Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nvidia's DX11 GF100 Graphics Processor Detailed

Posted by kdawson on from the will-do-physics-for-food dept.

J. Dzhugashvili writes "While it's played up the general-purpose computing prowess of its next-gen GPU architecture, Nvidia has talked little about Fermi's graphics capabilities — to the extent that some accuse Nvidia of turning its back on PC gaming. Not so, says The Tech Report in a detailed architectural overview of the GF100, the first Fermi-based consumer graphics processor. Alongside a wealth of technical information, the article includes enlightening estimates and direct comparisons with AMD's Radeon HD 5870. The GF100 will be up to twice as fast as the GeForce GTX 285, the author reckons, but the gap with the Radeon HD 5870 should be 'a bit more slender.' Still, Nvidia may have the fastest consumer GPU ever on its hands — and far from forsaking games, Fermi has been built as a graphics processor first and foremost."

36 of 220 comments (clear)

  1. When's it coming out? by Ant+P. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's no point bragging about being faster than last month's graphics card if your own is still a quarter of a year from being an actual product.

    1. Re:When's it coming out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure there is, because then some people will wait for this new card rather then buying AMD's card, thus providing Nvidia with revenue and profit.

    2. Re:When's it coming out? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, it isn't. It almost never has been. If you needed a 'high end' graphics card to play a majority of PC games reasonably, they wouldn't be 'high end' anymore... they would be standard.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    3. Re:When's it coming out? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which would be a good reason for NVidia to focus on science and media applications rather than games after all.

    4. Re:When's it coming out? by rrhal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By that logic wouldn't those same people then wait for AMD's next offering which will be yet faster? Waiting for the latest and greatest means there will always be something greater in the pipeline to wait for. How long before we saturate the PCI-E bus and need something faster? The current bus structure is about as old as AGP was when it lost favor.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
    5. Re:When's it coming out? by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.

      Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate. Flash back to the year 2000. Try to find me a $200 card back then that could do the same. Hell, I challange you to do the same thing just 5 years ago, back in 2004.

      Good luck.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    6. Re:When's it coming out? by alen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      since WoW controls 50% of all pc game revenues, the market as it was a few years ago is over. it's not even fun building a PC anymore since everything is integrated on the motherboard except for a decent graphics card.

      i'm personally tired of chasing the latest graphics card every year to play a game. i'll probably buy a PS3 soon and a Mac next year just because it's lack of wires makes the wife happy

    7. Re:When's it coming out? by quercus.aeternam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm gonna have to disagree with you there.

      Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate. Flash back to the year 2000. Try to find me a $200 card back then that could do the same. Hell, I challange you to do the same thing just 5 years ago, back in 2004.

      Does this mean that we're hitting a software complexity wall?

      It's now the devs turn to play catch up... I hope nobody cheats by adding idle loops (looks around menacingly).

    8. Re:When's it coming out? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a poster previously in the thread stated, a big part of it are games that need to work on consoles and PC. As an example, considering the 360 has a video card roughly equivalent to a 6600GT, there is only so far they can push ports. Hell, even now, 3-4 years into the current gen, there are STILL framerate problems with a lot of games...games that can now run at an absurdly high FPS on a decent gaming PC.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    9. Re:When's it coming out? by MartinSchou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at the 4850. When it was brand new, it cost $199, and it could run ANY game on the market at full resolution and detail with a smooth, sustained framerate

      Pull the other one. It has got bells on it.

      Define "full resolution".

      If I have a very old 1280x1024 monitor, sure.
      If I have a new 1920x1200 monitor, not so much.
      If I have a dual 2560x1600 monitor setup, not in this life time.

      Also, define "full detail". Is that at medium? High? Maximum? What level of anisotropic filtering? Anti aliasing?

      But let's have a look at something a bit realistic and look at "any game", in this case Crysis.

      From [H]ard|OCP's review of the 4850 from June 25th, 2008:

      Highest Playable Resolution:
      1600x1200
      No AA | 16x AF

      Minimum FPS: 16
      Maximum FPS: 42
      Average FPS: 28.5

      Considering that the Radeon 4870 and Geforce GTX 260 have their highest playable at 1920x1200, I'd say you're flat out wrong in your claim.

      Now, you may claim that Crysis doesn't count as it's not "ANY game on the market", so let's use Age of Conan instead:
      Woops, that one seems to hit its limit at 1600x1200.

      That was my rather convoluted way of saying "you're an idiot".

    10. Re:When's it coming out? by Talderas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why Metal Gear Solid 4 still looks better than games that are coming out now that are both PS3 and XBox 360.....

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    11. Re:When's it coming out? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no point bragging about being faster than last month's graphics card if your own is still a quarter of a year from being an actual product.

