some fermi performance numbers

deff said:
If these numbers hold true, dropping the price of the 58XX series would be a major blow to Nvidia.
Click to expand...

It would. But, I don't see AMD dropping the price unless Nv tries to undercut them at that performance level. Which, is not the way Nv usually does things. My guess is that they are going to launch the 470 at a higher price than the 5870 and the 480 at just under the 5970's price point. AMD will have no reason to drop prices if that happens and performance really is like we are seeing here.

This looks like another go 2xx vs. 4xxx series fight. Except that instead of launching a month or so b4 AMD, they launched six months after.

That is an awful lot of speculation on benchmarks I don't really put that much faith in. Oh well.............
 
I think AMD will drop the prices. Right now if you want DX11, there is only AMD.
Once nVidia releases, consumers have a choice. AMD will sweeten the deal to help make sure that choice benefits them.

Of course nVidia's pricing/performance will help decide if it's a small or larger drop.
 
Kowan said:
I think AMD will drop the prices. Right now if you want DX11, there is only AMD.
Once nVidia releases, consumers have a choice. AMD will sweeten the deal to help make sure that choice benefits them.

Of course nVidia's pricing/performance will help decide if it's a small or larger drop.
Click to expand...

yep, I really think ATI will drop the price right when Fermi comes out..

since its not a high-cost production, it shouldn't be that hard to lower 50-100 dollar from current price..
 
I know that would be a very nice drop, but if supply is limited as rumored on the 470/480 AMD won't need to lower it as much since the buyer will see cards on the shelf and a empty place holder next to it. :eek: :D
 
I hope those #'s aren't true... I know nvidia normally goes for the fastest card out there and not price/performance so if this is the gtx470 then 480 wont be too much faster.

Nvidia needs to forget this round and focus on the next, because it's been lost a long time ago.

Goodwork amd but expect a fight next round.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Yes that's true, but the 5870 is also clocked higher 725->850 and 1000->1200 so that 15% increase is less than the hardware differences imo =)
Click to expand...

Fun fact: The 5850 is within 5% of the 5870 (close to 2% actually) when both are at the same clocks. Since they have the same core but different voltages, many 5850s will be able to overclock just as far as 5870s given the same GPU vCore.


Nonetheless, like the 5870, the GTX 480 will be a genius move. It will be a smash hit with the die-hard pay-for-the-best enthusiasts. I am betting that the performance difference over the 470 will be small for the premium, but it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised.
 
friend'scatdied said:
Fun fact: The 5850 is within 5% of the 5870 (close to 2% actually) when both are at the same clocks. Since they have the same core but different voltages, many 5850s will be able to overclock just as far as 5870s given the same GPU vCore.


Nonetheless, like the 5870, the GTX 480 will be a genius move. It will be a smash hit with the die-hard pay-for-the-best enthusiasts. I am betting that the performance difference over the 470 will be small for the premium, but it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised.
Click to expand...

you sure about 2%?

last time I did the test is about 7% +/-, mostly above nearly every game I tested....

both of them are on 5850 stock speed...
 
shansoft said:
you sure about 2%?

last time I did the test is about 7% +/-, mostly above nearly every game I tested....

both of them are on 5850 stock speed...
Click to expand...

2% is as of December of 2009 with whatever drivers were the latest at the time at 850/1200 on a 4.2GHz i7 920 over a battery of games according to some overclocker's forum (I'll try to recover the link sometime). Not sure where the difference is now, but I'm not so sure the drivers would selectively optimize the 5870 when both share the same core. But it would be wise of ATI to do so.

An old review that reflects similar results: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/radeon-hd5850_10.html#sect0
 
Last edited:
shaolin95 said:
How about getting a card that can actually allows you to experience 3d games in real 3d? ;)
Click to expand...

Really? I've demoed that gimmick and found it to take away for the image quality.

I'll take a crisp, detailed picture over "Oh wow! It's like my monitor turned into a flip book!" any day.
 
shaolin95 said:
How about getting a card that can actually allows you to experience 3d games in real 3d? ;)
Click to expand...

you really need to stop about that 3D trolls....

most people here disagree with you any time any days about it...

if you like 3D, good for you.. but doesn't mean you can keep trolling around the forum with it..
 
I don't think those numbers are true and I don't think they even have the card. Even so, there are no drivers for it yet.
 
shansoft said:
you really need to stop about that 3D trolls....

most people here disagree with you any time any days about it...

if you like 3D, good for you.. but doesn't mean you can keep trolling around the forum with it..
Click to expand...

Exactly. All his posts are about 3D.
 
rocketr2 said:
How can fermi running 384bit vs ati's 256bit, be slower?
Click to expand...

This is the same as claiming a 8600 gt with 1GB will outperform 8800gt with 512mb of ram. Many people believe that more RAM = more performance and the bus width argument is more absurd than that. Can bus width play a factor, sure, but it tiny in comparison to the factors that affect the performance the most (shader counts, clock speeds ect.)
 
necrophile said:
You mean like how ati's probably will when they release their next driver?
Click to expand...

Sorry but I think you're mistaken. AMD has said that their next driver will simply expose hooks for developers to implement their own stereo... the driver will not unleash "ATI stereo" as some full blown solution like NVIDIA has... it will simply give some low level hooks for interested developers who are willing to do all the stereoization work on their own. That means that on ATI hardware, you're going to be at the whim of whatever the developer uptake rate of adding stereo to their games is. Some devs will probably do it, but it will not be the same as NVIDIA doing most of the stereo work in the driver, (partially automatically, and partially through profiling), then just getting touch-ups for things they can't fix in the driver from the developer.

Stereo profiling also allowed NVIDIA to retroactively enable older games with stereo. For many new games, NVIDIA can just enable the stereo on their own, without any work or information from the developer.

