GF100 evaluation thread

It's not indifference. I'm just not fixated by it, as you and others seem to be. Please excuse me for having an opinion

I hope so too! Thanks

At least for me $500, is more than $400, but it's not closer than more than $600...But maybe that's just me...

So your 58% larger comes from...?

 

AMD told everyone and their dog about their strategy for leaving high-end for dual-gpu cards exclusively, nVidia 100% knew what GTX480 will face, and it has nothing to do with being late or not. Fermi getting beaten by 5970 is not so much different than getting beaten by it half a year ago.

As we all know, dual-gpu's come for nVidia after refresh, while AMD can launch it almost at the same time, because its their strategy, its not like I'm telling something new and unheard of . And yes - you can bet on NI high-end being dual (sometime in the future - probably multiple dies a la LRB). No idea if NI launch will be smooth or not, but basing on execution lately it makes sense to assume it probably wont be flop, and maybe on time even

 

You misunderstood me. I just stated the obvious. All I said is that what it's going to compete against is going to be determined by prices that will settle after Fermi's become available. I didn't specifically say which card GTX480 is going to compete against. So, just try to read what I posted without overinterpreting it.

 

Those days are long gone ever since the 4870X2 - it consistently beat up on the GTX280. Nvidia's strategy isn't to do the impossible - which is beat two 2.1billion transistor chips on a combined 512-bit bus with a single 3.1billion transistor chip on 384-bit. If they or anyone else expected that to be the case they are out of their minds.

Their other angles with Tesla and Quadro sort of demand a big chip strategy though. AFR performance isn't relevant there. From a purely academic standpoint I admire what they're trying to do with product differentiation and growth of the business. It's execution that's killing them.

 

It has nothing to do with it being late ? So they wanted to release their products based on Fermi, at the time of Windows 7 launch (October 2009) and you're arguing that they should already have enough performance in the GTX 480 to beat the dual GPU from ATI, that they knew was going to be released eventually ? Ok

Seems you do. You're already predicting performance and everything against an undefined competitor, which you think will be Fermi 2.

As for good execution, yeah NVIDIA was there since the NV40 days up to G92 and that didn't help them much, when they make such radical changes in their architecture. Problems happen. Let's see what happens with NI. Unlike you, I can't predict performance of something I don't even know a single spec of...

 

Well, your post was somehow assuming I was saying what I did, because NVIDIA said so ? When that's obviously not the case and you over-interpreted me as well. The case is in the prices we know about and they don't put the GTX 480 against the HD 5970 in any way, even if some want it to be

 

%50 more than 5870, exaggerate much? Try 20-25% more as I dont see the MSRP being in the 6-700 range in any review. Current average cost for 5870 is in the 390 range, 480 is about 530. Yeah, 50%.

In 6 months after several driver updates, price/performance for the 470 and 480 should be revisited, but right now, they prices dont make any sense.

 

That's fair enough. I was more excited about the fact that I can run some DX11 titles, demos, benchmarks and DC5 fun. Sure, they were available at even lower quantities (4, 5 maybe) than PhysX titles, but it was (or I was hoping it to be) something refreshing. I did keep the 285 for a while (mainly for PhysX), but sold it shortly after.

BTW, you should check this out. It looks like nVidia were holding back on CPUs while developing PhysX.

 

You didn;t, sure as hell reads like you did?

 

Not really. You said that GTX480 was never meant to compete against 5970, as in it was not designated by nVidia to do so. I don't know how else you can read that?

No, see that if (as opposed to since or because)?

 

As one Nvidia fan is claiming, die size isnt important, performance is If you are assuming GTX480 wasnt the competition for 5970, is it a sign nVidia is abandoning the fastest "halo" card? I dont think so, therefore IMO nVidia hoped GTX480 will be good enough to be THE fastest card. X2 after refresh wont really matter, AMD will dominate highest-end till then, and at X2 launch they might have refresh of their own, and thats assuming Fermi wasnt late, now NV refresh will have to face NI.

 

Nvidia's stratagy is to have the FASTEST SINGLE GPU in single GPU comparisons. They will eventually release a dual based card designed to take on the 5970. This insistence that the 480 was ment to take on the 5970 is just completely insane.

 

Here, let go over your statment

The first 2 sentances you are insinuating that the 480 is ment to compete with the 5970. Then in your last sentance you TRY and justify you claim with an IF. only the price is nowhere near 5970 range, so to try and make that claim is simply nuts.

 

There, there.

 

There's certainly a dual-chip Fermi something or the other coming eventually. Just because they're late it doesn't mean they aren't trying.

Which you knew was only temporarily unique to AMD hardware. The difference is that you know CUDA and PhysX won't be running on AMD's stuff anytime soon.

Not seeing the relevance...

Oops, that should have been Tesla. Darn marketing gobbledygook.

 

From this:

How you conclude what you did is beyond me. I even mentioned the delays. They didn't want to be late, so they clearly wanted to release their cards with Windows 7. I really don't know how they were supposed to magically have the performance up to beat the HD 5970, 5 months later, given that the design was done and they were bringing up prototypes during GTC 2009...
NVIDIA wanted to pitch their best against ATI's best, but they certainly didn't want to be late.

 

Wow, deja vu and all that. I do believe you've been thoroughly punked on this specific topic for your posts when the 5870 launched. There are things called search engines, you know, so you might want to work on your consistency when debating relative performance expectations.

 

Fine, if you insist...

"You do realise that just because nVidia says that it's not competing against 5970, it doesn't make it necessarily true".

This sentence means no more, no less than what it says above, which is that nVidia might target or say that the card is to compete against a certain card, but it will be verified by final prices (on both sides - remember that ATI can act as well on that front to effectively shift competition). Why do you insist on reading between the lines where there's nothing there?

I guess you have trouble with both understanding and counting (it's 2 sentences in total, not 3).

I'm glad that we finaly undestand each other. It's all that matters, isn't it?