NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

Sorry, you are right, I used 77 instead of 76.1.

 

It must be a damn good one because the chart puts the 6870 above their 460 by just 7% on 3DMark while hardware.fr puts the 6870 around 20% ahead of the stock 460 1GB.

Chiphell are saying the GTX560 is 23% better than the 6870 which makes it better than the stock 460 by around 50% according to hardware.fr. I think that is an unrealistic increase and Chiphell have got something wrong or miscalculated.

 

Yes, because 23% faster than 6870 means that it is a lil bit faster than Radeon 6970, at least according to this http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon_HD_6970/29.html.

 

Not only that, but it'd make it faster than the GTX 570, making that a completely irrelevant part. And according to that link you posted, only about 8% slower than a GTX 580. Making that an irrelevant product at its price point.

Regards,
SB

 

GTX 560 Ti

For the GTX 560 Ti: The default GPU clock appears to be 823MHz, while the shaders and memory ended up at 1645MHz and 1002MHz respectively.

http://www.fudzilla.com/graphics/item/21540-early-gtx-560-ti-benches-tip-up-in-china

The GTX 560 Ti appears to be aimed at the AMD 6950. Pricing seems to be around $279.

Does anyone else expect a plain GTX 560 with lower clocks to also be released at near the $200 price point. If so that would explain why the Ti is on the higher clocked model.

 

Dunno I had trouble getting past the 2nd paragraph of the fudzilla article. How can it be 25% faster than the 460 and still be 25% faster than the 6870?

 

In 3dMark 11 it's about the level of a GTx470 or HD6870... and the 3dMark vantage score is with PhysX on...

Even if 3dMark11 is slightly favourable to AMD, I wouldn't expect the GTX560 to go higher than 5870 level on average.

 

And...confirming 1GB Cayman Pro is coming
http://www.techpowerup.com/138449/HIS-Intros-Radeon-HD-6950-1-GB-Fan-Edition-Graphics-Card.html

...but at what price? $260 my guess, 560Ti killer? Barts prices going south?
I doubt there will be a 1GB Cayman XT...too many cards too little differentiation.

 

I think a 1GB Cayman Pro will be competitive with the GTX560, but at 390mm^2 for $269 ATi will be on razor thin margins. Especially if Nv have their die size at the rumoured 330-350mm^2 they, for the first time in ages, will be able to undercut ATi with a relatively smaller die size.

 

Thats a fully functional GPU compared to a salvage part. I don't anticipate a problem with gross margins under such a scenario.

 

And GF114 can do some serious OC ...so i can only hope AMD will unlock Cayman OC limits....800mhz to 840mhz looks like a marketing nightmare..once Nvidia starts allowing partner to parade 950mhz GTX 560 Ti Ultra Xtreme.

 

I mean if Nvidia can make GTX460 so "tiny" wrt to modern gpu... GF114 Fermi must be a pretty economical chip..I think Ti competes with 6950 1GB...Nvidia again sending out OC versions...TWIMTP games...and i think Nvidia will have another hit...Cayman oh Cayman how fast it will be "sidelined" by the market forces...all IMHO.

There is sure to be vanilla GTX 560 that is the salvage part and comes with even cheaper PCB, that should challenge 6870...at $199? I think we have the $200 and up segment covered...with a serious lack of $150-199 cards...

 

Plus, if NVIDIA can sell GTX 460s for $118 (!!!) after MIR and with Just Cause 2 included, AMD should be fine with the 6950, even at $200.

 

A salvage part they were previously selling for more money with the vanilla 6950. The margins would definitely have to take a hit for ATi to price it low enough to compete with the 560. If the 560 is all it's cracked up to be a 1GB Cayman Pro for $30-40 less than the 2GB version would obsolete the 2GB version. Essentially AMD are losing that revenue where before they were selling the same chip in a card with $15 more RAM for $30-40 more.

The other problem I can see is that 1GB 6950 could have lower clocks and lower memory clocks to make sure it doesn't eat into 2GB 6950 sales, but that would mean having to sell it significantly cheaper than 560 and that again will eat into their margins, selling a larger chip with worse performance would put AMD into a bad position similar to how they have been operating in their processor division. Nvidia were able to do that because they had fat margins on their pro products, they seem to get a better deal from TSMC, and they have a massive cash pile to fall back on.

 

That's a clearance price to make way for the 560, Nvidia are making space and probably offering rebates to retailers.

 

Sure, but the GTX 460 was selling for about $150 before that, and for a while.

 

Now GTX 460 768 MB may be found even for 110 USD flat with a rebate (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...21&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=20). I think that's a perfect deal.

Sorry, but I thought it was written Free shipping. My bad.

 

You wouldn't think that the pricing difference comes from the framebuffer size

Nope.

I think you've missed some fundamentals of how this business operates.

 

Seriously wtf, nV finally got their naming act together, nevermind the small issue of jumping to next hundreds quite a bit too easily perhaps, but nooo, they have to change that yet again, and GTX 560 will be GTX 560 Ti instead?

 

guru3d has a not that old review of a gigabyte super overclock 460 that some might find interesting.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-460-soc-review/10

It's clocked at 815 MHz with the memory at 4000 MHz. That's very close to the rumored 560 Ti speeds. Albeit without the extra processing units of the 560.

I also note the power requirements of this SOC card.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/gigabyte-geforce-gtx-460-soc-review/7

That was from when guru3d still used Furmark, they've since switched to an undisclosed benchmark more representative of real world extreme demands.

Here's some CoD numbers showing power consumption.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=27185&page=9

Solid components,