NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

[DavidGraham]

 

[onethreehill]

More info
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4655751&postcount=122
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4655774&postcount=123

Gigabyte GV-N570D5-13I-B specs
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=3659&dl=#sp

First review

Conclusions
The lowdown on the GeForce GTX 570 is pretty straightforward: performance on par with a GeForce GTX 480, power consumption and noise levels on par with a GTX 470, and a price tag of 350 bucks. The card's stock cooler is nice and quiet, too.

We would have liked to see the GTX 570 separate itself from last year's Radeon HD 5870 in several games where it simply could not, such as Bad Company 2 and StarCraft II. Still, in the overall picture, the GTX 570 is clearly a notch above cheaper solutions like the GeForce GTX 460 1GB and the Radeon HD 6870. At high resolutions and visual quality levels in some of the most demanding DX11 games, the GTX 570 cranks out appreciably higher frame rates. I'm not convinced making the leap up to a GTX 570 is worth doing if you're running a single display that's two megapixels or less—including the incredibly popular 1080p resolution. A single Radeon HD 6870 or GTX 460 is probably all you need for a couple of megapixels. If you're planning on playing games on a four-megapixels monster like the 30" Dell on our GPU test rig—and I highly recommend doing so, if you have the means—then the 570 is worthy of a long, hard look.

You can get higher performance for just a little more money out of a pair of Radeon HD 6850s in CrossFireX, and I suppose that's AMD's closest competing product offering right now. But again, the foibles of multi-GPU configs will be in play, as will the stark fact of looming obsolescence with the Radeon HD 6900 series imminent. We said a week ago that we wouldn't pull the trigger on a pair of 6850s right now, and we remain in that holding pattern.

Our final take on the GTX 570 will have to remain a work in progress for the same reason. Stay tuned to this same channel for next week's episode of GPU Wars, when the truth about the 2010 crop of graphics chips will finally be revealed.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/20080/1?preview=ff668b34fde0b92aef088e9b53c61dff

 

[onethreehill]

GTX 570 for $350 @newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...-_-na-_-na&AID=10521304&PID=3891137&SID=194r0

 

[psolord]

Some slides from Tomshardware. (credit goes to R6exR6 at VRZ)

Satisfactory performance, at satisfactory noise and satisfactory price. Nvidia did a good job, but maybe it will not look so good once the 69XX come out. Whatever the case, it is a good card non the less.

 

[NathansFortune]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4051/nvidias-geforce-gtx-570-filling-in-the-gaps

Anandtech review up as well.

As a gap-filler the GTX 570 is largely what we expected the moment we saw the GTX 580 and we have no serious qualms with it. The one thing that does disappoint us is that NVIDIA is being conservative with the pricing: $350 is not aggressive pricing. The GTX 570 is fast enough to justify its position and the high-end card price premium, but at $100 over the GTX 470 and Radeon HD 5870 you’re paying a lot for that additional 20-25% in performance. Certainly we’re going to be happy campers if AMD’s next series of cards can put some pressure on NVIDIA here.

So basically GTX580 > HD5970 > GTX570 = GTX480 > HD5870 > GTX 470 = HD6870

 

[gkar1]

So basically HD5970 > GTX580 > GTX570 = GTX480 > HD5870 > GTX 470 = HD6870

Fixed. After more than a year AMD still has the fastest gaming card available and the HD5970 is cheaper than the GTX580.

 

[NathansFortune]

Fixed. After more than a year AMD still has the fastest gaming card available and the HD5970 is cheaper than the GTX580.

Not for buyers of single GPU cards it isn't, and not for games that ATi don't have a CF profile for either...

 

[gkar1]

Not for buyers of single GPU cards it isn't, and not for games that ATi don't have a CF profile for either...

Careful, rolling your eyes while your head is buried in the sand is probably not a healthy thing to do.

 

[no-X]

Not for buyers of single GPU cards it isn't, and not for games that ATi don't have a CF profile for either...

HD5970 is faster than GTX580 at the average, so all performance-related CrossFire disadvantages are already included in the comparision. The difference is small, HD5970 has disadvantage in smaller frame-buffer and compared to GTX580 it adds ~10-15ms AFR lag, so it isn't really optimal product. But it doesn't change anything on the statement, that HD5970 is the fastest gaming card on market and nVidia (still) isn't able to beat it.

 

[Sxotty]

HD5970 is faster than GTX580 at the average, so all performance-related CrossFire disadvantages are already included in the comparision. The difference is small, HD5970 has disadvantage in smaller frame-buffer and compared to GTX580 it adds ~10-15ms AFR lag, so it isn't really optimal product. But it doesn't change anything on the statement, that HD5970 is the fastest gaming card on market and nVidia (still) isn't able to beat it.

Average? Of what? When you pick specific benchmarks you are only saying it is faster on average for users who run those benchmarks. Not even users who play those games. Whether it is a better experience varies based on the user, what they are running, and their tolerance.

 

[CRoland]

Average? Of what? When you pick specific benchmarks you are only saying it is faster on average for users who run those benchmarks. Not even users who play those games. Whether it is a better experience varies based on the user, what they are running, and their tolerance.

Then again, you could use that to dismiss any benchmarks whatsoever...

 

[Razor1]

http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/...-570/20/#abschnitt_performancerating_mit_aaaf

pretty much within 5% not much of an argument.

 

[mboeller]

HD5970 is faster than GTX580 at the average, so all performance-related CrossFire disadvantages are already included in the comparision. The difference is small, HD5970 has disadvantage in smaller frame-buffer and compared to GTX580 it adds ~10-15ms AFR lag, so it isn't really optimal product. But it doesn't change anything on the statement, that HD5970 is the fastest gaming card on market and nVidia (still) isn't able to beat it.

Yep, and I'm sure that even ATi/AMD didn't expect this. Otherwise the statement from the CEO(?) that ATi/AMD will have the lead "most of 2010" from jan-march 2010 (couldn't find the actual quote) would not make sense.

Therefore IMHO ATi/AMD was quite surprised about the GTX580; because IMHO they expected something better from Nvidia

 

[RecessionCone]

Yep, and I'm sure that even ATi/AMD didn't expect this. Otherwise the statement from the CEO(?) that ATi/AMD will have the lead "most of 2010" from jan-march 2010 (couldn't find the actual quote) would not make sense.

Therefore IMHO ATi/AMD was quite surprised about the GTX580; because IMHO they expected something better from Nvidia

Yup, and it only takes 670 mm^2 of GPU silicon to beat Nvidia's 520 mm^2 chip by 5%. AMD's perf/mm^2 is sure impressive!

 

[NathansFortune]

HD5970 is faster than GTX580 at the average, so all performance-related CrossFire disadvantages are already included in the comparision. The difference is small, HD5970 has disadvantage in smaller frame-buffer and compared to GTX580 it adds ~10-15ms AFR lag, so it isn't really optimal product. But it doesn't change anything on the statement, that HD5970 is the fastest gaming card on market and nVidia (still) isn't able to beat it.

I'm not disputing that for some games it is ahead of the 580, I just pointed that for a lot of gamers it doesn't matter, the 580 is a preferable gaming card because it is a single chip solution. It's part of the reason Nvidia can charge more money for it compared to the 5970.

I don't think direct comparisons of single and dual chip solutions are really fair. I'm not an Nvidia apologist, if the situations were reversed and Nvidia had the best single card dual chip solution with GTX495 but ATi had HD6970 with similar but slightly worse performance in a single chip solution I would always recommend the latter option.

Single chip > dual chip, always.

 

[caveman-jim]

Yep, and I'm sure that even ATi/AMD didn't expect this. Otherwise the statement from the CEO(?) that ATi/AMD will have the lead "most of 2010" from jan-march 2010 (couldn't find the actual quote) would not make sense.

Therefore IMHO ATi/AMD was quite surprised about the GTX580; because IMHO they expected something better from Nvidia

No, that was epic PR win; they set NVIDIA up to fail, and make themselves look good even if NVIDIA deliver by saying it was in line with expectations. Clevar!

 

[NathansFortune]

Yup, and it only takes 670 mm^2 of GPU silicon to beat Nvidia's 520 mm^2 chip by 5%. AMD's perf/mm^2 is sure impressive!

That's not a fair comparison, cost/mm^2 does not scale in a linear fashion. The two 340mm^2 chips probably come in at just 10% more than a single 520mm^2 chip because of increased yields for smaller less complex dies.

 

[LordEC911]

That's not a fair comparison, cost/mm^2 does not scale in a linear fashion. The two 340mm^2 chips probably come in at just 10% more than a single 520mm^2 chip because of increased yields for smaller less complex dies.

BOM for 5970 is less than GTX480... now GTX580 might be less.

 

[NathansFortune]

BOM for 5970 is less than GTX480... now GTX580 might be less.

That's kind of what I was getting at...

 

[Jawed]

Yup, and it only takes 670 mm^2 of GPU silicon to beat Nvidia's 520 mm^2 chip by 5%. AMD's perf/mm^2 is sure impressive!

510mm² of AMD silicon is more than enough for that job

On the other hand, NVidia releasing a chip well over a year late (GF110, or should I say GF100b, is clearly the chip that should have launched autumn 2009) is some kind of record.