# The Next Generation CUDA Architecture, Code Named Fermi



## sam9s (Mar 17, 2010)

FilledVoid said:
			
		

> I'm not going to put this in Fight Club since the tendency is for folks to go at each other rather than the topic.



*gigasmilies.googlepages.com/21.gif could'nt help laughing......thats the very basic nature of a forum if you ask me.....


----------



## piyush2202 (Mar 17, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



sam9s said:


> Why on earth would one wait for Nvidia DX11 card when we already have ATI DX11 cards even performing better than Nvidia???


simply because the new DX11 cards from nvidia have not yet been tested. They may as well turn out to be better than the HD 5xxx series. Maybe they aren't but it's worth making sure right?

It would be really great to see ECC on a GPU only to turn it into a GPGPU. Plus you've got like 3 billion transistors on the die compared to 2.15 billion on the HD 5870.

So isn't it likely that the Nvidia DX11 just _might_ be faster than the HD 5870?? I'm not saying the 5870 is a bad card, I'm just saying there _may_ just be something better available very soon!!

Now since you prefer anandtech (@Sam.Shab) I'll give you a link that will explain this a lot better:
*www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3721&p=3


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 17, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



piyush2202 said:


> simply because the new DX11 cards from nvidia have not yet been tested. They may as well turn out to be better than the HD 5xxx series. Maybe they aren't but it's worth making sure right?
> 
> It would be really great to see ECC on a GPU only to turn it into a GPGPU. Plus you've got like 3 billion transistors on the die compared to 2.15 billion on the HD 5870.
> 
> ...



GTX480 will be faster than HD5870. but at the a steep price. it'll surely be costing well above 30k here in India when it gets launched in 8days time. add to it, cause of launch the price of the card wil be sky high. so expect paying 35k for GTX480 & 25k for GTX470.

but 1 more thing, i not sure if Nvidia will launch entry level or midrange card so soon. & to give ATI's midrange card to give competition they must be priced right, which i feel won't happen until Q4 2010. so waiting is not something that i'll advice now to anyone who wants a graphics card.

thanks for the link, however already read it when it got published. i never told Fermi is bad. its better than Evergreen, but all the Evergreen chips are priced just as thry perform. Nvidia maybe asking for bit too much over too little increment in gaming performance. but biggest doubt, other than GTX480 & GTX470 whats other cards will Nvidia release? & when?


----------



## sam9s (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



piyush2202 said:


> simply because the new DX11 cards from nvidia have not yet been tested. They may as well turn out to be better than the HD 5xxx series. Maybe they aren't but it's worth making sure right?
> It would be really great to see ECC on a GPU only to turn it into a GPGPU. Plus you've got like 3 billion transistors on the die compared to 2.15 billion on the HD 5870.
> So isn't it likely that the Nvidia DX11 just _might_ be faster than the HD 5870?? I'm not saying the 5870 is a bad card, I'm just saying there _may_ just be something better available very soon!!
> *www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3721&p=3



Oh man you dont obviously see the picture, Nvidia is *NOW *launching a card to compete ATI's 6 month old offering, when ATI already is dancing with his powerhouse  5970..........about to launch 5990 with a wopping 4GB of GDDR5 memory that will offer a staggering 307 GBps bandwidth. 
Rest assured even if GTX480 is better it would be ...... what??? may be couple of FPS more. Its latest and arguably greatest wont just blow ATI's six-month old offering right out of the water........ and then comes the price.....dont expect it any less then 40K on launch and by the time 480's price comes down OR Nvidia launches any cheaper varient......... ATI will in all probability launch 60 series which invariably will bring the price of 59XX series even further down ......definately lesser than 480 with a performance far better from it........
Getting the pattern here............

ATI currently is way ahead then Nvidia both in terms of Performance and Price.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

okay @piyush a card with ECC makes no difference.....in terms of FPS.... also @sam piyush is right.... the price range of the new fermi based GTX 480 and GTX 470 will be in price bracket of 25-35k so it is the same as the HD 5990 and 5970 if nvidia manages to push the prices below 30k it will be like snatching away the candy from ATI.... also the specs of the GTX 4xx series look quite uhmmm uhmmm..... powerful they run the same memory as GDDR5 , until now the problem was about the nvidia card which ran on GDDR3 so .... behold guys looks like there is a new kid on the block

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------

let's wait for a couple of days and see what Nvidia has to offer.... nvidia cannot loose this battle.... so i am keeping my fingers crossed.....

---------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------

dude as far as the 6-series graphic cards are concerned.... you will need to wait at least 3-4 months.....

---------- Post added at 09:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

also..... duhh 4GB of ram is useless.... unless they could bump up the core speeds and the memory clocks... it is the same as saying a 1litre bottle with a fill rate of 15ml/s and a same bottle with a fill rate of 150ml/s..... you get the point 4GB of ram is not going to make any difference as the frame of the games are not that big they hardly ever cross 512mb.


----------



## piyush2202 (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

I have nothing against ATI here, but I think that ATI released their HD5 series a bit too soon. Agreed that ATI has the edge here with their cards being the first to be released, but where are you going to _use_ that DX11 power?? You buy a new ATI DX11 card because you want to future proof your PC. The problem is that you never know the kind of hardware future DX11 games might require. What if future titles start using tesselation very heavily and then you find that if you'd have waited a bit (and spent a bit more) you'd have got a card that could handle all this stuff better.

Maybe Nvidia didn't release a DX11 card early because they wanted to feel out the market before doing so. Probably because of R&D?

---------- Post added at 09:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 AM ----------

oh yeah one more thing, Apple Ipod was release nearly a year after Sony Walkman MP3 player. Tell me, which one was more successful?? It's not the time of release that makes a difference man, it's what is under the hood _whenever_ it's released.


----------



## Zangetsu (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



piyush2202 said:


> The problem is that you never know the kind of hardware future DX11 games might require. What if future titles start using tesselation very heavily and then you find that if you'd have waited a bit (and spent a bit more) you'd have got a card that could handle all this stuff better.


true, but the upcoming DX11 will be built on same hardware platform.....if i m not wrong or wat else machine they use to build a game...

just look @ Eidos..TR underworld its by far more superior in graphics....as compared 2 its older counterparts...but it still runs in DX9.0 very smoothly...
the game developers has to consider the hardware used by maximum...gamers....& shudnt feel proud by developing a game that runs on very few PCs

PS: after all its a PC & not PS3 where every game looks & runs on same piece of hardware....
whereas in PC they do have 2 do a series of Test on different GCards....for a successfull launch...


----------



## asingh (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

The reason nVidia is releasing the Fermi series so late is because the messed up the fabrication/engineering. Basically they were late to the 40nm process, and also their yields were coming out low. Piyush, you are totally wrong by saying that ATI released the HD5xxx too early. Heck, they timed it perfectly post the HD4xxx series.  Market was saturated, users were demanding more power for less power consumption. They are spot on for the 40nm road map. They released a HD4xxx series 40nm part first -- as a pipe cleaner. This helped them test and check their 40nm fabrication processes.

Also you guys have it wrong. The HD 5990 and 5970 are not mainstream cards. They are to be utilized when using multiple monitors. The nVidia Fermi series should not be put against these cards. Both the HD 5990 and 5970 are dual GPU units, while the Fermi series as of now, are single GPU. They will wage the war against HD5870. Personally I think nVidia's new cards will be way over priced. For the same price you will get the HD 5990 and 5970 which will deliver much more. The 4GB RAM makes sense when using multiple monitors, of course it does..!


----------



## sam9s (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



NoasArcAngel said:


> [/COLOR]also..... duhh 4GB of ram is useless.... unless they could bump up the core speeds and the memory clocks... it is the same as saying a 1litre bottle with a fill rate of 15ml/s and a same bottle with a fill rate of 150ml/s..... you get the point 4GB of ram is not going to make any difference as the frame of the games are not that big they hardly ever cross 512mb.



r u a serious gamer....anyway HD 5990 are dual display cards, ever tried gaming on dual monitor....at insane res and all eye candy notched up 4GB definitely makes sense......its pushing the limits of both the game and the gamer.....

---------- Post added at 12:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:06 PM ----------




asigh said:


> Also you guys have it wrong. The HD 5990 and 5970 are not mainstream cards. They are to be utilized when using multiple monitors. The nVidia Fermi series should not be put against these cards. Both the HD 5990 and 5970 are dual GPU units, while the Fermi series as of now, are single GPU. They will wage the war against HD5870. Personally I think nVidia's new cards will be way over priced. For the same price you will get the HD 5990 and 5970 which will deliver much more. *The 4GB RAM makes sense when using multiple monitors, of course it does..!*



I did not read this before posting the above so its a +1 to that.


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



sam9s said:


> ATI currently is way ahead then Nvidia both in terms of Performance and Price.



+1. & its gonna improve as the price of the high end cards comes down when the battle between AMD & Nvidia starts.



piyush2202 said:


> I have nothing against ATI here, but I think that ATI released their HD5 series a bit too soon.



one of my college friend & a so called "gamer" also got same theory. ATI was too soon to GDDR5 & DX11. i tell him to be a noobish Nvidia fanboy.



> The problem is that you never know the kind of hardware future DX11 games might require. What if future titles start using tesselation very heavily and then you find that if you'd have waited a bit (and spent a bit more) you'd have got a card that could handle all this stuff better.



so what about the rest of the gaming community that uses AMD Radeon cards or older Nvidia cards? you remember Physx? the tech ultimately bought by Nvidia? it released a game CellFactor Revolution (unable to play as IGP sucks). it was only PhysX supporting game at that time. also PhysX cards only speeds games up which require more physics. by how much? say single digit %. & it was a FLOP, for then. now many games uses the Physics. & after so many years, only now few games have allowed PhysX support. its not that if your graphics card not support PhysX, you can't play games supporting it. its just like a addon to make gameplay better. i think tessellation will be same, maybe bit more famous as its Nvidia. still game developers will add it as an option to enhance the quality rather than focusing the entire game on use of tessellation.



> Maybe Nvidia didn't release a DX11 card early because they wanted to feel out the market before doing so. Probably because of R&D?



maybe. maybe you rite.



> oh yeah one more thing, Apple Ipod was release nearly a year after Sony Walkman MP3 player. Tell me, which one was more successful?? It's not the time of release that makes a difference man, it's what is under the hood _whenever_ it's released.



a music player can never be compared to a graphics card. it can never be. so can't be a car compared to PC. can it be? 



KaranTh85 said:


> true, but the upcoming DX11 will be built on same hardware platform.....if i m not wrong or wat else machine they use to build a game...
> 
> just look @ Eidos..TR underworld its by far more superior in graphics....as compared 2 its older counterparts...but it still runs in DX9.0 very smoothly...
> the game developers has to consider the hardware used by maximum...gamers....& shudnt feel proud by developing a game that runs on very few PCs
> ...



+1. thats the thing i trying to point out on my rather err,,,,,,, boring lecture. sorry guys 



asigh said:


> The reason nVidia is releasing the Fermi series so late is because the messed up the fabrication/engineering. Basically they were late to the 40nm process, and also their yields were coming out low. Piyush, you are totally wrong by saying that ATI released the HD5xxx too early. Heck, they timed it perfectly post the HD4xxx series.  Market was saturated, users were demanding more power for less power consumption. They are spot on for the 40nm road map. They released a HD4xxx series 40nm part first -- as a pipe cleaner. This helped them test and check their 40nm fabrication processes.



+1. exactly. the die size is HUGE. read this artice article if anyone wants know what asigh pointing by saying "messed up the fabrication/engineering". for others, its same as AMD's old Phenom proccies. they consume lot of power but the output was bad. same was happening with Nvidia. now its fixed, think so, so they ready to release the GPU.


----------



## sam9s (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



Sam.Shab said:


> you remember Physx? the tech ultimately bought by Nvidia? it released a game CellFactor Revolution (unable to play as IGP sucks). it was only PhysX supporting game at that time. also PhysX cards only speeds games up which require more physics. by how much? say single digit %. & it was a FLOP, for then. now many games uses the Physics. & after so many years, only now few games have allowed PhysX support. its not that if your graphics card not support PhysX, you can't play games supporting it. its just like a addon to make gameplay better. i think tessellation will be same, maybe bit more famous as its Nvidia. still game developers will add it as an option to enhance the quality rather than focusing the entire game on use of tessellation.



+1 to that and actually a good point to bring in .......


----------



## azaad_shri75 (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

@*Sam.Shab- buddy you are really an Tech Reviewer -am highly impressed of your knowledge and information you stocked in your brain and also other buddies included
*


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



sam9s said:


> +1 to that and actually a good point to bring in .......



just came to my mind the idea of PhysX when he mentioned tessellation. 



azaad_shri75 said:


> @*Sam.Shab- buddy you are really an Tech Reviewer -am highly impressed of your knowledge and information you stocked in your brain and also other buddies included
> *



actually just a tech reader. well something never seem to escape from my brain (anything related to pcs) & others just don't seem to remain stable (studies)


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

all the ATI fanboy's looks like ATI is gonna get a spanking very soon if i am not wrong.... 

the people who were comparing the HD 58xx series and The new Nvidia GTX4xx series.... here are the facts : 

1. *Internal benchmarks reveal that the GTX 470 is 10% faster than the ATI HD 5850 and the GTX 480 is 10% faster than the ATI HD 5870* . 

2.The pricing was revealed AT :

a. GTX 470 - 350USD   = 16,000 INR

b. GTX 480 - 500 USD  = 23,000 INR


The official pricing for the ATI HD 5850 is 18,000 INR in india and the ATI HD 5870 is 27,000 INR.

So, clearly even if ATI announces a price cut.... Nvidia is going to lead the way for some time ahead..... 

also what i mean to say was that 4GB of VRAM is useless for a single Display however for multiple display's even you wouldn't require 4GB .... max 2GB would also do the job.... and dude the size of the frames even at insane resolutions is not that high .. you get what i mean to say? 


but the problems with Fermi arch based cards is still there... *you need a minimum of a 600w PSU to run a single card and the TDP value is through the roofs*

*vr-zone.com/articles/nvidia-geforce-gtx-480-final-specs--pricing-revealed/8635.html

also that *4GB HD 5990 you were talking about is not a HD 5990 core it is just a OC'ed HD 5970 core... with 4GB of GDDR5*...so if nvidia plans to launch the GTX 5xx series anytime AMD is gonna go for the fall at " _*Terminal Velocity*_ "


----------



## asingh (Mar 18, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

^^
Actually it is really stupid of all of us (including me), to argue about a speculated accelerator. Let us wait 9-10 days more, then we can have a debate here. The paper launch is slated for the 26th March. So the techie sites should have the reviews up. 45 days later, the boards will trickle down to our supply chain. Price + performance ---> we can decide who wins.


----------



## sam9s (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



NoasArcAngel said:


> also what i mean to say was that 4GB of VRAM is useless for a single Display however for multiple display's even you wouldn't require 4GB .... max 2GB would also do the job.... and dude the size of the frames even at insane resolutions is not that high .. you get what i mean to say?



Seems the other way to me....... u being a Nvidia fanboy........anyway I literally smiled on your statement "_frames even at insane resolutions is not that high_" lol u dont know what u are saying neither you have any idea what gaming means at high resolution, I asked you.....have you ever done gaming on a dual monitor, forget it have you ever even done gaming on full HD 1080p........?? you wont know how to bring the GPU hardware to it knees. And for that matter even a meak 512 MB card would do the job for you. 
About Nvidia and ATI let me tell you, in my entire span of 10-11 years of computer gaming this is the first time I bought an ATI card else I always had a Nvidia, right from the days of Riva TnT so you can easily scrap that fanboysm thing out of your mind. Though even a fan can easily see where the story is going by the way ATI has come back strongly and have nailed Nvidia this time. Its all logically visible and if your brain has a blockage about the same, no one can do a thing about it.............
Lastly a straight comparison between USD and INR for the price is even more amusing and puts a period AFA I am concerned.............anyway for people like you who want to count the beans as they spill, lets wait for the card launch and see what happens.....

PS :: And BTW the price of HD5850 is around 14-15000 and 5870 around 22-23000, and not 18 and 27 respectively........so I suggest to also get your pricing right.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

 @*sam9s i said that the size of each frame even at inzane resolutions was not that big (high)..... and not what you quoted*..if you cant comprehend what the above means.... then i am truly disappointed with your knowledge....also i have done gaming on HD+ 2560x1600 resolutions..also i feel gaming on dual monitors is *" SAD "*..*Frankly speaking i would prefer a single screen running higher resolutions than using multiple displays together... it makes the experience much more real*...also i am no Nvidia Fanboy... can't you see that i am already using a ATI card??......also dude check with the  *" OFFICIAL "* prices.... not what the dealers give you.

I agree that ATI hit back with a punch with it's 4xxx and 5xxx series cards.... but not anymore....dude seriously talk about bringing a GPU to it's knees is only some games and benchmarks which can do that....


----------



## Zangetsu (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



NoasArcAngel said:


> a
> but the problems with Fermi arch based cards is still there... *you need a minimum of a 600w PSU to run a single card and the TDP value is through the roofs*



OMG...600W for single chip.....then we need atleast 1200W PS..this is crap...
r we runing a burner with boosters...


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

*The " OFFICIAL " prices are always higher than what the dealer gives you because he purchases the pieces in bulk that way the cost per components is very low.* _SO if Nvidia quotes the prices a 350USD and 500USD expect to pay about the same amount of money you are paying for the current HD 5850 and HD 5870 in India. _

well it is 550w .... i checked again

dude karan you need a 550w PSU for GTX 470 card.... so in SLi GTX 470 will need a 1.1kw PSU almost same as what you would require for a HD 5850 card in crossfire

*THE GTX 470 will retail for 299USD*..... :devil:    

 *THE team in red *

---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

*www.tweaktown.com/news/14302/more_details_on_nvidia_fermi_price_psu_requirements_and_more/


----------



## asingh (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

*NoasArcAngel:*
It is not wise to commit figures so early in the game. It is all speculation regarding the new nVidia accelerators. Pricing/TDP/power usage/performance -- we know jack squat about these parameters. Only when we see real live tests, should we safely commit. It is misleading people, and creating a bad picture about certain brands. Some of the numbers you quoted above to Karan, I do not have faith in them. Why.? Because I have not seen them. And, please do not put some link here, from a hotch-potch site, which has not done any test. Even pre-release data from nVidia makes no sense. Only when I see results from guru3d, Toms, HardOCP and similar sites, can we comment.

Also since you have a difference of opinion with a member, does not mean you start to hit below the belt. One is free to mention what they want in their signature. Even if it is incorrect, or the terminology is not exact technical standard. That is why a signature option is available on forums like this. Its a free space, which no should dispute -- unless it is personally offensive.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

Dude ... the figures which i have mentioned are taken from the person who " reviewed " the GTX 470... maybe you would like to check that link ...i agree it is cheap on my part to take pot-shots at him ...... but dont you see what he is saying is wrong? the point i am trying to makes is that i said something . at first he didn't get it, then for unnecessary reasons he is arguing on the wrong point...? according to me .... if he wants to argue then he should do it when he has the proper knowledge.... not just using some theories and mixing them up....? i don't think of a debate as a way to put down others... after all we are here only to learn ..

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

[/COLOR]and the link is from tweak townn....  not any other hotch potch site


----------



## FilledVoid (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*

I wouldn't speculate about anything at the moment now considering the product isn't physically on the shelves over here yet. So I'd be patient and wait it out. However I doubt the cards would be sold at the same price as of the conversion rate of USD. 

Has anyone actually noticed that a discussion of comparisons of  Ati and nVidia GPUs is kind of out of the scope of the posters question  and lets keep it nice and calm  . Be free to make another thread for discussion between them , if you do want these posts in them Ill be more than happy to move it for you assuming that posts can be moved.


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



asigh said:


> ^^
> Actually it is really stupid of all of us (including me), to argue about a speculated accelerator. Let us wait 9-10 days more, then we can have a debate here. The paper launch is slated for the 26th March. So the techie sites should have the reviews up. 45 days later, the boards will trickle down to our supply chain. Price + performance ---> we can decide who wins.



yah. lets wait for it to launch before passing some harsh or maybe nonsense comments.



vickybat said:


> Wait for fermi until you decide for your graphics card.
> Its goin to be worth the wait.



i think only for Highend part. what about the midrange section or even entry level? have any rumors surfaced about some GT420 or GT440?



KaranTh85 said:


> OMG...600W for single chip.....then we need atleast 1200W PS..this is crap...
> r we runing a burner with boosters...



600W or 550W, but of what efficiency? i mean they maybe saying about a below 80% certified PSU. something equivalent of Iball or Frontech selling in US. so until we get real test results of the power consumption, its foolishness to comment anything on the increase in electricity bill one will have after installing a Fermi 



FilledVoid said:


> I wouldn't speculate about anything at the moment now considering the product isn't physically on the shelves over here yet. So I'd be patient and wait it out. However *I doubt the cards would be sold at the same price as of the conversion rate of USD*.
> 
> Has anyone actually noticed that a discussion of comparisons of  Ati and nVidia GPUs is kind of out of the scope of the posters question  and lets keep it nice and calm  . Be free to make another thread for discussion between them , if you do want these posts in them Ill be more than happy to move it for you assuming that posts can be moved.



+1. cost of the card will surely be more in here, even if its a tad more.


----------



## sam9s (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



NoasArcAngel said:


> @*sam9s i said that the size of each frame even at inzane resolutions was not that big (high)..... and not what you quoted*..if you cant comprehend what the above means.... then i am truly disappointed with your knowledge



Cheezzz man either I am a noob now or seriously the statement is too complex for me to comprehend.......somebody plz explain me what does bloody *Size of each frame at insane res* means.........damm some people speak with lost conviction




> ...also i have done gaming on HD+ 2560x1600 resolutions..also i feel gaming on dual monitors is *" SAD "*..*Frankly speaking i would prefer a single screen running higher resolutions than using multiple displays together... it makes the experience much more real*...also i am no Nvidia Fanboy... can't you see that i am already using a ATI card??......also dude check with the  *" OFFICIAL "* prices.... not what the dealers give you.



may I know which monitor you have to do gaming @2560x1600???? its not in your sig (*dont just through to prove,,, you will be in a pit in no time*)......and about the dual monitor experience....then that's you your problem....does not mean gamers do'nt do that or are not satisfied, .........and there are loads of games today that can put the GPU to its knees, you need to push it bro, most of people like you are contended to play with med settings at an avg res on 19 or 21".

and what the heck am I gonna do with official prices.......u are comparing indian prices that to official with USD equivalent, thats absurd...



asigh said:


> *NoasArcAngel:*
> It is not wise to commit figures so early in the game. It is all speculation regarding the new nVidia accelerators. Pricing/TDP/power usage/performance -- we know jack squat about these parameters. Only when we see real live tests, should we safely commit. It is misleading people, and creating a bad picture about certain brands. Some of the numbers you quoted above to Karan, I do not have faith in them. Why.? Because I have not seen them. And, please do not put some link here, from a hotch-potch site, which has not done any test. Even pre-release data from nVidia makes no sense. Only when I see results from guru3d, Toms, HardOCP and similar sites, can we comment.



++1.....No one could have written in a better way to explain your astray

---------- Post added at 02:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:42 PM ----------




Sam.Shab said:


> what makes you say gaming on 3 monitors or say 2 monitors only is sad? Eyefinity is meant for 3 monitor setup, not 2. with 2 you'll get the monitor bezel coming in between & will make gameplay not only disturbing but also very annoying. play a MMORPG on a 3 monitor setup, you'll know its nothing about getting sad.
> maybe only you prefer so, using only 1 monitor, but maybe rest of the gaming community wants different, maybe. else why has the idea of Eyefinity surfaced & is in practical use now? not cause the CEO or the chairman of AMD wants so. cause gamers from different parts of the world requested for it (you not included).



+1 which adds to what ever I said in my above post........



> you don't buy cards on official prices. or even other pc stuffs (lets limit discussion to PC based things only, please). if so, why was X4 630 selling for ~5.8k back in 2009 when it was first launched? when the *OFFICIAL* price was a mere 99USD?



I love the way Sam.Shab chips in points, very valid one.............Sam are you by an chance a Libran...


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 19, 2010)

*Re: Is This config proper*



sam9s said:


> Cheezzz man either I am a noob now or seriously the statement is too complex for me to comprehend.......somebody plz explain me what does bloody *Size of each frame at insane res* means.........damm some people speak with lost conviction



me2. scratched my head for 10min, still nothing came up which makes me understand what NoasArcAngel told in the above mentioned post. someone call AMD (Nvidia will work well) & ask what that damn statement means 



> ++1.....No one could have written in a better way to explain your astray



he wise old owl. not fox in sheep's cloth (not pointing my finger at FilledVoid. just trying to make my point more clear).



> I love the way Sam.Shab chips in points, very valid one.............Sam are you by an chance a Libran...



my nature from birth . well by chance i actually Sagit......


----------



## ani1751 (Mar 19, 2010)

so can a person planning to buy a new pc in june 1st week can think about NVIDIA?

Actully i was always a little biased towards ati, but i think as the price of ati HD5850 and Nvidia GT 470 are almost same, and as nvidia already has a market review about DX11 and performance req by mass, they will make it a little better.

I think in two months we will have all the reviews....


