FERMI Benchmarked?

[StAndrew]

Found here: http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showforum=172

Original source: http://www.guru3d.com/news/geforce-g...80-benchmarks/

Do not ask us how or where these benchmarks source/originate from as we do not know. For all we care they are fake. However, a user in our forums posted screenshots of benchmarks from what seems to be a NVIDIA Slide Deck presentation. I can confirm that the layout and style is exactly what NVIDIA uses for it's presentations.

The slides reveal internal NVIDIA benchmarks of Far Cry 2, Resident Evil 5 and STALKER Clear Sky. Now this remains speculation, but if the numbers are right, then the future is looking bright and sunny for NVIDIA -- well if they get their pricing and TDP right that is.

Anyway, have a look and props go out to forum user "Memorian" for posting these in this GTX 300 series discussion thread.

To reiterate, take with a grain of salt...

But if true...

[ajaidev]

Holy crap...!!! GTX360 </> 5970

Dam 5870 is not even in the picture wtf??

Seems fake tough

If GTX 380 performs sooo well how will GTX390/5 perform 280 fps in RE5 :O

These are very unlikely just like the first fermi demos that appeared!!

[NaMcO]

Wouldn't surprise me at all... But rather wait and see actual card benches than commenting on those.

[Shadov]

Seems fake, take a look at the same benchmarks with HD 5870 and HD 5970:





And now compare to:

[orangekiwii]

Seems fake, take a look at the same benchmarks with HD 5870 and HD 5970:





And now compare to:

You obviously CAN'T compare yourself. The Stalker clear sky settings are different - 8AA vs 0AA

and the Far Cry 2 ones are basically identical - settings and fps wise... seems plausible to me

[Lokinhow]

Well, I think it is fake.



Stalker CS, maximum settings, 1920x1200, and a GTX295 with 63 fps? HD5870 57 fps?

back to reallity

[lkiller123]

Well, I think it is fake.



Stalker CS, maximum settings, 1920x1200, and a GTX295 with 63 fps? HD5870 57 fps?

back to reallity

Isn't the second chart 16x AA?

[BeepBeep2]

Seems fake, take a look at the same benchmarks with HD 5870 and HD 5970:





And now compare to:

Look at the last two slides...the only two you can even make a valid comparison with (both 8xAA)....77 FPS and 78 FPS for the 5970.

I say they could be real.

[Florinmocanu]

Look at the last two slides...the only two you can even make a valid comparison with (both 8xAA)....77 FPS and 78 FPS for the 5970.

I say they could be real.

Well, from the same comparison GTX 295 scores 54fps in the real review, in the slides it has 67 fps.

[Vit^pr0n]

Look at the last two slides...the only two you can even make a valid comparison with (both 8xAA)....77 FPS and 78 FPS for the 5970.

I say they could be real.

Seriously..?

Anyone can take FPS of the 5870/5970 and put it into a slide with a fake fermi benchmark. I don't understand how anyone can even think they 'could' be real just from the fact that the 5970 benchmark is the same as reviews?

[JohnZS]

Seriously..?

Anyone can take FPS of the 5870/5970 and put it into a slide with a fake fermi benchmark. I don't understand how anyone can even think they 'could' be real just from the fact that the 5970 benchmark is the same as reviews?

Only a successful troll would do such a thing

I must admit it is annoying that these are fake, I was hoping that we finally had some sort of REAL indication as to what the Fermi would perform like... but alas some troll has flopped out his powerpoint and fabricated a load of nonsense

[BeepBeep2]

Well, from the same comparison GTX 295 scores 54fps in the real review, in the slides it has 67 fps.

Seriously..?

Anyone can take FPS of the 5870/5970 and put it into a slide with a fake fermi benchmark. I don't understand how anyone can even think they 'could' be real just from the fact that the 5970 benchmark is the same as reviews?

True.

I own ATI and will own ATI for my next upgrade. I was just stating something I noticed, I didn't look at the graphs for any more than 30 seconds...

