What went wrong with Fermi: JHH

[Keysplayr]

Ehh? JHH essentially says the same thing...

What's your definition of "essentially"?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

"You're holding it wrong. - Steve"

sorry, i had to lolz

 

[StrangerGuy]

I think a large part of the difference between Intel & AMD fanboys is that there is some clearly defined segmentation right now. Intel owns the high-end, and even the mid-high end. PhII X6 is recognized as the top choice for AMD upgraders, but competes with Intel's mid-range products, in sort of a tit-for-tat battle. There's decent parity in the mid-range segment, and AMD has an edge in the budget category. So, except for trolls (there's one who is both Intel & Nvidia ) everyone pretty much recognizes the pecking order.

Nvidia & AMD are fighting for the same ground in the graphics market, though, so for those ridiculous enough to choose sides other than some aspect of performance, there is ample opportunity for "fawning and flaming".

I will take an Athlon X4 + faster video card than an i5/i7 + slower video card for the same budget anytime of the week. You guys say AMD sucks as if their CPUs run Crysis at a slideshow while i7s get 1000+ fps.

 

[RussianSensation]

I will take an Athlon X4 + faster video card than an i5/i7 + slower video card for the same budget anytime of the week. You guys say AMD sucks as if their CPUs run Crysis at a slideshow while i7s get 1000+ fps.

That's only if you won't upgrade until you buy everything else from scratch. What if you change your videocard 2-3x during the time you keep your CPU+Mobo?

I'd rather put $50 towards a faster CPU upfront that I won't have to upgrade. Motherboard+new CPU costs a lot more to upgrade to than swapping out and upgrading videocards (at least from my experience). $50-75 extra over 2 years of keeping the same CPU is a small price to pay for not having a CPU bottleneck! That extra $50-75 can a big difference (World in Conflict, Starcraft 2, Resident Evil 5, Far Cry 2, BF:BC2, etc.).

Also, I have been able to get good resale value from C2Q last time I sold it. So more expensive CPUs are also easier to sell as part of a system with a fast videocard when it comes time to upgrade

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

I will take an Athlon X4 + faster video card than an i5/i7 + slower video card for the same budget anytime of the week. You guys say AMD sucks as if their CPUs run Crysis at a slideshow while i7s get 1000+ fps.

Please tell me where I said - or even implied - that AMD sucks?

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

sorry, i had to lolz

The thing is, it's true. Steve actually said that.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Ok, ok, sorry for derailing the thread.

JHH at least admitted Nvidia's faults. They did not hold up yet another wooden Kepler board and say we did nothing wrong.

I'm not sure how long Nvidia will fumble but they can't be that incompetent.

 

[Silverforce11]

The problem with many of these CPU "gaming" benchmarks are they typically run it at lower res or IQ settings and claim X CPU is faster. People who buy top end CPUs typically run games at higher res and max IQ with 4xAA and whatever else. Under these situations, the bottleneck is with the GPU.

I dislike the argument of using low res/iq for CPU benchmarks because they wrongly assume that in the "future" users will buy better GPUs so then the bottleneck becomes the CPU.. simply for the fact that in the "future", users will be onto newer games with even more punishing GPU demands.

For years now, gaming has scaled much faster on the GPU. You can have an old Q6600, a mild OC to 3ghz, put in a gtx480 and run current games at only 1080p, max IQ and 4xAA and you'll still be GPU bottlenecked. Sure, there may be a slight fps increase if you upgrade to a i7-860 and OC it to 4ghz, but the difference isnt profound enough to warrant the price difference for certain CPU models. IMO, for gaming currently and most likely in the next few years, CPUs over a i5-760 or x6 1055 OCed to 4ghz aren't going to have any tangible differences.

edit: gf104 is pretty good, at least they had time to fix any issue and release a good gpu.

 

[Janooo]

Ok, ok, sorry for derailing the thread.

