They don't know crap man don't take their word for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTP04
Printable View
They don't know crap man don't take their word for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTP04
If I was a business and there is any sort of limited availability, I'd be foolish not to capitalize on this opportunity. They are run on money, not love and hugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDiaz
This doesn't mean that I want prices to go up, it just means that its in your interest as a consumer to get a product and at the lowest price possible, but its in their interest as a reseller to charge as much as they can get for whatever stock they have.
It really depends on what he talks about. Everyone knows he spot on about these type of stuff (tape outs), but when he talks about chip architecture... Forget it... The software tesselator thing is a good example of him talking sht..Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Where do you see the architecture is not scalable? If from here they can get all derivatives out of the door by years end, its a good execution, IMO. Keep in mind GF100 had problems they had (still have?) to iron out. Probably only after that they could proceed with next tape outs...Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
And I'm fine with that, like you said... it's a business. I was merely focusing on the fact that they have no idea what pricing will be
Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
if fermi is so much scaleable why didnt they release it before that bloated big ass die that they call GF100 ???? marketing reason??? if so another fail reason by nvidia .... release what you can especially since you know fermi will be a problematic gpu ....
what i meant by fermi would be the low end part gf108 gf 106 and gf104
GF108 would have been the easiest one to do right .... yet it wont be out till late summer .....
Since when does a low end part gets released before a high end? (dont tell about 5870 vs 5970. 5970 is just two 5870 chips). The high endQuote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
is always the "proof of concept". Before it gets done and released, it would be foolish to go ahead with lower end parts.
Easiest to do? Why is that? Just because its smaller? LOL.. really LOL..
Good? Wow, you're clearly funnier than Charlie. Congrats!Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
Let me tell you what's proper good execution:
Enthusiast, Highend, Mid-high, midrange, midrange OEM, low-mid (and its OEM), lowend parts ALL in 6 months when the process is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ing up. Oh, and 3 months before the competitor's highend part even shows up.
If the base architecture was SO scaleable why are they struggling to get ANY part out? Suuuuuuuuuuuure, big GPUs are ":banana::banana::banana::banana:ing hard to build" according to nVidia, but smaller Fermis are NOT big GPUs.
They're much smaller, so why are they :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed up too?
Every GPU architecture is scalable. But in reality it seems ATI has way less problems scaling their designs up OR down.
I see we have yet another insider that not only knows how long Fermi derivatives took to develop but what state they're in too. You guys should really start your own sites and make some ad revenue for your trouble.
Who the hell said GF108 is bad too? Like I said, it would be foolish to advance to low end parts before the high end is finished. No one does that! And for you smart ass:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
GF100 is done in clusters as you know. If GF108 is one part of those clusters, in this scalable architecture, and if the clusters have/had problems in GF100, do you think it would make sence to advance for GF108??
But Ill stop feed the trolls, anyway. /Ignore
What it really depends on, is whether or not you like what he posts, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
Really, just stop trolling. It was you who started the argument, bye. /IgnoreQuote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Has there been any picture floating around of 470/480's w/ DisplayPort? This is a requirement for my display.
R600 - May 2007Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
RV630 - June/Jul 2007
RV610 - Aug 2007
But the competition did it just fine. RV630 and 610 would probably be even earlier if UVD wasn't problematic (it wasn't present on R600).
regarding silicon logic compartmentalization:
And there's no difference to it largely speaking. (GT200 to GT21X, Nehalem to Arrandale- yes Nehalem does it organized too) GT21X does scale down proportionately to desired performances, but it took them over a year.
You have all this fluff talk based on the same whitepaper but the dates and history (no not some revisionist history) shows otherwise.
Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. If they can do display port on the 9400 chipsets, why not on their higher end GPUs???Quote:
Originally Posted by lowfat
This is the first time I heard about games managing HW and memory. What is the OS good for than? I though the OS manages all HW resources including memory. If the OS cannot see it, how it could give the memory to the program?!:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
Second thing, the program itself is 32bit too. It can no way see 4 GB RAM and another GB's VRAM. We all know SW under 32bit OS could use up to 3 GB's and now you say it can use even 8 GB's? Or 16 GB's??
gtx 480 clocks are great, like i said! tdp is good, its far away from 298! :) :) :) :) :) :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
proof to back up those claims ?????