You're mistakenly comparing an API vs. a full solution that eases load on developers and has NVIDIA doing most of the work themselves (increasing the number of games it works with). It's two totally different strategies.
 
Nope, I am not mistaken. I said that ati will allow their cards to be used for 3-d gaming. That is true.

It is a far better solution than nvidia's as it allows third party tech to work with their cards. This alone means that it should be as easy or far easier to adopt it if people choose.

I never once said ATI was releasing their own 3d tech, just that they will allow it on their cards.
 
Just found this at B3D. Don't think its been posted so:

gtx4703dmark.jpg
 
The chinese benches are of an A2 board so take them with a slug killing amount of salt.
 
MrLonghair said:
The chinese benches are of an A2 board so take them with a slug killing amount of salt.
Click to expand...

I'm reading possibly an A2. Even so NV's respins have been about increasing wafer yield, not changing primary arc. If the clockspeeds are right, then...
 
If not much has changed since A2 then, ouch. I need my 5000 series pricecuts dangit :(
 
ManicOne said:
I'm reading possibly an A2. Even so NV's respins have been about increasing wafer yield, not changing primary arc. If the clockspeeds are right, then...
Click to expand...

Yields are based on a voltage needed for a clock speed so it kind of is about increasing clock speeds. But yes, if the clock speed it's self is the same as what is released then there will be little difference.
 
Yawn, so much shit popping up with performance numbers. Wait for proper previews people, where they're likely to actually have some sort of a driver for the card as well.
 
jhalf said:
Ill shit bricks at this
Click to expand...

Not that 3DMark06 really means anything, but my laptop with a 5870 mobility (underclocked 5770) scores in the 13000s. I'm calling bunk on this.

That said, it is funny how most of us have accepted that G100 will only be the same or marginally better than a 5870. Not to long ago, some were claiming it would be at least 50% faster.

Edit: I keep wanting to call the 5770, 4770 for some reason...
 
Last edited:
I'd say most are waiting for actual reviews instead of leaks to see how well the cards do against each other.
The longer the wait, the greater the hype and greater chance of disappointment when it can't live up to the hype.
 
I think a lot of people thought that whilst it was delayed it was just to ensure that the best product came out and that it would be faster than the 5870 for sure, now it has started to drag on a bit too long and people are now hedging their bets and lowering their expectations in case things have went very wrong.
 
harmattan said:
Not that 3DMark06 really means anything, but my laptop with a 5870 mobility (underclocked 4770) scores in the 13000s. I'm calling bunk on this.

That said, it is funny how most of us have accepted that G100 will only be the same or marginally better than a 5870. Not to long ago, some were claiming it would be at least 50% faster.
Click to expand...

5870 mobility is basically a slightly underclocked 5770, not 4770. Also take into account the rig used for the test - old to say the least.

And this is the 470 we're talking about. Massive core (rumored at 550mm^2) and 2 6pins so 225W max. Factor in massive delay, 2 respins, and things don't seem too rosy.
 
According to ChrisRay may he rest in peace, the PhysX performance is expected to be a huge boost.
In a apple to apple comparison with it disabled, the cards won't look as great. We should see 200 series benched against 470/480 to see performance in PhysX.
If PhysX is important to you, a reason to consider one over the other.
If interested in 3D or 3D Surround, another bullet mark to consider.
F@H performance has many waiting for these cards.

There are reasons to look at one vs. another. Straight up gaming performance will help or hurt them, but it isn't the only reason graphic cards are bought by many.

Thankfully I don't have an upgrade bug compelling me to spend money, so I'm going to watch the launch from the safety of a closed wallet. :p
 
Kowan said:
According to ChrisRay may he rest in peace, the PhysX performance is expected to be a huge boost.
In a apple to apple comparison with it disabled, the cards won't look as great. We should see 200 series benched against 470/480 to see performance in PhysX.
If PhysX is important to you, a reason to consider one over the other.
If interested in 3D or 3D Surround, another bullet mark to consider.
F@H performance has many waiting for these cards.

There are reasons to look at one vs. another. Straight up gaming performance will help or hurt them, but it isn't the only reason graphic cards are bought by many.

Thankfully I don't have an upgrade bug compelling me to spend money, so I'm going to watch the launch from the safety of a closed wallet. :p
Click to expand...

Good point on the Physx. In order fro me to move to Fermi, the feature set will be a factor as well as performance.

If the 480GTX price/performance is competitive, offers better tessellation, fast Physx and the multi-monitor implimentation is superior (and works better without Displayport) to 5870, I'm sold.
 
Last edited:
]

Quote:
Originally Posted by friend'scatdied
Fun fact: The 5850 is within 5% of the 5870 (close to 2% actually) when both are at the same clocks. Since they have the same core but different voltages, many 5850s will be able to overclock just as far as 5870s given the same GPU vCore.


Nonetheless, like the 5870, the GTX 480 will be a genius move. It will be a smash hit with the die-hard pay-for-the-best enthusiasts. I am betting that the performance difference over the 470 will be small for the premium, but it would be nice to be pleasantly surprised.

shansoft said:
you sure about 2%?

last time I did the test is about 7% +/-, mostly above nearly every game I tested....

both of them are on 5850 stock speed...[/QUOTE

I' am not trying to start anything here but I have to agree...the difference in a majority of cases is about 7%, IDK if you overclock it a 5850 against a stock clocked 5870 the maybe I guess, but then again a 5870 can be overclocked also......funny how some people owning the 5850 have to bag on the 5870, as if the people who bought a 5870 are dumbasses or is it that somebody feels that they need to justify being a tightass not being willing to spend the extra $60-$100.....once again IDK!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top