      You haven't spent much time with Marketing people, have you?

    12. Re:When's it coming out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have admitted those 2 games were programmed by monkeys.

      If you compare a 4850 from then to a 4850 today with the game fully patched and monkey shit removed you'd see an increase in frame rates. Or compared it to the squeal which had even more monkey shit removed there would be a further increase in frame rates.

      Besides the fact that 2 games, that received crap reviews except from the "Oh so pretty" crowd do not represent the market.

    13. Re:When's it coming out? by poetmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      companies don't want games on console and PC. The reason is there is a lot less control on PC. So they want to shove console requirements onto a PC and you end up with horrible ports like Borderlands and MW2. Thus, nobody wants the PC version and they go "oh, nobody bought the PC version" even though the reason is they fucked their own community, so that they don't have to keep making games for PC.

      It's a really shortsighted strategy, but it's basically an attempt at creating a walled garden all over again. Apparently the companies don't realize or have enough forsight re: what's going to happen in the next 1-2 generations of gaming consoles when they're easily powerful enough to be used as home computers (hint: it doesn't mean more consoles are going to sell).

    14. Re:When's it coming out? by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think the problem is the 360, I think the problem is your fanboyism. Multi-platform games look more or less the same between the 360 and the PS3.

      Trust me, I know. I have both systems.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    15. Re:When's it coming out? by bloodhawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While it definitely isn't worth it now, it was only 4 or 5 years ago that you had to stay close to the cutting edge if you wanted to play games as they were released in full resolution. Now though even a middle of the range card is adequate for even the most system taxing games. Graphics cards have outpaced gaming. I just bought a new 5870 but I had been sitting on a card that was 2 generations old before that and was still able to play most games at full res, the only real reason for the 5870 was it is a new machine and should hold me in good stead for a few years.

    16. Re:When's it coming out? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Informative

      When the differences are minute to the point where you have to pause a Gametrailers video and lean in close to your monitor, they may as well be the same...you aren't going to see that during actual gameplay, ESPECIALLY not in a frantic shooter like MW2.

      That being said, there is one consistant difference between the 360 and the PS3 in terms of image quality: the 360 tends to be a little washed out, and the PS3 tends to be a little dark. Thank goodness for auto-switching color profiles based on the input selected.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    17. Re:When's it coming out? by bonch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank the pirates for killing PC gaming. Developers actually make money from consoles.

    18. Re:When's it coming out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can tell who is a console gamer here. If you actually do some research and find out why PC gamers are upset about MW2, maybe you'll understand why. Dedicated servers are there so everybody has fair play. Why would I want some 'yuck' hosting a match on his/her crappy 756k DL/256k UL connection where I have 200-300 ms ping (sometimes up to 500 ms which is unplayable) and the host has none?

      Entitlement? You guys just don't understand what that word means since you're used to getting everything shoved down your throat. The game costs $10 more than the previous game which, by the way, is just Activision being greedy since they don't pay licensing fees on PC, plus PC loses support for large matches, console commands, like changing your FoV, and my personal favorite "...custom options like mouse control, in game chat, and graphic settings." (look it up, developer notes).

      PC less relevant hm? So the vast majority of competitive gaming is irrelevant now? And if you actually know how to use a PC rather than saying you can turn it on, PC is by far not a "pain in the ass." Better than being locked in by M$, Sony, or hell even Nintendo. I would much rather be able to control what goes in my machine rather than somebody else controlling not only my hardware but my software too. Sure it's more expensive, but after PC gaming I have a hard time going back to console. So really it's people blaming PC users for their own downfall that is really killing PC gaming. You guys lay back and let it all happen, rather than being proactive about something.

      Back to the original point, meh, don't really need the latest and greatest to run any current games. I run Borderlands with a 9800 GT 512 MB at full settings and it plays great. I run Dragon Age: Origins at nearly max settings and there is only really a little stutter in gameplay, but I'm thinking that has to due with my CPU since it's always running at 100%. I'm using a stock AMD Athlon X2 5200+ (sorry don't remember the core off the top of my head) not overclocked (yet). Both are brand new games and yet, they run beautifully on my older rig, getting up to 2 3/4 years now. Only thing I've upgraded is the video card, and added a sound card about a year after it was built, to take some load of the CPU.

    19. Re:When's it coming out? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I guess I don't understand why people are pirating the game if they think it's so bad. Older CoD games are just as good as they were before, and if the new one doesn't have the features people want, why not stick with the tried and true? I think consumers are right to be upset when their desires are ignored, but for people that flat-out pirate the game, I think they're taking their anger out in the wrong way. It's just ammo for DRM advocates. Piracy just makes *you* look cheap, rather than sending the message that the game's no good. It would be more productive if people didn't buy the game. If Activision sees that no one's buying the game, and that it's not even considered a suitable target of piracy, they'll either ditch the PC or work to make it a better experience next time. If they see a lot of grog-swillers with peg-legs, Activision will be able to play the victim and blame the failure of the game on the greed of others, instead of their own ineptitude.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    20. Re:When's it coming out? by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trust me, I hack both systems.