700+ ?Quote:
Originally Posted by zed_x
Lol, you're asking about clocks and not TDP right? It's hard to tell nowadays!Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
700w+ TDP would be a bit insane, wouldn't it? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
The 4GB Ram is possible on a 64bit version of windows running a 32bit program with special tags. Also the 8GB is possible on both 32bit and 64bit server enterprise edition, tho the 32bit 8GB address comes with significant speed penalties. The 16GB 32bit program access is possible but ONLY on 64bit datacenter editions of windows, which cost what someone well paid makes in a year, maybe even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behemot
Come on trinib' :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Of course that clocks, 700+ was originaly aimed by nVidia if I remember well.
Zed_X, in case you know something share it with us in a form like ... 480SP: 650/1500/4000 250 TDP
NDAs exist for a reason :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marios
LOL, yeah just plug your ears and yell, "lalalala I can't hear you!" really loud. I'm just pointing out how you completely ignore anything you don't want to hear/read, and yell to the top of your lungs when it's something you do want to hear/read. I got no problem with somebody who discounts a source, but when you go back to the same well when it's something you agree with, well that's just plain ridiculous. But whatever floats your boat, carry on!! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
If this is true, you will have my respect, my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
I hope it is.
Well, far away can be 275W like Charlie said :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
It's obvious that it's not going to be power efficient by now. All I am hoping to see is very good performance and pricing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
I might get flamed, and I don't mean to insult by any means, but from what I saw...Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed_X
Charlie 10x0 vs your claims when it comes to accuracy. (looking at all latest leaks, which can't be far from the truth)
So unless you have more then words, gonna be hard to believe that statement. From what I see, you're the only person around trying to convince us that Fermi is perfect, clocks super high, runs super cool, and has plenty availability at launch.
Flame away :rolleyes:
Hey, it wouldn't be the worst thing said about Fermi :p: I dont know if base clock was targeted at 700, but the scheduler/TMU clocks were probably targeted at ~750 for a shader clock of 1500.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
How can it not be power efficient yet have very good performance at the same time? Those two things are mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
A GTX 480 that uses 280W, is 5% faster than HD5870, is 550mm2, is 448 SP's (later he reverted to 512), idles at 70C, has around 600mhz clockspeeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Will be paper launch, 3.000 to 8.000 cards will be available at launch, you are not going to be able to buy one. Wide availability will be much, much later (Q4 2010. He said Q4 2011 but he was being sarcastic.) The chip is hot, huge, broken and unmanufacturable.
Those are Charlie's claims. Let's wait some time and see how many of those claims were correct. As far as I can remember, the only thing that he was correct about Fermi was the launch date up to now.
He claimed 480 would have around 480 cores not, 448, that's 470. He mentioned it would not be much faster than 5870 but I don't recall a 5% figure anywhere. If 480 does have 512 cores, and the 470 has 225W, can we really expect less than 275W for 480?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
As for the "broken and unavailable" claim, when was that written? more than 1 month ago? - yet it's still nearly 1 month to go before Fermi even launches. I suppose if Fermi was peanuts to manufacture, we would have it already. His claim for Q4 availability was for mid range/low end Fermis, not 480/470
5870 already has better performance/watt ratio, even if GTX480 manages to fit into 250W.Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
I don't see the issue.
He claimed 448 for the top end Fermi, as you can read from this article:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/12/...-fermi-448sps/
He also claimed a %5 number in this article. He also says that the top Fermi will be 512SP, and idles at 70C on idle clocks with fan set to 70%. Also he says that Fermi clocks will be 600.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/02/...gtx480-scores/
His claim of Q4 "real" availability is for GF100, which is 470 and 480:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/03/...pes-out-gf108/
"A more realistic view is late July or early August before you will be able to get bottom feeder DX11 parts from Nvidia, but that will be much sooner than real GF100 quantities will arrive. At this rate, Nvidia will have a full line of parts, in quantity, but not until Q4".
oh please, like we are going to trust charlie just because he gets anything negative right. he is biased and will never have a good thing to say about nvidia's upcoming products, even successful ones like g80. its kind of sad because shilling a company is not what journalism is about.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
This is an obvious misinterpretation of a slide referring to Tesla. That is his own fault and indeed a mistake, but when it comes to 470, that info seems nearly spot on wouldn't you say?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
written in February 20, 2010, early tests, early drivers, obviously performance will be better. And quite plausible that a chip with 512 shaders will not pull much higher clocks than the 625 Mhz from its 470 sibling, not unless it will push 300W.Quote:
He also claimed a %5 number in this article. He also says that the top Fermi will be 512SP, and idles at 70C on idle clocks with fan set to 70%. Also he says that Fermi clocks will be 600.
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/02/...gtx480-scores/
He claims you will be able to GET midrange Fermi in summer, but you will be able to get GF100 before that, just not in "quantities" which in Charlie language, means full availability.Quote:
His claim of Q4 "real" availability is for GF100, which is 470 and 480:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/03/...pes-out-gf108/
"A more realistic view is late July or early August before you will be able to get bottom feeder DX11 parts from Nvidia, but that will be much sooner than real GF100 quantities will arrive. At this rate, Nvidia will have a full line of parts, in quantity, but not until Q4".
His statement claims: low availability of GF100 until Q4, launch of midrange Fermi in summer. Full availability of both only in Q4.
AFAIK all AIC's that have physical ram installed have to reserve address space with the OS and with 32bit windows the total is 4gb shared address space. There are supposedly specific apps that utilize PAE to utilize more then 4gb but not anything the avg consumer is probably using.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
Don't take it the wrong way but I'm not really sure what position you are in to call others half right and confused considering this issue is clearly documented....
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/
Quote:
Various devices in a typical computer require memory-mapped access. This is known as memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). For the MMIO space to be available to 32-bit operating systems, the MMIO space must reside within the first 4 GB of address space.
For example, if you have a video card that has 256 MB of onboard memory, that memory must be mapped within the first 4 GB of address space. If 4 GB of system memory is already installed, part of that address space must be reserved by the graphics memory mapping. Graphics memory mapping overwrites a part of the system memory. These conditions reduce the total amount of system memory that is available to the operating system.
The reduction in available system memory depends on the devices that are installed in the computer. However, to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB. See the "More information" section for information about potential driver compatibility issues.
If a computer has many installed devices, the available memory may be reduced to 3 GB or less. However, the maximum memory available in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista is typically 3.12 GB.
Yeah it's pretty much spot on, except that the lower high end Fermi would have 448SP was pretty much common knowledge anyway, and after all he was mistaken.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Meh. So we can talk about numbers for an unfinished product like they will belong to the finished product? That way several months ago he could have written an article and say "wow there is no Fermi at the moment so there will never be any Fermi's". This is now how journalism works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
His statement clearly says that this summer time will be "much sooner" than real GF100 availability, which means pretty much what I have said before.Quote:
He claims you will be able to GET midrange Fermi in summer, but you will be able to get GF100 before that, just not in "quantities" which in Charlie language, means full availability.
His statement claims: low availability of GF100 until Q4, launch of midrange Fermi in summer. Full availability of both only in Q4.
i heard from this guy they were gona be like OVER 9000$ :shocked:
:shrug:
I can't even imagine their power level, then!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by NKrader
this is wrong, and shows a basic misunderstanding and common wrong about 32 bit OS systems. it also shows you dont really understand 32 bit address at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn@ke:~
this is of course correct, but i will put it simply for youQuote:
Originally Posted by highoctane
32 bit OS can only address just under 4 gig, regardless of whats sitting on top, ie: games programs etc.
now heres the basic math
OS system total availible address space - just under 4 gig
system memory - 2 gig
Other devices (ie, Device manager list) - 0.8 gig
Soundblaster Sound Card - 64 MB
Video card - 512 MB
Total = 3.31 gig
now everthing is great here, no problems, but lets change a couple of things,
system memory - 3 gig
Other devices (ie, Device manager list) - 0.8 gig
Soundblaster Sound Card - 64 MB
Video card -1 gig MB
Total = 4.81 gig
housten we have a problem :(, windows will now 'reduce' memory address alocation. and Memory will disapear, because? the grand total cannot be more that just under 4 gig.
it really is that simple :up:
so conclusion then : use a 64bit OS.. and ditch XP... I didn't know 32bit OS also took into account videomemory...