JHH at least admitted Nvidia's faults. They did not hold up yet another wooden Kepler board and say we did nothing wrong.

I'm not sure how long Nvidia will fumble but they can't be that incompetent.

He admitted the engineers screwed up.
The troubling part is that they overshoot the design. Why is Fermi so large and power hungry? It's not like a shrink is around the corner.

 

[badb0y]

I love how in every thread people disregard the 5970 as if it never existed.

You can argue that it's a dual gpu card but the fact remains that AMD's answer to the high end is a dual chip card.

As for the price, I think it's fair for the fastest card in the world to be more expensive then other cards, you know like all the past generations.

 

[Creig]

JHH at least admitted Nvidia's faults. They did not hold up yet another wooden Kepler board and say we did nothing wrong.

Did anybody ever figure out exactly what the cut down PCB in the "This puppy is Fermi!" mockup had been pulled from? I remember trying to identify it and couldn't come up with an exact match.

 

[bryanW1995]

Not sure about that. You can be late, but if the performance is there, you can leverage the architecture for future designs. If you are late, hot and slow, then you might as well start over from scratch and do a complete redesign.

For example, Phenom 1/2 were late compared to C2D/Q, slow, and hotter. At least Fermi is late and hot but it's faster than the competition where it counts - DX11. So AMD's CPU division flopped much worse in the last 5 years. I still can't fathom how after the magnificant Athlon 64, they came up with PhII. I mean it took almost 5 years to come up with a processor that is still only about as fast as Penryn per clock.

This is getting a bit off-topic, but while people are still discussing the Fermi failure, there is never such an argument about Ph2 vs. i5/i7, but there definitely should be because Ph2 sucks. An X4 @ 3.5ghz still can't beat an i7 @ 2.66ghz. With SB 20&#37; faster than Nehalem, Bulldozer has its work cut out! While I still consider 450/460/470 decent buys from NV, there is not a single CPU from AMD <$130 that i would touch given that i5 760 is $170 at Microcenter and whips every X4/X6 to shreds (unless we are talking about video work).

I'm interested to see how my 1055t does in seti@home, and I can easily compare it clock/clock against an i7, 9450, x3350, and q6600. Markfw900 speaks highly of his thuban with f@h, I wonder what it will do in seti.

How is Fermi slow?

because 480 gets smoked by amd's single card leader. Claiming "we're the single gpu leader" doesn't mean much any more, as evidenced by the 50% or so premium that 5970 has consistently commanded over gtx 480. If gtx 480 had been faster than 5970 OR if nvidia had come out with a dual gpu card that outperformed 5970 then this gen could have been quite different.

 

[Genx87]

because 480 gets smoked by amd's single card leader. Claiming "we're the single gpu leader" doesn't mean much any more, as evidenced by the 50% or so premium that 5970 has consistently commanded over gtx 480. If gtx 480 had been faster than 5970 OR if nvidia had come out with a dual gpu card that outperformed 5970 then this gen could have been quite different.

We are picking and choosing what we want to use to validate the 480 as slow. As a single piece of silicon AMD doesnt have anything right now that can dethrone it. In their respective markets Nvidia is faster vs the competition.

480>5870
470>5850
460>5830

Nvidia has no product that competes with the 5970. If they had a 480x2 it would be > 5970.

That said not having the single card crown hardly makes the 480 slow.

 

[Madcatatlas]

I love how in every thread people disregard the 5970 as if it never existed.

You can argue that it's a dual gpu card but the fact remains that AMD's answer to the high end is a dual chip card.

As for the price, I think it's fair for the fastest card in the world to be more expensive then other cards, you know like all the past generations.

Not sure what your trying to say, or if its even relevant to the topic? The 5970 is mentioned atleast 3 times in this 30 posts topic and is recognized as the fastest graphics card.

But this isnt the topic for that.


Like someone at some other site said in response to the video by Golem.de, JHH seems to be training atleast, and also losing some hair from the looks of it.

The "missing pilot" issue is hilarious though. Watch the clip and ask yourself when he says the stuff about the pilot: Arent you the pilot JHH?

 

[Madcatatlas]

We are picking and choosing what we want to use to validate the 480 as slow. As a single piece of silicon AMD doesnt have anything right now that can dethrone it. In their respective markets Nvidia is faster vs the competition.

480>5870
470>5850
460>5830

Nvidia has no product that competes with the 5970. If they had a 480x2 it would be > 5970.

That said not having the single card crown hardly makes the 480 slow.

in response to your OT post ill say: If you CAN, you will go dual "single piece of silicon". Obviously Nvidia couldnt do this with Fermi, for obvious reasons, which i will mention just to remind you Genx87: huge chip, powerhungry, heatspreader

So, your 480x2 > 5970 is fantasy at best. Delusional possibly.


You can argue semantics, and it seems like you are doing just that, but the facts remain that Nvidia and JHH admits to there being a failure with the Fermi development.
This failure (because they apparantly didnt have enough time to do it right (the metal layer which had to be redone)) resulted in the bloated card GTX480. Now as we clearly saw with the GTX460, all Nvidia needed was more time and i think we can expect a 480 version 2 next year which doesnt sport all the bads of the version one.

 

[SlowSpyder]

We are picking and choosing what we want to use to validate the 480 as slow. As a single piece of silicon AMD doesnt have anything right now that can dethrone it. In their respective markets Nvidia is faster vs the competition.

480>5870
470>5850
460>5830

Nvidia has no product that competes with the 5970. If they had a 480x2 it would be > 5970.

That said not having the single card crown hardly makes the 480 slow.

Yea, the 480 certainly isn't slow in absolute terms. It's the second fastest card you can buy and the fastest single GPU card you can buy.

But I think it could certainly be argued that given how Fermi was hyped, how much later than AMD's 5 series it came, and for how much power it uses and heat it puts out compared to the competition, that it's a bit of a let down that it couldn't beat AMD's fastest part. Fermi also did not provide enough flexibility to be run in a dual GPU configuration, at least so far.

So while I'd hardly call the 470 or 480 'slow', I think you could say that they didn't reach the high bar that was set, either.

 

[Phynaz]

As a single piece of silicon AMD doesnt have anything right now that can dethrone it.

People don't buy pieces of silicon. People buy video cards.

 

[badb0y]

Not sure what your trying to say, or if its even relevant to the topic? The 5970 is mentioned atleast 3 times in this 30 posts topic and is recognized as the fastest graphics card.

But this isnt the topic for that.


Like someone at some other site said in response to the video by Golem.de, JHH seems to be training atleast, and also losing some hair from the looks of it.

The "missing pilot" issue is hilarious though. Watch the clip and ask yourself when he says the stuff about the pilot: Arent you the pilot JHH?

I should have quoted Russian(?) because he was the one pointing out that GTX 480 was dominationg 5870 as if that was ATi's flagship card.

The point is there is no 480x2, saying 'if there was this....." is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist while the 5970 does exist right now.

Basically what I am trying to say is that people keep saying "Fermi? A failure? Nah they got the fastest GPU" which is true but when it comes to the fastest card, the 5970 is the top dog period so their efforts to mitigate the fact that Fermi was late is claiming performance over the 5870 when that was never ATi's fastest card.

 

[RussianSensation]

I should have quoted Russian(?) because he was the one pointing out that GTX 480 was dominationg 5870 as if that was ATi's flagship card.

5970 is still the fastest card. Also when I was saying "GTX480 was dominating" 5870, it was specifically in DX11. I was just trying to say that Fermi will need to improve power consumption/performance per watt while AMD will need to improve DX11 next round.

5970 generally costs $649-699 online besides occasional sub $600 deals. It has no competitor on its own unless you consider CF/SLI cards. The fact that 5970 is the fastest card doesn't mean much though. GTX295 was also the fastest card last generation and how many people cared about it?

I mean if you are already going to drop $650+ on a graphics card setup, might as well get 5870 CF or GTX470 SLI which are both superior to 5970 and don't cost more.

 

[Janooo]

5970 is still the fastest card. Also when I was saying "GTX480 was dominating" 5870, it was specifically in DX11. I was just trying to say that Fermi will need to improve power consumption/performance per watt while AMD will need to improve DX11 next round.

5970 generally costs $649-699 online besides occasional sub $600 deals. It has no competitor on its own unless you consider CF/SLI cards. The fact that 5970 is the fastest card doesn't mean much though. GTX295 was also the fastest card last generation and how many people cared about it?

I mean if you are already going to drop $650+ on a graphics card setup, might as well get 5870 CF or GTX470 SLI which are both superior to 5970 and don't cost more.

Well, 5970 showed higher increase in the Steam survey than 480 in August. It seems people go either with 5870 or 5970. That's a surprise for me.

 

[Genx87]

in response to your OT post ill say: If you CAN, you will go dual "single piece of silicon". Obviously Nvidia couldnt do this with Fermi, for obvious reasons, which i will mention just to remind you Genx87: huge chip, powerhungry, heatspreader

So, your 480x2 > 5970 is fantasy at best. Delusional possibly.


You can argue semantics, and it seems like you are doing just that, but the facts remain that Nvidia and JHH admits to there being a failure with the Fermi development.
This failure (because they apparantly didnt have enough time to do it right (the metal layer which had to be redone)) resulted in the bloated card GTX480. Now as we clearly saw with the GTX460, all Nvidia needed was more time and i think we can expect a 480 version 2 next year which doesnt sport all the bads of the version one.

To that I say who cares? Nvidia doesnt compete with the 5970. In the markets they do compete head to head with AMD, they win on performance. And again not having the single card crown doesnt make a product slow.

 

[Genx87]

Yea, the 480 certainly isn't slow in absolute terms. It's the second fastest card you can buy and the fastest single GPU card you can buy.

But I think it could certainly be argued that given how Fermi was hyped, how much later than AMD's 5 series it came, and for how much power it uses and heat it puts out compared to the competition, that it's a bit of a let down that it couldn't beat AMD's fastest part. Fermi also did not provide enough flexibility to be run in a dual GPU configuration, at least so far.

So while I'd hardly call the 470 or 480 'slow', I think you could say that they didn't reach the high bar that was set, either.

High bar set by whom? I expected GTX 295 performance. How did that turn out?

 

[RussianSensation]

Well, 5970 showed higher increase in the Steam survey than 480 in August. It seems people go either with 5870 or 5970. That's a surprise for me.

5870 I can see, but 5970 is indeed a surprise. It;s pretty shocking that people are willing to drop $650-700 on old tech that's about to be replaced by HD6000 series within months. It's even more shocking considering GTX460 SLI for $400 is as fast. I think NV underestimated the "environmentally friendly", "green power consuming" nature of today's consumers hehe

 

[lifeblood]

If I was looking for the fastest single card possible it would be the 5870 versus the GTX480. The 5970 may be a single card but its still a dual GPU X-Fire setup with all it's inherent problems. For those of us who don't wish to deal with SLI/x-fire issues the fastest card is the GTX480.

Of course, given the resolution of my monitor, a 58XX will give me all the eye candy possible.

 

[MrK6]

5870 I can see, but 5970 is indeed a surprise. I'd pretty shocking that people are willing to drop $650-700 on old tech that's about to be replaced by HD6000 series within months. It's even more shocking considering GTX460 SLI for $400 is as fast. I think NV underestimated the "environmentally friendly", "green power consuming" nature of today's consumers hehe

I think that's the statistics misleading (and I'm not pointing you out RussianSensation, but just some of the comments that have been made in this thread). I'd be more willing to be that this is due to the different sample taken this month than it is due to people buying 5970's.