World Exclusive Review: 512SP GeForce GTX 480
Introduction
As we know, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 is not based on a completely functional GF100 graphics processor. Instead, a SM of it has been disabled, and the number of CUDA cores also shrinks to 480. NVIDIA may pursue for better yield rate, power consumption and heat control. But this can never satisfy the hard-core players.
Everyone is looking forward to the full version GTX 480 which uses all the 512 CUDA cores. The PCB design and benchmarks have been unearthed, making itself a focus of speculation.
Expreview has just received a sample of 512SP GTX 480, so let’s find out how it performs against the GTX 480 model that’s already available on the market.
Page 1: Introduction
Page 2: GF100 Architecture Analysis
Page 3: 512SP GTX 480 Previewed
Page 4: 512SP GTX 480 Taken Apart
Page 5: Benchmark Platform & Settings
Page 6: Power Consumption Test
Page 7: Temperature Test
Page 8: Overclocking Potential
Page 9: Performance Test
Page 10: Conclusion
August 9th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
204W higher? I’d measure that again. With a different power meter.
(page 6)
August 10th, 2010 at 12:43 am
WTF! power consumption scales exponentially with each clock past 700!
This is not MADNESS… this is NVIDIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
They should ban this kind of electronic xD.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:08 am
Not Expotentially but quadratically.:P
2^n != n^2
August 10th, 2010 at 9:00 am
the temp makes no sense, it suddenly hits 94 in a perfect line while the fan keeps speeding up?
August 10th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
@94C
It makes sense… why? cos the power consumption goes up (as much as 5-6 times, based on this test), and as a result up goes the TDP. However, air cooling, it will only have a diminishing return… like most things in life
.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
A typo? 644W = 464W = 24W more.
August 10th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
I thought that governments were trying to outlaw nuclear weapons
.Don’t show this review to Greenpeace.They’ll have a fit.
August 10th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Simply 512 SP GF100 sample card have very very overvolted GPU, I think not 1.05V as they measured, it’s about 1.2V+.
August 10th, 2010 at 11:17 pm
5% performance for 50% power consumption – bad deal.
August 11th, 2010 at 1:45 am
<0,05v give more than 200W power consumption?
i think you must recheck the core voltage
August 11th, 2010 at 2:47 am
644 Watts? This NVIDIA card is a Joke.
Forget it.
August 11th, 2010 at 3:04 am
Honestly I think it would only be fair to compare the stock clocks to the 480, as you don’t see Anandtech or Toms Hardware underclocking their 480′s when comparing to 470s, still it’s a horrible amount of heat, but at least give it a chance.
As well, your core voltage must be off, there’s no way for that little amount of voltage, the TDP is gonna go that high.
August 11th, 2010 at 5:18 am
Voltages don’t impact power consumption. It’s more about the Current being used.
You see this also happen with CPUs.
1V*200A=200W
Overclocking is achieved by raising the voltage. Only then will the voltage raise the power consumption.
August 11th, 2010 at 5:53 am
Power W = (U*U)/R
U – voltage
R – resistance.
So power gains in square from voltage.
August 11th, 2010 at 6:21 am
486W? THERE’S NO WAY THAT CAN BE RIGHT!
please put it in quad SLI
486×4+six core= 2500watt psu
August 11th, 2010 at 6:41 am
so we must be happy with gtx480 480shaders right?
i think nvidia must recheck their design from the bottom again,, innovations must continue!
August 11th, 2010 at 7:48 am
LOL
NVFAIL
(
AMD AND ATI were always better ;; blame false advertising, lying, unclean hands, evil business …. intel got busted against AMD and now with FTC.
August 11th, 2010 at 10:08 am
Lots of bitter people in this thread…
August 11th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
GPU-Z reads 801/1601/950MHz
But the tests reads 701/1401/924MHz
no wonder…..;-)
August 11th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
This is just awful, even at 900/1100 the 480 doesnt reach that power consumption
August 11th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Test the card with 600MHz clock and you will see that 512 shaders + 600Mhz clock (as it would of been released) has a lower performance (be very little) then the current GTX480 with 700 MHz clock. Given the choices, nV made the less disastrous one.
At 800+ MHz this becomes a nuclear-reactor-drainer UFO monster.
To that adding that the whole GF100 is cost-inefficient, nV should better make a fully enabled GF-104 instead (and put that between 5850 and 5870). That one has the chance of actually working at respectable temperatures and power values. Yields are another matter, though.
August 11th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Yo dude, The new card packs 512 CUDA cores, 64 ROPs, 48 texture units, and core/shader/memory clocks of 801/1601/950MHz, compared to the 701/1401/924MHz on the reference model.
Uh, you got that backwards, 64 texture units and 48 ROPs.
August 13th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
That is theoretical BS. I have undervolted my CPU’s and GPU’s and the power consumption does lower in reality. I am undervolting my laptop CPU from 1,1V to 1,0V without changing any clocks so the temp and fan rpm’s go down, it also extends my battery life. And overclocking, just test it with different voltages and you’ll see. Saying that voltage has no impact on power consumption is just stupid.
August 14th, 2010 at 12:41 am
Wait, that has to be an error with the power consumption being that high under load! Might be great for GPU computing but still, that is nuts and sorry, anyone buying these for Folding@Home or for CUDA, gaming, etc, for anything actually, is an idiot.
August 14th, 2010 at 8:09 am
WAIT WAIT WAIT a minute…….. why does this GTX480 with a higher volt with the artic cooling fan have the same temps (slightly hotter) than my GTX 480s in SLI? This article does seem a bit BS to me.
August 14th, 2010 at 8:12 am
ESPECIALLY seeing as the artic cooling fan for the 5970 drops the temps from 80c to 40c.
http://www.arctic-cooling.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=2_&mID=545
August 14th, 2010 at 10:39 am
I am getting all confuselled. Just get an ATI card, until InVid gets there act together again.
August 14th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
there’s nothing wrong with the Nvidia cards. They are awsome in my opinion and apparently they run quiter than some ATI counter parts (from what I have read). And these coolers will be awsome once released. I find it kinda funny how some people have 1000w – 1200w PSUs and when something goes to make use of that they PANIC!
August 15th, 2010 at 1:19 am
You can go back and forth about voltages and watts and Moops all day long. The real overview here is this healthy competition between Cool N-Vid and ATI has to go back and forth equally, each one bettering the other just enough to take 1st place for a short time and then the other. We all win and tech moves forward. This time N-Vid didn’t rise high enough did not answer the call, did not meet the challenge. Poor yields-low efficiency-high temps. The worst part is instead of us all enjoying the new ATI 6xxx series this November with 32nm tech or even 28nm tech, we are stuck with 40nm. ATI is only going to spend what it has to to stay ahead. If Fermi had been an efficient success we would be enjoying the new die shrink. One side drops the ball and progress lags behind for a year. It’s not Moops, it’s Moors!
August 15th, 2010 at 2:57 am
We are stuck with 40nm because of the TSMC (and Nvidia’s problems)… Because of that, AMD/ATi is now relying on Global Foundries for the 28nm (because 32nm is planned to be skipped). So you can thank your “worst part” with TSMC, not ATi or anybody else.
August 15th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
andy on here says ATI is only releasing the low and mid cards in November and the 6870 and 6850 in January so they can indeed use the 28nm shrink. Can’t believe they would miss Christmas. Anyone have any information? Will make a huge difference in my next card. Dreaming of temps around 26c with the prolimatech mk-13, oh yeah baby!
November 26th, 2012 at 10:35 am
I guess, it comes down to 76111 simple choice!
November 27th, 2012 at 6:42 am
Good write-up. I absolutely love this website. Stick with it!
November 29th, 2012 at 3:36 am
I was reading through some of your posts on this site and I believe this website is really instructive! Continue posting .
December 1st, 2012 at 12:20 am
Wow, awesome blog layout! How lengthy have you ever been running a blog for? you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your web site is great, let alone the content material!
December 15th, 2012 at 7:24 am
You have noted very interesting details! ps decent web site.