Hd5870 - $299

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-31-2009, 03:07 PM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by w0mbat

Waaaaaa, dont hunt me down if im wrong. I cant always be right :shrug:

Im just writing so much stuff, some of it gotta turn out true...

Haha... Just saying, I don't think you have ever really led us astray.
Obviously no source can be 100% right.
08-31-2009, 03:15 PM
bill_d

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaredpace

I saw this post over at B3D. It makes the most sense to me -

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.p...postcount=2141

If COD4 is giving you 50 fps on your 4870 or 4890 in any particular benchmark, the HD5870 is not going to yield 130+ FPS, more like 80-100 FPS. However, going from 3870 --> 4870 almost doubled performance (40 FPS to 80 FPS).

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/a...5208/17130.png

and going from 3870 to 4850 is about 1.6 or 60% faster
08-31-2009, 03:20 PM
w0mbat

Hes writing about a "best case scenario" and 60% would be way too low for that.
08-31-2009, 03:34 PM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manicdan

its chip size is bigger than the r770, and its on a smaller process, even if its the same exact thing just scaled it should still be 80-120% faster due to how much stuff they can pack into that 300mm2+ chip.

this site has some very basic comparison info for the the 3870 to 4870 jump (just check out the table at the bottom)
http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/news...x?NewsId=23573
and i like it cause it shows how the size of the 4870 is only 35% bigger, yet offers about double the performance. thats a good jump and hats off to ATI.

:rolleyes:

Feature-set, bro...

Your over-all point is irrelevant. It offers MORE, it's not going to be better for us because its faster, but because it does more.

You're too caught up in FPS figures and not about how that chip space is being used. If all you want is better FPS, they could push that front very easily. But then games like ARMA II or OFP2 wouldn't have HDR, Bloom, shadows, etc...

A modest 60% increase has never happened so quickly. (less than a year!)

I went from an Radeon X1900XT ~ 8800gts 640mb ~ HD4870 1gig... over a 4year period and each upgrade was only a 25% increase in performance, if that!

Honestly, For $299 and a 60% increase over the $270 HD4870 I bought last October... is fook'ing incredible !!
08-31-2009, 03:48 PM
m0da

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

Honestly, For $299 and a 60% increase over the $270 HD4870 I bought last October... is fook'ing incredible !!

Totally agree.
fook'ing incredible.
08-31-2009, 03:48 PM
jaredpace

I still think hd4870 -> hd5870 is going to be like ~80% faster on average, rather than 60% or 160%. 11 days to go!
08-31-2009, 04:52 PM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

A modest 60% increase has never happened so quickly. (less than a year!)

I went from an Radeon X1900XT ~ 8800gts 640mb ~ HD4870 1gig... over a 4year period and each upgrade was only a 25% increase in performance, if that!

Honestly, For $299 and a 60% increase over the $270 HD4870 I bought last October... is fook'ing incredible !!

X1950XTX to a 8800GTS 640mb was a good +25% increase, +50-60% in some cases.

8800GTS 640mb to a 8800GT was a 10-20% increase, 8800GT to a 8800GTS/9800GTX was about the same 10-20%, 8800GTS/9800GTX to a 4870 was also a ~15-20% increase.

So all those upgrades were easily +25% and some cases 50-60%.
08-31-2009, 04:57 PM
labs23

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaredpace

I still think hd4870 -> hd5870 is going to be like ~80% faster on average, rather than 60% or 160%. 11 days to go!

Its near now. I hope the rumored price doesn't disappoint, as well as the cards.:yepp:
08-31-2009, 05:12 PM
strange|ife

all i know is the new cards are going to eat Modern warfare 2 for breakfast, asking for seconds.
08-31-2009, 05:14 PM
Sadasius

Quote:

Originally Posted by labs23

Its near now. I hope the rumored price doesn't disappoint, as well as the cards.:yepp:

No kidding I have the shakes.....can't wait.....c'mon c'mon......Maybe if I freeze myself....:rofl:
08-31-2009, 05:16 PM
LiquidReactor

Just 1.6 times faster then 1.0*HD 4870? So much for the 1600 shaders rumour...and I doubt 5870 is going to be able to surpass HD 4870x2 at high res with high levels of AA.
08-31-2009, 05:25 PM
Chumbucket843

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Just 1.6 times faster then 1.0*HD 4870? So much for the 1600 shaders rumour...and I doubt 5870 is going to be able to surpass HD 4870x2 at high res with high levels of AA.

if a 4870x2 is 1.7 times faster than a 4870 we might these two neck and neck. and honestly that fud article is completely made up. no sources or anything and you know AMD is keeping all performance numbers quiet.
08-31-2009, 05:28 PM
Mr.BSEL

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Just 1.6 times faster then 1.0*HD 4870? So much for the 1600 shaders rumour...and I doubt 5870 is going to be able to surpass HD 4870x2 at high res with high levels of AA.

Rv870 probably will still have 1600 shaders but that doesn't mean it will offer double the performance cause no drivers are perfect.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=35

I posted that a week ago.:p:
08-31-2009, 05:31 PM
Chickenfeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadasius

No kidding I have the shakes.....can't wait.....c'mon c'mon......Maybe if I freeze myself....:rofl:

Science H Logic! Don't do it! :p:

I hope its more than 60% as I expect GT300 to be more than that. We shall see...

As far as 1600sp not being 100% faster than 800 its down to their efficiency, clock speed and where the cards biggest bottleneck rests. We are talking an improved arcitechture here, not simply HD4870 X 2. 100%+ could be possible in certain cases but I'll be quite impressed if that turns out to be the the case. Still I'd expect better than 60%.
08-31-2009, 05:32 PM
LiquidReactor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.BSEL

Rv870 probably will still have 1600 shaders but that doesn't mean it will offer double the performance cause no drivers are perfect.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...2&postcount=35

I posted that a week ago.:p:

Well, at 2560x1600 with max eye candy maybe HD 4870 does offer over twice the performance of 3870 but theres one other important thing, is the game playable?
08-31-2009, 05:40 PM
Chickenfeed

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidReactor

Well, at 2560x1600 with max eye candy maybe HD 4870 does offer over twice the performance of 3870 but theres one other important thing, is the game playable?

Exactly. 2x crap is still... crap. Still, I expect the 5800s to handle nearly all current titles at 2560x1600 with 4x AA and still remain modestly playable ( with the exception of ARMAII and Crysis ; ARMAII is a nasty piece of work)
08-31-2009, 05:50 PM
Chumbucket843

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chickenfeed

Science H Logic! Don't do it! :p:

I hope its more than 60% as I expect GT300 to be more than that. We shall see...

As far as 1600sp not being 100% faster than 800 its down to their efficiency, clock speed and where the cards biggest bottleneck rests. We are talking an improved arcitechture here, not simply HD4870 X 2. 100%+ could be possible in certain cases but I'll be quite impressed if that turns out to be the the case. Still I'd expect better than 60%.

the real bottleneck is the memory. you would see very linear scaling if bandwidth was unlimited. maybe the peak flops of this card will be easier to reach because now gddr5 is commonplace.
08-31-2009, 06:00 PM
revogamer

I think the 5850 will be around $299 usd and the 5870 are $399
08-31-2009, 08:25 PM
Gator!

Quote:

Originally Posted by revogamer

I think the 5850 will be around $299 usd and the 5870 are $399

i hope not and i doubt that will be the case......i think they still will be priced at 250 and 350 respectively to give there 4800 series some room to breath...it would be hard to sell the hd4800 series with the HD5800 bieng priced at 199 and 299 but i still think ATI wants to price there 5800's very competitively at the same time....i think we win either way :up:
08-31-2009, 08:29 PM
revogamer

oh well thats what prices one of my 'contacts' have for RRP
08-31-2009, 11:45 PM
Tim

If the GT300 is 10% faster then a 295 like rumoured, then where would that leave the HD5870? I hope it will be fast enough.

I just know that this is going to be very interesting, since funds are at an all time low, and if AMD comes out with a lower priced card, they could have secured my money for this year! :)
09-01-2009, 12:30 AM
Xoulz

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordEC911

X1950XTX to a 8800GTS 640mb was a good +25% increase, +50-60% in some cases.

8800GTS 640mb to a 8800GT was a 10-20% increase, 8800GT to a 8800GTS/9800GTX was about the same 10-20%, 8800GTS/9800GTX to a 4870 was also a ~15-20% increase.

So all those upgrades were easily +25% and some cases 50-60%.

and..?

That^^ took place over a 5 year period. My point was the 5800 series is supposedly a 60% increase, in just one years time.

So, those people who are complaining or demanding a higher gains might want to check themselves... if they want a 100% increase, they may have to wait a little longer and pay a tad more.

ATI's claims of 60% better is not disappointing at all.
09-01-2009, 01:49 AM
LordEC911

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xoulz

and..?

That^^ took place over a 5 year period. My point was the 5800 series is supposedly a 60% increase, in just one years time.

Ah...
Go back a little farther then if that was your main point.
7900GTX was released in March 2006.
So in 9 months we went from a 7900GTX to the 8800GTX.

Also just a side note, there was no "official" claim of 60% more performance.
09-01-2009, 02:05 AM
Smartidiot89

I heard $349 for HD5870 and $269 for HD5850 at launch :shrug:
09-01-2009, 02:21 AM
Farinorco

A 60% performance improvement would be very good, and even more than what I originally expected. Usually, no more than 50% increase is given from a generation to the next, usually less than that, and last generation HD4000 was more than an exagerated +100% increase or so.

If it would be a number to the average real world cases, it would be believable too. What I see strange is what w0mbat has mentioned: the article is talking about a "best case scenario", and that doesn't match to the other info that has leaked around (a 100% increase in computing/shading power should correspond to a minimum of 100% best case scenario performance increase in a case where computing/shading power was the bottleneck).

I would say that either they don't know what is a best case scenario, or the number is directly wrong. I don't believe that a chip that is 20-35% bigger than RV770 (300-350mm2 vs 254mm2) in a half the size manufacturing process (40nm vs 55nm) is going to be increased only 60% in the most increased aspect of the chip...

And if it's not a best case scenario, then the number doesn't mean anything, because we wouldn't know what that number matches to...

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page