NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

Yep, and in 3dmark03 it's 66% faster, hence my comment.

 

The difference between default 460-1GB and some 460-OC boards is ~70W also:


(guru3d)

 

GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 0,987v 279 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,000v 282 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,012v 285 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,025v 288 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,037v 291 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,050v 293 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,062v 296 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,075v 298 watt
GTX 460 850/1700/4600 @ 1,087v 303 watt
GTX 460 890/1780/4600 @ 1,087v 311 watt

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257223

 

Tweaktown's Galaxy GTS 450 Review..

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8537/351127.png
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2131/351128.png
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/33/351129.png
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2259/351130.png
http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/6553/351131.png
http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6270/351132.png
http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4548/351133.png
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/553/351134.png
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/509/351135o.png
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/438/351136.png
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/6885/351140.png
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/5140/351141.png
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/7534/351142.png
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8280/351150.png
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/479/351151.png
http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/5067/351120.png
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/632/351121.png
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8089/351122.png
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/604/351123.png
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/5601/351124.png
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5359/351125.png
http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/311/351126.png

 

Wow. Power consumption is rather disappointing- especially when you compare it to the 260-216 that probably uses just a smidge more, and is still slightly faster- and that was end of 08/09 start.

Leaky leaky leaky.

 

Strange things seem to happen when you record total system power values. 450 consuming as much as 460 seems highly unlikely.

 

Compare their clock speed...

 

The pics don't tell them.

 

default GTX460 = 675MHz
default GTS450 = 783MHz... that means OC edition must be clocked at least at 800MHz, so its clocks are at least 20% higher compared to GTX460...

similar to HD5830 / 5850 power consumption...

 

It looks pretty weak in that review. An overclocked 450 barely scraping by a 5750 in some cases isn't a good start.

 

Apparently this one runs at 888Mhz.

 

So it's overclocked up to the point of consumping as much as a 460, yet it does only convincingly beat a fanless 5770 in FarCry2, Lost Planet and Heaven?

 

Except that HD 5830 and 5850 are using the same ASIC. No, just with clocks you won't get a GTS450 in the vincinity of a GTX460 - you'd need to toy around with voltages too.

 

DarthShader: Exactly... and that's only a fraction of the entire GF106 farce, it seems...

 

Looks ok to me - from these numbers it would appear a non-OC version could easily keep up with HD5750, likely beating it on average.
Though overclocking it so it reaches HD5770 performance levels doesn't seem like a very good idea, I'd bet voltages had to be pushed quite a bit on this card and that's the reason for the high power consumption. Normal version probably still will require more power than HD5750 (though really I want to see direct measurement) but it shouldn't be anywhere that bad.
Some of these scores look a bit suspicious, the difference in far cry 2 and hawx between HD5750 and HD5770 is much larger than the theoretical difference between these cards suggest (factor 2(!) in far cry 2 whereas theoretical max difference is only 35% when shader/texture bound).

 

Charlie is this you..??? . NO, it's Brent Justice from HardOCP

 

What I don't get is this late to market proposition. When I as a consumer am deciding to buy now, it is as viable an option as a card already long in the market. If i am more inclined to Eyefinity or Physx just to name two marketed buzzwords is another thing. If I care about a 20 watt difference under load is another. But from a consumer standpoint, I could not care less, when a product was introduced. Chances are, quite a few people interested in this card of this price point did already make their decision in the past months and are satisfied with their 5700 radeons and won't be buying a new card now.

I don't think it's a bad card and it certainly is an alternative for people to cionsider if they're upgrading now. Of course, if you've already made your DX11 move, Nvidias lateness to the game won't win them any more sales...

 

WRT to stock 450, you're right on the money:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,7...-130-Euro/Grafikkarte/Test/&cacheclear?page=2

Perf a little above 5750 in our whole parcours (more than printed online), power consumption of reference card a bit above the level of 5770. Price and marketing will decied on the fate of GTS 450.

 

Nope, AMD has already decided its fate. They are going to kill it by lowering the price of the 5770 to match the 450. Amazing that the 11+ month old Juniper has held up so well.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gts-450-review-roundup/27

And in crossfire a 5770 at stock clocks and in some cases even the 5750 beat SLI 450s
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...geforce-gts-450-1gb-single-sli-review-17.html

 

If you say so …