The Official GTX480 & GTX 470 Thread

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by encorp

Keep in mind core for core the ATI cards are not as robust as Nvidia's.. at least in my eyes.. I mean I could be wrong, I'm not as well versed as some people on the matter.

What do you mean by that?

[_dangtx_]

probably referring to temperature thresholds?

[encorp]

Originally Posted by _dangtx_

probably referring to temperature thresholds?

Yes, exactly.

As I understand it, Nvidia uses less cores on their architecture than ATI but it generally achieves the same results. I'm not saying one is better than the other just based on that at all but I guess what I mean is that because of this I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the Nvidia cores require more power....

I dunno I could be way off, I'm not the most versed person with this stuff so it's tough for me to get what I'm thinking out into words hahaha

I'm also half retarded.

[Delavan]

Ok,

It seems that the whole temperature/power consumption thing is not seen the right way right now.

NVIDIA is LATE. In order to compete, they had to launch something. That something wasn't ready.
They forced it out the door with "corrective measures", like beefed up heatsinks and powerful fans, also lowering the amount or cores, lowered the clocks, to TRY to alleviate the difficulties. On top of that, they didn't want their cards to be called "hairdryers" so they didn't use an agressive fan profile, so HIGH temps.

If you don't care about power usage (or you don't pay for electricity) it's fine. If you pay out of your own pockets, you might care! Everybody PRAISES quiet hardware...then the next day you get a card with a LOUD fan and it's OK? nVIDIA fans used to call the ATI cards (don't remember which model) the hair blower, but if it's a Geforce, it's ok?

I'm an nVidia fan, but I'm upset.

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by encorp

Yes, exactly.

As I understand it, Nvidia uses less cores on their architecture than ATI but it generally achieves the same results. I'm not saying one is better than the other just based on that at all but I guess what I mean is that because of this I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the Nvidia cores require more power....

I dunno I could be way off, I'm not the most versed person with this stuff so it's tough for me to get what I'm thinking out into words hahaha

I'm also half retarded.

ATI and nVidia's approaches to cores are completely different. You can't make direct comparisons between them.

[encorp]

Originally Posted by Zero82z

ATI and nVidia's approaches to cores are completely different. You can't make direct comparisons between them.

I'm mostly trying to compare them as a way to justify why Nvidia's are hot.

[_dangtx_]

right on.

and i dont think youre tarded, man.

[Silvgearx]

Originally Posted by encorp

I think it's a complete farce that people care about the wattage of a card, plug the stupid thing in and let her run. You're all pretending you actually care. The heat isn't an issue either because the card isn't just going to burn out.

Originally Posted by encorp

Yes, exactly.

As I understand it, Nvidia uses less cores on their architecture than ATI but it generally achieves the same results. I'm not saying one is better than the other just based on that at all but I guess what I mean is that because of this I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the Nvidia cores require more power....

I dunno I could be way off, I'm not the most versed person with this stuff so it's tough for me to get what I'm thinking out into words hahaha

I'm also half retarded.

Its not a matter of nvidia cores require more power......

Its a fact that there competitor are offering a card that can produce almost the same performance with almost half of the power consumption.


Fastest sure, but how many people even run the fastest shit out there? And as you can see from forums most people don't run fastest card. There are more gtx 260,275 owners than gtx 280/285

[MonsterSound]

Originally Posted by Delavan

Ok, ....
nVIDIA fans used to call the ATI cards (don't remember which model) the hair blower, but
... but I'm upset.

I thought the hairdryer was nVidia's 5900/5950 Man they were loud.

Originally Posted by encorp

I think it's a complete farce that people care about the wattage of a card, plug the stupid thing in and let her run. You're all pretending you actually care. The heat isn't an issue either because the card isn't just going to burn out.

I agree to a considerable degree with encorp.
There was so much expectation for fermi to completely blow ATI's 5000 series away that I think many are overly disappointed right now.
I believe that feeling will change somewhat and fairly soon, when the new nVidia cards are in stores in serious numbers. The price battle will begin and people will realize that the fermi cards, while not destroying the 58050/5870, they are faster and better capable at handling advanced DX11 features without taking such a hit.
Although some will not buy the 480/470 as indeed they are ~15°C hotter, draw ~60 watts more, and somewhat louder under full load, I suspect that the 480/470's extra rendering power will start to have a greater influence on peoples purchasing choice.
Just my opinion.

[Zero82z]

Originally Posted by encorp

I'm mostly trying to compare them as a way to justify why Nvidia's are hot.

I don't think that's caused specifically by the design of the cores. It has to do with the entire architecture, and especially with the number of transistors in the die.