NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation
- Thread starter Arty
- Start date
Either because otherwise, the GTX 480's lead wouldn't be as significant, or perhaps it was actually a 28" panel.
Yes, if Gemini is based on GTX470, it will be very competitive against the 5970. but again a bit slower than Asus ROG Ares (5870x2).
Rumor:GeForce GTX 470 will sell for 2499¥(366$) in China.
http://diy.yesky.com/vga/259/11163259.shtml
http://diy.yesky.com/vga/259/11163259.shtml
If 480 is hitting 300W, (and mind you, that's according to Fudzilla), where does that leave the possibility of a dual card of any combination?
Aligns nicely with the former case here
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1403931&postcount=3001
If the volumes are really as low as the doom sayers have implied then the MSRPs are essentially going to be a PR exercise. They will almost certainly simply bump the clocks a little for the B1 revision boards, give them new names (GTX471/481?) and determine a new appropriate price at the time.
use auction sites etc. or find some Taiwanese sites and add a couple of dollars for shipping.
Yes, actually (all in DX11-Mode, on my C2D E8500@3,8 GHz, Win7 x64 and HD 5870 with Cat 10.3 preview drivers)
Tessellation off, Shaders: High:
640x400 149,7
1280x800 104,9
2560x1600 40,4
Tessellation on, Shaders: High:
640x400 68,2
1280x800 52,8
2560x1600 27,2 (about two thirds the perf w/o tessellation)
So, there's some pixel work going on besides Tessellation. Let's reduce that a bit:
Tessellation off, Shaders: Low
640x400 149,0 (here, it's obviously my CPU bottlenecking everything else)
1280x800 119,4
2560x1600 51,6
Now, that's some 25is percent more performance with reduced pixel load. Let's try some more geometry.
Tessellation on, Shaders: Low
640x400 68,7 (wow, we've gained 0,5 fps!!
)1280x800 57,6
2560x1600 32,2
Now, we switch shadows to low and turn off the other options in Heaven (Refraction, Reflektion and Volumetric)
Tessellation off, Shaders/Shadows: Low, Refr./Refl./Vol.: Off
640x400 150,7 (huge gains to be had here
)1280x800 127,3
2560x1600 59,8 (well, we're touching the magical 60-fps-barrier)
Tessellation on, Shaders/Shadows: Low, Refr./Refl./Vol.: Off
640x400 72,1
1280x800 62,3
2560x1600 36,4
So, after we've escaped my systems limits at 2560x1600, almost regardless of pixel load, tessellation costs between 39 (lowest pixel load) and 33 percent of performance (highest pixel load) in this particular benchmark. When we're not pixel-bound at 1280x800, it's more pronounced at around 50 percent perf-cost. (-50/-51/-52% performance, lowest to highest pixel load).
With AA enabled I've only numbers for 1920x1080 and 2560x1600:
1920:
29,7 vs. 47,5 fps for 4xAA,
25,3 vs. 38,8 fps for 8xAA,
37,4 vs. 63,1 fps without AA.
2560:
20,9 vs. 29,7 fps for 4xAA,
5,3 vs. 6,8 fps for 8xAA,
27,0 vs. 39,7 fps without AA.
AA numbers are older and done with Catalyst 9.12.
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the guy who managed to play the card for 2 week, power consumption of GTX470 will be surprisingly lower than Charlie's prediction.
I don't think there are many people who have physically seen the GTX480 at the moment.
Charlie never said anything about the power consumption of the GTX470.
With the 225W limit and the 21W blower the card shouldnt reach more than something over 200W worst case with the fan on 100%. And thats the worst case so it could be near 5870.
Similar threads
