We all know it is constantly being delayed - but at the end of all those delays, what we were expecting was a stellar product from Nvidia. However, with today's press release, certain inconvenient details are revealed. Let's forget about the delays for now, and just consider the product itself.
DP performance is rated at between 520 GFlops and 630 GFlops. Suddenly, ATI Radeon HD 5870 - which wasn't even supposed to be a direct competitor - is performing right on par with 544 GFlops against Fermi's supposed strong point.
Consider Single Precision - far more important for gaming graphics, and things turn rather ugly. GF100's target speeds were reported to be 1.5 GHz for the shaders. Based on the 520 / 630 GFlops figures, the shader clocks can only be estimated at 1015 MHz and 1230 MHz respectively.
The SP theoretical performance from 512 CUDA cores? Between 1.05 TFlops and 1.26 TFlops. Even less than 1.05 TFlops, considering the lesser part is likely to have units disabled. Now, no amount of overclock can bridge the enormous gap to the smaller, already available HD 5870, which stands pretty at 2.72 TFlops.
Clearly, these are expensive products to make, so how much can Nvidia sell a Geforce version of Fermi for? Even the cheapest Tesla 20 variant, the C2050 costs $2499, nearly 50% more than the GT200 based C1060 flagship. Can Nvidia sell the $3999 Tesla product at $399 as a Geforce product?
And we have not factored in the fact that GF100 is nowhere to be seen, and are unlikely to be on shelves in quantity for at least 4-5 months. Any further delays, and we will be looking at new products from AMD.
