pcperspective = too much reading :P
TPU = short and too the point
HWC = more infos and details without too many words
AT= too much reading, too theoretical, no benchmark numbers

i dont get why AT didnt post the FC2 and dark void perf numbers
they just say they dont trust those numbers... sure, many people dont trust them, but its still very interesting to know, isnt it?
anandtech didnt even mention how fast nvidia claimed fermi was going to be... i can see that they dont trust them, neither do i, but still, not showing anything is lame..

Quote Originally Posted by ANANDTECH
Power usage (we only know that it’s more than GT200)
remember how nvidia originally claimed GT300 would be about the same as GT200 at GTC?

Quote Originally Posted by ANANDTECH
That leaves us on a final note: clocks. The core clock has been virtually done away with on GF100, as almost every unit now operates at or on a fraction of the shader clock. Only the ROPs and L2 cache operate on a different clock, which is best described as what’s left of the core clock. The shader clock now drives the majority of the chip, including the shaders, the texture units, and the new PolyMorph and Raster Engines. Don’t be surprised if GF100 overclocking is different from GT200 overclocking as a result.
interesting...