That's debatable. In certain games, Fermi doesn't even come close, like in BFBC: NVIDIA?s GeForce GTX 480 and GTX 470: 6 Months Late, Was It Worth the Wait? - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News
The 5850 crushes Fermi, both the 470 and 480... for a lot less coin.
It keeps up here:
HEXUS.net - Review :: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 1,280MB review. Fermi done right? : Page - 6/15
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/geforc...-31846-13.html
I think what a lot of people don't realise is, though this probably doesn't affect most of them anyway, but all these benchmarks that are being put on the GTX480/470 are games that don't really stress the card where it counts. Put it in Heaven and you can see that.
The 5000 series is designed for games of today, not games of tomorrow. In raw pixel pushing power the 5000 series will win, but you put a true DX11 game with proper tessellation etc and you will see more of a slow down with 5000 series cards than with GTX400s, unless the calculations and pipelines are improved for DX11 within the 5000 series. Nvidia did gamble on it though, and the pricetag vs performance for tomorrows games isn't worth much to a lot of people. Metro2033 is the only DX11 game out atm that uses DX11 with proper tessellation. A few benchmarks explained they had to disable the "Advanced DOF" graphic setting because it brought every card apart from the GTX400s to an unplayable state.
And even with the temps, people just jump to conclusions. Most of the temps you see at 92C etc are ran in Furmark and let the drivers control the speeds. Two points here:
The drivers default to trying to keep the card quiet, instead of as cool as possible, but engineers have said the heat won't be a problem.
Furmark is more the worst case scenario for temps. Even ATI have said it's inaccurate at reporting temperatures and it made their cards look like they run really hot. If you use manual fan control, and don't mind a bit of extra noise, you will get better temperatures in just normal gaming.
Point is really though, temperatures aside, in the long run the GTX400s will pull ahead.
Last edited by Everlong; 01 Apr 2010 at 21:04.
Yup. Today's DX9 and DX10 games will do just as well on a 5000 series card (5870/5970) or a GTX 285/295 when compared to the GTX 480. So for us in the 'real world' today, the GTX 480 is a flop.
We won't get a good selection of DX11 games, let alone any DX11 MMOs, for some time. And having a GTX 480 when these games come out will still be a flop since we'll have better DX11 cards in the future any ways. This is a no-win situation for the GTX 480. I think NVIDIA hosed themselves on releasing this type of card at this time. Most current gamers (even enthusiasts) could care less about tessellation performance. The 5000 series did well and considerably better than many other cards in current games.
So I'm sticking with my GTX 295 until something worthwhile is released in the near future (and it's AMD's turn for a a new series).
Unfortunately for the GTX 480 the general consensus is:
► Too hot
► Too Noisy
► Too power hungry
► Too Expensive
► Too little performance advantage
► Too little, too late
As it stands, ultimately the card is a massive disappointment. The rumors of it's problematic birth came to fruition.
It is not the nvidia messiah card that the masses were hoping for (myself included). Personally, the cons outweigh the pros.
Hopefully the inevitable revisions, 3rd party cooling, non-standard PCBS etc will rectify this in time, but as it stands - I wouldn't touch these initial releases with a barge pole.
Then again, by the time they start appearing, the ATI revision cards will be on their way.
*sigh*
Yea but will ATI have a much better DX11 card? Every new card they bring out is just the previous card with a bunch more pipelines and transistors on it. Yea it does give the cards an increase in performance as we've seen with every new series they release, but there's no new proper architecture there, all they've done is taken the R600/R700 and doubled it, whereas Nvidia have the new architecture there for DX11, and even though this first series of it is a let down to a lot of people, it can still be developed further.
Well, to be fair, nvidia has been no stranger to recycling architecture in the past.
At this stage, I'd rather a more refined technology based on an existing architecture than a new, yet fundamentally flawed one. As it stands, it looks I'll be sticking with ATI for a while longer as they will be the first to release a mainstream card with 2GB usable vram.
You know me mate, I'm no fanboi and am just as disappointed by the latest offering as any nvidia fan.
I was looking forward to a new single GPU that trounced all other single GPU's, because I've had enough of dual GPU's and their little glitches but this simply has not happened.
So the the 5970 is starting to look a lot more appealing, however if I were to go that route, I'd like to get my hands on the 4GB models that will eventually surface.
I've got the upgrade itch again, but nothing worthwhile scratching it with :)
The only flaw with your argument is that the Radeon HD 6000 series, coming out later this year, will feature a new core revision as well.
Revision doesn't neccessarily equal a new architecture. The 6000 series will be 28nm, and 28nm isn't expected to be ready to use until Q1 2011, and even then they aren't expected to have it ready on time.
I wouldn't say the GF100 is in its entirety flawed, it has potential just not being shown in the GTX400s.
I'm not being a fanboy or anything, if I thought these really were a letdown to me personally, then I would upgrade to a 5000 series as I am wanting to upgrade from my trusty 8800s sooner than later.
But like I said, for people who want straight out performance then the GTX400s aren't for them.
The latest scuttlebutt is that the first set of revised ATI cards that are due Q3/Q4 2010 are going to bypass 32nm and retain the 40nm process.Everlong18 said:
The 6000 series are indeed expected to be 28nm, but since it's in the hands of TSMC... I wouldn't hold my breath for Q1 2011 either. Maybe even Q2...
Yeah, fundamentally flawed is perhaps over stating it a tad. It certainly has potential - but I'm not sure I have the patience to wait until it's refinedI wouldn't say the GF100 is in its entirety flawed, it has potential just not being shown in the GTX400s.
I'm not being a fanboy or anything, if I thought these really were a letdown to me personally, then I would upgrade to a 5000 series as I am wanting to upgrade from my trusty 8800s sooner than later.
But like I said, for people who want straight out performance then the GTX400s aren't for them.
Quote