AT's latest video card testing results

[Keysplayr]

Originally Posted by MrK6

Originally Posted by Keysplayr View Post
What are the strengths?

Very scalable, especially with overclocking. It also has components that will help (I'd imagine anyway) in future games, like it's tesselation capabilities.

Originally Posted by MrK6

Originally Posted by Keysplayr View Post
What are the serious flaws?

The GF100 is an engineering failure. It requires way too much power (and the heat and noise that comes with it) to do what it does, not to mention the size of the chips and needless complexity. NVIDIA needs to decide what they want to do with the chip and stick to it, as obviously making a "Jack-of-all-trades" on 40nm isn't happening. They got a lot corrected their second time through with the GF104, now they need to scale that up to the high-end.

----------------------------------------------

If the GF100 was an engineering failure, I'd expect it not to work at all.
At worst, it can be said that GF100 did not meet it's thermal envelope, it uses more power than I'm sure the engineers would have liked, and the noise is absolutely subjective. It's hot, draws a lot of power. Issue for some, not for others. Now what I'd expect some people to pay closer attention to (alongside their concerns for heat and power), besides this heat and power draw, are as you put it, "strengths".
I find it quite hard to believe that the only two strengths you can materialize in text, are "very scalable, especially when overclocking" and "tesselation" components that will help in future games. But Not now. So the only strength you can come up with for GF100 is essentially, scalability.
That is very generous indeed. But I'd wager you could do a bit better than just "scalability" listed in the extensive column of strengths of GF100.

 

[SirPauly]

Well, definitely quieter and using less power, however it will be faster almost always. The only situation I can think of it not being is with something with heavy tesselation.

The reason why I raised the point is because I am gaming with a MSI GTX 470 twin Frozr 2 and so quiet and so cool even on worse case -- even when clocked at 800.

 

[GaiaHunter]

----------------------------------------------

If the GF100 was an engineering failure, I'd expect it not to work at all.
At worst, it can be said that GF100 did not meet it's thermal envelope, it uses more power than I'm sure the engineers would have liked, and the noise is absolutely subjective. It's hot, draws a lot of power.

This is just semantics. Additionally you have the delay to hit the market, yields problems and the fact there is no 512 SPs part released (not something important for the consumer but that can clearly be used to evaluate how successful GF100 is from an engineering level).

Issue for some, not for others. Now what I'd expect some people to pay closer attention to (alongside their concerns for heat and power), besides this heat and power draw, are as you put it, "strengths".
I find it quite hard to believe that the only two strengths you can materialize in text, are "very scalable, especially when overclocking" and "tesselation" components that will help in future games. But Not now. So the only strength you can come up with for GF100 is essentially, scalability.
That is very generous indeed. But I'd wager you could do a bit better than just "scalability" listed in the extensive column of strengths of GF100.

They have good performance compared to the 5870 and 5850, but then again they use more power to get there.

It is easy to say that power consumption isn't a factor but we are talking about differences (using Anand numbers for Crysis) of 90-100 W between the 5850 and the 470, 60W between the 5870 and 470, and 110W between a 5870 and 480.

If you OC the 5850 and 5870 to the power consumption levels of the 470 and 480, the 5850 and 5870 comes ahead in terms of performance most of the time.

Sure, not every 5850/5870 will OC that high, but they sure do seem to OC nicely.

I guess tessellation can be seen as subjective either. Many users and reviewers though, seem to not see spectacular increases in image quality but seem to see quite a hit on frame rate. Maybe in the future tessellation will be more spectacular.

So, yeah, the fact that GF100 seems to OC really high, god knows consuming how much power, does seem to be their biggest asset. Not a bad one either from NVIDIA point of view for the future.

The price of the 470 is quite nice too, considering the performance and ignoring power consumption.

So what is left?

PhysX, CUDA, 3Dvision, better SLI performance compared to CF, the drivers?

What strengths do you see?

 

[GaiaHunter]

The reason why I raised the point is because I am gaming with a MSI GTX 470 twin Frozr 2 and so quiet and so cool even on worse case -- even when clocked at 800.

But on newegg that card cost $350 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...in%20frozr%202 , that defeats the price argument vs the 5850, doesn't it?

 

[Keysplayr]

This is just semantics. Additionally you have the delay to hit the market, yields problems and the fact there is no 512 SPs part released (not something important for the consumer but that can clearly be used to evaluate how successful GF100 is from an engineering level).



They have good performance compared to the 5870 and 5850, but then again they use more power to get there.

It is easy to say that power consumption isn't a factor but we are talking about differences (using Anand numbers for Crysis) of 90-100 W between the 5850 and the 470, 60W between the 5870 and 470, and 110W between a 5870 and 480.

If you OC the 5850 and 5870 to the power consumption levels of the 470 and 480, the 5850 and 5870 comes ahead in terms of performance most of the time.

Sure, not every 5850/5870 will OC that high, but they sure do seem to OC nicely.

I guess tessellation can be seen as subjective either. Many users and reviewers though, seem to not see spectacular increases in image quality but seem to see quite a hit on frame rate. Maybe in the future tessellation will be more spectacular.

So, yeah, the fact that GF100 seems to OC really high, god knows consuming how much power, does seem to be their biggest asset. Not a bad one either from NVIDIA point of view for the future.

The price of the 470 is quite nice too, considering the performance and ignoring power consumption.

So what is left?

PhysX, CUDA, 3Dvision, better SLI performance compared to CF, the drivers?

What strengths do you see?

While I do appreciate your comments here, I was kind of hoping MrK6 would comment.
Also, I'd like to add, by your definition, the word "failure" to the semantic pile.
GF100's strengths sort of dwarfs it's shortcomings. In both performance, and features. It can be argued forever whether the features might mean something to some and nothing to others, BUT..... The features are at least, present.

 

[SirPauly]

that defeats the price argument vs the 5850, doesn't it?

You may desire to bring up the 5850 -- what I desired to raise is the blanket views of hot and loud on the GTX 470.

 

[Keysplayr]

But on newegg that card cost $350 http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30355909 , that defeats the price argument vs the 5850, doesn't it?

Not really. If he paid 350 for that card and it's running at 800MHz, It's probably faster than a 5870 at stock clocks and probably o/c'd as well. As it stands, and with current drivers, GTX470 is trading blows with 5870.

 

[GaiaHunter]

While I do appreciate your comments here, I was kind of hoping MrK6 would comment.
Also, I'd like to add, by your definition, the word "failure" to the semantic pile.
GF100's strengths sort of dwarfs it's shortcomings. In both performance, and features. It can be argued forever whether the features might mean something to some and nothing to others, BUT..... The features are at least, present.

Sorry to have jumped in the train then.

Failure, problematic, less than perfect. For an enthusiast the difference isn't that great. Although I guess it is bad publicity having a product called failure or turd.

I guess that is the fact that it can be argued and some will never see anything while for others it is the essential that make those "things" features and not really strengths.

See, the GF104 is a great card. No questions asked about features and whatever. Performs well, it has a great price and doesn't consume too much power compared to other contemporaneous cards.

 

[MrK6]

----------------------------------------------

If the GF100 was an engineering failure, I'd expect it not to work at all.
At worst, it can be said that GF100 did not meet it's thermal envelope, it uses more power than I'm sure the engineers would have liked, and the noise is absolutely subjective. It's hot, draws a lot of power. Issue for some, not for others. Now what I'd expect some people to pay closer attention to (alongside their concerns for heat and power), besides this heat and power draw, are as you put it, "strengths".
I find it quite hard to believe that the only two strengths you can materialize in text, are "very scalable, especially when overclocking" and "tesselation" components that will help in future games. But Not now. So the only strength you can come up with for GF100 is essentially, scalability.
That is very generous indeed. But I'd wager you could do a bit better than just "scalability" listed in the extensive column of strengths of GF100.

Funny, because I could have gone on about the "failures" for a lot longer. If you care so much about strengths, why don't you list what you think are the strengths? You asked me, I answered, and then you got upset because you didn't like my answer. However, you still have yet to list what you think are the strengths of the card.

The reason why I raised the point is because I am gaming with a MSI GTX 470 twin Frozr 2 and so quiet and so cool even on worse case -- even when clocked at 800.

