I don't know from where did they take those specs, but Nvidia will not release those things. They are absurd. 512 bit?
![Laugh :laugh: :laugh:](https://tpucdn.com/forums/data/assets/smilies/laugh-v1.gif)
If GF104 has taught anything, that is that performance on Fermi cards depends mostly/only on shaders and is not by any means based on ROPs/bandwidth.
The only probable GF110 specs are one of these (in order of probability):
1 - 3/2 (three halves) of a GF104, that is 3 GPC (clusters)
specs: 576 SP, 96 TMU, 384 bit, core 750 mhz, < 500 mm^2
performance: GTX480 + 25%
Posibility of a dual GF104 card.
2- GF104 with 4 SIMDs per SM instead of 3 (64 SPs instead of 48), 2 GPC
specs: 512 SP, 64 TMU, 256 bit (it would accompanied with 6 gbps memory for about the same bandwidth as GF100), core 750-800 Mhz, << 400 mm^2
performance: ~ GTX480 +/- 5%
There would be a dual gpu card based on this one.
3- Combination of both, #2 but with 3 GPC or #1 with 4 SIMD.
specs: 768 SP, 96 TMU, 384 bit, core 650-700 Mhz, ~550 mm^2
performance: GTX480 + 50%
#3 becomes posible thanks to the fact that TSMC 40nm is said to have exceeded 55nm yields, and Nvidia not fecking up the fabric like they did with GF100.
Also #2 and #3 can easily exist at the same time, as well as a dual card based on #2. That way:
GF110#2 (512 SP part) >>> Bart at a higher cost
GF110#3 (768 SP part) >>> Cayman at a higher cost
2xGF110#2 (2x512 SP) == Antilles at similar cost
I don't see
Nvidia saying anything anywhere, all I see is a pair of websites speculating, based on the fact that speaking about a posible Nvidia response now that AMD is releasing HD6000 is going to be inflamatory and obtain them a lot of clicks.