[003]

Seems fake, take a look at the same benchmarks with HD 5870 and HD 5970:

*snipped*

Looks legit to me. In the one you posted the 5970 gets 78.3fps in FC2 at 1920x1200 with 8xAA. In the Nvidia slide it gets 77fps with the same settings.

[N19h7m4r3]

Looks legit to me. In the one you posted the 5970 gets 78.3fps in FC2 at 1920x1200 with 8xAA. In the Nvidia slide it gets 77fps with the same settings.

I'd love for it to be legit. But something is nagging at me, telling me that if it was. NV would have shipped some cards out by now for some preview results at sites.

On the other hand even if it's the same as ATI cards or slightly better it's something I might buy depending on pwoer usage and size.

[Vit^pr0n]

I'd love for it to be real as well. Unfortunately it's not. Although it's a new architecture, it was built around GPGPU. This isn't like the G80. I just don't see the performance jump in gaming to be this big. If it were, Nvidia would be boasting about it and not just its GPGPU performance which we already know is going to be great.

Of course that would be a possibility. But if that is the case, the user certainly did a good job mimicking the exact layout Nvidia uses for their official PR slides. It could really go either way, but my personal opinion would be that there is more evidence suggesting it is real than not.

What I'd really like to know is more information on the user who originally posted these and what their connection with Nvidia is. Perhaps NDA has been breached?



So you have access to the real benchmarks, I see?

There's no connection. It was posted by a troll. Read page 4.

Anyone can make a slide like nvidia if given enough time, which this poster had.

Also, judging by your posts on this board and others, you said yourself Nvidia is not going to make the same mistake in pricing as last gen. With these kinds of performance numbers, I'd find it hard to believe Nvidia would price their cards that way. Heck, with these numbers they could price it at $700, which you said yourself was not going to happen.

[h0bbes]

As another poster has already mentioned, just because the ATI results seem to be realistic, it doesnt mean that the fermi results are true as well. Wouldn't you expect the person that created this chart (assuming its fake), to at least use some of his brain and put down the correct numbers for the ATI cards?

[003]

As another poster has already mentioned, just because the ATI results seem to be realistic, it doesnt mean that the fermi results are true as well. Wouldn't you expect the person that created this chart (assuming its fake), to at least use some of his brain and put down the correct numbers for the ATI cards?

Of course that would be a possibility. But if that is the case, the user certainly did a good job mimicking the exact layout Nvidia uses for their official PR slides. It could really go either way, but my personal opinion would be that there is more evidence suggesting it is real than not.

What I'd really like to know is more information on the user who originally posted these and what their connection with Nvidia is. Perhaps NDA has been breached?

All this does is build peoples' hopes so high only to get crushed into a thousand pieces when Fermi is released.

So you have access to the real benchmarks, I see?

[Alous]

Looks legit to me. In the one you posted the 5970 gets 78.3fps in FC2 at 1920x1200 with 8xAA. In the Nvidia slide it gets 77fps with the same settings.

Didnt you see how he changed his mind ? He started to say those slides looks legit to Him. Then he posted that those are fakes ,your contradicting yourself 003, maybe seek some help?
And the 5970 STILL a better deal EVEN if thats the 380 performance considering the launch date of both products

[annihilat0r]

Didnt you see how he changed his mind ? He started to say those slides looks legit to Him. Then he posted that those are fakes

Indeed. At first he said that they "look legit", but then he said "they were probably fakes"

What changed inbetween? The info under NDA?

[003]

I don't do this often, but I am home sick right now and have a lot of time, and there is something about your poor argumentation techniques, logical fallacies and blatant bias that just bugs me.

Didnt you see how he changed his mind ?

