The Fermi Thread - Part 3

**GoldenTiger** · 03-26-2010, 05:12 AM

Originally Posted by ElSel10

I'm sure you will be fine. After all, they should receive the e-mail NOT to cancel before the one to do so

Heh, you were right... I called in this morning after they opened to make sure it was intact, and was told it's all set still... opened my email and noticed an email from 5 minutes before I called saying the order would remain in-place per my request

.

Mk · 03-26-2010, 05:15 AM

This is what a 6ft man looks like standing next to 3D Vision Monster Surround. #NVIDIA #PAXEast

source twitter
so yes i guess they are 3D

**GoldenTiger** · 03-26-2010, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Mk

[*IMG]http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/large/78871067.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=0ZRYP5X5F6FSMBCCSE82&E xpires=1269610202&Signature=1fzRRckZHseLlnvS%2F2TH LzMP9cw%3D[/IMG]
This is what a 6ft man looks like standing next to 3D Vision Monster Surround. #NVIDIA #PAXEast

source twitter
so yes i guess they are 3D

Holy cow...

**Designer** · 03-26-2010, 05:18 AM

what the hell are those.. lol

edit;

a blackberry bold 9700 shot

**MrDiaz** · 03-26-2010, 05:19 AM

A wet dream is what it is!

**Sam_oslo** · 03-26-2010, 05:21 AM

Those are 2x GTX480 @576000000000000 x 216000000000000000 resolution

**Behemot** · 03-26-2010, 05:35 AM

Page 90

I guess we'll actually need the 4th thread for when the real specs and reviews come out...

**Sushi Warrior** · 03-26-2010, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Mk

This is what a 6ft man looks like standing next to 3D Vision Monster Surround. #NVIDIA #PAXEast

source twitter
so yes i guess they are 3D

Yep and they aren't broadcasting it online because it is all in 3d...

**jaredpace** · 03-26-2010, 05:37 AM

**onethreehill** · 03-26-2010, 05:39 AM

This evening's entertainment: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480
Anybody care to take a guess at the missing score in the following graph?

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23130

From: Sapphire HD 5870 TOXIC 2GB Review

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23079&page=4

**highoctane** · 03-26-2010, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

Poor 2nd GTX470, that card has to run hot as hell.

It does have fan holes on the backside of the pcb so it should still be better than any previous cards as far as airflow is concerned.

**MrDiaz** · 03-26-2010, 05:40 AM

[QUOTE=Behemot;4307423]Page 90

QUOTE]

We are on page 72 atm....

**Marios** · 03-26-2010, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by saaya

nice... at least something...
but im pretty dissapointed, i expected to finally read reviews today :/

well... idk... a 8800gtx is still enough to play games at 1920x1080 and max details and aa today... so it was expensive but if you think of not having to upgrade for what, almost 3 years? thats pretty damn impressive and the per year cost is only around 200$...

hahah awesome, keep em comming

its not an twimtbp game?

oh and did anybody notice the latyest xbitlabs article?
they meassured power consumption of the latest cards in very high detail, slot, first 6pin, second 6pin or 8 pin, in idle, under gaming load, occt load and blue ray playback load... very interesting!
and in this article they hint towards the 400 series being very hot and power hungry.
in fact they say something along the lines of "it might take a while until nvidia cards are perf/watt competitive again"

xbitlabs is veeery picky when it comes to power consumption of cpus, boards and vgas...
this cant affect their 400 review for the better... and the fact that they went back to the bench and checked the power consumption of all current cards shows that this is going to be a major part of their 400 series article, power consumption...

It seems to me there is something wrong with XbitLabs' power consumption method.
1. Is it possible to measure the amps for a certain slot?
2. The method assumes PSU provides exactly 3.3v/5v/12v at any time.
3. A GPU that performs CPU calculations, looks more power hungry, compared to another GPU that has no such ability. Though the total system power consumption might be a lot better with a GPGPU.
4. This method is very complicated, needs calibration, it's not widely acceptable and prone to errors.
5. The results are not comparable between different measurements even on the same system.

Xbitlabs didn't provide a total system power consumption at the same time.
The power consumption of GTX285 seems to be a lot more than HD4890.
XbitLabs measured the power consumption while playing Crysis Warhead at 170W for HD4890 and 245W for GTX285.
Though the official "Max Power Draw" for HD4890 is 190W and 183W for GTX285.
Do they imply that Nvidia announced a lot less max power consumption (20W) specs and ATI a lot more (20W)?
Most other power benchmarks seem to give lower power consumption for GTX285 compared to HD4890 though.
Xbit Labs measured GTX295 (55nm dual GPU) and 5970 (40nm dual GPU) but skipped the 4970X2 (55nm dual GPU). Why?

I am not sure I can trust xbit labs' power measurements.

**Nickel020** · 03-26-2010, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by Mk

This is what a 6ft man looks like standing next to 3D Vision Monster Surround. #NVIDIA #PAXEast

source twitter
so yes i guess they are 3D

Pic is down for me

**Behemot** · 03-26-2010, 05:53 AM

3Dcenter talks about GF104 http://www.3dcenter.org/artikel/deta...nce-chip-gf104

**Dami3n** · 03-26-2010, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by jaredpace

OMFG, if those numbers are real, they will burn literally in summer... or blow your ears.

**Picao84** · 03-26-2010, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by onethreehill

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23130

From: Sapphire HD 5870 TOXIC 2GB Review

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=23079&page=4

OMG! Why is every site teasing us?

And i may be wrong, but those charts seems to imply that GTX480 is faster than HD5970, looking at the scale

EDIT: Well, HD5970 is showing poor scaling (37% faster), probably CPU bottleneck? Still if GTX480 manages to achieve HD5970 levels of performance, it will be impressive. On the other hand, it might not be true, although I have trouble seeing Hexus making a chart to tease..

EDIT 2: Looking again at it, it would not be that impressive. Only around 40% faster than a GTX285.. fail...

**~~overclocking101~~** · 03-26-2010, 06:10 AM

um still no reviews??

**Mechromancer** · 03-26-2010, 06:11 AM

Wasn't the NDA for Fermi expiring today? Where the hell are the reviews?

**MrDiaz** · 03-26-2010, 06:14 AM

6PM - 7PM EST, still gotta wait

**aussie-revhead** · 03-26-2010, 06:22 AM

A few more hours left isnt there ?

**Dahmer** · 03-26-2010, 06:29 AM

EST = GMT - 4

GMT = 14:29 -> EST = 10:29 AM

about 8 hours to go

**mattlef** · 03-26-2010, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by aussie-revhead

A few more hours left isnt there ?

well at this very moment, its 10:30am est.

So, there is aprox 8 hours and 30 mins until the expiration of the NDA

----
damn, ninja'd

**Picao84** · 03-26-2010, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by aussie-revhead

A few more hours left isnt there ?

Around 9 hours...

**blindbox** · 03-26-2010, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Marios

It seems to me there is something wrong with XbitLabs' power consumption method.
1. Is it possible to measure the amps for a certain slot?
2. The method assumes PSU provides exactly 3.3v/5v/12v at any time.
3. A GPU that performs CPU calculations, looks more power hungry, compared to another GPU that has no such ability. Though the total system power consumption might be a lot better with a GPGPU.
4. This method is very complicated, needs calibration, it's not widely acceptable and prone to errors.
5. The results are not comparable between different measurements even on the same system.

Xbitlabs didn't provide a total system power consumption at the same time.
The power consumption of GTX285 seems to be a lot more than HD4890.
XbitLabs measured the power consumption while playing Crysis Warhead at 170W for HD4890 and 245W for GTX285.
Though the official "Max Power Draw" for HD4890 is 190W and 183W for GTX285.
Do they imply that Nvidia announced a lot less max power consumption (20W) specs and ATI a lot more (20W)?
Most other power benchmarks seem to give lower power consumption for GTX285 compared to HD4890 though.
Xbit Labs measured GTX295 (55nm dual GPU) and 5970 (40nm dual GPU) but skipped the 4970X2 (55nm dual GPU). Why?

I am not sure I can trust xbit labs' power measurements.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammeter
2. This is probably the cause of discrepancy
3. How did you figure that out? Lots of variables, the last DX9 card was not on 55nm or 40nm
4. Well, aren't their equipments pre-calibrated?
5. Again, how did you figure this out?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3750&p=12 I dunno, anandtech says 4890 consumes less power than GTX285

If I'm not mistaken, w1zzard does his power calculations straight from the PCI-e connectors too.

I do wonder how both of them measure the power through the PCI-E slot (by both of them, I mean xbitlabs and w1zzard. Not anandtech, anandtech does wall)

http://techpowerup.com/reviews/Power..._Green/27.html

You hit the mark at 2, I don't think xbitlab's can be trusted too much either.

Thread: The Fermi Thread - Part 3

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions