Printable View
you don't need a 512bit bus with GDDR5, all that bandwidth would be wasted while you would be hitching for lack of video mememory in many new games (1920x1200 4xAA framebuffer + tons of textures like in Age of Conan = problem).Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
someone posted results for crysis 4870 at vr-zone, but seems fake. why would 4870CF scale so well in crysis when we know 4850CF doesn't really?
Also seems kind of low GTX280 scores, at DX10 1920x1200 I am getting much higher fps than they show.
yes it is , they still seem to share the memory so whats in one cards Vram is in the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Why are most of you throwing deaf ears at my question. Am not a fanboy i go for the most cost effective card, that has most of the options i want and i don´t upgrade in a hurry. Will the HD 4870 support Physx in near future?
It could do as NVidia have offered Physx to ATI if they adopt CUDA to the ATI hardware, is it going to happen ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
Your guess is as good as mine.
AMD/ati will support havok which is more usefull , but really , without PhysX being in 100% of the market , developers will not impliment it , havok is owned by intel , and shared to AMD , so all CPU manufactures have this technology :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
why want physX anyway? it slows down your Fps and doesnt really do anything
napalm is right. 512MB is not enough for some of today's games @ 1920X1200 and up and it is certainly will not be enough for tomorrows games i am not going to buy a brand new card and have it crap out performance wise in 2 months. 512mb is enough for 1280x1024 but anything more is seriously going to limit the cards usability down the road. i remember when people said 256mb was enough now it can't even take 1280x1024
It never will. To support PhysX, even though it's now an "open" API, they would need to support CUDA to make it work. That will never happen for a number of reasons. But first and foremost, it will basically mean AMD/ATI admits the failure of Brook+.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
If you want PhysX, you will need a separate PhysX card.
It's the same. Data is mirrored.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
how do you explain 4850 crossfire getting 150+ fps on very high 1900X1200 and 4Xaa ,Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] hipno650
Tbh gig cards are not yet needed...
playing half-life at 1920x1200 is different than playing Crysis (or future games) at 1920x1200. It's not like the resolution is the only thing that determines the amount of vram used. Stop talking like it's an absolute number.
they have the same amount of addressable space. the data on both memory banks is mirrored.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
as in completely identical.
as in no additional data can be stored over a single card solution.
by the time future games make use of it, the 4800s and GTX 280s will be obsolete so the point is rather moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by kryptobs2000
I SWEAR HAVE PEOPLE YET TO FIGURE OUT THAT FUTURE PROOFING DOESN'T WORK?
This 512MB version might explain why you can find the 4870 for sub or around 250 euro in some sites
http://www.electronicagigant.nl/nl/product/420297
http://azerty.nl/producten/product_d...press-x16.html
http://www.sallandautomatisering.nl/?pid=51287&ref=2
also I heard that ATI allows the 3rd party to decide upon all the stats on the memory, so expect a lot of different versions on this card.
I wounīt like to be taken by surprise by the ever changing wind of VGA technology and games. If 4870 will support physx that means that i am safe when physx games starts coming out and X2 will be a good option as one core will handle grahpics while the second core will maybe handle physx. Itīs just a wish:shrug: Nvidia has made this leap with their 280 and i know the game programmers will soon start coming up with games with physx engine. I have a ATI onboard grahpic in my HTPC and am damn impressed with the picture quality and i will like to pick up a 4870 x2 when it comes out but if physx is not supported then i have to go with Nvidia:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
Hmm the fan design looks the same as HD2900, the heatpipe looks good tho
a 512,000,000 bit bus is pointless at this time and far too costly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
slows down fps? my fps is increased in ut3 very nicely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
dont worry about physx support that much.Quote:
I wounīt like to be taken by surprise by the ever changing wind of VGA technology and games. If 4870 will support physx that means that i am safe when physx games starts coming out and X2 will be a good option as one core will handle grahpics while the second core will maybe handle physx. Itīs just a wish Nvidia has made this leap with their 280 and i know the game programmers will soon start coming up with games with physx engine. I have a ATI onboard grahpic in my HTPC and am damn impressed with the picture quality and i will like to pick up a 4870 x2 when it comes out but if physx is not supported then i have to go with Nvidia
nvidia has physx but ati have the advantage of running 2 gpus on nehalem. yes it is not such near future as 4870x2 but a nehalem + ati (like 4850) cf may be better as nehalem + nvidia (like 9800gtx+) with physx in a physix game.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
On topic: I think we'll se some nice 1 GB GDDR5 versions of this card.
you too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
not you too.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
again cf @ 2 x 512MBQuote:
Originally Posted by Papu
yes correct.. what do you guys take me for?Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
but..
1st gpu/512MB = 50%
2nd gpu/512MB = the other 50%
this goes back to the voodoo2/5 days
not future proofing.. all i want is to be able to play @ max high quality 1920 @ single gpu/1024MB.. is that too much too ask.. im paying :shrug:
same was said about 128 -> 256-> now 512 and so will @ 1024Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
Depends on the reasoning for wanting it. If the game needs your PhysX processor to create those effects, then the game will run slower because you're adding content for the GPU to render. However, if the game needs PhysX to accelerate what's already there, the game will run faster. Sounds like UT3 uses a PhysX processor to speed up content that will be there regardless of the presence of hardware. UT3 installs a PhysX driver and library, to run the effects in software mode. So in that sense it would be nice to have a PhysX hardware accelerator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
For a complete ignorant in multiGPU solutions. Data is mirrored in both cards. The only thing you're right about is that 512MB is not enough for 1920x1200, let alone AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
so 1xgpu/512MB vs 2xgpu/2x512MB vs 4xgpu/4x512MB is all the same
i see.. you guys win! :)
Good lord. Someone could punch you in the face and you wouldn't notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5you too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Papu
not you too.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
again cf @ 2 x 512MBQuote:
Originally Posted by Papu
yes correct.. what do you guys take me for?Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
but..
1st gpu/512MB = 50%
2nd gpu/512MB = the other 50%
same was said about 128 -> 256-> now 512 and so will @ 1024Quote:
Originally Posted by xlinka 512,000,000 bit bus is pointless at this time and far too costly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
yes, 4 gpus in afr mode with each 512mb have only have 512mb for texture caching. Thats one of the reasons why you see quad sli failing (2xgx2) while 280gtx still can output a picture that seems to move and not only show less then 1fps. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Erm, yes. You have the same data at the same time in the four cards.Quote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
Your avatar is ironic after reading you, remember we are not in the Voodoo days :ROTF::clap: