Same performance, much lower power draw. Sort of like HD3850-->HD4670.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar
Same performance, much lower power draw. Sort of like HD3850-->HD4670.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar
Which is great, but people are far more likely to buy the card because it has a bigger number rather than it being more efficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobsama
http://i51.tinypic.com/2rh9oh0.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/30szg5x.jpg
If those slides are AMD genuine then BARTS performance is below 5870 (between 460 and 5850) and at the same time it has more than 150W when 5850 has 151W. I don’t see where BARTS has much lower power consumption than Evergreen.
NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
KitGuru is much more likely :up:
Are you serious? Even the 4870X2 had PCI-E on the side of the card.Quote:
Originally Posted by RejZoR
Does this mean I will be kicking myself for just buying a 5970 card?:rofl:
Not until the 6970 comes out.
I can't be the only person that thinks this sucks. What about the enthusiast that doesn't care about power draw and wants something FASTER.
We're all overclocking capable correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by munim
If power draw is down and these cards overclock like mad, then we have no problem.
not until a high end 6970 comes out, and by then I will be willing to buy out your 5970 for some nice x-fire goodnessQuote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
As much as I love power, I also love value cards that run cool, OC well, and are cheap enough to buy 3.
Despite the retarded naming scheme, I have a feeling these new cards will be
http://comedymeltdown.com/wp-content...ss-450x337.jpg
check this out
http://www.guru3d.com/news/radeon-hd...ntally-listed/
Quote:
Originally Posted by guru3d
maybe im crazy but am I the only one who noticed the fact that there is only one Crossfire X connector on this card which is obviously pointing to a Barts part. now what im really confused about is why everyone thinks this card will be so great because to me a few things just don't add up. The first being how this card offers similar performance to a 5850 (maybe a little faster) while using the same amount of power for the same price and NOT offering Triple Crossfire solutions.... would some one please explain to me why this card is better than a 5850 for the most part.... and to who ever thinks that this will be faster than a 5870 please pass me some of what your smoking..... it has less shadders, way less TMU's, less mem bandwidth and pretty much the same clock speed....Quote:
Originally Posted by SubZero.it
as to the naming, I was really liking what AMD was doing with their naming, it was easy to understand and made sense, but this, this is bad, just plain bad. if it's not faster don't call it faster... seems simple enough, at least the renamed nvidia cards were the same performance not SLOWER.
so unless im missing something I don't see what all the fuss is about...
its done because Barts only supports dual card crossfire X.
Cayman will support quad card crossfirex
thats just the pcb, it should do 4 cards if u have some1 that makes a 2 bridge card or an x2, but ether way do u realy want more than 2 cards for anything but benching were u would not use a barts chip anywaysQuote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
First of all.... new architecture. None of the numbers you read for specs matter, because its their first new architecture since R600Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Second, naming wise, things change... when the 7 series comes out, few might even remember what things were once named. It appears AMD/ATI is going back to making powerful single GPU solutions with the Cayman / 6900 series... had AMD never named the 5870X2 the 5970, people wouldnt think as much about it
Agree with value cards statement. I can't tell you how many times I've almost bought the 460 GTX in the last month. Would be my first Nvidia card since 8800gts. I love the fact it's cheap, low power, and overclocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron_Davis
5850 has been just out of my price range.
Honestly I don't know why AMD would name a card 6870 if it lacks a REAL performance increase. :shrug:
that's right, for anything else. use cayman...
Also to answer your Question Hypno..... ahh, more and bigger don't mean perf... as displayed by GF100, having more on the same die does not necessarily mean the card will perform better.
Considering Cayman is almost a double of Bart outside of ROP & buswidth, within less than 400 mm^2 limit, i think Cayman specs would be 1920 SP, 32 ROP. Might not be twice as fast as Bart, but on average, i think we can expect it to be around 60-70% faster, so the leaked 12 K Vantage Xtreme score seems justified & correct. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
The Holland prices are preorder prices. Do you ever know preorder prices that are rationally & justifiably priced ? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xope_Poquar
Err, Cayman in November ??? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by munim
Tell me about it...Quote:
Originally Posted by JAWS
Don't confuse low power with "lower than GF100 power".Quote:
Originally Posted by JAWS
are you out of your tree? where did they say the clock speeds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
the new chip can be clocked to perform more or less or the same as existing chips.
does anyone here think the clock speeds will happen by accident? if 6870 comes out and beats 5870 on half the benchmarks, and loses on the other half, does anyone think that will be an accident?
That's definately not true. I'd love tri-fire barts. But I don't think I'll buy them just because of how retarded the naming scheme is. I will wait for Cayman.Quote:
Originally Posted by zanzabar
It low power for a next generation 68xx series from AMD. I can easily suspect the 5850 pricing being true. E.g 259 for a 5870, I kind of predicted it. Way too high for a 6770 series, so it understandable why AMD shifted it as a higher product.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo75
Well, I still dont think this naming was right.
6770 and 6830 would have been good. That would leave Cayman room at 6850 and 6870, putting Antilles at 6970 or 6950. Leaving renamed 5770's as 6750 and renamed 5750's to 6730.
IMO, that would have been much better than this.
frankly i dont care about the naming of the card, i care about price and performance....and i get why there doing it, their just moving it up a number basically so they can charge more for the whole series.
people need to stop complaining about the naming, its all Ive heard in these threads. waaaaah
the 6870 looks sexy and for $250 its an awesome deal with the improved efficiency and smaller die. just wait for cayman XT its gonna be a sweet card which will be much deserved of the 9 series naming.
I can. One Cayman chip beats 5970 and peers dual gtx 480 / SLI.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I meant the gtx 460 isn't really "low power". It's nothing special in perf/watt, yeah it's better than GF100 but that doesn't make it good.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Yeah all you whiners listen to the man!! Get it through yer thick skulls!!
Add all the crybaby card naming posts and delete them and 1/2 the posts would be gone.
:welcome:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
Not sure if this was already posted around here, but just in case.
Quote:
An pair of early listings by a Dutch online store indicates what prices of some Radeon HD 6800 series products could look like, in that part of the world. The Sapphire Radeon HD 6850 (part number 11180-00-20R), is listed at €158.82 without taxes (€189 with it); and Sapphire Radeon HD 6870 (part number 21179-00-40R) at €214.29 w/o taxes (€255 with it). We conservatively estimate the USD pricing to look like $199 for the HD 6850, and $249 for the HD 6870, on the basis of this listing.
Maybe you just dont understand that the 6870's performance may be slightly less than a 5870. (The original 6770, which is not 6870 was considerably slower than the 5870)... Unless they overclock like there's no tomorrow, the naming scheme is TOTALLY wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
As far as I'm concerned, it's not correct. It's misleading, same with 6700. People will be confused and buy 6700 thinking it's something special over 5700 or competing nvidia cards. (Just like nvidias former renaming)
That said, I'm waiting for Cayman XT since my 5770's both do 1040/1445 each and are fast enough to hold me over till then.
Yeah let's all be tools and suck it up and just accept their messed up naming scheme which is obv designed to mislead ppl!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
Yeah guys let's do it!!! Complaining about things that don't make sense is stupid!!! Just accept whatever ATI says and deal with it you crybabies!!!
GO ATI!!!
:rolleyes:
US$ 249 for Bart XT and US$ 199 for Bart Pro are a bit too high for my comfort, US$ 229 & US$ 179 will make me a happy camper, perhaps really tempting me to upgrade from my current HD 4870 1 GB which has been serving me very well in combo with my 1680*1050 22" LCD.
dittoQuote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
250$ for something like a 5850 sounds like crap too me. take your numbers and drop 10$ more and i would be happier
Basically:
6870 = 5850 + ~5-10% (In fifty frames per second that means a 2.5 fps increase. 50, to 52.5 or 55 for dumping $250. Astonishing.)
6850 = 5830 - 2 to 5% (Specs just plain suck IMO, it's not worth $199.)
Still, some of you are wondering why people are complaining about it.
Because they are most likely slower than the 5850 and 5870. Of course, if they aren't, it's because they hiked up the clocks.
^i dont care about the comparison between model A and model B, i care about price to perf of old and new.
:rofl:People expecting double the performance on the same 40nm node:ROTF:
If youve got a 5series and are tight on cash lay out this round simple enough.
Got a 4series and been thinking of upgrading the 6series will prove to be a great bang for the buck upgrade.
Its that simple folks, in the mean time I will keep :rofl: at folks bent out of shape over it.
well it very well may be a new design or arranging the shadders and whatnot but the compute cores in themselves are relatively the same, yes they will be a tad more efficient but that can only make up so much. also if you look at the marketing slides from AMD themselves they show it just above the GTX 460 and below the GTX 470 AMD has always claimed that the 5870 is faster than the GTX 470 so to show the new card below the GTX 470 on a marketing slide points to it being slower than the GTX 470 AND the 5870, which is totally backed up by the specs.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
and yes of course naming changes but the move from 4870x2 to the 5970 made perfect sense considering the 5970 is faster than the 5870. this new scheme makes no sense on any level of performance at all.
and to all those who like to beat the crap out of Fermi all day about power usage you know your right it sucks back the power. but it's also a performance animal. and if you think about all the time in a year your gaming at load (because the differences at idle are small) you spend how much more a year on power? maybe like $50 max if you game lots (granted F@H is a different story) the performance difference however from a GTX 480 of the 5870 is well worth it. I own both a 5870 and a GTX 480 and the jump in performance going to the 480 was pretty outrageous even on my CPU bottle neck.
the 6870 will be a strong card don't get me wrong and im sure it will sell well but its nothing special like the move from 4000's to 5000's and the naming is just plain bad...
im going to guess that they would be about the same in dx9/10.x but i doubt that they will oc by the same giant % as the 5850. and if that spec rumor that they were the same physical shader count but with 4 scaller units instead of 5 it should be about the same if not better with the higher clocksQuote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
This is terrible bang for you buck considering how much AMD is saving, they are reducing the size of their chip by 100mm2 and they are basically giving you a 10 dollar discount off of a 5850 when considering performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by slaveondope
When a company is able to reduce the cost of their product, I expect them to pass some of the savings on to the consumer.
This is a double wammy also because of the product naming. The naming makes the chip a better deal than it really is. The likely performance numbers for barts xt. x7500 is much more in range of a 5850 at x7300, than a 5870 at x9000.
Considering what older 4770 and 5770 have brought over their generation and the priced they have charged(well under 200 dollars), the 6870 is nothing spectactular and very expensive for a 230mm chip in this day and age. This card is the card to get if the price is around 219, but at 250 or so, it just not that great a deal.
i remember the 4770 being about the same perf as a 4850, but costing 10-20$ more.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
I'm glad you have the actual performance numbers:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Reviewed by butt. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Although I've dissed Nvidia in the past, I wanna agree with this. At first, ppl hated on the 480, but I gotta admit it's a friggin beast. Not to mention its younger brother the 470 is the best card for the money out now.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
I think ATI is turning into Nvidia Junior and is trying to scam ppl with messed up naming conventions and piss poor power:price ratios.
Perhaps the pessimists will be proved wrong when the 68xx cards come out in a few days, I'm sorta 50/50 right now. I think if the cards are weak, ATI will lower prices, and if they're strong, they may offer good value for the money. Also, there's a decent chance Nvidia will answer with a price cut, so that's good, too.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....rtefdvbnd4.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
Now you tell me if that 6770 (now 6870) is worth $250 or even being named a 6870. Unless it clocks up to 1200 Mhz on air, I don't see it.
This is the same AMD who advertised 4850 as slightly above 8800GT and 4870 slightly above 9800GTX, so I wouldn't go about drawing too many conclusions from that one slide.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
not likely to see that since the value of the US$ is through the floor right now...Quote:
Originally Posted by spursindonesia
ahhh... core speed has nothing to do with perf.... look I have a 9600GT stacked in a draw, it can do 850Mhz.... so two of these on sli should beat my 5970 which only runs at a measly 750Mhz stock clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
FAILSAUCE:down::down::down:
As I remember AMD’s official numbers on 5850 power draw are:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
http://www.in4.pl/recenzje/557/radeon5850.jpg
and for 5870:
http://www.in4.pl/recenzje/557/radeon5870.jpg
So >150W looks like decent improvement to me, considering the same node.
Your wrong about that. The 4770 was only 100 dollars and soon reached 80-90 street price. Until the 4850 was EOL, it was never that cheap. Basically AMD is doing a repeat of what it did that generation for performance but not saving you really that much money. The msrp of the 4850 was 200 dollars, the msrp of the 4770 was 100 dollars. Now look at this generation, the msrp of the 5850 is 259 dollars, the likely msrp of the 6770/6870 is 250 dollars(and bart should be cheap to make as it is alot smaller 100mm2 less and the yields should be fantastic compared to cypress). This should be obvious why they had to use the shady name if you look at this a 6770 at 250 is a damn tough sell and honestly, if you look at the performance jump of earlier x770(both the 4770 and the 5770) series, naming bart xt as a 6770 makes way more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://www.guru3d.com/article/ati-ra...d-4770-review/
AMD is not close to offering the value it once did. It taking advantage of no competition which sucks for us and even worse for Nvidia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Please stop, you're being ignorant!
The 5850 is currently going for $259 bucks. Now look at that chart and compare the 5850 to the 6770 (now 6870)...
If indeed, the Barts XT comes in @ the same price as the Cypress Pro, who is going to complain about that? It's an all-around better solution, for basically the same price. Obviously, many would even pay more for it, since I am sure the Barts XT is more efficient and more refined.
What they call it, is moot.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3976/a...ches-next-weekQuote:
AMD Quietly Reveals Next Radeon Series, Launches Next Week
The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, after today's earnings conference call for AMD. One of the things that ended up being discussed by AMD CEO Dirk Meyer in today's call was the future of AMD's graphics division, where AMD's "second-generation DX11" GPUs were mentioned.
We will be launching our second-generation DX11 graphics offerings next week.
Later on, he also had the following to say about what's launching and what the expected volume is:
We'll be introducing our second-generation of DX11 technology into the market with some launch activities actually next week. We'll be shipping all the family members of that product line I'll call it, by the end of this quarter, and total volume think in terms of several hundred thousand, or hundreds of thousands of units....
Calling something a 6870, that is hardly better than the 5850, yes, look at things other than compute performance, and add in that it will likely take many months for AMD to get drivers for the 6000 series as efficient as the 5000 ones, you get what looks to be an upgrade (which it really isn't much of) for the same price of the card you already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xoulz
Sure, it's more efficient, by a few watts. I like that part. :up: It is certainly a better solution than the 5850 for the same price. At least, a similar price. Is it worth the upgrade in any way? NO.
To owners of 5870's, getting a 6870 is a downgrade. Do you understand how many people will buy it and wonder why they didn't get a performance increase?
It's okay, I've already heard others call me ignorant. It's no different hearing it from you. :up:
What would you rather have for $260?
This:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814130575
Or this for $220, $200 with MIR:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814261075
Or this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161330
Or a 6870?
If I were a smart shopper I'd take an awfully hard look at that GTX460 @ $200. The 5850/6870 brings about a 10-15% increase (at stock, not to mention 460's will do 900+ Mhz core) in performance for $40 to $60 more?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
Fuuddddge. Several hundred thousand. Didn't they ship a couple million units before quarter end with r8xx? Does that mean more scalping?
http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases...-2010jan7.aspx
A handful? :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
If one is that ignorant of what they buy, then they deserve it. Do you think that your average Joe buys discrete cards just randomly by looking at the packaging and the cards name only? Some may do, but they're definitely a minority. Let alone how many of those are actually HD 5000-series owners. :rolleyes:
And some people have guts to call this a renaming. :D
Do you really assume that most people understand (care about) the numbers behind VGA models? No, they buy the card they can afford and is recommended by the sales person.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Enthusiasts are a different story and they are a small % of the market. But again these people will want to wait for the x900 cards.
So what is the fuzz about again? Looking for a problem where there is none? :shakes:
Chiphell hinted that the 6850 has the same (or $10-20 more) pricing as the 5850 (just slightly less, 250USD probably).
So it's definitely faster than the 5850 or at least the 460s out there...
Moot point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
my 5850 on 40nm did 1ghz+ easy.
so did several others.
the amd radeon cards likely will do 1ghz without endangering Earth and its power supply.
Not happy with the rumoured prices and how they named. Hope performance matches the prices.
I like the sounds of these cards, even if they have similar performace to current cards, lower power consumption is great.
Specially since my 4870x2 is acting up, keeps crashing and causing screen tearing with Xfire enabled. So i'm currently running on a single 4870 chip.
Even so that 6870 looks nice. Would be nice if it was slightly faster than the 5870, but I'm not sure what to buy just yet. :)
hd 6xxx is 2nd next gen dx 11, its mean great FPS on dx 11 game, like metro 2033 and lost planet2
as i know gtx 460 oc faster than 5870 on MERTRO 2033 game
I guess you weren't being ignorant, you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
OK, so you'd rather have a GTX 460, over a 5850..?
Secondly, for $40 to $60 buck less, I would just take the Barts Pro... or, whatever AMD slots @ $199. There is no base for your logic, what-so-ever.. you are utterly tied up in the naming/marketing of the card.
What the card is named, is irrelevant.
Well, AMD named and set price for these cards based on the competition.Pure business.Nvidia screwed up, and were going to pay for it too.
I dont like the naming, its confusing.It isnt renaming tho.I dont like the price, but its a company, and a company that REALLY needs the money, so they will get as much as they can.
And to Tajoh who really got "upset" by price per mm2 on these.
Nvidia sell more power hungry bigger dies for the same or lower price, because their design is flawed, they have too.
And the same applies to Intel, selling 32nm westmere which is SMALLER than 45nm nehalem for 500-1000$ only.
They do it because they can, people are paying and dont have a competing product.
So if youre so pissed on AMD, than you should be equally pissed on Intel.
And dont get me started on 2 core westmere price vs die area thing ;-).
All in all ,if all these are true, im much more inclined to buy GTX 460 768mb version which really starts to get CHEAP.
He obviously takes into account price difference, 460 1GB is 20% cheaper in my country, and 30% for the 768MB version.Quote:
OK, so you'd rather have a GTX 460, over a 5850..?
What some of us are saying is this (and it's been said many many times i.e. learn to read) is wait to complain until you see what the full lineup is. THEN if it doesn't make sense and AMD is trying to pull a fast one I will complain about it as well.
Pages of Complaints without knowing the full line up makes everyone look like an ass and is counterproductive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron_Davis
To add to this, do you think a lot of 5870 owners (who almost certainly had a little tech skill to install the card in the first place) are going to just go out blindly and grab a 6870 that is ~$100 cheaper and think it's going to be WAY faster?
Sorry I just can't imagine this happening to any extent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
6850 will be positioned against gtx460 768 at US$ 189.
6870 will be positioned against gtx460 1024 at US$ 215.
I find it funny how when it's NVIDIA most people scream at the top of their lungs for protecting random consumers who will not be informed. When it's AMD who might be possibly confusing consumers it's perfectly acceptable, and the burden should be on the consumer, and it's their fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
Like I said........We don't know yet do we?
edit: It's funny how now days people can't take responsibility for there own actions. I don't give a crap what Nvidia has pulled in the past
and I have never ripped them for anything (in fact I have had Nvidia cards for years and liked them).
But all this feel sorry for the consumer buying something or being duped into buying something doesn't fly with me.
It's like buying "insert and product" and not taking the time to ask someone or read an article well you would make the wrong purchase anyway.
And this is anyone's fault but the consumer? RIGHT! :rofl:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svnth
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Svnth
either that or you guys underestimate how stupid people really are.
get away from a computer every now and then and you will be amazed.
Sure everyone has there moments and no one can know every product they purchase.
But really do you think that someone who was smart enough to purchase and install a 5870 in the first place is going to be dumb enough to buy a 6870 as a sidegrade seeing the price is cheaper and think it's WAY faster?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripken204
there will be a lot of people who do that research and pick the product they really wanted but there will also be plenty of people who will go based on model numbers. assuming that EVERYONE who buys any piece of hardware will ALWAYS go and research it into depth to see how it compares to previous generations is just not right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
I understand your point but if they go by model number they would first have to know what a 5870 is, if they know that your saying they won't know what a 6870 is?
If they don't know what a 5870 is then they don't have one and wouldn't be sidegrading, if the 6870 is a descent card at a descent price and they buy it
I wouldn't think they would be complaining about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripken204
you do realize this discussion is only valid in the time between barts and cayman launch right? so just about one month for somone to make that mistake since afterwards 6970 will be out for 350$ and any doubts as to which is the true top dog will be over.Quote:
Originally Posted by ripken204
please get over the naming scheme change. it was done so amd can acomodate all its discrete line as well as fusion line under one codename range. by december all confusion will be over. price is the segment, not name.
sorry but i am right. i was shopping for a gpu back before the 5000s were out and had to choose between a 4850 for 100-110$, or a 4770 for 120-130$. MSRP does not equal actual retail prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
the demand for a 4770 was much higher, and it was tough to find them at first. and it WAS going for a higher price than a 4850 while both were still being produced.
what i am trying to say is that there was no special deal back then.
So we should expect a 6990 for $450-$500 then.:up:Sounds great actually,faster and $100 cheaper than a 5970.:shocked:
You forget the mark up for being the fastest card.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
Read some speculation at a few places of $599, I hope that is wrong but if a single cards matches that performance count me in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Hound
i just saw a post by BeepBeep2 and its gone now :shrug:
I as well, didn't see anything wrong with it, maybe he deleted it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
was gonna ask where he sees a 460 at 900mhz beating a 5850 at 1ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
this is the closest i found: and it shows 2 things, that almost no 460 was able to hit 900mhz, and that even if they did, only a few games which were strong on nvidia at first, did it surpass the 5850 which was at stock
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3810/n...vendor-cards/7
Nah, I can see it clearly in posts on this forum. Anyone who thinks new model numbers for new parts is the same as just renaming the same parts for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by ripken204
How is this confusing customers? If you didn't know what core went into the naming bracket then your ONLY valid complaint (and indeed even now it is the only valid complaint) is that the 6870 is not shaping up for much of a boost over the 5870.Quote:
Originally Posted by Svnth
If ATI's 4 number naming policy still holds true, the 6870 and 6850 will still give 'enthusiast' class performance while the 69xx provide flagship performance. Although this is relative, based upon the assumption that the 6870 will perform better than the 5870, it's still true.
This is entirely different from nvidia, that actually took a chip from a previous generation and positioned it in the new one with nothing but a new name. ATI's supposed dicey business with renaming the 57xx to 67xx is exactly the sort of thing we didn't like nvidia doing, and that's bad.
well, if a 5770 give the same performance as a 6770 would do, there isnt any difference except features.
depends if people buy those cards for those or not
It was up for about two seconds, then I sorta gave up trying to defend myself and deleted it. (Because not all 460's can hit 900)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
I will infact, have a post showing the evolution and confusion about Barts XT and PRO for you guys to flame, and this time it will be back up with info, charts and reproducible math. I'm working as I speak.
To those saying how informed buyers will KNOW the 6870 is slower than their 5870, you are being very short sighted. This isn't about the <1% (ppl on XS) that build their own systems, this is about the mainstream. BestBuy and jabroni stores like it will have desktops with 6870's, and laptops will start carrying 6870M and random Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster". If you don't comprehend this type of thinking, you must live alone in a cave. ANY NORMAL, NON-TECHNICAL PERSON ASSUMES A BIGGER NUMBER MEANS FASTER.
actually a 6870M could have alot of power
if perf per watt is better, then a Xwatt tdp in a laptop part can hold more power in the new gen over the old gen. since we dont have specs at all for that segment, i wouldnt even wonder about it yet
anyone who bought a 5870, and plans on getting a 6870 without reading any info, deserves to be fooled. i wish i could dump 2000$ a year on computer parts (i assume they also buy other components each year if they are already buying top end gpus yearly)
It doesn't matter, because apparently this type of thinking makes you a "cry baby" and you are just whining about something that is insignificant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron_Davis
It's hilarious to me, because the whining was totally tolerable when NVIDIA did the same thing. (rename previous generation to something with a bigger number making it look faster.)
Perf per watt is not better which I will show you guys in a few minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
5850 > Barts XT...in several ways.
what about vs Barts Pro in perf per watt. the top mhz parts will always have horrible perf per watt compared to the lower end stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/Colorful/i...fwatt_1920.gif
in there you see the stuff ending with xx70 are all behind the stuff ending in xx50 (i used the 460 review cause it has alot of newer cards in the past year, the 5850 review was from way to long ago)
I'm working on it. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
There's a lot of math involved due to leaked slides only giving some of the info.
But seriously, if any of you think that Barts XT is an upgrade over Cypress (even if you don't own Cypress) then you are mistaken. I'd still buy a Cypress card over Barts.
So it seems, the final spec. of HD 6850 are 775MHz/4GHz with 960SP. Price still $229?
No, it's 775/???? with 800 SP...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vardant
6870 will have 960 @ 850/????
But the 6870 will be what? $50-$75 cheaper than the 5870?
So ATI just saved dumbass Joe that much money. :ROTF:
But the bigger point being you can't mother everyone like the government
and blame everyone but yourself if you are not smart enough to google a review.
If Average Joe is not smart enough to google reviews are you going to baby sit him when he
goes out and gets that new washer and dryer at Sears and the sales person talks him into the worst model?
Sorry but no amount of labeling is going to stop stupid people from doing stupid things.
Warning this coffee is HOT! :rofl:
edit:
On the serious side. I really do see your point about higher numbers, but come on at leased wait for the
full lineup to be released before complaining about it.
Sure until the 5870's are off the shelves this is going to cause some problems but oh well.
edit 2:
On this comment "Joe's will buy it, see the 6870, see another product with a 5850 or 5870 and immediately think "mine is faster"."
How will he ever know it's not faster? He would have to read a review, oh wait he doesn't read reviews. See that is why I don't think
you are making much of a point with those comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron_Davis
Where is AMD "rename previous generation to something with a bigger number making it look faster"
?
?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Because his game runs slower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
Oh, and cool ego dude. :up:
HD5750's are now to be called HD6750, and HD5770's will be renamed to HD6770. It just adds on to the pile of misleading trash...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
Okay, I give up.
I guess I wasn't satisfied with the high core clock combined with almost no increase in performance at the same price point. The fact that it saves a considerable amount of power over the 5-Series (and apparently GTX4xx) is great...
Old 6770 slide:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget....rtefdvbnd4.jpg
New Barts XT slide:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/,D-A-262270-3.jpg
Note-
Barts XT: Core Clock has gone down 50 Mhz to 850 Mhz from 900, SP's were reduced from 1280 to 960, Texture Units reduced from 64 to 48, as well as board power going marginally up. Board power moves from 146w vs (greater than) >150w, ... Remember, the 5850's max board power is 151w.
Barts PRO: Core Clock is now listed at 700-725 Mhz (was 725), SP's were reduced from 1120 to 800, Texture Units dropped from 56 to 40, and board power went from 114w to (less than) <150w.
You guys have to realize that Barts XT has changed a bit recently.
The HD6770 listed in leaked slides has the card at 900 Mhz core, with 1280 Stream Processors, 64 texture units.
1 multiply+add "mad" (2 FP) ops per cycle * number of stream processors (1280) * core clock (900 Mhz) equals the 2.304 TFlops as that slide states.
This was the 6770, and it's specs are still worse than the "current" 5870. It's closer to the 5850 in performance. (Which is acceptable at a $250 price point.) Pay very close attention to the max board power for Barts XT on this slide. 146w.
The black slide I have above shows Barts XT as 850 Mhz core, with 960 Stream Processors, 48 texture units @ greater than 150w. Again, the 5850's max board power is 151w.
Those specs leave us with 1 multiply+add (2 FP) ops per cycle * number of stream processors (960) (which is cut down by 320 from 1280) * core clock (850 Mhz)
= 1.632 TFLops of Single Precision.
At a $260 price point, that leaves us with something between a 5770 and 5850. (Remember, 5850's can be had for $260 at this time.)
Performance wise (Single Precision only, and ONLY Single Precision) it is equal to a 5770 at 1020 Mhz.
HD5770 (Can be had for $135, or $125 w/ rebate on Newegg.com on Oct. 15 2010):
10 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 800 SP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 1.36 TFLops/s SP
40 Texture Units * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 34 GTexel/s
16 ROP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 13.6 GPixel/s
64 Z/Stencils * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 54.4 GSamples/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 * 128 bit bus / 2 times = 76.8 GB/s
Max board power: 108w
Overclocked HD5770 @ 1020/1445 ($140 to $160 for voltage control):
10 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 800 SP's * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 1.632 TFLops/s SP
40 Texture Units * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 40.8 GTexel/s
16 ROP's * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 16.32 GPixel/s
64 Z/Stencils * 1020 Mhz Core Clock = 65.28 GSamples/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 * 128 bit bus / 2 times = 76.8 GB/s
Or for fun: 1445 Mhz GDDR5 * 128 bit bus / 2 times = 92.5 GB/s
HD6850 (Barts PRO) from black slide priced at $200 (?):
10 SIMD's
2 FP Ops * 800 SP's * 700-725 Mhz Core Clock = 1.12 TFLops SP to 1.16 TFLops SP
40 Texture Units * 700-725 Mhz Core Clock = 28 GTexel/s to 29 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 700-725 Mhz Core Clock = 22.4 GPixel/s to 23.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 700-725 Mhz 89.6 GSamples/s to 92.8 GSamples/s
1000 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 128 GB/s
Max board power: (less than) <150w
New HD6850 (Barts PRO) priced around $200 to $225:
10 SIMD's
2 FP Ops * 800 SP's * 775 Mhz Core Clock = 1.24 TFLops SP
40 Texture Units * 775 Mhz Core Clock = 31 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 775 Mhz Core Clock = 24.8 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 775 Mhz = 99.2 GSamples/s
1000 Mhz GDDR5 (?) * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 128 GB/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 (?) * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 153.6 GB/s (I doubt we will see this on a midrange card)
HD5850 (currently selling for $260 @ Newegg.com on Oct. 15 2010):
18 SIMD's
2 FP Ops * 1440 SP's * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 2.088 TFLops SP
72 Texture Units * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 52.2 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 23.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 725 Mhz Core Clock = 92.8 GSamples/s
1000 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 times = 128 GB/s.
Maximum Board Power = 151w
HD5850 Overclocked to 1000/1300
18 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 1440 SP's * 1000 Core Clock = 2.88 TFLops SP (note, this is nearly twice as fast as the stock 6870 below)
72 Texture Units * 1000 Core Clock = 72 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 1000 Core Clock = 32 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 1000 Core Clock = 128 GSamples/s
1300 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 166.4 GB/s
HD6870 (Barts XT) from the black slide ($260?):
12 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 960 SP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 1.632 TFLops SP
48 Texture Units * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 40.8 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 27.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils (as noted on black chart) * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 108.8 GSamples/s
1050 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 134.4 GB/s
Max board power: (greater than) >150w
Theoretical HD6870 with completely insane overclock @ 1100/1450:
12 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 960 SP's * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 2.112 TFLops SP
48 Texture Units * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 42.8 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 35.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 1100 Mhz Core Clock = 140.8 GSamples/s
1450 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 185.6 GB/s
HD5870 (currently selling for $350, as low as $310 with rebate on Newegg.com as of Oct. 15 2010):
20 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 1600 SP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 2.72 TFLops SP
80 Texture Units * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 68.0 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 27.2 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 850 Mhz Core Clock = 108.8 GSamples/s
1200 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 153.6 GB/s
Max board power: 188w
Overclocked 5870 @ 1000/1325 :
20 SIMD's
2 FP ops * 1600 SP's * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 3.20 TFLops SP
80 Texture Units * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 80.0 GTexel/s
32 ROP's * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 32.0 GPixel/s
128 Z/Stencils * 1000 Mhz Core Clock = 128.0 GSamples/s
1325 Mhz GDDR5 * 256 bit bus / 2 = 169.7 GB/s
Also keep in mind that new Barts 6800 Series cards only feature one crossfire interconnect.
Ego? No not at all just trying to make a counter point about average Joe
and no one will answer anything I have brought up.
Like your comment, "his game will run slower"
Slower than what I ask? Slower than his 5870?
Come on you know it's rumored to a wash, but really you think someone
who has a 5870 (paid $400 and installed it) isn't going to look for a review
and blindly go out and buy a 6870 for cheaper and think it WAY faster??
I am also on record that "if" AMD does rebrand I will :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: along with everyone else but not until it happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Well, the jump from 4 series to 5 series was huge wasn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagleclaw
That average joe that replaced this 4890 with a 5870 is going to think the same about the 6870.
so if this follows cycle, they will rebrand the 5000 series, and then announce a 'new' card that will be released Q4 2011, but delay that launch among rumours from semi accurate that it runs too hot, and the yeilds are under two percent.
charlie will then witch hunt them down, quoting and questioning every turn they make till they release a card that has 10% less shaders and consumes 20% more power than originaly stated.
welcome my friends to last year, just a differant badge :yepp:
lots of numbers to inhale, thanks for the work
a few things though. did Texture Units really decrease by that much? i dont know how much space is needed for that or how important it is. but it sounds important and i hope those are about the same as a 5850.
the TFlops also i wouldnt worry to much about. theoretical performance is really only used in one place, furmark. we were all expecting that 5th shader to be dropped, and if it is, then its 240 strong SPs vs 320 (Barts XT vs 5870). also the SP cluster per TU is now 5 vs 4.
the raw numbers look bad, but as an architecture it can all work well together.
also i doubt things were changing around that much in the past 2 months, we were just being fed lots of fud i think.
BTW nice work on the calculations above, good information.
Correct, again my point he must be smart enough to look at review if he is upgrading his card and installing it.
Sure there will be a few that blindly buy but I don't think it is going to be that big a deal in the end.
As one forum member stated a few pages back it should only be a month after Barts when the 6900's are out so maybe that will halt some of these issues.
I understand if they did change the name scheme to deceive they will rightly deserve the backlash they get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepBeep2
Or you could wait for the cards to come out instead of guessing at performance. Also, I don't think you want to get in bed with the Baron there considering all the trolling he has done lately.
On the whole "Average person thinks bigger ## = faster" thing, this is true. However it also means these people think a 5450 is faster than a 4870, shifting between x7xx and x8xx numbers mean nothing to them only price matters. I know thats defeats your whole position, but these things happen.
I agree 100%.Quote:
Originally Posted by DosDuoNo
Instead of G92 it's Juniper this time around.
:shocked:
Yeah, they dropped that much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Well, considering the black slide is placing 6850 against GTX460 192-bit, and 6870 against GTX460 256-bit, I don't think we will be seeing performance anywhere near what people were expecting. The 5850 is already marginally faster than the GTX460 1GB.