# GeForce GTX 400 Series Clock Speeds and Other Details Surface



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2010)

Exactly a week ahead of releasing its GeForce GTX 400 series accelerators, NVIDIA held meetings with the press discussing the company's newest technologies, including GeForce GTX 400 series. Some lesser known details about the GeForce GTX 480 and GeForce GTX 470 surfaced, among more known and established ones. To begin with, the GeForce GTX 480 is confirmed to have a CUDA core (shader core) count of 480. The GF100 core operates at 700 MHz, its shader domain at 1401 MHz, and the memory operates at 924 MHz (actual, 1848 MHz DDR, 3700 MHz effective). With a GDDR5 memory bus width of 384-bit, the effective memory bandwidth would be 173.4 GB/s. 

The GeForce GTX 470, on the other hand, has 448 CUDA cores, clock speeds of 607 MHz core, 1215 MHz shader domain, and 837 MHz memory (actual, 1674 MHz DDR, 3348 MHz effective). With a GDDR5 memory bus width of 320-bit, the effective memory bandwidth would be 130.7 GB/s. While the GTX 480 has a board power of 295W, the GTX 470 has a board power of 225W. Another piece of information the source reveals is that internal testing by NVIDIA showed that the performance level to expect from the GeForce GTX 470 should be 5-10% higher than that of the ATI Radeon HD 5850. The GeForce GTX 480 should be expected to be just that much faster than the ATI Radeon HD 5870. It is also expected that the target price of the GeForce GTX 480 should be typically US $499, while the GTX 470 should go typically for US $349. Detailed reviews of the two should be up by this time, next week.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## shevanel (Mar 19, 2010)

price/performance =  -1 

price will probably be $450 and sold out

unless these are OC'n monsters


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2010)

Good.  Prices for ATI cards will drop and I'll CF 5850s.


----------



## Phxprovost (Mar 19, 2010)

shevanel said:


> unless these are OC'n monsters



i doubt that some how, if there was any extra stable performance that could be pulled out of im pretty sure nvidia would take it and run with it


----------



## shevanel (Mar 19, 2010)

its kind of dissapointing from an enthusiast point of view. all this waiting and all they provide is 5%.. sometimes 10% but with higher cost.. not worth it.

it'd be nice if after all this time they released something that makes you wanna sell your 5870 for $275 just to make the move back to Nv.

this is not the case this time.

card will prolly be good for cuda aps + gaming but the price isnt justifiable.

"hey screw that red sports car, its 6 months old, buy this new green one.. it might cost more but it goes 5mph faster"

yeah good luck.


----------



## punani (Mar 19, 2010)

well, there it is.. let the gtx 580 speculation begin 

I bet these cards pack greater firepower if we could just keep the heat down..


----------



## Loosenut (Mar 19, 2010)

shevanel said:


> its kind of dissapointing from an enthusiast point of view. all this waiting and all they provide is 5%.. sometimes 10% but with higher cost.. not worth it.
> 
> it'd be nice if after all this time they released something that makes you wanna sell your 5870 for $275 just to make the move back to Nv.
> 
> ...



  Lolll, love the analogy 



punani said:


> well, there it is.. let the gtx 580 speculation begin
> 
> I bet these cards pack greater firepower if we could just keep the heat down..



Possible if a phase unit comes with the card...


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2010)

AMD won't need to cut its prices. At these performance/$, the HD 5870 is comfortable at $400, and HD 5850 at $300.


----------



## Loosenut (Mar 19, 2010)

btarunr said:


> AMD won't need to cut its prices. At these performance/$, the HD 5870 is comfortable at $400, and HD 5850 at $300.



And I was hoping to CF a couple of 5850s...


----------



## afw (Mar 19, 2010)

5%-10% performance ... that sucks   ...  just think ... if 5870s getting 50fps then the 480 will get 53-55fps .... i was hoping it would be more like 20%-25% ... still waiting for honest reviews ... 

EDIT: i think a 5870 @ 950/1300 will surely match the GTX480


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 19, 2010)

shevanel said:


> "hey screw that red sports car, its 6 months old, buy this new green one.. it might cost more but it goes 5mph faster"
> 
> yeah good luck.