Cool =/= use less power. And if the card is silent like the 5850 is, good, looks like the AIB's took up the slack elsewhere.

But on newegg that card cost $350 http://forums.anandtech.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30355909 , that defeats the price argument vs the 5850, doesn't it?

Indeed.

 

[GaiaHunter]

You may desire to bring up the 5850 -- what I desired to raise is the blanket views of hot and loud on the GTX 470.

That is true.

Hot and loud can be controlled by the cooling system (I think I've said that recently in some thread), but not the power consumption, so that heat is going somewhere (probably your room).

Not really. If he paid 350 for that card and it's running at 800MHz, It's probably faster than a 5870 at stock clocks and probably o/c'd as well. As it stands, and with current drivers, GTX470 is trading blows with 5870.

Stock speed isn't 800 MHz though (unless I'm reading wrong).

So then it would be OC 5870 vs OC 470.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, any reason the newegg link was replaced by a link to the post where the newegg link was posted? See Keys and MrK6 quotes (I've edited back the original post).

 

[SirPauly]

So what is left?

PhysX, CUDA, 3Dvision, better SLI performance compared to CF, the drivers?

What strengths do you see?

The major strength to me is their pro-active nature from developer relations to adding things in their drivers from Ambient Occlusion to Sli-AA; and to try to improve gaming experiences for the PC platform and their customers through features like PhysX, Stereo3d, DirectX 11 or Cuda, like you mentioned.

Other avenues is the efficiency of CSAA and how the hit is so small to use x16 CSAA with 4 color samples or even x32 CSAA with x8 color samples. It's always nice to not be forced to only use x4 or x8 because CSAA would be too much of a hit and much more than window dressing -- thankfully, CSAA is very efficient.

Other areas are in the arena of transparency where there is a lot of flexibility with the GTX line at this time. Enhancements to DirectX 10 and 11 content with transparency and the flexibility to add multi-sampling or x2, x4, x8 super-sampled -- and even use a full-scene super-sampled tool, if one finds the need. Even x32 CSAA with multi-sampling transparency has been improved upon to work in conjunction.

If developers are worth the time to add tools for, really believe gamers should as well. Application is essential and very important but what if a developer doesn't add a transparency setting for application? Go without? Because it is the easy thing to do? Or try to be pro-active for their customers because gamers desire to add features for their transparency like DirectX 9 did?

 

[Keysplayr]

That is true.

Hot and loud can be controlled by the cooling system (I think I've said that recently in some thread), but not the power consumption, so that heat is going somewhere (probably your room).




Stock speed isn't 800 MHz though (unless I'm reading wrong).

So then it would be OC 5870 vs OC 470.

Yes, I did mention that in my post.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The major strength to me is their pro-active nature from developer relations to adding things in their drivers from Ambient Occlusion to Sli-AA; and to try to improve gaming experiences for the PC platform and their customers through features like PhysX, Stereo3d, DirectX 11 or Cuda, like you mentioned.

Other avenues is the efficiency of CSAA and how the hit is so small to use x16 CSAA with 4 color samples or even x32 CSAA with x8 color samples. It's always nice to not be forced to only use x4 or x8 because CSAA would be too much of a hit and much more than window dressing -- thankfully, CSAA is very efficient.

Other areas are in the arena of transparency where there is a lot of flexibility with the GTX line at this time. Enhancements to DirectX 10 and 11 content with transparency and the flexibility to add multi-sampling or x2, x4, x8 super-sampled -- and even use a full-scene super-sampled tool, if one finds the need. Even x32 CSAA with multi-sampling transparency has been improved upon to work in conjunction.

If developers are worth the time to add tools for, really believe gamers should as well. Application is essential and very important but what if a developer doesn't add a transparency setting for application? Go without? Because it is the easy thing to do? Or try to be pro-active for their customers because gamers desire to add features for their transparency like DirectX 9 did?

That is a good post.

But GF104 also benefits from that.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Yes, I did mention that in my post.

Sorry, didn't interpreted that way.

It seemed that you were saying the MSI 470 Twin Frzr2 was a factory OC card.

Wouldn't a reference 470 reach the same OC? Because if it does, basically the extra $60-70 was spent on reducing the noise/heat.

 

[Keysplayr]

Funny, because I could have gone on about the "failures" for a lot longer. If you care so much about strengths, why don't you list what you think are the strengths? You asked me, I answered, and then you got upset because you didn't like my answer. However, you still have yet to list what you think are the strengths of the card.
Cool =/= use less power. And if the card is silent like the 5850 is, good, looks like the AIB's took up the slack elsewhere.
Indeed.

No, it's not really funny at all. I'm not questioning your ability to go on about what you perceive as failures much much longer. But I am certainly questioning your ability to go on about the strengths beyond scalability. I'm only really asking you to be fair and honest here. Nothing out of the ordinary.

I didn't like your answer because it was very obviously very slanted. Otherwise I wouldn't have questioned you about it. Everybody here knows that I know all the strengths and shortcomings of GF100. No need for me to list them. However, while I'm sure you are quite familiar with the downsides to GF100, I'm not so sure you even "know" the strengths at this point because you can't seem to think of anything.
If you can't, that's a different story. Won't, is a problem.

 

[Keysplayr]

Sorry, didn't interpreted that way.

It seemed that you were saying the MSI 470 Twin Frzr2 was a factory OC card.

Wouldn't a reference 470 reach the same OC? Because if it does, basically the extra $60-70 was spent on reducing the noise/heat.

Yes, the ref 470 does reach that o/c, and you're spot on about the extra cost going into the better cooling, lower power consumption and noise on the MSI.

 

[SirPauly]

I paid a bit extra to have around GTX-480 performance but with improved thermals and acoustics. The bonus was the bundle with two fantastic titles.

 

[Xarick]

The major strength to me is their pro-active nature from developer relations to adding things in their drivers from Ambient Occlusion to Sli-AA; and to try to improve gaming experiences for the PC platform and their customers through features like PhysX, Stereo3d, DirectX 11 or Cuda, like you mentioned.

Other avenues is the efficiency of CSAA and how the hit is so small to use x16 CSAA with 4 color samples or even x32 CSAA with x8 color samples. It's always nice to not be forced to only use x4 or x8 because CSAA would be too much of a hit and much more than window dressing -- thankfully, CSAA is very efficient.

Other areas are in the arena of transparency where there is a lot of flexibility with the GTX line at this time. Enhancements to DirectX 10 and 11 content with transparency and the flexibility to add multi-sampling or x2, x4, x8 super-sampled -- and even use a full-scene super-sampled tool, if one finds the need. Even x32 CSAA with multi-sampling transparency has been improved upon to work in conjunction.

If developers are worth the time to add tools for, really believe gamers should as well. Application is essential and very important but what if a developer doesn't add a transparency setting for application? Go without? Because it is the easy thing to do? Or try to be pro-active for their customers because gamers desire to add features for their transparency like DirectX 9 did?

I agree with the developer relations part of this. I have now owned a 5850 for 3 months and totally regret going ATI for this very reason.. and their drivers.. but mainly their developer relations. Games just seem better on nvidia hardware and I believe this is the reason. Oh well.... next time.

 

[MrK6]

No, it's not really funny at all. I'm not questioning your ability to go on about what you perceive as failures much much longer. But I am certainly questioning your ability to go on about the strengths beyond scalability. I'm only really asking you to be fair and honest here. Nothing out of the ordinary.

And I was. That's a ten second summary of the GF100's strengths - scalability and future proofing. If I did the same for the Cypress chips, I would say - overclocking capabilities, high resolution performance, low noise, and low power consumption. The sad thing is, you're so "green with envy," anytime someone doesn't extol Fermi, you get upset. I don't think I'm the one not being honest here, as you aren't with yourself nor the rest of the forum. If you wanted a 1000 word essay extolling the virtues of Fermi for your next group meeting, you write it, that's your job, not mine.

I didn't like your answer because it was very obviously very slanted. Otherwise I wouldn't have questioned you about it. Everybody here knows that I know all the strengths and shortcomings of GF100. No need for me to list them. However, while I'm sure you are quite familiar with the downsides to GF100, I'm not so sure you even "know" the strengths at this point because you can't seem to think of anything.
If you can't, that's a different story. Won't, is a problem.