      The 360 and PS3 are practically identical. Both use IBM Power-PC based main cores and a bunch of side processing units. the 360's total performance capability is HALF that of the PS3 (360 does 1TFLOP PS3 can do 2TFLOP) the PS3 also has a superior graphics hardware set. Comparing GTAIV on the 360 vs the PS3, the 360 looks like it's running in 16-bit color depth, shadows are absolutely horrible, and the draw distance isn't even on par with the PS3.

      Sorry, speaking from an 'inside' point of view, you're dead wrong. For one, the 360 only has 10MB of dedicated VRAM. the PS3 has 256MB of GDDR3 for their GPU, and the 256MB of XDR DESTROYS the 512MB of GDDR3 that the 360 uses for system memory (For one GDDR3 isn't meant to be used as main system memory, XDR is.)

      http://www.wikixbox360.com/page/Detailed+Xbox+360+System+Specs
      http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

      PS3 stomps the 360. The 360 is by far inferior, it's locked down, and it burns itself out more often than not.

      Oh, and I do run Linux on my PS3.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:When's it coming out? by SecondaryOak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's true that a few years ago you had to stay close to the cutting edge and now you don't; but I'm pretty sure it's not because graphics cards had outpaced games, but because game developers slowed their pace because they wanted good performance on consoles.

      I'm sure game developers could easily overwhelm graphics cards if they wanted to, but that doesn't only block PCs without high-end cards, but also all the consoles. I have to say that as a PC-only gamer, I find the situation very positive. I like not having to upgrade constantly.

    22. Re:When's it coming out? by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's how it really works : no one (on PC) buys single player games, they only buy multiplayer games because, I don't know if you've tried lately, but if you want to be a pirate there are very few games on which you'll be able to play multiplayer, if you're lucky you'll get access to a few cracked servers.

      So PC gamers buy multiplayers, they HAVE to. MW2 shipped with a multiplayer system that fell VERY short of people's expectations for a multiplayer game, henceforth they treated it like a single player game, pirated it to play its 6 hours of gameplay and went back to waiting for Bad Company 2.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    23. Re:When's it coming out? by smash · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Thats an excuse many use yes. However, I just won't buy the game. If its not worth buying for me, its not worth downloading, either (I have the bandwidth, but its just not worth my time, i have other things to do).

      However, dedicated servers ARE relevant. If there is no dedicated server, the functionality of your game can be reduced or disabled at a moment's notice. I can still play Quake or UT (1, i never bothered with the others because they didn't play as well imho) multi player because no matter what ID or whoever do - i can still host.

      IMHO - if you can't run a dedicated server, multiplayer shouldn't be a listed feature on the box. Maybe "[foo company] hosted online play" is a better description...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    24. Re:When's it coming out? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 10MB of "VRAM" you refer to on the xbox 360 is actually called eDRAM, and is more similar to the cache memory found in CPUs than video memory. It's often not even used, but reportedly can reduce the hit when anti-aliasing to nearly nothing. The main difference between the 360 and the ps3 in terms of memory is that the 360 GPU serves as a memory controller. Since this is the case developers can use up to about 480mb as either system memory or graphics memory - as they decide, instead of being limited to only 256mb ram, and 256mb vram on the ps3.

      Your own references contradict your comparisons in memory performance. While the xbox 360 post claims 21.6GB/s FSB, the official ps3 specs allow only 20GB/s / 15GB/s for memory performance to the RSX. With a margin of only 3.4GB/s XDR hardly "DESTROYS" the ddr3 either... especially if the latency is considerably higher, the main weapon in the RAMBUS arsenal is raising clock speed with latency.

      Using GTA IV as an example proves a point against a lot of folks trying to use a single game to determine which console can provide a superior experience. Rockstar has never been concerned with having high quality graphics; while #4 was certainly a step in the right direction rockstar simply doesn't understand how to make a proper 3d engine.

      Both the PS3 and the xbox 360 are locked down. Let me know when you can run backups of your chipped blu-ray discs. I'll be running linux on my 360 whenever I complete the JTAG hack and read the NAND. http://www.free60.org/ is a great resource for some the "homebrew" hacks, you should check into it.

      --
      "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
      1 John 4:14
    25. Re:When's it coming out? by non0score · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The 360 and PS3 are practically identical.

      The PS3 and 360 PPC elements are identical, yes. But the rest aren't. The SPUs are vastly different to the PPEs ranging from the ISA, to the memory architecture, to the instruction latencies, to the register file size/width, to the local memory latencies, to the...oh boy, they're vastly different on so many levels. I also don't know how those TFLOP numbers came about, because they're totally wrong.

      Comparing GTAIV on the 360 vs the PS3, the 360 looks like it's running in 16-bit color depth, shadows are absolutely horrible, and the draw distance isn't even on par with the PS3.

      Using GTA to compare the graphics hardware and concluding that PS3 is better? I just hope you don't mention that to the devs, because they'll laugh their ass off about how wrong that comment is.

      the PS3 has 256MB of GDDR3 for their GPU, and the 256MB of XDR DESTROYS the 512MB of GDDR3 that the 360 uses for system memory (For one GDDR3 isn't meant to be used as main system memory, XDR is.)

      On the XDR front, I don't know how it destroys the GDDR3. Both are pieces of memory and they're just there to support reads and writes. As long as they have the bandwidth, size, and low latency, that's all that really matters to devs (obviously, devs shouldn't have to worry about signal integrity and what not here).

      PS3 stomps the 360. The 360 is by far inferior, it's locked down, and it burns itself out more often than not.

      And the slim isn't locked down? But true, the original PS3 doesn't burn itself out more than the original 360.

  2. Feh. by Pojut · · Score: 4, Informative

    The days of needing the biggest, fastest, most expensive card are pretty much over. You can run just about any game out there at max settings at 1920 X 1080 silky smooth with a 5870, which goes for less than $300. Hell, even the 4870 is still almost overkill.

    Unless you plan on maxing out AA and AF while playing on a 30 inch screen, there is no reason to drop $500-$600 on a video card anymore...

    --
    Living With a Nerd
    1. Re:Feh. by Knara · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Almost as if Nvidia were looking at some other market than gamers....

    2. Re:Feh. by Kratisto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this is largely because consoles set the pace for hardware upgrades. If you want to develop a multi-platform game, then it's going to need to run on XBox 360 hardware from four years ago. I don't even check recommended requirements anymore: I know that if it has a 360 or PS3 port (or the other way around), I can run it.

      --
      Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
    3. Re:Feh. by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is pretty much the case with me. I plan on doing a full system upgrade this Cyber Monday, but I haven't bought any new hardware for my computer other than a new DVD drive in about 2 years...and I STILL haven't needed to turn down visual details in any games that are released.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
    4. Re:Feh. by sznupi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the "problem" is those are not really ports anymore; often practically the same engine.

      Which kinda sucks, coming from both worlds, enjoying both kinds of games - now that Microsoft made targeting both platforms from the start of development "sensible", most games are hybrids; not exploiting the strengths of either platform.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Feh. by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mostly agreed, however I will take a low-to-mid range CPU if it means I can afford a top of the line GPU...when it comes to gaming, anyway.

      The GPU is a much larger bottleneck in terms of gaming, although the line of importance between the GPU and CPU has been blurring a bit lately.

      --
      Living With a Nerd
  3. Fermi-based? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

    I assume they mean the scientist Enrico Fermi. So, did they dig him up, or is this one of those Jesus fingerbone type of thing, where there are more fingerbones than there are chickens? Did they use the whole Fermi, or are there only specific pieces of him that work? Whatever the case, there must be a limited number of cards that can be built, since there is a finite amount of Fermi.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  4. 40nm process... by Sollord · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't this going to be built on the same TSMC process as the 5870? The same one that's having yield problems and supply shortages for AMD and yet the nvidia chip is even bigger and more complex chip? I for see delays.

    1. Re:40nm process... by afidel · · Score: 2

      I really wonder why AMD uses TSMC when GlobalFoundries has mature 45nm 300mm SOI tech?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  5. Still no "real" benchmarks? by ZirbMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While the articles is very interesting on explaining the chip archetecture and technical specifications, I can't believe there sin't a single actual gaming benchmark on these chips yet.

    The best they can do is give an estimated calculation on how the chips may or may not actually live up to. They estimate that it will be faster at gaming than ATI's already released 5870.

    By the time Nvidia actually releases their Fermi GPU's, ATI's Cypres will have been actively selling for over 3 months. And there's a funny thing about advancements over time: things keep getting faster (aka Moore's Law). Supposing that chips are supposed to double in transistor count every year, the new Fermi chips need to have 20% more transistors than ATI's RV5870 if they release 3 months later... just to keep on the same curve.

    And there's still no mention of pricing... but that's expected on a product that doesn't actually run games yet. I don't see a lot of optimism on the gaming front, so I hope for Nvidia's sake that the investment into GPGPU is the branch out they need to trump ATI's sales.