I dont think so. There are 99 reasons why not. And only reason why yes.
yup. The parallels are eerie. Except, back in R600 days, AMD was going monolithic (1 huge chip), for both CPU and graphics.
Now, AMD graphics is always small chip strategy. And even CPU like Athlon X4 are aiming to be smaller.
Simply, AMD changed. nVidia still hasn't.
That is because BOTH nVidia and AMD "fix bugs" in games just before new product launch to "slow down" their old products, to make new products look better. You can even use it to make rebranded products appear faster
SECRET OF GTX480/FERMI PERFORMANCE.
Look at these graphcs comparing 4890 vs 5870. Similar clocks, but 2x more shader power:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...hd5870_16.html
But performance typically only 40-50% higher.
And 5970 has about 4x shader power of 4890:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/vid...0_8.html#sect1
But once again that translates into only 70-90% higher fps.
Fermi has at best 512/240 = 2.1x more shader power.. probably a bit lower if less SP or lower clocks. Although they will definetly be faster than GTX285, and certainly close to 5870, I think comparisons to 5970 are wishful thinking (unless secretly those 512SP are really 1024SP -_-)
Anybody hear of Amdahl;s Law? Diminishing returns?
Some games, especially RTS, are so CPU bound they show very little gain. Some like L4D2 are not very demanding, and doesn't matter if you're getting 150fps or 200fps.
The only games where 5870/5970 really make a difference are those where such a card makes the game playable: Crysis/Warhead, Stalker: COP, HAWX, Battleforge.
So like I said so many times before, its "Crysis" syndrome. 90% of games that everyone can play on any mainstream card, and a few not so great games with "special" effects feature that makes them so slow, even ultra-high-end struggle. Bottom line, unless Fermi has some top secret features, its just a (late) replacement for 5870... ie doesnt change anything.
Bookmarks