Changed my mind about what? My initial post where I said "Looks legit to me" was in response to another member who had posted a comment claiming that they looked fake because the performance of the 5970 was greatly differing from its performance on the same benchmark coming from different sources. I was pointing out that that claim was in fact false and the performance of the 5970 on the graphs in question is accurate to within a fraction of a frame in comparison to the same benchmark from other sources. When I said "Looks legit to me", I was referring to the fact that 5970 performance in the graphs in question is actually accurate when compared to the same benchmark of the 5970 from other sources.

He started to say those slides looks legit to Him. Then he posted that those are fakes ,your contradicting yourself 003

In the response to the quote above this I have explained in detail how I in fact did not say they looked legitimate in the sense that they held truth. Therefore, my statement saying the charts are faked does not contradict my initial statement of "Looks legit to me". Furthermore, claiming the charts "look legitimate" is technically a true statement, as they were taken from previous official slides from Nvidia and photoshopped to look as though they represent Fermi and HD5000 generation cards. Therefore, they do look legitimate, which is an entirely different statement than claiming they are legitimate. In this sense, they still do look legitimate.

maybe seek some help?

What a lovely condescending personal attack. Post reported.

And the 5970 STILL a better deal EVEN if thats the 380 performance considering the launch date of both products

This was so poorly worded it took me a minute to figure out what you were trying to say, but I believe you mean to say Even if the GTX380 matches the performance of the 5970, the 5970 is still the better deal considering it was launched earlier.

If that is what you meant to say then there is much wrong with the statement. First of all, you are taking two variables that have no correlation (release date and performance, of which you lack both for Fermi) and using them to extrapolate a third unrelated variable, value. On top of this logical fallacy, it is also flawed in the sense that you would need to know the MSRP of both products to draw even the most remote assessment of value, and that is a piece of information you do not have.

EVEN if the 5970 Remains at 599$ and the 380 at 499$( Probably more if nVidia wants some profits), the 5970 being slighly faster is still a good deal

Now this is an interesting turning of the tables. You are claiming that if the GTX380 is $500 and the 5970 is $600, and if performance of the 5970 is slightly faster than that of the GTX380, that the 5970 would be a good deal.

If I recall correctly, the GTX280 was slightly faster (considerably faster in some circumstances) than the 4870 but cost quite a bit more. Because of that, many people said it was a bad deal and waste of money considering the price/performance of the 4870 was much better. What you appear to be saying is that if the price/performance of the GTX380 is better than that of the 5970, but the 5970 is still faster than the GTX380, then the 5970 is still a better deal even if the GTX380 has the better price/performance ratio. This would be a complete 180 degree flip of the mindset people had in the previous generation with the GTX280 and 4870. What would be your reasoning for this 180 degree flip?

and I already quoted you saying the 5970 is a waste of money on my previous post

You have already stated this and I have sufficiently debunked it already.

You want som1 to move your mouse over it? Let me know that, either your visual skills and memory are lacking or is it something else?

What a lovely condescending personal attack. Post reported.

I only believe in one thing: LOGIC ,thats how life is made.

I literally almost choked to death reading this last bit.

[Helmore]

I'll keep these benchmarks numbers in the "seems plausible" category of rumors. One thing of note though, the GTX380 is actually more than twice as fast as the GTX285. Quite an achievement if that turns out to be true.

[N19h7m4r3]

Very interesting.

But I don't believe them really.

If this was the case, why would NV not just send a card or 2 out to review sites.

That would cause all doubt to be erased and get more people to wait for Fermi.

[duckbillclinton]

Very interesting.

But I don't believe them really.

If this was the case, why would NV not just send a card or 2 out to review sites.

That would cause all doubt to be erased and get more people to wait for Fermi.

NDA maybe, but yes, they could send 1 or 2 out then with the "leaked" scores...

[zalbard]

PR crap probably.
ATI had some mind blowing performance graphics, too, iirc.

[NaMcO]

Those PCLAB.PL graphics are a joke, my 295 performs way better than what they claim at those settings. I think right now anyone can throw out fermi benchmarks because nobody knows how they perform but on the other hand many people know how 5870 and 295 perform and can smell fake benches by a mile.