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 19, 2010)

ani1751 said:


> so can a person planning to buy a new pc in june 1st week can think about NVIDIA?
> 
> Actully i was always a little biased towards ati, but i think as the price of ati HD5850 and Nvidia GT 470 are almost same, and as nvidia already has a market review about DX11 and performance req by mass, they will make it a little better.
> 
> I think in two months we will have all the reviews....



more of AMD. cause AMD ready to take 2nd place in the fastest card rating provided their sales going "bindaas". look at HD4890. its second fastest to GTX280. when both cards got released, AMD priced the HD4890 (ask asigh, he bought 2 X HD4890 & not 2 X GTX280) in such a way, it gave pure value. Nvidia just asked for premium for owning fastest card in this planet. 

i think same will happen in 2010 also. GTX470 trumps HD5850. & asks for 25k premium. possible. GTX480 beats HD5870 by 5% asks 35k premium. now a *TRUE* Nvidia fanboy will surely sell out 35k for GTX480 but majority won't.


----------



## sam9s (Mar 19, 2010)

ani1751 said:


> so can a person planning to buy a new pc in june 1st week can think about NVIDIA?
> 
> Actully i was always a little biased towards ati, but i think as the price of ati HD5850 and Nvidia GT 470 are almost same, and as nvidia already has a market review about DX11 and performance req by mass, they will make it a little better.
> 
> I think in two months we will have all the reviews....



Only if the price of GTX470 is lesser than HD5850 (which I doubt) coz performance gain would not be something to scream about, and also if other factors like the power consumption, layout, cards noise level etc does not make any difference to the indivisual.

But I bet ATI will reduce the price of their HD5850 and 5870 even further the moment GTX480/470 are launched, simply because its been 6 months these cards were launched and ATI must have got the expected initial share of the cost(atleast 60%) and now would be ready to slash the prices......

---------- Post added at 11:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------




Sam.Shab said:


> i think same will happen in 2010 also. GTX470 trumps HD5850. & asks for 25k premium. possible. GTX480 beats HD5870 by 5% asks 35k premium. now a *TRUE* Nvidia fanboy will surely sell out 35k for GTX480 but majority won't.



you have done it again.....*gigasmilies.googlepages.com/113.gif


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 20, 2010)

sam9s said:


> Only if the price of GTX470 is lesser than HD5850 (which I doubt) coz performance gain would not be something to scream about, and also if other factors like the power consumption, layout, cards noise level etc does not make any difference to the indivisual.
> 
> But I bet ATI will reduce the price of their HD5850 and 5870 even further the moment GTX480/470 are launched, simply because its been 6 months these cards were launched and ATI must have got the expected initial share of the cost(atleast 60%) and now would be ready to slash the prices......



yup. its time for ATI to cut cost. AMD has developed a very good strategy similar to Intel's tick-tock strategy (launch proccy on mature nods & when their business on full swing, switch to new node i.e. switch manufacturing process. 65nm--->45nm. 45nm--->32nm). AMD's strategy: release new card & get good sale rates. and when Nvidia replies, simply cut cost. BUMP.



> you have done it again.....*gigasmilies.googlepages.com/113.gif



oh come on mate.


----------



## Piyush (Mar 20, 2010)

@samshab-so i'm here 
now lets talk about physX
Man!i'm totally confused and dejected now
i was goin to buy a 5850 in summer break
and u wont believe it that card performed xtremely bad in batman:arkham asylum benchmarks(physX enabled)
here r the results
*www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...0,2446-14.html

even gts 250 performed way better than 5850


----------



## Krow (Mar 20, 2010)

^You really expect an ATI card to do well with PhysX, which is a technology owned and propagated by Nvidia?


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 20, 2010)

piyush120290 said:


> @samshab-so i'm here
> now lets talk about physX
> Man!i'm totally confused and dejected now
> i was goin to buy a 5850 in summer break
> ...



1 small piece of nonsense advice: either don't play games that feature physx or disable physx in the game. simple. 

ok now being serious. krowman already told, physx is Nvidia tech. you can't just enable physx in a radeon card & hope it'll give Nvidia a run for its money. thats ridiculous 

see piyush, none have seen future. in future AMD may include some new tech in their 6series card (or whatever they planning to getting launched in October-November '10 timeframe) that just a advanced version of Physx & performs better. & you bought a Fermi card. so you're stuck. or maybe most new games include Physx as a dedicated feature rather than as an addon. & your HD5850 (suppose you bought it) can't give you satisfactory FPS at HD resolution. what you'll do then? 

my suggestion, keep a good eye on Fermi. see if its really worth. & also how many new games include Physx. do any game makes it Physx exclusive or tessellation exclusive.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 20, 2010)

*What i meant to say by the statement " the size of the frame even at insane resolutions it not that big " it means that the size of A single frame in - game is not larger than your GPU video memory*..... basically in layman terms... the bigger the frame the higher the detail including shadows , shaders etc....It is in the GPU memory where the frames are buffered and then sent to the display.... so having oogles of amount of VRAM is pointless, you have to make it faster.... not larger. It's the same thing like saying DDR2 graphics card vs DDR3 based graphics card.... a DDR3 based graphics card will have a higher bandwidth and fill-rate because of the faster mapping speeds of DDR3 ram

---------- Post added at 08:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:42 PM ----------

*Also apart from the official prices in USDollars ... there are other factors like Duty and Customs and Shipping if you have ever heard of them ? *

As far as the dealer price is concerned.... i basically meant to say that even if you compare the american pricing of the HD 58xx series it works out to be the same... so what i am basically saying is that the GTX4xx series is going to be priced around the same as the HD 58xx series in INDIA.

---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------

okay.... i dont have a monitor which supports that res....but i have played on one... and frankly speaking i was playing crysis on a quad GTX 285 setup with a core i7 and 8GB DDR3 ram and i loved IT , it was better than playing on friggin 3x26inch monitors... as far as the benchmarks are concerned...you can push any GPU to the limits.... but after a certain point it gets useless

---------- Post added at 08:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:49 PM ----------

Also... all the games i play i turn up the eye-candy to full to what my monitor supports and all the games run without a performance drop ..... i use a 19" screen samsung syncmaster 920NW it has a native res of 1440x990

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------

unlike...you sam9s i am not concerned with the amount of ram or the oh.... it has 3 HDMI out's on one card. And the i look more at the more practical side of hardware like how it works and how it can be made more efficient...... what info you people have can be possessed by anyone who keeps an eye on the latest tech news and reads about these things almost daily...

---------- Post added at 09:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 PM ----------

And specially... running 3 monitors sucks.... i would prefer a single large display so that the bezels dont come in between


----------



## sam9s (Mar 21, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> *What i meant to say by the statement " the size of the frame even at insane resolutions it not that big " it means that the size of A single frame in - game is not larger than your GPU video memory*..... basically in layman terms... the bigger the frame the higher the detail including shadows , shaders etc....It is in the GPU memory where the frames are buffered and then sent to the display.... so having oogles of amount of VRAM is pointless, you have to make it faster.... not larger. It's the same thing like saying DDR2 graphics card vs DDR3 based graphics card.... a DDR3 based graphics card will have a higher bandwidth and fill-rate because of the faster mapping speeds of DDR3 ram



*Noas *you know you are a lost soul, and I pity you for you ignorance and on the top your arrogance. 
You even know what a frame means......??? A frame can not be made bigger or smaller, a frame can be made faster or slower, and what you are talking about is a Frame Buffer. _Now listen to this very carefully coz I would request and expect you not to come back again with some vague explanation to justify your pathetic point......_

Mind you its the least basic explanation I can think off....... 

Video memory stores color value of each pixel and its location on the screen, 
A frame Buffer is a part of Video memory, which holds completed images until it is time to display them on monitor. The amount of video memory required to hold (contain) the frame buffer data depends on the *resolution *of the output video and color depth. 
So contrary to your statement you *do* want to make Frame Buffer large. Larger the Video Ram larger would be the frame buffer and easier for the GPU to hold complex images/textures/off screen draw buffers/geometry/shaders at *very high resolution*

Got the point..........

Sam.Shaib thats the best way I could have explained.......if there is an easier way you are the boss, coz I dont have the energy left to explain that DDR example he gave......



> [/COLOR]*Also apart from the official prices in USDollars ... there are other factors like Duty and Customs and Shipping if you have ever heard of them ? *
> 
> As far as the dealer price is concerned.... i basically meant to say that even if you compare the american pricing of the HD 58xx series it works out to be the same... so what i am basically saying is that the GTX4xx series is going to be priced around the same as the HD 58xx series in INDIA.



Cheezzz man where did this guy come from.......Sam.Shaib you take a lead and if possible cast in your magical example



> [/COLOR]okay.... i dont have a monitor which supports that res....but i have played on one... and frankly speaking i was playing crysis on a quad GTX 285 setup with a core i7 and 8GB DDR3 ram and i loved IT , it was better than playing on friggin 3x26inch monitors... as far as the benchmarks are concerned...you can push any GPU to the limits.... but after a certain point it gets useless



QUAD GTX 285 setup....lol  and still you wont love it.....ofcourse you would.....does not mean that 470/480 would justify the price performance ratio in comparison to ATI, what was that example for????



> [/COLOR]Also... all the games i play i turn up the eye-candy to full to what my monitor supports and all the games run without a performance drop ..... i use a 19" screen samsung syncmaster 920NW it has a native res of 1440x990



That my friend is not even a "G" of hardcore gaming......



> [/COLOR]unlike...you sam9s i am not concerned with the amount of ram or the oh.... it has 3 HDMI out's on one card. And the i look more at the more practical side of hardware like how it works and how it can be made more efficient...... what info you people have can be possessed by anyone who keeps an eye on the latest tech news and reads about these things almost daily..



Hell with the damm practicality........_the guys got money_....who the hell would think about compromise and practicality with a whooping 3 lack budget.????
Why on earth one would think about efficiency when one has oodles of money to spare....dont get me wrong bro I know where you are coming from, and even I could have suggested a lot of 'practicle and budget' config had it been a regular 30-40-50K PC.
And yes we all do read about technology and keep an eye on latest tech, whats wrong in it..............did you come out... took birth with all this info pre fed in to you.....eh !  



> [/COLOR]And specially... running 3 monitors sucks.... i would prefer a single large display so that the bezels dont come in between



Then my friend you do not have the slightest idea what a multi monitor gaming means.

!!!!!!PEACE!!!!!!


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 21, 2010)

first of all PEACE !! 

@sam9s what i meant to say ( read carefully, i am neither being arrogant not angry am i trying to explain )

what you said was correct but if we go in detail... your GPU memory does that also it buffers up the Frames... now the size of 1 single frame you are playing at for example crsysis... can be defined as the number of bits / pixel  in the frame multiplied by the total resolution of the monitor, that's how you calculate the size of 1 single frame...now basically the output of the GPU not only depends on how large your video memory is but how fast your video memory is... because faster memory will result in quicker buffering and higher frames / second. So basically the higher the LOD the bigger the frame.... AFAIK the largest single crysis frame i ever saw was about a 50Megabyte max..

you can go here and calculate the frame size : *web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=2560&height=1600

Take for example : the sony ps3... it is based on the 78xx / 79xx core with 256mb GDDR3 and 256mb XDR ram.... the clock speeds and bandwidth of XDR ram is about 28gigabyte/s per channel so the maximum theoritical output of the ps3 is about 2TERAFLOPS / 208Gigaflops... that is somewhat lower than a 4GB HD 5970.

So with such a outdated core and XDR ram the ps3 is still able to deliver awe-spiring graphics at Full HD resolutions. 

Also if you move into detail you can increase the size of the frame by increasing the LOD ( Level of detail ) and higher resolutions. 

just increasing the resolution would be like adding pixels to a blanks space something like the process of upscaling.... the end result would be image quality loss. lower LOD


okay as far as the last statement was concerned it had nothing to do with the other thread.... i was merely pointing out the fact that you need to look in depth of the hardware....not what it has.

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

duh, man i am only 15 you expect me to build a 60k+ pc ?


----------



## Piyush (Mar 21, 2010)

yeah
i guess u all r right
i was just furious to see those benchmark results(meanwhile forgot that physX is of nvidia's stuff)

so i'll rather wait for fermi


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 21, 2010)

@sam9s, buddy you explained almost everything correctly. but clock speed matters too. if the GPU core can't produce enough FPS to keep the Frame Buffer busy it'll sit idle as in the entry level craps like 9400GT 1Gb DDR2. 

@NoasArcAngel, you too gave a good explanation.



> So basically the higher the LOD the bigger the frame.... AFAIK the largest single crysis frame i ever saw was about a 50Megabyte max..



actually LOD increases size. Resolution increases frames. hope i am right. but both needs faster GPU & faster ram. 



> the sony ps3... it is based on the 78xx / 79xx core with 256mb GDDR3 and 256mb XDR ram.... the clock speeds and bandwidth of XDR ram is about 28gigabyte/s per channel so the maximum theoritical output of the ps3 is about 2TERAFLOPS / 208Gigaflops... that is somewhat lower than a 4GB HD 5970.



no. just theoretical output doesn't says the power of a graphics card or GPU. & the cell processor (inside the PS3) isn't a piece of junk. its one of most complex graphics unit ever developed at that time. its an extremely effective GPU paired with one of industries fastest ram. its going to be fast.



> So with such a outdated core and XDR ram the ps3 is still able to deliver awe-spiring graphics at Full HD resolutions.



cause the games are made in that way. PS3 got limitation. its not an assembled PC that can go head to head with crysis @ max (provided you got more than 200k)


----------



## sam9s (Mar 21, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> first of all PEACE !!
> 
> @sam9s what i meant to say ( read carefully, i am neither being arrogant not angry am i trying to explain )
> 
> what you said was correct but if we go in detail... your GPU memory does that also it buffers up the Frames... now the size of 1 single frame you are playing at for example crsysis... can be defined as the number of bits / pixel  in the frame multiplied by the total resolution of the monitor, that's how you calculate the size of 1 single frame...now basically the output of the GPU not only depends on how large your video memory is but how fast your video memory is... because faster memory will result in quicker buffering and higher frames / second. So basically the higher the LOD the bigger the frame.... AFAIK the largest single crysis frame i ever saw was about a 50Megabyte max..



Oh man you dont learn, anyway I wonder if you realize that the above explanation (which is worth) is contradicting your own belief of less vram. vram is already the fastest memory in a computer system its the amount that makes the difference. And as I said it depends on the output resolution, I already explained that, so its always advisable to have more ram in order to play todays games at very high resolution.  



> you can go here and calculate the frame size : *web.forret.com/tools/megapixel.asp?width=2560&height=1600



And I know how to calculate framebuffer.....X*Y*color depth, but that my friend is the basic of the basic of the basic of a formula, its far far more complicated and this. Ever heard of Z/Stencil buffer, usually 24+8 bits effectively adding another full size buffer. Then there are textures, off screen draw buffers, geometry or shaders that also take huge amount of memory. There are also loads of other things and I dont want to discuses the GPU architecture here, *but to conclude I'd say you are absolutely wrong by saying that RAM does not make a substantial difference in a GPU, it does it definitely does specially at very high resolution. 
*



> okay as far as the last statement was concerned it had nothing to do with the other thread.... i was merely pointing out the fact that you need to look in depth of the hardware....not what it has.



Yea Yea Yea I know how deep I have to look, dont worry on that...



> duh, man i am only 15 you expect me to build a 60k+ pc ?



Well if you are 15 my respect for having such good inclination towards technology. I wish we had internet, mobiles and such cheap computer hardware when I was 15. I could have done wonders you know.... 

---------- Post added at 02:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:53 PM ----------




Sam.Shab said:


> @sam9s, buddy you explained almost everything correctly. but clock speed matters too. if the GPU core can't produce enough FPS to keep the Frame Buffer busy it'll sit idle as in the entry level craps like 9400GT 1Gb DDR2.



You are absolutely right, but I my explanation was more concentrated on explaining that RAM does makes a difference......there are loads of other factors as well.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 21, 2010)

@sam.shab  yea you got it right... but dude the cell engine in the ps3 is a cpu core... not a gpu however it is directly connected on a single BUS with the GPU and ram. so that way it has a very high amount of *RAW* processing power , but again obviously you cant compare it with a 200k pc config..

@sam9s ... what he is saying is right .... don't you get it....with special refrence to the high resolution ... maybe you can calculate the size of a single frame for crysis @ 1080p and 2560x1600 ? that would be the size of 1 single frame... now your GPU memory is probably what 4-5 times the size of a single frame... so if you dont make the VRAM faster the GPU mem is gonna sit idle and wait..basically for a faster GPU and higher FPS you need a faster VRAM for the same amount of capacity.....so even if you include all the shaders etc what would be the size of a single frame 2-3 times more? even then the GPU will be able to handle it with ease...

like unless you are talking of resolutions like 256000x160000 then i am sure you would need VRAM buffers like the size of a pc....

so basically it comes down to that suppose i have a card A with gpu core X and a card B with the same core.... then the one with faster memory is gonna give better results considering the memory is the same...

Also difference between the ram makes a huge impact.... nvidia GTX series cards are performing at a okay-okay level because of a strong gpu core and overclocked gddr3 memory... ati is able to beat them by using gddr5 memory which has fantastic clocks and higher bandwidth / channel but the cores are not that strong... so you see where the difference lies?

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------

i am not contradicting my own belief..... i merely stated 2 facts...

1. Huge Vram does not make such a difference

2. Vram should be faster and not larger

---------- Post added at 04:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:27 PM ----------

and i think whatever i said in any posts about this they would certainly follow the 2 above facts


----------



## sam9s (Mar 21, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> like unless you are talking of resolutions like 256000x160000 then i am sure you would need VRAM buffers like the size of a pc....



You wont know you haven't gone further 1440x990......lol



NoasArcAngel said:


> [/COLOR]i am not contradicting my own belief..... i merely stated 2 facts...
> 
> 1. Huge Vram does not make such a difference
> 
> ...



And both your fact are pure crap and mere fictions to your own belief......and I dont have the energy left to explain further..........


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 21, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> i am not contradicting my own belief..... i merely stated 2 facts...
> 
> 1. Huge Vram does not make such a difference
> 
> 2. Vram should be faster and not larger



these 2 points are totally meaningless. a faster GPU + a faster ram = good performance. also ram should be in proportion to GPU power. if you pair a fast GPU, RV780 i.e. HD58** with 8Gb of super fast GDDR5 memory, you will get almost same performance as you get from a HD5870 with only 1.5GB. why? see above what i told. memory must be in proportion. too much memory & more than half the memory will be chatting with each other rather than being busy.

same goes for a HD5870 512Mb (if ATI makes one). it'll perform same as a HD5770 1Gb. cause with 512Mb even if GPU making lot of frames, theres not enough space to store them all before being projected in the monitor.

so your both points proved *WRONG*. 

NOTE: i gave example of ATI. same is valid for Nvidia too. GTX480. pair it with a mere 512Mb ram & a GTS250 1Gb will run past.


----------



## piyush2202 (Mar 23, 2010)

Personally speaking, I'm not exactly a Nvidia fanboy, but yes if you tell me to choose between similarly priced and similarly performing ati and nvidia cards then i'd definitely choose nvidia. But if ATI gives better performance for lesser cost, then i'd buy ATI, it's that simple.

@Sam.Shab there are quite a lot of games at the moment which use PhysX and I've seen a few of them stutter badly on ATI cards. Like Piyush120290 pointed out, Batman Arkham Asylum takes a deadly hit. Here are a few games which do support PhysX:
Gears of War
Borderlands
Mass Effect 1&2
Brothers in Arms:Hell's Highway
Cryostasis
Dragon Age: Origins
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
Unreal Tournament 3
Mirror's Edge
and ofcourse many more.

I doubt there is any kind of technology which ATI has developed and launched in there cards. For example, Nvidia first introduced the idea of combining the power of 2 GPU's with their SLI technology. ATI simply followed the trend and introduced Crossfire. This simply goes to show that Nvidia does put efforts into R&D and ATI is more into a speed war. Which by all means is not a bad thing, but you get more complete products from Nvidia.


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 24, 2010)

piyush2202 said:


> Personally speaking, I'm not exactly a Nvidia fanboy, but yes if you tell me to choose between similarly priced and similarly performing ati and nvidia cards then i'd definitely choose nvidia. But if ATI gives better performance for lesser cost, then i'd buy ATI, it's that simple.



except ATI fanboys most will pick up Nvidia card if they give more bang for buck.



> @Sam.Shab there are quite a lot of games at the moment which use PhysX and I've seen a few of them stutter badly on ATI cards. Like Piyush120290 pointed out, Batman Arkham Asylum takes a deadly hit. Here are a few games which do support PhysX:
> Gears of War
> Borderlands
> Mass Effect 1&2
> ...



i know. there are quite a few of them out there. but all uses Physx as addon. so when using ATI card disabling PhysX option best thing. without having PhysX i don't think games will go spoiling way. cause all other games still use normal physics. 

anyway lets wait for Fermi than we can have a more hot debate here.


----------



## sam9s (Mar 24, 2010)

piyush2202 said:


> @Sam.Shab there are quite a lot of games at the moment which use PhysX and I've seen a few of them stutter badly on ATI cards. Like Piyush120290 pointed out, Batman Arkham Asylum takes a deadly hit. Here are a few games which do support PhysX:
> Gears of War
> Borderlands
> Mass Effect 1&2
> ...



Enabling PhysX on these games does not do any wonders, How do I know,???? Coz I have another AMD Athlon X2 based PC with 8800GT. So as SamShaib said, with ATI dont use it...simple.



> I doubt there is any kind of technology which ATI has developed and launched in there cards. For example, Nvidia first introduced the idea of combining the power of 2 GPU's with their SLI technology. ATI simply followed the trend and introduced Crossfire. This simply goes to show that Nvidia does put efforts into R&D and ATI is more into a speed war. Which by all means is not a bad thing, but you get more complete products from Nvidia.



Now Now Now this definately sounds like a fan boy, dont even start on this _"my daddy is stronger than your daddy"_ debate.......I'd say if ATI copied some xyz technology, what difference does it make for an end user.......at the end AMD leads.......so if you ask me .... its like smart work rather then 'only' hard work........


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 29, 2010)

Finally ATI fanboys...and those who chose ATI alike fingers pointed at you @sam.shab and @sam9s .....

The GTX  4xx series... specially the GTX 470 and the GTX 480  is a solid makeover of any Nvidia card i have read about till date. They Just push further than what the HD 58xx can even think to achieve. 

the GTX 480 benchmarks by Guru3D etc... show how it *Outerperforms " HD 5970 2GB by 5-10 % in many games " * 

So atleast for now you both can keep your mouth shut and not comment on any one's theories about how the GPU works.


----------



## kanishka (Mar 29, 2010)

^^ absolutely correct.

So ATI prices would soon come down 


EDIT: GTX 480 outperforms HD 5870 not 5970 ... HD 5970 = still fastest card of earth.


----------



## FilledVoid (Mar 29, 2010)

> the GTX 480 benchmarks by Guru3D etc... show how it Outerperforms " HD 5970 2GB by 5-10 % in many games "


You mean 5870.

Also watch how you post. Your post sounds more like a personal attack. Be free to post facts but do not look for a brawl.


----------



## Krow (Mar 29, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> Finally ATI fanboys...and those who chose ATI alike fingers pointed at you @sam.shab and @sam9s .....


Mind where you point, and how you do so. I understand your teenage hormonal instabilities. Try bungee jumping or scuba diving instead of trolling on forums. Will be much better for you.


> The GTX  4xx series... specially the GTX 470 and the GTX 480  is a solid makeover of any Nvidia card i have read about till date. They Just push further than what the HD 58xx can even think to achieve.


Yes, yes. Another post, another lack of links. Post your source and then make claims.


> the GTX 480 benchmarks by Guru3D etc... show how it *Outerperforms " HD 5970 2GB by 5-10 % in many games " *


Link please. HD 5970 is the fastest card as of now.

My points against the GTX470/480:

Price: 
Zotac GTX 470: 24.1k
Zotac GTX 480: 31.4k

Rubbish pricing considering the performance. 5870 @ 23-24k is faster than GTX470 and only 5-15% slower than 480 and that too in some games only. What makes the GTX 480 worth 8k more than the 5870?

I hope your eyes were open enough to see the temperatures. GTX480: Idle 65 degrees and load 97 degrees. Yes, turn water to vapour easily. 

GTX480 has a load power draw of 320 watts. Unacceptable. Too high.


> So atleast for now you both can keep your mouth shut and not comment on any one's theories about how the GPU works.


You are living dangerously. Be warned. Such childish personal attacks on forum members may result in dire consequences.


----------



## sam9s (Mar 30, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> Finally ATI fanboys...and those who chose ATI alike fingers pointed at you @sam.shab and @sam9s .....
> 
> The GTX  4xx series... specially the GTX 470 and the GTX 480  is a solid makeover of any Nvidia card i have read about till date. They Just push further than what the HD 58xx can even think to achieve.
> 
> ...



lol...tsk tsk....it seem you have taken things toooo personally, and were almost eatching in your bed with sleepless nights waiting for GTX release so that you can jump back to prove a futile point. 

GTX 480 is nothing spectacular, compared to 5870. lets take some examples to burst your bubbles.... 

All benchmark takes from *Anandtech*. I hope you dont mind Anandtech. 

