Printable View
Entry level Fermi stuff is coming...
15.2x15.7=238.6 mm^2
no reference board, good OC capability, performance between HD5750 and HD5770
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20.../GTS450_03.jpg
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20.../GTS450_02.jpg
source:
[EXP]
English version:
http://en.expreview.com/2010/08/04/g...s-up/8903.html
The anticipated full-spec GF100 benchmarked.
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...GTX480_512.jpg
http://www.expreview.com/img/news/20...04/512sp_s.jpg
source:
[EXP]
u beat me posting this :p:
GF106 looks like expected. A GF104 cut in half.
The clocks at GF100 SP512 seems to be the same as SP480.
Anyone notice that the "Fermi 512" card reports running @ PCI-E v.1 x16 and not v2.0? Wonder how much of an impact that could have on scores if it was true. :confused:
This was probably taken a short time after the benchmark during it's "idling" phase. It bumps down to x16 v1.1 in order to cool down.Quote:
Originally Posted by rado992
very repostQuote:
Originally Posted by WeiT.235
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=255025
I hope they somehow magically fixed the fab process to allow this thing to not draw enormous amounts of power or get hot enough to boil water. This thing would make for an excellent F@H monster if so. Oh well, we have the full-shader GF104 on the way to save the day I suppose.
Is the GF106 even an upgrade over the 48xx or GTX2xx?
Is the GF104 even a cost effective upgrade?
This post in EXP haven't said it was the 512 sp Fermi until recently:rolleyes:...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinStrap
edit : Oops ... Wrong thread, sorry
So, back to subject, 512sp GPU-Z shot is fake or not buddies ? :D
edit2 : ryboto got me :p:
Wrong thread! quicker than the edit, I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
@ 240 mm^2 it's more like a half GF100.Quote:
Originally Posted by -Boris-
Has there been any words on on whether it'll be 256 or 192 SP?
well if it has the same SM structure as GF104 (48 SPs), then I guess 240 SPs or 288 SPs for the ''full chip''Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissez
a GTS450 with 240 SPs might perform well...
radeon HD5770 is not that much slower than radeon HD5830, I doubt a 192 SPs GF106 would be competitive, even at high clocks..
and dont forget the 1/3 die size reduction from GF104 to GF106, theres definitely more than half a GF104 in there...
not bad bench results, Anyone know which cards will be using these?
i expect better from them, how hard is it to post a legal 3dm vantage score. i dont care who its from they should know how to run a benchmark without breaking the damn rules for physX
GF106 die size: 238mm^2 (too big for a price battle)
HD5770 die size: 170mm^2
HD5670 die size: 104mm^2
GF106 doesn't seem to be competitive at least for nvidia in order to make money. I suppose they want to sell it for less than what 5770 cost and battle for the market share instead of making profit.
2x8pin connectors:eek:
That PCB is not GTX485,that's a non reference GTX480 design from some Chinese company.Have come up here in the "News" section as well.
I don't doubt there's a gf106 in the making but those die shots look ps'ed to me. The lighting on the part name looks a bit weird... :shrug: If they're real that's a gigantic chip for a mid to low-end part.
So, GF 100 @ around 530 mm^2, GF 104 @ 366 mm^2, GF 106 @ 238 mm^2, GF 108 @ around 130 mm^2, no wonder nVidia has to play the capacity domination game at TSMC to make sure AMD won't engage them in a price war, since the supply is still constrained.
well the latest rumors is that nvidia is reserving LESS capacity at tsmc for the coming months... odd huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
I don't think that wei hang GTX480 is the 512sp version of the card, see the gpu-z shot, the texture fill rate is wrong for 512sp(it should be 44.9Gtexel/s) and the bios was used in the pre release GTX480's, it the bios with all the fan problems if you remember, it wouldn't more than likely be used in a new card, the die is also blurred, and we all should know that the card wei hang showed had the GF100-375-A3 core which is binned as a 480sp part, I think expreview is lying.
512sp Fermi has a very nice, clean PCB layout. I like it.
Not a bad performance result, too. Then again, it's just Vantage, so meh...
more benchies vs GTX 480 480sp
http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/08/...X480_bm_01.png
http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/08/...X480_bm_02.jpg
http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/08/...X480_bm_03.jpg
http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/08/...X480_bm_04.jpg
http://en.expreview.com/img/2010/08/...X480_bm_05.jpg
Source: EXP
SO the full chip sucks 204 watts more Holy Cow! :shocked:
ROFL BS it has to be a typo
7% more SP is not gonna add 200W more onto the power consumption. No HSF could handle it.
Y'know what... say for the sake of discussion it IS real..... IMHO there should be a law against bringing out such inefficient electronic equipment.
typo no, user error seems more likely (unless the guy wrote down the wrong number and never thought twice about his findings)Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
the fact they talk about it using so much more shows thats what they are seeing, but then comes the question of why. just by knowing the C/W of whatever cooler they are using, and that the load temps are 94C, its clearly not that much more than 480SPsQuote:
Under full load the GPU voltage of reference GTX 480 was 1.0V, while 512SP edition was 1.056V. Surprisingly, the full spec’ed GTX 480 sucked 644W power, which was 204W higher than 480SP GTX 480!
but their temp chart is a little funny looking too,
http://www.expreview.com/img/review/.../temp_load.jpg
notice how the temp goes up almost linear to 94C, and the fan speed tries to follow in an almost liner fashion, and does not get much faster after reaching 94C was first reached. and that somehow 94C is a perfectly flat line
im worried its way past 94C
What about 464W... the 644 is a mis-type?
Another 24W I can just about stomach.
Heh, I know why. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
As previously mentioned... the HSF would not be able to handle an additional 200W. It would just die... Probably 464, not 644.
