Thursday, February 25th 2010

GeForce GTX 400 Series Performance Expectations Hit the Web

A little earlier this month, NVIDIA tweeted that it would formally unveil the GeForce GTX 400 series graphics cards, NVIDIA's DirectX 11 generation GPUs, at the PAX East gaming event in Boston (MA), United States, on the 26th of March. That's a little under a month's time from now. In its run up, sources that have access to samples of the graphics cards seem to be drawing their "performance expectations" among other details tricking in.

Both the GeForce GTX 480 and GTX 470 graphics cards are based on NVIDIA's GF100 silicon, which physically packs 512 CUDA cores, 16 geometry units, 64 TMUs, 48 ROPs, and a 384-bit GDDR5 memory interface. While the GTX 480 is a full-featured part, the GTX 470 is slightly watered-down, with probably 448 or 480 CUDA cores enabled, and a slightly narrower memory interface, probably 320-bit GDDR5. Sources tell DonanimHaber that the GeForce GTX 470 performs somewhere between the ATI Radeon HD 5850 and Radeon HD 5870. This part is said to have a power draw of 300W. The GeForce GTX 480, on the other hand, is expected to perform on-par with the GeForce GTX 295 - at least in existing (present-generation) applications. A recent listing by an online store for a pre-order, put the GTX 480 at US $699.Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

114 Comments on GeForce GTX 400 Series Performance Expectations Hit the Web

#1
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: Bjorn_Of_Iceland
you didnt get the meaning he is trying to say :P
No, I didn't even read his post. ^^
Posted on Reply
#2
kaneda
by: Frick
No, I didn't even read his post. ^^
pfft, cheers XD
Posted on Reply
#3
kaneda
by: eidairaman1
at least you are feeding that card properly. Id have to upgrade to do that.
feeding it properly? if you mean raping every last penny out of it, sure XD cost £117 when i got it.
Posted on Reply
#4
eidairaman1
by: kaneda
feeding it properly? if you mean raping every last penny out of it, sure XD cost £117 when i got it.
No I'm saying the CPU is feeding it, I'd have to overclock my CPU to get any benefit out of it. Atleast drivers are still there for both versions.
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
by: TAViX
Do you have any proof of what you've wrote there??

All the o.c. forums are saying that o.c. the RAM of current 57xx and 58xx is useless, since it provides very little performance gain, even when using liquid cooling or sub-zero custom H2/ He/N2/etc cooling. The main performer is only the GPU, so where did you got your informations, mind if I ask??:shadedshu
Look around in some of the benchmark threads.

Or how about the firing squad review? http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_5870_overclocking/

Not only does OCing the memory provide a small increase at stock gpu speeds, but it provides an even bigger increase when you OC the core speeds. As the core speeds increase, so does the need for bandwidth.

As far as the 2900 vs the 3870, I switched back to the 2900 from a 3870 because the 2900 was a better performer under water cooling with a highly OCed gpu. For anything else you want to know, you'll have to dig around in the forums for posts from around that time. There were actually a few of them.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Wile E
Look around in some of the benchmark threads.

Or how about the firing squad review? http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_radeon_5870_overclocking/

Not only does OCing the memory provide a small increase at stock gpu speeds, but it provides an even bigger increase when you OC the core speeds. As the core speeds increase, so does the need for bandwidth.

As far as the 2900 vs the 3870, I switched back to the 2900 from a 3870 because the 2900 was a better performer under water cooling with a highly OCed gpu. For anything else you want to know, you'll have to dig around in the forums for posts from around that time. There were actually a few of them.
I had a 2900. That thing was a tank!
Posted on Reply
#7
Lionheart
The HD2900XT had some type of memory bit interface, something called a ringbus or something, wat was that?
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
by: CHAOS_KILLA
The HD2900XT had some type of memory bit interface, something called a ringbus or something, wat was that?
I thought the ring bus was on X1800-X1950 cards?
Posted on Reply
#9
TheMailMan78
Banstick Dummy
by: Wile E
I thought the ring bus was on X1800-X1950 cards?
I think hes right. The 2900 I believe did have a ringbus.
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
by: Wile E
I thought the ring bus was on X1800-X1950 cards?
THe X1800,1900, 2900 Utilized a Ring Memory Bus, just on the 2900 it was inefficient vs the previous boards.
Posted on Reply
#11
Lionheart
Oh I see, thanx for clearing that up for me, wat was it exactly?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment