http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeF..._1920_1200.gif
well since nobody wants to bench here is one from tpu
Printable View
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeF..._1920_1200.gif
well since nobody wants to bench here is one from tpu
It is Crysis (v 1.21), not warhead, unless he ran warhead and I'm just having a long day and missed that??
you should use Hawx2 and see the 215% gain have the GTX480 over a 5870 2gb in this benchmark/game ( developped with and by by Nvidia ) :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by -=DVS=-
Even a GT430 is faster of the 5870 in this game ..
Lost Planet 2 ( like the one ) have been developped in collaboration ( complete collaboration ) with Nvidia, the DX11 part have been completely ( i say completely and this is not a joke ) designed by Nvidia,
forget to see any other cards who are not Nividia to shine in this game .
3dmark11 with another driver (the one from the 07.12.):
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/136857
didn't change much.
note today's date in US style: 12/11/10 - mystery? :off:
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/review...black-ops.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by -=DVS=-
we need more in game benchs not vantage cr_p whatever gonna wait until official reviews
Agreed. It appears to be not representative of real gamingQuote:
Originally Posted by eric66
If AMD is releasing something 10% faster than a 5870 that is complete facking fail no matter how you spin it. The only thing that makes those scores acceptable is if they were for 6950. But seems like not. Now that begs the question, what is the point of a 6950 if its barely above a 6870?
Can we still be looking at fake scores even at this point?
wtf happened AMD?
3dmark != gamingQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
Disappointing if you're a bencher. But could be great for a gamer
Its AMD's "Lets be secret and keep people's interest" PR backfiring. All sorts of crap has been thrown at them now lol. from Antillies .. human sacrifice hype to defending a possible fake or a irrelevant scoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
lol
Vantage numbers look unreal.but yea...a synthetic benchmark is not that important
I dont know man this story is turning flipside very quickly. First Amd was keeping secret cause performance was really high now its the opposite, seems like Amd is hiding a mediocre product at best. And lets face it if the rumors hold true for the 1536 shaders, its going to be a huge letdown. The truth about the 4d is that one smd cluster is 90% the performance with 10% less die space. So although you got 20% more shaders they perform 90% as good so in reality 1536 shaders will be only 18% more efficient than 1600.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Its just not enough even with the other changes and this lets me down big time. Unless they manage 100% more shaders at 28nm then kepler with 700+ cuda will rape southern islands.
of course there is antiles but how many people will afford that and how much better is it gonna be than 580? from these scores it will be at best 15%.:(
Someone said that the guy is getting these low scores because Power Tune(a new feature of 69xx series) is not working properly with the drivers he is using. It would be interesting to check the GPU load to make sure that the core is working 100%.
If you dont know how powerTune works, you can assume nothing based on gpu @ 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by noki
http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/7...gehighn6lj.jpg
Hmm, better than GTX 480, still well under GTX 580, probably on pair with GTX 570 at least on Vantage.
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...e-High-GPU.jpg
unless he had wrong driver or something it looks to be about the same as a gtx570
if priced the same or a little lower should do ok
but at 450 forget it:down:
Man... i don't think i've ever used my keyboard's F5 key as much as i've used today :eek:
Only reviewers, retailers, members of the illuminati, and God himself; know the real performance of the 6900 series :p: :rofl:
Jokes aside, 570 will still beat that score i reckon, considering it has a performance bump over the 480 in vantage.
But really, take a look at this post from OCUK staff:
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...5&postcount=69
At those prices, something must be horribly wrong with these benchmarks, either that or those prices are horribly wrong. :shrug:
Why do people keep posting 3dmark studded? I already said the scores will disappoint since shader count is lower. But gaming performance is a different story
Something has to be wrong.. look at this Compute score. That's no better than 2x5770
http://www.abload.de/img/6970computemarkxmc9.jpg
:rotf:Quote:
Originally Posted by oztopher
Well Gibbo says 6970 competes with GTX580 and is priced accordingly.Similar goes for 6950 and 570. And this guy has payed a lot of $$$$ in order to get healthy stock of those cards(meaning he has the cards,he has the hard numbers and knows how each performs).
When two-three syntetic benches show the same thing, the truth isn't far away even in games...The price is the key...
Still considering the biger die size, the 2gb of memory, the prices i don't think that can be very low...
Although these benches and everything is a nice sneak peak, I won't draw any conclusions until actually release, just hold your horses off for a little bit longer guys.