Gaming Comparsion

*1. Crysis Warhead*

*i40.tinypic.com/34r66mf.png

5970 is still THE fastest. 480 leads to 5870, but with what margin....if we round off *5 FPS*
*

2. Battlefield Bad Company II*

*i42.tinypic.com/e1db2s.png

5970 is still THE fastest. 480 leads to 5870, but with what margin....if we round off *13 FPS*

*3. Battleforge DX11 Game*

*i42.tinypic.com/e1db2s.jpg

5970 is still THE fastest. 480 leads to 5870, again with what margin....round off *14Fps*

*4. Mass Effect II *

*i41.tinypic.com/678cub.png

5970 is still THE fastest. 480 leads to 5870, yet again what margin....if we round off again *4Fps*


OK enough of Games to proof the difference between the two cards. To avg we can say *480 leads 5870 by not more than 5 to 7%*

Coming to other factors........*power, noise level, Temp and most IMP price*.

All benchmarks on Load conditions.

*1. Power*

*i44.tinypic.com/swfupv.jpg

480 eats more power than 5870 by good lord *100W*...damm

*2. Temperature*

*i43.tinypic.com/15eze6t.jpg

480 runs 18 C Hotter than 5870, not good for long gaming hours.

*3. Noise Levels*

*i39.tinypic.com/bhhefm.jpg

480 runs at 5dB more than 5870.........not good if you ask me.

*4. Price*

Now coming to the price point, 

*480 is with a tag of 31K 
5870 is at 23K at present...........8K difference

with a performance boost of  mere 5-7% with all other factors like power, Temp, Noice Level lower then 5870, how on mother earth does 480 becomes a logical choise of todays potential buyer. By all means 5870 infacts leads. *

I would like to bring a paragraph from the same Anandtech site, which is in the conclusion part....



> Meanwhile let’s talk about the other factors: price, power, and noise. At $500 the GTX 480 is the world’s fastest single-GPU card, but it’s not a value proposition. *The price gap between it and the Radeon 5870 is well above the current performance gap*, but this has always been true about the high-end. Bigger than price though is the tradeoff for going with the GTX 480 and its much bigger GPU – it’s hotter, it’s noisier, and it’s more power hungry, all for 10-15% more performance. If you need the fastest thing you can get then the choice is clear, otherwise you’ll have some thinking to decide what you want and what you’re willing to live with in return.



So all in all its pretty evident that just because 480 is faster (forget about the price and margin and blah blah factors) if anyone do decides to buy it.......he/she would be a true hardcore fan of Nvidia......which is what  *NoasArcAngel *seems to be...........

so my friend you are most welcome to move ahead and spend 31K bucks to support the claim....."Nvidia is the king and has THE fastest single GPU card at present."

!!!!!PEACE!!!!!!

PS :: I forgot I am very confident ATI will further decrease the price of 5870 making them even more attractive to not to go for 480 or even 470.....


----------



## comp@ddict (Mar 30, 2010)

> a. GTX 470 - 350USD   = 16,000 INR
> 
> b. GTX 480 - 500 USD  = 23,000 INR
> 
> ...



*CURRENT PRICES
*
GTX470 - 22k
GTX480 - 29k

HD5850 - 15.8k
HD5870 - 23k


----------



## FilledVoid (Mar 30, 2010)

> PS :: I forgot I am very confident ATI will further decrease the price of 5870 making them even more attractive to not to got for 480 or even 470.....


This is exactly what nVidia should be afraid of. If they reduce the price even more nVidia might as well just retire the card, the only folks who would probably go after the card are people who are making uninformed decisions or hardcore nVidia fans. Anyone who values his money would rather put his hard earned money in a choice which is much cheaper with a performance hit of 5%.


----------



## tarey_g (Mar 30, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> 1. Huge Vram does not make such a difference
> 
> 2. Vram should be faster and* not larger*



PS3 Dude, @ High resolutions  you need that. you may not need it on your 19 incher. 
That  definitely does not mean that faster memory does not play a part. I think Sam is trying to explain you same thing.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 30, 2010)

Well , 
Firstly krow and void  . it was merely an indication and not some sort of gun which i was pointing at sam.shab and sam9s. Also if you felt insulted my apologies . 

And sam9s....i hope you checked out the benchmarks and article at guru3d? i hope you like it 
well if you did not , i think you should 

something you guys need to read : 

*www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/17

the GTX 480 is beaten by the HD 5970 by just 2fps.... just 2 


*www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/23

The GTX 480 goes like a troll after the HD 5970 and uhm..hum.... 8 more FPS....than a dual 5870 ...now that's what i call some muscle power . 

Also from where did you get the prices?.....  i don't think that the nvidia gtx 4xx cards are even available in india yet .... they must be the imported editions 

also krow .... i have no hormonal instabilities.... and i am a very calm and composed person . Also i am no idiotic forum troll .... please...you are living dangerously by posting your childish comments on other people don't make such comments or the consequences will be dire 

@i never mentioned anything about power consumption even i myself agree the TDP and power usage is through the roofs. 

What i meant by the 2 statements earlier which i posted...

Vram should be faster.. i mean . suppose if i have a GPU with 2gb of xdr memory and a same GPU but running 4gb of ddr5 ram the bandwidth of the card using xdr ram will be faster...

Vram should be okay in size....according to the proportion of the GPU speed and bandwitdh....you cant fit Gddr5 ram on a riva tnt and expect it to compete with a 9800gtx running gddr3 ram


----------



## Krow (Mar 30, 2010)

It has been agreed upon by many that the Guru3D review which you have linked us to, is biased. Many people have said that Guru3D seems to like every card it tests. Have a look at some other reviews too before jumping to your conclusion:

*www.techspot.com/review/263-nvidia-geforce-gtx-480/page7.html

*www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/gtx480launch/9.html

Open your bias-clouded eyes and read the above links. Something fanboys like yourself need to know: Never make your conclusions based on one review.


As sam said, if you like the GTX480 so much, spend 30k on it and buy now! Else, quit your trollsome posts. Simple. The fact that you choose to ignore all facts only to further your bias upon the forum shows your fanboyism.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 30, 2010)

...water *begins* to vaporize at 100c the actual heat  - temperature conversion required to vaporize water is about 120c


----------



## Krow (Mar 30, 2010)

The card is available for pre-order on online retailer websites and on forums in India. Again, do your research before posting.


----------



## NoasArcAngel (Mar 30, 2010)

okay even if they like the cards you cant possible mean to say that the benchmarks are a scam?

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

pre-order.....


----------



## Krow (Mar 30, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> okay even if they like the cards you cant possible mean to say that the benchmarks are a scam?


Have you verified the benchmarks yourself? If no, then how can you say that they are not a scam?

I have read reviews on many websites and I found Guru3D to be an anomaly, hence my comments, with proper proof, unlike your fanboyism.


----------



## Krow (Mar 30, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> *oh... w0w so you are making a claim as if you have benchmarked the cards yourself ? have you *


Read before you post. I said that I have read reviews on many sites and Guru3D was an exception. Unlike you, who claims that Guru3D is the only true review and you won't look at the many benchmarks posted by many other forum members.


----------



## kanishka (Mar 30, 2010)

hold on dude, Even in Guru3D , gtx 480 is faster than hd5970 only for CODs and it is because they are specially optimised for nvidia. and in this test :*www.guru3d.com/article/geforce-gtx-470-480-review/25

Rest in every game and test GTX480 is behind hd 5970..

Please checkout yourself before contradicting...


----------



## FilledVoid (Mar 30, 2010)

Refrain from posting totally irrelevant stuff. I just deleted about 8 posts since those we're merely two posters going at each other. Don't bother testing me or I'll start handing out infractions like candy on Halloween Day. 

Now lets look at a single point. 



> the GTX 480 is beaten by the HD 5970 by just 2fps.... just 2



Your statement says it all. nVidia came out with a card which merely catches up with the 5970 or probably does better than it in one or two exclusive titles. What folks are trying to say is that after this much time nVidia came out with a card which performs equally or a wee bit better than Ati at the cost of a huge price tag and higher power consumption and heat. 

What is really sad is that the 5970 has been out since what, October? Basically you have a card which can't outshine the 5970 in a way which would justify the price tag or other disadvantages. Assuming Ati slashes its prices even more do you seriously see alot of folks wasting their money for a 480 or 470 ?


----------



## sam9s (Mar 30, 2010)

NoasArcAngel said:


> Well ,
> Firstly krow and void  . it was merely an indication and not some sort of gun which i was pointing at sam.shab and sam9s. Also if you felt insulted my apologies .
> 
> And sam9s....i hope you checked out the benchmarks and article at guru3d? i hope you like it
> ...



_Are you out of logical sense_, seriously, even on Guru3D the *only *benchmark you refer is for COD series which is heavily optimized for nvidia cards.......for God's sake check out other benchmarks as well..............for all other games HD 5970 is easily ahead, but I am not even comparing 5970, 480 is not a logical chiose in comparision to even 5870, with the kind of performance increase 480 has given over 5870 (5-10%) its a shame nvidia even brought this card to the market, with all other factors like Power consumption, Temp, Noise Level etc against 480, with a price difference of 8K or even 6K for that matter, under no book of commen sense would one suggest to go for it.........unless you a fanboy simple.

An extract from your own "_trusted_" Guru3D from conclusion page....



> Admittedly while very strong, both the GeForce GTX 470 and 480 are not a slam dunk homerun compared to the fastest ATI 5800 series single GPU solutions. The reference Radeon HD 5870 keeps up with the GTX 480 pretty well on many occasions and a stinging fact is that its price is gradually dropping towards 429 USD, coming down from 469 USD (which is an interesting fact all by itself as it was launched at 399 USD). ATI reaps mucho benefits from the release of their Catalyst 10.3 driver (used in this review). The new driver brings significant performance boosts throughout the Radeon HD 5800 and 5900 series. Performance was enhanced in a lot of game titles. Would ATI not have released Catalyst 10.3 on time, then this review would have looked different. You'll probably notice a review or two out on the web using older drivers.



Hope that does not burst your bubbles futher..... 

PS :: One suggestion READ....READ the information carefull and completely before jumping on the fourms to claim your belief.


----------



## kanishka (Mar 30, 2010)

^^

yea, this is what i also said...And arcangel,i think you should not compare 480 with 5970 cause 5970 is almost 15k costlier than 480....

Btw, does ati cards support 3d vision??


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 30, 2010)

@ NoasArcAngel, we having a discussion here on Fermi. is it worth the cost one need to pay over ATI's current 5 series. not to throw your rubbish comments on the forum members. as krow pointed, you look kind of instable. cool down first. this forum, not some LAN gaming competition or street fight.

well for now only 2 cards been released with price thats still uncertain. yah comp@ddict posted the price but E-retailers can change price of card any moment. maybe 11:59pm, 11th april.

coming down to point, GTX470 is priced good. not best, still better. problem is this lone good point for Nvidia & its never accepting defeat series of "noobish" fanboys. 

whats not good for Nvidia:

GTX480: horrible pricing. just horrible pricing.
GTX 470 & 480: Microwave oven basically. yah, water may boil at 120degree or whatever, so you saying 100degree good for a card?
GTX480, specially: power consumption. everyone pointed out already. efficiency? whats that?

anything left? oh yes, its yet to be released to public. so add 1 last thing to the list, *99% chance, GTX470 will be priced near or maybe more than 25k*. so making Nvidia loose 100% advantage over ATI. if you talk performance, let me remind you other factors play similarly important role as raw power. suppose GTX495 beats HD5970 but reaches temp of 200degree. will u buy? maybe. others? *NO*. thats what i telling.

my last point is just an assumption. so take it as a grain of salt but do keep it till 12th April. cause i having a feeling, my assumption may turn out correct.

1 final piece of advice, plz do show a bit of respect to the (senior)members here as they show you as an honorable member. they not noobs. they got years of experience in various fields of computers. & they never try defy any unpolished claim without some (solid)proof as you did in each & every post of yours. hope you not mind what i told, but try understand it.


----------



## Nithu (Mar 31, 2010)

^^ 



> *99% chance, GTX470 will be priced near or maybe more than 25k*.



ZOTAC  GTX 470 1280MB DDR5 *Rs :21782/- 
*check *www.lynx-india.com/


----------



## Krow (Mar 31, 2010)

Nithu said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> ZOTAC  GTX 470 1280MB DDR5*Rs :21782/-
> *check *www.lynx-india.com/


That is without 4% VAT. All Lynx prices are without taxes. I'm not sure which taxes are added to the price mentioned on that website.

Calculating:

21782*(4/100)= 871.28

Add it to that price and we have the price to be 22.6k approx, which is close to the price that comp@ddict mentioned. Also, do not forget, Shipping charges. Add and we have a price of almost 22.8k


----------



## sam9s (Mar 31, 2010)

Krow said:


> That is without 4% VAT. All Lynx prices are without taxes. I'm not sure which taxes are added to the price mentioned on that website.
> 
> Calculating:
> 
> ...



And I cannot stop but compare it with HD5850, and again the performance increase is just about 5-10fps in most of the todays heavy end games (the benchmark posted by me in the previous page) with 470 power consumption again *100W more *and tempereture increase of *27 C!!!* on load.....

So even if we take 470 to be prized at ~21700 it still lands 7K more than Hd5850 with everything going against it.......

I'd still say..... 5870 against 480 and 5850 against 470 both indiscriminately lead as a better choise for a potential buyer......


----------



## coderunknown (Mar 31, 2010)

Nithu said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> ZOTAC  GTX 470 1280MB DDR5 *Rs :21782/-
> *check *www.lynx-india.com/



can u give a written guarantee price of GTX470 won't touch 25k? exclude tax & other charges. both 470 & 480 to be in limited quantity. 25k for gtx470, none should be surprised. i m, seeing it priced a bit low.


----------



## Nithu (Apr 1, 2010)

^^ no, i guess the price will change... im sorry.


----------



## coderunknown (Apr 1, 2010)

Nithu said:


> ^^ no, i guess the price will change... im sorry.



don't b buddy  maybe i2 wrong. but surely GTX470 will cost high. 22k looks less. something like 24k suites it better. after tax = 25k. for Asus/Giggy/MSI 27k is possible. 

sadly XFX won't be launching any GTX470/480. i think its a penalty from Nvidia for selling ATI card from last summer. XFX taken this a bit too personally & damn seriously. and will launch XFX HD5970 4Gb GDDR5 BLACK EDITION. higher clock speed + higher memory speed & amount. cool. just pricing isn't so cool.


----------



## Deleted member 26636 (Apr 2, 2010)

my config is in my sigg.will i be able to use GTX 480 or 470?


----------



## sam9s (Apr 2, 2010)

himadri_sm said:


> my config is in my sigg.will i be able to use GTX 480 or 470?



After so much of discuession rather hair pulling you still want to go for 480/470, though you are yourself currently using HD4850........ Anyway you should easily be able to use it or 5870 for that matter...........


----------



## Deleted member 26636 (Apr 2, 2010)

sam9s said:


> After so much of discuession rather hair pulling you still want to go for 480/470, though you are yourself currently using HD4850........ Anyway you should easily be able to use it or 5870 for that matter...........



ha ha...no i am only inquiring to know if i can upgrade..i am not in any hurry to buy a 480/470 now...maybe not even in the next 6 months..


----------



## Krow (Apr 2, 2010)

^Which Power Supply do you have?


----------



## Deleted member 26636 (Apr 2, 2010)

Krow said:


> ^Which Power Supply do you have?



Silly me....i forgot to add the PSU in my sig...its a CM extreme 600w...i think it will be able to power one GPU...


----------



## coderunknown (Apr 2, 2010)

himadri_sm said:


> Silly me....i forgot to add the PSU in my sig...its a CM extreme 600w...i think it will be able to power one GPU...



@ krow, ''power to burn your rig''. remember?


----------



## Krow (Apr 5, 2010)

himadri_sm said:


> Silly me....i forgot to add the PSU in my sig...its a CM extreme 600w...i think it will be able to power one GPU...



Nooo! I wouldn't trust a 9600GT on that PSU, forget GTX480! GTX 480 has a load power draw of 320 Watts, which I doubt the CM Extreme 600W can handle, given its nasty reputation and highly overrated wattage. If you are planning on the GTX480, get the Corsair VX550 at least.


----------



## Achuth (Apr 7, 2010)

@piyush u dint kow.... ati cards dont support physx ...lol physics is not present...i hate ati for that ....and also batman is optimised for nvidia..played it in my 9400gt and in low -med settings i hav played it ..awesome game ..


----------



## tarey_g (Apr 7, 2010)

Achuth said:


> ati cards dont support physx ...lol physics is not present...i hate ati for that ....



because they cant, PhysX is a proprietary  physics engine owned by Nvidia.


----------



## Piyush (May 6, 2010)

palit launched new gtx 470 card stating that it is lot cooler 
well its just 12 degrees cooler than the previous model
lol...
check out this link
*www.tomshardware.com/us/press/Palit-GeForce-GTX-470-8


----------



## sam9s (May 7, 2010)

^^ Igniting the old flames.....


----------



## coderunknown (May 7, 2010)

*img.inpai.com.cn/article/2010/5/5/9543bdd9-d7a5-4717-a9a4-abfdfe433cef.jpg

how about this?


----------