Where's your list? You've complained, personally insulted my character, and meandered for several posts now, but I still don't see your list of Fermi's strengths. Who can't or won't again?

Yes, the ref 470 does reach that o/c, and you're spot on about the extra cost going into the better cooling, lower power consumption and noise on the MSI.

Funny, even MSI doesn't mention that bolded part on their site. You'd think if they engineered that into the card, they'd be all over it. Do you have a link to back that up?

 

[RussianSensation]

The power consumption differences between the 470 and 5870 aren't that large actually. Of course Cypress is far more efficient - 470 can't outperform a 5870 and has almost a 60% larger die! So NV has to improve on this front with GTX5xx series and 28nm. Right now GF100 is a bloated pig (tessellation, cuda etc.).

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_460_Amp_Edition/29.html
- Maximum - just 20W apart in this review

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/19404/10
- 11 Watts apart here
^ BTW in this review GTX470 is almost as fast as 5770 CF and consumes less power at load. How many 5770 CF setups were recommended in the last 9 months on the forums? Lots.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte-gf-gtx400_6.html#sect0
- 27 Watts apart

However, with that in mind, my 4890 idled at 52-57*C and loaded at near 80*C, while being louder than the 470. In the exact same case, my GTX470 idles at just 38-43*C (32 percent fan speed) and loads at 77*C max (66 percent fan speed). So heat concerns may be relative depending on what card you had before. Again, it is the 480 that's the real hot Fermi card. 470 is no worse than a GTX275/280/285 or 4890 - and all of those cards sold without problems. I am not even going to bring up 4850 x2, 4870 x2 and 5970 x2, which are louder and hotter as well.

 

[Idontcare]

If I didn't know any better I'd say you guys were spoiling for a fight.

What is this thread supposed to be about? Has it outlived that purpose?

 

[evolucion8]

The power consumption differences between the 470 and 5870 aren't that large actually. Of course Cypress is far more efficient - 470 can't outperform a 5870 and has almost a 60% larger die! So NV has to improve on this front with GTX5xx series and 28nm. Right now GF100 is a bloated pig (tessellation, cuda etc.).

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Zotac/GeForce_GTX_460_Amp_Edition/29.html
- Maximum - just 20W apart in this review

http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/19404/10
- 11 Watts apart here
^ BTW in this review GTX470 is almost as fast as 5770 CF and consumes less power at load. How many 5770 CF setups were recommended in the last 9 months on the forums? Lots.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gigabyte-gf-gtx400_6.html#sect0
- 27 Watts apart

However, with that in mind, my 4890 idled at 52-57*C and loaded at near 80*C, while being louder than the 470. In the exact same case, my GTX470 idles at just 38-43*C (32 percent fan speed) and loads at 77*C max (66 percent fan speed). So heat concerns may be relative depending on what card you had before. Again, it is the 480 that's the real hot Fermi card. 470 is no worse than a GTX275/280/285 or 4890 - and all of those cards sold without problems. I am not even going to bring up 4850 x2, 4870 x2 and 5970 x2, which are louder and hotter as well.

GPU core temperatures has very little to do with heat dissipation. Its widely known that a single HD 4870 1GB with stock cooler can reach up to 90C degrees, close to match the load temperatures of the GTX 480, but its not even close to TDP. The GTX 470 is well cooled, but doesn't change the fact that is a GPU that is dissipating more than 230W in heat, the HD 4890 only does 190W in heat. By such logic, a watercooled i7 980X at full load, running at 32C dissipates the same heat and power consumption as an Intel Atom running at the same temperature.

 

[Silverforce11]

Maybe its time we drop the Fermi vs 5k debate.. cos just around the corner, S.I. will land and make both completely obsolete.

Besides, the 5k series is nearly a year old now.

 

[evolucion8]

Hides quietly in a corner with his very old videocard setup"

 

[3DVagabond]

So using some of the same logic from this thread. The 5850 should be $72 less than the GTX470, which would make it $198. Wow, the math comes out perfect and matches almost exactly what I have been saying.

It's scary how right I am all the time.

Wow! Price has already dropped $31.00 from release? Aren't selling too well, apparently. :\