Monday, August 9th 2010
GF100 512 Core Graphics Card Tested Against GeForce GTX 480
NVIDIA seems to have overcome initial hiccups with the GF100 graphics processor, and could release a new graphics card that makes use of all 512 CUDA cores, and 64 TMUs on the GPU. The GeForce GTX 480 was initially released as a top SKU based on the GF100, with 480 out of the 512 CUDA cores enabled. What NVIDIA calls the new SKU is subject to some speculation. While GPU-Z screenshots show that the 512 core model has the same device ID (hence the same name, GeForce GTX 480), leading us to believe that this is a specifications update for the same SKU à la GeForce GTX 260 (216 SP), it seems possible that the release-grade models could carry a different device ID and name.
Expreview carried out a couple of tests on the 512 core "GTX 480" graphics card, and compared it to the 480 core model that's out in the market. NVIDIA GeForce 258.96 drivers were used. The 512 core card got a GPU Score of 10,072 points compared to 9,521 points of the 480 core card, in 3DMark Vantage Extreme preset. The additional TMUs showed an evident impact on the texture fillrate, 41.55 GTexel/s for the 512 core card against 38.82 GTexel/s for the 480 core card.
In the second test, Crysis Warhead, with Enthusiast preset, 1920 x 1080 px, and 8x AA, the 512 core card churned out a framerate of 34.72 fps, while the 480 core card trailed at 32.96 fps. In this short bench, the 512 core laden GF100 card is 5~6% faster than the GeForce GTX 480. If NVIDIA manages to release the SKU at the same price-point as the GTX 480 as it did with the GTX 260-216, it will increase NVIDIA's competitiveness further against AMD's ATI Radeon HD 5970, which is still the fastest graphics SKU in the market. Below are screenshot comparing scores of both cards.
Source:
Expreview
Expreview carried out a couple of tests on the 512 core "GTX 480" graphics card, and compared it to the 480 core model that's out in the market. NVIDIA GeForce 258.96 drivers were used. The 512 core card got a GPU Score of 10,072 points compared to 9,521 points of the 480 core card, in 3DMark Vantage Extreme preset. The additional TMUs showed an evident impact on the texture fillrate, 41.55 GTexel/s for the 512 core card against 38.82 GTexel/s for the 480 core card.
90 Comments on GF100 512 Core Graphics Card Tested Against GeForce GTX 480
Had to post this lol.
Id just rather Overclock the 480 480sp, and still have +5% better perf and not humongous consumption
But didn;t know at the time so popped in in and tried to get it to work, pluged everything in and went upstairs for a bit and came down to find my 120 EX BURNING hot to touch, the heat-sink must of been 70c or so.
Ya, it'll be better by about two frames. How is someone a fool for buying a GTX 480 just because they don't have an extra 32 cuda cores on there card?.
If however you want performance AND low power consumption, nothing can beat the Radeon 5850.
I agree that if you want good performance and if you can't afford or don't want a beefier PSU, then the 5850 is definitely a great choice.
Funny thing is, most fermi owners love their cards, few moan about power consumption or heat output, many have "upgraded" from a 5850 or 5870 so I cannot really understand many of the arguments. It's all very well being a "pureist" and saying that it's consumption and heat are too great for me to buy it, however if most of those people were offered the option of card A at $300 for a level of performance with lower consumption and heat or for the same price offered card B with 10% more performance and 30% more consumption and heat.... still many would take card B.
As for this, I cannot beleive these power consumption figures, do the math, even with a new PCB, 32 more shaders and even with a stock speed of 800mhz I cannot for the life of me see how it could ever hit that consumption..... the GTX260 216SP did similar things when compared to this "upgrade", I kept the oold 192SP version as often with the less SP's the cards overclock better anyways.
But that's the thing, they are only worth 2 FPS in games but if you were to do something that utilised the card more like running those hair demos that NVIDIA do or something using heaps of CUDA, then the 512 core will come into a league of it's own. It's being compared on a system which this card is most likely not designed for.
At this stage there is no game which can truly stress cards properly anymore. 99% of games are console ports that can work on a 7900GTX or a Radeon HD2800. They aren't very powerful cards and now we're getting these 40nm monoliths. Of course games benchmarks aren't going to be accurate to show off some SPs being unlocked. The only way to test this now is in a CUDA/OpenCL benchmark. That is where this card will shine.
Now stop quoting me. I'm sick of explaining myself. These cards are made for the uber Folders and SETI and such, not n00bs who play Spider Solitaire. If you are buying one of these cards, you will have most likely an unlimited budget and power consumption is the least of your worries. That is what this card is for and that is why it is better than the GTX480: It is offering unrestricted performance at a high cost to those who NEED it.
If you don't like this card (because I certainly don't) then get a Radeon HD 5850. I hate GF100, and I am defending it because you guys are not seeing my point. If I have to come back here and explain myself again, I might loose my mind.