NVIDIA GF100 & Friends speculation

I dont know why commenters in that thread are all excited about it. You're going to pay for that performance, as always.

If the uber oced 560 TI approaches a 570 for example, you can bet it will be priced accordingly. They always are. IHV's dont leave money on the table.

 

They can do:

600Mhz @0.925V (doesn't go lower)
732Mhz @0.950V (stock)
800Mhz @0.950V (So far only Crysis Warhead needed 1.000V)
850Mhz @1.013V
900Mhz @ 1.050V (3dmark 11 stable)
950Mhz @1.050V (half 3dmark11 stable )
1GHz @1.050V (15 seconds 3dmark11 lol)

All with auto fans up to 900Mhz. For 950Mhz I pushed the fans to their max and the temps were at around 70C at load, but still it crashed, so I guess the problem lies elsewhere, not the temps. PSU is 1000W Coolermaster Silent M Pro (not so silent after 500W power draw :S)

850Mhz settled as my choice for testing/benchmarking. For real life gaming, it's not needed for 95% of the cases, at 1920X1080.

 

GTX 560 1065Mhz @1150mV

3DMark11 P5279
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/6348/234830bs2sbz65x5osf95k.jpg

http://bbs.expreview.com/thread-39288-1-1.html

 

Impressive to say the least, but they greyed out the GPU score. Oh come on!

For reference, my 570@850Mhz + i7 860@4.0Ghz scored P5991 with respective tests:

GT1 = 25.11fps
GT2 = 26.06fps
GT3 = 35.71fps
GT4 = 18.42fps

PT = 26.36fps
CT = 25.84fps

===========================

my 5850@1Ghz + i7 860@4.0Ghz scored P4606 with respective tests :

GT1 = 23.02fps
GT2 = 22.01fps
GT3 = 25.63fps
GT4 = 11.18fps

PT = 27.52fps
CT = 20.34fps

=============================

and finally my 460@850Mhz + Q9550@4.0Ghz scored P3845 with respective tests :

GT1 = 16.76fps
GT2 = 17.50fps
GT3 = 22.75fps
GT4 = 11.26fps

PT = 17.26fps
CT = 16.04fps

 

20% faster than my GTX 460 945/4680MHz @ Graphics score
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/72044

6% lower than HD6950 @925/5800MHz @Graphics score
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4121/92514503dmark11details.jpg

 

Approximately 15% faster than an overclocked ASUS 6870 DirectCU and 8% slower than an overclocked MSI Hawk 6950. (Apparently no voltage bump applied by the testers on either)

http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/asus_6870_directcu/13.htm (Processor: Intel i7 920 @ 3.60GHz)

http://www.guru3d.com/article/msi-r6950-twin-frozr-ii-oc-review/22 ([FONT=verdana,geneva]Processor[/FONT][FONT=verdana,geneva]: Core i7 965 @ 3750 MHz)[/FONT]

I guess pricing will roughly follow this. Though game results with high resolutions and high levels of aniso and AA will be the actual determiner, I assume. That's where memory bandwidth will make itself felt. Notice how the Hawk's numbers don't scale so well with the core overclock at higher resolutions with lots of AA. I guess this will appliy to all cards.

 

Wow your stock voltage is really low, atleast what I've seen so far. Very reasonable voltage at 850 too. Warhead bumb is a little weird at 800? Did you try something like 0.975 or 0.9875 with Warhead.

0.9875 is what my SC model was at stock. I think it clocked just a notch worse than your card, well except it was 797mhz at stock and definitely stable, even at Warhead

 

You definitely have a point there. Maybe they could do Warhead with less voltage. I just was in a harry and took larger steps in voltage I guess.

How can you use 0.9875 voltage though? I use MSI Afterburner and it only supports three decimals. Not that it really matters, just wondering!

Also what is your minimum allowed voltage? MSI Afterburner's slider goes as low as 0.825 but if I try to apply it, it jumps to 0.925 which seems to be the minimum it can go.

It would be quite interesting if this could be done. I've measured 100W power draw difference from going to 600Mhz/0.925V instead of the stock. Measurement was done on Crysis 1920X1080+4XAA in SLI mode. I could take a wild guess that the power draw could be substantially reduced if the voltage could go even lower, although shaving off 100W was the important thing that made my PSU to go from non silent to silent, while the game was still running at ~60fps. In those 100W less, I guess the less strain on the cpu due to the lesser framerate, as well as the rest of the components, should play a small part as well.

Still it's nice to see a part that can range from 600Mhz all the way up to 900-950Mhz, with the user having an almost complete control over it. Nvidia didn't even give this feature a name at all! I wonder if enabling unofficial overclocking in Afterburner's config file will do the trick of <0.925V, hmmm...!!

 

I can't check the minimum voltage right now, because my card is RMA'd and is at EVGA's facility in Germany. I'm praying all sort of lords (including you) that I'll get it back. I assume my minimum voltage is the same as you though.

I think Afterburner just shows three decimals. It showed my card as 0.988. I also had EVGAs' E-Leet, which shows additional decimal. It however doesn't apply changed settings at Windows start up, so it's a bit pain in the ass to use.

 

Sorry to hear that! Hope they replace it soon and you resume having fun with it!

Thanks for the info!

 

Amazingly we're two days out from the supposed release date and we haven't heard from Nvidia. Not a peep. Surely we should have heard something by now, just something on twitter confirming its existence and release date for the 25th.

We don't even have anything from our reliable sources, just the less trustworthy Chinese ones, maybe this thing is delayed...

 

Are you referring to the GTX 560?

If yes, here are some pics.

 

I'd say I prefer a modest silence rather than the "Are you ready?" BS. So kudos to nVidia for learning from their own mistakes.

There's quite a lot of leaked 3dMark results at various clockspeed, highest one I've seen was with 1065mhz.

There's also a white edition from Galaxy coming up, clocked at 950mhz:



Notice the 8-pin power connector. :O

 

^Haven't seen a white PCB in awhile. I bet they are dust magnets.

 

Just noticed that EVGA has shipped a replacement today! YES! At first I was sure I had no chance in hell getting it back. I'm still pretty that it was my fault that the card broke. Well I'll be supporting EVGA in the future that's for sure.

 

That seems to imply that GTX 560 is going to have 69xx power levels. Stock might be slightly less than 6950, while OC'd version might be more than 6970. Wouldn't surprise me if the super OC versions came close to 300 watts.

Regards,
SB

 

Reviews should be out by now no?

The card is on sale and not a single review from any of the major websites, in fact not even any performance indications other than one forum guy who bought one.

 

afaik NDA ends at 3 p.m. in Germany, which is in about 50 minutes.

 

OK, I thought it was 12PM GMT, but that turned out to be the expiry time for the 6950 1GB NDA...

 

So we are going to see double reviews today? Both the 6950 1GB and the 560? Yeepee!