree Centigrade at load. HTPC users must take note of this
- Noise. HTPC users must take note of this
- Power consumption in idle is more than a pair of 5870's CF'd idling
- Power consumption at load is about 100W-150W more than 5870 (diff people have quoted diff figures)
- 250W TDP for GTX 480 (with only 480 shaders). Charlie is right with his 295W TDP figure, though that must be for the 512 shaders part.
Then again, AMD/ ATI has covered some ground with Stereo 3D support now included with the 10.3 drivers... so as far as i as a normal user is concerned, i'd rather have a 5870 and if i feel the itch for more power... two of them 5850's OC'd would be more than handy in the price range to kill/ negate any performance advantage of Fermi... they still wouldn't suck as much power as this big mutha does...
Another big disadvantage which is noticed as per my usage was the lackluster support for the audio over HDMI... AMD/ ATI is doing it... now also supporting bit-streaming with their 5 series cards since 6 months or so. Why could or rather wouldn't Nvidia cover this? Oh i do not only game, but watch a lot of hd flicks with hd audio tracks on my pc... which a lot of people do and they should note this.
All in all, i can't seemingly justify a purchase of a GTX480... so i'll catch hold of a sucker who wants to sell two 5870's (yes i know one such guy :P )... will get them both for about or less than $500, and under warranty...
Crank that S#!T UP ...
reminds me of the ads for Frank's RedHot Sauce where the little old lady says "I put that S#!T on eveything!"
http://www.franksredhot.com/
This thread has turned from okay, to bad, to a ***king joke. I might as well have joined in on a conversation of who can piss the furthest. Reviews are out, so I'm ignoring this thread.
EDIT: JUST LOOK AT THE STUPID POST BELOW
My response to Fermi: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Fermi = 2900XT version 2
2900xt was never the fastest single gpu
the nvidia cards are a little faster, but when you take into account electricity and price, the results are basically ambiguous.
you can basically argue a purchase of any of the gpus(ati or nvidia) against its various competing gpus.
god. it's as if those people really wanted Fermi to be the most gigantic flop ever. Well it wasn't good enough, but it isn't a big flop either, but these guys have practically conditioned themselves to that, and with some info that backs their points, now they virtually can't be stopped from spewing BS all around.
Nah, more like 5800 Ultra version 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
Just wait till the Forceware 200.xx drivers come out :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
If you cared so much why don't you buy yourself a 480? Most of your posts seem so contrived, as if you're trying too hard to come off as objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Yep, I think other people would do good if they tried hard to be objective as well. I own a 5870 and don't need Fermi. Forgive me if my posts aren't as sincere and as objective as FERMI LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Hey, looking at your avatar I think it's not too late for your posting style to change! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Yeah, yeah... just kidding.
Personally I'm waiting for the RMAs before I start to LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
This thread needs some RMAs- OOPS PAPER LAUNCH
BTW I would have bought the 470 for CUDA/Premiere CS5 if it didn't use as much power as a GTX275. but nooooo, it had to hog so much power while being only a bit faster. I don't have the PSU the time nor the patience for some RMAs.
Except 5800 Ultra losed badly in multiple wayz against 9800/9700 Pro. Power consumption and heat are really problematic but performance are better than HD 5870. That's not the same thing IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
Fermi arch' is good but too complex for 40nm. They believed that TSMC can handle that but that was a fail. TSMC have big problems with 40 nm.
Remember that most of the heat problems will go away if you watercool the card. If you already have a watercooling setup, GTX480 seems to be a nice bet as it outperforms the HD5870 by ~>10% (and the 2GB version by ~6%) and it's drivers have a chance to mature and hopefully the performance gains will continue to increase.
Well, Fermi is unique in a way, just take the delay for example...Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
I think it is closer to 5800 Ultra than to 2900, though, people are exaggerating the fail. It's still a very decent card, just not as decent as ATI 5xxx value wise.
I agree with xlink its 2900 XT v.2 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
I recall Splinter Cell 3 Chaos Theory, FEAR and Ghost Recon AW running better on it than 8800 GTX :D
Ohh ya i also remember people sayin that the arc was much tooo advanced and futuristic for the process used same lines as they say for GF100...
Temp-wise i recall 2900 XT's had around 90C loaded very close to GTX480/470's temp and noise was around 52 dba and gtx 480 is around 46 dba :yepp:
EDIT: After a bit of searching i realized one thing 2900 XT could be OCed till 8xx Mhz and GTX 480 also goes up till 8xx Mhz core :ROTF:
^^
LOL, okay, you win! :p: :D
They have their opinion and their actions support that, and I doubt you can change it. You on the other hand, are just whining. Fermi's out, more or less, if you're not planning on buying one maybe you should just just move on :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
You don't move on when FERMI is the subject!!!! :D
I think we need more DX11 titles to evaluate what Fermi can really do, although it won't change it's impressive power consuption at full load.
We have to say, at DX11, GF100 does very good compared to Radeons.
And, we can still see that drivers have much space to improve.
Never should GTX295 beat GTX480 and it does sometimes, so we can wait for software to put hardware where it should be at.
It won't fix its huge power consumption at load, though...
Maybe B1 Rev or a direct 28nm shrink :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
I see a core overclock of 825 here, Link, and 830 core in some benchmarks, but the language selector does not work for me on that page. I wondered what cooling was required to manage this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemaster
Retail cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just learnin'
Percentage wise, these things are overclocking just as much the 5870s. The amount of energy it consumes in doing so is another matter those.
The 2900XT produced really good derivatives, so Fermi can only get better. That's what I'll be looking forward to.
Don't forget that voltage control isn't out yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Fermi is pretty much a long pipelined design, so it can clock up even more.
900Mhz core was the original target a long, long time ago.
You can probably OC to/over that but expect chip frying in a short period of time if nVidia is having via problems as is.
One more things, if this thing came out when the 5870 came out, apart from the power consumption, things thing would have made the 5870 from a performance perspective look like last generation. Subtract 10% from alot of scores and you would have an absolute killing.
I am not going to get fermi this gen because a revisions going to clear up alot of things and AMD next architecture might show some details and might show alot of potential. From a performance perspective fermi is not an absolute failure, it simply does not do enough to justify AMD to lower it prices.
This is the most programmable architecture ever and this what makes drivers so important. The more complex the architecture, the more complex the drivers and the longer it takes to take advantage of.
Source ? The max I heard was 750 MHz :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
You are "people" so ? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
in stalker they lost in dirt 2 there isn't much difference only game that favors nvidia right now is metro 2033 for which ati never had time to optimize there drivers. from Hardocp : The only game that clearly favors the GeForce GTX 480 is Metro 2033. (And we know that AMD still has its driver team looking over the final code release of the game and has not yet tweaked for it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
quality all dx11 review with in game bench : http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/...0_sli_review/1
very true. With the leaky transistors, I bet these will overclock pretty well with watercooling too. They will add more heat to a loop than 2 5870s though...Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O
I'm not at liberty to say though... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
But it's true, along with the first hints he/she/it/they/UFOs said regarding GT200's idle power (said they were working on it and 2-3 months later wham)
That's very true, hope Nvidia will do a good job at this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
i honestly believe that you wont be seing a dual fermi gpu aircooled card, im sure it would have to be liquid cooled as standardQuote:
Originally Posted by TRANCEFORMER
i just cant see 2 of them chips on a single pcb in its current state.
Anandtech shows 5870 being 69% slower in Unigine. Because of the new fermi features, GTX 480 has a significant advantage under these conditions. Call it staged or synthetic if you want, but the advantage is there. http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3783&p=5Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Could you imagine if ATI had shipped this card 6 months late with these power reqs? The forum would be overflowing with BS. :eek: For me Fermi isn't a good product but I'm not gonna act like an idiot to get my point across.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
The heat doesn't go away, it just gets dumped into the room faster. This is a big deal for people in hot climates.Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O
480 v 5870 Overclocking results:
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick...5_1920_8aa.PNG
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick...20_day_4aa.PNG
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick...920_noaaaf.PNG
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick.../gta4_1920.PNG
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick..._1920_noaa.PNG
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick...k/3dmark06.JPG
http://www.hwgurus.com/tests/Grafick...%20vantage.JPG
http://www.hwgurus.com/testovi/grafike-karte/152.html
Funny, because people would be spewing BS if nVidia did, too... wait, they are!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMojoZ
Hm...that makes me thinking is there a review that compare HD5870 CF vs GTX 470 SLI? It seems SLI scaling is pretty good so I'm wondering if the GTX 470 in SLI can keep up with HD5870 in CF.
Impressive, perhaps a "selected" piece of kit I wonder? Still impressive though. :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Yeah, the performance in Crysis is only 13% faster:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anandtech
Some here are grasping for straws. GTX480 *AS IS* is a fail. If the power consumption, heat and noise would go down by 50%, the card would definitely be a buy. No amount of spin will change that.
See ya at 28nm nV.
I don't think its Nvidia's fault though. All of GTX480's issues arise from poor yields. Now, if they had done their homework like AMD they might not have these issues, but the point stands Nvidia really as little control over the yield - thats all tsmcs fault. In addition to this, there wouldn't be as many cut down parts. If TSMC had gotten better yields you would have full core chip and higher clocks and likely lower power consumption.
do you see the world in black and white? if power and noise went down by 50% it would be an excellent gpu. where it is now is alright but not a total "fail".Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
50% less would put it at about 65-70% the consumption of a 5870... unrealistic expectations there.Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
lol i wouldnt call it a fail, but yeah where the card is now isnt a sure buy... i am waiting to see if some manufacturers put better cooling in so that the card doesnt sound like a jet when playing crysis/bf 2 bc just to cool it to like 80c(?) (and yeah i am lazy arse who only sets up cpu water loop)Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBy
plus price gouging will be an issue, just wait 2, 3months. choice might be clearer between 5870 and 480 then
I wonder if Nvidia had the same discussion with GTX 480 before they ship it out, like they did with GeForce FX 5800:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOVjZ...ayer_embedded#
:D
I know this has been posted but by god what a biatch slap by bit-tech :)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...-5gb-review/12Quote:
The HD 5870 remains a far better choice if you're a gamer; while we've yet to see how the GTX 480 performs with CUDA apps and Folding, at this stage Fermi looks like a flop.
