Nvidia's own 580 benchmarks leaked

[Stanners]

You think ? A lot look more like 4-5% with the main being 10-15%.

Looking at that graph any pair of cards between the GTX460 and HD5850 would easily have his beet. Anything faster would quite literally be off the charts.

Where are you getting the 4-5% from ?

Are you reading the graphs correctly.

 

[straxusii]

All rumours but the upper end I've seen for 6970 is 40% faster than 5870, it's going to take that plus massively improved tesselation, but if ATI can pull it off then it may be equal/fractionally better than 580 and I'll buy a 6970 for £350

 

[jigger]

Look at the 4 closest sets of results, in post #1 or 13.

 

[Fx-Overlord]

Seems to be 15-20% for the most part. Not exactly a revolution, but if (as rumoured) it comes alongside a reduction in power consumption then it's a solid improvement considering that it's using the same 40nm process.
.

It's about 10% reduction in power according to other leaked graphs (power efficiency vs the 480)...

 

[^Andy^]

Any improvement on a GTX480 is going to be good lets face it. The only questions I want answered are will it be good enough to beat AMD's unreleased offerings and will the pricing be good enough to compete.

Only smarties have the answer!

 

[Greebo]

Seems more or less in line with what can be expected from the leaked specs (7% increase in shader count, 10% bump in core clockspeed, 20% bump in memory clock, increased number of texture units).

Looks like around 15-20% improvement over the GTX480, with larger improvements in situations where texture throughput is important.

Really? The best I can see from that graph is a 15% improvement in Dirt2 (comparing games only).

The worst is RE5 which looks like 4%.

So between 4% and 15% in games. Not really impressive especially since the card is running at a 10% faster clock speed over the gtx480. If overclocking on the Nvidia cards is linear to framerates then in reality the gtx 580 is between 6% slower and 5% faster at the same clocks.

On that basis, if you have a good clocking gtx480 I can;t see why you would upgrade, unless the gtx580 overclock insanely well to 900-1000Mhz.

The thing is the gtx480 already has around a 20% gain over the 5870 in those graphs, so the gtx580 will certainly be the fasted single core card for some time and probably fast enough to just edge out a 6970 still which is why Nvidia have done it.

But I would love to see a comparison of the gxt580 and the gtx480 at the same clock speeds after they are launched.

It does seem that the gtx580 excels in synthetic benchmarks by a huge margin. Perhaps it just needs the games to catch up to make use of this power (tessellation I guess?) hence the deal with crysis 2.

 

[tdream]

It looks to me the GTX580 is hardly any faster than a GTX480. This card can't be the full spec 512sp GTX480 Fermi we got promised last year...

Oh but it is. This was intended to be the original fermi and the first fermi was late by 6 months. So the original 480 is late by 1 year. With the way things panned out they had to call it the 580 when it really should be named 485.

This thing should be 10-20% faster than the 480 max. Tessellation is not used in games at all, so that is a gimmick like physx.

 

[^Andy^]

Tessellation is not used in games at all, so that is a gimmick like physx.

Physx is only supported by one camp - would you develope a game that required it knowing you were isolating your sales from a large percentage of the market?

Once upon a time 3D graphics were a gimmick (I still have my PowerVR cards V1 and V2 along with my pair of 8meg and 12meg Voodoo cards)

 

[Greebo]

This thing should be 10-20% faster than the 480 max. Tessellation is not used in games at all, so that is a gimmick like physx.

It's not though. If these graphs are real, in current games its only 4% to 15% faster and most of that is from the 10% increase in clock speeds.

Agree with you though, it should have been called a gtx485. It's very similar to when they released the gtx285 and a very similar gain over the gtx280.

 

[Duff-Man]

Really? The best I can see from that graph is a 15% improvement in Dirt2 (comparing games only).

At best estimate I have (taking only games):


Batman: ------------ 1.38 / 1.62 -- [+17.3%]
COD : MW2: -------- 1.26 / 1.38 -- [+9.5%]
Starcraft2: --------- 1.5 / 1.72 --- [+14.7%]
Crysis warhead: ---- 0.92 / 1.12 -- [+21.7%]
Far Cry 2: ---------- 1.3 / 1.48 -- [+13.8%]
Hawx: --------------- 1.1 / 1.36 -- [+23.6%]
Just Cause 2: -------- 1.1 / 1.3 --- [+18.2%]
RE5 : ---------------- 1.06 / 1.01 -- [+3.8%]
World in Conflict: ----- 1.18 / 1.32 - [+11.9%]
AvP: ----------------- 1.14 / 1.32 - [+15.8%]
Battleforge: ---------- 1.28 / 1.5 -- [+17.2%]
BF BC2: -------------- 1.1 / 1.3 --- [+18.2%]
Dirt 2: ---------------- 1.16 / 1.44 - [+24.1%]
Lost Planet2: --------- 1.82 / 2.16 -- [+18.7%]
Metro 2033: ---------- 1.58 / 1.8 --- [+13.9%]
Stalker COP: ---------- 1.16 / 1.36 -- [+17.2%]


So, the average improvement is +16.2%.

Not all that bad, really... Perhaps at 2560*1600 it may be able to stretch its legs a little more.

 

[marc1024]

seems about right. there is a good 10-20fps difference between 2 460gtxs against a 480gtx.

 

[Greebo]

So, the average improvement is +16.2%.

Not all that bad, really... Perhaps at 2560*1600 it may be able to stretch its legs a little more.

Much better anlaysis than my quick look - thanks. However, don;t you think that isn;t good enough though?

an average of 16.2% increase when the core is clocked by 10% equates to an adjusted average increase of just 6.2% for the same clock speed.

 

[RavenXXX2]

For me it's all about how far the 580 will clock, if can do well over 900 core on air it will be a beast.

 

[Duff-Man]

Much better anlaysis than my quick look - thanks. However, don;t you think that isn;t good enough though?

an average of 16.2% increase when the core is clocked by 10% equates to an adjusted average increase of just 6.2% for the same clock speed.

Well that assumes perfectly linear scaling with clockspeed, and that all the benchmarks are 100% GPU-limited, which may not be the case at 1920-resolution. But I do take your point - the architecture is clearly performing fairly similarly to that of GF100.

A 16% improvement in performance, along with a reduction in power-draw, isn't too bad for a chip on the same manufacturing process. Nothing spectacular I'll grant you, but not too bad. If AMD wasn't releasing an entire new lineup, I'm sure this card would be called "GTX485" rather than GTX580.

 

[TheRealDeal]

For me it's all about how far the 580 will clock, if can do well over 900 core on air it will be a beast.

Not really raven as to get to say 925 from 775 you are only looking at 20% overclock. This may net you on average about 10% gains judging by the charts. It seems the scaling on nv cards ain't as good as people think as more shaders plus 10% on the clocks only gives the gtx580 on average a 15 percent boost over the gtx480.

Lets not forget though all these charts could be fake but the more info coming out suggest that the gtx580 is not gonna be worth it over the gtx480.

 

[Greebo]

Well that assumes perfectly linear scaling with clockspeed, and that all the benchmarks are 100% GPU-limited, which may not be the case at 1920-resolution. But I do take your point - the architecture is clearly performing fairly similarly to that of GF100.

A 16% improvement in performance, along with a reduction in power-draw, isn't too bad for a chip on the same manufacturing process. Nothing spectacular I'll grant you, but not too bad. If AMD wasn't releasing an entire new lineup, I'm sure this card would be called "GTX485" rather than GTX580.

Not really raven as to get to say 925 from 775 you are only looking at 20% overclock. This may net you on average about 10% gains judging by the charts. It seems the scaling on nv cards ain't as good as people think as more shaders plus 10% on the clocks only gives the gtx580 on average a 15 percent boost over the gtx480.

Lets not forget though all these charts could be fake but the more info coming out suggest that the gtx580 is not gonna be worth it over the gtx480.

Problem there as Raven has shown on more than one occasion that the Nvidia cards have 100% or better scaling with core overclocking

On a serious note, Duff-man, that is my major disappointment. Say only 5% of the gain comes from the extra core speed, it's only then 10 or 11% faster than a gtx480 clock for clock. Not earth shattering and if £450 then way too much money. The gtx580 needs to be under £400 IMO.

As I posted in the other thread, my gtx470s in sli eats the gtx580 for breakfast in heaven and only cost me £360.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Lol i just watched a video with the gtx480 lightning at 900 core showing no real gain in metro over stock clocks. Its probably more game dependant though to what gains you get. Greebo was it you that turned your gtx465 to gtx470 as i keep seeing you say you have gtx470's but seen you in another thread stating you unlocked the cores.

 

[Greebo]

Lol i just watched a video with the gtx480 lightning at 900 core showing no real gain in metro over stock clocks. Its probably more game dependant though to what gains you get. Greebo was it you that turned your gtx465 to gtx470 as i keep seeing you say you have gtx470's but seen you in another thread stating you unlocked the cores.

Shhhhhhhh...........don;t upset my babies.....they look like gtx470's, they perform like gtx470's so they must be gtx470's

Buy yes, they were my £149 GTX465's flashed to gtx470's. So one hell of a lot of power for £300. And if I referred to them as gtx465's it would confuse people

 

[TheRealDeal]

Shhhhhhhh...........don;t upset my babies.....they look like gtx470's, they perform like gtx470's so they must be gtx470's

Buy yes, they were my £149 GTX465's flashed to gtx470's. So one hell of a lot of power for £300. And if I referred to them as gtx465's it would confuse people

Thats an awesome deal. I thought the gtx470 was a bargain at its current price but thats even better.

 

[Skyrocket]

Shhhhhhhh...........don;t upset my babies.....they look like gtx470's, they perform like gtx470's so they must be gtx470's

Buy yes, they were my £149 GTX465's flashed to gtx470's. So one hell of a lot of power for £300. And if I referred to them as gtx465's it would confuse people

havent 465 gtx got 1gb of mem?