NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 1.5 GB

[erocker]

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

What? Really? What? Given that the 6870 is the replacement at best for the 5850, please do compare the 5850 performance in unigine heaven compared to the 6870 (link below). Unigine is a good guide at tesselation power - thus why the 580 kicks ass on it. But the 6870 clearly does tesselation far better than a 5850 (about 30% better at 1920).

Sometimes your posts are a wee bitty PRO nvidia and you downtalk AMD far too much and without logic (this tesselation talk being an example). And i'm not a fanboi of AMD - i'm trying very hard to not buy an Nvidia card (waiting for the competition so i can compare) but i really do like the new 580.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/H..._Turbo/25.html

Member name gives it away. If I wasn't a moderator I would just ignore such people/posts. Plus, this review really has nothing to do with ATi cards.

[ERazer]

grear review w1zz and a great card

bring on 6970 review! me want new card! im always about price/performance

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

It looks like GTX580 is far more power efficient. Thanks to Anandtech all your doubts should be answered.



http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4012/33985.pnghttp://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4012/33986.png

So it turns out that the reference GTX580 comes with a higher voltage although it probably doesn't need it. Well, it's probably a measure to improve yields, but just like with the 480 newer cards will probably get better as the chip matures in future batches and partners will start cherry picking them and offer the GTX580 equivalents of the GTX480 cards you are mentioning.

great info there man cheers for posting it.

I for one think it's a feat all unto itself how well Nvidia refined essentially the same GPU.

they've gotten between 15-20% more performance through better yeilds, reworking circutry at many different areas of the GPU, and of course more aggressive clockspeeds.

not only that but will solidly whooping a GTX480 in every game or test it consumes less power, and makes less noise.

it would be commendable IMO to keep the same performance and reduce power useage and noise, just remember they did that and added 15%+ more power. not freakin bad at all for a refresh.

t'aint next gen, but it restores some of my faith in Nvidia. Jen Hsun must have been pissed when GF100 went tits up, but this goes to show he's comitted to solutions.

[qubit]

+1 wolf

Just look at AMD. They misfired pretty badly with the HD 2900 three years ago. That chip was supposed to take out the 8800 GTX, but ended up being hot and embarrassingly slow in the benchmarks at stock clocks. Then look at how AMD came back with the 4000 series. Sounds similar to nvidia's misfire this year, doesn't it?

[newtekie1]

Originally Posted by wolf

great info there man cheers for posting it.

I for one think it's a feat all unto itself how well Nvidia refined essentially the same GPU.

they've gotten between 15-20% more performance through better yeilds, reworking circutry at many different areas of the GPU, and of course more aggressive clockspeeds.

not only that but will solidly whooping a GTX480 in every game or test it consumes less power, and makes less noise.

it would be commendable IMO to keep the same performance and reduce power useage and noise, just remember they did that and added 15%+ more power. not freakin bad at all for a refresh.

t'aint next gen, but it restores some of my faith in Nvidia. Jen Hsun must have been pissed when GF100 went tits up, but this goes to show he's comitted to solutions.

As I mentioned though, I don't know how much of these improvements come from the GPU rework itself, and how much comes from the improved cooler design. Since W1z showed that a GTX480 is capable of similar power number when the GPU runs cooler.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

As I mentioned though, I don't know how much of these improvements come from the GPU rework itself, and how much comes from the improved cooler design. Since W1z showed that a GTX480 is capable of similar power number when the GPU runs cooler.

I guess it wouldnt be that hard to force the fan to run slower, and heat up the GPU to the mid 90's and see how power fares at that temperature.

however from all of the good reviews I've read, Nvidia really did tackle the GF100 GPU to the ground, pull it's pants down and tear it a new one. major work has been done to the GPU if the reviewers are to be believed. it really is a pity it took so long but this is what the GTX480 should have been.

and still, for it to get so close to a 5970 is a feat all unto itself, lightly overclocked cards will likely match or exceed it. no matter which way you look at it it's a butload of power for one GPU to have.

I'd love to see 5970CF vs GTX580 SLi, quad GPU scaling ftl.