Well, the thing is that some of us want a better driver with our car than the one that comes with the red one.  The red team's driver is kind of drunk, changes all the time, bumps into stuff and sometimes crashes.  The green team's driver is a bit more experienced and stable, shows up sober every day and does the job right.


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 19, 2010)

5870 clocks like a biatch so it will beat a stock 480, clocking on the 480 will probably be very poor going by the very low default clock speeds and high power usage so I doubt it could even match a max clocked 5870. Looks like Nvidia is set for an epic fail.

ATI drivers are great at the moment, and the 10.3s bring some massive performance increase to the 5000 cards,whilst Nvidias have gone down hill dramatically, burnt out GPU's anyone..muhahaha..


----------



## shevanel (Mar 19, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> Well, the thing is that some of us want a better driver with our car than the one that comes with the red one.  The red team's driver is kind of drunk, changes all the time, bumps into stuff and sometimes crashes.  The green team's driver is a bit more experienced and stable, shows up sober *every day* and does the job *right*.



lol so true other than the bold


----------



## laszlo (Mar 19, 2010)

nvidia launch almost fiasco


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 19, 2010)

crow1001 said:


> whilst Nvidias have gone down hill *dramatically*, burnt out GPU's anyone..muhahaha..



*REALLY?*

I mean, come on...


----------



## DaC (Mar 19, 2010)

Oh boy.... after all it would have been better to have bought HD 5850 or 5770 on their lunch date.... no competition for almost a year....


----------



## bpgt64 (Mar 19, 2010)

btarunr said:


> AMD won't need to cut its prices. At these performance/$, the HD 5870 is comfortable at $400, and HD 5850 at $300.



Yea, but AMD would do it just to cut into Nvidia's profits to begin with.  I mean the HD 5 Series is fully developed, they have to be reducing the cost of production by now...Time to kick Nvidia in the balls while there down.

2g HD 5850 5870 5890 anyone?


----------



## HalfAHertz (Mar 19, 2010)

Wow, so even tho they have a much wider bus, the bandwidth isn't much bigger than that on the red side. Interesting. The increase is almost insignificant compared to the GTX200 series too...


----------



## air_ii (Mar 19, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> Well, the thing is that some of us want a better driver with our car than the one that comes with the red one.  The red team's driver is kind of drunk, changes all the time, bumps into stuff and sometimes crashes.  The green team's driver is a bit more experienced and stable, shows up sober every day and does the job right.



Is it really you talking or is it just a popular (yet not entirely true) statement out in the wild?

I must say I haven't had any problem with either ATI's or NV's drivers in the last 2 years or so...


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 19, 2010)

Well when I used my 5770 I had quirky things happen.  Sometimes there was this mesh-like look to some elements in games.  My FPS in COD4 would drop drastically under heavy load (explosions and smoke) like I was using my old 8600.  And this only happened once, but a game crashed out and went to a plain blue screen like the Windows desktop without wallpaper.  It was a weird experience.  Mostly OK, but definitely unstable.  And CCC is ugly/non-intuitive.


----------



## Thrackan (Mar 19, 2010)

air_ii said:


> Is it really you talking or is it just a popular (yet not entirely true) statement out in the wild?
> 
> I must say I haven't had any problem with either ATI's or NV's drivers in the last 2 years or so...



I've had problems, GSOD anyone?

But I have zero experience with modern day nvidia drivers, so I can't comment on them except for the overheating problems happening recently.

To add to the sports car analogy, I do like to mention that the new green car, that goes 5mph faster, also guzzles a lot more fuel, and has a large and heavy engine under the hood


----------



## shevanel (Mar 19, 2010)

GSOd is a easy fix. My only drivers issues have been with flickers multi monitor setups and memory clocks


----------



## DarthCyclonis (Mar 19, 2010)

225 and 295 watts?  I wonder if Nvidia is going to include a hot plate that I can plug into the side of the cards heatsink and cook eggs on?

These cards cost to much are to hot and draw way to much power compared to the ATI alternative. From this report I believe the 480 is going to draw more power then the dual GPU 5970.


----------



## Flyordie (Mar 19, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> I've had problems, GSOD anyone?
> 
> But I have zero experience with modern day nvidia drivers, so I can't comment on them except for the overheating problems happening recently.
> 
> To add to the sports car analogy, I do like to mention that the new green car, that goes 5mph faster, also guzzles a lot more fuel, and has a large and heavy engine under the hood



lol, I fixed the GSOD issue long ago... I just modded the driver to include a small delay in the power play clocks.


----------



## KainXS (Mar 19, 2010)

nope not believing it,

if this is true the GTX480 is gonna be at least 20% faster than the GTX470 if its not bottle-necked by memory.


----------



## Thrackan (Mar 19, 2010)

Flyordie said:


> lol, I fixed the GSOD issue long ago... I just modded the driver to include a small delay in the power play clocks.



Now he tells me!

And of course you shared this ingenious fix with the rest of the world?


----------



## simlariver (Mar 19, 2010)

DirectorC said:


> Well, the thing is that some of us want a better driver with our car than the one that comes with the red one.  The red team's driver is kind of drunk, changes all the time, bumps into stuff and sometimes crashes.  The green team's driver is a bit more experienced and stable, shows up sober every day and does the job right.



Lol, code 18 here


----------



## imperialreign (Mar 19, 2010)

Wonder how these cards will really fare, once they're to market . . .

If these cards are posed to beat the 5000 series around a bit, it wouldn't surprise me if ATI has a quick follow up in a 5890 flavour, or some "revamped" version of their cards . . .

Regarding the ATI drivers - I think more people have had problems since ATI has been focusing more on performance . . . which, IMHO, has a lot to do with the poll they ran almost a year ago, asking users (downloading drivers on their webpage) what they wanted more out of their drivers.


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 19, 2010)

Let's face facts, Nvidia have never been as subdued as this with  performance parts so close to release, past generations they have got cards out to select reviewers to preview and boost up the release with impressive performance figures, this time, not a thing.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 19, 2010)

Theres a great shot from NV PR relating the 480 to the 5870 from Hexus.  Even better is the one a forum member has added.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=22988

The first slide from NV made me realise how insecure NV is with this card.  If for example it's 3 ticks at tesselation versus 5870's one tick, how come it's only 5-10% better overall (from VR zone source?).  

Good card, Hot card, Hungry card, Hyped card.


----------



## xkche (Mar 19, 2010)

y que pasaría si AMD/Ati desidiera sacar la HD5890 con un bus de 384-bits...??? le ganaría o sería igual a esta GTX 480??

Espero que esto de para que los precios de las VGA's bajen!

Saludos!


----------



## DarthCyclonis (Mar 19, 2010)

the54thvoid said:


> Theres a great shot from NV PR relating the 480 to the 5870 from Hexus.  Even better is the one a forum member has added.
> 
> http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=22988
> 
> ...



I love the second slide.  That is probably more acurate then the first one. rofl


----------



## Thrackan (Mar 19, 2010)

DarthCyclonis said:


> I love the second slide.  That is probably more acurate then the first one. rofl



Those slides are plain funny 











Btw, doesn't OpenCL actually *work* on 58xx series?


----------



## TVman (Mar 19, 2010)

so nvidia is really selling these cards at a loss


----------



## qwerty_lesh (Mar 19, 2010)

So glad i ran around all of the computer shops in melbourne for a month and a half and got my red car at launch. (we copped the card shortage bad)

btw, on a stable system, the ATi drivers dont have many bugs, you're bound to get some differences and problems, one side will have bugs that the other doesn't for games, but thats to be expected.

oh and that 3d vision exclusive to nVidia is a crock, the preview drivers already enable functionality just like that for the red team.

but enough fanboy antics, I do love nvidias driver layout over ati's, but I will continue to betray one side to the other whenever theyre down to have whatever GFX card is kicking butt at the time


----------



## crow1001 (Mar 19, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> Btw, doesn't OpenCL actually *work* on 58xx series?



Yeah it does, just need ATI stream installed.


----------



## Sasqui (Mar 19, 2010)

TVman said:


> so nvidia is really selling these cards at a loss



LOL.

When the hell are we going to see some REAL benchmarks!!?!?!?!?!?!?!


----------



## Apocolypse007 (Mar 19, 2010)

bpgt64 said:


> Yea, but AMD would do it just to cut into Nvidia's profits to begin with.  I mean the HD 5 Series is fully developed, they have to be reducing the cost of production by now...Time to kick Nvidia in the balls while there down.
> 
> 2g HD 5850 5870 5890 anyone?



The eyefinity version of the HD 5870 has 2 Gb gddr5. ATI has been ready with this for some time. They just probably were waiting to see fermi's real world performance before releasing.


----------



## locoty (Mar 19, 2010)

I dont think ATI will cut the price. If they cant keep the 58xx supply good enough, they cant lower price. If they lower price, the card will be even more scarce

if ati rolls out 5890, nvidia will have big problem. With that TDP of gtx480, i dont think there will be gtx485, unless there i big revamp in their chip


----------



## kaosII (Mar 19, 2010)

TVman said:


> so nvidia is really selling these cards at a loss



NV is not losing money unless nobody buys these.
Somebodies making money. " This is a bussiness ". 
Take a look at Newegg this morning. I had my cart ready to check out and for some reason they have jacked up prices on Nvidia cards 20-50 dollars, even the out of stock ones. Gee wonder why????? 
Last monday I was set to put down 165.00 for a 260Gtx for a customer build and it was cheap. 
I knew the new card release would do one of two things. 
1. Bring prices down on older models (in time). 
2. Cause Newegg to jack-up prices on existing stock to reduce loss. 
They jumped the gun though, even the BFG 260Gtx that is not in stock that I was looking at (cuz I have one) is up to 205.00 BFG Tech BFGEGTX260MC896OCE. WTF!!! 
This leaves no room for profit on my part. I payed 140.00 for it less than 4 months ago. 285's are hitting 380.00- 400.00 US.
I suppose their waiting on the idiot parade that is blindly shopping this next week. 
Guess I'll sit this round out for awhile, till the smoke clears.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

480 @ 700 MHz GPU, shader domain @ 1401 MHz and 924 MHz (actual, 1848 MHz DDR, 3700 MHz effective) memory.  Board power @ 295W
470 @ 607 MHz GPU, shader domain @ 1215 MHz and 837 MHz (actual, 1674 MHz DDR, 3348 MHz effective) memory.  Board power @ 225w

Difference between the 480 and 470 is 2 clusters disabled (is that right?) and clock frequencies (sub: 2 memory chips per btarunr).  The board power difference of 70w indicates some leakage issues IMO.  Also, I am not to sure about the 480's overclock ability.  It appears to be close to maxing out IMO.  But we will see once the reviews of the retail product are out to know what it's overclock potential really is.  As for the 470, there appears to be a huge amount of overclock potential.  It may match the 480.  But again we have to wait for reviews and hopefully user results.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 19, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Difference between the 480 and 470 is 2 clusters disabled (is that right?) and clock frequencies.



And two memory chips.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

To me it's starting to look like the 470 will be the best option (depending on price and performance) over the 480.  However, you wouldn't buy it to keep it at stock you would need to OC it IMO.  This is where heat is a concern.  But we will need reviews to know for certain.


----------



## naoan (Mar 19, 2010)

VR-Zone updated their site :


> GeForce GTX 480 : 480 SP, 700/1401/1848MHz core/shader/mem, 384-bit, 1536MB, *250W TDP*, US$499
> 
> GeForce GTX 470 : 448 SP, 607/1215/1674MHz core/shader/mem, 320-bit, 1280MB, 225W TDP, US$349
> 
> ** The intended GF100 has 512 SP clocked at 725/1450/1050MHz with 295W TDP. It should still be released in the future but just not now. For this launch, GTX 480 has 480 SP with clocks lowered to 700/1401/1848MHz at 250W TDP.*


Hmm interesting...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

Well btarunr, is that right?


----------



## naoan (Mar 19, 2010)

Well duh you can check it yourself since the source link is there in the first post.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

naoan said:


> Well duh you can check it yourself since the source link is there in the first post.



Well duh, everyone else has been reporting something different.  So we need information like this verified.  We need further evidence or just wait for the reviews.  Besides, VR-Zone track record for this kind of stuff isn't the best you know


----------



## Kamen (Mar 19, 2010)

:shadedshu that just aint it.it cant have a higher TDP than a 5970.or if it realy does its
*NVIDIA`s EPIC FAIL*


----------



## naoan (Mar 19, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Well duh, everyone else has been reporting something different.  So we need information like this verified.  We need further evidence or just wait for the reviews.  Besides, VR-Zone track record for this kind of stuff isn't the best you know



Hmm but this news originally came from them so at least it need to be updated accordingly to let others know, but you're right we need more verifiable source. 

But if this were true then which one did they refer when they said 480 beat 5870 by a slight margin?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

naoan said:


> Hmm but this news originally came from them so at least it need to be updated accordingly to let others know, but you're right we need more verifiable source.
> 
> But if this were true then which one did they refer when they said 480 beat 5870 by a slight margin?



You are simply falling for the smoke and mirrors in *all this*.  At this time we really don't know all the specs.  Also how well it does against the 5800 series.  What we do know from past experience is that if nv had a uber leet video card they would have shown official slides (as they usually do) and there would have been leaked verifiable performance numbers.  Because it's a proven tactic to draw sales away from the competitor.  Rumors may draw attention to what they are offering but it really doesn't hold any weight to keep people interested after all this time IMO.


----------



## jessicafae (Mar 19, 2010)

Well last week Charlie at semiaccurate reported that the GTX480 has a TDP of 275watts.  
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/03/12/semiaccurate-wrong-about-nvidia-480gtx-power-use/
There are a huge amount of false leaks out there.  We won't really know all the details until the official release and the NDA is lifted.


----------



## locoty (Mar 19, 2010)

I think it's time for ATI to release 5950. Of course it will smoke 480, price it @500 dollar and you'll get a winner

and i think 5950 will have lower TDP than 480


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2010)

btarunr said:


> AMD won't need to cut its prices. At these performance/$, the HD 5870 is comfortable at $400, and HD 5850 at $300.



Most e-tailers don't have the 5850 at $300 though.  I'm seeing $310-350 for the reference card.


----------



## stasdm (Mar 19, 2010)

*Much ado about nothing!*

More than 5% of CUDA cores DOA!
Not very promising start


----------



## Binge (Mar 19, 2010)

stasdm said:


> More than 5% of CUDA cores DOA!
> Not very promising start



no rumors please?


----------



## stasdm (Mar 19, 2010)

Binge said:


> no rumors please?



That's no rumor - pure calculation (512 CUDA cores in theory, 480 and less in practice)


----------



## Sihastru (Mar 19, 2010)

All I see is much speculation and a lot more hate. Just wait one more week and see the damn things in action.

I've seen *many* boxes and specification sheets that presented the GTX480 as an 512SP GPU. The full load power consumption is taken from the Quadro/FX line, where things are a bit exaggerated. The consumer variant won't see that number unless you really stress the cards out with a special GPCPU benchmark.

Anyway, since when is so much important how much power a videocard needs at this high-end level? Comparisons with the 5970 are fine, but that card will have CF scaling problems in a lot of games, while the GTX480 will not, since it's just one GPU. There will be some surprises.

*As for the *just* 5-10% performance increase over the direct ATI competitors, it's not entirely correct. There are no such figures from real sources, they are invented*, and the release drivers will paint a totally different picture if there is even some truth in it. I remember 4870 and 4890 being faster at one time then the GTX260+ and GTX275. That changed after a driver release.


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 19, 2010)

Sihastru said:


> All I see is much speculation and a lot more hate. Just wait one more week and see the damn things in action.
> 
> I've seen *many* boxes and specification sheets that presented the GTX480 as an 512SP GPU. The full load power consumption is taken from the Quadro/FX line, where things are a bit exaggerated. The consumer variant won't see that number unless you really stress the cards out with a special GPCPU benchmark.
> 
> ...



Dude, you're dancing the dance of an Nvidia player.  Almost every media source now is saying 480 cores and the TDP of 00W is well documented.  True that crossfire doesn't scale well in all games but it does in most of them, especially the AAA titles.

Again, nobody is saying the 5870 is faster but certainly from a price performance hit, it definitely is the better buy.  My big thought is can the GTX4xx series power down in idle?  The old 200 series did to a good degree so can this beast?  If not, i say with purity - it's a piece of steaming shit.
Why so?
A good card must perform well, be run at acceptable noise levels, not spew forth tremendous heat, not consume a tonne of power 24/7 and... be affordable.  (which is why the 5970 is not a good card - it's too frickin expensive.  Bear in mind you can buy 2 5850's that cost nearly £100 less than most 5970's).


----------



## Saakki (Mar 19, 2010)

http://twitter.com/sampsa_kurri/status/10723903057  Finnish Muropeople are waiting.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

I believe that the reason why we've seen no solid, verifiable performance results (thinking of the youtube video using an updated version of Heaven 1.1 comes to mind) is that 470/480 can easily be countered by their competitor.  But I await benchmark results to see if that's true or not.




Saakki said:


> http://twitter.com/sampsa_kurri/status/10723903057  Finnish Muropeople are waiting.


Honestly, that's just marketing.  In the past he was one of a few people that would leak some results.  Even if it was nothing more to say it's faster or not.  This time he's just showing us a box.  :shadedshu


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 19, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I believe that the reason why we've seen no solid, verifiable performance results (thinking of the youtube video using an updated version of Heaven 1.1 comes to mind) is that 470/480 can easily be countered by their competitor.  But I await benchmark results to see if that's true or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, that's just marketing.  In the past he would always spring up results.  He was one of a few people that would leak some results.  Even if it was nothing more to say it's faster or not.  This time he's just showing us a box.  :shadedshu



No, thats hype.  As you allude to, if he leaked results now he'd be off NVs christmas list.  They should send a card to semiaccurate.com.  That would be lolz.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 19, 2010)

Hype= marketing to me.  But the gist of it remains the same. He's already performed benchmark results (I'm sure of it) but he's only showing pics of the box.  If he was worried about breaking NDA he wouldn't have shown the pic.


----------



## nt300 (Mar 19, 2010)

shevanel said:


> its kind of dissapointing from an enthusiast point of view. all this waiting and all they provide is 5%.. sometimes 10% but with higher cost.. not worth it.
> 
> it'd be nice if after all this time they released something that makes you wanna sell your 5870 for $275 just to make the move back to Nv.
> 
> ...


Nvidia should have refreshed its current GPU's then maybe around 4 to 6 months from today release a fixed Fermi and not a overpriced Fermi of today thats not much better than HD 5800 series, runs hotter than the fastest card HD 5970 and sucks more power. I think Fermi is broken, IMO.

Nvidia lied again, they say the GTX 480 is the fastest Graphics card ever made, well what about the HD 5970 that puts circles around it


----------



## erocker (Mar 19, 2010)

nt300 said:


> Nvidia should have refreshed its current GPU's then maybe around 4 to 6 months from today release a fixed Fermi and not a overpriced Fermi of today thats not much better than HD 5800 series, runs hotter than the fastest card HD 5970 and sucks more power. I think Fermi is broken, IMO.
> 
> Nvidia lied again, they say the GTX 480 is the fastest Graphics card ever made, well what about the HD 5970 that puts circles around it



You need to read facts before posting rumor as fact. You have absolutey no proof to back your claims. It's just the same posts over and over again. Your post is broken, IMO. Whatever level these cards compete at, it will be priced accordingly.

*Btw, inside sources claim the heatpipes are filled with awesomesauce so cooling won't be a problem.


----------



## nt300 (Mar 19, 2010)

This is from TechPowerUp  I thought we already know about this NVIDIA claim with picture? 
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Reference Design Card Final Design Pictured 
Thursday, March 18 2010
http://www.techpowerup.com/117826/N...erence_Design_Card_Final_Design_Pictured.html






Point is ATI or Nvidia shoud not make claims like this, but we all know its for marketing.


----------



## erocker (Mar 19, 2010)

nt300 said:


> This is from TechPowerUp  I thought we already know about this NVIDIA claim with picture?
> NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Reference Design Card Final Design Pictured
> Thursday, March 18 2010
> http://www.techpowerup.com/117826/N...erence_Design_Card_Final_Design_Pictured.html
> http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-03-18/102a.jpg



Less than 300W. That could be anywhere from 1 - 299 watts. Plus, that picture doesn't back up anything you said in your previous post. 

There is fact, there is fiction and then there are marketing slides.


----------



## epicfail (Mar 19, 2010)

erocker said:


> Less than 300W. That could be anywhere from 1 - 299 watts.



well i would think they would put <250 if it would be under 250 just to make it seem better, they wouldnt put under 300 if it was 240 they would want to make it seem to take the less power possible


----------



## nt300 (Mar 19, 2010)

erocker said:


> Less than 300W. That could be anywhere from 1 - 299 watts. Plus, that picture doesn't back up anything you said in your previous post.


Oh you are refering to when I say "runs hotter than the fastest card HD 5970 and sucks more power" Sorry, I was just blabbering on. But I think we all have to agree for a single GPU the Fermi does run quite hot.


----------



## erocker (Mar 19, 2010)

nt300 said:


> But I think we all have to agree for a single GPU the Fermi does run quite hot.



I can assume, but I can't agree since nobody knows. Maybe that cooler they designed works well. We really don't know. If it's hot, it's hot, but if it's hot and works well and there's headroom, it's fine. In the end, it just has to work well and everything else won't matter.


----------



## nt300 (Mar 19, 2010)

erocker said:


> I can assume, but I can't agree since nobody knows. Maybe that cooler they designed works well. We really don't know. If it's hot, it's hot, but if it's hot and works well and there's headroom, it's fine. In the end, it just has to work well and everything else won't matter.


Yes agree. 
HD 5970 we know is Maximum board power: 294 Watts and Idle board power: 51 Watts. According to a few sites the 480 is 250W min and 300W max. This is new today.
http://www.techspot.com/news/38297-Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-480-and-470-specs-emerge.html


----------



## KainXS (Mar 19, 2010)

EastCoasthandle said:


> 480 @ 700 MHz GPU, shader domain @ 1401 MHz and 924 MHz (actual, 1848 MHz DDR, 3700 MHz effective) memory.  Board power @ 295W
> 470 @ 607 MHz GPU, shader domain @ 1215 MHz and 837 MHz (actual, 1674 MHz DDR, 3348 MHz effective) memory.  Board power @ 225w
> 
> Difference between the 480 and 470 is 2 clusters disabled (is that right?) and clock frequencies (sub: 2 memory chips per btarunr).  The board power difference of 70w indicates some leakage issues IMO.  Also, I am not to sure about the 480's overclock ability.  It appears to be close to maxing out IMO.  But we will see once the reviews of the retail product are out to know what it's overclock potential really is.  As for the 470, there appears to be a huge amount of overclock potential.  It may match the 480.  But again we have to wait for reviews and hopefully user results.



the difference is 1 cluster 1 rop partition and 1 memory controller


----------



## kaosII (Mar 19, 2010)

Call me with some benchmarks. 
And remember the most important thing in a piss-match.---Don't cross the streams!!!!!!


----------



## DirectorC (Mar 19, 2010)

simlariver said:


> Lol, code 18 here



Oh yeah, I must have done something wrong while clicking Next through the driver installation.


----------



## nt300 (Mar 19, 2010)

kaosII said:


> Call me with some benchmarks.
> And remember the most important thing in a piss-match.---Don't cross the streams!!!!!!


I want to see real world gaming benchmarks. Gaming is where what the GPU is used for


----------



## imperialreign (Mar 19, 2010)

Thing is - no matter how well these cards will run when they _are_ released, I'm fairly certain there will be a quick follow-up from ATI . . . _if_ these cards knock the 5870 around too much.

ATI has been very quiet the last few months, and there've been rumor of cherry picking and a possible 5890 long before the 5970s release.  It wouldn't surprise me at all if ATI is merely biding their time on release . . . they tend to do that even more-so when they have other potential cards ready in waiting.


----------



## Flyordie (Mar 19, 2010)

Thrackan said:


> Now he tells me!
> 
> And of course you shared this ingenious fix with the rest of the world?



No need. 10.3 should have it.


----------



## jamsbong (Mar 20, 2010)

Fermi does not look all that impressive considering they are 6+months late. At a ridiculous 295watt TDP, it is highly doubtful that it can be overclocked. I won't be surprise if it is pre-overclock to the fullest just to overtake ATI by 10%.

If I want DX11, I would go for a decent ATI card. If I want CUDA or Physx, I would rather buy some mid-end nvidia card. 

Tessellation is largely unseen at the moment. by the time it is available in every PC game, the price of these DX11 card would be so much cheaper than they are now.

One thing FERMI do not have is Eyefinity. ATI multi-monitor tech is hardware based. That is why you can pump 6 monitors with 1 card. NV's tech is software based which allows 2 or 3 monitors per card. if you want more output you need 2+ cards.

Another note, AMD has launch their "gaming evolved" initiative. For a long time Nvidia always have great relationship with developers. Now AMD is finally doing something like it. This is great news for ATI users.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 20, 2010)

jamsbong said:


> Fermi does not look all that impressive considering they are 6+months late. At a ridiculous 295watt TDP, it is highly doubtful that it can be overclocked. I won't be surprise if it is pre-overclock to the fullest just to overtake ATI by 10%.
> 
> If I want DX11, I would go for a decent ATI card. If I want CUDA or Physx, I would rather buy some mid-end nvidia card.
> 
> ...


Rumours have it Fermi was late because of design defects. I love this title, its funny like hell 
Nvidia's Fermi GTX480 is broken and unfixable
Hot, slow, late and unmanufacturable
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/02/17/nvidias-fermigtx480-broken-and-unfixable/

Obviously NVIDIA cannot admit that something went wrong with Fermi or NVIDIA's stock price would go way down into the dirt. All NVIDIA wants to do IMO right now is release what they have, try to get away with the heat issues, then work hard in getting Fermi 2 up and running IMO 
In the mean time, I'll enjoy my ATI Radeons thank U


----------



## Grings (Mar 20, 2010)

What i dont get is why the ram is so slow?

I know they are using a higher bit interface and all, but considering even ATI's semi-budget cards have modules rated for 5000mhz effective, it seem odd to see a number as low as 3700mhz bandied around.

Saving it for the 485 maybe?,  the cooler inadvertently heats the ram too much to clock it any higher? very odd either way...


----------



## Wile E (Mar 20, 2010)

jamsbong said:


> Fermi does not look all that impressive considering they are 6+months late. At a ridiculous 295watt TDP, it is highly doubtful that it can be overclocked. I won't be surprise if it is pre-overclock to the fullest just to overtake ATI by 10%.
> 
> If I want DX11, I would go for a decent ATI card. If I want CUDA or Physx, I would rather buy some mid-end nvidia card.
> 
> ...



If it's anything like TWIMTBP, it is great news. ATI should've had a similar program in place years ago. Now maybe we'll see better ATI support out of the box on new titles, instead of having to wait for ATI to patch things up in drivers.

As for the 400 series specs, what can I say that hasn't been said already. Power consumption is far too high for the hinted at performance level, and this is way too late to the party.

That said, I'm dying to know the real numbers. nVidia has walked all over ATI in terms of GPGPU performance. My 8800GT is faster than my 4870X2 in Folding, for example. I want to see what Fermi can do in folding and encoding.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 21, 2010)

why memory size not like normal 1024,2048, is there is a point to pick this numbers


----------



## btarunr (Mar 21, 2010)

hayder.master said:


> why memory size not like normal 1024,2048, is there is a point to pick this numbers



1536 is 1.5 x 1024, so 1.5 GB. 1280 is 1.25 x 1024, so 1.25 GB. Since each memory chip has a 32-bit wide path, and the GPU has 384-bit / 320-bit memory interfaces (for GTX 480 / GTX 470, respectively), there are 12 or 10 memory chips. Each chip is 1 Gbit (128 MB), so 1536 MB for 12 chips, or 1280 MB for 10 chips. AMD HD 5800 use 256-bit memory interfaces, so 8 chips, 1024 MB. To get 2048 MB, they make two chips share a 32-bit path.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Mar 21, 2010)

btarunr said:


> 1536 is 1.5 x 1024, so 1.5 GB. 1280 is 1.25 x 1024, so 1.25 GB. Since each memory chip has a 32-bit wide path, and the GPU has 384-bit / 320-bit memory interfaces (for GTX 480 / GTX 470, respectively), there are 12 or 10 memory chips. Each chip is 1 Gbit (128 MB), so 1536 MB for 12 chips, or 1280 MB for 10 chips. AMD HD 5800 use 256-bit memory interfaces, so 8 chips, 1024 MB. To get 2048 MB, they make two chips share a 32-bit path.



thanx bro that's very useful info form me


----------

