Yeah yeah,you get the point:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
I plan on playing Dragon Age,Divinity:Ego Draconis(need to support the Belgian Developers lol)and Arcania/Risen...
For these games the 5870 is more then powerfull enough
Printable View
Yeah yeah,you get the point:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
I plan on playing Dragon Age,Divinity:Ego Draconis(need to support the Belgian Developers lol)and Arcania/Risen...
For these games the 5870 is more then powerfull enough
reading the anandtech review now...
CF in warhead sucks, a 5870 is notably faster than a 285 but 5870CF is barely ahead of 285SLI...
for anandtech the 5870 is up to 25% faster than a 4870x2? thats the highest ive seen so far in any review...
wutt? in fc2 anandtech has a 4870x2 do about the same as 5870CF???
and a single 5870 beats a 295 and kills a 4870??? :confused2
sounds like 5870CF is again craptacular ...
but a 4870x2 notably beating a 295 and even 285SLI? thats really weird...
especially since a 4870 is notably slower than a 285 in their graphs too...
anandtechs FC2 results make me dizzy ^^
everything else looks a lot like on xbitlabs, 5870 is about the same as the 4870x2 and the 295 tends to be a tad faster... on xbitlabs the 295 has a bigger gap over the 5870 and 4870x2, thats the only diference between anandtech and xbitlabs so far... that plus some weird warhead and fc2 numbers :D
excellent conclusion on anandtech! :toast:
i couldnt agree more...
Quote:
The easiest kind of product for us to write about is the kind that’s clearly superior to its competition.
The hardest kind to write about is the kind that’s stuck in the middle. For the 5870, we have the latter case.
Let’s be clear here: the 5870 is the single fastest single-GPU card we have tested, by a wide margin. Looking at its performance in today’s games, as a $379 card it makes the GTX 285 at its current prices ($300+) completely irrelevant. The price difference isn’t enough to make up for the performance difference, and NVIDIA also has to contend with the 5850, which should perform near the GTX 285 but at a price of $259. As is often the case with a new generation of cards, we’re going to see a shakeup here in the market as NVIDIA in particular needs to adjust to these new cards.
The catch however is that what we don’t have is a level of clear domination when it comes to single-card solutions. AMD was shooting to beat the GTX 295 with the 5870, but in our benchmarks that’s not happening. The 295 and the 5870 are close, perhaps close enough that NVIDIA will need to reconsider their position, but it’s not enough to outright dethrone the GTX 295. NVIDIA still has the faster single-card solution, although the $100 price premium is well in excess of the <10% performance premium.
Meanwhile AMD is retiring the 4870 X2, which ended up beating the 5870 enough that we would consider it a competitor to the 5870. However, you can’t consider it if you can’t buy it.
Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Need new drivers for proper CF support it seems.
saaya: It's hard to see you base your conclusions on a techpowerup review that used 6 gb of ram on a 32 bit system - or am I missing something here?
even though the benchmarks show a pretty strong performance i tend to agree, atleast for now. if you consider that the 5870 is basically a 4870x2 in one chip (without crossfire which adds some sort of overhead etc) i still can't really think of a reason why the 5870 isn't faster than a 4870x2 most of the time :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dami3n
i really hope performance increases with more mature drivers later on. or are we really looking at a bottleneck regarding the 256bit interface some people "predicted" prior the launch?
two 5870 in cf however look impressive. pretty good scaling considering the fact these use release drivers, especially compared to the scaling of the gts295 or two 285 in sli.
however, i'm really tempted to replace my 4850 with a 5870 - even if i don't know why, as everything i play atm runs fine on the 4850 :p: i think it's the charm of new hardware and dx11 (including compute shader etc...) :D
Sums up my feelings, exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sh1tyMcGee
The performance isn't bad or anything (unlike the R600, for example), but it just isn't the "WOW!" that I was expecting. Perhaps, my expectations were set too high. But with the specs being double of RV790 (with the exception of bandwidth), I was expecting at least 1.9-2x the performance of RV790. Instead the performance is just under that figure, on average. Perhaps it's the early drivers or the memory bandwidth holding it back--But then again, RV770 was never bandwidth limited...