EDIT: some info on what changed between GF100 and GF110;

Little did we know at the time, but back in February of this year, before the first GF100 chips even shipped in commercial products, the decision had been made in the halls of Nvidia to produce a new spin of the silicon known as GF110. The goal: to reduce power consumption while improving performance. To get there, Nvidia engineers scoured each block of the chip, employing lower-leakage transistors in less timing-sensitive logic and higher-speed transistors in critical paths, better adapting the design to TSMC's 40-nm fabrication process.

At the same time, they made a few targeted tweaks to the chip's 3D graphics hardware to further boost performance. The first enhancement was also included in the GF104, a fact we didn't initially catch. The texturing units can filter 16-bit floating-point textures at full speed, whereas most of today's GPUs filter this larger format at half their peak speed. The additional filtering oomph should improve frame rates in games where FP16 texture formats are used, most prominently with high-dynamic-range (HDR) lighting algorithms. HDR lighting is fairly widely used these days, so the change is consequential. The caveat is that the GPU must have the bandwidth needed to take advantage of the additional filtering capacity. Of course, the GF110 has gobs of bandwidth compared to most.

The second enhancement is unique to GF110: an improvement in Z-culling efficiency. Z culling is the process of ruling out pixels based on their depth; if a pixel won't be visible in the final, rendered scene because another pixel is in front of it, the GPU can safely neglect lighting and shading the occluded pixel. More efficient Z culling can boost performance generally, although the Z-cull capabilities of current GPUs are robust enough that the impact of this tweak is likely to be modest.

The third change is pretty subtle. In the Fermi architecture, the shader multiprocessors (SMs) have 64KB of local data storage that can be partitioned either as 16KB of L1 cache and 48KB of shared memory or vice-versa. When the GF100 is in a graphics context, the SM storage is partitioned in a 16KB L1 cache/48KB shared memory configuration. The 48KB/16KB config is only available for GPU computing contexts. The GF110 is capable of running with a 48KB L1 cache/16KB shared memory split for graphics, which Nvidia says "helps certain types of shaders."

[motasim]

... I am not red nor green; I just speak my mind; and what I think is that AMD has been surprised by the unexpected launch and performance of the GTX 580, as everyone else have ... we were only expecting a dual GF104 Chip or a fully-enabled GF104 GPU from nVidia and no one was expecting a "proper" GF100 (i.e. GF 110) chip GPU, but nVidia managed to keep a good secret long enough to surprise competition. Now, the ball is in AMD's court; AMD has had a year now since they launched the 5870 & 5970 and has no excuse in my opinion not to build single-chip GPUs that can outperform the GTX 580, but if they couldn't, that'll definitely mean that 2011 is going to be nVidia's year, especially that the GTX 560 & GTX 570 should be on the way ...

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by qubit

+1 wolf

Just look at AMD. They misfired pretty badly with the HD 2900 three years ago. That chip was supposed to take out the 8800 GTX, but ended up being hot and embarrassingly slow in the benchmarks at stock clocks. Then look at how AMD came back with the 4000 series. Sounds similar to nvidia's misfire this year, doesn't it?

Regarding the 2900xt, nearly bought one the other day to experience , but just why did it do so badly, fermi type troubles?

Because it's specs are damn good! ( for the time)

Did decent cooling yield good results?

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

As I mentioned though, I don't know how much of these improvements come from the GPU rework itself, and how much comes from the improved cooler design. Since W1z showed that a GTX480 is capable of similar power number when the GPU runs cooler.

Look at the entire Anand review. Temps are exactly the same for both GTX580 models, ut power consumption on the Asus one is much lower.



Here's some results from the GTX480 lightning:




As you can see the temperatures are lower on this one thanks to a much better cooler and because of that (and PCB, etc) the card consumes the same as the reference GTX480 despite running at 750 Mhz and having a stock voltage of 1.06 V. So yeah temps do help power consumption, but look at this small comparison between Wizzard reviewed GTX480 Lightning/reference and reference GTX580:

GTX480 reference - 700 Mhz - 0.99 V - 96 ºC - 320 W Furmark - 257 W peak
GTX480 Lightning - 750 Mhz - 1.06 V - 71 ºC - 321 W Furmark - 230 W peak
GTX580 reference - 772 Mhz - 1.05 V - 86 ºC - 306 W Furmark - 226 W peak
Asus 580 in Anand - 782 Mhz - 1.00 V - 87 ºC - (*) 280 W Fur - (*) 206 W peak

*Estimated from Anand's results. As the Asus one consumes 26w less under Furmark and 20 W less on Crysis.

On top pf that I would say that the MSI Lighting is made of cores that have been cherry picked, while the Aus one is a launch product, there sure is room from improvement.

Bottom line is IMHO:

1- The GTX580 does consume much less, especially considering it has more SPs enabled and the consequent performance improvement.

2- Nvidia should definately change whoever makes them reference cards.

[the54thvoid]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

Bottom line is IMHO:

1- The GTX580 does consume much less, especially considering it has more SPs enabled and the consequent performance improvement.

2- Nvidia should definately change whoever makes them reference cards.

It really depends what you read.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.ph...=27307&page=16 similar draw
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1950&pageID=9757 similar draw
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...TX_580/25.html lower draw
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/n...rce-gtx-580/17 lower draw
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...mps-noise.html lower draw

Some sites have awfully low power draws, others have marginal lower (~ 20 Watts) others have the same and Guru 3D had a shit engineering card with much higher draw.

I think focussing on power consumption though is a moot point. What i see as vaild is it's other performance figures. This review (below) shows the problems faced by crossfire set ups. This is why i will be going single card come December (Red or Green, unsure).

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...roduction.html

The 6870 crossfire and 5970 beat the GTX 580 in : BFBC2, AvP, poorer MINIMUM fps in Crysis, COD Black Ops (is a crock of shit and NV optimised for 580 - i have friends that cant play it with a GTX 260 - console port ahoy!), F1 2020 runs poorly on dual gpu, Fallout New Vegas is slower on dual gpu...

Basically, though the crossfire set ups are quicker technically, unless the game is optimised they run worse.

I'm just a little concerned the GTX 580 is so much better simply because they put on a superior cooler, thats been around on AIC/AIB cards for ages. I'm waiting for other cards and reviews before i decide.

EDit: just found this review - GTX 580 beats things across the board (480, 480 OC, 480 lightning etc) but on unigine the OC GTX 480 Lightning beats the OC GTX 580. Except in Minimum FPS (512 cores versus 480?)
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/g...tx580_review/5

[nt300]

I think I wait for HD 6970. The 580 is fast and much better than 480 but IMO only good for helping competition and to drop price of graphics cards. I feel the 580 should have been much much faster for the high price they ask.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by motasim

... I am not red nor green; I just speak my mind; and what I think is that AMD has been surprised by the unexpected launch and performance of the GTX 580, as everyone else have ... we were only expecting a dual GF104 Chip or a fully-enabled GF104 GPU from nVidia and no one was expecting a "proper" GF100 (i.e. GF 110) chip GPU, but nVidia managed to keep a good secret long enough to surprise competition. Now, the ball is in AMD's court; AMD has had a year now since they launched the 5870 & 5970 and has no excuse in my opinion not to build single-chip GPUs that can outperform the GTX 580, but if they couldn't, that'll definitely mean that 2011 is going to be nVidia's year, especially that the GTX 560 & GTX 570 should be on the way ...
http://images.bit-tech.net/blog/2010...prediction.jpg

those 500 series estimates look well possible from their currant lineup, at least specs and speed wise.

GTX570 will be GF110 with near GTX480 performance, should be considerably less power consumption too.
GTX560 is the fully enabled and clocked up GF104 we've been waiting for.
GTS550 is also a fully enabled GF106, and clocked up, giving it considerably more performance IMO, given at the moment it lacks 50% of its ROPS and memory bandwidth.

[Benetanegia]

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

It really depends what you read.

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.ph...=27307&page=16 similar draw
http://www.bjorn3d.com/read.php?cID=1950&pageID=9757 similar draw
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/N...TX_580/25.html lower draw
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4008/n...rce-gtx-580/17 lower draw
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...mps-noise.html lower draw

But once again it depends on which cards those reviews are comparing. Hexus and bjorn3D are comparing GTX580 reference against Asus and Galaxy GTX480's which are much more refined than reference designs. Compare Asus GTX480 to the Asus GTX480 in Anandtech and you are going to be closer to the truth. My guess is that the reference card is made so that every candidate can attain the required specs, even the really "bad ones", it's like playing a lot on the safe side, because every card that can be released at launch counts, due to arguably high demand and low supply. In the meantime important partners like Asus (just as an example) get better candidates and they also do some binning themselves and by getting rid of the worst ones* they can improve a lot over the reference design, using far lower voltages to do the same thing. A lot of this has already happened with GTX480's and GTX470's on the wild, which have much much better thermals and power consumption than the reference ones reviewed at launch.

