Printable View
Actually that statment is far from truth, heres a power/performance graph from a web-site that isnt oversaturated by the way its meant to be played titles - though they are still included:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/4407/powero.jpg
http://img576.imageshack.us/i/powero.jpg/
or a real review... considering the GTX 570 is only .02% slower at 1920 with 4XAA compared to the 6970 that would put the GTX 570 as better per-watt who knew....Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...review-25.html
30% fan speed isn't even enough for my 6870.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Halford
They seemed to do a pretty good job with Barts. Cypress has better performance per watt than Cayman XT, btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
I'm truly sorry, but I don't consider reviews that used biased results from Lost Planet 2 as "real"... They should also add HawX 2 and be done with the almost unplayed but favour NV games list? :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Of course I dont look at it that seriously, but it irks me somehow when reviewers choose to not notice that something is seriously wrong/flawed with the results in a given game title. :shrug:
Please do explain because your reasoning seems to be flawed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
Lost Planet 2 isn't any different from a large number of upcoming DX11 titles that put forth some serious GPU requirements. It uses a large number of DX11-specific features which is why AMD's HD 5000-series struggled. The HD 6000-series will STILL struggle simply because both Barts and to a lesser extent Cayman largely incorporate architecures which are meant to live in a pre-DX11 world. Cayman has changed this somewhat as evidenced by the large increase versus Cypress in some DX11 titles.
There is absolutely no bias involved. IMO, it is AMD's fault that framerates are poor in many new titles as their drivers completely fail to address known performance optimization issues again and again. Anyone who fails to recognize this is looking at the market with blinders over their eyes.
The GTX 480, 570 and 580 are around 55, 70 and 75% as efficient as the HD 5950 in resolutions that matter for these high end cards:Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/R...D_6950/30.html
A little higher vs the 5970, around 70 and 90% efficiency:
http://techpowerup.com/reviews/HIS/R...D_6970/30.html
Thank you for putting words to how I portray this company nowadays! Although, as you mention, they seem to have got a lot better better since the Fermi launch, perhaps that was a breaking point for them in more than one way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Halford
IF you REALLY think that AMD couldn't have addressed an "older" title like Lost Planet 2 with their driver optimizations then we must be living on a different planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Furthermore if you think that its only due to drivers that GTX 470 is on par with HD 6970 and HD 5970 then your planet is further away then I thought. :shrug:
That way as I mentioned you SHOULD DEFINITELY add other NV lead sponsored titles and be done with your almost unplayed but in review games list. Maybe then you will stop using the excuse that others have blinders over their eyes, while more likely it might be your occasionally "green perception" that fails to notice how biased those Lost planet 2 results are for a review!
I don't care about what hardware does best at what so let me be specific about my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Lost Planet 2 makes inefficient use of GPU power to what is seen on screen
HAWKS 2 make inefficient use of tessellation.
The best looking game are still manly DX9 & when Dx10 & 11 is an option all we see is frame hit for nearly no noticeable difference.
Many games being console ports & the console game didn't need it for it to be a good game & you should not have to pay through the nose to have a gfx card to run the PC version just because its adds something barely noticeable just because the gfx card had such a feature.
Use it because its needed & in amounts that's needed & not just because its exits.
It could be that AMD simply hasn't wasted a moment to try to fix the performance on this particular Nvidia sponsored title even if they could have, so it's a compound of Nvidia optimizing and AMD not doing anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
And personally I wouldn't waste my time with it either. Who actually plays this game? IMO :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty games that nobody plays shouldn't be included in reviews no matter how fancy graphics there might be. IMO it's just one of the games Nvidia likes to pick and "enhance" so it'll end up in these reviews in search for eyecandy. :down:
Sure they could have. But they DIDN'T. Why should a certain title not be used because AMD is too damn slow on driver optimizations or just doesn't care?Quote:
IF you REALLY think that AMD couldn't have addressed an "older" title like Lost Planet 2 with their driver optimizations then we must be living on a different planet.
Fermi was always targeted towards DX11 titles and its performance shows that. Cayman and Barts are a hodge-podge of two generations of products; an older one and a newer one. You don't seem to understand this one fact for some reason.Quote:
Furthermore if you think that its only due to drivers that GTX 470 is on par with HD 6970 and HD 5970 then your planet is further away then I thought. :shrug:
Plus, as I said: AMD could very well have comparable performance if they bothered to optimize their drivers for it. I for one won't bury my head in the sand just because someone's driver development is spinning their wheels.
That's actually a great idea. I should stop playing lip service to all the trolls who refuse to realize that both NVIDIA'a AND AMD's developer relationship programs should be rewarded. If anyone wants to sponsor a title, I am all for that since it pushes technologies that would otherwise not be seen in this overly consolized PC gaming market. If you aren't all for that and don't agree that it should be rewarded, then shame on you.Quote:
That way as I mentioned you SHOULD DEFINITELY add other NV lead sponsored titles and be done with your almost unplayed but in review games list.
Lost Planet 2 makes great use of GPU resources but has features that require more DX11 feature support than past (and even some present) AMD cards could provide. Otherwise, even Cayman can play this game at high resolutions without any issue whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Says AMD. Any editor with two marbles banging around their head knows that this statement only covered up for AMD's lack of optimizations when the game was released. Case closed.Quote:
HAWKS 2 make inefficient use of tessellation.
Whoop ass was 2 and a half a years ago and it hasn't been mentioned since. It is time to let go. JHH has been alot more humble lately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Halford
And as for AMD keeping their mouth shut, they have been as mouthy as Nvidia back in their hey day. Hence the hype behind the 69xx series.
Most of the things you mentioned have no effect on the consumer like woodscrew cards and the announcement of an announcement.
The only thing that has some sort of effect is the renaming and they have been doing alot less of that recently.
As for questionable business practises, it strange that you are hammering on Nvidia(and won't buy one for it), but you own an Intel system. If you want to talk about questionable business practises, they are the ones that wrote the book on it, in the tech industry.
I don't think that's the point that people don't think pushing technologies is a good idea but the way its been pushed in an inefficient manner is what's gets people upset that alone played right into the hands of the consoles with both NV & ATi users getting fed up with upgrading for very little noticeable visual gain because it using a feature now that a game a year ago didn't but requires much more processing power but looks no better.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Its looks like less about giving us m,ore features to make games better for us & more a way to get up to buy yet more hardware each year.
The visual leap from the latest DX9 titles to the DX11 are tiny but the processing power needed has increased greatly because the DX11 features are used badly.
Lost Planet 2 doesn't look no better to me than Lost Planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
The difference between tessellation on & off is a joke because its not used to smooth off anything in the game & used purely to make spikes & bumps bigger when if they needed to be that big in the first place then they could of designed them to be in the first place.
The tessellation in that game does not make the game look better it just makes it look different.
And as i had said to you already im not talking about what the ATI v NV cards can do its about what the games are doing is what i care about.
UT3 still looks better than most games i play today & yet it uses allot less resources.
Inefficient use of resources is inefficient use of resources no matter how well the hardware can cope.
well thats fine for you. but I for one actually PLAY LP2 on the PC so it performance is important to me... it's not the reviewers job to try to paint both companies as even as possible in PERFORMANCE it is the reviewers job to show the performance of popular demanding games. and there is no way around it. AMD's performance in LP2 is trash. and it does not matter why. is LP2 Nvidia sponsored. yes. that does not change the fact that LP2 performs bad on AMD. it may a part of the reason why but AMD still performs bad. if you don't play LP2 then ignore it and look at games that you play, pretty simple. people wanna see game performance. if reviewers took out all the sponsored games then there would be no games left to benchmark. just because it's Nvidia sponsored does not change the fact that people play the game and it's performance is important...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
also I have NEVER seen any other site explain in extreme detail how they review GPU's and WHY they review GPU's they way they do. HWC has done that. if there is another please point me in it's direction and i will read it but until then HWC has EARNED respect for it's reviews because they explained how and why they review the way they do and it makes sense to me.
