ATI Aiming For R300 Deja-Vu: Officially Launches 4800 Campaign

Printable View

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

06-13-2008, 04:09 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

This is not the full performance of the 4850. Because the real competitors to the series is the 9900GTX and GTS(maybe) coming in July, there is still some performance yet to be unlocked to battle those.

Perkam

They have some performance kept in a box to unleash when G92b cards arrive :ROTF:
06-13-2008, 04:15 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

They have some performance kept in a box to unleash when G92b cards arrive :ROTF:

Yup :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATI Release Notes

Performance Improvements

The following performance gains are noticed with this release of Catalyst™ 8.5.

* Call of Juarez DX10: Performance increases up to 12% on systems containing an ATI Radeon™ HD 3xx0 series of product
* Halo: Performance increases by 10-30% across all of the supported ATI Radeon™ series of products
* Lost Planet DX10: Performance increases from 5 to 35% on systems containing an ATI Radeon™ HD 3xx0 series of product
* Stalker DX9: Performance increases by 20-50% when HDR is enabled in the game; across all ATI Radeon™ HD38x0 series of products
* World in Conflict DX10: Performance increases up to 25% on systems containing an ATI Radeon™ HD36x0 and/or an ATI Radeon™ 38x0 series of product. Higher performance gains are noticed on systems contianing an ATI Radeon™ 3870x2 series of product

:)
06-13-2008, 04:22 AM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Yup :)

:)

lol, since when are performance improvements, that are gained due to better drivers optimizations, secret performance unlocks?

it happens all the time, when the software engineer figure out a way to utilize the architecture in a more efficent way....
06-13-2008, 04:23 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Yup :)

:)

You could put it like this:

"ATI pre-release and release drivers suck, so when G92b arrives, I hope Cat 8.7 or 8.8 can pull a miracle off and actually compete with them"

Giving 4 examples as performance kept in a box is not a fact. It's hope.

Fact is, for now, we know HD4850 is performance equivalent to an 8800GT, I am not saying it's its final performance, I just wouldn't hope big performance increases.
06-13-2008, 04:45 AM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

You could put it like this:

"ATI pre-release and release drivers suck, so when G92b arrives, I hope Cat 8.7 or 8.8 can pull a miracle off and actually compete with them"

Giving 4 examples as performance kept in a box is not a fact. It's hope.

Fact is, for now, we know HD4850 is performance equivalent to an 8800GT, I am not saying it's its final performance, I just wouldn't hope big performance increases.

But since you haven't used a Radeon, nor tried out the Beta 8.6 drivers that killed 3DMark scores, I guess your comments stood out as laughable.
06-13-2008, 04:47 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

You could put it like this:

"ATI pre-release and release drivers suck, so when G92b arrives, I hope Cat 8.7 or 8.8 can pull a miracle off and actually compete with them"

Giving 4 examples as performance kept in a box is not a fact. It's hope.

Fact is, for now, we know HD4850 is performance equivalent to an 8800GT, I am not saying it's its final performance, I just wouldn't hope big performance increases.

The voltmodders ready-in-waiting would disagree with you :p:

Perkam
06-13-2008, 04:57 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macadamia

But since you haven't used a Radeon, nor tried out the Beta 8.6 drivers that killed 3DMark scores, I guess your comments stood out as laughable.

You did? So please enlighten me, don't leave me in ignorance :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

The voltmodders ready-in-waiting would disagree with you :p:

Perkam

I really do not see what voltmodding has anything to do with the subject I was discussing with you :confused:
06-13-2008, 05:26 AM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

You did? So please enlighten me, don't leave me in ignorance :rolleyes:

It's a leaked driver, so 06 hasn't been tested much. I've seen some guys on XS saying Vantage increased, but 06 not sure.

http://rage3d.net/board/showpost.php...1&postcount=16

2000 points down on a 3870X2. Even if it was 1k points down on a 4850 only, that would still be huge.
06-13-2008, 05:32 AM
fcry64

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

I really do not see what voltmodding has anything to do with the subject I was discussing with you :confused:

hes talking about the performances that 48x0 offer are surpassing:up:

edit
he guesstimates:yepp:
06-13-2008, 06:14 AM
ryanmartini

a teraflop you say?

FOLD ON! :D
06-13-2008, 06:42 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

You could put it like this:

"ATI pre-release and release drivers suck, so when G92b arrives, I hope Cat 8.7 or 8.8 can pull a miracle off and actually compete with them"

Giving 4 examples as performance kept in a box is not a fact. It's hope.

Fact is, for now, we know HD4850 is performance equivalent to an 8800GT, I am not saying it's its final performance, I just wouldn't hope big performance increases.

1- G92b is made to 9800GT
2- G92b is equal to G92. There aren´t any arquitectural changes. The arquitectural changes are caled GT200.
3- 9800GT will carry G92b. It will have versions with G92 and other with G92b, so clocks will be the same. Nvidia are playing very carreful with 55nm.
4- Even with G92b there are no miracles when you only can increase Core clocks. You get 5-10% performance jump Max. Or just pick one G92, put it on Overclock and there you have your G92b performance.

5 and Last- By performance figures known HD 4850 is heading agains 9800GTX and not 8800GT. Your called fact can only come from one Nv fanboy arround here. You can say that HD 4850 come to prices of 8800GT but with performance of 9800GTX. That´s the speculation that we have seen by all those numbers coming out.
06-13-2008, 06:45 AM
Slay0r

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

1- G92b is made to 9800GT
2- G92b is equal to G92. There aren´t any arquitectural changes. The arquitectural changes are caled GT200.
3- 9800GT will carry G92b. It will have versions with G92 and other with G92b, so clocks will be the same. Nvidia are playing very carreful with 55nm.
4- Even with G92b there are no miracles when you only can increase Core clocks. You get 5-10% performance jump Max.

5 and Last- By performance figures known HD 4850 is heading agains 9800GTX and not 8800GT. Your called fact can only come from one Nv fanboy arround here. You can say that HD 4850 come to prices of 8800GT but with performance of 9800GTX. That´s the speculation.

Fixed
06-13-2008, 06:52 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slay0r

Fixed

That´s absolutely right :up:
06-13-2008, 07:00 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

1- G92b is made to 9800GT
2- G92b is equal to G92. There aren´t any arquitectural changes. The arquitectural changes are caled GT200.
3- 9800GT will carry G92b. It will have versions with G92 and other with G92b, so clocks will be the same. Nvidia are playing very carreful with 55nm.
4- Even with G92b there are no miracles when you only can increase Core clocks. You get 5-10% performance jump Max.

5 and Last- By performance figures known HD 4850 is heading agains 9800GTX and not 8800GT. Your called fact can only come from one Nv fanboy arround here. You can say that HD 4850 come to prices of 8800GT but with performance of 9800GTX. That´s the fact that we have seen by all those numbers coming out.

1 - Or is it to 9900GT? :rolleyes:
2 - Architectural and not arquitechtural. It's an English forum, not a Portuguese-english one (I already told you that)...
3 - A credible link to that would be worth considering, and that rumors come from April, IIRC.
4 - That is something you just don't know, you are guessing, as always :rolleyes:
5 and Last - By performance figures known, HD4850 is giving as much performance as an 8800GT, 4GHZ 12MB cache Quad-Core does the 15k magic number. I will search the ORB to show you that ;)

Stay tuned.
06-13-2008, 07:22 AM
Macadamia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

1 - Or is it to 9900GT? :rolleyes:
2 - Architectural and not arquitechtural. It's an English forum, not a Portuguese-english one (I already told you that)...
3 - A credible link to that would be worth considering, and that rumors come from April, IIRC.
4 - That is something you just don't know, you are guessing, as always :rolleyes:
5 and Last - By performance figures known, HD4850 is giving as much performance as an 8800GT, 4GHZ 12MB cache Quad-Core does the 15k magic number. I will search the ORB to show you that ;)

Stay tuned.

See? I predicted that you'd be laughable still.
06-13-2008, 07:28 AM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Yup :)

:)

Nope. :)

That is with Cat 8.5, which has been out for a while now :p: Beta of 8.6 actually lowers performance.

And keep in mind, there are only so many driver optimizations and improvements they can make. The card is after all using the same architecture as the 2900, and the optimizations being made that work for the 2900 are very close to the same as for the HD4000 series, and they have likely long since exhausted most of the optimizations.
06-13-2008, 07:29 AM
informal

Luka ,CPU score in 3dmark06 plays much smaller role(than the SM scores) in overall score.Just download 3dmark06 calculator and you'll see it for yourself :).
The same PowerColor 4850 card with those OCbench clocks would score ~14400 with Yorkfield QC @3Ghz(CPU score is between 4200-4400 for this CPU@that clock in SP1 XP).
4870 will score around ~16000 with QC@3Ghz, if 25-30% faster than 4850 holds water(i calculated with 20% faster!).
If Charlie is correct here ,GTX280 will get around 15750.
But then again,these are 3Dmarks,we need real games to compare :).
06-13-2008, 07:31 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macadamia

See? I predicted that you'd be laughable still.

Nice to know someone ignorant has a laugh over truth. :ROTF:

Too bad ORB cannot filter correctly Single vs Multi GPU, guess I'll have to ask a friend to bring a Q6600 (less 4mb cache over qx9650) to my place and bench it at 4ghz with stock 8800GT to show you HD4850+Qx9650@4ghz=15k is equivalent 9800GTX's score is yes laughable.

The difference is I know what I am talking about, you are clueless.

regards :)

Edit: My opinion is just the same as this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003

Nope. :)

That is with Cat 8.5, which has been out for a while now :p: Beta of 8.6 actually lowers performance.

And keep in mind, there are only so many driver optimizations and improvements they can make. The card is after all using the same architecture as the 2900, and the optimizations being made that work for the 2900 are very close to the same as for the HD4000 series, and they have likely long since exhausted most of the optimizations.

I really think HD4850 should be superior to an 8800GT, but with those scores IT IS NOT, actually. I hope they bring performance improvements with new drivers (not very likely but possible), I just can't hear people say it's better than an 8800GT nowadays when it is not.
06-13-2008, 07:38 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

Nice to know someone ignorant has a laugh over truth. :ROTF:

Too bad ORB cannot filter correctly Single vs Multi GPU, guess I'll have to ask a friend to bring a Q6600 (less 4mb cache over qx9650) to my place and bench it at 4ghz with stock 8800GT to show you HD4850+Qx9650@4ghz=15k is equivalent 9800GTX's score is yes laughable.

The difference is I know what I am talking about, you are clueless.

regards :)

The 9800GT is coming...and it will be priced around the HD 4850:

http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5193

http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5191

It has the exact same specs as the 8800GT and should have similar clocks too, though I don't know to what extend higher clocks will help against the new mainstream monster :)

The performance will only be decided when actual reviews are out. The ATI cards beating faster Nvidia cards is no surprise in benchmarks...it's happened before and seeing as the 9800GTX was far from being faster than the 8800GTX, I wouldn't be surprised if the 4850 comes close to it. The 9800GTX's real competitor will be the HD 4870, at least until the 9900GTX (G92b) comes out.

EDIT: Even if you cut ATI's own predictions for the 4850 by half, you still get a monster of a card for $229: http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5227 especially with what it can do in benchmarks :)

Perkam
06-13-2008, 07:56 AM
Extelleron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

1 - Or is it to 9900GT? :rolleyes:
2 - Architectural and not arquitechtural. It's an English forum, not a Portuguese-english one (I already told you that)...
3 - A credible link to that would be worth considering, and that rumors come from April, IIRC.
4 - That is something you just don't know, you are guessing, as always :rolleyes:
5 and Last - By performance figures known, HD4850 is giving as much performance as an 8800GT, 4GHZ 12MB cache Quad-Core does the 15k magic number. I will search the ORB to show you that ;)

Stay tuned.

And 3D Mark 06 proves what? Exactly nothing. I can't believe people are still looking at 3D Mark 06 scores and judging performance based on them. It's pure ignorance.

AMD's slides show that the HD 4850 is 30-50% faster than the 8800GT, and I believe that will prove true on launch day.

G92b is nothing but a 55nm shrink of G92, and 55nm provides no increase in transistor performance over 65nm. The only thing G92b will bring is lower power consumption and cheaper manufacturing costs. It will not help fight against RV770 performance wise.

The HD 4850 is ready for pre order @ $199, so I would not be surprised if you will be able to get it cheaper than that very soon. I would expect HD 4850 to be competitive with the 8800GT/9800GT in pricing before long, and there will be no competition in performance between the two. nVidia could lower 9800GTX to $199, but then they will make zero profit.
06-13-2008, 07:59 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

And 3D Mark 06 proves what? Exactly nothing. I can't believe people are still looking at 3D Mark 06 scores and judging performance based on them. It's pure ignorance.

AMD's slides show that the HD 4850 is 30-50% faster than the 8800GT, and I believe that will prove true on launch day.

G92b is nothing but a 55nm shrink of G92, and 55nm provides no increase in transistor performance over 65nm. The only thing G92b will bring is lower power consumption and cheaper manufacturing costs. It will not help fight against RV770 performance wise.

I would never take a tone that pessismistic against an Nvidia fan, because there are rumours out there that the 4870 might end up being $349 due to GDDR5 cost.

In addiiton, the slides show 20-40% and you need to half those to get the unbiased marks, so 10-20% at max.

The GTX 260 is cause for worry for ATI, as well as a reasonably priced 9900GTX in July.

ATI, by no means, has it easy, but neither does Nvidia. I just go around and dispell the myths until the reviews come out :rofl:

Perkam
06-13-2008, 08:12 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

1 - Or is it to 9900GT? :rolleyes:

Nvidia First 55nm Desktop Graphics; GeForce 9800 GT
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nvid...0_GT/5714.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

4 - That is something you just don't know, you are guessing, as always :rolleyes:

it prety obvious :yepp:
G92b can only increase core/shader clock. There are no arquitectural changes. Overclock one G92 and you get G92b in performance numbers.
Actualy by this, the clocks look similar to a standart 8800GT:
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5193

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

5 and Last - By performance figures known, HD4850 is giving as much performance as an 8800GT, 4GHZ 12MB cache Quad-Core does the 15k magic number. I will search the ORB to show you that ;)

3dmark 2006 gives you that, but vantage in Xtreme setings gives X2800 (tested by a user in this forum). Xtreme setings are high resolution with AA and AF. 3dmark 2006 give 1280 res, no AA, no AF.
In 3dmark 2006 GTX280 gives 17K = far from reality. Vey far. GTX280 is much faster then that
Games:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790

As stated earlier we are working on speculation, but till now any speculation gives HD 4850 = 8800GT. Only 3dmark 2006, but the same 3dmark 2006 give you GTX280 scoring very low numbers, when everyone know thats far from reality.

If we move to 3dmark Vantage Xtreme it gives HD 4850 far from 8800GT and gives GTX280 far from any other cards. Pretty obvious that vantage Xtreme setings is being more acurate then 3dmark 2006 and GTX280 proves that.
06-13-2008, 08:14 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

I would never take a tone that pessismistic against an Nvidia fan, because there are rumours out there that the 4870 might end up being $349 due to GDDR5 cost.

If that was intended to me, I will be so pleased when I'll show you all that Quad@4Ghz plus 8800GT@stock surpasses 15k (as as I manage to be able to run 3dmark2006 on Vista, OpenAl problems FTL).

Calling me fanboy just because I want to show you are not correct about HD4850 numbers is sad. It really is.
06-13-2008, 08:19 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

If that was intended to me, I will be so pleased when I'll show you all that Quad@4Ghz plus 8800GT@stock surpasses 15k (as as I manage to be able to run 3dmark2006 on Vista, OpenAl problems FTL).

Calling me fanboy just because I want to show you are not correct about HD4850 numbers is sad. It really is.

lol You're not a fanboy...yet :)

There are millions of Nvidia fans. I am an AMD/ATI fan, have been for a long time (or at least for as long as they have been the underdogs). You become a fanboy when you disregard the achievements of the other side completely, and begin to make statements over and over again, out of the context of the thread, and without proof.

And no it wasn't intended to you :) I'm sure an 8800GT does very well, and will give run the 4850 a run for its money, but the 4850 is no slouch and will be very worth the price, especially for all those benchers out there.

Perkam
06-13-2008, 08:30 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro

If that was intended to me, I will be so pleased when I'll show you all that Quad@4Ghz plus 8800GT@stock surpasses 15k (as as I manage to be able to run 3dmark2006 on Vista, OpenAl problems FTL).

Show us 8800GT scoring X2800 in 3dmark Vantagem extreme setings ;)

Quote:

but that being said it scored X2808 (very pretty slideshow) with 4ghz Quad and card at stock clocks and default image quality.(balanced) no tweaks whatsoever to vista, set just like my daily use.GPU score BTW was 15676

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...postcount=2396

Or:
http://publish.it168.com/diy/showBig...id=1039056.jpg
http://publish.it168.com/2008/0610/20080610041604.shtml
06-13-2008, 08:35 AM
Shintai

I prefer gaming numbers over vantage or 3dmark. The 2 just gets boring too fast compared to a game :p:
06-13-2008, 08:38 AM
Extelleron

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

I would never take a tone that pessismistic against an Nvidia fan, because there are rumours out there that the 4870 might end up being $349 due to GDDR5 cost.

In addiiton, the slides show 20-40% and you need to half those to get the unbiased marks, so 10-20% at max.

The GTX 260 is cause for worry for ATI, as well as a reasonably priced 9900GTX in July.

ATI, by no means, has it easy, but neither does Nvidia. I just go around and dispell the myths until the reviews come out :rofl:

Perkam

I never said anybody had it easy. But I'm not so sure the HD 4870 and GTX 260 are going to be priced anywhere close, no matter what the performance is.

Obviously the GT200 GPU costs $100-120 supposedly, which already means prices must be high just to break even. And the GTX 260 has 896MB of memory - it may be GDDR3, but that's still a lot of memory and it is fairly fast GDDR3 (2GHz). I would think that it is likely 512MB of slow GDDR5, as found on the 4870, wouldn't be more expensive than 896MB of fairly fast GDDR3, as found on the 260. So I wouldn't cite memory costs being something AMD has to worry about, at least versus the GTX 260.

IMO, if GTX 260 is anywhere close to the HD 4870 in price, then AMD has really won the battle. nVidia simply isn't going to win with a card selling for $400 or less that is based on the largest GPU in history, has a huge/complex PCB, 896MB of memory, and a huge cooler.

AMD should worry more about G92b than GTX 260 IMO, but I don't think they need to worry about 9900GTX capturing the performance crown in that market from the 4870. ATI has to worry most IMO about competition to the much weaker 4850 model, which may be pushed down to $150 if nVidia prices G92b competitively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luka_Aveiro
If that was intended to me, I will be so pleased when I'll show you all that Quad@4Ghz plus 8800GT@stock surpasses 15k (as as I manage to be able to run 3dmark2006 on Vista, OpenAl problems FTL).

And that means what exactly? I've said 3D Mark 06 is useless, I couldn't care less if the HD 4850 got 0 in 3D Mark 06. Vantage + games matter, and in Vantage, HD 4850 is outscoring 9800GTX by a margin.
06-13-2008, 08:42 AM
v_rr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

I prefer gaming numbers over vantage or 3dmark. The 2 just gets boring too fast compared to a game :p:

What we have so far, games related:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,7854.html
06-13-2008, 08:44 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Nvidia First 55nm Desktop Graphics; GeForce 9800 GT
http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Nvid...0_GT/5714.html

it prety obvious :yepp:
G92b can only increase core/shader clock. There are no arquitectural changes. Overclock one G92 and you get G92b in performance numbers.
Actualy by this, the clocks look similar to a standart 8800GT:
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5193

3dmark 2006 gives you that, but vantage in Xtreme setings gives X2800 (tested by a user in this forum). Xtreme setings are high resolution with AA and AF. 3dmark 2006 give 1280 res, no AA, no AF.
In 3dmark 2006 GTX280 gives 17K = far from reality. Vey far. GTX280 is much faster then that
Games:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790

As stated earlier we are working on speculation, but till now any speculation gives HD 4850 = 8800GT. Only 3dmark 2006, but the same 3dmark 2006 give you GTX280 scoring very low numbers, when everyone know thats far from reality.

If we move to 3dmark Vantage Xtreme it gives HD 4850 far from 8800GT and gives GTX280 far from any other cards. Pretty obvious that vantage Xtreme setings is being more acurate then 3dmark 2006 and GTX280 proves that.

At last you made a very very good point. I don't disagree with anything you said on this post. I specially agree with you about your Vantage interpretation, and is nice to know you agree with me about HD4850=8800GT @ 3dmark2006, at least for know. :p:
(and thanks for the clarification about 9800GT, although we still don't know their final clocks, and although I really think they should have made architectural improvements with G92b in order to have a better product to fight the HD48xx and at the same time give a bit more performance @ low prices, kind of going with ATIs philosophy)

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

lol You're not a fanboy...yet :)

There are millions of Nvidia fans. I am an AMD/ATI fan, have been for a long time (or at least for as long as they have been the underdogs). You become a fanboy when you disregard the achievements of the other side completely, and begin to make statements over and over again, out of the context of the thread, and without proof.

And no it wasn't intended to you :) I'm sure an 8800GT does very well, and will give run the 4850 a run for its money, but the 4850 is no slouch and will be very worth the price, especially for all those benchers out there.

Perkam

Well, as long as ATI is the underdog and as long as I see statements defending them that are far from reality, (this 4ghz qx9650@2006 sure did that :p:) I'll keep trying to make things clear, so it might seem sometimes that I am nV biased, but I think I am not. I would really love to see a nice HD4850 performing nicely in games, but that doesn't make me stay away from reality and say it currently compares to 9800GTX @ 2006, which is clearly false, at least for now :)
Vantage seems to bring the fields a bit more interesting, so let's just see more results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

Show us 8800GT scoring X2800 in 3dmark Vantagem extreme setings ;)

I would love to, but I don't have a 1900x1200 display, don't know if I'll be able to do that :(

regards :)
06-13-2008, 08:57 AM
Unbornchild

Quote:

Originally Posted by v_rr

What we have so far, games related:
http://diybbs.pconline.com.cn/topic.jsp?tid=8725790

Hmm, odd graph... says 3870X2 scores 24.26 but the bar is shorter than 22.99. :rolleyes:

http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/oddgraph.jpg
06-13-2008, 09:34 AM
Xello

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

IMO, if GTX 260 is anywhere close to the HD 4870 in price, then AMD has really won the battle. nVidia simply isn't going to win with a card selling for $400 or less that is based on the largest GPU in history, has a huge/complex PCB, 896MB of memory, and a huge cooler.

I don't quite understand this, what do you mean by 'win' ?

If you mean 'win the price/performance battle', then this doesn't make sense, and if you meant 'win more money from customers' then who cares [if they don't] ?
06-13-2008, 09:37 AM
Extelleron

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xello

I don't quite understand this, what do you mean by 'win' ?

If you mean 'win the price/performance battle', then this doesn't make sense, and if you meant 'win more money from customers' then who cares [if they don't] ?

:confused:

The purpose of a business is to make money. So if one business makes more than the other, the one making more money is winning.

If GTX 260 has to go down to $350 or less in price to compete with the 4870, nVidia will be making a lot less money than AMD will be, even if they are pricing it at $249 or $279.

Price/Performance, that remains to be seen. I think HD 4870 will win that war because I don't think GTX 260 will drop below $399, at least not any time soon. And it definitely won't go below $350. With the 4870 AMD has more room to manuever; they can price at $249 and still make money.
06-13-2008, 09:43 AM
grimREEFER

i dont see the point of the 4870. most ppl will just pay a bit extra for the gtx 260, or save money and get the 4850 which is essentially just an underclocked 4870.
06-13-2008, 09:44 AM
bedlamite

Well 2x lower mems clock is quite a big underclocking ;)
06-13-2008, 09:48 AM
RaZz!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unbornchild

Hmm, odd graph... says 3870X2 scores 24.26 but the bar is shorter than 22.99. :rolleyes:

http://www.blindnero.com/pictures/oddgraph.jpg

hum, the graph looks ok to me, provided that the numbers are right. the length of the graph is min+avg+max fps.

3870x2: 3,45 + 13,98 + 24,26 = 41,69
3870: 7,61 + 15,83 + 22,99 = 46,34

so 3870>3870x2 according to these numbers, exactly what the graphs show.
06-13-2008, 10:33 AM
kemist

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i dont see the point of the 4870. most ppl will just pay a bit extra for the gtx 260, or save money and get the 4850 which is essentially just an underclocked 4870.

4850 is likely bottlenecked by bandwidth in quite a few scenarios
06-13-2008, 10:39 AM
Luka_Aveiro

Quote:

Originally Posted by kemist

4850 is likely bottlenecked by bandwidth in quite a few scenarios

And also limited by it's default clocks...
06-13-2008, 11:02 AM
generics_user

Quote:

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i dont see the point of the 4870. most ppl will just pay a bit extra for the gtx 260, or save money and get the 4850 which is essentially just an underclocked 4870.

4870 has 2 times the memory bandwith and 125 mhz higher core + GDDR5, i don'T see how the 4850 is just an underclocked 4870, no way you can clock the 50s as high as the 70s :shrug:
06-13-2008, 11:13 AM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by generics_user

4870 has 2 times the memory bandwith and 125 mhz higher core + GDDR5, i don'T see how the 4850 is just an underclocked 4870, no way you can clock the 50s as high as the 70s :shrug:

Unless the 4850 is simply a 4870 with lower BIN GDDR3 memory, and a lowered clock speed, with a smaller cooler.
06-13-2008, 11:40 AM
Xello

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

If GTX 260 has to go down to $350 or less in price to compete with the 4870, nVidia will be making a lot less money than AMD will be, even if they are pricing it at $249 or $279.

