Friday, March 19th 2010

GeForce GTX 400 Series Clock Speeds and Other Details Surface

Exactly a week ahead of releasing its GeForce GTX 400 series accelerators, NVIDIA held meetings with the press discussing the company's newest technologies, including GeForce GTX 400 series. Some lesser known details about the GeForce GTX 480 and GeForce GTX 470 surfaced, among more known and established ones. To begin with, the GeForce GTX 480 is confirmed to have a CUDA core (shader core) count of 480. The GF100 core operates at 700 MHz, its shader domain at 1401 MHz, and the memory operates at 924 MHz (actual, 1848 MHz DDR, 3700 MHz effective). With a GDDR5 memory bus width of 384-bit, the effective memory bandwidth would be 173.4 GB/s.

The GeForce GTX 470, on the other hand, has 448 CUDA cores, clock speeds of 607 MHz core, 1215 MHz shader domain, and 837 MHz memory (actual, 1674 MHz DDR, 3348 MHz effective). With a GDDR5 memory bus width of 320-bit, the effective memory bandwidth would be 130.7 GB/s. While the GTX 480 has a board power of 295W, the GTX 470 has a board power of 225W. Another piece of information the source reveals is that internal testing by NVIDIA showed that the performance level to expect from the GeForce GTX 470 should be 5-10% higher than that of the ATI Radeon HD 5850. The GeForce GTX 480 should be expected to be just that much faster than the ATI Radeon HD 5870. It is also expected that the target price of the GeForce GTX 480 should be typically US $499, while the GTX 470 should go typically for US $349. Detailed reviews of the two should be up by this time, next week.Source: VR-Zone
Add your own comment

82 Comments on GeForce GTX 400 Series Clock Speeds and Other Details Surface

#1
locoty
I think it's time for ATI to release 5950. Of course it will smoke 480, price it @500 dollar and you'll get a winner

and i think 5950 will have lower TDP than 480
Posted on Reply
#2
Binge
Overclocking Surrealism
btarunr said:
AMD won't need to cut its prices. At these performance/$, the HD 5870 is comfortable at $400, and HD 5850 at $300.
Most e-tailers don't have the 5850 at $300 though. I'm seeing $310-350 for the reference card.
Posted on Reply
#3
stasdm
Much ado about nothing!

More than 5% of CUDA cores DOA!
Not very promising start:laugh:
Posted on Reply
#4
Binge
Overclocking Surrealism
stasdm said:
More than 5% of CUDA cores DOA!
Not very promising start:laugh:
no rumors please?
Posted on Reply
#5
stasdm
Binge said:
no rumors please?
That's no rumor - pure calculation (512 CUDA cores in theory, 480 and less in practice)
Posted on Reply
#6
Sihastru
All I see is much speculation and a lot more hate. Just wait one more week and see the damn things in action.

I've seen *many* boxes and specification sheets that presented the GTX480 as an 512SP GPU. The full load power consumption is taken from the Quadro/FX line, where things are a bit exaggerated. The consumer variant won't see that number unless you really stress the cards out with a special GPCPU benchmark.

Anyway, since when is so much important how much power a videocard needs at this high-end level? Comparisons with the 5970 are fine, but that card will have CF scaling problems in a lot of games, while the GTX480 will not, since it's just one GPU. There will be some surprises.

As for the *just* 5-10% performance increase over the direct ATI competitors, it's not entirely correct. There are no such figures from real sources, they are invented, and the release drivers will paint a totally different picture if there is even some truth in it. I remember 4870 and 4890 being faster at one time then the GTX260+ and GTX275. That changed after a driver release.
Posted on Reply
#7
the54thvoid
Sihastru said:
All I see is much speculation and a lot more hate. Just wait one more week and see the damn things in action.

I've seen *many* boxes and specification sheets that presented the GTX480 as an 512SP GPU. The full load power consumption is taken from the Quadro/FX line, where things are a bit exaggerated. The consumer variant won't see that number unless you really stress the cards out with a special GPCPU benchmark.

Anyway, since when is so much important how much power a videocard needs at this high-end level? Comparisons with the 5970 are fine, but that card will have CF scaling problems in a lot of games, while the GTX480 will not, since it's just one GPU. There will be some surprises.