9 days left for reviews... feels like an eternity
i endorse this statement!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
ohh btw i have a flame suit if you want one
yes it is ... journalism these days is all about ad revenu .... even the ones in the papers need to please their boss with their article and their boss need add revenue to live .... so if charlie does it to please someone so he could get more cash then he wins ....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
yeah the minute 4 gig of memory became the 'norm' of 2 gig this problem arose for a lot of people. because windows will give priority to 'Devices' including video cards, most people ended up with just over 3 gig system memory. hence why a lot of OEM's still ship systems with 3 gig of memory. as anything more would be a wasteQuote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
I guess we could use nv's numbers if you prefer. Availability in august, nope november, nope december, nope january, nope march, nope april.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
80% faster than 5870, nope 50% nope 30% nope depends on 'application'. dx11 doesn't matter, nope it does matter.
fermi will allow home built supercomputers, nope we'll castrate DP to 1/8 full hardware specs.
fermi will be in top supercomputers, ORNL says not anymore. maybe later. more?
Can anybody actually show me the source/rumour of where it says that the GTX 480 will have 448SP?
Anything I have seen so far are rumours, still it's already being preached as the truth. :confused:
Give a Monkey enough balls, it will eventually hit a goal, it doesnt mean it can play football :yepp:
and to be fair charlie has had enough balls over the last 8 months.
i think we also need to seperate rumour from Fact from the Nvidia information, some of what you have there waffles was rumour, this is not Nvidias fault :up:
what the hell do Nvidia's statements have to do with what I said? I just laid out Charlie's claims, and to you guys who say he's a reliable source, let's wait and see how true his claims were.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
You guys are just so used to seeing things from "sides" like political parties do. If I say something bad about Charlie this must mean that I have said something good about Nvidia which makes you say bad things about Nvidia so that it will counter the bad things I said for Charlie. ??
You've lost me. What exactly do you consider to be "very good performance"? Besides, isn't it easier for a slower card to have better "efficiency" since power consumption doesn't scale linearly with performance on any architecture? That's not saying much.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalbard
No, not a fanboy. It sounds like professional interest to hype up GF100 to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by thatdude90210
I think you hit the nail on the head!! :lol2:Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
the only fanboy who can hype fermi are the ones that have stock option in nvidia .... like dear leader himself ......
Your definition of 'good execution' apparently includes ignoring all of nvidia's recent screwups. I suppose the GT200 was well executed too?
well its not supposed to be but it is. it works well for semiaccurate's traffic but that doesnt do much for us who want good info/leaks before launch. you should read some of charlie's articles that aren't about nvidia. they are quite different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Come to think of it, I am now absolutely certain that Charlie gets all his info from someone working at TSMC. This is why he has been dead accurate about tapeouts, respins and release dates. The rest (meaning card specs, features and properties, which I listed in an above post) have nowhere the same solid foundations and I am sure most of those points will prove to be incorrect.
I love it how Charlie is said to be accurate and when his countless mistakes are posted it's like they were excusable. It's obvious he does know SOME info. It is also obvious that he makes up approx 50% to suit his anti nvidia agenda. Pretty lame actually cause i think he would be at least taken seriously if he wasn't so one eyed.
I've said this all along i really hope these cards are good so that we get some competition and lower prices (i still want a 5870- a terrific card).