another thing to think about is the relevance of Perf-watt. i know lots of people have different opinions on it but really does how many watts your card uses affect how your GPU performs? no it does not. for example lets say we have a new GPU come out that uses 20watts full load but only performs as good as a 5750 and is priced at $300, who is going to by it? Nobody in their right mind. because for an extreme gamer running a screen of 1080p or more a 5750 does not cut it performance wise... I have a 5870 that was in my Main Rig before I upgraded to a GTX 480, ya it uses less power but it was not giving me the performance I was looking for at 1080p the GTX 480 is much faster I have found and yes it uses more power but I could care less because my performance is drastically higher... i still have that 5870 by the way in my secondary comp and it works great for when a buddy comes over... don't get me wrong using less power is great but i find it ranks at the bottom of features I look for in a new video card...
Once again.... This x100.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Shadov... I'm just going to go ahead and tell you, look through SkyMTL's review history. Dig back, we'll wait. He's been EXTREMELY unbiased the entire time his site has been around. I'm just assuming you don't realize that he's not one of those reviewers that do everything they can to paint one side or the other badly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadov
What is your exact reasoning to say LP2 or HAWX2 makes "inefficient use" of tessellation? That's a real question by the way, no sarcasm to be found in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
Personally, I kind of like the idea that they make the PC version look as amazing as they can. I mean, we have the ability to change our options in the menu should we not have the gpu power to max it out, right? Why not give those people who have the cream of the crop some additional eye candy since they bought a $500 card?
What you're essentially asking now is that the PC version look like the console version, just a higher resolution... You do realize that, right?
A fact can be proven, an opinion cannot. What I stated as a fact there is very easily proven. Want to prove it yourself? Go through any random gpu thread here outside of the GTX560 thread(it's probably the only one that hasn't erupted into flames yet), tell me what you find.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinz68
I've corrected people who incorrectly flame AMD products as well, it's just that usually when THAT occurs someone else does it within 30 seconds of the post happening and as such it'd become redundant for me to do the same thing.
I'll say this 1000 times... maybe I'm the only one who still uses their brain when buying parts, but frankly speaking the only thing I look at when I am thinking about buying a product is the product and it's competitor. I don't care what that company told people(most of those "people" were investors, not buyers btw), I only care about the product itself. It's not like JHH saying he'll open a "can" killed 50,000 baby seals or anything, or like woodscrews were used to torture my mother or anything. Every company that deals with millions or billions of dollars is doing something shady, in case you didn't know.Quote:
Just maybe some people have good reason to be unhappy with some of the Nvidia tactics, some of which looks like doesn't bother you at all.
I guess the big difference is I just look at the product itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Halford
Although, you can scratch A.C. off your list. The code AMD sent Ubisoft broke the title, we went over that 1000+ times on this forum. AMD didn't fix the code(remember, a LOT of lights shined THRU buildings... the torches on the castle come to mind), so ubisoft removed the path from the title. I mean, they added it for AMD in good faith, it didn't work properly, amd didn't fix it, ubisoft removed it. Notice they didn't re-enable it when NVidia released the 4xx series and had a card suddenly that could perform it? It's because the code itself was buggy!
It's things like that which irk me. People making decisions due to mis-information and spreading that mis-information to others to do the same thing. I mean, staff members of a site SHOULD be correcting people when they're wrong, right?
Hope that makes sense to you.
I have really said what makes LP2 bad usage of tessellation.Quote:
Originally Posted by DilTech
HAWX2 makes bad use of tessellation because it does not add any more detail at a given level & is no difference from adding more & more AA on a given game way past the point of noticeable visual returns but just because we can.
The PC version don't look like the console versions anyway & it does not need high level of tessellation to make a PC game look better because then your claiming that was the only difference until now when that's far from the case.
I can run my games at a higher AA & AF settings than i do & still hold a smooth 60fps Vsync but i don't run a game at i higher setting if i don't notice the difference because its just waste with no noticeable gain & we should not be promoting silly implementations in games just to say we are different.
