The official GT300/Fermi Thread

[Xoulz]

True. I'm referring to the people who run around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming that the GT300 is going to suck for games and it will be beaten by RV870. Honestly, in a WORST case scenario, it will be roughly twice as fast as the GTX285, which will trump a 5870 easily.

That^^ is still to be determined! Most of whats new architecturally, is indeed for the CUDA end of Nvidia's expansion into the Scientific Community. So, given Anand's comments, the GT300 could certainly debut @ only 2X the 285's performance!


Meaning it on par with a HD5870 1GB ~ then, think price?

[DilTech]

That^^ is still to be determined! Most of whats new architecturally, is indeed for the CUDA end of Nvidia's expansion into the Scientific Community. So, given Anand's comments, the GT300 could certainly debut @ only 2X the 285's performance!


Meaning it on par with a HD5870 1GB ~ then, think price?

2x GTX 285 performance(not sli, but DOUBLE) would be better than "par" with the 5870...

Of course, no one knows the full performance on these cards, as been stated, but I heavily doubt it'll be less than double the GTX285(and again, NOT sli, but total double).

[zanzabar]

2x GTX 285 performance(not sli, but DOUBLE) would be better than "par" with the 5870...

Of course, no one knows the full performance on these cards, as been stated, but I heavily doubt it'll be less than double the GTX285(and again, NOT sli, but total double).

it all depends were its clocked, the 5870 is about 2x the 280, and we havnt seen a large review of the 5870 overclocked if it clocks and scales like the 4890 it will have a huge gain compared to the 300 if that clocks and scales like the 285. and price/watt will also be interesting it looks like 4 oced 5870 will go against 2-3 300's in wattage and price.

its going to be interesting to see performance and openCL now that khonos is finally validating drivers we should finally get some pro grade software (although im not sure what it will do for consumers)

[Farinorco]

2x GTX 285 performance(not sli, but DOUBLE) would be better than "par" with the 5870...

Of course, no one knows the full performance on these cards, as been stated, but I heavily doubt it'll be less than double the GTX285(and again, NOT sli, but total double).

Yeah but... why do you expect it to have 2x the performance (I'm suppose you're talking about real world performance) if it's going to have +113% CPs more but only +50% ROP more, +60% mem bandwidth more...

Consider that HD5870 is exactly double the HD4890 (+100% everything at the same clocks) except bandwidth (aprox. +30%) and it's far from double the real world performance (that's one of the most recent proves that doubling everything doesn't mean doubling real world performance), and NVIDIA is not even doubling processing units.

Can they improve the performance per unit and per clock? Sure. Maybe. But how much and why, I think is way soon with the info we have to say it's going to be 2x real world performance of a GTX285. I even would say I hugely doubt it, given that they are more focused in get the new (future?) HPC market before Intel has their Larrabee working (if it happens to be on this century).

[annihilat0r]

Yeah but... why do you expect it to have 2x the performance (I'm suppose you're talking about real world performance) if it's going to have +113% CPs more but only +50% ROP more, +60% mem bandwidth more...

Consider that HD5870 is exactly double the HD4890 (+100% everything at the same clocks) except bandwidth (aprox. +30%) and it's far from double the real world performance (that's one of the most recent proves that doubling everything doesn't mean doubling real world performance), and NVIDIA is not even doubling processing units.

Can they improve the performance per unit and per clock? Sure. Maybe. But how much and why, I think is way soon with the info we have to say it's going to be 2x real world performance of a GTX285. I even would say I hugely doubt it, given that they are more focused in get the new (future?) HPC market before Intel has their Larrabee working (if it happens to be on this century).

You're being almost dogmatic with this post. AMD and Nvidia are completely different brands with completely different chips. Saying "amd doubled everything but didn't double the performance, so nvidia can't double 285's performance" is less worthy than not saying anything, which most people in this thread should do.

[Chumbucket843]

Yeah but... why do you expect it to have 2x the performance (I'm suppose you're talking about real world performance) if it's going to have +113% CPs more but only +50% ROP more, +60% mem bandwidth more...

Consider that HD5870 is exactly double the HD4890 (+100% everything at the same clocks) except bandwidth (aprox. +30%) and it's far from double the real world performance (that's one of the most recent proves that doubling everything doesn't mean doubling real world performance), and NVIDIA is not even doubling processing units.

Can they improve the performance per unit and per clock? Sure. Maybe. But how much and why, I think is way soon with the info we have to say it's going to be 2x real world performance of a GTX285. I even would say I hugely doubt it, given that they are more focused in get the new (future?) HPC market before Intel has their Larrabee working (if it happens to be on this century).

explain to me how 512 shaders is not over double 240 shaders. the bandwidth increased by 50% too. the theoretical numbers are not that impressive but you completely missed a lot of factors and posted wrong information. nvidia also said 1.5ghz is a conservative estimate for clockspeed.

[Farinorco]

explain to me how 512 shaders is not over double 240 shaders. the bandwidth increased by 50% too. the theoretical numbers are not that impressive but you completely missed a lot of factors and posted wrong information. nvidia also said 1.5ghz is a conservative estimate for clockspeed.

512 shaders is over double 240 (x2.13 to be exact). But 48 ROPs is not over double 32 (x1.5 to be exact). And 230 MB/s is not over double 141 (x1.63 to be exact). So overall, it's not over double the specs of the previous one. I don't think it's so hard to get what I've said there, and I don't get where I've said anything about CPs not being double (I think I have mentioned +113%). I would also like to know what are all those lot of factors that I've missed and what wrong information I've posted, based on what we know at the moment.