No I'm not disagreeing with you, I want to know if it's generally true, but the last time you posted that nobody really gave a damn and then you posted it here again when nobody really asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
It's a week away so, let's hope for competitive pricing.
hmm... weird must be in the wrong thread, i was looking for the fermi thread and I seem to be in the charlie demerjian debate thread...
what the point arguing about this, fermi will launch, the 480 will be faster than the 5870, charlie will be wrong about 90% of his "facts" which his fanboys will ignore... we all know this already so why argue about it...
the only info i care about is accurate info about pricing and availability first week of april...
Yes, most likely. An Nvidia employee probably wouldn't have the balls. In any case he definitely has a good source(s) near the chip manufacturing stage since most of his hits are on tape-out dates and yields. Even bumpgate was all about manufacturing. Where he falls flat on his face is with actual product info - architecture, clocks, power, performance etc. Those are mostly guesses spiced up to entertain.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldon
if charlie is wrong about 90% of it then we would have fermi today .... since we dont he's right .....
and dont expect fermi to be cheap .....
480GTX Fermi being faster than 5870 is not a problem and not in collision with what Charlie D. said previously(he said roughly the same performance). Since 480GTX will be roughly 10-15% better than 5870,one can consider it is roughly on par with it since 10 or 15% better fps means jack for gamers.One can easily OC his Cypress and match and exceed those 480GTX results with ease,or buy a faster 5890 card to begin with. Yes,one can say you can OC Fermi too,but by how much ? With that huge die and a huge TDP to begin with and already castrated MIMDs,one would need thermo nuclear miniplant and LN2 cooling to keep it sable while OCed for the practical use the 99% of buyers will do with it and that's -gaming. I'm not saying Fermi will be bad,it will be a good gaming range of cards. The 470GTX especially. But to say NV hit the nail on the head ,looking from gaming POV,is simply not true and nobody can turn this around.
wait no new slides or new rocket guy vid? and it went 3-4 pages overnight oh man
post count
+1
I think charlie was close enough on his predictions of a un-released product months before any confirmation to say he was more right than wrong. For all you know nvidia just changed its specs recently to affect tdp and shader counts. I am sure charlie was right at the very moment he was reporting news. Your all comparing new verses old information, which isnt relevant NOW.
Since fermi is 8 months later then ATi, you can only say its a epic fail.
Fermi fail lol < --- sums up this thread nicely.
charlie also told that chip was hot drew a lot of power when everybody else claimed different and he also new die size before everyone of course he had wrong info about sps but thats pretty normal cause it seems that nvidia couldn't make up there mind until now as far as i remember they started with 512 then it was 480 and so on
Charlie knew because Nvidia has bad security and is a leaking boat of informants that are not paid enough? :shrug:
Anyway since Fermi is looking like it blows at the moment I am awaiting this....the 6870X2 special edition! Okay maybe not....Still interested in what the price of Fermi will be.
To make a HD5870 get a good 10-15% performance gain, doncha need LN2 cooling anyways? The only real question is will it actually show up and run, seriously, the FX5800 and HD2900XT had more dignified timeframes.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
no, water cooling is pretty likely to get over 1000Mhz core which is (1000/850*100% = 117%) basically 15% performance boost once it's all said and done. Air cooling usually maxes out at 925-950 depending on fan speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dainas
I think it's really funny that Charlie has ended up being one of the most reliable sources of info on fermi, and that is not good news for nVidia. If the 480 is 10% faster than the 5870, that will be a complete failure in my opinion. 8 months late, cut down shaders, lower clock speeds, cut down DP performance, heat issues, do I need to go on?
GTX4xxx prices will break or make the card.
I agree, somewhat, where all the hype will fail to live up is a failure, but until they find a new cooling solution or move to quantum computing or vacuum computers then even the best chips won't increase by that much I don' think. An increase of 5% is still a big increase, especially if it happens exponentially to each previous card, which it seems to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cybercat
The proof is in the pudding, as they say, but if your concerns end up being warranted, and it doesn't have a lowered price to match, I will also view it as a failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by weston
Your customers also remember when they've been gouged. :up: It truly is a fine line between profit and a repeat customer in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Levish
You have to, there's a small band of regular anti nvidia trolls constantly trying desperately to instigate something. It won't do any good trying to argue with them because right, wrong or otherwise they're just going to hate on nvidia in any regard, might as well be pissing into the wind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
You'd think whoever took the time to shop that would have at least stuck a PLX chip on there. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadasius
GTX480 512 ??? :)
GTX470 448 ??? :)
http://www.szgalaxy.com/Fermi/
Would be awesome if true. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
512sp..........