There is to much using of power to polish a turd in PC games atm, Dirt 2 with tessellation on the crowd which still look like crap & there are better examples of crowds in games with no tessellation but besides that the game is great.
Maybe because Lost Planet 2 sucks, and so did Lost Planet one and no one on PC plays it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Forget PC, even the console platform was taunted for having a terrible control scheme.
I'm surprised you never tested COD MW2 (although it's not demanding, it's certainly a relevant game, perhaps at high IQ settings), Civ 5 (late game situation?? It's the first game to actually lag my computer, and it's not even a FPS, has DX11 settings w/ tesselation), Bad Company 2, even SC II, or COD: black ops? With your much advertised timedemo / real world walkthrough testing, this would yield the most valuable data on GPUs on the internet.
Although it's highly likely that these games will get ripped by the GPUs in question, you should realize that they are important because they serve as important relative standards for us. If we see a card we know performing well in COD5 we can translate it's perf. over to the other games or future games. It's the most important because we most likely have these games and can compare our current perf. to new cards and see what sort of upgrade they provide.
Not everyone buys GPUs to play new games. Some buy GPUs to improve oldish ones.
I have Crysis, Crysis warhead, Shattered horizon, Metro 2033 and other games i havent even bothered to try because i still only have a 3870... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Id rather not play them than play them at medium settings.
Exactly, I'm shopping for a GTX460 1gb or ~ perf. and what I really want is to double the smoothness in games I currently play like TF2 and Civ 5, and a few new games I recently bought like Dragon Rising and maybe some blockbuster FPS.Quote:
Originally Posted by eXa
Perhaps SC II as well.
Also:
How do you not know about this? Try searching techreport on Hawx 2.Quote:
What is your exact reasoning to say LP2 or HAWX2 makes "inefficient use" of tessellation? That's a real question by the way, no sarcasm to be found in there.
I aggree with Rob_Halford about nvidias' bad tactics ...renaming etc.... and I have owned cards from both camps (as I'm sure we all have) we are all intelligent to want the best for our $$ ,
I think I liked nvidia more in recent times since they released 460gtx , since imo nvidia has always been a little too pricey for me to justify preformance ....unfortunately even more recently both camps
seem to have just hiked the general price on their products vs preformance , and now I may just wait a bit longer to buy a new card than I would've liked ( I have 5770 at the mo) ....
To expand , /rant on " I just dont get amd releasing new cards that preform lower than older gen and cost more !??? /rant
I'm probably gonna wait it out till gtx560 ( fingers crossed on pricing)
I aggreeQuote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
+1
I'm guessing the majority of sales come in the $180 - $250 segmentQuote:
Originally Posted by seanx
so in this case I would say bad marketing/pricing from both companies vs preformance vs old gen .... just imo
p.s I am talking about U.K pricing ..
this seems a grt deal compared to the current cards pricing of both camps
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...56&subcat=1830
asus gtx460 768mb = $177 , compared to a 6950 = $343 or gtx570 = $448
Yes I aggree and unfortunately I think they (red/green) do this intentionallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Final8ty
"aggresive marketing" , basically make the new games run so bad on old tech that u have to keep buying new cards.... I understand that idea, making/sponsoring a game that plays fine on 5yr old tech doesnt help red/green sell more cards , however they will eventually lose "gaming market share" to the console , if prices keep rising and inefficiencies keep rising ....
Wot they don't understand imo, is that most of us will still buy new cards
regardless how well the old ones play newer games (imo) , ppl always want
better ....and as some already posted above , a lot of ppl still play/want to play older games, they just want to play them with better preformance .....
p.s and yes I'm still sort of ranting about the pricing (makes me think they released to many cards at one time tbh , - too many price points to cover, not enough preformance )
p.p.s I think the $ I've saved so far for a new card will go to some new hdds , god knows I really need the space, lol , I have 2x1tb int + 3x1,5ext , and they all 90% full ...hahaha