I may perhaps wait for GT300 or Hemlock. This HD4890 is still strong.
that very few games require more than 2gb ? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
HD 5850 is listed at €200 in Europe... 88% performance of the Radeon HD 5870 AND it outperforms the GTX 285 easily;
if you don't have a 30" screen and don't play on triple monitor carnage, the HD 5850 seems to be the card to go; all the other cards in the €150-200 bracket will have to reduce their prices to remain valuable as an option; any card over €200 which is not faster than HD 5850... don't buy.
first of all, there seem to be serious issues with 5800 xfire, so those numbers anandtech showed will def improve...Quote:
Originally Posted by One_Hertz
but overall, yes, 5870x2 will DEF be slower than 5870CF, always...
with 5870x2 your limited by power and heat, with 5870CF your not...
well, in some tests its 5% or 10% in the lead... but yes, its not clearly faster than the 4870x2... its more of a replacement for the 4870x2, and the fact that its single gpu makes it a good replacement even if it ONLY offers about the same perf... at least in my opinion... and xbit and anandtech seem to agree...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dami3n
but yes, i also expected more... and im confused why the 5870 doesnt do better...
check the xbitlabs article about this, called driver scaling with 4870 iirc... from half a year back... they showed that in several games perf had improved around 10%... thats not much, but if youd compare 8.7 to 9.9 im sure youd see more than a 10% boost for a 4870... probably around 15-20% in several games... and not just av fps, min fps has increased as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
its unusual for this to happen though, and its nowhere near the perf jumps dual gpu setups make with driver updates, def agree on that...
looking at all results of the reviews ive seen so far, id say 4870x2 is roughly equal to a 5870, and 5870 is single gpu so thats making it the winner...
even if it will never beat the 4870x2 accorss the board, i dont care, its single gpu and thats worth more than 5% perf imo... especially if you look at what fps numbers we are talking about here... :D
my current impression after having read several reviews is this:
5870: fails to beat 295 and 4870x2, but does about the same with only 1 gpu... price needs to be reduced to 300-350$ then itll be a very sweet deal
5850: notably beats 285 at almost 100$ lower price, good deal for people who dont have a 285 or faster atm...
im really curious about 5740 or whatever juniper is called?
4890 perf at 99$ with dx11? :D
what does that have to do with anything :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
he probably has a 64bit partition but hes doing 32bit for now cause thats what he built his db with and he doesnt wanna mix 32 and 64bit...
require? 0 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by jmke
benefit? i only know of one, gta4, and that seems to only happen at mega res and in some scenarios...
IF you dont have a gtx285 already... and even if you have a 4890 id rather wait than upgrade... i mean really, what for? what can you play with a 5850 that you cant play with a 4890 or even 4870?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
only 2, Crysis, Crysis Warhead, with high IQ ;)Quote:
what can you play with a 5850 that you cant play with a 4890 or even 4870?
Welcome to the real world. How could it possibly be "at least 2x" faster when NOT ANY of the specs go OVER 2x when compared to RV790?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesker
Indeed, no way. You expected something which is not even possible, and now feel disappointed. Disappointed because of your overly-optimistic expectations.
Good luck next round, will be disappointed again, and again.
While I haven't read it, I am sure the games showing the most improvement are the ones that were either new releases or not even released when the HD 4870 was brought to market. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Back then there were no x2 solutions cause x2 is just a cheat :p: Unless they drastically reduce power consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
With cpu cores they did that. More cores but +/- same power. But with GPUs they can't (yet). You get the point :) OK, going a bit offtopic here :)
Has anyone seen a review on anything other than an i7 cranked up to the absolute limit of the chip? Not sure about anyone else, but I don't have one, nor do I intend to get one. I'm also equally confident that not all users of i7 run them overclocked, in fact i'll bet that the vast majority don't. So while it's all good and nice to say that this is the only way to see what the potential of the card is, what about writing a review that caters to actual users? You know, with hardware settings that people can relate to. I don't give a siht how this card performs with an i7 trying to hit 4GHz, when I have a 955 running at stock, or a couple hundred MHz higher. How does all that do me any good if i'm trying to decide what kind of improvement i'll get in my system? How about some REAL WORLD performance guys? I keep seeing that bloody term being thrown about, and then see review after review trying to clock there cpu's to the stratosphere. Would some variety be so bad? Oh I know, "we are trying to eliminate the cpu bottleneck". Well most of us have a cpu bottneck! What kind of bizarre thinking is that?? Ok, sure it's nice to see the max potential of new hardware, but is it that critical that nobody can write a review that is helpful to the other 90% of the online population? Seems like kind of a no brainer to me. How about some stock settings guys?
Anyway, it's the same principal and failed logic that goes into deciding to review cpu's with game benchmarks at ultra low resolutions that would be run on 10 inch monitors 15 years ago. Why not just stick to cpu benchmarks to benchmark a cpu? JHC Who cares how fast a cpu will run a game at 640x480. Yeah yeah, I know, if you don't like it don't read it, or write your own review. But wouldn't a more practical approach smarter in the long term?
More to the point though, looks like this is a great card. :p:
Well either the 8800GT is 20% faster than the 9800GT... or the numbers are somehow wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Close to?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
They clocked well over 1Ghz. I have a Sapphire Toxic with a stock clock of 960mhz that easily runs 1030Mhz 24/7 on air. There are plenty of 4890's that do 1050Mhz on air 24/7 as well with good cooling.
Personally I'm not jumping to the 5000 series until we see a 5890 or better overclocks/cooling and more memory on the 5870. Almost always better to jump in after the revisions. Did the same when the 4870 was released. The initial 512MB cards were a joke, although quickly replaced with the 1GB versions. Still glad I held out for the 4890's, especially considering the cheap price and the performance jump.
The lack of any significant DX11 titles until next year, at which time we'll see a mature DX11 card selection make the purchase of the current 5800 lineup rather pointless for anyone with a decent card now.
All in all, still a very impressive offering. But I'm not jumping in until I see a top title like BF3, Rage, etc. that can bury a 4890 or GTX285 @ 1920x1200 or 2560x1600.
I have yet to meet a single person who actually plays these titles. Everyone tried Crysis when it came out to see the new graphics. Then we all moved back to playing our multiplayer games like CoD, TF2, and L4D.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
I was expecting further improvements efficiency. Not only does it share similar paper specifications as R700, but it also share's RV790's core clock speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
R600 -> RV770 was impossible? :rolleyes: RV770's performance over R600 was greater than the 2.5x increase in the ALU count. Most of RV770's performance wins over R600 came from internal improvements in the chip design (most notable being the inclusion of hardware based MSAA resolve).
Years ago, were you also around saying that the performance of chips like Conroe, Hammer, Nehalem, R580, R300 and G80 were impossible?
...oh, and thanks for the attitude. :up:
It starts to become noticeable at 1920x1200 with everything maxed. That is not a mega res. That's a very common gaming resolution today. At 2560x1600 it becomes a very noticeable problem in GTAIV. It's only going to become more noticeable with newer games that push the envelope further. So if I were to pick up a 5870, I'd much prefer it to have 2GB of memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
Exactly. Even if I were on a 3870 or 9800gtx, I'd still wait to see what's available in the spring. Then we'll actually have some selection of good games that will take advantage of DX11, more cards to choose from, and better prices thanks to increased competition.Quote:
IF you dont have a gtx285 already... and even if you have a 4890 id rather wait than upgrade... i mean really, what for? what can you play with a 5850 that you cant play with a 4890 or even 4870?
I can get mine to 4.6Ghz but in-game stability gets thrown out the window and stability is what's needed for benchmarking.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
http://www.fudzilla.com/images/stori...70vaporx_1.jpg That might be my next card :)Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15648/1/
sami ran the single-GPU X11364 score with CPU aircooled at 4GHz and a single 5870 at 1250MHz engine and 1390MHz memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1080/15/
always someone pushing stuff....
well you met me, so now you can no longer claim that;)Quote:
Originally Posted by kgk
I've played through Crysis several times now;
Crysis Warhead was slightly less entertaining;
very few samples of 8800 GT (only from Anand in comparison TO the HD 5870)Quote:
Originally Posted by Boissez
see the numbers always in reference to the HD 5870 results, as that card was ALWAYS available in all charts, however not all cards were in all result charts; the 8800 GT popped up, and I did find it useful to include as this card was quite popular :)
----------
I've not gone through all reviews out there, anybody encounter one where they actually run two/three monitors ?
I see - Wouldn't it be better though to merge the 8800 and 9800 numbers then? they're basicly the same cards anyway. Anyways many thanks for compiling this list - saves lazy guys like me a lot of time riffling through reviews :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
I'm just saying, in a long winded way, what can I expect if i'm running a Phenom II 955 or 945 at stock, if I upgrade to this GPU? Or an Inel CPU at stock for that matter. Obviously it'll be faster, but then everyone already knew that. How much faster, is the benefit worth it? I haven't seen a review that answers that question. You'd think reviewers would clue in to the fact that not all people reading reviews, by a long shot, are users that run there equipment out of spec. So given the 20+ reviews out there, if you had a review that catered to the other 90% of the population, which one of the 20+ would get more views when those people search for answers?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
And personally, i'd also like to see which platform is more efficient.