And regarding clock speed, I would take it like talking about the shaders clock. I wouldn't expect much higher clocks than GTX285, if at all.

[Chumbucket843]

512 shaders is over double 240 (x2.13 to be exact). But 48 ROPs is not over double 32 (x1.5 to be exact). And 230 MB/s is not over double 141 (x1.63 to be exact). So overall, it's not over double the specs of the previous one. I don't think it's so hard to get what I've said there, and I don't get where I've said anything about CPs not being double (I think I have mentioned +113%). I would also like to know what are all those lot of factors that I've missed and what wrong information I've posted, based on what we know at the moment.

And regarding clock speed, I would take it like talking about the shaders clock. I wouldn't expect much higher clocks than GTX285, if at all.

games are bound by shaders in the majority of cases. you can see that clearly in the 5870. they are running games at ridiculously high resolutions on a single card and still its bandwidth that really bottlenecks pixel fillrates. the factors you missed were new memory hierarchy, better scheduling logic, predication, and instruction set improvements.

i would trust nvidia more than i trust you for the clockspeed.

[Farinorco]

games are bound by shaders in the majority of cases. you can see that clearly in the 5870. they are running games at ridiculously high resolutions on a single card and still its bandwidth that really bottlenecks pixel fillrates. the factors you missed were new memory hierarchy, better scheduling logic, predication, and instruction set improvements.

I didn't miss that factors. They simply don't take any part in anything that I've said. And when it take it, I have mentioned them and considered them. Take the "trouble" of reading my posts and trying to understand them before quoting me, please, to not put things in my mouth.

And I don't know how to use HD5870 to know how games are shader bottlenecked since the proportion in which they have improved shader processing power it's the same than texture processing power, rasterizing operations processing power, and so.

There are more things involved in the 3D rendering process apart from shaders and memory bandwidth.

i would trust nvidia more than i trust you for the clockspeed.

Yeah, no doubt. But I think you have misunderstood them when you have the idea that they are talking about a clock of 1500MHz for the GPU core.

[Cybercat]

512 shaders is over double 240 (x2.13 to be exact). But 48 ROPs is not over double 32 (x1.5 to be exact). And 230 MB/s is not over double 141 (x1.63 to be exact). So overall, it's not over double the specs of the previous one. I don't think it's so hard to get what I've said there, and I don't get where I've said anything about CPs not being double (I think I have mentioned +113%). I would also like to know what are all those lot of factors that I've missed and what wrong information I've posted, based on what we know at the moment.

And regarding clock speed, I would take it like talking about the shaders clock. I wouldn't expect much higher clocks than GTX285, if at all.

Um, you don't have to double EVERYTHING to get doubled performance. More than anything this depends on the particular application you're running, and where the bottlenecks lie within it.

If you look at a past example where performance WAS doubled, like the 8800GTX, let's compare that to the previous gen flagship, the 7900GTX. The 8800GTX had almost exactly twice the GFLOPs of the 7900GTX, even taking into account the nearly useless MUL op. The 8800GTX had 69% more memory bandwidth, and get this, only 33% more pixel fillrate, and 18% more bilinear texture fillrate.

The GF100 is more of an improvement in raw specs over the GTX 285 than the 8800GTX was over the 7900GTX. So doubling performance is more than possible.

[003]

Um, you don't have to double EVERYTHING to get doubled performance. More than anything this depends on the particular application you're running, and where the bottlenecks lie within it.

Not always, for example the shaders are more efficient being MIMD/FMA.

Also you have to keep in mind, while the ROPs and TMUs were doubled on RV870, ask yourself, doubled to what? 32/80 respectively. GT200 already has 32/80.

[Farinorco]

Um, you don't have to double EVERYTHING to get doubled performance. More than anything this depends on the particular application you're running, and where the bottlenecks lie within it.

If you look at a past example where performance WAS doubled, like the 8800GTX, let's compare that to the previous gen flagship, the 7900GTX. The 8800GTX had almost exactly twice the GFLOPs of the 7900GTX, even taking into account the nearly useless MUL op. The 8800GTX had 69% more memory bandwidth, and get this, only 33% more pixel fillrate, and 18% more bilinear texture fillrate.

The GF100 is more of an improvement in raw specs over the GTX 285 than the 8800GTX was over the 7900GTX. So doubling performance is more than possible.

Where in the post you're quoting I say that you have to double everything to double performance? I'm aswering a specific question.

And you can't compare G80 with previous generation, as it's a completely different architecture. Starting by the unified shader processors (instead of units that only could calculate vertex or pixel shaders), with a completely different architecture, and the same for TMUs and ROPs.

Again, I've never said that doubling is not possible (why is everybody putting that words in my mouth? It's at least the 3rd person who says that, and I'm starting to be tired or repeating it). You can read it yourself in my post quoted by Chumbucket843 (that I should add it's taken from a conversation including more posts before and after).

I have only said that there is not a single evidence which grants that the GT300 is going to be more than twice the performance of GT200.

But oh, well. If all of you are getting hurt by hearing it, I'll correct myself and let's finish with this: "GT300 is going to be obligatory at least 2x the performance of GTX285, and probably more". ¿Happy there?

EDIT: I have edited the former paragraphs to give a much more accurate response.

[zalbard]

nvidia also said 1.5ghz is a conservative estimate for clockspeed.

Do you honestly believe in 1.5Ghz GT300 on stock settings?

[003]

Do you honestly believe in 1.5Ghz GT300 on stock settings?

For the shaders, not the core. Obviously the core won't be 1.5GHz.