As for the *just* 5-10% performance increase over the direct ATI competitors, it's not entirely correct. There are no such figures from real sources, they are invented, and the release drivers will paint a totally different picture if there is even some truth in it. I remember 4870 and 4890 being faster at one time then the GTX260+ and GTX275. That changed after a driver release.
Dude, you're dancing the dance of an Nvidia player. Almost every media source now is saying 480 cores and the TDP of <300W is well documented. True that crossfire doesn't scale well in all games but it does in most of them, especially the AAA titles.

Again, nobody is saying the 5870 is faster but certainly from a price performance hit, it definitely is the better buy. My big thought is can the GTX4xx series power down in idle? The old 200 series did to a good degree so can this beast? If not, i say with purity - it's a piece of steaming shit.
Why so?
A good card must perform well, be run at acceptable noise levels, not spew forth tremendous heat, not consume a tonne of power 24/7 and... be affordable. (which is why the 5970 is not a good card - it's too frickin expensive. Bear in mind you can buy 2 5850's that cost nearly £100 less than most 5970's).
Posted on Reply
#9
EastCoasthandle
I believe that the reason why we've seen no solid, verifiable performance results (thinking of the youtube video using an updated version of Heaven 1.1 comes to mind) is that 470/480 can easily be countered by their competitor. But I await benchmark results to see if that's true or not.


Saakki said:
http://twitter.com/sampsa_kurri/status/10723903057 :toast: Finnish Muropeople are waiting.
Honestly, that's just marketing. In the past he was one of a few people that would leak some results. Even if it was nothing more to say it's faster or not. This time he's just showing us a box. :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#10
the54thvoid
EastCoasthandle said:
I believe that the reason why we've seen no solid, verifiable performance results (thinking of the youtube video using an updated version of Heaven 1.1 comes to mind) is that 470/480 can easily be countered by their competitor. But I await benchmark results to see if that's true or not.



Honestly, that's just marketing. In the past he would always spring up results. He was one of a few people that would leak some results. Even if it was nothing more to say it's faster or not. This time he's just showing us a box. :shadedshu
No, thats hype. As you allude to, if he leaked results now he'd be off NVs christmas list. They should send a card to semiaccurate.com. That would be lolz.
Posted on Reply
#11
EastCoasthandle
Hype= marketing to me. But the gist of it remains the same. He's already performed benchmark results (I'm sure of it) but he's only showing pics of the box. If he was worried about breaking NDA he wouldn't have shown the pic.
Posted on Reply
#12
nt300
shevanel said:
its kind of dissapointing from an enthusiast point of view. all this waiting and all they provide is 5%.. sometimes 10% but with higher cost.. not worth it.

it'd be nice if after all this time they released something that makes you wanna sell your 5870 for $275 just to make the move back to Nv.

this is not the case this time.

card will prolly be good for cuda aps + gaming but the price isnt justifiable.

"hey screw that red sports car, its 6 months old, buy this new green one.. it might cost more but it goes 5mph faster"

yeah good luck.
Nvidia should have refreshed its current GPU's then maybe around 4 to 6 months from today release a fixed Fermi and not a overpriced Fermi of today thats not much better than HD 5800 series, runs hotter than the fastest card HD 5970 and sucks more power. I think Fermi is broken, IMO.

Nvidia lied again, they say the GTX 480 is the fastest Graphics card ever made, well what about the HD 5970 that puts circles around it :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#13
erocker
nt300 said:
Nvidia should have refreshed its current GPU's then maybe around 4 to 6 months from today release a fixed Fermi and not a overpriced Fermi of today thats not much better than HD 5800 series, runs hotter than the fastest card HD 5970 and sucks more power. I think Fermi is broken, IMO.

Nvidia lied again, they say the GTX 480 is the fastest Graphics card ever made, well what about the HD 5970 that puts circles around it :laugh:
You need to read facts before posting rumor as fact. You have absolutey no proof to back your claims. It's just the same posts over and over again. Your post is broken, IMO. Whatever level these cards compete at, it will be priced accordingly.

*Btw, inside sources claim the heatpipes are filled with awesomesauce so cooling won't be a problem. :p
Posted on Reply
#15
erocker
nt300 said:
This is from TechPowerUp :confused: I thought we already know about this NVIDIA claim with picture?
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Reference Design Card Final Design Pictured
Thursday, March 18 2010
http://www.techpowerup.com/117826/NVIDIA_GeForce_GTX_480_Reference_Design_Card_Final_Design_Pictured.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/img/10-03-18/102a.jpg
Less than 300W. That could be anywhere from 1 - 299 watts. Plus, that picture doesn't back up anything you said in your previous post. :confused:

There is fact, there is fiction and then there are marketing slides.
Posted on Reply
#16
epicfail
erocker said:
Less than 300W. That could be anywhere from 1 - 299 watts.
well i would think they would put <250 if it would be under 250 just to make it seem better, they wouldnt put under 300 if it was 240 they would want to make it seem to take the less power possible
Posted on Reply
#17
nt300
erocker said:
Less than 300W. That could be anywhere from 1 - 299 watts. Plus, that picture doesn't back up anything you said in your previous post. :confused:
Oh you are refering to when I say "runs hotter than the fastest card HD 5970 and sucks more power" Sorry, I was just blabbering on. But I think we all have to agree for a single GPU the Fermi does run quite hot.
Posted on Reply
#18
erocker
nt300 said:
But I think we all have to agree for a single GPU the Fermi does run quite hot.
I can assume, but I can't agree since nobody knows. Maybe that cooler they designed works well. We really don't know. If it's hot, it's hot, but if it's hot and works well and there's headroom, it's fine. In the end, it just has to work well and everything else won't matter.
Posted on Reply
#19
nt300
erocker said:
I can assume, but I can't agree since nobody knows. Maybe that cooler they designed works well. We really don't know. If it's hot, it's hot, but if it's hot and works well and there's headroom, it's fine. In the end, it just has to work well and everything else won't matter.
Yes agree.
HD 5970 we know is Maximum board power: 294 Watts and Idle board power: 51 Watts. According to a few sites the 480 is 250W min and 300W max. This is new today.
http://www.techspot.com/news/38297-Nvidia-GeForce-GTX-480-and-470-specs-emerge.html
Posted on Reply
#20
KainXS
EastCoasthandle said:
480 @ 700 MHz GPU, shader domain @ 1401 MHz and 924 MHz (actual, 1848 MHz DDR, 3700 MHz effective) memory. Board power @ 295W
470 @ 607 MHz GPU, shader domain @ 1215 MHz and 837 MHz (actual, 1674 MHz DDR, 3348 MHz effective) memory. Board power @ 225w

Difference between the 480 and 470 is 2 clusters disabled (is that right?) and clock frequencies (sub: 2 memory chips per btarunr). The board power difference of 70w indicates some leakage issues IMO. Also, I am not to sure about the 480's overclock ability. It appears to be close to maxing out IMO. But we will see once the reviews of the retail product are out to know what it's overclock potential really is. As for the 470, there appears to be a huge amount of overclock potential. It may match the 480. But again we have to wait for reviews and hopefully user results.
the difference is 1 cluster 1 rop partition and 1 memory controller
Posted on Reply
#21
kaosII
Call me with some benchmarks.
And remember the most important thing in a piss-match.---Don't cross the streams!!!!!!
Posted on Reply
#22
DirectorC
simlariver said:
Lol, code 18 here
Oh yeah, I must have done something wrong while clicking Next through the driver installation. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#23
nt300
kaosII said:
Call me with some benchmarks.
And remember the most important thing in a piss-match.---Don't cross the streams!!!!!!
I want to see real world gaming benchmarks. Gaming is where what the GPU is used for :D
Posted on Reply
#24
imperialreign
Thing is - no matter how well these cards will run when they are released, I'm fairly certain there will be a quick follow-up from ATI . . . if these cards knock the 5870 around too much.

ATI has been very quiet the last few months, and there've been rumor of cherry picking and a possible 5890 long before the 5970s release. It wouldn't surprise me at all if ATI is merely biding their time on release . . . they tend to do that even more-so when they have other potential cards ready in waiting.
Posted on Reply
#25
Flyordie
Thrackan said:
Now he tells me!:eek:

And of course you shared this ingenious fix with the rest of the world?
No need. 10.3 should have it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment