fermi performance

here we go again...(stirring the pot) I love to read the funny replies...beats working
 
Give NVIDIA another year, and they'll probably have a great product on the market. In the meantime, buy one of the awesome choices from AMD and fuhgeddaboutit. It is no surprise that the initial Fermi release would be underwhelming. NVIDIA did not do well managing expectations, so they really only have themselves to blame for coming up short.
 
I have to agree with Mr. Thug here, im going to wait another year before NVDA gets there act togther
 
um that link has 2 small paragraphs of nothing... why are you posting this?
 
The performance specs don't make sense. It says a 448 or 480 core part will only perform at 5850 speeds (gtx 285 territory), while the 512 core part will be twice as fast a gtx 285? Why would such a small decrease in shader units decrease performance so drastically?
 
Considering that the article is referencing a clearly fake site for the price, I find its facts dubious.

The site it references at the $699 price, is SabrePC.

Now on that site, it lists an XFX GTX 480 with 2gb memory. The problem being, that there will be no 2gb memory models. The 480 has a 384bit memory bus, built on 6 64bit memory controllers.

128mbx6= 768mb (128mb is most used memory size, but this seems too small for flagship)
256mbx6=1.5gb (probable memory standard for the gtx 480)
384mbx6=2304mb (weird sized chip, but closest to 2gb, will never be put in 480)

2gb/6=341mb (no such thing as a 341mb memory chip)

TLDR, the price is bullshit because the listing can't even get the memory size right. With that fact of this article wrong, it throws into doubt all other conclusions.
 
Jonsey said:
The performance specs don't make sense. It says a 448 or 480 core part will only perform at 5850 speeds (gtx 285 territory), while the 512 core part will be twice as fast a gtx 285? Why would such a small decrease in shader units decrease performance so drastically?
Click to expand...


Since when is a GTX 295 anything more than 2* 275 @ 576core (so between core 216 and 275). It's significantly slower than 2*285
 
Article says nothing... no facts, no real listings... nothing.

Even this:
Sources tell DonanimHaber that the GeForce GTX 470 performs somewhere between the ATI Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 5870. This part is said to have a power draw of 300W.
Click to expand...

"Some guy my wife's sister's brother's cousin knows told us..."... what "source" are they referring to?

Naieve said:
Considering that the article is referencing a clearly fake site for the price, I find its facts dubious.

The site it references at the $699 price, is SabrePC.

Now on that site, it lists an XFX GTX 480 with 2gb memory. The problem being, that there will be no 2gb memory models. The 480 has a 384bit memory bus, built on 6 64bit memory controllers.

128mbx6= 768mb (128mb is most used memory size, but this seems too small for flagship)
256mbx6=1.5gb (probable memory standard for the gtx 480)
384mbx6=2304mb (weird sized chip, but closest to 2gb, will never be put in 480)

2gb/6=341mb (no such thing as a 341mb memory chip)

TLDR, the price is bullshit because the listing can't even get the memory size right. With that fact of this article wrong, it throws into doubt all other conclusions.
Click to expand...

'Nough sad right here ^^.
 
Naieve said:
Considering that the article is referencing a clearly fake site for the price, I find its facts dubious.

The site it references at the $699 price, is SabrePC.
Click to expand...
What is fake about the site. SabrePC is in San Jose .. near to Nvidia HQ
- the price may be fake - or not - according to Nvidia :p

We also don't know for sure about GTX 470 specs.

We don't know that there will not be 2GB models

we just don't know
:rolleyes:
 
apoppin said:
What is fake about the site. SabrePC is in San Jose .. near to Nvidia HQ
- the price may be fake - or not - according to Nvidia :p

We also don't know for sure about GTX 470 specs.

We don't know that there will not be 2GB models

we just don't know
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
actually we do know that the top card will be 384bit so the 470 will likely be 320bit since theres little chance they will drop all the way to 256bit. so there is no way that the 480 or the 470 will have 2gb.
 
If this is true NVIDIA failed, they had all this time to make a better card and yet it fails to perform faster. Fail.
 
John Vuong said:
If this is true NVIDIA failed, they had all this time to make a better card and yet it fails to perform faster. Fail.
Click to expand...

This ^^. In the past, we've sometimes seen video cards sometimes produced on an annual basis or a bit longer than year. Often, the next generation card being twice as powerful as the strongest single generation card of the previous generation or about double the strength.

You'd think when your seven months later than your competitor, you'd have enough time to somehow increase performance significantly when considering in that given a few more months, some companies have been known to double the performance of their video cards.
 
apoppin said:
What is fake about the site. SabrePC is in San Jose .. near to Nvidia HQ
- the price may be fake - or not - according to Nvidia :p

We also don't know for sure about GTX 470 specs.

We don't know that there will not be 2GB models

we just don't know
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I agree, we don't know for sure the 470 specs.

We do know for an absolute fact there will not be a 2gb GTX 480. The architecture clearly precludes it. The memory size is dictated by how many memory controllers there are, and what size memory module they use. We know for a fact the 384bit bus has 6 memory controllers. We also know for a fact they will use 128mb or 256mb memory modules. Which means, we know for a fact that you cannot get a 2gb card from that architecture. You can get a 768mb, a 1.5gb, and a 2304mb card, though I don't think they make 384mb modules anyways, so just take that 2304mb card off the list.

Since 768mb isn't enough for a flagship card, they will have 1.5gb.
 
John Vuong said:
If this is true NVIDIA failed, they had all this time to make a better card and yet it fails to perform faster. Fail.
Click to expand...

Ummm that's not how it works. What Fermi is was done and dusted months ago. Months of trying to fix manufacturing problems can't magically make it faster than it was originally designed to be. In other words if they failed it's because the design failed not because they had six more months to wave their wands.
 
Naieve said:
I agree, we don't know for sure the 470 specs.

We do know for an absolute fact there will not be a 2gb GTX 480. The architecture clearly precludes it. The memory size is dictated by how many memory controllers there are, and what size memory module they use. We know for a fact the 384bit bus has 6 memory controllers. We also know for a fact they will use 128mb or 256mb memory modules. Which means, we know for a fact that you cannot get a 2gb card from that architecture. You can get a 768mb, a 1.5gb, and a 2304mb card, though I don't think they make 384mb modules anyways, so just take that 2304mb card off the list.

Since 768mb isn't enough for a flagship card, they will have 1.5gb.
Click to expand...
Aren't there 512MB GDDR5 modules? Maybe a 3GB version - or is that precluded by the architecture? i just don't remember the white paper :p

At ANY rate, my point was that we really know so little about the final version of GF 100
- that SabrePC put 2 GB in as a specification is moot - most likely they would care to be most accurate about pricing.
--i would say my best guess points to the Fermi flagship beating GTX 295; but it is hard to see it justify $700 unless it whoops on 5970. Doubtful.
 
edit: no need to repeat what others have said. I certainly hope Fermi gives us more than a 5% avg boost over a 5870 @ $700. Beating a 295 isn't enough; a 5870 more or less does that now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top