http://91.121.132.199/gifs/14388.gif
That 512sp part has my name on it :D
i dont care if the 5870 is close to the 480, it cant run two high res screens so its completely useless for me. Editing the bios and tweaking doesnt scare me but should i have to do that straight out the box to get the card to do something my 8400gs/8800gtx/gtx260 does perfectly?
^^ Answer me this please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
There is no rumor that GTX 480 would have 448 SP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim
GTX 480 has been rumored to have either 480 or 512 SP.
Wrong. There was Charlie here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/12/...-fermi-448sps/
It was based on Tesla Models, which have 448 SP.
i have been only reading. but this is really interest me. i couldnt help it but post. i feel its confirmed now that the gtx 480 is 512sp. i guess they wont post the wrong info on their website, right ?Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
i think Nvidia did all this to make as much hype for the card i bet it will sell like hot cakes when its released ;)
Certain custom 5870's have been hitting 1150mhz on air...Quote:
Originally Posted by weston
http://img.donanimhaber.com/images/haber/gtx4801.jpg
pretty much confirmed gtx 480 is one power hungry b_tch :D
did you save it? if yes, upload it somewhere else. Link is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
EDIT : FIXED LINK : http://donanimhaber.com/images/haber/gtx4801.jpg
http://donanimhaber.com/images/haber/gtx4801.jpg
Board power: <300 W :rofl: clever
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/02/...and-unfixable/Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
. For those not interested in the 'why' side of things, the short answer is that the top bin as it stands now is about 600MHz for the half hot clock, and 1200MHz for the hot clock, and the initial top part will have 448 shaders. On top of that, the fab wafer yields are still in single digit percentages.
So charlie has said 448 shaders, 480 shaders and 512 shaders for the gtx 480 of course he going to be right. :rofl:
Charlie covers his bases by gatling gunning rumors especially the negative ones. His fans forget when he is wrong and like to stress when he is right.
What kind of custom? Even the lightnings the reviewers are getting are having a hardtime getting to 1 ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
Hmm, ye. Noticed it too. I wonder if the specs are NOT YET finalised. Otherwise Zed_X will fail us maybe. That <300 W is not very confident for a part he said would be far from 298W.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Ppl at Nvidia don't know the final specs themselves probably :D
<300W is really so specific... they could have gone with <501PW also.
295 may be :ROTF: seems green boys are going to renew there power supplies if they want enjoy 3d surround :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Picao84
lightnings are crap anyway a lot of hype nothing inside :ROTF: i have several friends who easily hit 1050 with small voltage bump with refference modelsQuote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
You need just aircooling plus softwarte voltage increase(maybe) for a 10% increase,and many cards will do even +15% (thats still just 977Mhz core, some are doing 1ghz+).Quote:
To make a HD5870 get a good 10-15% performance gain, doncha need LN2 cooling anyways? The only real question is will it actually show up and run, seriously, the FX5800 and HD2900XT had more dignified timeframes.
However ,taking into consideration 10.3a catalysts even that much wont be necessary..
From legitreviews:
http://www.legitreviews.com/images/r...253/heaven.jpg
I certainly hope nvidia has some driver tweaks waiting to be unleashed also.
You have 801 posts, and if Zed X's words come true, I think 600 of them will turn out to be laughable ATI fanboi stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
god bless me i can read slides and if opposite happens what will zed x's will become ? half of his posts are already bs :DQuote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
*sniff* ati monkeys poop all over the place but of course
this thread/3rd part is certainly turning great
:toast:
Neliz said this at B3D forums:
LOL! I bet nVIDIA has been doing a disinfo campaign to hide the truth.Quote:
So, it's 512 CC now again. despite Fudo's estimates earlier this week