cheezburgerseems that spec would going to crush cayman for sure, rop and bus are far important then most people think and i say amd will have to learn hard lesson from it and just to been cheap ass. i mean com'on! 64rops vs 48rops or even 32rops and 512bit bus vs narrow 256bit bus or cripply 384bit bus? gtx 580 will eat cayman alive and everything will all goes back to good old 38xx day!

haha well if those thoughts make you happy sweet. But this is a statement based on flimsy rumors right now, sure GTX 580 will come eventually but who know's when and what it'll actually be.

And in my honest opinion, your statement of AMD being cheap ass's using a 256-bit bus+32 ROPs vs the GTX 480's 384-bit bus and 48ROP's, really only states that AMD's design is more efficient. The GTX 480 has 50% more bus width and 50% more ROP's not to mention transistor count and die size, yet the HD 5870 is only 11% slower overall. Let's not get started on the GTX 470 which has 25% more bus width and 25% more ROP's....and fall's below HD 5870 perf.

I must say i completely disagree with your logic. Afterall, when there are source's like this showing AMD's new 960SPU card beating AMD's 1440SPU 5850, and almost going neck and neck with the 1600SPU 5870....i really fail to see how you figure Nvidia is going to bounce back.

This also means(if all the rumors for the past 2months r true) that AMD has increase their shader efficiency by roughly 34%. So imagine the performance of one of AMD's new chips at 1440SPU's. It's possible for Nvidia to make a come-back(which they will with time), but it won't be this gen IMHO

a_ump...And in my honest opinion, your statement of AMD being cheap ass's using a 256-bit bus+32 ROPs vs the GTX 480's 384-bit bus and 48ROP's, really only states that AMD's design is more efficient. The GTX 480 has 50% more bus width and 50% more ROP's not to mention transistor count and die size, yet the HD 5870 is only 11% slower overall. Let's not get started on the GTX 470 which has 25% more bus width and 25% more ROP's....and fall's below HD 5870 perf...

it's not quite as linear as you make it sound, the Fermi chips indeed carry more bus width and ROP's but a decent whack slower clockspeeds on core and memory than their AMD rival cards, thus making the difference smaller than 50% and 25% respectively.

I agree to an extent in terms of transistor count and die size, and it physically does have more grunt, ATi just plain did freakin' well with the 5000 series. they started off fast and just kep getting faster for the following 6 months or so with better and better drivers.

wolfit's not quite as linear as you make it sound, the Fermi chips indeed carry more bus width and ROP's but a decent whack slower clockspeeds on core and memory than their AMD rival cards, thus making the difference smaller than 50% and 25% respectively.

I agree to an extent in terms of transistor count and die size, and it physically does have more grunt, ATi just plain did freakin' well with the 5000 series. they started off fast and just kep getting faster for the following 6 months or so with better and better drivers.

o i fully realized that :D, lol i was just tryin in a sense to prove what a moot point it was for cheezburger to say ATI's being cheap hardware wise when they, as you stated, make up for it with better memory controller's and clock speed. Plus they're in the lead. And no pun intended cheezburger :toast:

cheezburger... gtx 580 will eat cayman alive and everything will all goes back to good old 38xx day!

... I'm sorry to break it to you mate, but it'll be some time before nVidia can produce a GPU that will "eat alive" ATI's top of the line GPU ... I believe that nVidia needs to minimize the losses for the time being until their 28nm chip sees light, and at that time that chip must beat ATI's 28nm chip or I believe that Intel will finally get the chance to humiliate and acquire nVidia ;) ... I personally hope, for our sake as gamers, that nVidia recover and beat ATI in the next generation of GPUs, but definitely this won't happen by the GTX 580 ...

Kantastic will counter Nvidia's GTX 580 with his VE 9000+.

KantasticKantastic will counter Nvidia's GTX 580 with his VE 9000+.

AMD I choose you! use a splash attack!

KantasticKantastic will counter Nvidia's GTX 580 with his VE 9000+.

... I'll take two, and use them in cross-kantastic setup ...

cheezburgerseems that spec would going to crush cayman for sure, rop and bus are far important then most people think and i say amd will have to learn hard lesson from it and just to been cheap ass. i mean com'on! 64rops vs 48rops or even 32rops and 512bit bus vs narrow 256bit bus or cripply 384bit bus? gtx 580 will eat cayman alive and everything will all goes back to good old 38xx day!

I would think Nvidia will have the more powerful single GPU again but counter late like before. Probably a slightly lower power consumption or the same as the GTX 480 for the most part.

AMD will most likely get a little more energy efficient and just a little more performance than before at a lower price point. Probably also featuring a 5770 rebadge with no 6-pin molex requirement for the HTPC crowd.

Probably a repeat for Nvidia without being quite as late and what we thought Fermi to be all along will be found in the GTX 580. AMD will most likely gain a little more marketshare on the GPU front and continue the trend of trailing Intel by a longshot in CPU tech and sales.

with how badly AMD is doing in the CPU market...makes me wonder if they're purposely investing a good bit more resources in their GPU department and just running with what they got going good and slowly catch up CPU wise.

I don't get why we are even hearing about this rather than some decent respin's, namely focussing on the potent GF104 chip like a GTX475 and GTX495.

a fully unlocked dual GF104 has the potential to be 50% faster than a GTX480, it just seems logical to me to go down that path first, and get a new GPU completely right.

a_umpwith how badly AMD is doing in the CPU market...makes me wonder if they're purposely investing a good bit more resources in their GPU department and just running with what they got going good and slowly catch up CPU wise.

Probably has a little to do with the fact that they make more revenue in the GPU market, money they can use for R&D for CPU's.

It would of been nice to see a dual GPU Fermi card, like wolf said, dual GF104 chips would of been a sweet combination.:)

I'm guessing to make the 580 chips they're going to use the chips that actually were suppose to be the 480 and whatever chips that are defective will get its shaders disabled and become the 480

yeah its quite confusing, why nvdia didn't release full GTX460 ? i think the architecture can allow more heat for better performance

wahdangunyeah its quite confusing, why nvdia didn't release full GTX460 ? i think the architecture can allow more heat for better performance

DING! :toast:


I think the dual GPU full 460 will be competing with the HD 6900 on the high end. 490 might be just that. I think the 580 is a silly rumor. but then again who knows.

CDdude55It would of been nice to see a dual GPU Fermi card, like wolf said, dual GF104 chips would of been a sweet combination.:)

+1, I was more expecting to see something to compete with the 5970. As things stand right now ATI's got a good setup with the dual gpu's in one card there :ohwell: I find myself always comparing with the 5970, 'forgetting' that it's not single gpu in doing so :slap:

Lets get the nutters at Asus get the dual GF104 out and running then.

a_umpwith how badly AMD is doing in the CPU market...makes me wonder if they're purposely investing a good bit more resources in their GPU department and just running with what they got going good and slowly catch up CPU wise.

This is going to change when their APU is in full production and on every motherboard out there menth for office use.

GTX 580 = nuff' said

Im not trying to be a nvidia fan boy, but if i was nvidia, i wouldn't really start a new series of cards, I would keep a name for the 400 with all that advertising and development, and release higher end competition under GTX 400 series code names. Then like the rumors are spread about nvidia lowering the SKU prices of all there gpu's, make perfect competition for the ATI 6000 series.

WIN!

512-core GTX 485 on quick marketing here we come! :laugh:

a_umphaha well if those thoughts make you happy sweet. But this is a statement based on flimsy rumors right now, sure GTX 580 will come eventually but who know's when and what it'll actually be.

And in my honest opinion, your statement of AMD being cheap ass's using a 256-bit bus+32 ROPs vs the GTX 480's 384-bit bus and 48ROP's, really only states that AMD's design is more efficient. The GTX 480 has 50% more bus width and 50% more ROP's not to mention transistor count and die size, yet the HD 5870 is only 11% slower overall. Let's not get started on the GTX 470 which has 25% more bus width and 25% more ROP's....and fall's below HD 5870 perf.

I must say i completely disagree with your logic. Afterall, when there are source's like this showing AMD's new 960SPU card beating AMD's 1440SPU 5850, and almost going neck and neck with the 1600SPU 5870....i really fail to see how you figure Nvidia is going to bounce back.

This also means(if all the rumors for the past 2months r true) that AMD has increase their shader efficiency by roughly 34%. So imagine the performance of one of AMD's new chips at 1440SPU's. It's possible for Nvidia to make a come-back(which they will with time), but it won't be this gen IMHO

960sp was prototype, the real tape out is 1280sp.


shader don't directly affecting framerate and they aint the filling unit. a 10000sp with just 16rops will most definitely stuck at maximum frame rate while 128sp with 64rops will have 4x theoretically frame rate under same clock rate. more shader or powerful shader only apply the change of graphical quality and heavily detail loading. the reason why criticizing being cheap ass because they sell low spec gpu for higher price and all they doing are just clock up and stuff more shader and then another new price tag....it feels like it's not worthy to spend 300+dollar on something you can just swipe bios/overclock it in you house...while nvidia offer more feature and spec rich (cuda/physx/3Dvision/tessellation, 40/48rops and larger bus). in the same price gtx 470 offer far better performance/feature than what cypress can do but cost the same! the only criticism is the power consumption but WHO CARE? i just want my money to be spend in the right way then worry about this dirty ugly planet. want me to buy an amd card to save the planet?...i'd rather watch the planet die then pay for overprice low spec card like this.

unless amd can bring out some serious spec card with decent price i would never spend any penny just for the sack of power efficiency and saving the god damn planet....

cheezburgerthe only criticism is the power consumption but WHO CARE? i just want my money to be spend in the right way then worry about this dirty ugly planet.

Screw the planet, i just don't want my card choice to cost me an extra $300 more to power over its lifetime thus near doubling its cost to me and of corse i don't want something that will cook me alive in my tiny closet like computer room :laugh:

That is your opinion and others probably care about the things you do not. You gotta remember overclocking is a bonus and not required to be provided. For the average users which is the majority of the market, AMD is meeting their demands and succeeding.

bear jesusScrew the planet, i just don't want my card choice to cost me an extra $300 more to power over its lifetime thus near doubling its cost to me and of corse i don't want something that will cook me alive in my tiny closet like computer room :laugh:

But if you have enough to afford the card, wouldn't you have enough to at least power and cool the damn thing? lol

That's what i have still yet to understand, these are top tier cards you're paying for, now of course this doesn't excuse inefficiencies, but if you're paying for a card like that at least pay for a sufficient amount of power and cooling for it if you're considering a card that costs $350 and up.

On a differnt note, AMD has definitely got a good performance per watt thing going with the 5 series, and i hope it continues to get even better.(and i hope Nvidia follows suit in that regard)

CDdude55But if you have enough to afford the card, wouldn't you have enough to at least power and cool the damn thing? lol

That's what i have still yet to understand, these are top tier cards you're paying for, now of course this doesn't excuse inefficiencies, but if you're paying for a card like that at least pay for a sufficient amount of power and cooling for it if you're considering a card that costs $350 and up.

On a differnt note, AMD has definitely got a good performance per watt thing going with the 5 series, and i hope it continues to get even better.(and i hope Nvidia follows suit in that regard)

It's not that i can't afford it... i just don't like paying for it :laugh:
the lower my bills the more money i have to spend on other things, and if my gpu choice can save me near $150 in a year thats proberley 8 or 10 games that are on sale on steam (my pc is on 24/7 so power adds up pretty quick at $0.22 per kw/h).

But i do see your point, but cooling is a pain in the ass as no air con and its a tiny room with no window :laugh: don't ask :p so heat output means a lot to me.