Comparing GF100/110 and how they only just beat out Cayman is just stating that I am right. I really don't understand how you can argue other wise.
Your saying Nvidia used to need huge great big chips to beat AMD. Correct.
Key Phrase here,
used to that means they have made an improvement, I'm stating that AMD have not kept pace with this improvement. this has made them uncompetitive this round.
I'm saying this round AMD are not competitive, not when you compare performance increases from generation to generation.
The fact that Nvidia has a chip that is 23% smaller (well it would be as its only Nvidias mid chip) and out performed the AMD top chip should be enough proof to even the biggest AMD fan that they are just not competative this time around.
AMD had ~ 30% performance increase from their top end chip to top end chip.
Nvidia had ~ 40% performance increase from a midrange chip that outperforms its old top card by 20% and out performs AMD's top end card.
And they made a chip that was smaller than either Cayanm or Tahiti or the GF114 chip that was their old mid range.
They actually achieved a greater reduction in die size from generation to generation than AMD and still out performed them.
If GK110 did exist as a retail chip it would mean AMD had nothing with a single chip that could even get close.
Chip for chip AMD are way behind. As an example so you cant miss read my meaning. GK104 is the equivalent of Pitcairn chip for chip. I'm sure you can progress up and down from there.
I mean come on you think AMD cards are better than Nvidia cards at
PhysX for Christ sake.
Nvidia abandoned hot-clocking, compute performance, memory bandwidth, and more so that they could fit as many cores on a GPU as possible. So, they now have far more GPU throughput per mm2 of die area, but they also have inferior tessellation, AA, and compute-oriented features (such as PhysX and DirectC lighting features) efficient.
Mactronix