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
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.
82 Comments on GeForce GTX 400 Series Clock Speeds and Other Details Surface
If I want DX11, I would go for a decent ATI card. If I want CUDA or Physx, I would rather buy some mid-end nvidia card.
Tessellation is largely unseen at the moment. by the time it is available in every PC game, the price of these DX11 card would be so much cheaper than they are now.
One thing FERMI do not have is Eyefinity. ATI multi-monitor tech is hardware based. That is why you can pump 6 monitors with 1 card. NV's tech is software based which allows 2 or 3 monitors per card. if you want more output you need 2+ cards.
Another note, AMD has launch their "gaming evolved" initiative. For a long time Nvidia always have great relationship with developers. Now AMD is finally doing something like it. This is great news for ATI users.
Nvidia's Fermi GTX480 is broken and unfixable
Hot, slow, late and unmanufacturable
www.semiaccurate.com/2010/02/17/nvidias-fermigtx480-broken-and-unfixable/
Obviously NVIDIA cannot admit that something went wrong with Fermi or NVIDIA's stock price would go way down into the dirt. All NVIDIA wants to do IMO right now is release what they have, try to get away with the heat issues, then work hard in getting Fermi 2 up and running IMO
In the mean time, I'll enjoy my ATI Radeons thank U :D
I know they are using a higher bit interface and all, but considering even ATI's semi-budget cards have modules rated for 5000mhz effective, it seem odd to see a number as low as 3700mhz bandied around.
Saving it for the 485 maybe?, the cooler inadvertently heats the ram too much to clock it any higher? very odd either way...
As for the 400 series specs, what can I say that hasn't been said already. Power consumption is far too high for the hinted at performance level, and this is way too late to the party.
That said, I'm dying to know the real numbers. nVidia has walked all over ATI in terms of GPGPU performance. My 8800GT is faster than my 4870X2 in Folding, for example. I want to see what Fermi can do in folding and encoding.