that's why he has a big thumbs up from me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
Printable View
that's why he has a big thumbs up from me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilgamesh
This guy is crazy ( Fuad ), when this slide is 99% proven fake ( beyond3D forum )Quote:
Originally Posted by JkS
He should take care, i think he will completely lost all credibility with this type of article, i know most peoples read and forget, but since 1 year, this begin to make a lot of readers and a lot of article.
Actually, this article you refer to will only be proven true or false when trusted benchmark numbers come to light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
Yes i was coming back to put a bit of smooth on my words ... i should not make the same error as him ...
This thread is getting more and more ridiculous...:rolleyes:
i bet that it's going to break the 100page limit next week and that there's going to be no new real information until launch ;)
seriously the last new information was posted 6 pages ago? i want some final specs and new slides to speculate some more or some real test results :(
I realised that this thread is almost as epic as this Fermi-thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ighlight=fermi
Last two intresting and hyped graphic card releases made about 2000 replies and 200 000 views. I wonder is there some pattern to it ? :)
My optimistic guess is that 6970 will be about as fast as 570. If its faster, thats even better.
edit. i noticed Fermi-thread continued to other threads so Cayman hype isnt even half of what Fermi was.. :D
Yeah, but we are still 1 week away from launch and the thread is bigger already. So probably the Cayman thread is going to be a lot bigger than the fermi one.
your optimist guess ? the 570 have the same perf of the the GTX480(+-2%) .. so you think AMD will manage to release an HD6970 14months after released the HD5870 and who can only match the GTX480 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by ilkkahy
I don't want to know what is happend when you are pessimist .... ( it's a joke don't take it bad )
Anyway, posted from Hilbert Guru3D, he just have got his samples for the review.
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7...g3199r3422.png
it's confirm most site should get the card this next days
Fermi threads had more time to bake.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilkkahy
I'm pretty sure that the Cayman XT is 40-45% faster then the GTX480. But, the truth will be revealed on the 15th of this month,we'll wait and see how that goes.
Then be happy that it will fall under "better". CJ already pointed out in early april that the next product from ATi will be aimed at a GTX480 + 512 shaders + higher clocks (and what a GTX460 would look like performance wise). He even knew about the GTX580's approach at the time... It WILL beat a GTX570 no doubt... :yepp:Quote:
Originally Posted by ilkkahy
That's simple, near 6 months of full vaporware with fermi. Wait, it's near -place your day- just wait a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ilkkahy
This thread is what, 2 months? not even that.
AMD should reveal a wood mockup of hecatoncheires/HD7000 (or whatever) xD
Don’t forget the 2x DX-11 Tessellation performance vs Cypress 5870.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
that would be kinda nuts i thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by TheBreezyBB
as much as i would love to see that, and still in the 450$ price range, im not thinking that high
my un-educated guess is 5-10% above a 580 average, some it looses by a little and some i jumps way ahead. still not sure about what will happen in heavier tessellation though, or how much it will really matter in games.
If it was only that ( not sure tesselation perf will show in most games DX11, the higher intensive ones are Nvidia games as LP2 and HawX2 ) ... but yes ofc all the change made count, i don't think the 6970 will just match the 480..Quote:
Originally Posted by Aten-Ra
It's all in due time. Right now all the major website got their hands on the cards but since there is the NDA crap from AMD nothing will be confirmed till the release day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
i would put it between GTX480 and GTX580
same for 6950, between HD5870 and GTX570
In Tessellation 6970 will be very close to GTX580
http://vipeax.nl/pcbhole.png
PCB hole -> Fermi? Or just a sticker or something under the fan...
I thought it had a backplate so it's probably something else.
If AMD have surpassed Nvidia (unlikely), then all the partisan AMD supporters will be linking to Ungine benchmarks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
If it's a bit lower, then all the partisan Nvidia supporters will be pointing towards it themselves.
well if tessellation is better on AMD side, then hopefully gaming is too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
to be better in a very specific synthetic benchmark but worse in all games, i would call that a failure, even as an AMD/ATI owner and fan
delete please....