Yeah, at the end of the day though in an all-out price war considering the financial situations of both sides i think the mean green nv team have that one wrapped up.

Personally i just want my card, at lowest price possible, i'll worry about the company's bank balance later :D
06-13-2008, 11:57 AM
artissco

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extelleron

nVidia simply isn't going to win with a card selling for $400 or less that is based on the largest GPU in history, has a huge/complex PCB, 896MB of memory, and a huge cooler.

Hmm, but how many gamers and other pc users buy stuff which one's with bigger numbers and size... Size is what matters in so many people eyes... Or price, if it's bigger then card is better...
06-13-2008, 12:34 PM
perkam

I wouldn't start comparing the 4850s to the 4870s just yet. :) Wait for actual launch and actual numbers. As Luke pointed out, the GDDR5 memory difference makes it far too difficult to make guesstimations :)

Perkam
06-13-2008, 02:26 PM
ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D
06-13-2008, 02:31 PM
Hornet331

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D

it was allready :p
06-13-2008, 02:34 PM
[XC] hipno650

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D

oh boy that made my day!! for $400 a 4850 crossfire might be fun to try out:D finally put all this microstuddering to the test form myself.
06-13-2008, 02:35 PM
ownage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hornet331

it was allready :p

Hmm, stupid search option is worthless :shakes:
06-13-2008, 02:58 PM
Dark-Energy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ownage

I believe this one is not posted yet.
http://www.madpixelz.net/nv/
:D

lmao:rofl::ROTF:
06-13-2008, 03:53 PM
Kingcarcas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

I prefer gaming numbers over vantage or 3dmark. The 2 just gets boring too fast compared to a game :p:

+ Folding PPD, who cares about that slideshow:up:
06-13-2008, 04:04 PM
adamsleath

there will be so many card options on the market...3000 series probly drop in price a bit plus g92b, plus new 4xxx and gtx's...:nuts:
:confused:
06-13-2008, 04:34 PM
biohead

http://www.hpm-computer.de/index.php...n-HD-4850.html
http://www.hpm-computer.de/index.php...n-HD-4870.html

Quote:

Launch 16./17./18. Juni 2008

?
06-13-2008, 08:11 PM
Jimmer411

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaZz!

hum, the graph looks ok to me, provided that the numbers are right. the length of the graph is min+avg+max fps.

3870x2: 3,45 + 13,98 + 24,26 = 41,69
3870: 7,61 + 15,83 + 22,99 = 46,34

so 3870>3870x2 according to these numbers, exactly what the graphs show.

I think pointing out the difference in size between the 13 and 15fps graphs to the difference in size of the 22 and 24fps graphs shows a better example of what was meant IMO. Not all graphs are to the same scale, they seem to be scaled against each other (min fps is a good example) rather than all on the same unit of scale
06-14-2008, 10:33 AM
perkam

Ok who wants one :D :D :D

http://search.ebay.ca/search/search....atitle=hd+4850

EDIT: One gone, 3 left :D

Perkam
06-14-2008, 11:24 AM
Papu

:o 163 euros delivered!!!!!!
06-14-2008, 11:45 AM
y2kbos

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Ok who wants one :D :D :D

http://search.ebay.ca/search/search....atitle=hd+4850

EDIT: One gone, 3 left :D

Perkam

Going to wait another week or two before parting with my hard earned, others should the same.

So far the HD4850 looks good, but a little over-rated

9600gt can be had for €90, 8800gt €110, HD3870 €110 and 8800gts €150

It doesnt look quite so appealing now, at €165

http://www2.hardwareversand.de/3/art...18814&agid=554
06-14-2008, 11:46 AM
AliG

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerekFSE

That cant be right can it? Or are they scamming people?

Probably is legit, samething happened with the r600 last year, the question is whether you'll actually recieve the card (this assumes the sender will ship the card), as I'm pretty sure ATI make sure to have it held up by UPS or whatever to prevent any one getting the card before the first reviews are done (by probably whatever sites favor ati)

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

Ok who wants one :D :D :D

http://search.ebay.ca/search/search....atitle=hd+4850

EDIT: One gone, 3 left :D

Perkam

I want to get ripped off and buy a product that won't be allowed to be shipped because of ATI:D
06-14-2008, 12:04 PM
bill_d

if he's selling it for 210 US or ebay and probably jacking it over the price, what is it going to be the price? 179 to 199
06-14-2008, 01:26 PM
GAR

its in walnut california, thats where all the pc warehouses are in so cal, its 30 miles from my house, maybe ill go pick some up cash hehe..........but i want the 4870!!!!
06-14-2008, 01:35 PM
Helmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by GAR

its in walnut california, thats where all the pc warehouses are in so cal, its 30 miles from my house, maybe ill go pick some up cash hehe..........but i want the 4870!!!!

Patience is a virtue and I hope you got plenty of it (patience) as you will need it if you are waiting for a 4870.
06-14-2008, 01:44 PM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kbos

Going to wait another week or two before parting with my hard earned, others should the same.

So far the HD4850 looks good, but a little over-rated

9600gt can be had for €90, 8800gt €110, HD3870 €110 and 8800gts €150

It doesnt look quite so appealing now, at €165

http://www2.hardwareversand.de/3/art...18814&agid=554

You can find good deals for hardware everywhere :)

http://www2.hardwareversand.de/3/art...19175&agid=717

But the 4850 should end up faster in a number of applications, so really you're paying for the next generation of cards, hence the premium.

Perkam
06-14-2008, 01:46 PM
003

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helmore

Patience is a virtue and I hope you got plenty of it (patience) as you will need it if you are waiting for a 4870.

Not even speaking of the 4870X2 ... and god forbid, two of them! :shocked:
06-14-2008, 03:53 PM
biohead

most shops have listed the 4850 but not the 4870. no equal launch date?
06-14-2008, 03:59 PM
Helmore

Quote:

Originally Posted by biohead

most shops have listed the 4850 but not the 4870. no equal launch date?

That's correct, they will probably be announced at the same time but retail availability will not be at the same time for both of them. They are supposed to be launched at the 25th of June with availability of both, 4850 will be widely available in enough quantities, 4870 will probably be available in limited quantity as GDDR5 seems to be scarce. This is all rumours though, no one knows for sure (except AMD ofcourse and some people with some form of love/hate relation with AMD (read: NDA)).
06-14-2008, 05:35 PM
iTravis

I type HD 4870 after clicking on Perkam link and found this:
http://search.ebay.ca/search/search....trypage=search
WTH is that guy thinking? Guess I ain't hardcore enough to buy it :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
06-16-2008, 05:42 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shintai

What makes 4800 series different? Its all absed on R600 base designs. And 4800 series is nothing more than a glorified 3800 series that was nothing more than a slightly changed R600.

as usually you really don't have clue about what's inside RV770, but that doesn't stop you being smartas*

For all the people you're trying to FUD with AMD's "lying marketing" here is clear definition about what's "Streaming processor" and what's Shader Processor":

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/285/spsqx9.jpg

as can be seen five "Streaming Processors" constitute (with additional logic) one "Shader processor", and when AMD is talking about Streaming Processors he's thinking on go figure.... Straming Processors, just as do NVIDIA!
06-16-2008, 05:50 AM
Nedjo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eson

You can only count the r6xx SP to 64 when you are using 64-bit double-precision floating-points. Since there are no 64-bit ALUs, the r6xx have to emulate it and does so by using the whole 5 ALU cell. Then you get 1/5 of the performance and about 100GFLOPS. Thats why you have to seperate SP FLOPS and DP FLOPS.

R600 doesn't support Double Precision, and your math is wrong!
06-16-2008, 05:51 AM
Shintai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nedjo

as usually you really don't have clue about what's inside RV770, but that doesn't stop you being smartas*

For all the people you're trying to FUD with AMD's "lying marketing" here is clear definition about what's "Streaming processor" and what's Shader Processor":

http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/285/spsqx9.jpg

as can be seen five "Streaming Processors" constitute (with additional logic) one "Shader processor", and when AMD is talking about Streaming Processors he's thinking on go figure.... Straming Processors, just as do NVIDIA!

Now Mr. Shill..can you tell us if all the 5 units are able to do the same functions? Let me help you..its no. Also if you was to draw nVidias. How would it look? And how would you count nVidias? 256 SP for a 8800GTS/GTX?

http://www.beyond3d.com/images/revie...0-arch/ops.png

If your imaginary superpower GPU actually was as you said, then it wouldnt suck so much as it does against nVidia.

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

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:55 AM.

XtremeSystems