| Page 1 of 6 |
Slizza
Posts: 2345
Location: Bulgaria
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slizza
Posts: 2345
Location: Bulgaria
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
 Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 06:12 Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps, they are codenames for the higher tier and lower tier cards (like nVidia does)?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veki
Posts: 381
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 07:25 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | So what's the difference between the Evergreen and Cypress cards? I can't find anything concrete that describes what's different about them. They're both supposedly codenames for the 5xxx series DX11 cards. |
Evergreen - internal generation codename (HD 5xxx series)
Cypress - HD 5850 and HD 5870 cards
Cedar - HD 5350 and HD 5550
Redwood - HD 5650 and HD 5670
Hemlock - HD 5870 X2
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commisssioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 13:19 Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Veki, you're a star! <3
Well it's pretty much decided now, because if even HALF the shit Fudzilla said is right; then the 5870 is going to blow the competition out the water. When I buy my new kit in a couple months, I'm getting the 5870.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veki
Posts: 381
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 13:59 Post subject: |
|
|
Glad to help.
Well in theory, HD 5870 should be twice as powerful as HD 4870 due to having 1600 shaders (vs 800 in HD 4870).
But I do worry about power requirements and heat dissipation. HD 4870 required 14-15 A under load. HD 5870 is made in 40 nm (same as HD 4870) but has twice as many transistors (2000 million vs 950 million) so it might require twice as many amps (27-30 A) and might produce twice as much heat.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commisssioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 14:01 Post subject: |
|
|
| Veki wrote: | | HD 4870 required 14-15 A under load. |
Thank fucking GOD someone has some sense!! God, I'm so sick of reading about everyone claiming the 4870 requires eleventy billion amps to run (the most popular, though still vastly erroneous, belief is that it requires 35a under load)
My 4870 never pulls more than 20a under full load, and it's massively OCed too!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slizza
Posts: 2345
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 15:15 Post subject: |
|
|
I hope the stock cooler is better too.
Or at least some good aftermarket coolers available on launch.
Think i will wait for both camps to have there cards on the market before upgrading though.
Corsair 750D :: 750W DPS-G:: Asus x370 PRO :: R7 1800X ::16gb DDR4 :: GTX 1070::525gb SSD::Coolermaster 240MM AIO::
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CaptainCox
VIP Member
Posts: 6823
Location: A Swede in Germany (FaM)
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Thinking about getting the 5870x2, will be launched 1 month later. But what about Nvidia GT300?, someone knows what spec those cards will have.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slizza
Posts: 2345
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 20:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| CaptainCox wrote: | | Thinking about getting the 5870x2, will be launched 1 month later. But what about Nvidia GT300?, someone knows what spec those cards will have. |
No solid info yet.
I did read this.
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2009/4/22/nvidias-gt300-specifications-revealed---its-a-cgpu!.aspx
Rumors coming from within the manufacturing industry are that Nvidia are having massive problems getting a decent yeild on the chips and will likely not launch a new card untill sometime next year.
There is also speculation that the first GT300 series cards will be rebranded GT200 cards with GDDR5.
Corsair 750D :: 750W DPS-G:: Asus x370 PRO :: R7 1800X ::16gb DDR4 :: GTX 1070::525gb SSD::Coolermaster 240MM AIO::
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 11th Sep 2009 20:44 Post subject: |
|
|
| Slizza wrote: |
There is also speculation that the first GT300 series cards will be rebranded GT200 cards with GDDR5. |
So what else is new?
GTS-250; rebranded 9800GTX+
9800GTX: rebranded 8800GTS-G92
9800GT: rebranded 8800GT-G92
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slizza
Posts: 2345
Location: Bulgaria
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 00:20 Post subject: |
|
|
Wondering if I should sell my 4890OC now while it still has the value I paid for it... got it on sale with rebate for less than a new one now so I could easily break even on it. But then I'd have to use a crappy 8800GT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 00:24 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 00:27 Post subject: |
|
|
It's also 400 bucks.. I could have got triple 4890s for that heh.
I'm not sure I want to go i5 yet. The gains over Conroes are pretty minimal and even the old school 6600 Quad is holding its own still.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 00:51 Post subject: |
|
|
you have a good P35 mobo .... get a 9550 or one of those stripped new versions, so you can get the best 5870 version, and switch to 32nm next year
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 04:56 Post subject: |
|
|
Not impressed by single 5870 for now -> some of the tests have the same clocks as GTX 295. I think before buying new tech everything has to be considered, including GTX 380/360.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veki
Posts: 381
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 08:23 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: |  Spoiler: | |
|
Quite interesting results.
If the graph on the first picture is true, then it looks like ATI managed to almost double the power of the graphics chip.
On the second picture we can see that nVidia leads on lower resolutions in more that half of the games while ATI comes on top only on the highest resolution with AA and AF on.
Is that the result of no driver support? Are there drivers that support HD 5xxx series? Also on what config was this benchmark made?
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commisssioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 09:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 09:49 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, so it's a newer card and it's faster than the older ones, big whoop. Maybe Nvidia will drop their prices to compete anyway.
Also, can I has my physX with that ubercard, lol ? No ? Can I has good drivers ? No ?
/me loads Batman and goes back and forward through smoke for 15 minutes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 10:20 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 10:43 Post subject: |
|
|
A lot of the performance gain is from the doubling of TMU's. ATi seems to make really efficient GPU's, these still have 32 ROPS.
Either way nothing demands the hardware thanks to consoles. That is unless you prefer to play 2560x1600 with 8XAA. I don't see the point of anything more than a 4890 for 1920x1200 and below. Nothing since Crysis has really pushed the envelope to justify this stuff but the 8291FPS crowd will eat it up as usual.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 11:23 Post subject: |
|
|
I'm having a lot of gameplay issues lately, just on my single 4870 at 1280x1024. I shudder to think what would happen if I tried playing at 1920 >_>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 11:46 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | I'm having a lot of gameplay issues lately, just on my single 4870 at 1280x1024. I shudder to think what would happen if I tried playing at 1920 >_> |
Which games are you playing that you're having issues with?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Veki
Posts: 381
Location: Croatia
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 11:52 Post subject: |
|
|
Thx Sabin for the link.
| Quote: | | Tested on a Core i7 965 system with 6GB memory. |
| sabin1981 wrote: | | I'm having a lot of gameplay issues lately, just on my single 4870 at 1280x1024. I shudder to think what would happen if I tried playing at 1920 >_> |
Which games and what issues?
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commisssioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 16th Sep 2009 11:59 Post subject: |
|
|
| KrAzY-KaMeL wrote: | | sabin1981 wrote: | | I'm having a lot of gameplay issues lately, just on my single 4870 at 1280x1024. I shudder to think what would happen if I tried playing at 1920 >_> |
Which games are you playing that you're having issues with? |
Red Faction, Resident Evil 5 DX10 (DX9 is 75fps all times flawless), NFS Shift, GTA 4, Crysis on anything above med<>high, Tropico 3, Ghostbusters, HG:L in DX10 mode, Stalker CS in DX10 mode, Fallout 3 with highest settings, Call of Juarez DX10 (first one, #2 runs like a dream), NecroVision, Cryostasis --- all at 1280x1024 and NOT all with AA enabled either. Mass Effect is pretty much perfect, even with the enhanced texture stuff I have installed, but as soon as I force AA (even 2x) the framerate plummets to 30s.
All those games above and people "claim" to be running BETTER at 1680/1920 with AA on weaker cards, like the 8800. So either everyone is lying, or the 4870-1GB is roughly the equivalent of an 8800GT.
One of those two options is bullshit, pick one  
I can't even imagine trying to run those games above, with the same visual settings, at 1920.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 1 of 6 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
