The Fermi Thread - Part 3

**highoctane** · 03-26-2010, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by zerazax

I mean, by all means vote with your wallet, it ain't my money, but I don't see the 10-15% (lower with 2560x1600) being worth 25% more expense + 100W more power load, especially since I leave my computer on 24/7 for various programs

Unless those various programs involve gpu related work the idle consumption differences are negligible.

**bill_d** · 03-26-2010, 04:55 PM

come and thy it in arizona

**pentium777** · 03-26-2010, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Sentential

Ya we have central air but not a dedicated AC unit but still my point is valid. Since WHEN has it been acceptable that a graphics card could have a 10C* headroom before it throttles. I mean, seriously?

Maybe you should examine the headroom a 5870 has since it runs 86-90'C, you spoke of 90'F if you have a room in your house that is 90'F you should consult someone to correct that issue.

I think that we've had enough about power and heat, if you aren't aware so far it has been

. What is the point on continuing to bring it up, Fermi is a much bigger chip and yep it uses more power and creates more heat.

**annihilat0r** · 03-26-2010, 04:57 PM

**Behemot** · 03-26-2010, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

It's around $150-200 cheaper, and is not Crossfire?

Well, it's not so much in this price segment and you gain the money back in electricity for maybe one year?

Anybody still believe this story about evil CrossFire/SLI? I've seen 20+ games just in last half an hour and the HD 5970's were fastest everywhere, so I doubt no problem there, or you see some?

ADD//

Originally Posted by NaMcO

BTW, Charlie "i'm an idiot" dedknefuhrefuohreofmerijian was wrong in most of the hate he posted. The product has one flaw and that is power draw but all in all it's high clocked and a real great performer. Eat that C.

Well as was already noted he could be right at the time he wrote it as we have indications NIVIDA changed the specs several times.

Although the cards are not as slow as rumoured, they suck so much in every other aspect that AMD just really won't care about some NVIDIA for next at least 6 months. So no price cuts anywhere which is really bad and NVIDIA failed so much here!!

**jaredpace** · 03-26-2010, 05:00 PM

**annihilat0r** · 03-26-2010, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Behemot

Well, it's not so much in this price segment and you gain the money back in electricity for maybe one year?

Anybody still believe this story about evil CrossFire/SLI? I've seen 20+ games just in last half an hour and the HD 5970's were fastest everywhere, so I doubt no problem there, or you see some?

there's 50w difference at load, makes 0.5kwh per day the most, 180kwh. 1kwh costs around 5.5 cents, so this makes a grand $9.9 difference per year.

**SimBy** · 03-26-2010, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by jaredpace

Theres your added value

**grimREEFER** · 03-26-2010, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

...

well, he was wrong about sp number and relative performance.
he made his temp claim very recently, and that was right.

he also said tesselation performace would be much worse than a 5870

**annihilat0r** · 03-26-2010, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by grimreefer

well, he was wrong about sp number and relative performance.
He made his temp claim very recently, and that was right.

He also said tesselation performace would be much worse than a 5870
that was essentially disproven when the white papers were released

no fixed tessellator!!111!11

**pentium777** · 03-26-2010, 05:08 PM

Hmmm looking at Evga product PDF specs of the GTX 480 Superclocked they mention 3-way and....

4-way SLI.... Can you imagine? And I hope someone does put 4xGTX 480 Superclocked or even standard into a case and benches it. I would love to see the results all around.

http://www.evga.com/products/pdf/015-P3-1482-AR.pdf

|

**Behemot** · 03-26-2010, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

there's 50w difference at load, makes 0.5kwh per day the most, 180kwh. 1kwh costs around 5.5 cents, so this makes a grand $9.9 difference per year.

We have much pricier electricity here, it's more like up to 50 USD

**To(V)bo Co(V)bo** · 03-26-2010, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by jaredpace

How long does it take to fry eggs on Nvidia ForceWare 196.75.

Cant wait for the Dual Fermi SLI-Oven.

**YukonTrooper** · 03-26-2010, 05:15 PM

It looks like a GTX 470 for me.

**pentium777** · 03-26-2010, 05:17 PM

Crysis... Shelved the game because of 2560x1600 requirement, after reading this I'm a bit more excited.

"More relevant still is the awesomeness of GeForce GTX 480 SLI performance. We simply were not disappointed in the performance that GTX 480 SLI delivered. And get a load of this. GeForce GTX 480 SLI allows Crysis Warhead to be playable at 2560x1600 4X AA/16X AF all Enthusiast settings. Take that to the bank, GTX 480 SLI is the real deal. NVIDIA rules the schoolyard when it comes to multi-GPU scaling. CrossFire gets left with a black eye."

Source: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2010/...0_sli_review/8

Here it looks like ATI gets its ass handed to it in multi-gpu setup

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3783&p=9

**waway625** · 03-26-2010, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by annihilat0r

whose the nerdy looking guy? is that the Charlie? man I understand where the angst comes from now

**hurleybird** · 03-26-2010, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

well, he was wrong about sp number and relative performance.
he made his temp claim very recently, and that was right.

he also said tesselation performace would be much worse than a 5870

He was right about both SP number and relative performance. He predicted 480SP a long time ago, that was right. Not too long ago a couple of his sources got their hands on 512SP cards, but only clocked at 600 and 625MHz (as stated in the article), and that's where the 5% faster claim came from. Obviously the final 480 shader parts clocked at 700Mhz (with the rest of the core clocked at 700MHz as well) perform a little bit better. Charlie actually posted the facts this time, albeit with a bit too much 'dear leader'-esque Nvidia. Nvidia taking a long time to decide the final specs in no way invalidates any of the facts charlie gleaned.

As far as tessellation, he claimed Fermi was better in heaven benchmark but suffered when other work had to be done on the shaders. At face value this looks true -- Fermi performs a lot better in Heaven than actual DX11 games -- but is that due to Heaven using more tessellation, or actual DX11 games needing more shading power? We probably won't know that for a very long time, if ever.

**annihilat0r** · 03-26-2010, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by hurleybird

He was right about both SP number and relative performance. He predicted 480SP a long time ago, that was right. Not too long ago a couple of his sources got their hands on 512SP cards, but only clocked at 600 and 625MHz (as stated in the article), and that's where the 5% faster claim came from. Obviously the final 480 shader parts clocked at 700Mhz (with the rest of the core clocked at 700MHz as well) perform a little bit better. Charlie actually posted the facts this time, albeit with a bit too much 'dear leader'-esque Nvidia. Nvidia taking a long time to decide the final specs in no way invalidates any of the facts charlie gleaned.

As far as tessellation, he claimed Fermi was better in heaven benchmark but suffered when other work had to be done on the shaders. At face value this looks true -- Fermi performs a lot better in Heaven than actual DX11 games -- but is that due to Heaven using more tessellation, or actual DX11 games needing more shading power? We probably won't know that for a very long time, if ever.

Charlie never said 480SP. He first said 512, then said it was "castrated" to 448, then said it would be 512 again. He was never accurate on SP count, and he was never accurate on clocks. He predicted 600-625 mhz all the time, whereas even the 512SP part was to have 650mhz clocks.

His "no tessellator, it's going to be emulated, will suck" claim was 180 degrees wrong. Maybe tess. performance isn't as good as Nvidia claimed but it's definitely no worse than ATI.

**Sadasius** · 03-26-2010, 05:34 PM

This is a really expensive version of the George Foreman Grill.

**mAJORD** · 03-26-2010, 05:47 PM

a 480 vs 5870 Collaboration of results, pls let me know of any errors. adding 5850 vs 470 atm as more reviews come in with it (470)

**SamHughe** · 03-26-2010, 05:48 PM

**Zonker** · 03-26-2010, 05:52 PM

From TechPowerUp review:

NVIDIA first publicized its maximum board power as 295W, retracted it and posted it as "250W" probably fearing bad PR. We disagree with their 250W figure. Investigating maximum board power, we landed at the 320W mark, which is way off NVIDIA's claims.

Nvidia is just straight out lying about power figure?

**~~Yvese~~** · 03-26-2010, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by jaredpace

This is just epic.

Saving this for future use

**GoldenTiger** · 03-26-2010, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by NaMcO

BTW, Charlie "i'm an idiot" dedknefuhrefuohreofmerijian was wrong in most of the hate he posted. The product has one flaw and that is power draw but all in all it's high clocked and a real great performer. Eat that C.

Seems he has plenty of fanATIcs backing him up on some forums though

. Wrong they are, troll much they do!

**MrMojoZ** · 03-26-2010, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Zonker

Nvidia is just straight out lying about power figure?

If you lie and people reward you for doing so by buying your products, then it must not be a real lie!! They call it the Apple Equation.

Thread: The Fermi Thread - Part 3

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions