First Fermi GF100 Chips Named GTX 480 and GTX 470


Recommended Posts

Fun Fact of the Week: GeForce GTX 480 and GeForce GTX 470 will be the names of the first two GPUs shipped based on our new GF100 chip!

Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the "number" jump. Hopefully this come out soon so I can step up XD. I would love to have one of these in my system, blow every game everywhere for the next 3 years till i upgrade again.

Come on nvidia!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised if NVIDIA rebrands the current 2xx series as low or medium range 3xx series video cards. As for the GTX 480/470, it's expected that these cards will outperform the HD 5870 because the specs are higher. Specs don't mean everything though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will play out like this:

NVIDIA Will Win:

High-End Market

• Highest Performance in Single, Dual, Tri and Quad-GPU Configurations

• Best Multi-GPU scaling beyond Two cards

3D Market (However I consider this a Niche)

Physics API used in most games

AMD Will Win:

Low-End Market

Mid-End Market

Best Performance-Price ratio

Most Feature Packed Cards

• Eyefinity

• 3 Displays on 1 Card

• Full HD Audio output via HDMI, Built in 7.1 Sound Chip

NVIDIA Will Lose:

Large Media Centre Market to ATI (MATX / ATX Form Factor, not ITX)

Low-End to AMD

Mid-End to AMD

AMD Will Lose:

High-End Market to NVIDIA

3D Market to NVIDIA (If however this is a Niche)

GPU Powered Physics to NVIDIA's PhysX

This is just my opinion but I consider myself informed. I currently own Dual GTX260's by NVIDIA but I really don't know which way I will go next. I'm not stuck on either company. I think right now I'm likely to go with AMD but I'm waiting to see the final performance and feature set of the NVIDIA cards. All that I mention above in my 'rundown' is for Desktop-like systems and doesn't include Netbooks, Nettops or 'Bookshelf' Media Centres like the Boxee Box. Only ATX, EATX and MATX systems ^

In notebooks, netbooks and Bookshelf Media Centres I believe NVIDIA will do better as there 9400M GPU/Chipset is already widely adopted with the ATOM for HD video playback due to its acceleration of 1080p video without dropped frames including flash content and its relative cheap price. And the same thing is happening in the ARM cpu space with NVIDIAs Tegra 2 which is looking to power an entirely new generation of PMP's and Bookshelf Media Centres like the Boxee Box by DLink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it will play out like this:

NVIDIA Will Win:

High-End Market

? Highest Performance in Single, Dual, Tri and Quad-GPU Configurations

? Best Multi-GPU scaling beyond Two cards

3D Market (However I consider this a Niche)

Physics API used in most games

AMD Will Win:

Low-End Market

Mid-End Market

Best Performance-Price ratio

Most Feature Packed Cards

? Eyefinity

? 3 Displays on 1 Card

? Full HD Audio output via HDMI, Built in 7.1 Sound Chip

NVIDIA Will Lose:

Large Media Centre Market to ATI (MATX / ATX Form Factor, not ITX)

Low-End to AMD

Mid-End to AMD

AMD Will Lose:

High-End Market to NVIDIA

3D Market to NVIDIA (If however this is a Niche)

GPU Powered Physics to NVIDIA's PhysX

This is just my opinion but I consider myself informed. I currently own Dual GTX260's by NVIDIA but I really don't know which way I will go next. I'm not stuck on either company. I think right now I'm likely to go with AMD but I'm waiting to see the final performance and feature set of the NVIDIA cards. All that I mention above in my 'rundown' is for Desktop-like systems and doesn't include Netbooks, Nettops or 'Bookshelf' Media Centres like the Boxee Box. Only ATX, EATX and MATX systems ^

In notebooks, netbooks and Bookshelf Media Centres I believe NVIDIA will do better as there 9400M GPU/Chipset is already widely adopted with the ATOM for HD video playback due to its acceleration of 1080p video without dropped frames including flash content and its relative cheap price. And the same thing is happening in the ARM cpu space with NVIDIAs Tegra 2 which is looking to power an entirely new generation of PMP's and Bookshelf Media Centres like the Boxee Box by DLink

I really dont see physx being used in most games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont see physx being used in most games.

Maybe I should have clarified, when I said PhysX used in most games, I meant only games that use Physics API's at all. Specifically games that have the choice between Havok, an in house solution or PhysX are most likely to go with PhysX.

Thereby I was stating that NVIDIA will win the 'Physics API' battle by having theirs be the most dominant one in use which ATi's cards do not accelerate. I was not inferring that most games released will use a Physics engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dont see physx being used in most games.

PhysX is already the most popular physics API, it has surpassed Havok.

That said, most games using PhysX are CPU-physics only, and not GPU accelerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think the Physics API battle is really worth a w*** anyway, PhysX is a pile of rubbish, before I switched to ATI, I played all of the PhysX maps in UT3, and with PhysX enabled, the framerate dropped considerably with no discernible improvement in image quality. Modern CPUs are fast enough that we really don't need to waste GPU horsepower computing physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PhysX is a pile of rubbish, before I switched to ATI, I played all of the PhysX maps in UT3, and with PhysX enabled, the framerate dropped considerably with no discernible improvement in image quality. Modern CPUs are fast enough that we really don't need to waste GPU horsepower computing physics.

Just to be clear, PhysX is just another physics API like Havok and Bullet. I guess it's pretty good as it has become quite popular. I'm just saying there needs to be a distinction between PhysX GPU-accelerated and PhysX API in general.

Secondly, every GPU prior to GTX 470/480 (when it arrives) has been optimized for DirectX gaming and not general computing/physics etc. So PhysX on GPU should work better with only one card on the upcoming ones. I guess we will be able to see what they can do after the GTX470/480 are released. Even so, PhysX will take a performance hit. But this is not unique. Tessellation also takes a big performance hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think the Physics API battle is really worth a w*** anyway, PhysX is a pile of rubbish, before I switched to ATI, I played all of the PhysX maps in UT3, and with PhysX enabled, the framerate dropped considerably with no discernible improvement in image quality. Modern CPUs are fast enough that we really don't need to waste GPU horsepower computing physics.

Couldn't agree more, I think the whole push of doing physics on the gpu is dumb. The GPU is already stressed more than the cpu in most games. When I used Physx on nvidia cards it did nothing but RAPE my fps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GPU-accelerated physics is the way to go, but NVIDIA is really hurting the gaming market with PhysX. ATI users are left in the dark with basic physics acceleration in PhysX-powered titles like Mirror's Edge or Batman: Arkham Asylum. Then there's the issue of performance with GPU-accelerated physics. It's a given that it would utilize resources that would otherwise be used to help with rendering. And that robs you of precious frames per second.

I just hope NVIDIA really pushes DX11. ATI is already on it and with the popularity of Windows 7, we might actually see some decent DX11 titles on the PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone keeps mentioning DX11, there's only 3 games on the market now with DX11 support, it's not like Nvidia is very late here. It'll be interesting to see what Nvidia's new cards have to offer. If anything, it's great for the consumer as it means lower prices (ATI's 5x prices are through the freaking roof), better products.

GPU-accelerated physics is great show of what the GPU is capable of. Sure, GPU's power games, but it's great to see applications that actually use GPU's for other things like physx, CUDA, transcoding, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone keeps mentioning DX11, there's only 3 games on the market now with DX11 support, it's not like Nvidia is very late here. It'll be interesting to see what Nvidia's new cards have to offer. If anything, it's great for the consumer as it means lower prices (ATI's 5x prices are through the freaking roof), better products.

GPU-accelerated physics is great show of what the GPU is capable of. Sure, GPU's power games, but it's great to see applications that actually use GPU's for other things like physx, CUDA, transcoding, etc.

Yup! And since ATI had a couple of cards out before nvidia, let's hope ati drops their price to stay competetive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup! And since ATI had a couple of cards out before nvidia, let's hope ati drops their price to stay competetive!

This is exactly what I'm looking forward to with the Fermi launch. I have 2 4770s right now but would like a 5850/5870 down the road with crossfire in mind (though I'd probably just get 1 card first).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone keeps mentioning DX11, there's only 3 games on the market now with DX11 support, it's not like Nvidia is very late here. It'll be interesting to see what Nvidia's new cards have to offer. If anything, it's great for the consumer as it means lower prices (ATI's 5x prices are through the freaking roof), better products.

GPU-accelerated physics is great show of what the GPU is capable of. Sure, GPU's power games, but it's great to see applications that actually use GPU's for other things like physx, CUDA, transcoding, etc.

It's not so much about NVIDIA's timing with their DX11 cards, it's about pushing it. With NVIDIA on board alongside ATI coupled with Windows 7's popularity, we may see more DX11 games earlier (compared to DX10).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone keeps mentioning DX11, there's only 3 games on the market now with DX11 support, it's not like Nvidia is very late here. It'll be interesting to see what Nvidia's new cards have to offer. If anything, it's great for the consumer as it means lower prices (ATI's 5x prices are through the freaking roof), better products.

GPU-accelerated physics is great show of what the GPU is capable of. Sure, GPU's power games, but it's great to see applications that actually use GPU's for other things like physx, CUDA, transcoding, etc.

Couldn't agree more.

It's gonna take some time before games start to really take advantage of DX11's API.

I mean, it's newest title, Battlefield Bad Company 2, only makes use of some shaders stuff, it's not like it's using Tessellation or anything, which FYI has been a part of OpenGL's API for ~3 years at the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?Tessellation or anything, which FYI has been a part of OpenGL's API for ~3 years at the least.

ATI have had Tesselation since 2001 (called TrueForm). In software, just like Nvidia now with Fermi.

Tessellation is a technology that has been around for a few GPU (graphics processing unit) generations. AMD has had Tessellation support since 2001, which was then called Truform....

http://blogs.amd.com/play/tag/tessellation/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATI have had Tesselation since 2001 (called TrueForm). In software, just like Nvidia now with Fermi.

What you mean is NVidia doesn't have a full dedicated unit for tessellation, it still does the computing in hardware. And NVidias own numbers show a big advantage for their solution compared to AMD's. How well it will perform in real tests we don't know yet. But if they can keep those number as high as promised even during full GPU load, it will be impressive. But everything they said so far are just paper facts. They need to deliver soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, PhysX is just another physics API like Havok and Bullet. I guess it's pretty good as it has become quite popular. I'm just saying there needs to be a distinction between PhysX GPU-accelerated and PhysX API in general.

Secondly, every GPU prior to GTX 470/480 (when it arrives) has been optimized for DirectX gaming and not general computing/physics etc. So PhysX on GPU should work better with only one card on the upcoming ones. I guess we will be able to see what they can do after the GTX470/480 are released. Even so, PhysX will take a performance hit. But this is not unique. Tessellation also takes a big performance hit.

I know what PhysX is, and I had a GPU that supported GPU accelerated PhysX, an 8600 GT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.