I don't think GTX480 is a fail though. It's not that much more expensive than 5870 right now where I am. 5970 is 700+ dollars though. It has better performance than 5870, i'm going to be watercooling and I don't pay for the electricity where I live so.....
yeah i am really leaning toward 5870this time, i have to say... i have gotten 7800 gtx sli, 9800gtx sli and gtx 280 sli... was planning on gtx 480 sli, but i dont mind sacrificing a little performance for quiet and less power consumption
and 5970 is no where to be found in us, its like a sasquatch lol
I can see it already, 2011, Intel buys nVidia.
You all read the conclusion in bjorn3d's review
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1831&pageID=8805
Its well different "Hint GTX 480 gets gold :)"
Just get 2x 5850? Just as fast and cheaper...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_J_Fry
you must be blind. thats never happening unless there are some radical changes at those companies. jpr has a good article on why it wont happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by HelixPC
or wait for die shrink on both camps? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
my gtx 280 sli is running everything fine for now. bf 2 bc @ 1080p 4xAA no problem, no DX11 support but hey i can live without it
i might just wait for die shrink, GTX 485 or 5890 if they plan to make them
If you want the similar power consumption as the 5970 buy a GTX 480 :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_J_Fry
Megaupload - G100 nVidia Press PDF
Nothing special except screens from Metro2033.
If you look at p.23, DX9 screens looks way better than DX11's ones. Error or not ?
Thanks to David for the PDF ;)
Hexus rating:
Sapphire Radeon HD 5870 TOXIC 2,048MB
http://img.hexus.net/v2/lifestyle/re...ings/4star.jpg
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 1,536MB
http://img.hexus.net/v2/lifestyle/re...ings/3star.jpg
wazzz
Sounds good. 40nm tech sucks for video cards anyway. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_J_Fry
Assuming by April 12th, nVidia comes through with 10K+ availability, GTX480 is HUGE WIN for nVidia.
In some benchmarks its 30, 40 even 60% faster than 5870. I never expected 700Mhz, let alone stock HS OC to 820Mhz... WOW.
And do a double take on those DX11 and tesselation benchmarks. Certainly nobody would prefer a GTX295.
Unlike R600, FX or whatever you want to compare it to, IT IS the PERFORMANCE KING, the best GPU in history.
For the launch MSRP, nobody would deny its a WIN if it was <200W. Nobody.
But, thats the problem. Even the lowly GTX470 is a bit faster than 5870 half the time and between it and the 5850 the other half. But, its almost 100W more than 5850 and nearly 5970 numbers. Water cooling may lower temps, but its still the same ~300W going into your house.
Although 5870 is $420, and GTX470 is $350, it is VERY VERY EASY for AMD to lower price $50. On the other hand, much more difficult for nVidia to lower power by 50W (25%). Imagine 5850@$250 and 5870@$320 and 5970@450... now nobody would buy the GTXs.
+$50 or +$50Watts, which would you choose?
Winners and losers:
Fastest GPU - GTX480
Fastest card - 5970
Best performance for 200W - 5870
Best performance for 300W - 5970
Best performance for $350 - GTX470*
*until inevidable price cuts.
My point is that nVidia's only advantage is PRICE. And their costs are much higher. So AMD can easily win here.
40 and 60% over 5870? Where did you see that? lol.
It's 15-20% faster on average.
You might want to check a different review or something...
Talk about being very positive... No mention about the power draw (HD 5970-levels) in comparison to the "mind blowing" performance-improvement over HD 5870? Jesus, they just lost 100 percent of their credibility (if they ever had cred).Quote:
Originally Posted by ajaidev
What reviews did you read and what are you on? I'd like some :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by ***Deimos***
Can't argue your points on price though, though I disagree with your "best performance for $350". I'd replace that with the 5850 even if it's priced $50-100 lower than that. The 5850 OC's to 1GHZ core easily. That's a massive ~40% OC. I'm not sure the 470 can hit speeds similar to match 1ghz in benchmarks. The 5850 can do it while running quieter, cooler, and less power too.
Most sites got around 0% difference between to cards tho.(in crysis)Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
"...is unable to conclusively claim the title as fastest single GPU graphics card, with Crysis a dead heat... " -< from bittech
And really most sites i read in crysis results were identical.
Anybody noticed that between sites same game tests differ from WIN for ATI to WIN for nVIdia ? I dont know who to trust anymore :P
Stalker and dirt results fluctuate heavy too.
Bit Tech stalker results
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/201...1-5gb-review/6
Anand results
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/n...5215/22183.png
From what i gather, you can make look cards as you see fit selecting "proper" settings and test system configurations.Which is a sad conclusion.