Depending on polling rates a "flat line" can vary 2-3c or more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
The whole thing looks odd to me,i'll wait a few weeks to find out what the card really has.
At this point we know it lives lol
Can you share your thoughts with us? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
***
I'm very curious about the full 512 GF100. Specially temps and power.
hrm, i expected the gts450 to be right behind the gtx460... what's with the cheap-o power regulation components?
btw, the 512 gf100 (as we know it now) will never see the light of day. the power figures shown in the "review" aren't representative of a consumer part and i don't believe that is the reason we can't buy it. the performance of the 512 core chip simply doesn't justify the cost to produce it, if there is only 5% advantage over the 480 core chip and it costs an extra $100 to make it... who would buy such a thing (other than xfx 5970 BE customers...)? nvidia isn't going to loose money to bring a part to market that can't even bring them the performace crown.
its the same part and pcb as a 480, why would it cost more to make it? They can slap $50 on it and sell it as the GTX+ model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oliverda
it looks photoshopped :S well the lettering at least
hmmm 2 missing memory chips and KA code on gpu.. maybe a crippled version again ? i am not sure it is GTS450Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
anyway .. the whole ferbi saga is looking more and more ridiculous ... fake 512 shader gpu news + pics of suposedly ready lower end model wich looks photochopped ....
Waowww, too bad nVidia, nasty boy !!! :horse: :ROTF: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
so you think that the numbers and pics about the 512shader gf100 are 100% true and the pics of the pcb for the gf106 the truth ???? both of them look a bit fairy tale like too me ... so that is the reason why i made that post ...
I think these are all the latest GF1xx parts fresh out of WHQL Testing...
Quote:
NVIDIA_DEV.0DC0.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GT 440"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DC1.01 = "NVIDIA D12-P1-35"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DC4.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DC5.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DDF.01 = "NVIDIA GF106-INT"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DE1.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GT 430"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DE2.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GT 420"
NVIDIA_DEV.0DFF.01 = "NVIDIA GF108 INT"
NVIDIA_DEV.0E21.01 = "NVIDIA D12U-25"
NVIDIA_DEV.0E22.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460"
NVIDIA_DEV.0E23.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTS 455"
NVIDIA_DEV.0E24.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460"
NVIDIA_DEV.06C0.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480"
NVIDIA_DEV.06C3.01 = "NVIDIA D12U"
NVIDIA_DEV.06C4.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465"
NVIDIA_DEV.06CD.01 = "NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470"
Is it just me or does that heatsink look like an old P4 cooler?Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
:yepp: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
Actually it looks like the same cooler that came with all my Intel chips since core2, minus the copper slug.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Coolest
well, the die sizes of nVidia GF 10x chips are not exactly small relative to its competitor, so cost must be made up & reduced somewhere.
the pcb shouldn't be the same, the extra cluster should include a wider mem bus and more mem.... i just don't think the 5% performance gain justifies adding another card to the top of thier line-up, unless it's going to beat the 5970.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Incorrect bro, because GTX 480 is already equipped with all of GF 100 available ROP & buswidth (48 ROP & 384 bit respectively). If any, it's the power phase sector of the PCB that would need to be strengthened, quite considerably so if the last leak info from expreview can be trusted (considering nVidia's sh1tty GF 100 yield, if they want to maximize the amount of perfect GF 100 available, we could expect 325-350 w TDP of a 512 SP GF 100 part, and that might be conservative ! :shocked:).Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
well, i stand corected. however, assuming tdp figures from this article would reflect a consumer part is silly. this is an engineering sample. not meant for customers to play crysis, but meant for engineers to debug silicon. i'm not even sure we should take the performance data seriously...Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
Yeah i see your point, but one thing has to be considered, that nVidia failed to launch a full fledged GF 100 for a reason, and fact that the samples of GTX 480 have a very wide variance of power consumption already (only GTX 470 seems more docile & general in average power consumtion number), i can only imagine the designated TDP for GF 100 512 SP if nVidia wants to MAXIMIZE the amount of fully specced GF 100 chip available, the variance IMHO could go through the roof. That's why i suggested that the TDP has to be propped up (while the number for GF 100 family is already very liberal in the first place). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 570091D
CPU Score 61524Quote:
Originally Posted by WeiT.235
Current record holder (fastest in orb) 58765
:confused:
Physx enabled, not a valid submission. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by SamHughe
ASUS-ENGTS450 DirectCU
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8034/68509430.jpg
GPU CLOCK : 925
PCB
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7409/81912887.jpg
youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS4Zg61u9Vk
source
http://bbs.expreview.com/viewthread....om=recommend_f
Thanks cold2010 :up:
thanks mate!
Nice finally a DX 11 competition from nVidia for Juniper cards, pricing should be competitive from both camps, not collision avoidance mode like GF 104 vs Cypress (especially from ATi).
GTS 450 Specs
http://www.manli.com/products/details.php?id=112
link is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
Thanks, was looking for this :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
nda :(Quote:
Originally Posted by snoid_zero
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=39Quote:
Originally Posted by cold2010
Thanks :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by eddieobscurant
EVEREST Ultimate Edition Updated to Support GeForce GTS450
What’s new
Quote:
GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GTS 455 (GF104)
GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GTX 470M (GF104M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 415M (GF108M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 420 (GF108)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 420M (GF108M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 425M (GF108M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 430 (GF108)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 435M (GF106M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 435M (GF108M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (GF106)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GT 445M (GF106M)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (GF106)
Preliminary GPU information for nVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (GF106M)
Gigabyte GTS 450
http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/5789/52664780.jpg
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/6135/69263787.jpg
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/7954/24386203.jpg
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/297/20778708.jpg
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/5757/29121570.jpg
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4051/47460712.jpg
Source
http://bbs.expreview.com/viewthread....om=recommend_f