http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=246534Quote:
Originally Posted by WeiT.235
Printable View
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=246534Quote:
Originally Posted by WeiT.235
to bad the 470 vents are just a sticker
Go on, complain with your 2560x1600 monitors, my 24 incher is dead and I am temporary stuck with 1024x768 while its being RMA'd, so now THAT is a pain in the butt! :D
Tools---Internet Options----Advanced----Automatic Image Resizing (CHECK the box)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
for IE... in my opinion :up: . I hate having to click thumbnails or even medium-sized pictures for the full thing.
THX! But you probably get me wrong. I mean the pics in the post will be resized automatically to fit the width of webpage when you browse it. I think it's a basic function for the contemporary forum has. BTW, I don't have such problem in other forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
I just don't see the point in having a forum automatically resize pictures for everyone when those who want it that way can turn it on for themselves with their browser :(.Quote:
Originally Posted by WeiT.235
i thought there use to be a rule about the size, like u had to use a thumbnail for bigger ones. ill need to find that option ur talking about for firefox though, would be nice since text gets extended tooQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
I don't know about Firefox but in IE it simply scales all images to the size of your browser window dynamically, thus resulting in layouts being maintained as well. I could be missing something here or it may not be available in others like Firefox/Chrome, as to why people want the forum to do it however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
id agree an option on the forum would be good, keyword, option. i think it would be a sick feature to have a little magnifying glass cursor and u can resize with clicks on the photo, like when a page is just a photo it resizesQuote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Yeah, options are always good, :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
On-topic... anyone know what the latest is as far as when we can purchase? Some sites say 26th, some say 29th, and still others say April 6th... :rolleyes: .
I'm using Firefox, sorry...But I'm with you on the options available for those who need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
THX, but it doesn't work for my Firefox...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides
I certainly hope so because 2560x1600 is the only res I care about and if 470/480 are better at this resolution I'll be happy with my SLI purchase.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Reviews:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
26th - 11PM GMT
26th - NOON PST
Release:
US - 26th 7PM
Europe - 27th ??AM
EVGA / BFG seem to always have OC, OCX, FTW etc cards so I'm guessing that we'll see a few types like almost every release. However at launch it is anyone's guess if they will have the OCs out of the gate.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
I hope to see a BFG GTX 480 OC that's the 725 / 1050 spec but I'm not wanting to pay a large premium for it $25-$50 extra per card would be my limit. There's always going to be refreshes (GTX 280-285)and while I'd love to have that 512CC there's no way I'm waiting 3+ months for it.
<3 Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by fiskov
If the info is out...can anyone tell me the power pin setup for both 470-480 cards. Sorry for being lazy...didn't want to read through 45 pages. My 850Watt OCZ has 4x 6pin's
Hoping 2 of these can run my 30' Dell 3008wfp @ 2560x1600 my 8800GT's are tired for sure.
470 : 2x6pin
480: 6+8pin
Do some reading, Nvidia has posted that they are working with AICs to replace out of warranty cards...... What more could you ask for besides not having that mistake to begin with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Piotrsama
BTW I used 196.75 for a while and monitored my fan speed and temp in my GTX 280 and it did not have any issues.
PHK posted new scores for Crysis Warhead :
http://tof.canardpc.com/preview2/6cc...601a5b301d.jpg
1920X1200 AA 4X
HD5870 10.3 - Min 19.60 Max 41.41 Avg 30.22
GTX 470 196.78 - Min 18.62 Max 30.60 Avg 25.53
1920X1200 AAQ 8X
HD5870 10.3 - Min 4.96 Max 37.87 Avg 23.44
GTX 470 196.78 - Min 15.63 Max 29.21 Avg 23.03
Thank you sir....one last thing...are they both coming with Display port???Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
I called a BestBuy with the SKU number for the GTX470 and was told a price of $399.99, not sure if it's retail markup or the actual MSRP... if it is the MSRP and the difference is $400 vs. 500 that makes my decision much quicker/easier between the two to go for the GTX480. I don't know the SKU for the 480 so can't find out what their pricing is on it. Just interesting since current info says $350 for the 470 and $500 for the 480.
I don't know about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trigger5521
For the benchmarks, well looks like at 1920 + 4xAA the 470 performs basically at 5850 levels with probably higher min FPS.
And at 1920 + 8xAA it averages about 5870 because of 5870's lack of memory.
Unimpressive.
That an indication the HD5870 is running out of RAM?Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
this ones are oldQuote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Yeah, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Even with a "maybe" young 196.78 set, scores are not really impressive.
Smooth gameplay on Crysis Warhead maxed out 1920X1200 seems to be not possible with this mono GPU generation. Maybe next ? :D
It seems the last ones was about 2560X1600 defQuote:
Originally Posted by eric66
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...19&postcount=2
Who Cares about Crysis when Metro.2033 craps out on 1680X1050 with every thing maxed on HD5870 :mad::mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Play DX9.Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo
Yeah :D This game is really greedy :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo
Just disable advanced DOF and tessellation under Directx11 settings. I didn't notice any difference in graphics quality, yet my FPS skyrocketed. AA can also be quite heavy on this game. AAA works quite a bit better than MSAA 4x for me, although it does show some jaggies every now and then. It's not that bad though.Quote:
Originally Posted by kemo
I bet you'll be vertically scrolling if I post a screenshot here :) Eyefinity rocks ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
LOLL nvidia resorting to benchmark manipulation in order to pull ahead ??? :O wow... the fail is strong in them
that pie chart reflects market share more than anything else. i have used both ATi and nvidia drivers. i do like having custom profiles with nvidia and in d3d apps i never had trouble with either. i use nvidia cards because i can run opengl apps that dont crash every 5 minutes from drivers.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
That was a pretty funny read and an "in your face, I told you so attitude". We will know in a couple days...Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Quote:
Originally Posted by 96redformula
LOL you seriously think that nvidia might have a decent card after all we heard???? come on ......
Indeed. If the 2GB 5870s really make that much of a difference, then a 5870 2GB is probably in the GTX 480 rangeQuote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Huh, damn I knew I wasn't clear enough in my message....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
I meant we will know the truth with no tricks in a couple days, didn't mean a reference as to how well or crappy it will perform.
if some kinda monster comes out of this bs i will be very suprised 2 days left still no decent bench around
That would be great. I love competition :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
usually not a good sign is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
If 2x470's in SLI can run decent at 2560x1600 I'm in.
Unless something super-reliable surfaces I don't really care about speculation with only 2.5 days to go, frankly.
AMD already handed out free Steam Dirt2 keys to reviewersQuote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
guess which card will be released 2/3 days after the 470/480 release.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I just thought of something :).Quote:
Originally Posted by blob
AMD releasing 2GB versions of the 5870 also means that they must be using 10.3+ drivers on the reviews, which is also another good thing for AMD.
keys as in game activation keys??? wich means what exactly ????Quote:
Originally Posted by blob
other then to be able to have the game so reviewer can include it in their review
To be fair, I think this is more a driver/profiling bug than manipulation. I'm not a nvidia lover by any means, but when they actually do cheat it's a little more subtle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Sure they'll do gray all day long, as long as you need uncompressed jpg's and a magnifying glass to prove it, but nothing as black and white as this.
Edit: As for the Dirt 2 keys, I think it's to make sure you know every reviewer has access to the game, and thus if they leave it out they'd have to explain it. There aren't many DX11 games out, so it would be a crime to only bench Metro 2033. But saying that, I do think that nvidia might have a edge on post processing effects.
Looks like things are panning out to the tune of Charlie be right more than wrong... interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
The only thing I don't agree with in this article is his comment about 87C... this isn't unheard of. With the default fan profile a 5870 consistently hovers at 86-87C for me at 1920x1200 4x AA in many games (reviews also reflect similar temps ; its the thermal / fan profile AMD targeted ) And if I recall a certain "8800GTX" did the same (ran in high 80 range) Now that said the 98C in furmark comment is scary.
Problem seems to be that the dirt2 demo has a problem detecting the gtx470/480 card correctly and runs those cards in DX9 mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
The full Dirt2 version doesn't seem to have this problem.
DRIVER BUG??? and all this time i though nvidia didnt have driver bug .....
so nvidia did cheat in the past and they made it look subtle ???? so why not now .....
Quote:
Originally Posted by blob
omg another driver bug idea ..... so lets blame the thing on a bug ..... instead of pr stunt
Its all in the name of PR. Anyone who is planning on buying a GTX4xx card without waiting for reviews won't have their minds changed by something such as this. As for the rest of the sane world, they will wait to take in the more level headed and honest reviews which will be out in force in a matter of days. Marketers embellishing the truth? Oh really?! :shocked:
And what about HD 4850 with 120° on Furmak ? Too hot ?
