Printable View
Sampsa will probably do a better job at translating, but in the meantime here's an auto-googled english version:Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn.
http://translate.google.fr/translate...hl=fr&ie=UTF-8
many words remain in Finish, but better than nothing ;)
Yeah, DMC4 is pretty light comparatively. My 8800GTS 320 runs it with settings maxed, 1680x1050, and 4xAA 16xAF. Assassin's Creed was pretty light in that sense too, maxed except for AA, which was left at 2x. So personally, I don't feel that those are a good indication of the preformance. We need games that really TAX the graphics cards and give a good view of it's preformance. Not games that a gimped version of 2 year old hardware can max.Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
warboy
if you are not satisfied with the benches make your own or complain to reviewers directly - not here.
thank goodness! - thank u! :bows:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
Warboy's weird capitalization makes him sound like a holy book or something. But people don't worship him, unfortunately.
We used Fraps for trying to save information about intervals between frames and noticed that, for example, in Crysis the ATI Radeon HD 3870-X2 graphics card rendered every other frame after 21.5 ms, and then after 49,5 ms (so 21,5 -> 49,5 -> 21,5 -> 49,5 you get the idea). In the game microstuttering problem occured as irritating twitching. In Race Driver: GRID, the problem was more serious, and every other frame rendered between 24.9 - 27 ms intervals, and second after 40.2 - 42.4 ms interval.
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 graphics card showed a much, much better performance in Crysis with frames rendering fairly steadily at around 21.6 - 22.1 ms intervals. In Race Driver: GRID situation was the same - frames rendered after 15.3 - 17.6 ms intervals. Corresponding results were measured for the two ATI Radeon HD 4870-graphics card in CrossFireX configurations, so it appears that AMD has apparently succeeded in removing the microstuttering problems that troubled Radeon HD 3800-series in HD 4800-series.
To compare, the Crysis and Race Driver: GRID were also tested with a NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GX2-graphics card, which was discovered to have more irregularities between frames rendering than the ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2. In Crysis the time between frames was 21.9 - 25.1 ms and in Race Driver: GRID 16.8 - 21.7 ms.
We didn't notice any microstuttering problems while using a single graphicscard. ATI Radeon HD 4870-graphics card and the GeForce 9800 GX2 with a single G92 GPU rendered frames without any substantial variation.
Translated with my mighty english skills. Original text:Here's the source: http://plaza.fi/muropaketti/artikkel...4870-x2-r700,1Quote:
Kokeilimme tallentaa Fraps-ohjelmalla ruutujen välisiä renderöintiaikoja ja huomasimme, että esimerkiksi Crysiksessä ATI Radeon HD 3870 X2 -näytönohjaimella joka toinen ruutu renderöityi 21,5 millisekunnin jälkeen ja joka toinen ruutu 49,5 millisekunnin jälkeen. Pelissä microstuttering-ongelma esiintyy ärsyttävänä nykimisenä. Race Driver: GRID -pelissä ongelma oli vakavampi ja joka toinen ruutu renderöityi 24,9 - 27 millisekunnin välein ja joka toinen 40,2 - 42,4 millisekunnin välein.
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 -näytönohjaimella mittaustulokset näyttivät huomattavasti paremmilta ja Crysiksessä jokainen ruutu renderöityi kohtalaisen tasaisesti noin 21,6 - 22,1 millisekunnin välein. Race Driver: GRID -pelissä tilanne oli sama ja ruudut renderöityivät 15,3 - 17,6 millisekunnin välein. Vastaavat tulokset mitattiin myös kahden ATI Radeon HD 4870 -näytönohjaimen CrossFireX-konfiguraatiolla, joten AMD on ilmeisesti onnistunut pääsemään Radeon HD 3800 -sarjaa tietyissä peleissä vaivanneesta microstuttering-ongelmasta eroon ATI Radeon HD 4800 -sarjan näytönohjaimilla.
Vertailun vuoksi kokeilimme Crysistä ja Race Driver: GRID -peliä myös NVIDIAn kahdella G92-grafiikkapiirillä varustetulla GeForce 9800 GX2 -näytönohjaimella, jolla mitattiin selvästi enemmän heittelyä ruutujen välisissä renderöintiajoissa kuin ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 -näytönohjaimella. Crysiksessä ruutujen välinen renderöintiaika heitteli 21,9 - 25,1 millisekunnin ja Race Driver: GRID -pelissä 16,8 - 21,7 millisekunnin välillä.
Yhdellä grafiikkapiirillä microstuttering-ongelmaa ei havaittu. ATI Radeon HD 4870 -näytönohjaimella ja GeForce 9800 GX2 yhdellä G92-grafiikkapiirillä renderöivät ruudut tasaisin väliajoin ilman huomattavaa variaatiota.
So 4870X2 = 4870 CF. No magic :p:
Amazing they can keep the card cooled tho.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/r...3626/17191.png
90W more than the 236W TDP 280GTX...And comsumption at that speed is as expected like 4870 CF. I´m just amazed they can cool it.
My Original post was fine, not my fault people wanted to call me out. I tried to give ATi credit on doing something that even the performance even tho it's a 2:1 ratio.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
I capitalize on points I want to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Fixed:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
By the looks of it, what you would have to spend on your electricity bill...you could save on your heating bill :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
LOL....but central heating cost only a fraction :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnZS
Ouch..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
but looking at another angle, its still a bit less than CF 4870, and you really have to doubt Nvidia will release a dual GPU anytime this year and for a while longer given their 100+ watt above 4870X2 with their SLI 280GTX.
Ye, dont think nVidia can that. Maybe 260GTX2 tho after seeing AMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitriman
But I´m already proven wrong. I didnt expect AMD to be able to make that spaceheater in a 2slot cooler. Its just insane to me :p:
the GTX+ SLI does alright in power consumption given its 55nm, HOWEVER and this is a big one, the GTX+ has a great deal less transistors than the 2XX series so if NV tried a dual GTX260 @ 55nm, I still find it hard to believe they would be able to bring power consumption around 400W or lower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
:shocked:
I've just read all the July 14th Previews....
I guess we all knew this card would perform, but was anyone just in awe after actually seeing some of these numbers? Can you really imagine playing Oblivion in such high-res with so much AA?
I just can't, I keep saying it's meaningless, but somehow it's actually what we've all been wanting.
I'm just happy for all of us, by X-Mass time this year, mainstream cards will be $100 bucks. Deep visuals will be part of every game now that a coder will know how to optimize their engine.
.
No need to state the obvious :welcome:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Until next round :up:
I wonder how far nVidia and ATi will push the next generation. I am cheering for both companies! :yepp:
Ugh these reviews are conflicting...
Anyone notice on some 9800gtx+ sli beats gtx280 sli...how???
Some seem to say 4870x2 is better then 4870 crossfire while others say it's somehow slower.
Also some show it going strong and faster then all other cards then the rest seem to show it going slower then single cards or lower end cards....
Meh guess for real conclusive reviews were gonna have to wait awhile.
Different drivers used...every review is the same. At least we know AMD isn't specifying what drivers they use for thier review.
Thanks m8, i guess graphs speak for themselves. From what i understand R700 should perform faster than 280 as long as their is software support. With ATi putting this as their flagship card i will assume that they will put loads of effort into making CF work on as many games as they can. It is interesting to see that through excess shaders R700 can push up the AA on some games without loosing significant FPS, something that will probably show how R700 will perform in future games. That point i think is important, future games, none in their right mind will want to spend that much money on a card that is only able to play last years games. Seeing as R700 is DX10.1 and comes with Tesseletion on top of free AA in some games i cant see why anyone would say that 280 is the better performer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos4
I would also like to remind people that Nvidia went Multi-Gpu path first so don't blame ATi for beating them in their own game. Also everyone was giving ATi stick for only supporting DX9.0b in previous generations while Nvidia's DX9.0c support was praised. I think that some people should stop undermining a welcomed progress in graphics market and be happy that the card they wanted to buy originally now costs around $200 less thanks ATi's strong competition. For all Nvidia enthusiasts this should be good thing as you most of you could be reaching the point where you can now afford an SLi set up.
So you see, everyone wins. So stop bashing each other like someone has lost something valuable.
Also, some are previewing the 2 x 512MB version, others the 2 x 1 GB version.
Good, trustworthy work mate. Thank you. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
Just wait until 450mm wafers become a mass production. Finally then, G200 would cost down to the present RV770 levels. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akabeth
AT fixed their review; it's a 2x1024 MB card also, not 2x512 MB.
I fail to see the humor in your point...! Because that would also mean that the RV770 would be on $100 cards..!Quote:
Originally Posted by fellix_bg
.
Can we expect a 4850X2 toe-on-toe with 2 4870? :)
Is it just me or does the 2x1GB 4870X2 compared to 512MB on 4870CF seem to make no or only a very small difference, even at very high resolutions + AA.
I'll here mention that 9800PRO 256MB cards didn't use 256MB for about 2/3 of thier lifespan...driver must know to use it, and based on most reviewers thinking cards are 2x512MB, the driver thinks the same as well.
Nope, not a big fan of coverage sampling anti aliasing, it seems kinda 'fake' in my eyes, 16xCSAA does look better than 4xMSAA, but 8xMSAA is truly amazing, especially if you're limited to 1680*1050 rez on 22" LCD or 1280*1024 rez on 19" LCD. But i don't like wide blur and narrow blur method from ATi either, though edge detect + box AA is truly fantastic in my eyes.Quote:
Do you guys agree about 16x CSAA > 8x MSAA?
:ROTF: LOL, denial is quite futile my friend, just accept it and come out of your green closet, we understand. :) You're firmly in the green corner and loves their cards, fine, we got it, everyone is entitled to their own fetish, i personally respect your choice. :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
But please, don't thread crap everything related to ATi in this subforum, it's getting tiresome for MANY of us (just count how many peeps that has called you out just in this thread). :cool: Enjoy your highend, enthusiast card, it's indeed one heck of a fast -and expensive, bad price vs performance at launch- card. :up:
edit: Mr. Mod, please join both of my posts altogether, my bad. :o
it blows away a single GTX 280 and sometimes SLI, so it would be worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
where in that quote did I say GTX 280??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I was responding to your negativity about the R700.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
I wasn't being negative. I was stating what I said before. That it would perform less then 4870 in CF. and In the same post, I said it looks like they improved on their methods of a dual-GPU solution because it does better then the 3870 CF vs 3870x2 method.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
So I still don't you see your point. Nobody looks at the good points in my post, just the bad ones....
guess why :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
Funny thing is, they're using 4870X2 to battle GTX 280. :P
Gotta love this too:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/r...3626/17191.png
For a Mod, Isn't that a bit off-topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooper
But it doesn't perform less unless you selectively exclude the times where it performs equal or better. If you factor in the range of different games and drivers used along with the difference in memory size, sometimes it performs better and sometimes worse - but on average it seems to perform, *gasp*, about the same as CF 4870s. And that meshes with reality since it seems to simply be crossfire on a card with a high bandwidth interconnect.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
FIX THE LINKSQuote:
Originally Posted by JohnJohn
*GASP* You need to look better. Even safan80 posted a graph thats a benchmark. the 4870x2 performed worse then it's 4870 CF Counterpart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Here is the image.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...1&d=1216057406
What exactly is the point you are trying to make?Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
Perkam
That is one game at one site. It just happens to be the game we both play most of the time so we focus on the performance there.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
Look at a few others:
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviewim...hs/cod2560.jpg
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviewim...hs/wic2560.jpg
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviewim...hs/hl22560.jpg
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/r...3626/17190.png
And those were the ones I could cherrypick in 2 minutes on a crappy tablet pc, you will have to wait a few more hours if you want me to write a little novel about it.
Face it, you are wrong in this. It is roughly equal to 4870 CF, sometimes less, sometimes more, but usually about the same.
here's one with the R700 on top.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
And?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anxioz
Perkam
I'm not wrong, I'm not the one changing my opinion.And You only had one other picture from one other source. It looks like your just cherry picking the results to wrap around your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
Only one? and Don't say there is more, I mainly checked all the results, Typically the 4870x2 is 3-10 FPS lower then a 4870 in CF.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
I'm with Warboy in this..Some of his points about the min and the avg fps are correct and quite rational..
The most remarkable achievement by DAAMIT is single 4870 undoubtedly.. Helluva card for the bucks and single card..The card that made Nvidia drop prices drastically.. I'm still amazed as to how it can catch up to GTX280 levels..
Now about the 4870x2 part or Nvidia's x2 solutions..
No matter what most ppl say, some of us actually hate the SLI/Xfire solutions and the sandwich cards..
I paid 500+ euros for the GTX and I don't regret my choice because I knew more or less what I was getting and what would be the benefits/costs of this choice. If Nvidia releases the 55nm counterpart withing a certain timeframe I'll step up to it IF it will be a single chip. If not I'm gonna stay with this one..
And I can't bare hearing about depreciation costs(and babycries) in the bleeding edge. High end and price/perf are irrelevant terms as all of us know..
I wanted the best possible single card out there (not a single sandwich) and the fact remains that Nvidia holds this title and will probably hold it for some more time till the new generation where ATI seems to have an ace up their sleeve.
Well no duh. I just did what you are doing in reverse.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Corvus
I read all the reviews here so far, and I concluded that they are about equal. As drivers mature for the X2 I'm sure that will only solidify my conclusion. With equal core and memory speeds and more memory why on earth would you expect the X2 to be slower, besides driver issues?Quote:
Only one? and Don't say there is more, I mainly checked all the results, Typically the 4870x2 is 3-10 FPS lower then a 4870 in CF.
It bothers me that only a few sites feature min fps, but going by the previews, CF and X2 are neck and neck MOST of the time, as it should be. A 1-3 fps delta is insignificant. In a couple of games, the delta grows...noticeably Assassins Creed has a ~15 fps delta (Muropaketti preview) in favor of CF in the max fps (although the avg and min are actually better for the X2, at which point I'd probably give the X2 the advantage for offering a more consistent performance). Bioshock, HL2, and ET:QW are the other noticeable games (and by noticeable, I mean noticeable on a bar chart, not in game).Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbitech
Then again, there is the fact that these are engineering samples with potentially crappy drivers and that the X2 will cost ~$100 less than CF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heretic
You're quite right with your observations in general m8.. Then again I'd expect it to be significantly more "effective" in these areas not at best equal to the XFIRE.. Could be the drivers or the 512mb versions (highly doubt that but we'll see) or something else..
Anyway as I said they are a viable solution for me so I don't care that much..
I'm going to play devils advocate here and almost back track from my previous post, perhaps even kick up some dust and annoy that cat in Cooper's Avatar
BUT
As much as this might sound bad...but we should take these benchmarks with a Pinch of Salt.
1) The Card is not due out until August the 13th...and COULD be delayed. This gives the Drivers and the hardware itself more time to mature before it hits retail.
2) We have no idea the level of functionality the card is at, for example the fancy Crossfire Sideport might not yet be enabled at a Driver or Hardware/BIOS level and the card could still be in fall back/compatibility Crossfire Mode
3) Not enough games were tested.
4) Official HD4000 series are still not out yet so lets see if they bring anything new to the mix.
As controversial as this sounds, on the whole I am not impressed with the minimum or average FPS gains over the Crossfire HD4870 or GTX280, however the MAXIMUM FPS shows that there is some potential to this puppy.
Hopefully we will see more previews over the next few weeks with various hardware and driver revisions.
John
nvidia price dropQuote:
Originally Posted by Orbitech
That €500+ price tag is coming down HARD!:clap::clap::clap:
First post Tagasur.. Wow I'm honored for the first reply.. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by tagasur
Agreed.. It has never happened b4 in such a limited timeframe.. Competition.. :)
Then again till the next high end single chip my options are limited.. I could have just waited for a few more days and not buy from day 1.. But I'll never regret for the money that I spend.. ;)
I too am very excited for the added competition as it allows me to get another, maybe 2 more gtx 280s.
orbitech, you're my first time.. lol so gay. but anyway, you're purchase isn't that bad at all, at least you got in on the good stuff way ahead of most of us. as for me, if the gtx280 drops to around 300, im choosing it over the HD4870. although ati does have very good hardware, their drivers really haven't caught up yet. if i understand it correctly, games still do play better on nvidia cards.
That's your contribution to the ATI R700 Preview thread... :clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatom
lol :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Unbornchild
That's due to nvidia working closely with developers, not the drivers. It's frustrating to see people say 'ATI drivers are bad' based upon stigma and hearsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by tagasur
Only downside is power consumption, everything else is more than I could have imagined this time last year.
One card nearly 3 times faster in COD4 @ 2560 X 1600 than the mighty 8800gtx
..is the 4870X2 capable of 3xfire? 3 cards at 400w/card=1.5kW?
i need a new psu, i still have a 425w enermax. cant even hope to run just 1 card on this. lol!
re: cegras/ thank you for clarifying my perception about ati drivers.
Honestly how did u come up with that? :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by tagasur
And plz enable the sarcasm detector.. ;)
Actually I don't care what others think of my purchasing choices but if I had to "judge" my investment this particular time I'd say it was completely mistimed.Quote:
but anyway, you're purchase isn't that bad at all, at least you got in on the good stuff way ahead of most of us. as for me, if the gtx280 drops to around 300, im choosing it over the HD4870. although ati does have very good hardware, their drivers really haven't caught up yet. if i understand it correctly, games still do play better on nvidia cards.
And I don't see why someone shouldn't take a 4870 instead of a GTX280 unless he was looking for particular benefits that he can find on GTX280 (mem bandwidth, framebuffer/bit bus, raw power etc).. :up:
That's it 4 me.. Back to the topic too much OT BS..
I've seen the 4870 in action it's a very good card and the opengl drivers are faster and their drivers support soft particles.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviewim...hs/cod1920.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
http://www.driverheaven.net/reviewim...hs/hl21920.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
:shrug:
ATI Radeon HD 4870 X2 Graphics Card Preview
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/745/1/
OMG. So what they had 2 of the games I listed. I listed those and I already knew about that article. Now your just being silly and spamming. I stated those in a random order, because that's I put them together, Because out of mainly all benchmarks had none of those games in them. Learn to read will ya? before you make these types of posts. In the same post you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
Now your just wasting my time.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
It's interesting you could infer that in most benchmarks GTX 280's AVG FPS is higher. I couldnt, no matter how hard I try.
I m actually fairly comfortable with my ability to read and interpret data. That actually was the point of my post, since you have been all over this read as I have been reading through, backtracking and making statements that don't add up.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
You said the r700 may get higher max fps, but its average that counts, as well you said you would expect to see those other games in a review..i combined those two points to illustrate nicely that they have been covered, and that your bs about the gtx having higher average fps, was just that, bs.
I think for the most part, not reading through all the reviews posted properly, then posting and making claims without reading first would qualify as wasting people's times, as wouldn't those conjectures then be uninformed opinions. Mainly i just read through this thread, and noticed you stomping around shouting nvidia, so i thought it might be apt to point out some of the short comings of your post.
Back on topic... for the most part, the r700 nicely beats the gtx, even the FTL edition, in most benchmarks. And i for one am excited to see with powerplay enabled and third party cooling, what this card is really capable of. It will be a nice upgrade from my gx2 as nvidia dropped the ball this round. plain and simple.and if you want to argue, explain to me, that the 20% price drop in less than a month isn't compensation for lack of competitive performance..
Most of the games you complain are actualy in other reviews. Open that Up.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
I hope that I´m not making a surprise to you, but guess what?
R700 beat GTX280 by far margin in overall :cool:
Exactly, Warboy has no point. You guys even proved that both R700 and 4870 CF have a much higher minimum and average FPS than GTX280 in some of the games that he thought were most relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by annihilat0r
Warboy, please stop shaming Michigan... :shakes:
Why the hell do they bother benching 1280x1024? :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by end3rkid
Does the target market for a $500 video card still have 17" monitors?
Actually, you are wasting time for the rest of us. If Nvidia had even 10% of the confidence in the GTX 280 that you do Warboy, it wouldn't be $200 cheaper less than 2 weeks into launch.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
The 4870X2's AA performance is unmatched, especially with the free 8xaa feature available on many games. The only thing that need to be worked out are the drivers, which is understandable, seeing as the card is still a month away from launch, so relax and come back when official reviews are out.
The GTX 280 Extreme will be out by then at the same price range and the winner will be known.
Perkam
Format: R700:GTX280 or R700:280SLI:280 or R700:280HC:280, labeled at the first bench of the site.Quote:
DH:
cod4:
19x12, 25x16: r700 ~ 1.5gtx
WIC:
19x12, r700:gtx 103:64
25x16, 61:44
HL2:EP2:
19x12, 159:112
25x16, 110:69
crysis, vh:
! 12x76, 44:48
PCPer:
bioshock:
25x16, 81:60
cod4:
20x15, 115:84
crysis, h:
19x12, 40:32
3DMV, x:
6818:4765 (gpu scores)
Anand:
conan:
25x16, 44:37.2:22.7 (r700:280SLI:280)
crysis, high/vhigh..weird:
19x12, 39:51:34
oblivion:
25x16, 50:63:36
GRID:
25x16, 84:68:40
HARD(can't access site atm)
techreport:
hl2:ep2:
16x10: 134:118:107
19x12: 122:115:92
25x16: 84:107:65
et:qw:
16x10: 122:118:112
19x12: 119:117:103
25x16: 100:111:74
crysis, high then very high:
! 19x12: 30:38:30
19x12: 24:27:20
GRID:
19x12: 111:91:67
extech:
3dmv:
H: 9744:7162
X: 6924:4873
crysis, 14x9, 14x9 4xaa, 19x12, 19x12 4xaa:
!! 46:52, 43:47, 44:40, 41:31
WIC, 16x10, +4aa16af, 19x12, +4aa16af:
! 46:51, 44:39, 46:41, 42:36
COHeros, 16x10, +4aa, 19x12, +4aa:
98:81, 95:70, 90:53, 86:46
Hexus:
3dmv:
default: 12899:10150
COH, 4xaa:
16x10: 179:173
19x12: 162:152
25x16: 119:101
et:qw, 4aa, 16af:
! 16x10: 96:99
19x12: 91:86
25x16: 68:57
crysis:
! 16x10: 28:36
19x12: 28:32
lPlanet:EC, 4aa16af:
16x10: 55:47
19x12: 45:38
muropaketti:
3d06:
def: 16093:14530
3dmv:
X: 6882:4829
P: 11046:8799
crysis, high:
16x12: 41:39
Ass.Creed, high, 4aa16af:
19x12: 53:49
WIC, 4aa16af,vhigh:
19x12: 47:41
GRID, 4aa 16af high:
19x12: 75:68
Legit:
COH:
! 12x10: 103:113:104 (r700:gtxHC:gtx)
19x12: 83:74:67
stalker:
12x10: 243:218:200
19x12: 216:163:148
crysis:
! 12x10H: 35:38:37
! 19x12M: 40:47:44
19x12VH: 27:24:21
3dmV:
12x10: 14017:11008:9854 (GPU score)
that's all of the sites, except for Hocp, cause I can't get to it.
extra info: I rounded down for everything (except for one of the 280 scores somewhere, i went up, cause it was rly close)
Do you see all of the exclamation points on the left? Those are when r700 loses to a single gtx280 (HC or not).
check this out:
R700 Losses vs total tests for that site:
1/7
0/4
0/4
1/9
3/14
2/11
0/7
3/8
grand total: 10/64.
R700 loses only 10 times of 64 tests to the GTX280
It is safe to say based on these results, 4870X2 > GTX280 :D
& there we have it folks! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by m0da
thanks for that! muchly appreciated! :bows:
Since no new games to miss with :D
i think better to wait a while to see the new card from nVidia G3xx
im sure it will turns the 4870X2 into parts :yepp::yepp:
I think Perkam nail it, there's no way nVidia would SIGNIFICANTLY lower their pricing policy over their GT200 cards if ATi counterparts are not highly competitive. It's basically comparable to HD 2900 XT launch, with opposite implication -ATi had to lower the new SKU MSRP since it rather sucked and not competitive back then.
Have you played around with your time machine ? I need some info regarding the stock & commodity market, my friend. :ROTF:Quote:
Since no new games to miss with
i think better to wait a while to see the new card from nVidia G3xx
im sure it will turns the 4870X2 into parts
Font Size pls :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by m0da
Looking forward to how these clocks and if AMD has enabled individual core clocks like the Phenom series.
Perkam
great card but too bad after you add another one sucks in most of the cases...
I've already explained this. For the most part, You haven't read a dang thing, I linked to mainly all the charts that show my point. 6-9 charts. I've been trying to give some credit to ATi but you Fanboys say it's not good enough. I said It's was good ATi was catching up to Nvidia, But it's still bad that ATi has to use 2 GPUs to compete to 1 Nvidia GPU. So Will you get over your ego.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
:shakes:
If You think so.:down:Quote:
Originally Posted by v_rr
Wrong. I proved my point in my 2nd post in this thread, You need to look. your shaming michigan..Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
I see a lot of free AA and minor FPS decrease during switching res. Like example.Quote:
Originally Posted by perkam
My 3dmark06 score is 18.8k at Default res. If I crank it up to 1920x1080, It only goes down to 16.5k. Look at my vantage scores. I got P14k, H9k. That's not bad at all. In Crysis and Devil May Cry 4 test I've ran, The GTX 280 didn't start showing a decrease in frame rate till after 8x, So 8xQ, 16x, 16xQ showed decreases. But that's still pretty damn good. If you want. Once I get my DDR3 memory back from RMA, I can use fraps to show my findings and Make pretty charts just like in any other review.
I still don't see why it's bad that they have to use two GPU's to nVidia's one, if they cost the same and perform at higher levels, who cares if they use 20 cores vs. one?
Yea, the R700 loses a few of the benchmarks, but it would be perhaps more accurate if a % of how much R700 is faster than the GT280 is specified (Too lazy to do it myself).
Because in most of those cases, CF or the X2 does not scale very well to a single 4870. Perhaps it's the early drivers. Hell, the cards won't be out until a few more weeks.
Would be nice to see the GT280 prices drop further by the time comes, or a new revision of the GT200. Because I'm still uncomfortable with the idea of multi-gpu. Hopefully sampsa will shed some more light on the microstuttering issue.
Here are the [H] numbers if m0da wants to add them:
[H]OCP (GTX OC):
Crysis 1.2.1 (DX10) Everything on VeryHigh, 1920x1200 0xAA 16xAF
Min 11:11
Max 30:26
Avg 20:18.5
CF/SLI
Min 10:13
Max 35:47
Avg 19.2:29.4
Crysis 1.2.1 (DX10) Everything on High, 1920x1200 8xAA 16xAF
CF/SLI
Min 12:10
Max 42:44
Avg 25.3:27.2
Conan, Highest in-game 1920x1200 8xAA 16xAF
Min 20:13
Max 94:61
Avg 50.7:38.6
Conan, Highest in-game 2560x1600 8xAA 16xAF
CF/SLI
Min 23:17
Max 78:56
Avg 48.8:37.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
so whats ur point?? R700>GTX280>4870
do u have a problem with that? if so, why?
so ur saying GTX280>4870X2? If so proof please - 'cause I distinctly remember seeing a post with big red letters saying something along the lines of the 4870X2 losing only 10 results to the GTX280Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
is this the GTX280 bench results thread? *checks title* nope - so lets keep ur results out & get some R700 results in!Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
ur 2nd post in this thread is pointless whinging & blatant trolling:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
why should they be inaccurate?? u dont like the results? the results are screwed simply cause the site aint english?Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
whats ur point? oh oh, I know - u didnt read enough: ATi/AMD said reviewers are only allowed 4 games. nothing we/anyone/u can do about that - except whinge like urself, but whinging is sooooo lameQuote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
again, completely out of anyones control.. i know what we can do! we can whinge like u! laaaaaameQuote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
yes, because reviewers really care about ur expectations /sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
btw, u mentioned Crysis?! lol most sites benchmarked Crysis
what a load of bs - just cause one card starts doing better than the other, doesnt mean its one-sided - going by that kind of dumb logic I declare all G92 results over the previous 6 months one-sided! why? cause it wins the results! duh! /sarcasmQuote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
majority of the list was tested
6 Tested (from his list): HL2:EP2, 3dMark06, 3dMark Vantage, Quake Wars, Crysis, Call Of Duty 4
4 Not tested: TF2, FEAR, NFS:Pro Street, UT3
lol.....
lol indeed! & lol @ FEAR being tested - wth?? thats like so 05/06(?)Quote:
Originally Posted by m0da
edit: & HL2?? puh-leeez, last time I checked Source engine isnt exactly the most demanding game to run!
bioshock was tested too (another one of his sugg.)
fear came out when i had my x1900 i think... a while ago lol
don't talk to walls
nice job this time reds :up:
LoL, yeah, i mean after his last post, there isn't much left to respond too, he is simply not looking at what the previews are showing numbers wise, and then creating rationalizations for his FTL edition in response. Buyers remorse and wounded pride are all i see.Quote:
Originally Posted by m0da
I
Firstly, please stop telling me, what i have, and haven't done.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
Secondly, i m not sure what you ve "explained" . You linked to all the charts that show your point, yet you accuse others of cherry picking results... a random cross-section, or total cross section of the scores would illustrate, the point, however your interpretation of the 280 > r700 would not hold up to that, which is why we are poking you my friend. Now in your reality tunnel, you may very well have the intent of giving ati some credit, unfortunately it comes across more as denial, than anything to everyone here in the thread... ATI has caught and passed Nvidia this time around in the race.
Your from michigan, so maybe this metaphor will make some sense. Saying its poor for ATI to use 2 gpu's instead of 1 is like saying its bad that porsche turbo charges a 6 cylinder to beat a vette.
Ati chose the most cost effective and performance yielding strategy this time around, nvidia gambled and lost. So its back to the drawing board, the next iteration of cards, tables could change just as easily.
As for ego. I have no attachment per se to either company, as you can see i have a gx2 which has served me well, but its upgrade time soon, and ATI has the numbers and pricepoints i like right now. If that changes, by the time i m ready to overhaul, so will I.
The ego here that seems to be affected is the one, who feels he has to defend his choice in fTL edition.. You couldnt have known the r700 would be this good, its ok, the 280 is still a solid card, its just not number 1 this time.:up:
I dont belive ATI ever spook about some whoop ass cans in regard to their products.
They just release them and got the best ever PR with the new red force line.
4870 in the mail btw ;)
Waiting for x2 to get in like september, the 4870 will keep me good until then.
:D
:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by flopper
Thanks for that. :)
I don't have to defend my choice or justify it. This isn't about that, I got what I preferred nothing more. Obviously you just want to make problems. Saying your not biased is funny with your FTL Edition comments. Your example is horrible too. Because GPUs have cores, aka cylinders. A more accuracy example would be comparing 2 Hydrogen cars to a Indy Car. If you understand that concept good, Then you might see my point. Other then that, It seems everyone has became unreasonable to basic understanding and realism.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
The post that worries me the most if tiro_uspsss's, Just because he completely missed the point.
I'll put this in fanboy terms since everyone lost their understanding.
GTX 280 wins in Single-GPU Solutions. Hands down.
HD 4870x2 wins in Single-Card Solution. But is not impressive by my book.
so it doesnt impress u - yay! thats all u had to say! now u've said it, now can u move on? or are u gonna keep repeating urself? if so, FYI its highly annoying - esp. when there are other posters wanting to discuss more important matters, aside from what impresses u :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
edit: btw - I didnt miss anything, as there was nothing there to begin with
edit2: with what u said ^ there, its nothing but cold hard truth - yes the GTX280 is the best 1xGPU solution.. & no u dont have to be impressed by the 4870X2.. but what u have tried to argue in this thread is which is better outright & that is where u achieved epic fail! :yepp: :fact: for 2 reasons: 4870X2 > GTX280 & its OfT
*next*
If you had said that in your first post after the previews, i think this thread would be 30 comments shorter ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
The FTL is just poking fun, i m not serious 100% nor will i ever hope to be, if you can't laugh at life, well...
I think what confuses people is that, it comes across when you drop your Vantage numbers that you care about maximum performance, without stipulation. But here it seems, you care about max performance, with 1 monolithic core... not sure i understand the point of that distinction, but your free to hold your opinion as to what matters the most. Just try and understand that most of here in this thread, and i m generalizing, but most of us, feel overall performance is what matters, and the form it comes in.. is more of a formality, unless of course it has drawbacks..so 2gpu 1gpu 10 gpu, as long as the frames are better, and the price is right, thats what ticks our clock.
I can't understand all this loyalism crap. Does Nvidia give anyone here money? Does ATI give anyone here money? No they don't, so who gives a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about brand loyalty, what's the point? Just buy the best performing card for the money your budget allows. And that's ATI at the moment.
your post is still useless even with that. I found you more interesting when you was working on the a modded PCI slot. So just go back to that...Quote:
Originally Posted by tiro_uspsss
Well, I think about it like this. I should really have my own FAQ at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by villa1n
Okay your happy as long as it performance better. You don't care if you have 4 GPUs on one card, even tho that's enough heat to bake a dinner.
How I look at it, Okay So if the GTX 280 is a success for a Single-GPU solution. Okay, Die shrink it. Then disable features, Then you have a GT 280. Give it 512mb of memory, and you got a great Mid-Range product. This is the way Nvidia always went too.
But ATi Not so much, Turning something like the X2 into a Mid-range product and keeping the performance would be very hard. The only successful attempt to do this ever from what I seen was ASUS 3850x3 basically. That was pretty good and it scored good in benchmarks, But not so well in games.
Or Here is a easier way to understand my point, Think of Multi-Core CPUs vs Single-Core Multiple CPUs. It just comes down to how small you can package something and to keep it have the same performance if not better. We tend to pick a C2D E8200 over a Dual-Socket Celeron 440 system (remember, this is just a example, I'm not even sure if there is a dual-socket 775 MB) If was all about price, the Dual-Socket Celeron 440 would be alot cheaper. Would it not? 100 dollars vs 174 dollars? If You want more in-depth reasons or questions, You can feel free to PM. But non-stop posting in this thread of this is not helpful. But everyone thought it was necessary.
PS I can take a joke, but you over-used it.
Keep flame-baiting, It helps, gun-ho!Quote:
Originally Posted by LOE
I love how the NV fanboys are trying to discredit the R700. Making excuses about how the minimum FPS or the average FPS is lower on the HD4870X2 when it actually isn't and other BS etc etc. :rolleyes:
It's simple really, HD4870X2 > GTX 280. You people can believe whatever you want, but fact is fact.
The R700 clearly has some disadvantages. It uses lots of power, is a heater, and is rather large. Lol, a guy's gotta live with compromise - I'll take those drawbacks if it means getting the FPS I'm seeing in the games I play and good future support. For the games it does support right, it gets good performance. in many cases it even gets nice minimum framerates. It will be the most expensive, but it will be the single fastest card in most cases as well - right where would you would expect it in a competitive marketplace. I don't really care if it's 1 core or 20, as long as it works well.
The competition is heating up...*looks at 4870x2 & GTX280 temperatures*...literally. :ROTF:
Had your fun boys? Continue the discussion ot topic. No more bashing please
apparently because you have to use software as a middleman.Quote:
Originally Posted by zlojack
was hoping for a more direct system as well, but ohh well, 4870 X2 is THE BEST card on the market regardless
I think it would be reasonable to future readers if someone could clean this thread. I read this whole thing and hardly found discussion regarding R700 Preview. Just one human being arguing with the rest.
Er, I'd say 4870 wins in single-GPU solutions, costing only $299 and being really close to GTX 280 in most games, even surpassing it in some.Quote:
Originally Posted by [cTx]Warboy
You are correct in saying that simply because in most benchmarks the R700 gets more FPS's it doesn't mean it's the better card. It is a multiple GPU solution and will have its problems. But ATI has gone a long way since Fury MAXX and actually 4870x2 could be the best multi-GPU solution of all; just look at Sampsa's microstuttering tests, according to them, MS should not be a problem it 4800 series CF or x2 systems.
So there ar a lot of factors when it comes to which card is better; like price (GTX 280 loses gorgeously) compatibility (R700 loses) and performance (GTX 280 loses). Which is the best card, then, can change from person to person but I doubt I'll see another person in the next 150 years claiming GTX 280 is a better buy than R700.