*You could be surprised how much it can improve if you get rid of only the worst 2% (because of Normal or Gaussian distribution you know) and because they are getting rid of 2% or lets say 5%, they just need to sell them at 2-5% higher price or just rely in the higher number sales derived from being the best supplier for that card.

[Zubasa]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Regarding the 2900xt, nearly bought one the other day to experience , but just why did it do so badly, fermi type troubles?

Because it's specs are damn good! ( for the time)

Did decent cooling yield good results?

The HD2900 felt really hard on its face because it have such an abyssmal default clock. (Yes yield/power consumption problems)
That and the fact that the SP on the R600 was severely under-utilized.
So the first thing that changed in the RV770 (4870/4850) is that they added a ton of SPs to the thing.

[thunderising]

Originally Posted by Benetanegia

Look at the entire Anand review. Temps are exactly the same for both GTX580 models, ut power consumption on the Asus one is much lower.

Read the 1st page of review. The ASUS card uses a voltage of 1.00v, reference in 1.025v..

That alone makes a HUGE difference in power consumption.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by pantherx12

Regarding the 2900xt, nearly bought one the other day to experience , but just why did it do so badly, fermi type troubles?

Because it's specs are damn good! ( for the time)

Did decent cooling yield good results?

Extreme cooling yielded excellent results. Air cooling was useless on the card. AA absolutely crippled the card tho. It was mostly a good bencher's card.

The card had high leakage, and was a heat monster. It was in fermi territory for heat output.

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Wow, this thing is cooler, faster and more power efficient indeed.. they were not exaggerating. 850 core is easy without voltage tweaks

[pantherx12]

Cheers for 2900xt info, is it bad your words have only made it more tempting?

I can get one for £29.75 from work, but seems expensive ( this is including my discount)



I can't wait to see clocks on gf110 with water or epic aircooling.

[the54thvoid]

As of writing this:

E-Buyer - pre order
Aria - pre order
Novatech - pre order
Scan - 3 of 11 lines in stock
Overclockers UK - 1 of 11 lines in stock (4 of @ £450!!!)

Methinks this launch, though real was very much a 6970 pre-empt. There simply isn't much stock around - wasn't to start, probably less than a hundred units over those 5 stores and prices vary from £394 (pre-order) up past £450.

But it worked regardless. I like the GTX 580. But i'm thinking, hmm, how many are there? I hope production is ramped up and not used to feed the 570/560 lines.

I also think HD6970 will be the same. Few at launch, if they do get the 13th Dec nailed.

[Red_Machine]

eBuyer said they would have some in on the 11th. Tho my order has now been placed instead of there being a stock warning...

[Paintface]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814500184

possible to find it cheaper?

[Red_Machine]

Would you guys say an i5 760 is superior to a Phenom II X4 965?

[scaminatrix]

Originally Posted by Red_Machine

Would you guys say an i5 760 is superior to a Phenom II X4 965?

It seems they're close. I'm guessing the i5 when OC'ed will be the better performer.

[Red_Machine]

Would you guys reccommend the Intel or the AMD? I'm tempted to go AMD again, but I'm just worried that it won't be up to the task of supporting my 580.

[bear jesus]

Originally Posted by Red_Machine

Would you guys reccommend the Intel or the AMD? I'm tempted to go AMD again, but I'm just worried that it won't be up to the task of supporting my 580.

I would say go with AMD if you intend to overclock, if you intend to leave your cpu at stock speeds i would expect an i7 to be the better buy than i5 or anything from AMD.

My phenom 965 at 4ghz does pretty well at keeping up with my pair of 6870's but i admit an overclocked i7 would feed them better but only as i have 2 cards, i hope to go back to a single card soon so that i can keep my phenom a little longer without it holding me back.

Originally Posted by scaminatrix

It seems they're close. I'm guessing the i5 when OC'ed will be the better performer.

From that i would also say overclocked i5, if you can bump it up closer to 4ghz would beat out then phenom at around 4ghz.