I don't know much about these drivers, but is is natural with some limitations so early. Specially for these cards that are based on a totally new architecture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Are you dismissing the driver problems in such a early stage?
LOL @ nvidia fanboy blaming driver bug
It's not a driver bug. It's the Dirt2 Demo lacking the correct profiles for the GTX 4X0 cards (The demo was released 6 months ago)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
The full game does seem to have the correct profiles.
Not mentioning that the benchmark is GTX470@DX9 vs HD5870@DX11 is a differend topic
Don't be so patronising, everyone has bugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
As for cheating the rules have changed, in DX10 they added rasterisation rules. If a card is rendering something it has to be a certain way. So now if it isn't done the right way, it's normally because something is wrong not to get a speed boost.
Since DX10 you've not seen as many attacks on image quality except for the bs concerning the DX 10.1 of a certain game, nvidia smashed that like the hammer of Thor. But yeah as far as Microsoft are concerned they don't want to see any crap from ATI, nvidia or whoever.
So nope it's unlikely for nvidia to cheat, at least directly.
3 more days and all this Fermi nonsense hopefully ends.
Is it all you got to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
It is a good idea to keep the person focus out of a technical discussion. Does this means that you dismiss driver problem in such a early stage?
I'll be waiting for reviews, but it's definitely a 470 or 480 for me: it just depends on performance and 100% certain pricing on newegg that will decide it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenfeed
You know what they say. Where there's smoke....Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
so i have to explain it in a technical manner as to why i think its not a driver problem but more of a cheat that nvidia pulled to make fermi look like its a good piece of trash ????
come on ... all the sudo news + all the leaked benchy pointed to it months ago ... and now this dx9 stunt .....
Sure, but there's been smoke spread out a lot all over, so it's hard to pinpoint where the actual fire is ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Some claim a 480 is barely on-par with a 5870. Some claim a 470 is 10% faster than the 5870.
I asked you a simple question, you don't need to talk about all other stuff. Unless you want to avoid to answer, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Let me ask again. Do you dismiss the possibility that driver problems may be affecting the performance in such a early stage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
True. It was a fun ride but it's almost over. Wonder when that Hecatoncheires speculation thread will get started....
(Goes off to make thread)Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
:rofl:
remember to put... part 1 :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTiger
It's OK because it's ATI, not Nvidia. It's also OK that eventually, the VRMs on that card will pop when running Furmark. Again, because it isn't nvidia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
"Where there's smoke, there's a..." Fermi at idle? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
again..... driver problem are dismised... wanna know why???? they had the fricking card for so long in their hand tweaked it that they had to tweak the driver package .... but hey your right its all speculation until release day ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam_oslo
and why run a benchmark in dx9 and say we are having driver problem instead or do some pr spin on it ???? the reason is nvidia didnt want it to be known.... now the question is why ???
heres why i made the assumption.....
The VRMs don't pop. The card simply crashes and goes into a protection mode, because furmark (or was it OCCT?) was causing the OCP to kick in. Still a design flaw, but it only affected benchers and people running stresstests. Wasn't causing any problems for real games. Still a serious and bad problem though :shakes:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
I haven't heard of any cards hitting 120C though :shocked:
You guys are ignoring the fact that Charlie has been wrong about clocks , Shader count , Power Consumption and nearly every aspect of GTX 4xx series except for the launch dates !
Shhh! :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidGraham
looks like he was right about the performance, though...
welcome btw, are you from B3D? I remember seeing you on some other forum
It's much better now. As long as you don't forget you are amusing, guessing and speculating, then it is OK .Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Let me ask you a new question.
When you know your own ideas are based on speculations and assumption, how can you be so sure about your own impressions that you dismiss others ideas so firmly (even an obvious idea as possible driver problems in early stage), by calling them fanboys and such ?
I have seen the case with a HD 4850 Sapphire classic 2 slots cooler on a bad ventilated mid-ATX case with Furmark. Really massive heat :shocked:Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...0&postcount=11Quote:
the card is designed to withstand 120°C operating temperatures - W1zzard
Then the Nvidia cards are designed to withstand whatever temperature they operate at (and 80-90c load is not uncommon at all for GPUs!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
Oh man, seriously... DX9?Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
No chip is designed to operate at 100C+.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
You're physically killing the silicon in this case. There is no way around that.
It will be boring compared to Fermi. No mock card to make fun of. Will not be 6+ months late, wood screws. etc etc . Gonna miss the Twitter leaks :ROTF: Leaks will probably come 2 months before release something like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by ElSel10
http://www.pclaunches.com/graphic_ca...ecs_leaked.php
i doubt even nvidia knew those things at that time lolQuote:
Originally Posted by DavidGraham
...someone's making hot dogs? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by trinibwoy
Was he really wrong at the time, or has nvidia changed it on several occasions?Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidGraham
Oh the VRMs on the HD4870 certainly did hit that temp, they even surpassed that. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Musho
And depinding on the cooling also the coor could reach ~75-80°C.
Charlies claims are as always just that: claims.
Let's face it, they had not really been finalised until recently. They did another spin, and the reference cards they sent out had different clocks on them, so how could he get it right when nvidia weren't sure themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidGraham
As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter how many shaders it has, what it's clocks are or its TDP (not power consumption), it's how it performs that matters.
Well, considering he basically registered on XS to say that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Let's see if people like him or annihilat0r are still here after Fermi. :rofl:
Has anyone pointed out yet that ATI having had the 5800 series in market for ~8 months means they're more or less in refresh territory? :shrug:
If the GTX 480 can just barely, ever so slightly edge out the 5870 (while using much more power)... Things aren't looking too good if ATI can just launch a 5890...
Not that they will for sure, but AFAIK 8 - 12 months is a pretty typical time for a refresh (at least since I've been following tech).
We haven't seen any concrete evidence on a HD5890, but there has been talk of ATi releasing a new reference "OC" version, with a bump to the core and shader clocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Slow down gun powder, more like 6 months to the day, you might say you've added ~1 whole quarter to release schedule give or take a month...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
These kind of cards should have been planned for a long time ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
Actually I had expected a 5870 2GB a loooong time ago (4870 512MB -> 1GB anyone? http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3415) with a refresh like the 4890 for when Fermi would come out to finish the line up and make ATi really shine for the first time ever since the release of the 8800GTX.
Sadly they did not go that route (now if you are wondering why I mention sadly: I am kinda stuck at the red side, thanks to Eyefinity).
Radeon HD 5870 Eyefinity 6 Edition 2GB will launch on 3/25.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipeax
Well that card's TDP is something like 220W as far as I can remember, so the huge TDP advantage of 5870 (as compared to Fermi) vanishes there...
cant wait to see what 32nm/28nm from amd brings on the gpu side
so the tdp now is magicly going down????Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
at first it was like.... but then it went to.... and then it was like.... starting to sound like an xzibit poster joke
:confused: Maybe you can start a thread about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
I suppose I would just hesitate to even call an OC version a "refresh."Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O
Hence why I say 5890 (for lack of a more accurate name), think 4890.
It wasn't anything revolutionary, but it yielded some performance gains.
Yes, but that card will cost more over a 5870 than a 5870 2GB would, because of all the extra Eyefinity6 goodies that I don't want...Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/imagelarge/1269336601.jpeg
;)
But this is waaay too offtopic.
Man, calm down. You don't have to reply to everything that might be pro-Nvidia. TDP isn't going down, it's going up. I'm talking about 5870 here, its TDP is 188W but the E6 version is supposed to be 210 or 225W or something along those lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=5700Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Baumann
It looks like the OC version is shaping up to be a HD5890, but there has been no mention of that particular name recently. ATi may keep the HD5890 name for a respin/tweak to combat the possibility of Nvidia doing another GF100 respin and releasing a 512SP part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly Fox
All i know, reviewers like SKYMTL and Benchzowner have hinted that GF 100 cards will have AWESOME gaming performance compared to competitor, even on todays games, that GF 100 will stomp RV 870 to the thrash bin where it belongs, so i think i will put more weight on their cues rather than Charlie the satan himself for this launch occasion. We will see in the next few days, who will be flat out right, and the one who talked out of their rear.
I'm tired of believing Charlie only to be mocked up by nVidia fanbois, so this time i'll swear by their side, and see which side is the correct one after all of this unveiled.
Yea, it's hard to say precisely. My only real point was just that ATI would appear to be in a decent position to refresh if they have to.Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O
Whether they will, what it's called, etc etc I have no clue about. :ROTF:
uh, so the rise in TDP won't be that much when we still use one (or three) monitors? Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by mindfury
Why have I completely failed to get those hints? AFAIK SKYTML has been pretty tight lipped.Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia