Not quite, dividing by 8 gives us GBps (gigabytes per second) as apposed to Gbps (Gigabits per second) :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
(It must be late over there, because I also make that out to be 112.5GBps for the Radeon, not 115.2...)
Printable View
Not quite, dividing by 8 gives us GBps (gigabytes per second) as apposed to Gbps (Gigabits per second) :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by LordEC911
(It must be late over there, because I also make that out to be 112.5GBps for the Radeon, not 115.2...)
I hope the 4890 will be able to put pressure on the GTX285 and 275
Well, I have never seen anyone post those numbers you did...Quote:
Originally Posted by Muunsyr
Higher clocks and lower FPS? Seems like a possible driver problem for me. Then again, there should be no major changes in the driver area if only the clocks are changed. ...completely different story if the whole shader structure/amount is changed... :rolleyes:
Something is wrong there.
Promising gains in FC2 :shocked:
Something does smell off.
Given that one of these tests is clearly not indicative of the performance difference, this leaves us with one tests results which is hardly enough to start judging the card on. Especially so that different drivers are used for each card.
Edit: Also, is that 850/2.200 and 750/1.800 the core/memory frequency of each card respectfully? If so, it would suggest that the 4890 card tested has 1100Mhz (4400Mhz effective) memory. That or the reviewer can't type properly.
PCGH's early numbers are never spot on, but you can see a nice delta developing on the higher resolutions.
Plus, I want to see this thing clocked.
Perkam
There has to be, or else I will be the first one saying "ATI did an Nvidia...":rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
shouldnt they have tested with the same beta driver for both cards + what does it mean x64/x86 catalyst driver :/ like did they test one with 64 bit and the other card with 32bit
Those results from the 4890 do not come from PCGH and they say so in their thread. Take a look at the crysis results. There you will find a watermark from someone else.
i am having high hopes for the 4890 to compete with 285 and the 4890x2 compete with 295
Unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by ILikeCosmosS
Very likely.Quote:
and the 4890x2 compete with 295
Perkam
lol 4890 has standard fps in crysis there a problem there but far cry test is incredible nearly 25 percent
There wont be any X2 design from ATI/AMD. But it's possible for perhaps Sapphire to create a X2 if they think there's a market for it.
It's obvious that there's something wrong or else the 4890 is CPU limited since the fps is capped at 31,6. In FC2 there's 14, 20 and 35% improvement over 4870. In Crysis we see a 8,5% increase with 1920x1200 so...Quote:
Originally Posted by Calmatory
Edit: With a 35% increase at 1920X1200 it should be competing very well with GTX285 (shouldn't it?!) but that is probably best case scenario.
Edit no2: Comparing the GTX285 with 4xAA and 16xAF and extrapolating the results shown by xbitlabs for a 4870 and 285, the 4890 should end up 5fps faster than the 285 at 1920x1200. Link and calculation 39,5 x 1,35= 53,325. I'm aware of that this really stretching it but the performance figures shows it may very well compete with the 285 at least in some games (more than before).
Yup, all the results in crysis are capped at 31 FPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by marten_larsson
:shakes:
FC2 gains are very promising.
Lets wait and see. Hope for better drivers :)
The first problem is that they are using an i7 920. :yepp: Many reviews show the Phenom II to be the better chip for gaming. :yepp:
ATI does a lot better vs nvidia in high res, so a new ATI card showing better improvements at high res, seems natural.
Err...Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
Fact is, i7 is generally faster but Phenom II is able to match i7 in some titles or even barely beat it when real world gaming settings are used. So no, i7 is just fine for benchmarking GPUs. And in this case it totally doesn't matter as same CPU was used for each run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by largon
There are other factors besides actual gameplay that affect i7 performance in gaming, like hyperthreading for instance. But whatever, if people like reading results with crippled systems, so be it. Maybe they turned it off. :D
Anyway, i've read this on vr-zone that the 9.4 driver will be released along side the rv790. I wonder if there's any significance to it.
http://news.ati-forum.de/index.php/n...launch-treiber
http://translate.google.de/translate...e&tl=en&swap=1
Crippled? The I7 is a modern CPU that is very popular. If the 920 was a 2 year old cpu than I would have agreed, but the I7 is modern and this architecture will be around for the next few years. Don't start about PhenomeII. It may be good/modest in games, but it's really not enough for people who do more than just games. And besides that, not every gamer overclocks. There are enough games who read this reviews, want a stable system, and don't overclock at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by flippin_waffles
I have yet to use a phenom II but I have heard very good things. I am building an i7 rig this week and a Phenom II after the end of april so I will let you know what my first hand impressions are of the 2 systems side by side :)
Well I don't agree.... at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by ownage
[edit]
But, crippled might have been the wrong word to use. It's just not the best choice of cpu for gaming. That's Core 2 and Phenom II territory. And yes, Phenom II is more than enough for people who do more than just games.