VRM's choke?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipeax
A few points to consider.
First of all, it's a brand new arch from AMD for the first time in a long time (4870 + PCB tricks => 4890, double texturing and shaders, stick DX11 on it => 5870). It will come in the middle of the month, means 10.12 final drivers will not yet be ready. And AMD is really slow with drivers in general. So expect the performance to increase over time as they polish the drivers and sort the optimisations out.
Secondly, if it has a big chip, then, unlike GF100 which had Tesla as the first priority and Gaming as the second, pretty much all of them transistors will be working to get our games running as fast as possible. So I expect the performance to be quite good.
You can't possibly see the back of the cards cause they both face fan upwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by Vipeax
And if you look closer to PCI-Express connector, you can see the AMD logo whit an arrow pointing Norht-East :D
So, my point its is HD6800 or HD6900 cards :rolleyes:
Question was if it (Cayman) would have a hole there too --> heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpuTnicK
i remember before that there was the R600 threads, now those were epic, I still remember reading some crazy rumor that R600 scored 30K 3dmark06 single card on a stock processor. that has to be the most ridiculous rumor in GPU history. that card was more over-hyped then Fermi by far. because it was the first ATI card changing from pixel pipelines to Stream Processors most people thought that the shader units were directly comparable to the Nvidia ones. and considering how fast the 8800gtx was most people thought the 320SP's on the 2900xt were going to blow Nvidia out of the water... and what did we end up with, a hot, power consuming card (invention of the 8pin PCIE) that performed lower then a 8800GTS... at least Fermi was a good bunch faster then the 5870...Quote:
Originally Posted by ilkkahy
I don't think this will be a R600 repeat at all but I do think it's being overhyped by a long shot. Im thinking 6970 comes in just slower then the 580 and the 6950 just slower then the 570. Think about it the GTX 570 is just as fast as the GTX 480. Considering the difference between the 570/480 and the 5870 for the 6950 to beat the 570 with LESS SP's then the 5870 and a lower clock speed... that would be a feat and a half
I don't think SP counts are really comparable with the move to 4VLIW
And 1536/4 = 384 > 1600/5 = 320, if AMD's "4-VLIW is roughly equal to 5-VLIW" is true
And besides, the bigger issue is how the cards perform relative to their other offerings. The 6870 trails the 5870 but not by a whole ton (it also has fewer SP's than the 5870 by a lot, but is close) - if the ridiculous expectations that 6970 is slower than 570 were true, there'd be no room for a 6950 at all.
edit: Oh yeah, LOL @ FUD being caught basically quoting the damn slides. Read his purported numbers and what the slide says.. lol
Take into account that the 6870 is only an inch away from the 5870, with only 1120 SP's. A 6950 with (supposedly) 1536 SP's is going to beat the 5870 by a bit, which puts it in 480 territory.
edit: zerazax pretty much beat me to it.
Well the only benchmark should be games. Future gaming performance, based on the tessellation engine, is plainly ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
The vast majority of games are console ports, they basically translate to dx 9/10 games. Once DX11 gaming takes hold for the PC, the 6850, 6870, 6950, 6970, 580 and 570 will be underpowered.
Synthetic benchmarks have always been the fallback ones for fanbois. If there company of choice isn't much cop, then there will surely be a benchmark that still looks good.
Just look at anything that involves tessellation or physx. You can count the games on one hand that use them (to a degree it's possible to see differences between AMD/Nvidia), but fanbois will search them out and point to the scores.
The same can be said with AMD too. Anyone remember all the threads telling us how having 27 monitors at home is the future.
The 6970 and gtx 580 underpowered?Quote:
Originally Posted by Motiv
He said once DX11 properly takes hold they will be. Pretty much like it is every single year.
Actually, the HD 5870 is ~ 30% slower than the GTX 480 on average at 1920 x 1200 / 4xAA. Meanwhile, the HD 6870 is usually ~15-20% slower (average again) than the HD 5870.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oztopher
The needed 40-50% improvement over the HD 6870 to hit GTX 480 territory is a huge jump no matter which way you look at it.
Are there more features on dx11 not being utilized yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oztopher
Crysis 2 and rage will be a good test
http://tpucdn.com/reviews/HIS/Radeon...rfrel_1920.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
??
5870 1GB is approx ~7% slower in 25x16 resolution and ~8% in 19x12.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
AMD needs ~26/30% improvement with 6970 at 19x12/25x16 resolutions to basically match 580GTX 1.5GB.
Also your numbers for 6870 are incorrect.
EDIT: I see Vipeax beat me to it :).
Sorry. No. Too many ancient games and synthetics thrown into that result unforunately and I believe Mike uses a combination of AA AND non-AA numbers. In newer games (DX11 predominantly) with AA enabled, the gap is much more significant.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
I should also say that I am referring to IN-GAME results here and not certain built in and stand-alone benchmarks that have been proven to completely screw up results.
Let's see what ComputerBase.de has to say about it:
HD 5870 relatif performance vs others
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._7345225_n.jpg
Then onto HD 6870
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._2804496_n.jpg
EDIT:
Hey, what about DX 11 games only
:Code:* Battlefield: Bad Company 2
* Battleforge
* Colin McRae: Dirt 2
* Metro 2033
* Stalker – Call of Pripyat
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-..._2917219_n.jpg
Ofcourse, if you only bench "games" like Metro, HawX 2, Batman AA, Unigine Heaven, StoneGiant, ....... :ROTF:
you guys trust that site? i don't they have put out a few "interesting" reviews in the past.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-22.html
GTX 570 to 5870 at 1920(4X AA) is about 32%
Factor on another 10% depending on the game to the 6870 and thats 40% at the most popular settings for PC gaming... to make up that much ground with only a little more Mem bandwidth and the same number of ROP's as a 6870... that will be a feat no matter what they do to the shaders. considering the clock speed will most likely be lower as well if anything the 6950 will be a touch slower then the 570 and the 580 and 6970 will be neck and neck i would guess
So, HardwareCanucks is the only representative of the truth right now ? :down:
ROPs are doubled-up in functionality, according to slidesQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Different review sites tend to favour one company over the other and people will just pick the one that agrees with their views.
HardwareCanucks just suck,only true test that i am certain of are the one from my own PC.Everyone out there has an interest/in influenced/is given money/makes free advert of their favorites.Only things i am certain of are guys from lab501.So,u realize how pitifull you are when you debate 86 pages of forum for nothing sure?You are waisting resources for nothing,stop your useless discutions and wait to know for sure ;)
No matter how you slice it , it is still alot of ground to cover on same 40nm node , 6970 will need to be a big chip , away from AMDs tiny chip philosophy.
Yep that's true, but what was meant was when DX11 becomes the norm, then the likes of the GTX 580 will probably be obselete. In fact i don't think DX11 will ever become the norm, DX10 hasn't and that's because of dev's coding for consoles. By the time next gen consoles come out, DX12 or whatever will probably be here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
I mean, GTX 580 gets about P6000 on 3Dmark 11, it's only a matter of time before single GPU's will be hitting 20k easy, albeit 2-3 years from now.
I think i'm starting to state the obvious now. :p:
SKYMTL; considering that there's every possibility you have the cards in your possession now, you're either gearing us up for something focused purely on price/perf. or simply playing them down for more surprise :p:
I'm guessing that 32% over the 5870 includes tessellated games as well? Don't forget the fact that fermi rocks with tessellation. But also that cayman will apparently be 2x the tessellation power of 5870, there's another factor to consider when judging 6950 performance.
while i don't agree with their hardware choice in driver specific reviews (no dualgpu) and hate for SLI and Crossfire configs their single GPU reviews were pretty good in the last few yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
;)
additionally somethign is fishy with that hardware canucks chart, the difference between 4xAA and no AA is significantly higher than in every other review out there were 5xxx and 4xx/5xx AA scaling is much closer, their results are completely different to most user tests and professional reviews and completely overrated....
real answers will comme very soon and some of us will be athorized to release the famous :
"i told you so"
we're still not sure about what it is "they told us so"
my guess is :
*rolls a 100 dice"
50% faster then 5870
i took a quick glance over his review, and i think its pretty clear that if the 6970 is right around 2x 6850 it will decimate. the shortcomings of the 5870 which helped lead to that 32% difference were in tessellation, which is where the 6800s were passing the 5800s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oztopher
been proven fake beyond a doubtQuote:
Originally Posted by bl4ckdr4g00n
god, this thread went to hell
Agreed... :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
not again...Quote:
Originally Posted by bl4ckdr4g00n
Oh? I have have yet to see a review where AMD's cards don't take a massive hit when AA is enabled. It's an architectural limitation which AMD will likely resolve with upcoming products.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
As for the results, I am 100% confident in saying that on average with the latest WHQL drivers, HD 5870 is at least 30% slower at 1920 x 1200 4xAA than the GTX 480 in newer games. I'd even venture that this carries over into quite a few DX9 games as well but it won't show up on charts simply due to CPU bottlenecks artificially impacting the scores.
To me, DX11 and to a lesser extent DX10 really is all that matters in terms of performance when testing $150 and above GPUs. Even a lowly GTS 450 has no issue pushing out 60 FPS+ in the current crop of DX9 games at 1920 x 1200.
http://www.fudzilla.com/games/item/2...r-than-gtx-480
10-20% faster than gtx 480 does not beat gtx 580 and the price reflects it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
"AMD's own benchmarketing data claims that Cayman XT is slightly below 20 percent faster than a GTX 480 in 3Dmark Vantage. "
Fuad has eaten the fake slide... again.. :rofl::ROTF:
You better go check 2 pages back to see this and... oh well you should figure it out if you look at the slides :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
this article is so wrong in so many ways (GTX 570 over 20% faster than GTX 480?????Quote:
Originally Posted by tbone8ty
we know too little to belive any rumor out there they go form "best card ever" to "almost no improvement", i think that it's somewhere in the middle but performance slower than gtx570 is highly unlikely....
Regardless Antilles will be insane!
Stop post duplicated news -.- And FAKE duplicated... xD
Did you bother to read the article?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Just to help you here is the article heading: "Radeon HD 6970 is 10 - 20% faster than GTX 480"
In the article he says "When we compare our own GTX 480 results and add 20 percent on top of that it turns that Cayman XT loses to both GTX 570 and especially GTX 580."
Most reviews had the GTX 570 about as fast as the GTX 480.
So can you explain how the HD 6970 can be slower than GTX 570?
Do you believe the HD 6970 is going to be slower than GTX 570?
Do we still have to wait for for trusted benchmark to prove this article is FUD based on FAKE slide?
It's just another Fuad negative article about AMD plus he has problem with his calculations.
I'm surprised you want to defend such an obvious FUD or is Fuad on the right site of the fence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Performance with the 10.10e drivers worst than the 10.10d drivers for. The 10.10 whql and 10.11 whql drivers are worst for me than the 10.10d. Honestly I could care less about whql drivers they suck from both nvidia and ATI.
i think that the 6970 will be slower than the 580 by 5-10%
and even slower if the driver quality output setting, is the same as nVidia. (No cheats)
sorry to burst your bubble but you are the only review site showing such extreme differences in AA scaling between amd and nvidiaQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
sure amd loses some 5-10% more fps in AA but in your summary it seems like it takes a hit 2-3 times bigger than nvidia which is the complete opposite to every single other review out there :shrug:
This is nothing new, when the did their 580 GTX review they had the 5970 in it which beat the 580GTX and they chose the 580GTX over the 5970 without even talking about the fact that people who already owned a 5970 would not want or need to change to the 580GTX. Their reviews are not the best anyways, they don't offer anything different (competitive advantage wise) than other review sites. What is worst is they don't like to test crossfire or SLI much, but when they do they prefer to do SLI. They are pretty much a Nvidia mouth piece kind of site.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
GTX 480 is 13-15% slower than GTX 570 in Vantage.Quote:
Just to help you here is the article heading: "Radeon HD 6970 is 10 - 20% faster than GTX 480"
In the article he says "When we compare our own GTX 480 results and add 20 percent on top of that it turns that Cayman XT loses to both GTX 570 and especially GTX 580."
Most reviews had the GTX 570 about as fast as the GTX 480.
So can you explain how the HD 6970 can be slower than GTX 570?
Do you believe the HD 6970 is going to be slower than GTX 570?
http://lab501.ro/wp-content/uploads/...tage_p_gpu.jpg
Still my guess is that 6970 will be at midle between GTX 570 and GTX 580.
Probably 6950<GTX570<6970< gtx 580.
I never said which PART of the article was true or false since Fudo contradicted himself more than once as you can see by the highlighted portions above. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
What in the world are you talking about? 2-3 times? I see a 15% loss on average between AMD and NVIDIA when AA is enabled. The true difference runs the gamut from 0 all the way up to ~20%.Quote:
Originally Posted by generics_user
A rumor from few days ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
"6950 X score is good against the 480, P score is good against the 5970... weird.. "
I hope this doesn't make a new inferno, but when I said something similar a couple of weeks ago, it created a lot of feelings, to put it in a mild way.Quote:
Originally Posted by xdan
The timing for GTX570 suggests that it was meant to fight 6970, but it's positionable that AMD has improved some (using that handy time of component shortage ;) ). But we have to wait and see, and it will be interesting to see some real tests.
Why pick out 4xAA? What about 8xAA?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-18.html
10% slower at 25x16, 8xAA at worst. (I realize the sample is small, but I blame the reviewer for not doing more :p:)
Compared to the 30% from 4xAa, is this an "architectural limitation which nVidia will likely resolve with upcoming products." ? :)
One more time, here is exactly what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
The fact is, the article is not based on "AMD's own benchmarketing data" as the FUD claims, therefore the article is false period.Quote:
Actually, this article you refer to will only be proven true or false when trusted benchmark numbers come to light.
Looks to me you suggested the article might not be false or at least we should wait before coming to such conclusion.
At the same time it also looked like you were defending the FUD
Please, go look for some reviews where they tested both default AND HQ settings and you'll see that in MOST of the cases there is NO USABLE performance difference. I personally have two 6870s in CF and I shall yet see a game where that setting makes a difference DURING GAMEPLAY, not while standing still and analyzing pixel per pixel (not too many of those either!). I absolutely am on AMD's side with this setting as it matters more to me whether I am able to achieve playable framerates than a beautiful slideshow.Quote:
Originally Posted by E30M3
With the spare horsepower I have everything on the max IQ side with VSYNC on and if a game is not playable I lower the IQ as would anyone else who knows how to.
The Casual user is keen on being able to play the game and not too keen on knowing what they have to lower(adjust) to make it playable I believe.
Regarding the speed of Cayman XT - I am absolutely sure that AMD would not bother releasing a bigger (read: more expensive to manufacture) chip if it was only competitive to the GTX570.
Taking the "absolute" average performance differences (calculated from a whole bunch of sources - be they biased to one side or the other) there is about 10% difference between 6870 and the 5870; about an additional difference of 13% between 5870 and GTX570; and an additional 18% between the 570 and the 580 at 19x12 4xAA 16xAF so, the difference between the 6870 and the 580 is roughly 47%.
If the roumor of 480SP (1920/4) is correct and we compare it to the 6870's 224SP (1120/5) (because it has almost all architectural improvements [compared to the 5870!] already built in and possibly a very similar clock as well), and we consider the "VLIW4 has a similar performance as VLIW5" to be 15% lower performance on average then we get 480/1.15=417; 417/224=1.86 ~86% higher theoretical power. We do not know for certain, but basing on previous inter-architectural ratios everything else (except the memory interface!) will also be "doubled" compared to 6870. so I expect a similar situation as we've seen with the 5770/5870 (roughly 60% performance difference).
Thus, I expect Cayman XT to be 60%*86% ~ 51% faster than the 6870 that would mean ~5% faster on average than the GTX580 and we could call that "trading blows" as well as the different architectures behave differently in different games.
I may still be wrong though ;)
Hey! You can't guess that. That's MY wild ass guess. This is like the price is right. You have to guess 49% or 51% or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by herderien
51% is mine :)
I am amazed that people still don’t know how to read the Reviews or they read them the way they want.
Intelligence and rational thought have truly left this thread.
I'm staying out of it from here on out since I have already treaded far too close to the NDA in an effort to calm the raging, out of control assumptions. I'd rather err on the side of caution rather than risk a relationship just to steer people towards some semblance of intelligent conversation.
Efforts to moderate expectations are always appreciated. Unfortunately this is the internet, you should realize the futility by now.
Such a change in tone after what you said in this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...8&postcount=78
"I find it funny how you backtrack on the 5970 in your review, but I understand why you did that. All cards at launch suck at performance compared to after being out a year. Nvidia always boosts their cards with driver updates. I would liked to see you guys do a SLI review in a few days other sites are showing almost a 2x boost from the standard 580.. Back to the 5970, most users that have these are not going to be attracted to the 580GTX in single gpu form and I wish you would have talked about that. I do commend you though on using the latest drivers for the ATI products though All in all I like your review more than any of the others, that includes Anandtech and Guru3d's reviews. I also like the folding comparison that you did between the 480 and 580.
I think people should take into fact that all the dual gpu cards minus the Asus one all use a 8pin and 6pin connectors just like the single gpu cards do. According the benchmarks the 5970 is still the single card king. "
Myself included, this thread has got us slightly too emotionally involved with these cards. We are lashing out at each other, changing our thoughts to get a point across and honestly nothing productive is being said because AMD is good a keeping secrets.
I recommend we close this thread because it has become a place where we just attack each other. AMD is too good a keeping things from leaking so any rumor is going to just going to start the trolling.
Yeah hardwarecanucks always does a great job with there reviews.
Edit: their in the top tier when I check reviews and always going above and beyond many review sites.
Keep up the good work. And remember what Sting said: it takes a Man to suffer ignorance and smile.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
i think locking this thread til release in one week wouldn't hurt
But the last week of the AMD NDA is when the juicy bits start slipping out!Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
coincidentally; when the ban hammer gets overused as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by JkS
i have to agree that this thread is completely off topic by now as discussion about relative performance of current hardware, test methods and more doesn't belong here
everyone has his own opinion about these things and while you can talk alot about these things they don't change the overall picture at all
but closing it would be a waste as it's a great place to look for newest information and better than a new thread for every single bit of rumor out there
I bet more people get banned within 2 weeks of a card launch than any other time:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by kadozer
powercolor LCS HD6?70
http://www.powercolor.com/event/2010best/index.asp
just shows waterblock dodn't look like a 6870 block
maybe this time they will have stock of the LCS's
need agree with you, i don't know what have happend on the last pages ...Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
things are going strong on the bad sides ..... stay calm down guys before we get real performance numbers....
Now they should know why peoples who lead sites and do reviews never goes normally post in this type of threads ... seriously i don't see why it turns on attack his review..
My comments about that review was based solely on the GTX 580 non SLI reviews and do not apply to his claim of driver performance that was recently made, which smells like fanboyism. He just complaining because he can't handle criticism. The change in tone has come from the most part of sites not thoroughly testing 2560x1600, 1920x1200, and focusing on 1080p, It is a step backwards in my opinion. I done quite a bit of research lately, I believe that web site stats of resolutions are something to go on. They should focus on monitors sales, a lot of people have purchased the 3011U Dell monitor that have not used a 30" monitor before. A good question that hardware reviewers should ask themselves is not many of these monitors have actually sold, if possible get the numbers for manufactures and retailers. Gaming sites use stats of games that have been sold to gauge which games they should review. When it comes to intelligence and rational thought, that has left most review sites with the release of the Nvidia 5XX series and their testing methodologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
If the thread should of been closed, it should of been back when the delay of Cayman was announced. If they were to close the thread now people would just make a new thread for every rumor that comes out and so leaving it open with only 5 days left is the better course of action. Once the reviews are out this thread will die on it's own.
Didn't HardOCP do a piece a looong time ago where the 4870X2 would give you 'free' next levels of AA? I think this was CFAA though, so probably not relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Monstru did a hardware survey on his website(which is biased towards high end hardware survey) I remember and steam hardware survey showed it was less than 1 percent, which I believe they showed you already. Thats alot of work for that less than 1 percent.Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
Considering how slowly some great graphics cards in the 300 dollar range take to pick up market share. I highly doubt the u3011 is going to change anything. Its a rare niche. I see alot of gamers buy 3000 dollar rigs but get 300 dollar monitors. The u3011(1200-1100 on sale) when its not on sale is 1500 dollars and that's alot harder pill to swallow than a 500 dollar graphics card.
I sat in front of a 30" monitor before and honestly, it took some getting used to. I felt it was too big and it was uncomfortable to have a screen cover alot of my peripheral. That not the case for you, but I imagine a lot of people can share the same sentiment, atleast initially.
30" inch displays are a dying breed left for the professional market. The same is somewhat happening to 1920*1200, but its not as bad.
Want proof?
http://www.samsung.com/ca/consumer/o...ype=subtype_p2
http://www.lg.com/ca_en/computer-pro...tors/index.jsp
http://us.acer.com/acer/product.do?l...CRC=2759084358
Lg and samsung don't make 30" monitors anymore. They both used to but they probably didn't get enough sales so they discontinued them and never replaced them. Both these guys are collectively number 1 and 2 for electronics companies in the world. Acer pretty up there for computer sales and they don't sell them either.
I think it would be good to keep it closed and put a no talking about rumors rule would be good until 2 days before release because usually AMD rumors start getting more valid ala Barts. 5 days is alot of time for a lot of hating to occur. The fact that this forum has gained 5 pages in the last 24 hours or so shows that.
While I agree that 30" monitors are not too common - mainly because of the price premium - it has to be said that it is very representative of the eyefinity/nVsurround performance - because of the higher resolution - so it is relevant. It's a shame that no-one really does reviews with three monitors even though it is supported by both sides now. So, maybe it would be nice to have reviews with three screens as they cost considerably less than a single 30" screen. 2x 6870 or GTX460 + 3*24" is less $$$ than a gtx580 + 30"...
Sort of, but eyefinity reviews have specific needs that can't be addressed by a big monitor. That is driver issues tests. Eyefinity or 3d surround vision isn't close to bug free and they need reviews to specifically test for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
idd. and there's another important difference between a big monitor and an eyefinity setup: fov.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
a big monitor will have the same fov as a smaller one. for an eyfinity setup on the other hand a much higher fov is needed and therefore the amount of rendered objects etc. is very different. i'd say this impacts the performance even more than a higher resolution does.
Depends. It's definitely true though for FPS where they support wider FOV... being able to see someone peripherally can be a huge differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
That's exactly what I meant... The most important part of it is whether or not you can achieve playable framerates. Plus if they discover issues with compatibility it gets bigger visibility and there is a higher possibility of a fix incoming then if you find out at home after purchasing the not-so-cheap setup. And if everything works fine more people are tempted to purchase.Quote:
Originally Posted by zerazax
I can confirm for this launch that it will be a hard launch, we have unreal amounts of stocks, enough to last us throughout XMAS and January, not only that the price will make people very happy for the performance these cards will bring to the table with fantastic availability. Posted by Gibbo @ OCuK.
Also: Only OcUK has stock right now, others have not even had stock shipped to them yet, all I can say is OcUK will have more and our price will be very competitive, think back to how good the 58xx launch was and how surprisingly cheap they were at launch. The 69xx series shall repeat this, so do be warned after launch prices could creep up, thats just a heads up.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/sho...3&postcount=32
hell yeah :D
As lucky owners of HD6950 cards say it is 275mm long and has two CFX headers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc
Having bought many products from OCUK and as much as I respect OCUK for very reasonable prices on products that are readily available from other on-line stores... :rofl:
I just wish this stupid NDA would end so we can all know the results of ATI's 69xx.